Skip to comments.Marijuana backers courting conservatives
Posted on 10/16/2012 9:45:44 AM PDT by SmithL
DENVER (AP) It's not all hippies backing November's marijuana legalization votes in Colorado, Oregon and Washington.
Appealing to Western individualism and a mistrust of federal government, activists have lined up some prominent conservatives, from one-time presidential hopefuls Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul to Republican-turned-Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
"This is truly a nonpartisan issue," said Mark Slaugh, a volunteer for the Colorado initiative who is based in Colorado Springs, which has more Republicans than anywhere else in the state.
"States' rights! States' rights!" Slaugh cried as he handed out flyers about the state's pot measure outside a rally last month by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Quite a few passing Republicans took the flyer.
"It's fiscally prudent. It would be taxed, regulated, monitored. It makes a lot of sense to Republicans," he said.
Most Republicans still oppose legalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
LOL! Anyone who believes that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about.
Marijuana backers courting conservatives
They’re wasting their time. They may certainly win over libertarians. But not conservatives.
Its funny. My brother is a raving, DU-type, conspiracy theorist Lib who thinks Bush started the Iraq War to line his pockets. I’m conservative. Yet we both agree that pot should be legal. Personally, I don’t see it as any worse than drinking. Libs advocating legalization are their own worst enemies. They start off OK but then the argument turns to some conspiracy about how the CIA wants to keep pot illegal to fund its death squads.
Proving stupidity is genetic?
Neither do I.
Libs advocating legalization are their own worst enemies. They start off OK but then the argument turns to some conspiracy about how the CIA wants to keep pot illegal to fund its death squads.
LOL! That's the main problem with libs. The longer they talk the dumber they sound.
I prefer to look at it as a Constitutional issue.
Does the Constitution say the federal government has the authority to tell the People what they can consume? No?
Then it's an issue for the individual States.
Unless, of course, one believes in a 'living' Constitution.
I can think of a million and one reason’s not to legalize/regulate it but it’s plain to me that the cure is worse than the disease.
Here in Arizona, they've already figured out ways around the above. It just ain't happening. If they want it legalized, just legalize it. They need to knock off the goofy charade.
Said it before many times to legalization libertarians— have several friends in the tobacco industry that told me and anyone who will listen, that there are warehouses of aging bales of marijuana in Central America. The warehouses are owned by RJ Reynolds, Lorillard,American Tobacco (the Dukes) and others.
So “legalization” for the benefit of a new taxable cash crop to support the continuing liberal socialist agenda..just like the demonrat controlled CA legislature is advocating to “save” CA.... is all ready to go.
Camels made with hashish, no filter. Great. More cancer causing natural ingredients in the crop then that found in natural Nicotiniana (or proprietary additives and flavors). Lord, save us from the pestilence of Progressives and Statists.
Libertarian and conservative thought intersects often. I want less government interference in my life. I support reform of marijuana laws to allow individuals to decide for themselves.
I oppose prohibition of alcohol, gambling, smoking and food in the same spirit of freedom for individuals. Regulations can be enforced to limit the exposure to nonpartakers and for public safety.
"What is the law against marijuana if it isn't the Nanny State telling you what you can do and what you can't do to your body and with your body?" asked Tancredo
The movement is fighting the last war, trying to adopt the pro-choice logic of the previous generation. But that logic no longer applies. Pro-choice is now pro-force.
When the federal government owns our bodies and is able to allow or deny medical treatments, why would they allow drugs to become legalized and harm their property? Why would a state accept a neighboring state allowing drugs and higher medical costs, which would be a tax transfer to the other state for higher drug abuse treatments?
If one is pro-pot, I think they have to be anti ObamaCare, which would have to be repealed before drugs could be legalized.
We conservatives are not potheads, just as conservatives were never feminists or other self-described “progressives.” Members of the socialist, political/regulator class...well, we know what they are.
Avoid buying anything that you don’t really need. Become more self-sufficient each month, and learn to manufacture something useful as a hobby for now. Starve the B.
There is a lot of libertarian in the Tea Party movement. Tea Party supports in general want the government to return to its consitutional role. That means:
1) smaller government
2) limited government
It’s very easy to make the case to a Tea Party supporter that drug laws are outside of the proper role of the federal government.
A MSM attempt to get libertarians to waste a vote and have Obummer take CO.
Colorado needs to see what legalizing Pot has done to CA and OR.
William F. Buckley Jr. - the founder of National Review when there was no Conservative magazine in the country and a leading Conservative thinker, in his own time and now - would be proud.
Social Conservatives need to re-authenticate their support for true Liberty; they must either committ to the ideal of small and limited government, for all, not just so big government only leaves them alone, or quit mouthing the position that they are against big government, only when it suits them, and then matching the Liberals tit-for-tat when they want big government themselves - for promoting their own social engineering agendas.
It is irrational to think that support for decriminalization of marijuana means support for “dopers” who are “high” on the job, on the road, or in the schools. It is irrational because it irratioanally suggests that anyone is asking for drunks to be accepted, on the job, on the road or in the schools. No one is.
Alcohol is legal, but it is not legal to be drunk while driving a motor vehcile, and not legal to be drunk while engaged in certain jobs, and not accpetable to be drunk on most any job and not acceptable to be drunk in most any school. Why would the same laws, and social prohibitions, be any different toward a “doper who was high” just because marijuana was decriminalized? The fact is, they wouldn’t.
The end of prohibition was not affected so is to encourage either public drunkiness or alcoholism. It follows that it is irrational to think the intent or purpose of decriminalization of marijuana is to encourage behaviorial abuse of, or addiction to marijuana.
Marijuana addicts and abusers of marijuana use are no greater portion of all marijuana users than are drunks and alcoholics to all those who drink alcoholic beverages.
Legal prosecution belongs to behaviors of abuse that threaten public safety, constituting an abuse of Liberty that threatens the Liberty of others.
Legal consumption of recreational stimulants, when not abused, are not a threat to Liberty. Creation of criminal syndicates, under the benevolent big government guise of controlling the consumption of recreational stimulants, has proven each time to be a great and expensive threat to Liberty; imprisoning millions for their personal vices and creating conditions that result in murder and mayhem by those engaged in the illegal trafficking of a legally prohibited substance.
Tax the trade and spend the tax revenue on public education concerning substance abuse and addiction - in the schools in particular.
until they include automatic license suspension to those using “medical marajuana” this is still just a pothead issue.
Remember, there are ALREADY drugs with the requisite ingredients that avoid the entire smoking BS.
Libertarian are libertarians, not conservatives.
They brought us gambling, why not drugs?
Many medications warn 'do not drive after using' - how many of them lead to automatic license suspension?
Remember, there are ALREADY drugs with the requisite ingredients
Really? Name them.
that avoid the entire smoking BS.
Marijuana can be consumed via vaporizer rather than smoking, and thereby avoid the harms the come with inhaling combustion products.
The problem is that this is not seen in the context of quid pro quo. Why should we give the left anything at all?
Now, let’s say for a moment that the left was willing to trade legalization of pot for illegalization of abortion. Now we’re onto something! I could be very happy with a deal that would allow the left to chemically lobotomize itself in exchange for keeping the unborn alive. Heck, I’d throw in legalization of heroin and cocaine as well.
Neither state has legalized - that's why OR is one of the states with a legalization initiative on the ballot.
Expanding individual liberty is giving to every adult, left, right, or center.
Don’t care if marijuana is taxed, regulated, monitored, etc., if we can just get the cops to stop kicking down doors, and shooting dogs over it...
That alone is enough to make me favor legalizing it.
Nor are we alkies, yet we support the legality of the mind-altering drug alcohol.
Avoid buying anything that you dont really need. Become more self-sufficient each month
Grow your own!
Legalization is a smaller gov't, i.e. conservative issue.
Following Obama’s stunning defeat in November, I would hope that the Romney administration not spend 2 seconds considering this issue and move on to something much more relevant. The economy, our security, undoing the chaos of the marxist Obama’s policies, etc.
By that logic, we should ban every taxable commodity.
Camels made with hashish, no filter. Great. More cancer causing natural ingredients in the crop then that found in natural Nicotiniana (or proprietary additives and flavors).
So government should ban that which is unhealthy? Tobacco? Bacon double cheeseburgers? Staying up late?
Lord, save us from the pestilence of Progressives and Statists.
Illegality of marijuana is the quintessential statist policy.
Here in Arizona, they've already figured out ways around the above.
Around what, exactly? And what are those ways?
It just ain't happening. If they want it legalized, just legalize it.
You think if it's regulated and monitored, it's not legal? The mind-altering drug alcohol is regulated and monitored - is it not legal?
Libertarians are not the same as conservatives.
Libertarians and conservatives share certain interests, such as smaller government, balanced budgets, lower taxes, freedom from oppressive government regulation, and freedom to raise children without government interference.
If libertarians and conservatives could only work together, then they would have taken back control of the government long since. But the press and the libs work hard to divide them, and they are only too willing to be divided.
I said this a thousand times over the decades, and it bears repeating.
Real libertarians have to understand that freedom entails responsibility, and that if you don’t want to be controlled by the police then you need to have self-control. You have to take responsibility for basic respect of your neighbors. You have to recognize that a free society is built on marriage, family, and neighbors.
We saw that when the libertarians refused to understand Rick Santorum, who ran ahead of Gingrich almost the entire time, and second to Romney because of the divided vote among Romney’s more conservative opponents.
Rick Santorum did NOT say that he would MAKE people behave like good Christians. He said that he would set the example and ENCOURAGE people to behave like good Christians—or Jews, or agnostics with principles. But the press pretended that he wanted to be a moral dictator, and too many people believed him.
So, once again the libertarians and conservatives were split by the opposition and the GOPe, and we got Romney as our reward.
The solution for drugs is neither our current one—a government that goes after the little guys and takes a rakeoff from the cartels—nor one in which everyone from the age of six on up takes pot and bathsalts and does whatever he likes. What we need is honest law enforcement, as far as that can be achieved in an imperfect world.
Try proving it's curable - post something other than a personal insult.
I don’t know about the ‘monitored’ but Washington State will definitely get the “taxed and regulated” part down. The state revenue department is stull chasing old hippies from the 60s around the hills for unpaid sales tax collections.
How are libertarians opposed to marriage, family, and neighbors?
The solution for drugs is neither our current onea government that goes after the little guys and takes a rakeoff from the cartels
The history of the War On Drugs is generously peppered with arrests of major drug lords ... not one of which made the slightest difference in the drug market.
nor one in which everyone from the age of six on up takes pot
I don't know anyone who supports that, nor is it in any of the ballot initiatives under discussion.
Bath salts and other designer drugs are a product of the War On Drugs - they are made that much more desirable by the fact that they are legal (and however many chemicals you ban, someone can cook up something mind-altering that's not on the banned list) while their better understood and relatively safer competitors are illegal.
and does whatever he likes. What we need is honest law enforcement, as far as that can be achieved in an imperfect world.
That's no answer at all. In this imperfect world, law enforcement is subject to temptation - and the War On Drugs, by hyperinflating drug profits and channeling them into criminal hands, ensures that there is means, motive, and willingness to tempt them.
Have you ever lived in CA or OR?
I lived in CA for 15 years and OR for 7.
“Medical MJ” has turned it defacto legal with people doing drugs in public.
I was eating in Santa Cruz resturant while people were passing out pro-drugs propaganda to customers.
“Expanding individual liberty is giving to every adult, left, right, or center.”
I don’t view drug legalization as an individual liberty issue.
Let’s define “liberty.” Here’s one textbook definition from dictionary.com: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.”
OK, so the freedom from control intereference, etc. we’re talking about here is I suppose my freedom. So how is MY freedom positively affected by initiating legislation that will ultimately restrict it by increasing my taxes and my costs? You see when you buy into the legalization argument, you pick up the negative side of the argument as well. I.e. increased levels of intoxication and addiction due to increased ability to access the drug in question.
By legalizing marijuana or any other illicit drug, you increase the addiction rate as well as the use. While it’s been argued that the societal costs of legalization are less than those of prohibition, it’s as much of a cost shifting as anything. And it’s a cost shifting that proponents of legalization are quick to ignore. Instead of my paying increased taxes to lock dealers up, I’ll instead get to pay increased taxes for treatment of addicts as well as the increased costs of testing to ensure that people in critical positions (e.g. locomotive engineers, pilots, cops, other drivers) are not doped to the gills. Not to mention the very direct, yet unquantifiable costs that I will pay if one of my family members gets hurt or killed because some knucklehead wants to toke up.
And this increase in cost will benefit me exactly how? So I can legally take a drug I don’t really care to take?
No, when you talk about “individual liberty” you’re not talking about MY individual liberty, you’re talking about the individual liberty of drug addicts.
Now, I’m willing to grant that even the individual liberty of drug addicts is worth something. But don’t come to me saying that I benefit from this, because I don’t. The only way I benefit is if I get something out of the deal.
Come to me with a deal that says: “we’ll eliminate the personal income tax in exchange for legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin” and you might be surprised how willing I’d be to consider it. But come to me and say: “we want to increase your taxes and increase the danger to you by letting a bunch of addicts get their fix legally” and see how quickly I reject that as the lousy deal that it is.
We ought to do the right thing, whether it makes the left happy, or apopleptic.
I think marijuana use would increase some, if it were legalized, and that would be a bad thing. The public policy question is "does preventing that increase in marijuana use justify the (marijuana component of) war on drugs?
I'm not prepared, today, to answer that question "No", but I think that the question should be answered at the state level.
Wasn't ending Prohibition of the mind-altering drug alcohol a conservative move? Then why not do the same with marijuana?
Yes, the Tea Party seeks new ways of thinking about the old issues. The Tea Party does not think like the old guard establishment authoritarian Repubs. No way.
The Nanny Stater “conservatives” that want to continue the archaic 1930s policy should stand right with Bloomberg and the libs that want to ban soft drinks, smoking in your own residence, beef, fatty desserts, cars we like, on and on. So soft drinks are bad, but there’s freedom of choice, and education. So drugs are bad, but there is freedom of choice, and education. Personal responsibility, not govt, and fed control. At least leave it to the states to decide.
This is a lost unwinnable war. And in Portugal the evidence that legalization -reduced-, yes, REDUCED, addiction. It’s a nonsensical and stupid war unless your goal is to perpetuate the police state and swarming SWAT teams across this land.
"De facto legal" is not legal. But I'll bite - what has "de facto legalization" "done to CA and OR"?
I was eating in Santa Cruz resturant while people were passing out pro-drugs propaganda to customers.
It's called the First Amendment - if you don't like it, you're free to leave any time.
“We ought to do the right thing, whether it makes the left happy, or apopleptic.”
Absolutely! But the “right” thing to do is not to jack up everyone’s taxes so that a relatively small portion of the population can have a legalized fix.
“Wasn’t ending Prohibition of the mind-altering drug alcohol a conservative move?”
Actually it wasn’t. It was the political left of the time that ended prohibition, although it was widely regarded as a failure. I wonder though given what we spend in fees for incarceration of drunk drivers, increased auto insurance, higher medical costs, etc. whether it was all the victory for liberty that it’s proponents claim.
Mind you I don’t favor prohibition, but to ignore the costs of rescinding it over time is intellectually dishonest.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. When the mind-altering drug alcohol was illegal, anyone who drank set out to get thoroughly drunk - witness the increased popularity of hard liquor relative to wine and beer. It's quite likely that legalization means LOWER overall levels of intoxication.
By legalizing marijuana or any other illicit drug, you increase the addiction rate as well as the use.
Again, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Illegality incentivizes patterns of use that contribute to addiction (such as seeking maximum intoxication as discussed above).
While its been argued that the societal costs of legalization are less than those of prohibition, its as much of a cost shifting as anything. And its a cost shifting that proponents of legalization are quick to ignore. Instead of my paying increased taxes to lock dealers up, Ill instead get to pay increased taxes for treatment of addicts
No cost shift there - and legal drugs doesn't imply or require taxpayer-funded addiction treatment, while illegal drugs does imply and require taxpayer-funded enforcement and incarceration.
as well as the increased costs of testing to ensure that people in critical positions (e.g. locomotive engineers, pilots, cops, other drivers) are not doped to the gills.
You're suggesting they're not tested now?
Not to mention the very direct, yet unquantifiable costs that I will pay if one of my family members gets hurt or killed because some knucklehead wants to toke up.
We all currently bear that cost from legal alcohol - so do you support banning that drug, or will you feel better about your dead family member if it was alcohol rather than pot involved?
That Dems were in office when it was ended does not mean it was not a conservative move - the key is that, as you say, it was widely regarded as a failure.
I wonder though given what we spend in fees for incarceration of drunk drivers, increased auto insurance, higher medical costs, etc. whether it was all the victory for liberty that its proponents claim.
Mind you I dont favor prohibition
But you do favor our modern prohibition of marijuana and give as your reasons exactly those considerations. Hmmmm ...
“But you do favor our modern prohibition of marijuana and give as your reasons exactly those considerations. Hmmmm ...”
Apples to oranges. If you’re a home brewer, you realize how completely unenforceable prohibition was. Virtually any popular liquor, beer, or wine can be brewed in your kitchen with nothing more than than groceries and simple equipment.
It boils down to cost versus benefits. I see costs accruing to me but no benefits. So why should I agree to something like that?
You apparently want marijuana legalized. That’s fine. Come to your opposition with a reasonable deal in mind and you might well get it. Come to your opposition looking for a free lunch and you’ll most likely get told to forget it.
No, stop taxing the commodities to maintain the liberal Statists.....the LIBERAL leftist Statists who cling to this issue to preserve and expand their power.
People can grow their own, smoke their own, drink their own. Whatever.
We should not be enslaved to yet another “sin” tax, perpetuated by “freedom- loving” Progressive Statists and their corporate enablers (don’t forget Big Pharma’s role in Obamacare). This point is lost on the highly vulnerable logic of Libertarian extremes. And that is a shame, because they are so correct on the Federal Reserve private club that destroys our sovereign nation through debt and preserves the fake economy. It is the “fake economy” that is supported in the ever expanding State, paid for by the “hey we can tax it while making it legal” crowd.
It hasn’t worked for booze, and won’t for weed. Just creates yet another chemical dependency class which, “voila” will need to be maintained by the State, financed again by a “sin tax”, the enforcement of which leads to corruption in enforcement and legal halls.
The illegality of weed can be eliminated in one legal stroke. Overnight the prices would crash. Those who want to be stoned and impaired all day—let them— who the hell cares as long as they can then be kept from positions of responsibility by law derived from demonstrable scientific facts (like airline pilots, bus drivers, etc.) and not harm other citizens. And not treat them for addiction on our nickel (or cancer causality) either (same way, we shouldn’t for drunks). As in the days of corn liquor taxation, this is one of political power. It is the Whiskey Rebellion all over again— and favors the big outfits (the plantation class large distillers in that day) over a free populace.
We don’t ban tobacco, we limit it’s effects, taking a piece out of every interest in it. There shouldn’t be any tobacco tax, or booze tax. We shouldn’t ban weed (save a lot on enforcement), but limit the effects of free use and we shouldn’t tax it either. But for God’s sake, we shouldn’t be in bed with RJR/Nabisco et. al. who are positioned to direct the taxation— to fund Big Govt. freedom destroying agencies (EPA, Education etc.)— and let them dictate policy. In any case, there is already a healthy underground, tax free business in both booze and weed, and plenty available without the help of Big Govt. friends and their corporate cronies.
Be damned if this “freedom” then funds an even larger pestilent meddling State for the sake of opportunists. Progressive Statists have no problem enslaving us to maintain their power— and their friends are mighty strange— RJR? North Carolinians and Virginians know what I mean, what with the ridiculous state Alcohol Beverage Control Boards whose “sales revenue” funds——local schools!! Nuts and warped.
I see no evidence that marijuana prohibition is enforceable - and home growing is part of the reason it isn't.
I see costs accruing to me
I've pointed out the flaws in the arguments for the existence of such cost increases. (Not that I expect to change your mind, but so you don't mislead anyone else.)
I see your point. I've never advanced taxability as an argument for legalization - nor, as far as I know, have any libertarians. (But it's certainly not an argument against legalization ... not that you said it was.)
“I see no evidence that marijuana prohibition is enforceable - and home growing is part of the reason it isn’t.”
I would agree that home growing small quantities is difficult to catch. Brewing relatively robust quantities of alcohol is not difficult to conceal.
“I’ve pointed out the flaws in the arguments for the existence of such cost increases.”
And, as usual, proponents of legalization ignore the costs or minimize them. And that by the way is why pot isn’t already legal: if the proponents would be reasonably straightforward on the negative side of the equation, those problems could probably be dealt with. But instead it’s unicorns and sunshine, not the reality that we’ve seen in places like the Netherlands.
And, as usual, proponents of legalization ignore the costs or minimize them.
No, they point out how opponents exaggerate them - as I did in post #42.
the reality that weve seen in places like the Netherlands.
Netherlands decriminalized, not legalized - growing is still illegal. What is the reality you claim to have seen there?