Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: PROCON
Ok, I know I'll be attacked relentlessly for this, but I'm going to propose the questions anyway because I truly do not understand the hypocrisy when it comes to many conservatives and pot.

I'm pretty hard-core conservative and right-leaning on most issues from social to fiscal. But I do not understand the position on pot.

What does the fact that smoking dope is stupid and somewhat unhealthy have to do with my ability to insist that it be illegal? We (socially and legally) have tried this several times (think alcohol prohibition). Let's compare. I believe that almost all of us think that alcohol prohibition was one of the dumbest things we've ever tried. It didn't stop anyone from drinking and it gave rise to a huge black market. We see the exact same results with prohibition of dope. That is not to mention, I personally don't believe a single one of us has any standing to demand pot be illegal while we smoke, drink, ride dangerous ATV's, eat fatty foods and red meat. The list of things that I do that are either bad for me or potentially dangerous are numerous and I get pretty bent when some liberal (or otherwise) nanny tries to tell me what I shouldn't be allowed to do. How could I, without loudly declaring my own hypocrisy, call for continued criminalization of dope?

All I see from the "war on drugs" is abuse of power and authority, infringement of a LOT of rights, and a multi-billion dollar industry built around it. AFAIK, the DEA has no more legitimate use than the ATF or numerous other suppressive gov entities. I simply don't see how one can be conservative and demand prohibition at the same time.
Seriously, I'm not trolling. I would like to hear any common sense and logical rebuttal as to how we can be true to our own convictions and support prohibition at the same time. I believe we all agree... doing any kind of dope isn't the most intelligent thing a person can do. As far as I know, all illegal drugs are either bad for you, or really really bad for you. I realize there are also social implication and links with crime (most of which wouldn't exist if dope weren't illegal and therefor expensive). I understand the damage that can be done, with dope, alcohol, etc... but where is the distinction with dope that allows me to proclaim is legality?

103 posted on 04/19/2015 3:05:48 PM PDT by FunkyZero (... I've got a Grand Piano to prop up my mortal remains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: FunkyZero
All I see from the "war on drugs" is abuse of power and authority, infringement of a LOT of rights, and a multi-billion dollar industry built around it. AFAIK, the DEA has no more legitimate use than the ATF or numerous other suppressive gov entities. I simply don't see how one can be conservative and demand prohibition at the same time.

Lots of conservatives don't know about The Managerial State (aka the UniParty):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state

Paul Gottfried, in After Liberalism, defines this worldview as a "series of social programs informed by a vague egalitarian spirit, and it maintains its power by pointing its finger accusingly at antiliberals." He calls it a new theocratic religion. In this view, when the managerial regime cannot get democratic support for its policies, it resorts to sanctimony and social engineering, via programs, court decisions and regulations...

The Managerial State has got a neat little trick known as Anarcho-tyranny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny

Sam Francis wrote: What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

And he also wrote: The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites ... or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and "pathological" elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms – people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible – not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.

=====================

The War on Drugs is GREAT for the Managerial State. :)

114 posted on 04/19/2015 6:24:03 PM PDT by kiryandil (Egging the battleship USS Sarah Palin from their little Progressive rowboats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson