Replies

You wrote:

“Where did you ever get the idea that “conservatism” necessarily means that one must be opposed to the use of one or more substances for purposes of pleasure?”

That would not be use, but abuse. A substance that is used to get stoned - and is essentially ONLY used to get stoned - would not fit into the general conservative belief in personal responsibility very well.

“That is merely an accident of history. By that notion you would have to argue that the only true conservatives are Mormons.”

No. Again, we are talking about the abuse of a thing, not the use in itself. There may be purposeful uses for marijuana that make sense, but getting stoned would be a violation of personal responsibility. Remember, Jews, Christians, Muslims, none are supposed to get drunk, intoxicated, and yet that is essentially the goal in the use of pot. It seems to me that you can not separate the monotheistic concern for personal responsibility that is at the core of conservatism’s belief in freedom while pushing for the use of an intoxicant for the sole purpose of intoxification.

And in the end, it seems to me that “conservatives” who make arguments in favor of drug use just want to get stoned without it bothering their conscience. I doubt that there were too many conservatives who would have made such an argument before the rise of the leftist radical drug culture 50 years ago. Apparently many so-called conservatives have been tainted by that leftism and mistakenly believe they are standing up for a “freedom” which has no place in conservatism.

There may be purposeful uses for marijuana that make sense, but getting stoned would be a violation of personal responsibility. Remember, Jews, Christians, Muslims, none are supposed to get drunk, intoxicated, and yet that is essentially the goal in the use of pot.

Your basic point in your reply is a distinction between "use" and "abuse," neglecting to mention that these are terms whose distinction is so plastic that they don't serve any useful distinction. Remember that as a Christian or a Jew there is no prohibition against the use of alcohol for the pleasurable aspects of alcohol. That is, neither is a teetotaler religion, though there are some teetotaler Christian sects (and even ancient Israel had a sect whose members touched nothing of the grape, neither wine, nor grape, nor raisin). Both stress that one should not be given to much wine, not to no wine. The Old Testament thanks God for "wine that makes glad the heart of man". The prohibition is on using it to the point that it disrupts life. It's at this point that someone could call it abuse.

For that matter, if doing something for the pleasure of doing it is abuse, you cannot logically draw a circle around some things (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, caffeine, kava, etc.) but not around other practices done simply for their pleasurable aspect (hobbies and sports, taking a Sunday drive for no other reason than seeing the color change in the fall, sexual intercourse when you're not trying for a pregnancy, having a sandwich or a bowl of ice-cream if you have any extra weight, you know, "comfort food").

You're basing your argument on definitions that are really cases of special pleading for the purpose of ending up exactly where you already wanted to be.

Remember, Jews, Christians, Muslims, none are supposed to get drunk, intoxicated, and yet that is essentially the goal in the use of pot.

The main reason people use alcohol is to get high, and one drink alters your mental status:

0.02 - 0.03 BAC: No loss of coordination, slight euphoria and loss of shyness. Depressant effects are not apparent. Mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded.

0.04 - 0.06 BAC: Feeling of well-being, relaxation, lower inhibitions, sensation of warmth. Euphoria. Some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution. Your behavior may become exaggerated and emotions intensified (Good emotions are better, bad emotions are worse)

--http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm _____________________________________

Apparently many so-called conservatives have been tainted by that leftism and mistakenly believe they are standing up for a "freedom" which has no place in conservatism.

Do believe the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause, upon which the WOD is based, is in keeping with the original understanding?