Connect with us

Everything

There is no “libertarian on the issue.” Legalizing marijuana is the conservative position.

Published

on

You hear a lot of Conservatives say that when it comes to marijuana legalization, they are “libertarian” on the issue. It’s a common expression even used by Ben Shapiro.

However, the linguistic choice of the word “libertarian” implies that legalization of pot is not a conservative position. Traditionally, this is true. Not many Conservatives in the past have supported this notion. To make matters more complicated, many Conservatives have argued in favor of a “law and order” approach to the issue.

Notably, an increasing amount of young Conservatives favor legalization while older Conservatives tend to side with the “law and order”. Conservatives are often free to disagree because Conservatives are not some mob of conformity. If that’s what you want, there’s a camp called leftism, but I should warn you, you’ll ever be woke enough.

Conservatives are free to disagree on methods, but underlying principles of a limited government following through on its enumerated powers remains a consistent platform for us to unite.

However, on the issue of marijuana, there is a right and wrong position for Conservatives to hold. Bearing in mind a limited government, the Conservative movement would be most correctly aligned with its principles if it advances the legalization of marijuana, foregoing the law and order approach.

Acknowledging Government Failure

At the Conservative camp, we often talk about how government is the problem, not the solution. And when the government gets involved in things, a worse outcome results. The obvious example of healthcare is a drop in the bucket in the vast ocean that is government failure. For more failures, we can point to souring college tuition prices. It was the government that turned a depression into the Great Depression. We can look at occupational licensing hurting lower-income people. Likewise, the current marijuana rules augmented a stoner population.

Ronald Reagan said in his ingratiation:

Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

The government has royally blundered trying to curb recreational marijuana usage, and to continue down the current pathway is to meet the definition of insanity. The Conservative worldview sees the individual, not the government as the solution to cultural problems. Government solutions so often prove to be failures.

Personal Distaste Leads to Hypocrisy

Conservatives too often argue for marijuana to be illegal based off of rather weak points. I’m going to specifically address John Hawkins from Townhall seeing as this article was referenced in a NOQ Report article back in January. The article titled “5 Reasons Marijuana Should Remain Illegal” details five weak points that I will address.

Marijuana is addictive for some people

If I accept the premise that marijuana is addictive(it’s not), by what precedent are addictive properties cause for something to be illegal. Here we find a logical disconnect in the argument. Alcohol is addictive. Tobacco is addictive. Both legal. Oreo’s have been studied to be addictive in mice as cocaine. Still legal (the only lines I do). If we’re not talking about only drugs, porn is legal. Sex is legal. Hoarding is legal. Video games are legal. They made a show about strange addictions. Human beings are creatures of worship; therefore it is a tendency for people to fall into addiction. This is no reason to make something illegal.

It’s not woking well in Amsterdam

This was an incredibly weak reason because it’s based on the Dutch being horrified that their children have access to pot. That is already the case here in the US. Legalization wouldn’t change this, while it being illegal hasn’t stopped this. The arguments against marijuana legalization that invoke children present a false consequence. And it makes us seem like hypocrites when we give our children medication as a substitute for discipline.

Mental and Physical Health(2 reasons)

It would be foolish to argue against marijuana’s medicinal benefits. However, I do acknowledge that it is fair to bring up the negative side effects. In this area, a person should take responsibility for their own health. Individual responsibility is what our culture needs not a nanny state protecting us from harm in every direction.

That being said several dangerous things are legal that if used irresponsibly could have a negative impact on mental and physical health. I could list them but you get the idea. The government is a poor arbitrator when it comes to protecting the citizens from their own choices.

Marijuana decimates people’s lives

We’re back to the “protecting people from themselves” argument. This is not logic that a conservative should use. Conservatism strives for a free market capitalist system whereby the individual is responsible for their own outcome in life. Protecting people from their own poor decisions is not the role of the government. There are things that destroy people’s lives that merit being illegal, but marijuana is not one of them. Millions of Americans use it whether in the slums or the penthouse. The lack of inherent or predictable negative consequences to potheads does is insufficient reason for keeping marijuana illegal.

At the end of the day, Conservatives only oppose marijuana legalization out of personal distaste. When we let our taste buds dictate our policy instead of our principles, we become hypocrites with power. Our personal distaste for marijuana is contradicting Conservative principles that would be most aligned legalizing the plant for recreational use. In this, we become seen as hypocrites. When we distaste something, our response should never be to make it illegal claiming some sort of cultural benefit.

For example, take transgenderism. Conservatives often distaste this practice. But no one is arguing to make being a transvestite illegal. What you do in your spare time is an individual liberty. Only based off of researched negative effects would any Conservative argue that the surgery should be illegal for a consenting adult. For children, it’s practically child abuse, therefore necessary for the state to step in because there is no absolute right of parents. If you want to, as a consenting adult, mutilate your body and get plastic surgery, most Conservatives wouldn’t stand in your way unless taxpayers are paying for it. What Conservatives are strictly opposed to is the state forcing its citizens to acknowledge transgenderism as real and punishing “misgendering” someone. Forcing a person to participate in a mentally ill person’s self-image is a violation of individual freedom.

There is a Conservative way to oppose something that you find distasteful. It is not to make said thing illegal, but instead to get the government out of the issue as much as possible. The “Law and Order” crowd have created a needless rift between Conservatives and Libertarians. The difference between the Libertarian and Conservative worldview was so well articulated by Konstantinos Roditis but these differences in worldview should come to the same result on marijuana. Though Libertarians focus too much on plants, Conservatives in their distaste for marijuana became hypocrites making an activity that isn’t inherently evil a crime. It’s long past time Conservatives remind themselves of what makes them Conservative and reexamine their position on marijuana because legalization is the Conservative stance.

A Note About Comparing Marijuana to Opioids:

Opioids have a far worse and predictable outcome for users who don’t stop. So for that reason, the arguments for marijuana legalization don’t apply. The state should intervene when negative externalities arise. The negative externalities for marijuana are baseless, in comparison. Although for an interesting perspective on this issue read our article here

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Harold

    April 22, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    Shut up pothead. I’m sick of you stoners messing up my roads in California making it impossible to get home from work and jacking up my insurance rates. I am also sick of the gang violence from your precious “miracle drug.” I’m sick of morons who have smoked themselves retarded implying that I am dumber than them. Finally, I am sick of pot smoking queer communists calling themselves libertarians and daring to tell conservatives how we should think. When you can get somebody better than Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, and stop posting while you’re high on 4/20, we might take you seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Video: Celebrate the “Assault Weapon*” Tricentennial!

Published

on

By

Puckle gun Image credit littlegun.be

How time flies, it’s been 3 Centuries [1718 – 2018] since the invention of the Puckle gun – one of the many early “Assault Weapons*”

Image Credit: littlegun.be

When they aren’t spouting nonsensical lines such as “30 magazine clip in ½ a second”, Liberty grabber Leftists love to parrot the lie that back before the ratification of the Constitution, (1788) they only had one shot muskets that took 5 minutes to reload.  The reality is that repeating and other early versions of ‘automatic weapons‘ were in existence long before this time period. Imagine that, the national Socialist Left lying about an important historical fact that furthers their agenda?

This is a full video exposition of this historic gun from Forgotten Weapons

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

It utilised a revolving cylinder to bring a projectile and powder charge to the breach of the gun. In essence, it was a manual revolver, but it was in existence 70 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. So much for the ‘One shot musket Lie’. One could have several of these revolving cylinders loaded and ready to be placed on the gun – making them something akin to the first “High capacity magazines*”.

*Yes, we’re playing it a bit fast and loose with these terms, but since they have no set definition, that doesn’t matter. In point of fact, that term (and others) were made up by the Liberty grabbers as a way of destroying the basic human Right of self-defense while maintaining the fiction supporting it. The tactic is to use a term such as this so it’s an easy progression to destroy any civil or natural right. In the case of the Liberty of self-defense, the definition is simply expanded to include just about every gun in existence.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago

Published

on

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.

Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.

In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.

To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”

“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.

“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.

Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.

By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.

Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.

Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Everything

Teach your kids to value life

Published

on

On May 21, 2018, the state of Maryland was stunned. A Baltimore County Police officer was murdered in the line of duty. Officer Amy Caprio was murdered investigating a burglary reported in a single family neighborhood in Perry Hall. The death of Officer Caprio sparked a massive manhunt that shut down the area and put multiple schools on lockdown. On the morning of May 22, 2018, Maryland breathed a sigh of relief that the suspected murderer and the suspected associates were all in custody. Dawnta Anthony Harris Jr. was apprehended and charged with 1st-degree murder. The 16-year-old was the lookout and getaway driver for three other individuals as they were robbing a house. The three others were all minors.

There was no shortage of stupidity arising out of this tragedy. Almost all of it coming from the Black Lives Matter crowd. They seek justification where there is none. The neighbors were right to call the police. BCPD was right to investigate a burglary. Officer Caprio was correct to have drawn her weapon. She was justified in discharging her weapon. She did not deserve to die.

The statement of probable cause shows that Dawnta Harris admitted that he partially opened the door, following the officer’s orders to exit the vehicle, but then shut the door and drove at the officer. For a split second, it seems, the value of life was pondered before being discarded. I wonder was there also a moment of consideration before he went down the path that has led to being charged with First Degree Murder.

A rational person knows that life has value: both yours and others. A rational person would not commit burglary because the consequences of getting caught far exceed the rewards of the heist. A rational person would not attack a police officer confronting their minor criminal activity. Is the result of going down for burglary and theft worse than disposing of the officer and reaping the rewards of the robbery? No rational person would think so. These teens do not recognize the value of life, so the Baltimore County Police Department lost a life due to their irrational actions.

How did four individuals wind up in this situation? Being minors, why were they not in school? The first and most likely answer is the parents or lack thereof. In Dawnta Harris Jr.’s case, this prediction is clear. A quick search on Maryland Judiciary Case Search shows that his father has enough experience with the law to be a paralegal. Dawnta Harris Sr. has numerous encounters with the law and some serious convictions that indicate he was a heroin dealer. If this type of parent is raising kids, it’s no wonder the value of human life was so muddied.

And certainly, the mother isn’t innocent even if she was doing most of the work. At some point in time, a parent needs to instill in their child the value of human life. Every parent of these kids failed. This wasn’t one mistake. This was a consistent pattern founded on a premise that diminishes the value and potential of human life. Life is too precious to throw away by running with a bunch of thugs. Life is too precious to steal a Jeep. Life is too precious to waste on a life of crime. These four teens have potentially thrown their lives away, and for what? A couple hundred dollars worth of other people’s stuff. We need to teach our kids that other people’s lives are worth more than that, and so are theirs.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.