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

Advertisement
1 Comment

Democrats

Tell the migrants: AOC calls border detention centers ‘concentration camps’

Published

on

A warning to migrants AOC calls border detention centers concentration camps

Attention current and potential migrants from Central America intent on breaching our southern border: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says if you cross the border, America will put you in concentration camps.

As much as I’d like to tackle the absurdity of the statements she made on Instagram last night, I’ve decided to run with her story as if it were based on facts. After all, Democrats have made a habit out of wild claims about migrant treatment at the border, yet they simultaneously impede every effort to make things better such as more beds, more border patrol agents, and a wall. They could change the laws for asylum seekers to dissuade migrants from making the dangerous trip with their cartel chaperones. There are so many things they can do instead of making wild claims, but they won’t do it.

So instead of calling them out, it’s time to embrace them. If AOC wants to spread the word that migrants are being held in concentration camps and forced to endure the whims of a “fascist” in charge, we should let her do it. Perhaps then they’d think twice about stealing our sovereignty by breaking our laws to achieve their goals.

The detention centers at the border are not concentration camps, of course. It’s almost certain AOC got her talking points from one of several articles written last week about Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, in which she makes the claims about what’s happening at the border. AOC’s talking points seemed to match Pitzer’s almost verbatim.

Heavy on whiny rhetoric but short on solutions to a clear problem, Ocasio-Cortez has once again used radical claims to foment outrage. But what if it can be used to establish fear? I’m not a fan of lying nor spreading fear, but if the Democrats want to establish the narrative that asylum-seekers are tossed into concentration camps once they cross the border, who am I to stop them?

The knee-jerk reaction to AOC’s lies would be to debunk them. But I’m not going to this time. If she can convince migrants they’ll be placed in concentration camps, maybe they’ll think twice about breaching our borders.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

General Jack Keans on Trump’s plan to send more troops to Middle East

Published

on

General Jack Keans on Trumps plan to send more troops to Middle East

As the Pentagon sends 1000 more troops to the Middle East to counter Iran’s latest round of aggressions, many Democrats and media talking heads are attacking the whole mess. They’re blaming the President for antagonizing the Iranians, first by pulling out of the nuclear deal and then by imposing harsh sanctions on them. But as General Jack Keans told Shannon Bream on Fox News last night, the Iranians have been the ones antagonizing the whole time.

Where did all the money go that the Obama administration sent them? Over $100 billion is apparently gone as the people continue to struggle to survive, yet nothing seems to have come from the generous gift.

If the sanctions were really the problem, why won’t Iran stop engaging in proxy wars, funding terrorism, and continuing their development of nuclear weapons? They were testing ballistic missiles even before the sanctions. They were engaged in Yemen before the sanctions. And yes, they never stopped funding terrorism. If they would stop these things, the sanctions could be lifted, but Iran refuses.

Keans is correct in asserting the President has made the right moves. The only question that remains is whether or not Iran will comply or if they’ll continue down the road to war.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

An open letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Published

on

An open letter to Sen Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Dear Senator Graham,

It is being reported in the news that you are planning to introduce a nonbinding resolution in the Senate, together with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), calling on President Trump to support a “two-state solution” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. If true, it would be a tragic error.

As a longtime supporter of Israel, I am sure that you’re aware that the GOP removed the two-state solution from its platform in 2016. I’m sure that you also know that the president’s Middle East team has been discussing Israel’s right to retain parts of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank). By supporting the two-state solution at this time, you are not only going against the growing sentiment in your party that opposes a Palestinian (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) state and the danger it would be to Israel’s survival, but you are also taking a stand against the obvious democratic wishes of the Israeli people. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently made it clear that he no longer supports such a path to resolving the conflict by announcing his intention to annex the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank).

In a recent interview with the McClatchy news service, you were quoted as saying “I don’t want to get in the way of Jared,” referring to Deal of the Century architect Jared Kushner, “but I can’t envision a one-state solution. It won’t work. I mean, you’d have to disenfranchise the Palestinians. That won’t work. If you let them vote as one state, they’ll overwhelm the Israelis. That won’t work. So, if you want to have a democratic, secure Jewish state, I think you have to have two states to make that work.”

Sen. Graham, with all due respect, you are echoing the common wisdom that has prevailed for the past forty years, but the facts on the ground have changed. Recent polling shows that Israelis understand the new reality, but the world is lagging beyond, with the very noticeable exception being the growing number of realists in the GOP. President Trump, as well, has expressed a remarkable willingness to explore “new ideas”, since the “land for peace” formula clearly hasn’t worked. This was proven by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which simply gave Iranian-backed Hamas the land from which they are now firing rockets at Israeli cities. Doing the same in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem (which is the primary Palestinian demand) would be suicidal for Israel.

However, you have mentioned that a Palestinian state must be created, because of the demographic danger; that without creating a separate Palestinian state, Israel would be “overwhelmed” by the Palestinian vote. This presumes that in a one-state solution, all the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria would be given automatic citizenship. Yes, you and I seem to agree, granting such instant citizenship would be the definition of foolishness. No self-preserving country in its right mind would grant citizenship (and the right to vote in national elections) without a lengthy process of vetting such non-citizens, as is done in the United States and most free countries.

In my peace plan, which is pointedly called Peace for Peace (as opposed to the failed land for peace formula), I call for Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, alongside a path to loyal citizenship for the non-citizens, mostly Arabs (or Palestinians, if you prefer), now residing in the areas that Israel recaptured in the defensive Six Day War of 1967. Such a process would include a three-year comprehensive good citizenship course, followed by two-three years of national service, culminating with an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel.

Many non-citizens in Judea and Samaria, many of whom I know personally, would seize at the opportunity to become loyal Israeli citizens. Many others would refuse, thereby minimizing the demographic danger to Israel, but the truth be told, noted demographers such as Yoram Ettinger have shown that the Jewish birth rates in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem have been sky-rocketing for the past two decades, way beyond that of the Arabs. Israel is undergoing a social renaissance, in which the traditional family is having a resurgence and having large Jewish families is fashionable once again. Therefore, when we examine the current reality, we see that the demographic threat is greatly exaggerated by those who cling to the land for peace agenda.

Of course, I haven’t yet mentioned Israel’s historical rights to these areas, which I have documented extensively in my most recent book, “Trump and the Jews”, but you haven’t disputed those rights. I also haven’t mentioned that we can’t make peace with a Palestinian Authority that for years has been giving salary payments to each and every terrorist that has killed or wounded an Israeli. This includes the three Fatah terrorists who shot and wounded me and my then three-year-old son in December of 2001 and their salaries continue to this day.

Given the new, pragmatic approach of President Trump, I am strongly urging you to rethink the dual mantras of land for peace and the two-state solution. As Donald would say, it’s time for new ideas.

Bio: David Rubin, former Mayor of Shiloh Israel, is the author of the new book, “Trump and the Jews”. Rubin is the founder and president of Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund, established after he and his then three-year-old son were wounded in a terror attack. He can be found at www.DavidRubinIsrael.com or at www.ShilohIsraelChildren.org.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending