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

0

Democrats

Dianne Feinstein’s comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Published

on

Dianne Feinsteins comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Gun control is the talk of the town as the week comes to a close. Well, that and Greenland. And Jeffrey Epstein. But the mass shootings two weeks ago has DC buzzing, media furiously reporting, and activists on both sides of the debate furiously Tweeting at each other. Senator Dianne Feinstein weighed in on the discussion by pointing out some important facts about the alleged Dayton shooter, Connor Betts.

Her facts are correct. Her analysis is off because it missed one important point. We’ll get to that in a minute, but let’s declare once and for all (though I’m sure I’ll have to repeat myself later) that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR HOME PROTECTION. Our right to keep and bear firearms was put into the Constitution by our founders because they recognized what could happen if the people had no recourse against an oppressive government. Just as Venezuelans didn’t realize they danger they were putting themselves into when they allowed their guns to be taken away, so too do many Americans put way too much trust in government.

The authoritarian left wants guns because they know they’ll never achieve their endgame as long as the people can defend themselves from tyranny.

Feinstein is correct that the Dayton shooter was able to cause an extreme amount of death and injury in a short period of time. Police were quick to respond, otherwise it could have been much worse. But as our EIC pointed out in a Tweet, Feinstein’s narrative is worthless when you look at it from the opposite perspective.

Gun control is not the solution to our mass shooting problem. If anything, gun control has enabled shooters to enact their crimes without fear of many “good guys with a gun” to stop them. We must never give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

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

Media

With ‘collusion’ out and ‘racism’ in, legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

Published

on

With collusion out and racism in legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

There are things that are often so obvious to me, I actually ignore them as stories to consider reporting when in reality they’re big news. It’s part of the myopia journalists often get when their days are spent researching and analyzing a topic so much, we assume certain things are common knowledge when they’re not. Case-in-point: The fact that legacy media establishes narrative plans to achieve goals that promote their agenda.

It took my wife’s aghast response to learning the NY Times was setting up a gameplan to attack President Trump from now until the election. I asked her what she thought newsroom’s did. After all, she knows I used to sit in meetings about how to cover particular topics, and affecting the 2020 election is obviously something newsrooms will try to do. But to her (and probably a lot of our readers), it’s assumed journalists aren’t crafting stories based on a playbook but are simply taking each individual piece of news and spinning it as they see fit.

Nope. That’s not how it works. We’ve seen comical examples of media coordination to push very specific narratives that often match the talking points of Democrats. This isn’t new. It’s as old as journalism itself. Propaganda isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s an ongoing battle to appear to be unbiased while conveying bias subtly. But today, there’s no longer subtly involved. Both progressive and conservative news outlets unabashedly spin stories to suit their agendas.

The latest example came from a leak of a NY Times staff meeting transcript that detailed how the Russian collusion narrative was a dud and they needed to go after the new Trump narrative, that he’s a racist. I saw the story yesterday and myopically assumed, “Duh, it’s obvious. This is a nothingburger.” But as my wife pointed out, there are plenty of people who don’t realize this is how newsrooms in every major outlet operate.

Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two Years

As revealed in the leaked transcript, Baquet began the meeting by referencing the paper’s “significant missteps” and then explaining how these “missteps” stem from “something larger”: the paper’s approach to reporting on Trump. “This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s,” said Baquet. “It got trickier after [inaudible] … [it] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.”

Baquet then admits that the Times had “built our newsroom” around covering the ultimately debunked narrative that Trump “colluded” with Russia. “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” said Baquet in comments highlighted by the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

As early as it may seem in the election cycle, this is actually crunch-time for journalists with an agenda, which is essentially all of us. The narratives take time to stick, and so if progressive media is going to get enough Americans to believe their racism narrative, they need to be hammering it today and all the way through until the election.

Their plan has three steps:

  1. Paint Trump as a racist
  2. Paint the whole GOP as either racists or enabling racists
  3. Make voters believe that if they vote for Trump and/or Republicans, they’re racists as well

If that sounds familiar, it’s because you’re paying attention as the narrative unfolds before our eyes. They realize the President hasn’t said or done anything that’s racist. They can attach the race card to certain comments he makes, but even then it’s a stretch. But they need to hold this as their message because his policies tell a completely different story. Black and Hispanic-American unemployment numbers are at all-time lows while prosperity is spreading to minorities faster than ever in our history, including (especially) under President Obama.

The left will try to divide us and then claim President Trump is the great divider. They want to draw distinct lines between those who support him and those who may be willing to oppose him. Then, they’ll do everything in their power to pull people on the fence over to their side. What they can’t understand is why things are working, why the economy is humming, and why violence seems to be coming more from the left than the right. That’s not what they expected to happen. Many assumed his presidency would be so bad so quickly, he’d never be allowed to finish his first term. But as it becomes increasingly likely he’ll get a second term, they’re scrambling to derail him.

The progressive narratives in legacy media are 100% intended to subvert the 2020 election and remove President Trump from power. The best thing conservatives can do is continue to point out their complete journalistic hypocrisy.

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

Everything

‘Sanctuary Sheriff’ Garry McFadden released convicted child molester Oscar Leonardo to protect him from ICE

Published

on

At some point, Democrats have to come to the conclusion that their little experiment with sanctuary cities has failed. It was supposed to encourage cooperation with the Hispanic community so they’d be more willing to report crimes knowing the people they were reporting won’t be deported. But instead, crime has risen in nearly every sanctuary jurisdiction while cooperation between the communities and law enforcement haven’t gotten any better.

But instead of learning lessons, Democrats are doubling down. One such Democrat is Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden. Known as the “Sanctuary Sheriff” for lording over his county with anti-ICE policies that went against the will of the people, the buddy of Barack Obama has been at the center of controversy for over a year. Now, he’s being questioned about one illegal alien his policy had released, a previously deported convicted child molester who took two additional months for ICE to capture.

“They know if they’re arrested, they’re not gonna be handed over to ICE,” ICE spokesman Bryan Cox said.

Oscar Leonardo sexually assaulted at least one child in McFadden’s district before being granted release. An ICE detainer was in place, which the sheriff’s office ignored. But McFadden doubled down on his policy by saying ICE should have sent an arrest warrant instead of a detainer. Either McFadden is ignorant of the law he’s supposed to uphold or he’s lying for the sake of misdirection as ICE is incapable of issuing warrants. That’s solely done by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Sanctuary jurisdictions choose to ignore detainers, and despite their claims that this makes the community safer, there are numerous instances where they clearly made the community less safe. This instance is one of them, but ICE was able to recapture him after wasting two months and countless man-ours. They could have simply picked him up and deported him had McFadden cooperated with ICE. Instead, he chose to put more children at risk by protecting a child molester.

As long as Democrats like Garry McFadden continue to protect child molesters like Oscar Leonardo instead of the American citizens they’re charged to protect, they should not be given a single vote. If they won’t do their jobs, replace them.

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