Conservativism and Drugs

[CaptainF]

I'm fine with laws against drugs for the same reason I'm fine with laws against texting while driving.

You're fine with these laws because they don't work?

 

[LucyDuke]

Because its addictive - you need it more and more at the expense of other things.
One doctor explained drugs well - Its like when you take idiot to your car, he will never leave your car voluntarily and still shout that he wants drive.

I really don't understand that bolded analogy at all, sorry. I'm not sure whether the problem is the English or the analogy itself, but I can't make any sense out of it.

As far as your answer... "drugs" is not one thing. There are a lot of them. Some do have serious potential for addiction. Some do cause tolerance to be built with repeated use. But not all are addictive, and not all lead to tolerance. And even the use of the ones that are addictive and do build tolerance doesn't "by nature" cause people to steal things and skip work, as evidenced by the large number of casual users that don't steal things or skip work. (They usually escape notice because it's not a very good idea to identify yourself as a lawbreaker, if you can help it.)

 

[civver_764]

Yes he does. It's unhealthy. It can cause obesity so he/she wants it regulated. And how can you love a person who wants to dictate how people live, while criticizing a whole set of people as being dictators? Don't you understand the irony? Karalysia is insulted that conservatives want to regulate drugs and what you do in the bedroom, while he wants to regulate everything else. I outlined his/her gross hypocrisy in another thread just yesterday, and was in response to me insinuating that liberty with leftism begins and ends at the bong and the bedroom. And that's what Karalysia believes.

Uhm I'm a leftist and I don't think that.

Eat me.

 

[Cutlass]

Where the frak did this strawman about salt and butter come from? How did that suddenly become the "leftist agenda" See, this is the problem with the radical rightwrong these days. An absolute lack of anything resembling the truth to support their rants.

 

[Merkinball]

Where the frak did this strawman about salt and butter come from? How did that suddenly become the "leftist agenda" See, this is the problem with the radical rightwrong these days. An absolute lack of anything resembling the truth to support their rants.

Brooklyn Dem Felix Ortiz wants to ban use of salt in New York restaurants.

Leftists have also banned trans-fats all over the place.

See, this is the problem with the lefts wrongs these days. They formulate a debauched worldview that isn't based at all on reality in order to imagine "truth."

 

[azzaman333]

I don't mean to generalise, but I think that it would be fair to say that the majority of people- on this board and in the world at large- who self-identify as "conservative", of whatever stripe, will support anti-drug legislation, particularly the criminalisation of trade, and often of usage or possession. Certainly, it's hardly a unique position- all major political parties will espouse such views, conservative or progressive- but the "conservatives" seem to hold this particular principal in rather higher regard.

But today I found myself wondering "why?" Conservatives typically oppose government involvement in their personal lives as a matter of principal, and are often among the first to take issue with legislation, guidelines or what have you impacting on their ability to adopt the lifestyle the choose. Notably, they often react poorly to legislation effecting the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, both "soft" narcotics with a history of social acceptability. This seems particularly prominent among those conservatives from traditionally libertarian nations such as the US, and yet they are often among those who most vehemently oppose the use, possession and trade of illegal narcotic substances.
Why is this? What about these substances causes an uncharacteristic change- or apparent change- of principle, and leads to demands for government involvement in the private life of citizens? Why does a man who, at one turn, curses the government for inflicting high taxes and prominent health warnings upon his cigarettes, support their campaign to suppress the use of cannabis at the next?

Please understand, that this is not a trick question, nor is it an excuse for me to declare "Ha ha, political opponents, I have unravelled your web of lies"; I am genuinely interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, given the typical illegibility of official sources from all ends of the political spectrum.

Edit: And when I say "horse's mouth", let's assume that by "horse" I mean, say, "elephant", and certainly not "donkey". Accusations of racism and hypocrisy inform nobody, nor do they come close to answering my question.

It's very, very simple. Conservative don't like change.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Most of them also don't like people harmlessly enjoying themselves. Take their attitudes about consenting adults having sex, for instance.

Not to mention, the first anti-marijuana laws in the US were enacted to harass Mexican-Americans in the Southwest.

 

[cardgame]

Most of them also don't like people harmlessly enjoying themselves. Take their attitudes about consenting adults having sex, for instance.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

 

[Merkinball]

Most of them also don't like people harmlessly enjoying themselves. Take their attitudes about consenting adults having sex, for instance.

Not to mention, the first anti-marijuana laws in the US were enacted to harass Mexican-Americans in the Southwest.

Who knew that STDs were harmless? Oh wait, that's right, responsible people are supposed to pay to cover the STDs and sexual habits of others. We can regulate soda to keep people from being fat, but heaven help us if you're critical of a self-destructive sex complex in this country that goes way beyond STDs and unwanted pregnancies and into destroying the psyche of our young people and they very fabric a healthy society is built upon.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is almost as though someone's god is punishing us for our sins, right?

Legal prostitutes in Amsterdam don't have STDs. Gee, I wonder why...

 

[Merkinball]

Legal prostitutes in Amsterdam don't have STDs. Gee, I wonder why...

Neither do legal prostitutes in Vegas, or people in the porn industry.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That pretty well blows apart your sex is too risky for people to use it as a recreational activity rhetoric. You merely need to use condoms and have regular checkups, even if you have sex with complete strangers for a living.

And sex hasn't yet destroyed "the psyche of our young people and the very fabric a healthy society is built upon". You might even say it has done just the opposite.

 

[Merkinball]

That pretty well blows apart your sex is too risky for people to use it as a recreational activity rhetoric. You merely need to use condoms and have regular checkups, even if you have sex with complete strangers for a living.

And sex hasn't yet destroyed "the psyche of our young people and the very fabric a healthy society is built upon". You might even say it has done just the opposite.

No, your strawman didn't blow apart anything.

A.) It doesn't take into account that there are millions of people who refuse to have safe sex. (what's the point of having sex with a condom?)
B.) It doesn't take into account the millions of people that use female birth control as opposed to a condom.
C.) It doesn't take into account that condoms aren't perfect.
D.) It doesn't take into account the fact that once prostitutes or porn workers contract a venereal disease (and let's not kid ourselves, they sure do!) that they're booted from the sample data.
E.) It doesn't take into account the psychological destruction of our young people, their attitudes towards sex, love, and mature relationships in general.

You wanna know why kids are so screwed up? They grow up in single parent homes because daddy doesn't have to (or want to) be there, they go to schools where teachers pass out condoms and tell them to have at it and enjoy their youth, and they watch TV and grow up in a debauched culture that does nothing but erode society from the inside out by putting sex ahead of the actual relationship. It's a downward spiral that will not end any time soon unless you address these factors.

And when you take all of these things into account, you have a snapshot of America.

Comprehensive sex education doesn't fix any of that. And hookers in Amsterdam doesn't make it go away either.

 

[civver_764]

No, your strawman didn't blow apart anything.

A.) It doesn't take into account that there are millions of people who refuse to have safe sex. (what's the point of having sex with a condom?)
B.) It doesn't take into account the millions of people that use female birth control as opposed to a condom.
C.) It doesn't take into account that condoms aren't perfect.
D.) It doesn't take into account the fact that once prostitutes or porn workers contract a venereal disease (and let's not kid ourselves, they sure do!) that they're booted from the sample data.
E.) It doesn't take into account the psychological destruction of our young people, their attitudes towards sex, love, and mature relationships in general.

You wanna know why kids are so screwed up? They grow up in single parent homes because daddy doesn't have to (or want to) be there, they go to schools where teachers pass out condoms and tell them to have at it and enjoy their youth, and they watch TV and grow up in a debauched culture that does nothing but erode society from the inside out by putting sex ahead of the actual relationship. It's a downward spiral that will not end any time soon unless you address these factors.

And when you take all of these things into account, you have a snapshot of America.

Comprehensive sex education doesn't fix any of that. And hookers in Amsterdam doesn't make it go away either.

Give one logical reason why you have to be committed to someone to have sex with them.

Casual sex is one of the best things that happened to our society.

 

[Merkinball]

Give one logical reason why you have to be committed to someone to have sex with them.

Because it can create a child. That's just one.

Casual sex is one of the best things that happened to our society. - civver

No it's not. It's a nice thing that has happened to our society. But it has had absolutely devastating consequences. People were given an inch, and they took ignorantly took a mile thinking that they were all supermen. It's created a mess out of American society.

If you're going to have casual sex then you need to be responsible about it. Both ends of the spectrum are doing the exact opposite about being responsible about it. The right tells you not to do it, then you do it, and you get married. You turn into white trash, end up in a bad relationship, get divorced, and your kid goes on to repeat the cycle. The left tells you to have as much fun as you possibly can. You think sex is great, so you go to a party, meet this chick, she tells you she's on the pill, but really she's just looking for some alimoney and you get jacked bro. Or a girl meets a guy who says lots of sweet things, but lies and you end up like 18% of the country with the gift that keeps on giving: Herpes.

I mean, the psychological impact of having teenagers that act as small children, and that have the social mental capacity of children in third world countries, while expecting them to have a responsible, psychologically sound sex life is just absolutely absurd and corrosive.

If we cannot raise our children to respect relationships and to respect one another, then casual sex will just continue to erode what we've got. You'll end up with more divorce, more unstable people, more single moms, and more abortion. We've totally fragmented people from another and now favor excitement over fulfillment.

 

[Traitorfish]

You think sex is great, so you go to a party, meet this chick, she tells you she's on the pill, but really she's just looking for some alimoney and you get jacked bro.

This assertion is so silly that I can't tell if it's still misogynistic, or whether it simply goes out the other side into pure absurdity.

Which is a pity, because the post contains, at it's heart, a reasonable criticism of Western society. It's just so steeped in emotive, alarmist rhetoric that the criticism itself is lost.

 

[GoodGame]

I'm a moderate conservative, self-identified.

I'm against 'hard' drugs because I know first hand that they:
make you stupid,
make it hard to get through school,
lead to experimenting with even harder drugs,
can lead to multiple, long stays in rehab,
lead to you picking up a chronic disease as part of your drug habit,
or death/suicide.

That said, I'm all for the legal use of drugs identified as relatively safe, generally pro-individual and expression (so I'd consider some drug abuse "free expression" if within private property).

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Cool story bro. I experimented with drugs and I didn't catch the stoopid.

 

[Karalysia]

I look with sad eyes upon the American moral wasteland. Generation after generation of her youth thrown broken upon her shore wasted by drugs and sex and immoral behavior. Alas America! What has happened to thee? I stare into the yonder and dream of the good old days where everyone was moral, pure, and happy and no drugs and sex ravage our youth. Alas! Alas! I lament. For I see bleakness and desolation and no hope.

I retire now to my sitting room in deep contemplation for the worries of the world rest heavily upon my brow. Truly is America a moral wasteland. As I nod off in my armchair a tear trickles down my cheek. Alas. Alas.

 

[GoodGame]

Cool story bro. I experimented with drugs and I didn't catch the stoopid.

It's good that you stopped before you did catch it.