Conservativism and Drugs

[Narz]

Technically chocolate is a drug. If you don't eat it (or any caffeine whatsoever) for a year & then have a whole lot one night. Whooo. It's fun.

 

[CaptainF]

Yes. Hashish = Islamofascism ZOMGS!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Assassin comes from Arabic for "Hashish eater" OMG assassins

 

[Karalysia]

Did you know the marijuana and homosexuality were responsible for the downfall of all the great civllizations of the world? Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India all fell because of the unholy combination of marijana and homosexuality.

 

[Shekwan]

I don't see how conservative opposition to drug legalisation is all that hypocritical. The main rationale for conservatism seems to be that things were better in the good old days. Established recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco are ok for them because they have long been a feature of western society. On the economic side, economic freedom is not really their goal. "Freedom" is only a useful justification for their laissez faire attitude to economics, which is very much the old fashioned approach to economics.

They're just resistant to change. Seems very consistent to me.

 

[civver_764]

Fact is conservatives are hypocrites and while they cry for small government what they really want is government to0 small to effectively and justly intervene in the market but just small enough to fit snugly inside your bedroom and tell you what to do in your personal lives, conservatives are moralizing, self-righteous wannabe dictators. People who are when it comes down to it essentially selfish on a callous level and utterly deluded in their world view. Conservatism is a cancer on any society I wouldn't attempt to try to understand them, what is sufficent is to note that they must be stopped and defeated wherever they exist before they are allowed to implement their dangerous and self-destructive ideologies.

I freaking love you.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'd say drugs isn't really a partisan issue; it seems fairly distributed.

There are those on the right who wish to legalise it for the sake of personal freedom(I'd call these people libertarians), and those who want to ban it because of the status quo or moral purposes(I'd call these people conservatives).

Having been a member of the extreme left at one point, I can tell you that it depends. Leftist ideology has several strains, from the authoritarian moralist to the socialists to the hardcore(i.e. no realpolitik) humanitarians. An authoritarian lefty will be like an authoritarian righty, believing that government should decide what's best for everyone, and likely be as anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, anti-drugs as an authoritarian righty. A socialist's opinion, I feel, will vary. A humanitarian lefty will likely support medical marijuana, being one for compassion(as it eases the pain of individuals, a common goal of humanitarian liberals), but maybe not recreational marijuana.

If I had to group it, I would say the general opinion is:

Libertarians(socially left and varying on the fiscal scale, though often right) - Pro-drugs
Conservatives(socially right and fiscally right) - anti-drugs
Liberals(socially left and fiscally left) - could be anti-drugs OR Pro-drugs, given that leftist ideology has authoritarian(Stalinist, if I had to give one) AND libertarian(anarcho-communist, if I had to give one) strains.

It can be kind of blurry, but I'd say that, in the end, drug policy isn't really a Republican vs. Democrat issue or even a left one. In the end, it comes down to your personal thoughs and values, mainly:

1. Should we protect people from themselves and/or others by banning drugs, banning substances harmful to individual health, etc.? (Likely authoritarian left if yes)

2. Should we enforce our traditional moral values upon society, and thus ban drugs, gay marriage, prostitution and such things? (Authoritarian right/conservative if yes)

3. Should people be free to do as they choose, provided it does not interfere with other peoples' freedoms and/or the greater good of society? (Libertarians, both left and right)

Again. Oversimplification, but I think it's a good general idea.

 

[Merkinball]

I freaking love you.

Why would anybody love a hypocrite? Why would anyone love a person that thinks we should regulate soda because it's unhealthy, but advocate for the legalization of marijuana? I don't understand. The best part is that in criticizing blind partisanship, Karalysia ends up exhibiting blind partisanship.

 

[Shekwan]

He is partisan, but I wouldn't say he falls into the category of blind partisanship. He makes well reasoned points.

 

[Merkinball]

He is partisan, but I wouldn't say he falls into the category of blind partisanship. He makes well reasoned points.

Only a blind partisan would respond is such hackery.

 

[Earthling]

The best part is that in criticizing blind partisanship, Karalysia ends up exhibiting blind partisanship.

Ok, seriously, isn't Karalysia a she, and secondly, this goes so much more for SO many others...

 

[Berzerker]

And yet they vote Republican. Which is pretty much explicitly choosing to make drugs near their kids.

Thats true, by waging a war on drugs - ie creating a massive black market to fuel adults drug needs - conservatives promote the expansion of that black market to minors. When Reagan and Congress/states expanded their drug war because of cocaine and crack, they increased the penalties for adults busted dealing drugs. Gang recruitment exploded along with juvenile crime rates, especially violent crime - dealers employed more minors in the drug trade since they were not targeted by the penalties. Doh! Does no one think?

 

[LucyDuke]

Ironically its you who is diverting and attacking. The OP is about behaviors that lead to the support of banning things, if it is inconvinient to you to have it pointed out that conservatives are not the exclusive holders of such opinions too bad.

You sure? 'Cause I read the OP and it was about conservative attitudes toward drugs. I mean, sure, "the left" probably wants to ban some stuff. But that's not the topic. This isn't a competition. You don't have to respond to allegations with allegations of your own. I don't really care if you want to talk about butter bans, I just don't think you need to derail this thread to do that.

Thats why I was kind enough to link a NYT article to educate you. However, the OP is about WHY drug illegalization is conservative, so it is in fact extremely relevant to point out that the whys given for this apply to liberals too. Or in other words, the premise of the OP is wrong, the metrics used do not describe what the OP postulates they do.

Because unlike weed, there are very public and medically accepted extreme consequences of cocaine use. Whens the last time you saw someone overdose on weed?

If you can show me cocaine is not paritcularly dangerous, then you can pretend to draw a comparison between weed and cocaine

I did look at your link, and it does indicate that there's a problem with butter, but I couldn't find anything that said that conservatives don't like drug prohibition ("conservatives like drug prohibition" is the only fact supporting the premise of the OP) or anything else that made banning butter relevant to the topic of conservative attitudes toward drug prohibition. Maybe if those things are there you could be kind enough to copy-paste them here to educate me.

Okay, cool, you think cocaine is bad. I disagree*, but that's okay, I don't think you and I share many opinions.

*Before anyone tries to twist that into "Lucy thinks cocaine is good!", I'll remind everyone that a disagreement with a claim does not equal an agreement with an "opposite" claim.

But I'm happy to see you finally addressing the topic at hand, the one from the OP about conservatives and drugs. I can't show you that cocaine is not particularly dangerous, because the truth is that there are obvious dangers associated with cocaine. I don't really want to draw a comparison between devil-weed and cocaine (at least not yet, but I'll back it up when I do), it doesn't help us figure out the OP's question. I wanted to know why you as a representative of the conservatives think that cocaine should be illegal.

And you answered! Now we're cooking. You think that cocaine should be illegal because it has "very public and medically accepted extreme consequences". Meat! Your answer to the OP question is "the relevant social dangers are significant enough to justify the government's involvement in peoples' private lives." Right?

I am not going to prove it when you should read it in any book by drug doctor/psychiatrist. I read many books about topic. People started derogate in their work and family duties, lost interest in work, friendship, self-development, hobbies or study. Some started selling their loved things, another started steal from their relatives to have money on drug. Its all well described symptoms of drug using. When some senior started worsened in school or work, first question by doctor is about drugs.

I didn't ask you to prove it, I asked you how you knew.

Books are awesome. You can learn a lot from them. I read this book about how enslaving African people is a good idea, it said they actually like working really hard in uncomfortable conditions and sometimes they act like they don't want to but all you have to do is beat them and they'll remember that they really like taking care of white people. Now, I have to admit I never actually met a slave, but I've read some other books about them and none of those books said otherwise.

I haven't heard any descriptions by experts about how drugs undermine any responsibility by their nature, so maybe you could explain it for the class. I know you said that when people do drugs they stop doing their work and steal things, but I'm curious about how that's part of the nature of using drugs.

 

[BasketCase]

But today I found myself wondering "why?" Conservatives typically oppose government involvement in their personal lives as a matter of principal

Pretty much nobody has a problem with police enforcing the law--if they happen to agree with the particular law being enforced, of course. I'm fine with laws against drugs for the same reason I'm fine with laws against texting while driving.

(by the way, you do realize that, with my initial post, this thread is about to go to hell in a gigantic flaming handbasket?)

 

[REDY]

I haven't heard any descriptions by experts about how drugs undermine any responsibility by their nature, so maybe you could explain it for the class. I know you said that when people do drugs they stop doing their work and steal things, but I'm curious about how that's part of the nature of using drugs.

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.

 

[Karalysia]

Look how bad drugs are, it made Cheech beat Anderson Cooper

Although he did far better than his colleagues Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O'Brien, CNN's Anderson Cooper actually lost to famed pot smoker Cheech Marin on Celebrity Jeopardy Thursday.

"That's right, I lost to Cheech Marin," Cooper told his 360 viewers last night.

"Cheech of 'Cheech and Chong' fame, pot-smoking star of blunt-burning films like 'Up in Smoke,' 'Next Smoke' and 'Still Smoking,'" the CNN host continued.

"He not only beat me; he crushed me" (video embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...r-cheech-marin-beats-anderson-cooper-jeopardy

 

[civver_764]

Why would anybody love a hypocrite? Why would anyone love a person that thinks we should regulate soda because it's unhealthy, but advocate for the legalization of marijuana? I don't understand. The best part is that in criticizing blind partisanship, Karalysia ends up exhibiting blind partisanship.

Uh, first of all I doubt Karalysia wants to regulate soda, but if he does then it doesn't matter, because my love of him is based on the post I quoted, which I 100% agree with, not because of any of his earlier posts.

 

[Merkinball]

Uh, first of all I doubt Karalysia wants to regulate soda, but if he does then it doesn't matter, because my love of him is based on the post I quoted, which I 100% agree with, not because of any of his earlier posts.

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

The premise of the OP is false. Its odd you made that connection considering its the left on a crusade to ban everything from butter to salt to tobacco, let alone drugs.

I think you may have misinterpreted me; perhaps I stressed the prominence, or my perception of such a prominence of the link between conservatives and anti-drug legislation, but my question was particularly directed at the apparent inconsistency of conservative policy in this regard. I am given to understand that conservatives, at least of the broadly "libertarian" stripe- palaeo-conservatives, I believe they may be called in the US- are highly sceptical of government involvement in citizens' personal lives, yet so often have apparent blind spot when it comes to socially unacceptable narcotics. Granted, this is also common among the more nannyish brand of "liberal", but- and perhaps this is a somewhat distorted viewpoint- they rarely seem to be the ones leading the charge in the "War On Drugs", generally seem to favour softer approaches- at least towards users- and, crucially, generally claim to know what's best for everyone anyway. That kind of petty tyranny is normal for them. It's the sudden shoutsof "Do what I tell you" punctuating the many cries of "Don't tell me what to do" that sound from the conservative encampment that confuse me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course it is predominantly a Republican thing. While Democrat politicians have to give it lip service to pander to the American voters, Nixon coined the term "war on drugs", the DEA was created while he was president, and Ronald Reagan created the Drug Czar.


Link to video.