Is legalization of cannabis the real Conservative position?

[Moontanman]

Is, as this video asserts, legalizing cannabis really a Conservative position?

 

[JustinW]

I believe it is a mixed opinion at best. I'm all for it. There would be a few problems to hash out, but I don't think they're big ones.

[Phi for All]

Like many so-called "conservative" positions, I think there is currently more money and more political capital to be made by keeping hemp illegal.

[CaptainPanic]

The video mentions a number of famous historical republican or conservative politicians who were positive about cannabis. But a few examples cannot be extrapolated into a general rule. Finally, the video mentions that the American medical association went on the record to protest the ban on weed. But the medical association isn't related to a political party, so that's irrelevant in relation to the OP's question.

 

So, I don't believe that the movie gives any arguments to say that legalization is a conservative point of view. But it does give a few good anecdotes.

 

Not related to the movie: I always thought that reducing regulation (less government control) was a conservative position, so from that point of view, legalization would be logical. But the movie does not seem to mention that.

[Phi for All]

Not related to the movie: I always thought that reducing regulation (less government control) was a conservative position, so from that point of view, legalization would be logical. But the movie does not seem to mention that.

It's quite typical for conservative positions to overlook political platform considerations in the US. Small government, from a conservative perspective, usually means "stay out of my business but keep subsidizing it". Legalization will suddenly make perfect sense when there is less money in keeping it illegal. Conservatives always mention the drug, but never mention the competitive textile, paper source, oil alternative, or any of the other threats to established markets that hemp represents.

[ecoli]

If conservatives were consistent, they'd be libertarians.

[JustinW]

Man Phi, I'm glad you put the "so called" in there.

 

Like many so-called "conservative" positions, I think there is currently more money and more political capital to be made by keeping hemp illegal.

I'd hate to be associated with only caring about money.

 

And I guess it's more of a libertarian view than anything else. (politically that is)

 

 

 

edit: Woops! Cross posted with ecoli.

Edited April 25, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Man Phi, I'm glad you put the "so called" in there.

 

I'd hate to be associated with only caring about money.

To me, it's not the focus on money that's offensive. It's the phoney-baloney anti-drug stance that will quickly change when there's more money to be made by legalizing hemp. It's more than just flip-flopping, it's politicians and businessmen exploiting their own integrity for profit. And I'm probably more disgusted by the American people for falling for such dishonest manipulation.

 

And I guess it's more of a libertarian view than anything else. (politically that is)

There are many good views out there, or at least good parts of those views, which need representation but will never get it honestly with our current two-party system. I wonder how the Libertarians view the Republican stance supporting capital punishment for drug trafficking?

[ecoli]

 

edit: Woops! Cross posted with ecoli.

 

cross posted... by two days?

 

There are many good views out there, or at least good parts of those views, which need representation but will never get it honestly with our current two-party system. I wonder how the Libertarians view the Republican stance supporting capital punishment for drug trafficking?

 

Can't speak for the whole group, but the few libertarians I know that are opposed to drug use still agree with decriminalization, particularly for marijuana.

 

To me, it's not the focus on money that's offensive. It's the phoney-baloney anti-drug stance that will quickly change when there's more money to be made by legalizing hemp. It's more than just flip-flopping, it's politicians and businessmen exploiting their own integrity for profit. And I'm probably more disgusted by the American people for falling for such dishonest manipulation.

 

Well isn't hemp illegalization just one of many examples of this?

[JustinW]

ecoli,

 

cross posted... by two days?

 

I guess it was. Shows you how much I pay attention. I don't know how I looked at that wrong. Oh well.

 

 

Phi,

 

And I'm probably more disgusted by the American people for falling for such dishonest manipulation.

I don't think voting against the legalization of cannibus is all due to manipulation. You have to agree that there are problems that come with the legalizing of it. And those conscerns are legitimate. I don't personally think those conscerns outweigh the benifits, but I do recognize the position of those who would oppose.

 

 

I wonder how the Libertarians view the Republican stance supporting capital punishment for drug trafficking?

I think we probably already know the answer to that.

 

 

ecoli,

 

Well isn't hemp illegalization just one of many examples of this?

I think the whole manipulation theory here is speculative at best. Using this theory, everything can be chocked up to manipulation.

[Phi for All]

I don't think voting against the legalization of cannibus is all due to manipulation. You have to agree that there are problems that come with the legalizing of it. And those conscerns are legitimate. I don't personally think those conscerns outweigh the benifits, but I do recognize the position of those who would oppose.

If the concerns are all about the effects of cannibus, then why not legalize hemp? You can't get high off industrial hemp, no way, no how. There are easy ways to detect between the two, even from the air. If the whole thing isn't manipulation of a competing product to several major markets, then why classify it all as a Schedule 1 drug? The kind of hemp that's used to make paper (instead of slow-growth trees), textiles (instead of environmentally harsh and weaker cotton), and oil (instead of hard to find, environmentally harsh, non-sustainable fossil fuels) just can't be called a drug by any stretch of the imagination, yet it's illegal. Why is keeping hemp illegal a recognizable position, especially to a free-market-thinking kind of guy like you?

 

I think the whole manipulation theory here is speculative at best. Using this theory, everything can be chocked up to manipulation.

Not "everything" has such insane and feeble reasoning behind it. Industrial hemp is easily distinguishable from cannibus, both in what parts are cultivated and the way it's grown. There are no legitimate reasons to classify hemp the same way as cannibus, and no legitimate reasons to classify cannibus the same way as heroin.

 

There are legitimate business reasons to manipulate the laws to deny a competing material to take market share away from your existing businesses though. But none that don't give lie to the idea of fair free market values. Hemp is superior to cotton for many purposes, but is not allowed to compete. Is that a free market model you support? Hemp is far superior to trees for making paper, but is not allowed to compete. I forget, what were those free market values again?

 

The list of manipulators is huge, so let me just ask you this. Let's say you came up with a material that was going to revolutionize a few markets. It's perfectly safe and superior to many existing materials, and yours is cheaper and more durable. Lobbyists paid for by your competitors spend a ton of money and get the government to ban your material because with some major modifications it can be used as a substitute for one of the ingredients in methamphetamine manufacturing. The lobbyists blast the media with reports that link your product to drug use and public support for a new law is manipulated (do you have a better word for it?) and your great new breakthrough will not be allowed to compete, based on a fabric of outright lies and supposition. How do you feel about the manipulation theory now?

[JustinW]

Why is keeping hemp illegal a recognizable position, especially to a free-market-thinking kind of guy like you?

I really have no answer to this. It seems like a logical position to me.

 

 

 

There are legitimate business reasons to manipulate the laws to deny a competing material to take market share away from your existing businesses though. But none that don't give lie to the idea of fair free market values. Hemp is superior to cotton for many purposes, but is not allowed to compete. Is that a free market model you support? Hemp is far superior to trees for making paper, but is not allowed to compete. I forget, what were those free market values again?

I'm all in favor of opening the market up, and I believe I support your position on the hemp issue.

 

 

How do you feel about the manipulation theory now?

Touche. Your point is taken sir. At first it seemed a little out there that cannibus legalization was being held back by industry rather than political rhetoric. But after you laid it out it begins to make a little more sense.