U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is it possible to be against a nanny state yet support marijuana prohibition?
Yes 17 33.33%
No 34 66.67%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2014, 04:53 PM
 
642 posts, read 958,843 times
Reputation: 505

Advertisements

It seems that the majority of those in favor of marijuana prohibition are self-described 'conservatives,' and that legalization is a 'liberal' ideology, but I can't wrap my head around this point of view.

How can people be for limited government and personal freedom/responsibility, but at the same time support laws designed to protect people from themselves?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:00 PM
Status: "Elect a clown? Expect a circus!" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
58,093 posts, read 40,876,393 times
Reputation: 29772
Conservatives aren't really for less government, they have NO problem supporting MORE government when it suits their agenda. Even their revered Saint Ronnie grew government during his tenure despite his allegation that government was THE problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:02 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,723 posts, read 4,517,670 times
Reputation: 1860
Probably Not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:16 PM
 
2,870 posts, read 1,659,283 times
Reputation: 1933
The laws of any state or municipality should reflect the will of the people. Small government means localized government, since with localized government the views of the people are better represented. If people don't want marijuana in their communities then they should be allowed to pass a law that prohibits it. The issue is that this should be a local decision, not a national one. The voice of the people can never be heard at the national level.

Individual freedom also means freedom of association. People should have choice through associating with those that share their views. And this can only happen when people are allowed to locally govern themselves.

So the answer to your question, is yes, a person can be against a nanny state and still be against marijuana legalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:22 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,539,775 times
Reputation: 22277
Yes -- because we have a nanny state in place now that allow pot heads to lay around smoking dope all day because they don't need to worry about finding jobs --- the taxpayers must provide a nice living for them. Can't pass a drug test? Can't live through a day without being stoned? The taxpayers will be forced to pay you food stamps, get you a nice housing voucher, free health care.

Eliminate the nanny state -- then all drugs could be legalized. Meth addicts would have to pay for their emergency room care when they OD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:44 PM
 
642 posts, read 958,843 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Yes -- because we have a nanny state in place now that allow pot heads to lay around smoking dope all day because they don't need to worry about finding jobs --- the taxpayers must provide a nice living for them. Can't pass a drug test? Can't live through a day without being stoned? The taxpayers will be forced to pay you food stamps, get you a nice housing voucher, free health care.

Eliminate the nanny state -- then all drugs could be legalized. Meth addicts would have to pay for their emergency room care when they OD.
I agree that when there's a welfare state, it's better to have a nanny state to accompany it, but ideally there would be neither.

But, are you aware of the debilitating affects alcohol has on some people, many of whom are welfare-dependent? Would that be justification to outlaw alcohol?

And do you not consider prison to be a form of welfare? After all, it is free room and board, all at the cost of taxpayers. On top of that, many families receiving welfare are single parents of kids who need it since their dad (or mom) is locked up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 07:40 PM
 
2,576 posts, read 1,105,604 times
Reputation: 3409
No. The definition of nanny state:

The government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice.

Anyone who is for marijuana prohibition is in favor of the nanny state, no matter what political party they are aligned with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,823 posts, read 13,285,306 times
Reputation: 4502
Quote:
Originally Posted by abqpsychlist View Post
It seems that the majority of those in favor of marijuana prohibition are self-described 'conservatives,' and that legalization is a 'liberal' ideology, but I can't wrap my head around this point of view.

How can people be for limited government and personal freedom/responsibility, but at the same time support laws designed to protect people from themselves?
But a number of great modern day conservatives have been for legalizing marijuana, such as Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley. Friedman thought it okay to legalize ALL drugs. Since they have passed on more real conservatives are needed to speak in favor of legalization. Those who favor continuing marijuana prohibition are only annoying nanny state authoritarians, who are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 04:50 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,750 posts, read 83,387,542 times
Reputation: 41580
sure it is possible: If you look at the states that have relaxed the marijuana laws they are all blue and pretty much nanny states: the other could work as well. Personally I am on the fence when it comes to legalizing pot, but when I think of "nanny" I think of things like forcing people to wear seat belts, control how much sodium we can have, taking soft drinks away, etc. These are over kill and should be left to the individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 05:06 AM
 
Location: Florida
62,765 posts, read 34,215,098 times
Reputation: 10418
You could ask the same question about any law you don't like. To some people all laws equate to nanny state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top