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.
This is a question I've asked before, and never gotten a response. And in light of the highly entertaining topic on the Colorado town that allegedly had THC in it's water supply (tests came back negative), I want to ask an important question:
"How do conservatives who believe the war on drugs is justifiable reconcile that view with their others views on small government and individual freedom?"
Firstly, small government. The conservative view of limited government generally means that government should spend less money and stay out of more things, to put it in a way that's maybe too simple. Needless to say, these views often reference a business owners ability to make his own rules, and so long as he hurts no one, the government lets him be. For whatever reason, this view is not applied to even the safest of controlled substances. LSD is an illegal drug that has shown to be non-addictive, boosts creativity in individuals who have used it, and the amount required to OD is absurd and unlikely that anyone would ever ingest that much even by accident. And given the amount that is spent to fight the war on drugs, let alone the costs of prisons and courtrooms to house the many drug offenders, one has to wonder how the war on drug fits in a small government.
Then there's individual freedom. This is something I like about conservatives, being more liberal myself. I do think it's a shame how rarely they actually stand up for it. I think a baker should be able to legally refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding (even if I don't agree with doing so). That's an individual's choice. I also think an individual should be able to grow pot in his yard and smoke it in his basement. That's also an individual's choice. He hurts no one by doing this, but according to the law, he's committed a felony and is likely to face prison for growing the product. Why do conservatives believe an individual should be able to deny service to a customer of his own personal business, but not be able to grow a plant and use it for whatever he wants on his own property?
So, to restate the question: how does the war on drugs fit into the usual conservative principles of small government and individual liberty?
Pretty much every conservative I know has no interest in continuing this bogus war on drugs.
Good. There are plenty of conservatives who do though and I'm holding them to an answer. And even if they don't answer, maybe they'll think about that and start reconsidering their position.
Rand Paul wanted to end the war on drugs, legalize, release all non violent drug convicts and restore their voting rights. Much more liberal than Obama or Hillary.
This is a question I've asked before, and never gotten a response. And in light of the highly entertaining topic on the Colorado town that allegedly had THC in it's water supply (tests came back negative), I want to ask an important question:
"How do conservatives who believe the war on drugs is justifiable reconcile that view with their others views on small government and individual freedom?"
Firstly, small government. The conservative view of limited government generally means that government should spend less money and stay out of more things, to put it in a way that's maybe too simple. Needless to say, these views often reference a business owners ability to make his own rules, and so long as he hurts no one, the government lets him be. For whatever reason, this view is not applied to even the safest of controlled substances. LSD is an illegal drug that has shown to be non-addictive, boosts creativity in individuals who have used it, and the amount required to OD is absurd and unlikely that anyone would ever ingest that much even by accident. And given the amount that is spent to fight the war on drugs, let alone the costs of prisons and courtrooms to house the many drug offenders, one has to wonder how the war on drug fits in a small government.
Then there's individual freedom. This is something I like about conservatives, being more liberal myself. I do think it's a shame how rarely they actually stand up for it. I think a baker should be able to legally refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding (even if I don't agree with doing so). That's an individual's choice. I also think an individual should be able to grow pot in his yard and smoke it in his basement. That's also an individual's choice. He hurts no one by doing this, but according to the law, he's committed a felony and is likely to face prison for growing the product. Why do conservatives believe an individual should be able to deny service to a customer of his own personal business, but not be able to grow a plant and use it for whatever he wants on his own property?
So, to restate the question: how does the war on drugs fit into the usual conservative principles of small government and individual liberty?
Progressive micro-managing drug policies. Those are not conservative, live and let live policies.
The establishment is among both parties, remember.
Hillary isn't for legalizing.... Sanders maybe. Ron & Rand Paul, most certainly.
"small government" is just code word for economic policies that benefit the ruling class. It is how the donor class can manage to convince working class stiffs to vote for economic policies that harm themselves. So its "small government" in areas where it benefits the ruling class like worker's rights and a safety net. "big government" to appeal to nativists, religious nuts, authoritarian law and order maniacs and others who want their values implemented across the land.
Libertarian-leaning conservatives are against the war on drugs. The religious right on the other hand is for it because they support the government legislating morality.
This is a question I've asked before, and never gotten a response. And in light of the highly entertaining topic on the Colorado town that allegedly had THC in it's water supply (tests came back negative), I want to ask an important question:
"How do conservatives who believe the war on drugs is justifiable reconcile that view with their others views on small government and individual freedom?"
Firstly, small government. The conservative view of limited government generally means that government should spend less money and stay out of more things, to put it in a way that's maybe too simple. Needless to say, these views often reference a business owners ability to make his own rules, and so long as he hurts no one, the government lets him be. For whatever reason, this view is not applied to even the safest of controlled substances. LSD is an illegal drug that has shown to be non-addictive, boosts creativity in individuals who have used it, and the amount required to OD is absurd and unlikely that anyone would ever ingest that much even by accident. And given the amount that is spent to fight the war on drugs, let alone the costs of prisons and courtrooms to house the many drug offenders, one has to wonder how the war on drug fits in a small government.
Then there's individual freedom. This is something I like about conservatives, being more liberal myself. I do think it's a shame how rarely they actually stand up for it. I think a baker should be able to legally refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding (even if I don't agree with doing so). That's an individual's choice. I also think an individual should be able to grow pot in his yard and smoke it in his basement. That's also an individual's choice. He hurts no one by doing this, but according to the law, he's committed a felony and is likely to face prison for growing the product. Why do conservatives believe an individual should be able to deny service to a customer of his own personal business, but not be able to grow a plant and use it for whatever he wants on his own property?
So, to restate the question: how does the war on drugs fit into the usual conservative principles of small government and individual liberty?
Since when does a conservative believe in the war on drugs? You made this all up.
Rand Paul wanted to end the war on drugs, legalize, release all non violent drug convicts and restore their voting rights. Much more liberal than Obama or Hillary.
I agree. I think the GOP really missed out not picking Paul as their nominee. I most likely would have voted him over Hillary.
Progressive micro-managing drug policies. Those are not conservative, live and let live policies.
The establishment is among both parties, remember.
Hillary isn't for legalizing.... Sanders maybe. Ron & Rand Paul, most certainly.
Well, based on trends, if you ask Democrats and Republicans their thoughts on ending the war on drugs, most (not all) in favor of it tend to be more Democrat, while Republicans tend to maintain that drugs should be illegal.
Another poster pointed it out quite well, 'religious right' Republicans/conservatives tend to be in favor of legislating morality and their small government rhetoric is generally just for themselves (see, I kind of know the answer; Libertarian-conservatives are happy to play along but the conservatives who actually support the war on drugs have absolutely no interest in discussing because they know how delusional their position is).
Let's also keep in mind that conservative is a virtually meaningless word. To say 'those are not conservatives' just because you happen to be one and disagree on their position does not actually make them less conservative. Conservative has always been a pretty vague label, but even more so these days I feel. I will say the only respectable form of conservatism is the kind that doesn't legislate morality, which I take it is the kind you don't support.
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.
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.
