Post: #1

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the possibility of cannabis being legalised in the UK, and if I would support it or not. This has led to me contemplating several other views I once strongly believed in, and I can't decide between libertarianism and conservatism.

Part of me thinks that cannabis should be legal for a whole number of reasons. It is hard to argue for it being illegal whilst alcohol is legal, and it also has some medical benefits. Also, who is the government to stop people smoking a plant? That's nanny-stateism on a very high level. But if this were to happen, cannabis smokers would have to be held personally liable for any medical or welfare needs that they have following their smoking.

However there is also a voice at the back of my head that's screaming how the legalisation of cannabis will only lead to more broken homes, the lazy/entitled attitude becoming more prevalent, and part of the descent in to degeneracy. Cannabis also can have bad side effects, and although alcohol is legal, two wrongs don't make a right.

So this conflict only caused me to reconsider several other issues, namely:

• Capitalism- Whilst I completely agree with the notion of capitalism, aren't most people too stupid and blinded to see the damages caused by massive consumerism and me, me, me culture?
• Religion- I am not sure if the government should encourage Christianity or not. It would lead to the rebuilding of the family unit, but should the state tell people what to do?
• Defence- I am with the conservatives on this one. It is (sometimes) right to intervene in foreign countries.
  

Can anyone try to convince me in any of these arguments? I feel like the basis for the conservative argument in most of the topics I have thought about is that the majority of people are too stupid to be allowed to follow what they want to do.

Post: #2

This may be the best thing that I've seen on the subject. I don't personally think one should choose to smoke dope, as my view is that it is far more damaging than is let on and by no means a 'soft' drug. But I do think you should be able to choose, for all the reasons Prof. Friedman gives.

Post: #3

My only gripe with weed is the stink of it. I hate it. If you were to live in an apartment and someone smokes it in your building you will smell it eventually and it lingers.

If they legalise it you cannot do anything unless the building has its own rules against smoking it.

Post: #4

Legalize it - I haven't smoked in over a decade - I don't smoke anything.

Obviously my vice would be partying with alcohol and the occasional blow sessions with friends on trips and at music festivals.

People often forget this term - MODERATION. Apply that to your life with consumable drugs and you'll be ok.

As far as the state legalization goes, you get tax dollars for it, it's more controlled, people can come out of the shadows who grow weed, don't have to use sketchy practices.

The catch is, local collectives and small farmers will get crushed by big corpo (corpos have been buying large plots of land to grow weed).

As far as degeneracy - I think that has to do with the way they were raised and the environment they were in (then the drugs). Plenty of stoners were losers before they even smoke. I've seen functional stoners and some people I work with (including sales reps, engineers, and a VP) smoke weed.

Ironically some of the most successful people I know do blow, hence the white collar drug of choice.

I think the war on weed is futile - it's going to be legalized everywhere. People who got rolled for possession can be fucked over later in life. Now if you're driving high, nah that should be just like a DUI.

We have an AMAZING thread on this here: /thread-58051.html

(Also some great reasons on why drugs shouldn't be legalized)

Post: #5

When looking at this argument, I always have to go back to the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't see drug use mentioned in the constitution, therefore let the states decide for themselves. If I don't want it in my area, I should be able to move accordingly.

Post: #6

There is not a single person on the planet that started smoking weed just because it is legal.

Aloha!

Post: #7

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Kona Wrote:  There is not a single person on the planet that started smoking weed just because it is legal.

Aloha!

Sorry Kona, love ya, but bullshit. It was a pain in the ass to score a sack or grow your own 25 years ago(before the marijuana cards and dispenseries), now that it is completely legal, a lot more people will smoke it.(or eat the brownies or whatever foods are sold with the drugs)

Post: #8

I think Peter Hitchens sums up my concerns quite well:

Post: #9

^^
My response to his three main arguments.

1: It is an insult to your Maker to dumb down your God-given mental faculties.

Response: This implies some kind of moral hierarchy based on intelligence or that stupidity or mental slowness is immoral. This has so many philosophical problems that I think they are self-evident, but if you wish I can elaborate. It also assumes that weed inhibits all mental faculties. It may negatively effect short-term memory, and oxygen shortages that accompany smoking can have effects like killing braincells, but I think it also enhances certain, even measurable, mental faculties.

2: If one feels dissatisfied with society, why would they change themselves by dulling their feelings?

Response: Who said that smokers are dissatisfied with society? Perhaps it is something within themselves that they wish to medicate. I believe people have the right to self-medicate. There is nothing inherently more moral about taking an over-priced and copyrighted drug with a prescription that you paid a licensed doctor to attain, than ingesting a natural herb that you have researched on your own.

3: It leads to mental health problems / insanity.

Response: Perhaps, but so do many, many legal things: feminism, alcohol, porn, to name just a few. Even if most of us here are against one or more of those things, how many of us would seriously argue in favor of their strict legal abolition with prison as a consequence? Some medical material associates it with some personality disorders. Borderline I think. Though of course I am at best a lay psychologist (have a BS degree, pun intended) I have seen compelling evidence that it can help treat or even prevent some others like Parkinsons, Alzheimers...

To me, prohibition is a much more immense violation of an individual's body than even anti-abortion laws. That is, to say that I cannot obey Genesis. Do you know what the Bible says about marijuana prohibition? It's against it. (Kingpin reference)

How much welfare and medical costs are really attributable to marijuana directly? The only connection is that people use their welfare money to buy weed because they can. They have been incentivized to do so.

Post: #10

^Eradicator

As Milton Friedman said, anyone who takes a drug or substance that has been legalized- even if that hadn't before it was legalized- is not an innocent victim. They made a free choice. I think reasonable restrictions to keep weed and drugs out of the hands of kids is justifiable and necessary, and that is already done with tobacco and alcohol.

Post: #11

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Kona Wrote:  There is not a single person on the planet that started smoking weed just because it is legal.

Aloha!

Sorry Kona, love ya, but bullshit. It was a pain in the ass to score a sack or grow your own 25 years ago(before the marijuana cards and dispenseries), now that it is completely legal, a lot more people will smoke it.(or eat the brownies or whatever foods are sold with the drugs)

I love you too. But I doubt there's a big line in California of people going c" wow I've never done this before."

Maybe with the brownies and things people will try that for the first time since they are accessible now.

Aloha!

Post: #12

God gave us free will, the government should too.

Using the argument of self-harm, there are innumerable activities and substances you could argue for criminalizing. I'm also sure that the broken families, institutionalization, and finance of criminal gangs that has come about because of prohibition is even greater than the harm caused by the drug itself.

Leave to the government a small focused set of objectives, protecting us from ourselves should not be one of them. There are other non-governmental institutions that can accomplish that task more effectively. Religion, social shame, patriarchy, parenting, etc. Many ways to discourage people from a life of doped up squalor.

admittedly - I smoke it on occasion so I'm not unbiased

Post: #13

(12-08-2016 02:53 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  I don't personally think one should choose to smoke dope, as my view is that it is far more damaging than is let on and by no means a 'soft' drug.

Would you mind explaining why you believe this?

Post: #14

(12-08-2016 04:08 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Kona Wrote:  There is not a single person on the planet that started smoking weed just because it is legal.

Aloha!

Sorry Kona, love ya, but bullshit. It was a pain in the ass to score a sack or grow your own 25 years ago(before the marijuana cards and dispenseries), now that it is completely legal, a lot more people will smoke it.(or eat the brownies or whatever foods are sold with the drugs)

To put it in another sense, nobody that ever smoked dope stopped because they decided that the penalties were too severe and they were afraid of getting caught.

It's just a stupid as the alcohol prohibition laws of the Capone era, arguably stupider because alcohol consumption leads to direct social problems far more frequently than weed use and I'd wager to say even per use.

Just let the hippies have their pot. All their political movements will sputter out because they'll be stoned twice as often, be robbed of their major issue (having "won") and their base will be crippled. It should be an absolute no-brainer for any Western anti-progressive reactionary.

It appeases the libertarians and it benches the pot-heads. Winning.

Post: #15

To me it would be best to separate:
"War on Drugs: fight it or not?"
from
"Legalize Drugs: legalize or not?"

because they are not one in the same. Often times the Legalize uses the War on Drugs as a baton to push their side. I vote no on both.
Another problem is "Legalize Drugs" to a lot of people is "Legalize Cannabis" when it ends up being "Legalize all Drugs". Nonononono.

Quote:Cannabis also can have bad side effects, and although alcohol is legal, two wrongs don't make a right.

Another problem I have. One is not related to the other. When Cannabis "legalizers" mention alcohol they lose the argument. Push your side and you can win without mentioning alcohol. Its interesting though how much we are limiting cigarettes in the US while pushing for Cannabis. Talk about 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Post: #16

(12-09-2016 05:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Just let the hippies have their pot. All their political movements will sputter out because they'll be stoned twice as often, be robbed of their major issue (having "won") and their base will be crippled. It should be an absolute no-brainer for any Western anti-progressive reactionary.

It appeases the libertarians and it benches the pot-heads. Winning.

Too doped up to March on Washington or even vote?

Post: #17

The only question is should the state have the power to use force ie guns, police, police dogs, or even the power of fines by force, to stop soneone from growing, rolling or smoking a joint.

The question is about force. What is the appropriate use of force? If someone breaks into your house (innitiates force against you without cause) the state has the right to use force on your behalf to stop them. If someone uses fraud to trick you out of your money, same aplies.

But marijuana? Really how can anyone justify that the state has this power over you, to force you to not consume this plant or suffer forced loss of property (fines) or forced loss of liberty (jail).

Marijuana is a stupid drug. It is an ambition killer used mostly by people who want to slightly fade into oblivion. I've tried it, during a phase when I was younger. It has no appeal to me, but I don't support banning it. On a practical level, its outlaw status in the US likely had more to do with corruption against the hemp industry anyway.

So you see the real root of your question is about force. Does the state have the right to exercise its only power, which is force, in this arena? Absolutely not.

Post: #18

A kinda dupe.

A lot of good discussion and emotional discussion in this thread at the same time. More of a general drug discussion. You can see my stance on all of it.

Post: #19

Ya'll smoking pot? We have a thread on legalization already which realologist kindly posted.

And it's spelled legalization. Silly brits making things unnecessarily colorful!

Post: #20

(12-11-2016 08:30 AM)realologist Wrote:  A kinda dupe.

A lot of good discussion and emotional discussion in this thread at the same time. More of a general drug discussion. You can see my stance on all of it.

Sorry, I did search but couldn't find any sort of recent active discussion on the issue. Mainly because I searched specifically for cannabis, weed, pot and dope instead of 'drug'.

I did intend it to be more with a slant on how conservatives and libertarians look at it.

(12-11-2016 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Ya'll smoking pot? We have a thread on legalization already which realologist kindly posted.

And it's spelled legalization. Silly brits making things unnecessarily colorful!

I think you mean colourful We spelt it first, so we get to to say how it goes!

Post: #21

Glad people can express their opinions.

I'm with Milton Friedman on this.

Also, Cannabis is just one aspect of the Hemp plant. The plant itself is useful for many industrial grade products, from oils, to rope. Many of our founding fathers grew hemp.

Continuing prohibition on Marijuana represents more unnecessary government control over a plant that individuals should have free rights to.

Now the application of the plant, say to light it on fire and smoke it in front of a school. Ok yes, that should be against the law by local ordinance so the person can be arrested and removed from the grounds. Our communities have the legal framework to deal with it on the state and local level. But to allow an overarching, menacing federal drug policy controlling Marijuana is unacceptable for the many free, reasonable and responsible adults that would use it for their own means.

Here's a pic of some folks who think you are a bad person for having a glass of wine:

Post: #22

First off, to end the discussion, a libertarian is by definition for freedom when it comes to cannabis. Logically it's probably the most benign aspect of being libertarian, since weed is among the least harmful substance on the planet.

That pretty much ends the discussion.

I'll add to it...modern societies are the incredibly medicated, both in terms of numbers and potency of the medicines. Weed would pull us back away from our over-medicated status.

An example: My dad has recently had a bad flare up in back pain, so he's been taking some sort of opiod or opiate prescribed drug conservatively. During Christmas I asked him if he's ever tried or thought about trying weed for the pain. No. He hasn't. And I know he wouldn't. Why? Because it's weed, it's a drug he stopped doing when he was a teenager because it's "drugs".
So instead he's high on heroine.

Post: #23

Only cucks and statists support using government resources on the national criminalization of marijuana. Locking up peaceful people for smoking plants is absurd. It should be an issue for the states under the 10th Amendment.

Post: #24

It's a hard topic to decide on.

There is the precious american concept of freedom on the one hand. As well as the success legalization has had in for example portugal.

On the other hand I am well aware that I am projecting when I think most people will be able to exercise moderation. People can't exercise moderation with TV. We have seen legalization drain the funds of the lower and lower-middle class in Colorado.

I've seen enough drunks and potheads to know that they'll always be around: the question is if the booze/pot causes it of if these people would be sniffing paint without it. I think it's a bit of both but would like to hear an expert's opinion.

Post: #25

(12-08-2016 01:12 PM)britchard Wrote:  Recently I have been thinking a lot about the possibility of cannabis being legalised in the UK, and if I would support it or not. This has led to me contemplating several other views I once strongly believed in, and I can't decide between libertarianism and conservatism.

I don't get why the support of drug prohibition (i.e. locking people up for non-violent "crimes") is considered to be a "conservative" position. I thought conservatives favored smaller government, at least domestically.