mind your business

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Conservative Reasons to Legalize Marijuana

My most recent article at CAIVN:

Let's put it in language that all conservatives will understand. Second Amendment proponents claim that "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." The same holds true for marijuana. If you outlaw the sale of drugs, only outlaws will sell drugs. It will be a violent, nasty business that keeps our inner cities bereft of peaceful, productive, and happy co-existence- just like prohibition of alcohol did last century.

Read the whole thing here.


  1. Lets see, if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns...

    If you outlaw weed then only outlaws will have weed...

    So, if you outlaw abortion then only.....


    At what point does one expect government to intercede and at what point does individual freedom become the platform?

  2. but it's the drug wars that give all those poor people the incintive to get out.

    you witness a few murders and your head starts thinking of ways to get the fuck out !!!

    some poor people will even go as far as using that nasty government money to, I don't know, go to college and not be poor anymore!!!

    {snark off}

  3. Ah Todd, lets not forget also that the drug wars also kill alot of poor inner city people meaning less on the government dole and less reproduction.

    If we legalize drugs then....

  4. We have lost the war on drugs. They should be legalized, taxed, the tax revenues to be used to offset government expenditures for rehabilitation.

    The decriminalization takes it out of the streets and shuts down a criminal element of our society.

    A win win situation. And those not inclined to use weed or any other drug will not start simply because it is legalized.

    Just the opinion of a independent conservative.

  5. Excellent summation, RaNaUSA!

    TAO- You ask the perfect question to get to the crux of the matter: "At what point does one expect government to intercede and at what point does individual freedom become the platform?"

    The short and sweet answer to that question is: coercion. Coercion is the point at which government intercedes, and it is the point at which individual freedom is the platform.

    Freedom means (at least every and any time you see me using it on this blog unless I have qualified my meaning otherwise) freedom from coercive interference in our lives. It is only by coercion (i.e. aggressive, physical force) that a person's freedoms can be violated.

    Government exists as the organized use of force against aggressors. Force is never permissible in human relationships, but when one initiates its use, the victim (and / or his protectors) are free to respond with force in kind to stop the aggressor.

    Owning a gun isn't an act of aggression. It does not coerce or violate the rights of others. So government should not interfere with it. Neither smoking marijuana. Murdering other human beings on the other hand- that is exactly what government exists to deal with. It is commissioned to intercede on the behalf of the victims to protect them from their aggressors.

    So if a fetus is a human being entitled to human rights (which is not so far-fetched, in fact I think it is the most reasonable belief:, then of course government should pass laws to prevent them from being killed, just like it has a legitimate role in preventing you from killing me.

  6. "Coercion"

    The government establishes a speed limit and if I drive recklessly or above the speed limit then I can be arrested and punished: Regardless of whether I hurt anyone or not.

    Now, you could argue that others have the right to expect to be safe on the same roads that I drive on and thus by enforcing standards the government is assuring that no harm will be done. Or, the government is proactive rather than reactive.

    You could then use this same logic to justify gun control and or banning illegal drugs.

    In regards to abortion, if we follow up with what rational nation said, then we can claim that we have lost the war on abortion, like we have lost the war on keep make it legal.

    Or you can argue about "human rights" and you can believe that a society has an obiligation to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak themselves.

    THAT is a very LIBERAL position. At what point to do determine that someone can speak on their own behalf? Do we want the government to intercede on the behalf of children against their parents? The individual against big business? Minorities against the majority?

    I will acknowledge that I consider abortion to be murder and that life begins at conception.

    THAT is my peronsal belief.

    I also realize that I have a conflict in light of my belief that an individual has a right to live their lives as they see fit and hopefully they do so repsonsibily.

    But I will not allow government to enact any laws that limit an individuals obligation to make their own decisions and to live with the consequences of those decisions.

    I believe that government and society take away our obligation to be responsible when we as a society establish rules.

    Thus, I have to allow a women to do with her body whatever she so desires....but I HOPE that she acts responsibily.

    If you establish rules and regulations then you begin to take away the obligation of the individual and you transfer that obligation to society...or government as a representative of society.

    If you demand that a woman carry a child to term then you either are going to have abortions performed illegally (which then ties directly to your argument about weed) or you will have women who refuse to care for their children.

    Since society demanded that she give birth doesn't society then become obligated for the child once born?

    If you demand that a woman carry a child to birth and then care for a child that she did not want then isn't that the highest form of coercion?

    Again, I find abortion appalling and disgusting...but that is my personal opinion and it is the law of the land in my personal life. What right do I have to project my personal beliefs on everyone and then complain when government interferes in my personal life?

    Its like I do not own a gun but I respect your right to own one: but guns do kill and you can forget the cute bumper stickers....

    But if one has a right to mishandle a gun and kill someone in their family (and most folks killed by hand guns are killed by people they know) then why if we can protect the rights of the unborn we do not also have the right to legislate gun control?

  7. If you think abortion is murder, but don't want to force that view on others, do you also not want to force your view on others that killing 10 year olds is murder?

  8. Can society intercede and remove a 10 year old child from a life threatening situation?

    Can society intercede and remove a fetus?

  9. I'm not asking for simply rhetorical effect- I'm really asking. You do agree that the government plays a legitimate role in outlawing murder, correct? It is not violating your freedom of choice by having laws against you killing a child on a playground- would you agree?

  10. "Murder"

    That is not as easy to answer as it is to ask...

    Is a fetus a sustainable life form?

    Its like when my father died a few years ago, I was the one that my mother turned to when the doctor asked about removing him from life support.

    In theory everything appears as black and white...but in reality nothing is so.

    If I kill a child on a playground then yes, that is murder. If I kill a woman who is pregnant then yes I have murdered two people.

    But when a woman decides that she cannot or will not, within the first three months of her pregnancy, be able to raise a child is that murder?

    Its like the issue with guns, I think guns kill and thus I do not own one. I think that there should be strict limits on gun ownership and that some guns, just like pit bulls, no one has a need for.

    But where does one allow the government to intercede and where do we draw the line?

    I think that abortion is appalling and personally I would see it as murder....but then I realize that by having government mandate such I am coercing over 50% of our population with government intrusion into their lives.

    Its no different than the anti-sodomy laws a few years back....or social workers being able to investigate any rumor of child abuse....

    Where do you draw the line between government intrusion in our lives?

  11. Again- my answer is coercion. Setting laws against murder isn't an act of instrusion. It does not violate anybody's freedom (no one can claim the freedom to aggress against the life, liberty, or property of another). If you believe shooting a pregnant woman in the stomach is murdering two people, then I don't see how you think it's okay for that pregnant woman to hire someone to tear that second person apart limb by limb with a pair of surgical scissors, or burn her to death with a powerful saline solution and then throw away the corpse. That's aggression, and government legitimately exists to stop aggression.