Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

AEI is not only close to the Administration; it is also the “big business†think tank. The very individuals liberals are most likely to think of as enemies of the people run it. I always find what they say and write very reasonable. I wish that liberals would pay more attention to what conservatives actually say than to the caricatures they paint for themselves.

To my esteemed liberal colleagues:

Some of you will soon write that this cannot possibly be a conservative idea or you will figure that it is some nefarious plot by Carl Rove. You can’t understand how it will deprive liberals of votes, but it will. I find it interesting that liberals are constantly surprised that conservative can be reasonable.

Conservatives do not hate you. We don’t intent to establish a theocracy. Open debate and new ideas are very common in the conservative marketplace of ideas. There is no membership card required to come in. There are plenty of weirdoes who call themselves conservatives but in general conservatism allows a greater range of thought than does the liberal plantation.

I was once afflicted with liberalism, but I recovered. You can too.

Im not sure what Jack is all up in arms about, but I think this is a great idea. Keep in mind, this isn’t in any way a new idea, but sure: Good work guys…way to think outside the box….the box from 1955.

I don’t think we will be seeing Bush and GOP majorities are implement legislation along this order.

Liberals have known for decades that the War on Drugs was a failure as implemented, and many have rallied behind decriminalization of recreational drugs.

It is about time conservatives came around to see the wisdom of the liberal position. Lest anyone forgets, Republicans opposed any such measures in the past, which is why taxpayers are in hock for a trillion or so dollars on this useless implementation of Nixon’s war on drugs.

Rational policy dictates that highly addictive drugs and lethal drugs should carry a criminal penalty for dealing. But, rational policy also dictates that recreational drugs which only temporarily alter conscious capabilities cannot be stopped by criminalization. For that matter neither can heroin addiction. But, giving the public a choice between a mind altering substance that carries steep criminal penalties and others which carry no penalty provided one is not endangering anyone else with one’s use, will actually deter folks from moving to the criminal and dangerous drugs.

Rational policy lies somewhere between the libertarian ideology that government has no right to criminalize what a person chooses to put in their bodies regardless of the social cost and consequences, and the ultra liberal policy which says legalize recreational drug use and subsidize public health clinics for those who are addicted or impaired by criminal drugs.

Rational policy criminalizes those substances which via their useage cost society large amounts of public services and dollars, and decriminalizes drugs which largely affect only the user. Rational policy also dictates that using decriminalized substances in ways that endangers others, (like driving a vehicle) should carry steep fines, and jail time for criminal negligence.

Jack, “afflicted with liberalism?”

Just what the hell does this mean? Now it’s a plague to have any liberal ideas? Like, say, well funded public education? Now, I am by no means a “liberal” but I nonetheless find it insulting that any liberal views that I may/do hold are considered an “affliction.” Granted you said it with a tinge of humor, but I find this even more condescending. Liberalism is not always in the wrong you know.

I personally don’t understand the administration’s motives in this respect, primarily because of Bush’s close ties to the Reagan administration in both his platforms and his aura. The War on Drugs has been one of the most hurtful actions towards the nation taken by the government in the past half century. Even disregarding all of the conspiracy theories concerning the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking and other issues, I still cannot see the purpose of the War on Drugs. Take for example the Rockefeller Drug Laws instituted by Governor Nelson Rockefeller of NY in 1973. These laws have condemned petty drug users and drug dealers, possessing very limited amounts of marijuana, cocaine, etc., to sentences far beyond those of rapists, murderers, and other felons. While this does eliminate those specific drug users/dealers from the streets, their places are almost immediately filled by eager drug dealers and the tactics of these dealers become ever the more stealthy. Sure, the drug dealers are endangering the lives of the people to whom they sell the drugs, especially children, but the arresting of these people does not solve the problem. It only achieves a false sense of revenge.

I believe that the decriminalization of most recreational drugs and increased anti-drug education in schools are the only solutions to this problem. People have the right to do what they want with their lives, as the Declaration of Independence so clearly states: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If this happiness is achieved through drug use, then let it be, as long as the people are held responsible for their action while under the influence. As we learned during the Prohibition, the outlawing of substances that are used by a large portion of the population does not defeat the problem caused by the substances. For problems that are ingrained into society can almost never be resolved completely. It is only with the control of its use and the education of its effects that the problem of drugs can be contained and reduced.

Zeek

It just goes to show that some people can’t take what they give out. Liberals are comparing conservatives to Hitler with monotonous regularly. When they get together to exchange pessimisms, narrow-minded conservatives always come up as a subject. As for condescension, what about this “Jack (and anyone who needs a Roman history lesson):” My years of Latin, Greek and degree ancient history not withstanding, we assume conservative ignorance and then provide an incorrect answer to boot.

What about these recent posts, “Heaven forbid if any of your NeoCons ever get arrested for Crimes Against Humanity. They might make a Deal and roll over the Entire Republican Party after all.”

“… using hate, is that not what is being done here in the USA. We should hate the “Blue” people because we aren’t moral like the right, we should hate the gays because their being married will topple marriage …”

I could find a lot more and these are only from the post to this blog that are still on the main page.

And you feel aggrieved because I mention that I was once afflicted with liberalism? (Which is true, by the way)

Is it better to be called an affliction (an almost neutral term and humorously used) or a Nazi/fascist/hating/narrow minded/goon?

Jack,

Hats off.

Maybe the tax money from the sale of marijauna could pay for education AND some farmers could make a good living and not need subsidies.
Of course there would have to be a free trade issue to fight about.
We wouldn’t want to ruin the economies of our friends to the south.

I personally think the right is only on the legalizing drugs bandwagon to make Afghanistan look like a success:

‘See guys, all part of the plan. Now, enjoy you herion, youre going to need it when you see who we’re running in 08!’

I kid,

I KID!

I kid because I love.

The war on drugs has not only put way too many basicly good folks behind bars, it has been a tremendous waste of money.

Call me retro, but I’m totally in favor of the War on Drugs. I think controlled substances should be fought tooth and nail. I think kids who are caught with dope should have their parents notified and be fined. I think people caught selling it should be imprisoned briefly and sternly fined. I think major dealers should be imprisoned lengthily and massively fined.

If you look at the effects of drugs (even mild ones, like qatt) on societies where they become accepted & heavily used, the effect is seriously destructive. Societies that have survived the legalization of drugs, such as Holland (where I have lived), have done so because they did not become acceptable in most parts of society. Unfortunately, many American subcultures, particularly urban Black society, have already been hit hard by the effects of the drug epidemic.

I oppose “soft” drugs for the same reason that I oppose the lottery: they’re substitutes for healthy life. They promise people something they can’t deliver. They place claims on a person that supercede the healthy claims of life, family, liberty, and community.

They myth is that legalizing drugs can flush out all the awful side effects (crime, crack babies, homelessness, broken families, suicide). The reality is that those things are a function of substance dependence, not of its illegality. As in Holland, the legalization of some drugs would be the de-facto legalization of all drugs, and we would create a society-sized monster if we opened the door to them.

Chops,
Are you saying that Holland would be a dysfunctional society full of crime, crack babies, homelessness, divorce, and suicide, except that most people don’t like drugs? But in the US, we all like drugs so legalization would be a big problem? Sounds like red states (grin), but I’d still be curious to see some comparative statistics on those attitudes.
Personnaly, I think we could learn more from the Dutch reliance on bicycles as transport than a drug comparison.

Maybe the Conservatives just want to see God? Surely it must be frustrating to go to all those Pro-Life rallies and Republicans-Only Meetings and not have a personal visit from the AllMighty?

Jack,

“It just goes to show that some people can’t take what they give out. Liberals are comparing conservatives to Hitler with monotonous regularly.”

Only narrow-minded people compare conservatives to Hitler/nazis. The narrow-minded conservatives do the exact kind of dehumanizing and slandering to the liberals. I say we condemn the ignorant message instead of the liberal messenger and the same goes for conservatives.

“And you feel aggrieved because I mention that I was once afflicted with liberalism?”

Don’t try to justify poor behavior with worse behavior.

Conservatives do not hate you. We don’t intent to establish a theocracy.

Maybe you don’t Jack, but your kind of moderate conservatism is hardly the dominant ideology of the GOP leadership right now.

The GOP won’t be changing its stance on drugs anytime soon. If the GOP leadership can crucify Nancy Reagan for supporting stem-cell research, they’ll unfund the AIE until some “right thinking” prevails there.

The thing to understand (what I even fail to acknowledge at times) is that we are not deal with one kind of conservative or liberal, but instead millions of different kinds, all with different mixes of beliefs.

This is what the GOP miscalculated about when they intruded on the judicial process. They assumed their party’s supporters were the same in a way they were not. They assumed that their intentions alone would guarantee solidarity. What they discovered was that there were nearly as many Republicans horrified by the federal intervention as there were Democrats.

Politics is an unpredictable, uncontrollable arena of human experience, especially in a country with our expressive liberties. I think the biggest mistakes the Republican Party have been committing center on their attempts to purge the party of unorthodox and moderate views. A party can’t forever keep the lid on change and divergence of opinion, and remain together. That is what I think the object lesson in the next few years will be for the Republican party.

Stephen,

They are only human too.
They may have ‘miscalculated’ or did they?
Even though they are there to represent ‘all of us’ - they can care about an individual citizen.
We’ll see how it is handled.

Lets assume that pot were to become legal, now what?
How can you regulate something that anyone with a few flower pots could grow all they could ever use? Good luck with all tax money you think it will bring in.

Its not like drinking where its easy to tell if someone has had too much to drive or operate machinery, someone could be borderline “fryed” and its much harder to tell.
I know of no simple roadside test for pot, do you ?
Would the cost of regulating it after it became legal be far more than we are paying now?

The only think keeping people from growing it now is the threat of jail and you’ll lose your home and everything you own if you get caught.

People now making money selling it will just start selling other drugs or engage in other crimes, or do you think they will go back to school and get really good jobs?

I don’t care, make it legal, just don’t ask me to pay for all the costs of regulating it.

How can you regulate something that anyone with a few flower pots could grow all they could ever use? Good luck with all tax money you think it will bring in.

The government successfully regulates and taxes berries, tomatoes, and broccoli, even though my wife grows them in our back yard. Just because some won’t be regulated and taxed doesn’t mean that a large company or four won’t be able to grow and sell the product in the market, meaning the market will be largely taxed and regulated.

I don’t care, make it legal, just don’t ask me to pay for all the costs of regulating it.

Darn. It doesn’t work that way. Oh well.

Beagle -

You pay all the costs to regulate it now.

Lawnboy,

I think the points I made are valid, there would be no commerical market to tax.

How much pot would a casual user consume in a year?
Lets keep the sample subject really “laid back” and say 3 ounces a month, 36 oz. a year.

Lets say both ma and pa enjoy it and give them 72 oz. a year for self useage.

One good female plant, properly cared for will yeild 16 ounces or more.
Thats less than 5 Plants (4.5)!
Anyone anywhere ,(even in an apartment) could grow 5 plants.

Sure tomatoes may be regulated, but what is the yeild/ value of 5 plants? A few bushells worth $25 ?
5 pot plants that yeild 5+ # have a yeild/value of what in current market terms? $7500 would be a good guess.
But if legal the value drops to next to nothing unless you propose that only the Gov. can grow and sell it ?

Just so you don’t think I’m being a jerk or a “prude” ;…

If you properly care for a female plant, trimming for force bud growth, killing all the male plants, to force the female plants to produce more of the compounds that attract pollination(THC), you will wind up with plants/buds commonly called “Gorillia”, it wont take very much of that to set you in the corner staring at the birdfeeder and munching doeritoes for quite some time.

If I don’t even use the stuff,(and I don’t) and know that much about it, how much do those that do know?

I am impressed with your knowledge. :)

I think you’re underestimating the laziness of the average American. It’s just as easy to grow flowers and some plants and vegetables as it is to grow pot. I could easily have grown flowers and herbs when I was a bachelor living in my apartment, but I always went to the grocery store instead.

If pot were legal and de-stigmatized, I don’t see it being different.

Lawnboy,

I wasn’t trying to impress you, just trying to point out the reasons why my points might well be valid.

I agree, make it legal for anyone over 18, but in my humble opinion, trying to regulate legal pot will cost 10x what we are paying now.

As I posted on another thread, some of those mean, evil, Republicans, may well agree with you on some issues.

THAT my friend, is the true value of the internet, and the debates fostered by that usefull tool of comunication !

Beagle, there would be a fair number of folks who don’t have green thumbs, and would not want to advertise that they smoked pot, who would buy it. Convenience is another reason.

Just because pot is decriminalized does not mean everyone is going want the rest of the world to know about it. Many employers will still drug test, just like they monitor employees for drinking. Most folks would exercise responsibility for themselves and not get into having pot plants lying around the house.

Decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. If legal, yes, anyone could grow pot in their backyards if they know something of horticulture. But, legalizing pot is not an option. Voters in the majority would oppose it, and I would agree with them.

Decriminalizing pot still allows prosecution of dealers of large amounts and anyone selling to those underage. And because decriminalizing its use is not a sanction by society for its use, responsible folks would still not want to jeopardize their jobs and families by getting stoned and going to work.

Back in the Army we smoked pot a lot. It didn’t take long however to realize smoking pot on a frequent basis was interfering with my ability to do my best at whatever I was engaged in. Hence, the older I got and the more responsibility I undertook, the less frequently I smoked, until finally, I just didn’t have the time or motivation to partake anymore.

Decriminalizing pot, mescaline, peyote, and similar recreational drugs will likely have little effect on our population in terms of the number of users. What it will do is reduce the jail population and stigma attaced to simple posession and use.

Legalization involves far more complications legally and socially, and would change the numbers of users to a greater extent. That is why decriminalization makes far more sense.

David my friend,

We debated this issue many, many months ago, little has changed since then, we still agree on most of it.

If not totally legal, limited fine (lets say $5 ) for useage or having 1 oz. or less.

I just can’t agree with the Gov. being the only ones allowed to grow it, and taxing it based on the current value.

If limited to 1 oz. or less, you couldn’t allow anyone to grow any could you?

Beagle said: ” If limited to 1 oz. or less, you couldn’t allow anyone to grow any could you?”

That’s a good point. The other advantage is the industrial uses of hemp that could flourish from decriminalization. Hemp is so damn useful for 100’s if not thousands of products. It would give farmers on marginal land or protected land an additional crop which could be seeded with low to no THC content. This in fact, may be one of the primary motivations for some Republicans not to reject the think tanks proposals out of hand.

Let’s face it, it would not hurt our trade deficit one bit if farmers could grow hemp again.

I must agree with David on the many uses of hemp.

I’m old enough to have used/seen hemp rope, for some things I know of nothing that will equal it.

I have also seen HS kids(knowing pot comes from the same plant), trying to smoke it.

They would have had the same result from smoking oak leaves or horseshit and turkey feathers=== a headache and sick!

Since it was brought up, does anyone actually have figures on the current costs in the US of a) illicit drug prosecution and interdiction and b) education and rehabilitation for such use? And how would this compare with the costs of regulation as a legal substance (like cigarettes or alcohol)? A lot of opinions have been floated about the relative costs, but no facts.

Also, the assertion that all of the bad effects currently associated with drug use both by the anti-drug lobby and by the entertainment media would still be present if most recreational drugs were decriminalized is rarely backed up by any research or even useful statistics. I tend to distrust such assertions, in light of substantial research showing that most drug users mature out of their use by their mid 20s; the burnouts are a small percentage and don’t come close to rivaling in numbers the alcoholics and the emphysemic hackers brought to us by our legitimate business folks.

Wimp,

According to the budget for the White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy, the total 2006 request for drug management was $12.4 billion. Of that, $3.3 billion was for treatment, $1.6 billion for prevention, $3.4 billion for domestic law enforcement, $2.9 billion for interdiction, and $1.4 billion for international use (they don’t add up due to rounding).

This is not broken down by drug (i.e. I don’t know how much it would change if pot alone were decriminalized).

I haven’t yet found any sources for the costs vs. income from regulation and taxation of decriminalized pot. However, I strongly suspect that there would be significant savings.

Beagle,

Growing even commercial grade pot is very labor intensive, and it ain’t cheap. You can’t just throw some seeds in a flower pot and assume that you will end up with a product suitable to sell on the open market, or even smoke yourself. Most of those that have been busted growing plants were caught because of the equipment and chemicals nescessary to grow quality pot.
You also are dealing with a weed that seems to have it’s own mind. Only the female plants are exceptable, and sometimes you can have hemaphroditic plants.

Pot would be very easy to regulate if the government were to go into the business. It would also make it easier to keep out of the hands of minors.

Rocky,

Your point would be quite valid if we were talking tomato plants or corn that takes a large quanity to be viable money wise on the open market.

If we are talking about something like pot, that it only takes 5-6 plants for a years supply, it would be quite different.

The “green thumb” arguement is only valid if we are talking tomato plants or something worth 5-10 dollars on the open market, not something worth $1500 in current terms.

Everyone would soon learn the finer points of raiseing those types of plants.