Friday, January 6, 2012

Conservatives and marijuana

Politics is not logical or consistent but the Conservative position on marijuana doesn't make any sense from a "conservative" standpoint.

Of course "conservative" covers a wide assortment of views (just like "liberal"). That said, the major streams of conservative thought are 1. Social Conservatives 2. Fiscal Conservatives and 3 Libertarians. For none of these groups does a toughening of anti-marijuana legislation make sense.

Social conservatives care about traditional social values, stable society and in some sense an ordered state. Marijuana can be painted as contrary to traditional values but that's largely because it is illegal -- youthful rebellion can be made by its use. But legalize marijuana, or see it as a public health issue, and the "youthful rebellion" vanishes. The truth is alcohol destroys families, leads to violence and ruins lives in ways marijuana never does -- no one smokes up and then commits spousal assault but almost every spousal assault I see has drinking involved (this reality did lead to prohibition in the 1920s). Social conservatives have no reason to fear decriminalizing marijuana; put otherwise, if anything social conservatives should push for banning alcohol.

Fiscal conservatives have no interest in prohibiting marijuana except insofar as it is a governmental expense (and a drag on society as a whole) that has very little if any value.

Finally Libertarians generally support decriminalization.

So who does want to make marijuana laws tougher and why?

It's hard to say except that a segment of society leans to authoritarian action. The State determines right and wrong and whatever is wrong must be seriously punished. Such a view, of course, while perhaps 'right-wing' is not conservative. Rather it is totalitarian. How that type of view squares with a view that long guns need not be registered or census forms mandatory is hard to see.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more. The Liberals should get out front of this issue and again put forward a policy of decriminalization, if not legalization. Either would be better than the status quo.

In the US jurisdictions that have decriminalized, revenues have increased because police are much more likely to issue a ticket than actually arrest someone for possession. Similarly, if we were to legalize, revenues would go up because it could be taxed.

At least 11 States in the US have decriminalized marijuana. When the Conservatives entered into the FTA with the US, those opposed said that it would restrict our ability as a nation to enact policies. They were laughed at by Conservatives. Now we are regularly told by Conservatives (and the last Liberal leader), that we cannot change our marijuana policy because it will effect our trade dealings with the US. So, it seems that Canada cannot enact a policy that close to a quarter of US States have been free to enact.

Anonymous said...

I do see a difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. The two are not interchangeable. Which will be proposed?

Tobacco is legal but there is a huge problem with smuggling and illegal "smoke shops". The same would happen with pot.

Right now most people I know who use it are not selling it to kids.They have not been arrested or harrassed.

Anyone selling this garbage to kids should do hard time in jail.

I suspect there is an unreported problem with people showing up at worked stoned. We've seen it in the TTC. It would be a mistake to simply pretend it is not happening because a few "progressives" want to get high.

The Rat said...

As a libertarian-conservative I could support decriminalization. I would be wary of legalization. I live in BC and I see marijuana a lot. Hell, I have some for my wife and her health issues! The issue isn't the small time user or three plants in the back yard, the issue is grow-ops for export. If we legalize it then the HAs will have no trouble from police while growing massive amounts of it for export to the US. The US will have serious problems with that, with Canada becoming a safe haven for growing.

Pot doesn't worry me much but what will be the next battle? Will we move on to ecstasy or meth or heroin? The libertarian in me says fine, destroy your life if you want, but I bet the progressive in you says we have to rescue these poor souls, give them money or free drugs, money for housing because they can't work. The opposite side of the do what you want libertarian coin has to be responsibility for your choices.

Koby said...

Black market cigarettes


1) The problem black market cigarettes in Canada is, in no small measure, a byproduct of Canada's insanely stupid policy of granting Status Indians an exception from paying sale taxes on anything sold on reserve land.


2) Black market cigarettes are "smuggled" into Canada from the US. To suggest that Canada would have the same problem with marijuana presuppose that the US would also legalize pot. We are only talking about Canada.


That said, it is safe to assume that if Canada were to legalize pot so would the US. Given what is happening with medical marijuana in states such as California, there is no way that the prohibitionist regime in the States would survive a Canadian decision to legalize marijuana.

Koby said...

Rat, as usual, you are mixing a up a whole host of initiatives.


Heroin maintenance.


One of purposes of NAOMI and like programs in Europe is to stabilize people's lives enough such that they will be able to hold down a job and be able to afford some kind of housing. It aims at breaking a downward cycle. Unless you well off, it is very hard to earn enough to feed a full blown heroin habit and also afford housing. If you are out on the street, it is next to impossible to hold down a job. Of course, if you do not have a job and have an expensive full blown heroin habit to feed you turn to crime. There is a reason why 68% of Swiss voters voted to keep heroin maintenance programs in place. It reduces property crime like no tough on crime Conservative could ever dream of. Indeed, property crime among those in the program, and we are talking about habitual offenders, was cut in half.


Free housing


Most of the homeless are not chronically homeless. Only a tiny percentage of them are and these people cost governments a ridiculous amount of money. "Million dollar Murray" being the best known example. Putting these individuals in care homes, and that is what they are, saves huge amounts of money and that is why various governments do it.


All and all, Rat it high time you acknowledge that you oppose programs that would save tax payers money and reduce crime.

Koby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Rat said...

"Black market cigarettes are "smuggled" into Canada from the US. To suggest that Canada would have the same problem with marijuana presuppose that the US would also legalize pot. We are only talking about Canada."

Wow. Just Wow. Ok, I'll explain it to you. Cigarettes are smuggled because people smoke and smuggled cigs are cheaper. Marijuana (the #1 cash crop and export crop in BC) is used in the US, legal or not,and BC supplies massive amounts of it across the border.

I'd argue the other points you made but frankly I don't care enough to educate you. Time and experience will do that well enough.

Koby said...

Rat the cheese you ate contained poison.

Anonymous implied that marijuana would be smugged into Canada just like cigarettes. Leaving aside the fact that marijuana is smugged from Canada into the US and not the other way around, I simply pointed out that the situation would not be analogous. The reason cigarettes are smuggled into Canada is cigarettes cost more in Canada than they do in the US. What we are talking about is a legal product that is being sold illegally.


What I left unsaid was that unless both the US and Canada both legalized pot, there would be not a chance in hell that illegally produced US pot would be smuggled into Canada. After all, it is one thing to illegally sell a legally produced product and make a profit, e.g., black market cigarettes. It is quite another thing to illegally produce and sell a product (e.g., moonshine) in market where there is legal competitors. The reason is simple. People want to know that what they buying and consuming. So when given the choice of buying an illegally produced product versus a legally produced product they are going to go with the later. (There is one notable exception and that is when an illegally produced product is successfully passed off as a legal one, e.g., fake brand name goods). That is why no matter how much Canadians drank during the time of American prohibition, I am sure that it never crossed the RCMP’s mind that American moonshine might become a competitor of Molson’s.

I am afraid that poison cheese may not be the only thing you consumed. You might have already consumed some Kool Aid too. However, just in case you did not, here goes.


Heroin maintenance (Swiss case)


1) Despite getting their heroin for free, subjects used used less drugs. Stress tends to foster more drug use and trying get enough money to feed an expensive habit is stressful.


2) The number of subjects with unstable housing dropped from 43% to 21%


3) The number employed addicts went from 14% to 32%


4) The number of addicts arrested went from 69% to 10%.

Anonymous said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_MARIJUANA_LUNGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-10-16-10-39