cannabisnews.com: Respect for the Law Going Up in Smoke 





Respect for the Law Going Up in Smoke 
Posted by CN Staff on July 20, 2003 at 17:49:43 PT
By Scott Shore
Source: IntellectualConservative
Thoughtful conservatives have long agonized over the issue of the legalization of marijuana. For libertarians the issue has always been rather easy. Their position is that any adult individual has the right to ingest any drug provided that the user is fully informed of the nature of the substance and that only criminal behavior per se should be punished. Conservatives have a harder time being as cavalier about the issue for a number of sound reasons.
Conservatives have always maintained that there is a symbolic value to the law that, while perhaps unenforceable, still maintains social standards of preferred conduct. It is for this reason that most conservatives have been outraged over the extinction of laws regarding sodomy. Such behavior is in opposition to Judeo-Christian "higher law" and our society can not afford to appear to endorse deviant behavior by indifference to it. While virtually no conservatives I know believe in a "Vice Squad" knocking down doors to observe the sexual behavior of individuals in their homes, the law still stands as a reminder of the moral values of our society. There is very little today to prohibit homosexuals from forming contractual relationships without religion or the state giving it the status of "marriage." By the affirmative act changing prohibitions against certain relationships or behaviors, society at least appears to endorse such behaviors as morally neutral. There are many laws regarding "private" behavior that are more or less enforceable. Some vices such as child pornography (even explicit pornography in general) should indeed be crimes. In contrast to the libertarian argument, conservatives would argue that such liberalization leads to a weakening of the moral fiber and social constraints required for civil society.The argument becomes considerably more difficult with marijuana. The case against marijuana is fairly straightforward. Clearly marijuana can impair judgment and become psychologically addictive and lead to irresponsible behavior or perhaps even personality changes. Also, marijuana can interact with certain prescribed pharmaceuticals and have dangerous consequences to physical or mental health. The major problem with all of the above truisms is that they apply equally—if not more so—to liquor. For many of the reasons that we now make possession or selling marijuana a crime, the Prohibitionists outlawed alcoholic beverages. The result was dangerous bathtub gin, a great industry for mobsters and a general disrespect for the law. "Devil Rum" was seen as the first step to depravity and ultimately to the soul’s perdition.Certainly the Prohibitionists did have a point. Alcohol does lead some people to alcoholism with its consequent social wreckage (broken families, lost jobs…etc.). Moreover, behavior "under the influence" often becomes lewd or violent. Driving while intoxicated has caused literally millions of deaths on our roads and highways. Today a strong case could be made for outlawing cigarettes. After all this is a legal substance that is known to cause cancer, emphysema, and increase the risk of many other diseases including heart attack. A strong public relations campaign has reduced cigarette smoking overall, although a surprisingly large number of teenagers pick up the habit. The fact of the matter is that both liquor and cigarettes are perfectly legal in the United States and most countries in the world. No amount of lecturing or finger wagging has stopped the usage of either drug.Now let us turn to the dreaded cannabis. The assumption by many is that the legalization of marijuana will create a country of "potheads." I am not certain we haven’t come pretty close to that situation in any case. (I have a personal theory that this explains the behavior of the Democratic caucus and other members of the Loony Left---they are just on a constant "buzz" that "transcends" reality.) In any case, it seems to me that marijuana use is fairly prevalent in our schools, neighborhoods and places of work. We do not wish alcohol to be in the hands of minors because we believe that they can not use the substance in moderation and responsibly. I happen to think the same is true of marijuana. We should not allow minors to ruin their lives by falling into habits which dull their abilities to concentrate and make decisions at a critical point in their lives.There are indeed very few arguments against marijuana that can not be used against liquor or cigarettes. The hypocrisy is glaring and undermines respect for the law. As it turns out, laws against hard drugs are very important indeed as a protection against society. Those who sell cocaine, crack, ecstasy, heroin…etc. should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. These drugs are truly a lethal social disease that permeates all levels of society. To put marijuana in the same boat as hard drugs is to deligitimize the entire corpus of law against drugs and to make a mockery of the War on Drugs. By filling prisons with marijuana users along with serious criminals and dangerous drug poison peddlers is a farce. Some have argued that marijuana is a "gateway drug" but this is largely because the sellers of marijuana have an incentive to create greater addictions among their customers.Currently all the money made by marijuana goes to criminal cartels, terrorists and sundry other lowlifes. I would rather Phillip Morris take up the product and have proper licensing of establishments that sell marijuana like liquor licenses than have it sold on the streets by drug pushers. I would like to see a "carding" procedure for minors as we now have for cigarettes and liquor. I would rather the money be collected as a "sin tax" than by some Latin American cartel or Middle East terror ring.While we may bemoan the fact that people appear to have a habit of using recreational or mind-altering substances since the dawn of man, conservatives take man as he is not how we think he should be. This "New Man" ideology is the arena of utopians---a dangerous crowd that spawns socialists, fascists and a variety of other unpleasant ideologies and movements.Unlike libertarians, we do not throw up our hands and give in to any new behavior. We still try to uphold social morals and standards, but there does come a time to recognize intractable facts regarding human nature and try to channel them in the most socially responsible way. I think the time to fight the Culture War is now, but we should view marijuana as a diversion of our efforts. Legalize, regulate and tax marijuana and let’s just call it quits.Note: The conservative - not libertarian - argument for legalizing marijuana.Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, RI.Source: IntellectualConservative.com (U.S.Web)Author: Scott ShorePublished: July 20, 2003Contact: editor intellectualconservative.comWebsite: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #27 posted by E_Johnson on July 21, 2003 at 15:47:19 PT
How to tell a really bad policy
When you can find both a liberal and a conservative argument against a government policy, then it must be a pretty bad policy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Dan B on July 21, 2003 at 13:19:08 PT
Thanks Dr. Russo and Treeanna
I have sent it along to Intellectual Conservative as an LTE. We'll see. They do print dissenting opinions, and I expect that if they printed mine I (and possibly they) would receive a great deal of backlash from it. Yippee!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by paulpeterson on July 21, 2003 at 09:09:15 PT
GOOD DISCUSSION-BRING IT ON!
I love that Bush comment about more violence against our boys in VietNam (oops, I meant that other third world country where our troops are now "billeted") ie: bring it on! I am overjoyed at the play this article got right here.I am overjoyed to read such good commentary on it.I am overjoyed that somebody in the neoconservative camp can see the logic of these things (finally).Just remember, discourse is the best way to encourage thinking and readjustment of long-held positions.Just remember, there are so many entrenched special interest groups involved, that no SIMPLE & RATIONAL SOLUTION to these problems has ANY HOPE OF EVEN ANY DISCUSSION, certainly not any hope of changing long-held beliefs, certainly not any hope of adoption and implementation.A good case in point is Canada & Britain. The only hope is to implement a HORRIBLE COMPROMISE (like that farce "decriminalization") and then watch as the skies do not fall and the economy doesn't crumble from the weight of all those joints being "consumed" and "productivity declines" that some people rumor would happen.This is such a complex issue that we, as a collective body of voices, cannot even fathom the next step in the cascade to justice until step one is implemented and observed.The fact is, now the media is liking the issue and we are getting press for our ideas. Judges now know that pot crime trials (especially where there is a "bleeding heart" angle ie: medical necessity or other justification for usage) will get them press, and judges don't like press at all, even good press (because then they look weak and fearful to their own handlers) so they usually try to just dismiss charges like that, and there are enough stories of gutsy judges doing justice so the judges can cite other cases (judicial OR media publications) to justify letting our people go.The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is being seriously considered for the excesses of jurisdiction and utilization so easily shown to be just that.The conservative "compassionates", after all, are understandably "Federalists" and "Federalists", after all, are our staunch allies in this war, after all (and finally).JUST KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING IN, or as Bush seems to believe, his macho and machismo ethic forces him to encourage people to "bring it on" (or some such rhetoric). Keep this din or dissent crescendoing to ever greater pitch. Finally, we may just get a few good men (and women) joining the growing throng in Congress to take Bush on with his gambit. Finely, we may even get us a Senator (or two) to sponsor legislation to match Barney's in the house.I'm banking on Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois to join Feinstein in California to get this gauntlet flung in the face of that boozehound Bush. Did I tell you I was a Federalist? I'm a Federalist, you know. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FoM. PAUL
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on July 21, 2003 at 08:49:34 PT
CorvallisEric
Not at all off topic in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by CorvallisEric on July 21, 2003 at 08:44:17 PT
Mike2003 (comment 19)
Can't answer your question but I can nitpick a little.Drinking age - forced to be 21 everywhere by threatening to withhold Federal funding of some kind. Was 18 in some states in the 1970's for some beverage types.Speed limit - was 55 max everywhere for a while, same deal as drinking age.Abortion - legalized (with prescribed gestation limits) nationwide by Supreme Court decision in 1973.Mushroom spores - The raid took coordinated efforts from a multitude of government agencies. A press release from the US Department of Justice explained that "the indictment is based on a joint investigation by agents and investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration in Seattle, the National Park Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service." http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2990.htmlEtc. As you can see, the Feds really have their tentacles into everything. Being a concern for Jeffersonian conservatives, this isn't off-topic, is it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by escapegoat on July 21, 2003 at 08:39:26 PT
Symbolic value = herd the sheep
[Conservatives have always maintained that there is a symbolic value to the law that, while perhaps unenforceable, still maintains social standards of preferred conduct.]The only "symbolic value" of a law is that it will keep the fearful down, while those that know it's a sham will expoit both it and the powerless. Think organized religion, for example. {Eg. I believe that if you have Christ in your heart you don't need no steenking preacher man -- and Christ never said to IMPOSE his message on others either -- you either "get it" or you don't or you listen to televangelists exploit it. I also believe it's ALL THE SAME GUY, so my path is just as valid as the Jew or the Muslim or he Buddhist -- it's like big endian vs. little endian in processors.)So-called "conservative" policy also seems to be very simple: "get the economy going on it's own by promoting profitable black markets." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 21, 2003 at 08:30:33 PT
Thank You Treeanna
One of the most difficult things for me to do is to not be too critical of articles. Maybe that's why I can do news. It's really hard sometimes but it has helped me to hold my thoughts longer and do my best to think before I speak or act. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Treeanna on July 21, 2003 at 08:17:09 PT
Sociology and politics
I agree with Dr. Russo... nice post by Dan B and please LTE it!FOM, I am glad you got a positive reminder of why it is important to present all of the news to the readers without giving in to the temptation to "pre screen" it due to personal ideas about its content, too.It may interest you to know that there is a political "spectrum" that is discussed in sociology. Several websites talk about it, and even promote their own flavor of politics, but I have misplaced my classnotes, so maybe when you get bored sometime do a search. Very fun/interesting!I remember I was a "democratic socialist" (socialist in the idea that I think government should provide health care and energy infrastructure services, for example)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by mike2003 on July 21, 2003 at 07:49:10 PT:
off topic
Can someone answer this? Why does the federal government not acknowledge state laws concerning mmj and decriminalization of marijauna but let the states do want they want in everything else? Such as gambling,drinking age,driving age,prostitution in some counties,the sale of alcohol on sundays,abortion,speed limits,taxes,common law marriage,marriage age,capital punishment,the sale of pipes and water-pipes,mushroom spores,smoking in public places. These are just a few. Thanks! Mike
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by goneposthole on July 21, 2003 at 06:57:51 PT
elitist government wanks
It has finally dawned on them that cannabis pays bigtime and are softening their reluctance to legalize it because they will be able to make a shipload of money by doing so. The hypocrisy will be displaced by greed. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Don't follow the intellectual dishonesty, always follow the money. It will be backslapping time for the elitist conservatives. Bill Bennett will have another million to gamble into the drain. It all stinks because it smells bad.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Ethan Russo MD on July 21, 2003 at 06:16:14 PT:
Dan B
You have said it all, cogently and convincingly. You should type this up as an LTE to that publication, and send the editorialist a hard copy to attempt to digest.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Sam Adams on July 21, 2003 at 05:40:26 PT
Stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming
The problem with these "conservatives" is their hypocrisy. I don't blame anyone for living a clean, productive life and trying to convince other to do the same. But how dare he suggest that all Liberals are really potheads?  The champion of the conservative right, their fearless leader, the conservative hero of the centure, G.W. Bush, was a cocaine addict and alcoholic until the age of 40!And they want to talk about religion? Please! The track record of the Catholic religion over the last century is frightening - raping and abusing little boys and girls, while the conservative-dominated police and prosectuors looked the other way. Right-wing doctors that insist on keeping the safe and natural cannabis away from us, while they're arm-deep in blood from all unnecessary hysterectomies, back surgeries and thousand of other operations that the lying bastards said we needed over the last 100 years, not to mention the 100,000 that drop dead each year from their toxic prescription drugs.I thought the definition of intellectual was the ability for introspection, to question oneself. It's obvious these so-called conservatives have never looked in mirror, they're too busy projecting their own moral weaknesses on the poor and minorities. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Dan B on July 21, 2003 at 02:14:42 PT
Respect for the Law?
My first reaction to this article was much like Virgil's, and in many ways it still is. I appreciate, however, the comment by CorvallisEric in which it is pointed out that this article is written for conservatives. I have a few things to say about what this article says and the comments that have been made about it, and then I'll shut up.Virgil has said, "If anything it is dumbed down and warped to the audience." More to the point, the author of this article is dumbed-down such that he cannot understand why his position is so hypocritical, untruthful and illogical on many levels. For example, conservatives have not "always maintained that there is a symbolic value to the law that, while perhaps unenforceable, still maintains social standards of preferred conduct." In fact, that statement is quite liberal, by constitutional standards. It suggests that a ruling elite should be allowed to make extraconstitutional laws whenever such laws uphold certain standards held by a religious segment of the nation. Constitutionally, such laws are strictly verboten.I would argue that the people who founded this country were constitutionally conservative (since they wrote it and signed it into law) and that some of those people, led by the likes of John Adams, did believe that a certain group labeled "elite" should be allowed to make the majority of the decisions, but another group of constitutional conservatives, led by Thomas Jefferson, believed that the rights of the states and the people should always take precedence over the rights of the union. The latter were democratic, the former were essentially monarchists, though they could not "out" themselves as such because they wanted to gain the trust of the American people. The latter are the reason why we have a two-house Congress, and the former are why we now have a president who bypasses the Congress whenever he wants to wage war or make other important decisions about the security of the country. Which group constitutes true conservatives? The Jeffersonians, for it is the Jeffersonians who want to maintain the values that the country fought for to free itself from the British "elitist" system. The other group is conservative only in the sense that it wants to return us to that elitist system. When the author, Scott Shore, writes "conservatives," he means to say those who wish to return the country to an elitist system no matter the cost to any all freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. He is referring to conservatives in the Cotton Mather sense, not in the constitutional sense.In that context, it becomes easier to understand his viewpoint in this article. He berates the recent (constitutionally correct) ruling by the Supreme Court--that what goes on sexually in one's bedroom is none of the government's business--because the ruling fails to support his "elitist" idealogy that claims superiority of heterosexuals over homosexuals. That is another way of saying that e supports laws against homosexuality, along with laws against "explicit pornography" (and, one can assume, prostitution), because such things run counter to his Judeo-Christian elitist mindset. In fact, the only reason that he wishes to change the laws about marijuana is that he finds the current laws "hypocritical" when that substance is compared with alcohol and tobacco, and we already know that alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure. He wants to maintain the rest of the war on some drugs because he believes that cocaine, heroin, meth and other drugs are more deadly than alcohol, tobacco and cannabis, never mind that all illegal drugs combined kill fewer people than either alcohol or tobacco (pick one), not to mention that they kill far fewer people than do prescription medicines. So, while he wants to legalize and regulate cannabis because of hypocritical and practical concerns, hypocracy and pragmatism are not considered concerns for the rest of the war on some drugs. Why? Because the war on some drugs is an elitist operation that allows government to continue to stick its nose into the homes and lives of its citizens. In short, he doesn't want to throw the elitist baby out with the bathwater.Interestingly, he wishes to place marijuana regulation squarly in the hands of companies like Philip Morris. You remember Philip Morris, don't you? They're the ones who infused their tobacco products with even more carcinogenic substances in order to make the tobacco more addictive, thus increasing consumption. What a lovely idea, eh? Let's give cannabis regulation to to one industry that this country should trust least (or next to least, right after petroleum, pharmaceuticals, and the "defense" industry).Finally, what weakens the "moral fiber" of this country is people like the author who require government assistance to maintain their religious codes of ethics. The first amendment to the Constitution makes it very clear that government will make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof. There is a big difference between laws against willful destruction of a person and/or his or her property, and laws against irreligious ideas. The former is an acceptable and necessary part of any civil society; the latter has no place in a country that claims to uphold the Constitution of the United States.When you see "moral" in an argument about law, replace the word with "religious" and see if it fits. In almost every case it does, and it shouldn't. Laws that attempt to uphold one group's view of "morality" fail to take into consideration the fact that in order for people to respect the law, the law must first respect the rights of people. That means everyone, not just those with a particular religious persuasion.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on July 20, 2003 at 23:09:39 PT
Thanks Everyone
I wasn't sure if I should post this article but I'm glad I did. This is not a good or bad article in my opinion but an exposure of the way some people believe. Once many years ago in an MSNBC News Chat I was asked what Party I was and I said none. I felt kind of dumb and thought why am I so wishy washy and now I think I know what I am. I'm a liberal conservative with a strong feeling about our responsibility to care for the earth yet I don't believe everything the Greens believe. That's why I don't debate politics. I don't like to follow rules that might be wrong just because a Party decides that's their platform. It's too much like joining a church. You're stuck with what you don't believe and that can suffocate what you do believe. I hope this makes sense and thanks again everyone for all the good comments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Virgil on July 20, 2003 at 23:02:00 PT
Raise the white flag.
In totality this article carries the message that the battle is lost. The author does not say drop the criminal justice model and adopt harm reduction with a health perspective as he clearly fights on in the War on cocaine and heroin and whatever. He does say to give up the war on cannabis and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol which is the only logical thing to do. If I were going to start rewriting his message, I would have to change the title to "Raise the white flag." Cannabis Prohibition is wrong and always has been wrong. The prohibitionists are now facing a growing number of people with real indignation at being lied to, ignored, arrested, imprisoned, intimidated, and taxed all while the union grew less perfect. The battle is lost. He came close but did not say, "Cannabis Prohibition is Wrong" and "Raise the white flag." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Virgil on July 20, 2003 at 22:11:37 PT
No, On an intellectual level it sucks.
I read some of the website and kind of see a miniature FreeRepublic. The fact that it is written for a specific audience does not raise it to any merit on an intellectual platform. If anything it is dumbed down and warped to the audience. If you take it line by line many things just sound goofy, if not untrue. Look at the first line and tell me who is doing all the agonizing. And he sure uses the word I like a high school writer. Saying pornography should be criminal might spead to an audience and let some venom drip, but I do not see it as an intellectual conclusion or conservative value in the Ron Paul sense.Fred Gardner is intellectual. This is not. It is intellectual garbage written for an audience that is not interested in intellectual thought. While I agree it resonates with their audience and it carries the Logical Conclusion, so what. It is intellectual garbage and a B for a high school student that would write it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 20, 2003 at 21:06:41 PT
A Poll
It would be really nice to see a well detailed poll on what different people believe. Not one question but 10 or more. Questions about values, liberties, what we want for our country and more. I don't believe most people are 100 % liberal or 100% conservative but a little bit of both. I think that's why I am not at all politically minded because I don't really believe in absolutes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by freedom fighter on July 20, 2003 at 20:56:10 PT
Just wait...
maybe someone will send an article re-buking his article..I wondered if these "conservatives" do feel they are in "power".Heck, if their leader can only say "NU-CU-LAR" when it spells out nuclear, I would immediately announce I am just a human being rather than a conservative human being.To me, this article is just a tiny baby steps.. AWWWWWW!Look how the baby stumbling about!There is only one good reason why we should legalize Cannabis..This is to STOP putting HUMAN BEINGS in cages for growing Cannabis.Is that conservative enough?pazff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on July 20, 2003 at 20:44:46 PT
CorvallisEric
I'm not good at getting my points across and you just did with what you said. This is written for conservative folks. They might understand it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by CorvallisEric on July 20, 2003 at 20:28:40 PT
Respect for the Law ...
... must be of overwhelming importance to conservatives. The title is wonderful. This kind of article might win more converts to the cause of freedom than anything else.Before anyone criticizes some of the author's attitudes, they should realize that this is written by someone with a particular point of view for an like-minded audience. There is very little chance of reaching those people any other way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on July 20, 2003 at 20:14:15 PT
Riverboat gambler 'Billy Bob' Bennett
"Currently all the money made by marijuana goes to criminal cartels, terrorists and sundry other lowlifes."Mr. Bennett can't be let off the hook that easily. How much money did he lose? If gambling were illegal, would he be another 'lowlife'? Would the world be forced to purge humanity of the likes of Mr. Bennett, an incorrigible 'lowlife' who would be placed in a cage for acquiring the nasty, repulsive habit of illegal gambling?His 'weakened moral fiber' does seem to be an 'intractable fact regarding human nature'. Off to the Gulag for Mr. Bennett. He could write his second edition of his book of virtues.Time to invade Canada, too. Good Lord, those neocons are gonna be busy covering their arses.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Virgil on July 20, 2003 at 20:00:34 PT
Why this stinks
Just because an article calls for regulation of cannabis like T&A does not make it an intellectual masterpiece with the word intellectual being of significance because of the IntellectualConservative name of the website.While to call for more failure and misery is either stupidity or propaganda, just calling for regulation is no automatic certification for a job well done. This guy acts like we have gone down a road for 65 years and now we should turn left. Afraid not. We have gone in the wrong direction for 65 years with victimless crimes to build a police state. In my book the beginning point is that cannabis prohibition is wrong now and when it started. It is not a matter of turning left. It is a matter of admitting we were wrong and drawing the lessons of it to teach to the children. It is not a matter of turning. It is more like take a plane to the point of beginning- starting over with where we went wrong when prohibition began and mapping out the best course with what we now know.This article had its points, but it does not represent much in the way of intellectual anything, much less conservatism. Contrast it to the Cato Report that really is intellectual conservative thought on the WOD. It does not waste time dwelling on the fact the the WOD is a failure because that is a given in all intellectual thought and not limited to the conservative perspective.It carries a reasoned message but this is high school material. The girl that won the 8th grade contest a few weeks back did better than this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 20, 2003 at 19:18:27 PT
A Small Comment
I understand this article. I am conservative in most things in my life. I am a person who values privacy and in turn I value others privacy. I am very careful to do my best not to offend others with my comments. I think a long time before I say anything. I am opinionated and strong willed so when I decide to do something I don't change my mind. I've always been that way. Maybe it's because of the way I was raised that I can related to the problems that some conservative folks deal with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by cloud7 on July 20, 2003 at 19:00:14 PT
Very good
What an educated, reasoned argument for legalization! This is exactly the type of article that should be widely read on both sides of the argument. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on July 20, 2003 at 18:59:48 PT
What is the definition of a conservative?
Conservatives have always maintained that there is a symbolic value to the law that, while perhaps unenforceable, still maintains social standards of preferred conduct. It is for this reason that most conservatives have been outraged over the extinction of laws regarding sodomy. Well, here we have a problem. It seems as if this guy thinks that the fundamentalist nutcase is a conservative. I wish he would embrass the idea of the historical definition, whatever it is, in regards to the Constitution. And the true conservative is insulted by being linked to the fundamentalist nutcases going around wrapped up in a fantacy and trying to highjack the conservative agenda. Just read the statesment at the American Conservative website- http://www.amconmag.com/ - This article is no intellectual acheivement and about a big a failure of explaining the issue as all the rest. Now I take this guy as a fundamentalist and no conservative and of course GW Idiot is no conservative or there would be no Department of Education or a huge Farm Bill. If he were going to accurately describe the cannabis attitude of the government he may chose words that the NYT let slip out one time- like mean-spirited in regards to MMJ. The whole prohibition is a fraud and a vicious and malicious use of governance that shows the government takes lying as a matter of course. The Cato Institute is a true conservative publication and they question the constitutionality of the CSA of 1970 and call for the dismantling of the DEA- http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-17.pdfIt is hard to believe this guy makes a living with crap like this. Nutcases are one thing but to have Policy by Mythology is ruining the country. Remember separation of church and state and things like that?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 20, 2003 at 18:55:48 PT
Thank You EJ
If I can bring even a small amount of hope that makes me happy. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on July 20, 2003 at 18:48:45 PT
Little dollops of hope
Cannabisnews.com, where people come every day looking for signs of better days to come.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment