Why are conservative against legalizing marijuana?

[cosmosdan]

@BrotherCadfael

Cite? I’ll have to say, I have never heard of either tobacco or alcohol lobbying on this subject. I suspect this is one of those “oh, it must be true” kind of things.

I’ll do some research but I was told this by the head of the local chapter of NORML

You couldn’t realistically expect big pharma and alcohol to openly oppose legalizing MJ. It would be more along the lines of subtly influencing votes in the house and Senate with money. It does make perfect sense doesn’t it. Look at the money spent on advertising all kinds of drugs for restless leg syndrome etc. Imagine the billions at stake if MJ was a relatively inexpensive alternative.

from the Wikki page on Dupont

Hemp

Hemp paper threatened DuPont’s monopoly on the necessary chemicals for manufacturing paper from trees and hemp fiber cloth would compete with Nylon, a synthetic fibre, that was patented in 1938, the year hemp was made illegal.[19][20] It is often asserted in pro-cannabis publications that DuPont actively supported the criminalization of the production of hemp in the US in 1937 through private and government intermediates, and alleged that this was done to eliminate hemp as a source of fiber—one of DuPont’s biggest markets at the time. DuPont denies allegations that it influenced hemp regulation.

demonizing MJ was part of the plan.

Also check this out The true story of Hemp.

there is an interesting article claiming that since we are on the verge of legalizing medical MJ the pharma companies are now scrambling to get in on the money rather than block it. So, it seems the conventional meme may not be entirely true.

[BrotherCadfael]

@cosmosdan

I’ll do some research but I was told this by the head of the local chapter of NORML.

Hmmm… great unbiased sourcing, there.

[PatriotGrrrl]

@adhay

So, do you inhale … I thought not. Me neither.

What’s the matter, are the black helicopters going to zoom down your internet pipes and haul you away to Guantanamo if you mention that you might have smoked some pot at some time?

If the freakin’ President of the United States can admit that he’s done drugs, I think you can.

[cosmosdan]

@BrotherCadfael

Hmmm… great unbiased sourcing, there.

If you’d read my post and looked at the links you’d notice that the article saying big pharma is probably not opposing medical MJ any longer was written by the national head of NORML. I’ll share that with my friend in the local chapter. Sheeesh!

[adhay]

@PatriotGrrrl

What’s the matter, are the black helicopters going to zoom down your internet pipes and haul you away to Guantanamo if you mention that you might have smoked some pot at some time?

I’m on the record elsewhere.

If the freakin’ President of the United States can admit that he’s done drugs, I think you can.

Will that make me President? I do.

Just kiddin’. I’m retired and like it.

[sqweels]

@Ludovic

Sure, but are there any examples of conservatives with that opinion?

WFB was nothing if not an “elite”.

[XT]

@sqweels

How about telling us what “conservative” actually means instead of snarking at those who supposedly have the wrong impression.

Seriously? Let me guess…you are a one size fits all, dey all look alike kind of person, ehe?

(well, with that bit of snark out of the way…)

Types of conservatives range widely, as any big tent movement in the US is going to generate. Off the top of my head there are Neo-Cons (focused mainly on advancing the US on the world stage, and probably not giving two shits about legalization), Paleo-Cons (focused on the past, especially the supposed golden age of America in the 50’s, distinguished mainly, IMHO with anti-immigration and an isolationist policy, this type probably wouldn’t be too keen on legalization), Fiscal-Cons (obviously focused more on the economy and the concept of smaller government, this type probably doesn’t care about legalization as a whole, as long as it doesn’t cost too much), Social/Cultural-Cons (both subgroups of the religious conservatives who are focused on religious issues, morals, ‘family values’, etc etc…definitely wouldn’t be into legalization), and moderate-cons (who are, as suggested, moderates, and are usually progressives…a sub-group of this one is the conservative ‘green’ faction of the Republican party, and would probably be for legalization).

Obviously, just like the silly Paints with Large Brush tag ‘conservative’, these ‘groups’ have a lot of cross-over between them. A person could be a Neo-Con/Fiscal-Con, for instance, or a Social/Cultural-Con and a Paleo-Con. A lot of Fiscal-Con’s are also Moderate-Con’s, IMHO. I know that it’s fashionable on this board to think of the conservative movement as some kind of monolithic, faceless enemy moving in lockstep with each other, but the reality is less comic-booky, and more nuanced. Just like the silly tag ‘liberal’ can actually have a whole host of nuanced meanings and stances, some of which are at odds with other groups using the same tag, conservatives in the US are far from all looking alike…

(at a guess you aren’t going to be satisfied with the above, so why don’t you tell me what ‘conservative’ means, ehe?)

-XT

[Random_Design]

@Sinaptics

You have the agriculture section that doesn’t want hemp introduced to the market.

I don’t quite get this. What does agriculture have to gain from not growing hemp? Why wouldn’t it be an income crop like any other? Soya wasn’t widely cultivated until around WWII and look at it now.

[Paleface]

@pedescribe

Neither party holds the same ideals as they did 100 years ago. Your point is…?

You are illustrating my point. It’s not Republican or Democrat, it’s ideology. The notion of going abroad to spread democracy is leftist globalism. It is not a conservative ideology. But since the powers-that-be have the populace dumbed down and trained as Pavlovian dogs, if the Republican label can be applied to it, then it’s automatically considered conservative.

Same thing, just because someone is against the legalization of marijuana, does not make them conservative.

[kidchameleon]

@Paleface

Same thing, just because someone is against the legalization of marijuana, does not make them conservative.

In fact on the far end of the spectrum, its not inconceivable for socialists to be against legalization in the belief that it would harm public health as a whole.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

Types of conservatives range widely, as any big tent movement in the US is going to generate. Off the top of my head there are Neo-Cons (focused mainly on advancing the US on the world stage, and probably not giving two shits about legalization), Paleo-Cons (focused on the past, especially the supposed golden age of America in the 50’s, distinguished mainly, IMHO with anti-immigration and an isolationist policy, this type probably wouldn’t be too keen on legalization), Fiscal-Cons (obviously focused more on the economy and the concept of smaller government, this type probably doesn’t care about legalization as a whole, as long as it doesn’t cost too much), Social/Cultural-Cons (both subgroups of the religious conservatives who are focused on religious issues, morals, ‘family values’, etc etc…definitely wouldn’t be into legalization), and moderate-cons (who are, as suggested, moderates, and are usually progressives…a sub-group of this one is the conservative ‘green’ faction of the Republican party, and would probably be for legalization).

Obviously, just like the silly Paints with Large Brush tag ‘conservative’, these ‘groups’ have a lot of cross-over between them. A person could be a Neo-Con/Fiscal-Con, for instance, or a Social/Cultural-Con and a Paleo-Con. A lot of Fiscal-Con’s are also Moderate-Con’s, IMHO. I know that it’s fashionable on this board to think of the conservative movement as some kind of monolithic, faceless enemy moving in lockstep with each other, but the reality is less comic-booky, and more nuanced. Just like the silly tag ‘liberal’ can actually have a whole host of nuanced meanings and stances, some of which are at odds with other groups using the same tag, conservatives in the US are far from all looking alike…

So you don’t know? It means “whatever”? :dubious:

You can’t tell us what the adjective “conservative” means at its root and then draw a logical connection between that and the positions held by various brands of conservative people?

I’m perfectly capable of explaining how the usage in any given political context is deried from the literal sense of the term, and doing so in a neutral fashion. But I want to hear folks who bandy about the term “conservative” explain it–or tie themsleves into knots trying to avoid the question.

Here’s a little excercise: On the one hand, we have a conservative scoop of ice cream. On the other, we have an American who is opposed to gun control regulations. What do they have in common?

[kidchameleon]

@sqweels

Here’s a little excercise: On the one hand, we have a conservative scoop of ice cream. On the other, we have an American who is opposed to gun control regulations. What do they have in common?

Both are primarily composed of water.

[glilly]

@ShibbOleth

There are just too many flavors of conservative. You have:

[snip]

4. Conservative = private sector over public sector (business is almost always right). In this case, if there is a profit angle, they may favor legalization, but more likely would favor restrictions that protect current business models such as liquor industry.

…

I think you’re refering to free market conservatives. This group prefers to minimize government interference with business, even if it is interference that favors existing businesses. They are not typically in favor of protecting current businesses from new entrants (especially if the government is doing the protecting), but rather prefer robust competition between businesses including new entrants.

This group (by and large) won’t be against legalization, at least not for economic reasons.

[sqweels]

No takers on my little challenge? I’ll throw the question open to anyone who considers themself any kind of conservative.

[adhay]

@sqweels

So you don’t know? … But I want to hear folks who bandy about the term “conservative” explain it–or tie themsleves into knots trying to avoid the question. …

I assume this is your challenge.

@sqweels

No takers on my little challenge? I’ll throw the question open to anyone who considers themself any kind of conservative.

I’m a conservative.

1. Govt has no business criminalizing private consensual behavior.

2. Govt recognizes that the resources of the planet belong as birthright to all of the denizens thereof.[ul]
   [li]a) It is govt’s function to facilitate the equitable and ecologically responsible distribution of these resources.[/li][li]b) It is not govt’s function to legalize the criminal privatization of the public trust.[/li][/ul]
   There would be no need for liberals if “conservatives” were conservative like me.

Me, I’m a conservative anarchist. While I consider “formal religion” an oxymoronic political construct, I do believe in a benevolent Creator.

[adhay]

Let me put it another way.

Since our species was granted (by whatever being/route to which you choose to attribute our origin) eyes, ears, nose and tongue along with hands and “self”-consciousness. we’ve had 200,000 yrs to develop a virgin wilderness filled plants and game into a mountain-topped big ditch coming.

knowledge of our true nature, that we are hosts to ourselves and stewards of the planet, was lost early on and greed and thievery became a way of life.

It’s time we got over it.

I’m conservative and damn proud of it.

[sqweels]

@adhay

I assume this is your challenge.

I’m a conservative.

1. Govt has no business criminalizing private consensual behavior.

2. Govt recognizes that the resources of the planet belong as birthright to all of the denizens thereof.[ul]
   [li]a) It is govt’s function to facilitate the equitable and ecologically responsible distribution of these resources.[/li][li]b) It is not govt’s function to legalize the criminal privatization of the public trust.[/li][/ul]
   There would be no need for liberals if “conservatives” were conservative like me.

My silly little challange was for someone to explain what a conservative scoop of ice cream and a gun-rights advocate have in common. As one example of defining “conservative” at its root and then tracing the meaning back to current usages.

Me, I’m a conservative anarchist.

A conservative anarchist could be someone who is fairly restrained in how he goes about his anarchistic activites, or he could be rigidly dogmatic in how he enforces anarchistic principles.

[adhay]

@sqweels

My silly little challange was for someone to explain what a conservative scoop of ice cream and a gun-rights advocate have in common. As one example of defining “conservative” at its root and then tracing the meaning back to current usages.

What do Eve and Adam have in common?

A conservative anarchist could be someone who is fairly restrained in how he goes about his anarchistic activites, or he could be rigidly dogmatic in how he enforces anarchistic principles.

We can agree to check religion at the door.

[XT]

@sqweels

You can’t tell us what the adjective “conservative” means at its root and then draw a logical connection between that and the positions held by various brands of conservative people?

Of course not, since it means different things to different people…unless one is inclined to paint with a broad brush. “All dem spic’s is lazy”, “All dem joos is cheap, grasping bastards”, “All dem liburals is fluff headed communists”, etc etc. In the REAL world things are more nuanced.

I ask you again…what do YOU think ‘conservative’ means, and what do you see as the common ground? Because, frankly, I don’t really see much of one, just a lot of folks who use the label and are willing to get beneath the big tent for their own reasons because the tent suits them more than the big one on the other side of the US political spectrum.

I’m perfectly capable of explaining how the usage in any given political context is deried from the literal sense of the term, and doing so in a neutral fashion. But I want to hear folks who bandy about the term “conservative” explain it–or tie themsleves into knots trying to avoid the question.

And yet you offer no substantial position of your own in this thread. I have told you what I think the super-set of ‘conservatives’ break down along in this country (and even there I think the tags are flawed, as I doubt the majority believe in even the monolithic precepts of the subgroupings)…you, on the other hand, have not bothered to reply in kind, afaict, so…

Here’s a little excercise: On the one hand, we have a conservative scoop of ice cream. On the other, we have an American who is opposed to gun control regulations. What do they have in common?

They are both vanilla flavored? But seriously, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-roll?

-XT

[sqweels]

@xtisme

Of course not, since it means different things to different people…unless one is inclined to paint with a broad brush. “All dem spic’s is lazy”, “All dem joos is cheap, grasping bastards”, “All dem liburals is fluff headed communists”, etc etc. In the REAL world things are more nuanced.

This is not about a broad brush applying to all conservative people. This is about people who have embraced a term who apparently don’t know what it means.

I ask you again…what do YOU think ‘conservative’ means, and what do you see as the common ground?

I DO know what it means and I WILL explain my little ice cream thing. But I’m not done letting you make fools of yourselves.

Sure, there are different senses of the term and different political sub-categories, but there is a commonality going back to the root meaning, and it doesn’t involve any kind of negative portrayal.

And yet you offer no substantial position of your own in this thread.

OK. Even though I’m a long-time pot smoker, I’m actually a little bit conservative on the issue of drug legalization.

They are both vanilla flavored? But seriously, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-roll?

I could give you a conservative estimate…