Propaganda of the Marijuana Lobby: A Con Job

 

We’re all being conned. As legalization of marijuana is being pushed forward in the US, we are discovering how little we really know about the drug, and the information we do have is not widely publicized:

Despite being a substance that targets the brain, if and how long-term cannabis use alters brain structure and function remain unknown. There are some known adverse effects. It acutely impairs mental functions and may exacerbate depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and use of other substances. Whether it is more harmful than substances such as alcohol or nicotine is still undetermined. On the plus side, there is conclusive evidence that cannabis provides relief from symptoms related to chemotherapy and multiple sclerosis. Other potential benefits remain unknown.

Ten states have already allowed the recreational use of cannabis. According to an op-ed piece by Alex Berenson, the pro-marijuana groups have changed the discussion by talking about medical marijuana and the relief it can provide, rather than focusing on its recreational use.

Studies that are not widely publicized explain that the effects on children and teenagers can be long-term:

When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce attention, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions. Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent.

Developing brains, like those in babies, children, and teenagers are especially susceptible to the hurtful effects of marijuana. Although scientists are still learning about these effects of marijuana on the developing brain, studies show that marijuana use by mothers during pregnancy may be linked to problems with attention, memory, problem-solving skills, and behavior problems in their children.

Following the states that have legalized marijuana to date, casual use doesn’t seem to have increased substantially. But for people who are heavy users, the increase in use is alarming:

…the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about 3 million Americans reported using the drug at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had increased to 8 million—approaching the 12 million Americans who drank every day. Put another way, only one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.

The potency of the drug has also increased. Rather than the 2% THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) of the 1970s, marijuana is routinely 20-25%.

Even more alarming than this data is the lack of information on the link between mental illness, violence, and the use of marijuana:

In 2017, 7.5% of young adults met the criteria for serious mental illness, double the rate in 2008.

None of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness, although they do offer suggestive evidence of a link. What is clear is that, in individual cases, marijuana can cause psychosis, and psychosis is a high risk factor for violence. What’s more, much of that violence occurs when psychotic people are using drugs. As long as people with schizophrenia are avoiding recreational drugs, they are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. The drug they are most likely to use is cannabis.

According to the National Academies of Sciences, US scientists can only receive access to “research-graded” cannabis, so they don’t conduct studies on the marijuana that is actually being used recreationally by the public.

Needless to say, the marijuana lobby is not interested in funding or encouraging research on their product. Due to the lack of research, we have no credible assessment of the damage that is being done to our children. The relationships between mental illness, psychosis, and violence are still unclear. And no one really knows the effect on crime statistics.

If you think the opioid crisis was a tragedy, just wait and see the results of widespread marijuana legalization.

Are you as concerned as I am?

Published in Culture
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 195 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):
    This is a strange response. I wasn’t suggesting that we throw out the political process. Saying that people have rights to certain things, or that government shouldn’t be empowered to do certain things, doesn’t mean we up-end the process by fiat.

    Just using your own rules against you. If a power can be abused it will. If we can place things outside the political process, more an more will be, and we end up with rule by fiat of robed judges.

    Individual rights come into conflict with one another. There are not absolute rules for every human interaction. Life is not a formula no matter how much you or Fred want it to be. It is messy. People have the right to form the sorts of places they want to live in. Each individual has that right. You would give one person the power to veto all that. As long as crapping in public is not a health hazard, how dare the rest of us have a law against that! And so forth, and so on.

    I want there to be an America for my kids. I will take a less than perfect America, than one destroyed by fool idealism, like open borders, destroyed marriages, and pot everywhere. And I will work towards my preferences at the ballot box, where you and Fred want to keep me out.

    Okay.

    What rules are you proposing to use against me?

    I said nothing about suspending, or going outside of, the political process.

    I haven’t subscribed to a “formula” or anti-formula theory of politics. Maybe you and/or Manny should author a post explaining this idea of a formula.

    Who is this guy that has veto power? Me? Fred?

    I haven’t endorsed open borders, and I have always opposed the legal recognition of homosexual relationships. I believe in the Biblical teaching of life-long marriage (the real, boy/girl kind), and I’m a teetotaller. No drugs; no alcohol. 

    FWIW, I don’t think the concept of rights allows for one right to conflict with another right. The idea of balancing one right with another has become the West’s default method of denying rights. Gun right violations are a good example of this.

    If you’d like to respond to some of the things I have actually said, please do.

    • #151
  2. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    • #152
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):
    This is a strange response. I wasn’t suggesting that we throw out the political process. Saying that people have rights to certain things, or that government shouldn’t be empowered to do certain things, doesn’t mean we up-end the process by fiat.

    Just using your own rules against you. If a power can be abused it will. If we can place things outside the political process, more an more will be, and we end up with rule by fiat of robed judges.

    Individual rights come into conflict with one another. There are not absolute rules for every human interaction. Life is not a formula no matter how much you or Fred want it to be. It is messy. People have the right to form the sorts of places they want to live in. Each individual has that right. You would give one person the power to veto all that. As long as crapping in public is not a health hazard, how dare the rest of us have a law against that! And so forth, and so on.

    I want there to be an America for my kids. I will take a less than perfect America, than one destroyed by fool idealism, like open borders, destroyed marriages, and pot everywhere. And I will work towards my preferences at the ballot box, where you and Fred want to keep me out.

    Okay.

    What rules are you proposing to use against me?

    I don’t know what this means.

    I said nothing about suspending, or going outside of, the political process.

    Your cohort sure is. Talk with him. 

    I haven’t subscribed to a “formula” or anti-formula theory of politics. Maybe you and/or Manny should author a post explaining this idea of a formula.

    Fred’s the one wanting a Formula

    Who is this guy that has veto power? Me? Fred?

    Any person who moves into the community and does not want to abide by its norms. Say a community, as a group, 100% votes to have homes in a certain style. Then, one guy moves in to that community and tears his house down and puts a giant pink dog there. Fred is for that and the only remedy he has is for everyone else to move away. He had argued that in the past. *That* is a form of tyranny as sure as anything else. 

    I haven’t endorsed open borders, and I have always opposed the legal recognition of homosexual relationships. I believe in the Biblical teaching of life-long marriage (the real, boy/girl kind), and I’m a teetotaller. No drugs; no alcohol.

    Libertarians are for open borders. Ask Fred. He is. 

    FWIW, I don’t think the concept of rights allows for one right to conflict with another right. The idea of balancing one right with another has become the West’s default method of denying rights. Gun right violations are a good example of this.

    Rights can easily come into conflict. For example: The right of an unborn child is no match, in America, for the rights of the mother to kill it. Her rights over reproduction are absolute. The father has no rights at all. 

    If you’d like to respond to some of the things I have actually said, please do.

    If you want to place the use of pot as a “right” then you are looking to put it outside the political process, even if you deny that is what you want to do. 

    • #153
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    But, your fellow citizens have. You disagree. That gets worked out in the political process.

    • #154
  5. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I’ll say it can have that authority if given it by the People, follow a due political process. It is part of the political process. These are messy and always, there are people who don’t like the outcome. You take the outcomes you like with the outcomes you don’t.

    I think the FDA system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, that is a political process issue, not a rights issue. The libertarian impulse is to find more and more negative rights, while the left looks to find positive ones. The goal, of course, is to place as much as possible outside the political sphere. There, either side gets to win, once and for all, forever, and the other side has to take a loss till the end of time. That does not work as a governing strategy.

    Libertarians of to day in 1787, if they are true to their much self-vaunted consistency and first principles, would have rejected the Constitution because it acknowledged slavery. And the nation would have died in its crib. So much for hard and fast, never wavering, can’t give an inch, thinking.

    This is a strange response. I wasn’t suggesting that we throw out the political process. Saying that people have rights to certain things, or that government shouldn’t be empowered to do certain things, doesn’t mean we up-end the process by fiat.

    But Josh, nothing in the Bill of Rights automatically gives freedom to pot like it does to bear arms. So it has to go through the legislative process. They do not have a defacto right to pot.

    Do you understand the difference between the rights that a person has, versus the rights that the government recognizes? For example, you have a right to speak freely. That is a moral claim, saying that it would be wrong for the government to censor you. If the government censors you, that means your right to speak is not recognized, or not upheld. But you still have the right.

    The legislative process is (or should be) the way we ensure that our rights are recognized.

    • #155
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I’ll say it can have that authority if given it by the People, follow a due political process. It is part of the political process. These are messy and always, there are people who don’t like the outcome. You take the outcomes you like with the outcomes you don’t.

    I think the FDA system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, that is a political process issue, not a rights issue. The libertarian impulse is to find more and more negative rights, while the left looks to find positive ones. The goal, of course, is to place as much as possible outside the political sphere. There, either side gets to win, once and for all, forever, and the other side has to take a loss till the end of time. That does not work as a governing strategy.

    Libertarians of to day in 1787, if they are true to their much self-vaunted consistency and first principles, would have rejected the Constitution because it acknowledged slavery. And the nation would have died in its crib. So much for hard and fast, never wavering, can’t give an inch, thinking.

    This is a strange response. I wasn’t suggesting that we throw out the political process. Saying that people have rights to certain things, or that government shouldn’t be empowered to do certain things, doesn’t mean we up-end the process by fiat.

    But Josh, nothing in the Bill of Rights automatically gives freedom to pot like it does to bear arms. So it has to go through the legislative process. They do not have a defacto right to pot.

    Do you understand the difference between the rights that a person has, versus the rights that the government recognizes? For example, you have a right to speak freely. That is a moral claim, saying that it would be wrong for the government to censor you. If the government censors you, that means your right to speak is not recognized, or not upheld. But you still have the right.

    The legislative process is (or should be) the way we ensure that our rights are recognized.

    Even with free speech, the People, through the political process have placed limits around that right in order to protect others and maintain society. Slander, while free speech, is something for which one can face penalties. That is a limit on speech. 

     

    • #156
  7. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Just using your own rules against you. If a power can be abused it will. If we can place things outside the political process, more an more will be, and we end up with rule by fiat of robed judges.

    Okay.

    What rules are you proposing to use against me?

    I don’t know what this means.

    See the passage I quoted just above. I don’t know what rules I’ve laid down that you’re using against me.

    I said nothing about suspending, or going outside of, the political process.

    Your cohort sure is. Talk with him.

    I haven’t subscribed to a “formula” or anti-formula theory of politics. Maybe you and/or Manny should author a post explaining this idea of a formula.

    Fred’s the one wanting a Formula

    Who is this guy that has veto power? Me? Fred?

    Any person who moves into the community and does not want to abide by its norms. Say a community, as a group, 100% votes to have homes in a certain style. Then, one guy moves in to that community and tears his house down and puts a giant pink dog there. Fred is for that and the only remedy he has is for everyone else to move away. He had argued that in the past. *That* is a form of tyranny as sure as anything else.

    I haven’t endorsed open borders, and I have always opposed the legal recognition of homosexual relationships. I believe in the Biblical teaching of life-long marriage (the real, boy/girl kind), and I’m a teetotaller. No drugs; no alcohol.

    Libertarians are for open borders. Ask Fred. He is.

    If you wish to argue with @fredcole, please respond to his posts, rather than mine. We’re not in a “cohort,” and he doesn’t speak for me, or I for him. It appears we agree on a couple of things, but I’ve agreed with you before, so what does that prove?

    FWIW, I do believe in federalism and subsidiarity, so please do not worry that I’ll build a giant, pink dog in your neighborhood.

    • #157
  8. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Even with free speech, the People, through the political process have placed limits around that right in order to protect others and maintain society. Slander, while free speech, is something for which one can face penalties. That is a limit on speech.

     

    That militates against your idea that any claim of rights goes outside the political process. I’m not sure why you’re saying slander is free speech.

    • #158
  9. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

     

    But Josh, nothing in the Bill of Rights automatically gives freedom to pot like it does to bear arms. So it has to go through the legislative process. They do not have a defacto right to pot.

    To be fair, all rights are not listed, and that is explicit in the Bill of Rights.

    So if they’re not listed, how do we know they are rights?  Which rights are not listed that are rights?  Abortion?

    • #159
  10. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    Whoa.  That’s pretty Libertarian Josh.  There’s not an once of conservatism in that.

    • #160
  11. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I’ll say it can have that authority if given it by the People, follow a due political process. It is part of the political process. These are messy and always, there are people who don’t like the outcome. You take the outcomes you like with the outcomes you don’t.

    I think the FDA system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, that is a political process issue, not a rights issue. The libertarian impulse is to find more and more negative rights, while the left looks to find positive ones. The goal, of course, is to place as much as possible outside the political sphere. There, either side gets to win, once and for all, forever, and the other side has to take a loss till the end of time. That does not work as a governing strategy.

    Libertarians of to day in 1787, if they are true to their much self-vaunted consistency and first principles, would have rejected the Constitution because it acknowledged slavery. And the nation would have died in its crib. So much for hard and fast, never wavering, can’t give an inch, thinking.

    This is a strange response. I wasn’t suggesting that we throw out the political process. Saying that people have rights to certain things, or that government shouldn’t be empowered to do certain things, doesn’t mean we up-end the process by fiat.

    But Josh, nothing in the Bill of Rights automatically gives freedom to pot like it does to bear arms. So it has to go through the legislative process. They do not have a defacto right to pot.

    Do you understand the difference between the rights that a person has, versus the rights that the government recognizes? For example, you have a right to speak freely. That is a moral claim, saying that it would be wrong for the government to censor you. If the government censors you, that means your right to speak is not recognized, or not upheld. But you still have the right.

    The legislative process is (or should be) the way we ensure that our rights are recognized.

    Sure, legislators do have the power to ensure our liberties, and that is proper, but that is not the limit on their authority.  They also have the authority to limit or deny liberties.  As they manifestly have done so with drugs.  

    • #161
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Even with free speech, the People, through the political process have placed limits around that right in order to protect others and maintain society. Slander, while free speech, is something for which one can face penalties. That is a limit on speech.

     

    That militates against your idea that any claim of rights goes outside the political process. I’m not sure why you’re saying slander is free speech.

    I totally don’t understand what you mean. 

    I have a God given right to free speech. If I use that right to harm others, then I can get punished per the system set up by the political process. 

    That does not seem to “militate” to me.

    • #162
  13. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    FWIW, I don’t think the concept of rights allows for one right to conflict with another right. The idea of balancing one right with another has become the West’s default method of denying rights. Gun right violations are a good example of this.

    Rights can easily come into conflict. For example: The right of an unborn child is no match, in America, for the rights of the mother to kill it. Her rights over reproduction are absolute. The father has no rights at all.

    When I use the word “rights,” I tend to follow the usage of the Declaration, in which our rights are God-given, rather than being that which government permits us to actually do. Through the political process, we try to form a government that fully recognizes the rights of all. The reality doesn’t match the ideal.

    In that view, the child has a right to life. The mother has the right to control her own body, so long as she doesn’t violate the child’s right to life, and the father (and mother) have the duty to care for the child. No one’s rights “conflict” with the child’s rights. They simply go as far as they go, and no farther. As we know, of course, the current legal reality is that the mother’s rights “conflict” the child right into the grave, rights and all.

    To put it another way, if our rights are “conflicting” then one of us is imagining rights we don’t (or shouldn’t) really have.

    If you’d like to respond to some of the things I have actually said, please do.

    If you want to place the use of pot as a “right” then you are looking to put it outside the political process, even if you deny that is what you want to do.

    It has taken me a little bit, but I finally figured out what you mean by “outside the political process.” You mean, apparently, in the courts.  From what I’ve seen, the freedom to use drugs the government does not like is being established more by state-level legislation, and the recent, national Right-To-Try legislation, than by the courts. Then again, it’s not an issue I follow, so I could be wrong.

    • #163
  14. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

     

    But Josh, nothing in the Bill of Rights automatically gives freedom to pot like it does to bear arms. So it has to go through the legislative process. They do not have a defacto right to pot.

    To be fair, all rights are not listed, and that is explicit in the Bill of Rights.

    So if they’re not listed, how do we know they are rights? Which rights are not listed that are rights? Abortion?

    The ninth article of the Bill of Rights:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The idea that we have only the rights listed by a legal document is not quite the same as saying that our rights come from the government, but it’s uncomfortably close.

    We have to use our own best judgment to determine the full rights of everyone in society, and we must then persuade others to agree with us, to secure those rights in law.

    • #164
  15. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    Whoa. That’s pretty Libertarian Josh. There’s not an once of conservatism in that.

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    How about the idea that legislation, at least at the national level, ought to be authorized by some specific article of the Constitution? Is that no part of conservatism?

    • #165
  16. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    Whoa. That’s pretty Libertarian Josh. There’s not an once of conservatism in that.

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    When those government intrusions have deleterious social consequences – such as the legalization of heroin – then the answer is no.  Conservatism does not support such a legal right.

    How about the idea that legislation, at least at the national level, ought to be authorized by some specific article of the Constitution? Is that no part of conservatism?

    Yes, federal legislation is authorized by Article 1 of the US Constitution.  Each state has some sort of statewide authority for their legislators.

    • #166
  17. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    When those government intrusions have deleterious social consequences – such as the legalization of heroin – then the answer is no. Conservatism does not support such a legal right.

    You’re saying if the laws against heroin were repealed, that would be a government intrusion?

    Are you saying that conservatism is a blanket endorsement of any government action, so long as it addresses a deleterious social consequence? Is there any deleterious social consequence that you trust the private sector to address on its own?

    How about the idea that legislation, at least at the national level, ought to be authorized by some specific article of the Constitution? Is that no part of conservatism?

    Yes, federal legislation is authorized by Article 1 of the US Constitution. Each state has some sort of statewide authority for their legislators.

    Can you please quote the passage of the U.S. Constitution that mentions drugs, or food?

    • #167
  18. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    When those government intrusions have deleterious social consequences – such as the legalization of heroin – then the answer is no. Conservatism does not support such a legal right.

    You’re saying if the laws against heroin were repealed, that would be a government intrusion?

    Are you saying that conservatism is a blanket endorsement of any government action, so long as it addresses a deleterious social consequence? Is there any deleterious social consequence that you trust the private sector to address on its own?

    Again, you’re falling into the Fred Cole fallacy of insisting on a formula.  Wisdom determines what the legal status of substances should be.  I envision many harmful substances to be legal and many to be illegal.  Some sort of formal or informal trade study should be performed.

    How about the idea that legislation, at least at the national level, ought to be authorized by some specific article of the Constitution? Is that no part of conservatism?

    Yes, federal legislation is authorized by Article 1 of the US Constitution. Each state has some sort of statewide authority for their legislators.

    Can you please quote the passage of the U.S. Constitution that mentions drugs, or food?

    So our country has been violating the constitution over drug laws for 100 years?  You mean it does not have the authority to prohibit heroin?  You can read about the various legislation over the years here.

    • #168
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    FWIW, I don’t think the concept of rights allows for one right to conflict with another right. The idea of balancing one right with another has become the West’s default method of denying rights. Gun right violations are a good example of this.

    Rights can easily come into conflict. For example: The right of an unborn child is no match, in America, for the rights of the mother to kill it. Her rights over reproduction are absolute. The father has no rights at all.

    When I use the word “rights,” I tend to follow the usage of the Declaration, in which our rights are God-given, rather than being that which government permits us to actually do. Through the political process, we try to form a government that fully recognizes the rights of all. The reality doesn’t match the ideal.

    In that view, the child has a right to life. The mother has the right to control her own body, so long as she doesn’t violate the child’s right to life, and the father (and mother) have the duty to care for the child. No one’s rights “conflict” with the child’s rights. They simply go as far as they go, and no farther. As we know, of course, the current legal reality is that the mother’s rights “conflict” the child right into the grave, rights and all.

    To put it another way, if our rights are “conflicting” then one of us is imagining rights we don’t (or shouldn’t) really have.

    If you’d like to respond to some of the things I have actually said, please do.

    If you want to place the use of pot as a “right” then you are looking to put it outside the political process, even if you deny that is what you want to do.

    It has taken me a little bit, but I finally figured out what you mean by “outside the political process.” You mean, apparently, in the courts. From what I’ve seen, the freedom to use drugs the government does not like is being established more by state-level legislation, and the recent, national Right-To-Try legislation, than by the courts. Then again, it’s not an issue I follow, so I could be wrong.

    I guess we have to disagree. Rights can come into conflict. If a woman’s right to control her body extends to killing a child, then the right’s of the child are infringed. If the woman has a right to take the baby away from the father, the father’s rights are infringed. 

    My right to do with my land what I want is limited by the right of the guy next door not to live next to a strip club. So, sometimes, rights are in conflict. You may not see it that way, but it is quite clear to me. 

    Yes, of course I mean the courts, but I mean more than that. I mean making something forbidden to even be talked about in political terms. The goal of calling abortion a right is not just to win in the courts, but to call anyone who is pro-life a monster who wants to enslave women. The Courts are a governmental means, yes, but the idea is to change culture by force to make even the idea beyond the pale. 

    • #169
  20. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I assume you would agree that heroin should not be legalized?

    Though I am opposed to drug abuse, I cannot find grounds to use the force of law to stop someone else from doing it.

    But, your fellow citizens have. You disagree. That gets worked out in the political process.

    Gee, thanks for the update.

    • #170
  21. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Even with free speech, the People, through the political process have placed limits around that right in order to protect others and maintain society. Slander, while free speech, is something for which one can face penalties. That is a limit on speech.

    That militates against your idea that any claim of rights goes outside the political process. I’m not sure why you’re saying slander is free speech.

    I totally don’t understand what you mean.

    I have a God given right to free speech. If I use that right to harm others, then I can get punished per the system set up by the political process.

    That does not seem to “militate” to me.

    There is much here to correct. If exercising your rights harms others (violates their rights), that is a strong signal that you are not actually exercising your rights. Again, we see the problem with the idea of “conflicting rights.” In truth, you either have a right to a thing, or you do not. The very nature of rights is that they are inalienable, meaning they must not be taken away from you.

    When we start talking about rights conflicting with one another, we’re saying that the thing which must not be taken away must be taken away (“must,” because it infringes on someone else’s rights). It makes no sense, and it destroys the whole idea of rights.

    Free speech, by definition, is that which must not be punished by a political process. I use the word “must,” because I’m talking about moral claims here. Obviously, the political process is sometimes abused, but I’m talking about what it ought and ought not to do.

    • #171
  22. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    When those government intrusions have deleterious social consequences – such as the legalization of heroin – then the answer is no. Conservatism does not support such a legal right.

    You’re saying if the laws against heroin were repealed, that would be a government intrusion?

    Are you saying that conservatism is a blanket endorsement of any government action, so long as it addresses a deleterious social consequence? Is there any deleterious social consequence that you trust the private sector to address on its own?

    Again, you’re falling into the Fred Cole fallacy of insisting on a formula. Wisdom determines what the legal status of substances should be. I envision many harmful substances to be legal and many to be illegal. Some sort of formal or informal trade study should be performed.

    You haven’t answered that first question about how lack of regulation is an intrusion, and you’re just using “formula” as a lazy way of dismissing any attempt at a conversation. And you’re again using “wisdom” as an escape hatch. You don’t need a real argument. You can just say, “but wisdom agrees with me!”

    How about the idea that legislation, at least at the national level, ought to be authorized by some specific article of the Constitution? Is that no part of conservatism?

    Yes, federal legislation is authorized by Article 1 of the US Constitution. Each state has some sort of statewide authority for their legislators.

    Can you please quote the passage of the U.S. Constitution that mentions drugs, or food?

    So our country has been violating the constitution over drug laws for 100 years?

    That would surprise you?

    I see you that can’t cite a Constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the notion that our government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the tenth article of that Bill of Rights thing you seemed so in favor of.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    • #172
  23. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    So much for hard and fast, never wavering, can’t give an inch, thinking.

    So, there’s another term for “hard and fast, never wavering, can’t give an inch, thinking” that you keep denigrating.

    It’s called “having principles.” That used to be something that self-described conservatives believed in.

    One can describe a lack of beliefs in trade offs and the problems with absolutism as having principles, and there have been self described conservatives who have done so. Nonetheless, Utopianism and the belief in free lunches is antithetical to conservatism to a degree that almost nothing else is. Perhaps a lack of commitment to opposition to evil empires, but that is ultimately a closely related thing.

    • #173
  24. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):
    There is much here to correct. If exercising your rights harms others (violates their rights), that is a strong signal that you are not actually exercising your rights.

    Yeah.

    Basically, there is no right to violate the rights of another, except in extreme circumstances.  (Killing a person to keep them from killing you, for example.)

    • #174
  25. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    James Of England (View Comment):

    One can describe a lack of beliefs in trade offs and the problems with absolutism as having principles, and there have been self described conservatives who have done so. Nonetheless, Utopianism and the belief in free lunches is antithetical to conservatism to a degree that almost nothing else is. Perhaps a lack of commitment to opposition to evil empires, but that is ultimately a closely related thing.

    I hasten to note that free lunches are also antithetical libertarianism.  The first symbol of the Libertarian Party, adopted in 1972, was the “Libersign”

    And I need to correct you, James.

    Your comments apply only to pre-2016 conservatism.  Conservatives don’t believe that anymore.

     

    • #175
  26. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):
    There is much here to correct. If exercising your rights harms others (violates their rights), that is a strong signal that you are not actually exercising your rights.

    Yeah.

    Basically, there is no right to violate the rights of another, except in extreme circumstances. (Killing a person to keep them from killing you, for example.)

    So all these drug laws are unconstitutional?  Take it up with SCOTUS.  Frankly you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    • #176
  27. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    You’re saying there’s no place in conservatism for the notion that we must justify government intrusion into private decisions? That you have to show how my actions hurt you, before you can get government to take action against me?

    When those government intrusions have deleterious social consequences – such as the legalization of heroin – then the answer is no. Conservatism does not support such a legal right.

    You’re saying if the laws against heroin were repealed, that would be a government intrusion?

    Are you saying that conservatism is a blanket endorsement of any government action, so long as it addresses a deleterious social consequence? Is there any deleterious social consequence that you trust the private sector to address on its own?

    Again, you’re falling into the Fred Cole fallacy of insisting on a formula. Wisdom determines what the legal status of substances should be. I envision many harmful substances to be legal and many to be illegal. Some sort of formal or informal trade study should be performed.

    You haven’t answered that first question about how lack of regulation is an intrusion, and you’re just using “formula” as a lazy way of dismissing any attempt at a conversation. And you’re again using “wisdom” as an escape hatch. You don’t need a real argument. You can just say, “but wisdom agrees with me!”

    I never said lack of regulation is an intrusion.  I don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’m advocating government intrusion when societal concerns warrant it.  And formula is not a lazy anything.  Formula is what you Libertarians use and it’s dumb.  Careful consideration of the situation is what is warranted, and that is how humanity actually works, and what the constitution calls for.

     

    • #177
  28. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    I see you that can’t cite a Constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the notion that our government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the tenth article of that Bill of Rights thing you seemed so in favor of.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    So how come there are federal drug laws?  Obviously you’re missing something.  Read up on how Article 1 is interpreted and applied.  I’m neither a lawyer nor do I have the time to keep pursuing this.  Federal laws exist to prohibit drugs and they are constitutional.  Face it.

    • #178
  29. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Manny (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):
    There is much here to correct. If exercising your rights harms others (violates their rights), that is a strong signal that you are not actually exercising your rights.

    Yeah.

    Basically, there is no right to violate the rights of another, except in extreme circumstances. (Killing a person to keep them from killing you, for example.)

    So all these drug laws are unconstitutional? Take it up with SCOTUS. Frankly you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    I was speaking in general about rights. Not just what you think the Constitution recognizes.

    • #179
  30. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Manny (View Comment):

    Joshua Bissey (View Comment):

    I see you that can’t cite a Constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the notion that our government has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

    I see that you’re unfamiliar with the tenth article of that Bill of Rights thing you seemed so in favor of.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    So how come there are federal drug laws? Obviously you’re missing something. Read up on how Article 1 is interpreted and applied. I’m neither a lawyer nor do I have the time to keep pursuing this. Federal laws exist to prohibit drugs and they are constitutional. Face it.

    Fortunately, the busybody nannystate consensus is finally breaking down. And those federal laws that are use to control people are in their way out.   

    Federal pot prohibition will be gone in 10 years. 

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.