Top Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Love Medical Marijuana

Categories: Weed

marijuana gop logo.jpg
Conservatives and Republicans should love legal marijuana: We tell you why.

Not all conservatives want to lock up sick grannies and other medical-marijuana patients, a fact proven by the thousands of right-wingers who in 2010 voted "yes" on Arizona's Prop 203.

Yet in polls, Republicans and conservatives do tend to favor penalties for the plant's growth and use more often than Democrats and liberals.

It shouldn't be that way. Aren't Democrats supposed to be the party of Big Government, Nanny-State-ism, the Food Police, etc.?

Conservatives, meanwhile, should find marijuana prohibition distasteful in general. Here are our Top Eight reasons why:

miranda hispanic police.jpg
Image and caption: www.tokeofthetown.com

8. Left-wingers don't yell as loudly about the concept of "states' rights." Yet too many righties are hypocrites on this subject, preferring a federal solution for many of their pet ideas, including bans on medical marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, and even burning a flag.

7. The Republican Party is desperate to get more black and Hispanic votes, and quitting the pot-enforcement habit is one way to do that. Statistics show that marijuana prohibition hurts minorities more than whites. The Denver Police Department's own data shows that African-Americans account for nearly a third of adult marijuana-possession cases, yet are only 11 percent of the population. That's why the NAACP and two national black and Hispanic police officer associations support the Colorado legalization initiative, Amendment 64.

6. If conservatives can support herbal supplements, why not herb? Veteran U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah spearheaded 1994 legislation that allowed dietary-supplement firms to make health claims about products that weren't approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Hatch is also the same right-winger who wrote the introduction to an infamous 1998 anti-pot pamphlet that identified users as people with an "excessive preoccupation with social causes, race relations, environmental issues, etc." He'd rather people were addicted to $35-per-bottle XanGo juice. Ironic, considering that the main difference between marijuana and other herbal supplements is that pot is the more versatile and effective medicine.

5. Conservatives were more heavily in favor of alcohol prohibition than liberals in the early 20th century, perhaps for some of the same reasons they don't like pot. Booze prohibition failed miserably. Therefore, conservatives shouldn't want to repeat their previously erroneous viewpoint on prohibition.


My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
sweetcookies3333
sweetcookies3333

..the greatest plant in the universe is almost free, LET FREEDOM RING....


Hundreds of thousands of deaths from alcohol and tobacco, 0 deaths from marijuana


America's war on drugs is a war on Americans, LOVE and FREEDOM, cali4life


#1 problem, evil gay hating christian conservatives don't want people to self reflect and think for themselves, marijuana elevates consiousness 

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

The number one reason why conservatives should love pot is because our Founding Fathers grew it, used it and it was the reason we are a great nation today.  I'm surprised that you don't have any points elucidated herein regarding the cultivation and industrial use of hemp - which doesn't get anybody high, but was the REAL reason for the prohobition of marijuana in the 1930s.  Industrial hemp production in this country could save the small farmers and provide a boon to the reduction of fossil fuels in this country!

 

http://nationalcannabiscoalition.com/hemp/

 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

The number 1, top of it all reason that conservatives won't get behind MMJ is:

 

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES ARE HYPOCRITES!

 

It's that simple folks. All the reasons in the world all boil down to the above.

 

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

I find it funny that conservatives esp the really far right ones consider themselves guardians for freedom when they fight to BAN so many things. Pot, porn, etc etc etc.. Maybe the hypocrites can stfu and stop acting like a bunch of children who flip-flop their way through their positions. I also find it funny how most people don't see the fact that we have huge gigantic deficits and if we allowed the government to sell and tax pot we could end those deficits. I believe in personal freedom as a liberal, therefore if someone ingests a harmless plant why should I care? How many people have die from smoking, eating or otherwise using pot?  

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

While there are some valid points in the article, they are well hidden behind the horrendous writing.  Your writing, Mr. Stern, does a disservice to the cause you are trying to serve.

SamClemens
SamClemens

I am a conservative Republican.  I don't use cannabis nor have I ever tried it.  I FULLY support the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.  I find the attempts by Tom Horne and Bill Montgomery to overthrow the will of the voters disgusting.  I equate medical cannabis to guns.  Gun laws don't prevent criminals from having and using guns.  Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns.  Medical cannabis prohibition doesn't prevent potheads from getting pot.  Medical cannabis prohibition only prevents sick people from having cannabis.

 

It is hypocritical for my fellow conservatives to tout their beliefs in either States Rights or Limited Government while asking to overturn state laws and asking for bigger federal government.

 

I don't want the government involved with my health care.  By taking away a viable option, the government is directly interfering with my health care.  As a conservative, this can't stand.

 

I whole heartedly endorse the saying "Don't Tread On Me."  This means that, as conservatives, we can't tread on others either.

 

People have the god given right to chose to live their lives in the manner that they feel is right for them.  This is meaning of Liberty and Freedom.  This is what so many honorable men have given their lives for.

 

I have two demands.  Do not "medicate" and drive.  This puts me and my family at risk.  It is no different than drinking and driving.  Do not ask me to pay for your health care or "medicine."

 

Respectfully,

Sam Clemens

interloper
interloper

#1 reason conservative favor keeping pot illegal, they are numb to their own cognitive dissonance. Perhaps they are just too inebriated to realize...?

Mary Doe
Mary Doe

It will make total sense if you drop 'medical.' If you offer them legalization of a psychotropic substance for recreational purposes without connecting it to medical conditions 'for which [treatment of] they pay' in their view, you will fare better. "Liberty', 'fuck the government,' 'don't tell me' will then make better sense.

Ross
Ross

Prohibition (18th Amendment) was made possible by income tax (16th Amendment) a few years earlier.  The federal government, without an income tax, relied on alcohol taxes for 30% of its budget.  Repeal of Pot Prohibition would not allow the income tax to be abolished, but it could buy continued tax breaks for the 1%.  Your #1 reason is precisely correct.

RetiredArmy
RetiredArmy

I'm sure the corporate sponsored politicians in Arizona will be checking in with ALEC to find out what, if any, their response should be. In the mean time there busy counting which side has given them the most money before they decide what side of the issue they are on. Their motto is screw the voters it's all about the money in their pockets.

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

 @ptcgaz No one has died, or has even been substantially harmed, by ingesting pot.  The reason pot is illegal is because large corporate conglomerates make money on the crops and natural resources (oil, coal, natural gas) which hemp did, and can in the future - it it's legal, compete with.  It was an economic manuever by the wealthy industrialists of the early 1900s to get a government subsidy for their commodities by basically BUYING CONGRESS!  In addition, there are large multinational corporations which have, for over 200 years, been trading in illegal drugs. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_WarThe British East India Company - the same multinational corporation which caused our Founding Fathers to create this Nation, was hip deep in the drug trade as far back as the 1700s. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @LegitQuestions Says the anonymous internet troll who has never won a single writing award in their life

 

Yeah... you really nailed it (sarcasm off)

raystern
raystern

 @LegitQuestions That's odd. Usually my writing is Nobel-Prize quality. Can you give an example of what offended you, writing-wise?

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

 @SamClemens Gun laws that are currently on the books DO NOT prevent "law abiding citizens from owning guns."  That is a lie, and a damnable lie at that.  Name ONE LAW which prevents law abiding citizens from owning guns.Conflating the regulation of weapons with the regulation of cannibas / hemp is just more examples of the cognitive dissonance (look it up yourself) of the conservative mind. 

 

If you want some FACTS about why you think like this - recent studies have concluded that conservatives are afraid of their own shadows.http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/

 

ptcgaz
ptcgaz

 @fairymagic13 I knew all of this already. William R. Hearst was the main reason behind it's "banning" because he found out after he bought large swaths of public land that he wanted to  log (to make paper) that hemp could be used to make paper. Somehow a link between hemp and the use of pot were tied together (you can't smoke hemp)... 

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @Flyer9753

Funny - you and I are often of the same opinion and both arguing back against the YPS's and JAF's of these boards - and just the other day you were agreeing with me on a point I made about something or other.   But now I'm just a lowly internet troll because you jumped to the conclusion that my comment means that I disagree with your position on marijuana.  Oh well.

 

So since your sarcasm was off, does that mean you were being sincere when you said, "Yeah...you really nailed it." - meaning in really did nail it and you're agreeing with me?  Or was you sarcasm actually on and you were actaully being sarcastic when you said I nailed it meaning you think I didn't really nail it and I got it wrong?

 

And why the assumption that I've never won a single writing award in my life.  Since I'm just an anonymous troll you have no idea who I am or what I've accomplished - correct?

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @raystern

 Your writing is usually solid and insightful, especially your longer investigative pieces like your recent pieces on Scientology.  This one seemed incredibly disjointed and all over the board.  It was almost like it was wrtten by three different people or something and like you were trying to be humorous, but not really being humorous.  I just found this piece very difficult to read and your points very difficult to follow.

 

That said, as I siad in my comment, some very valid points that deserve a longer piece that explores the conservative hypocrosy on this issue in much greater depth.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @LegitQuestions

 

The reason I answered you the way I did was your attack on the writer's writing without stating what you had a problem with, thus you were not attacking the writing, just the writer without basis.

 

i.e. it as an attack just to attack

 

You know me from my posts, if you have a reason to attack, fine, no problem, but attacks just for the sake of an attack is wrong IMHO.

 

I apologize for calling you a troll but again, IMHO people who attack for the sake of attack are trolls or at least acting like them, which IMHO you were doing when you made the comment.

 

You are welcome to disagree with my position on Marijuana, I welcome it. Reasonable discussion of any and all subjects is the only way things get resolved for the benefit of both sides, not just one.

 

I was being sarcastic when I said you nailed it, I think the articles writing was fine, but that is my opinion.

 

I see you left another comment to Stern acknowledging some of what I speak about here and expanding on your comments to him directly.

 

I also probably jumped a little to harshly on you as well and for that you have my apology.

 

I do agree however that there needs to a much much more in depth, comprehensive and historically accurate series of articles on Marijuana done by someone with the reach/exposure of NT to get the facts on both sides out there rather than the outdated and often wrong hype that exists in society now regarding Marijuana

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @Flyer9753

 I miss Disqus where I could edit a post after posting it (and finding my typos).

fairymagic13
fairymagic13

 @Tommy_Collins  @LegitQuestions  @raystern I have complained numerous times about Mr. Stern inserting his own political bias into his articles. 

 

As far as I can tell, this article and others he has written about the subject of hemp (and it's constituents like cannabis and sativa) reflect that Mr. Stern is of the opinion that hemp is not a serious subject because it is something liberals smoke to get high (apparently not considering the fact that many conservatives also get high on pot). 

 

This totally ignores the important contributions of hemp to our environment, economy, jobs and healthcare.  While not a panacea for the troubles afflicting us in the above areas, it (hemp) provides a good first step for reducing our dependence on oil, coal and nuclear power (all sources of extremely toxic pollution), decreasing the human contribution to global warming gas production (hemp removes global warming gases from the environment and the assist to farming as a rotational crop reduces the need to tilling fields), creating jobs and healthcare products for our society. 

 

Turning the issue into a joke about people getting stoned avoids having to deal with all these extremely important issues related to hemp.This Vally Fever bills itself as 1000mg of News.  Yet, Mr. Stern's opinion soaks through the article.  Making a serious subject like hemp legalization into a joke is a common tactic of the anti-legalization forces to render the topic a "that was funny" type article, promoting the readers to think of the subject as not serious, but nonetheless worthy of a chuckle or two.Another "tell" is his allegation that the Republican party of the prohibition era was considered "conservative" while the Democratic Party was considered "liberal" on the issue of Prohibition.  This was not the case at the time.  It was in fact, the Republican Party which was considered the more liberal of the two parties at that time (1850 to 1920 was the period of time in the US in which Prohibition was pursued and became law).  Prohibition was considered a liberal cause, pushed by the morality police and so-called "do-gooders" - it was titled the "Great National Experiment".  It was the Democratic party which opposed Prohibition and was the more conservative of the two parties.  Woodrow Wilson, a democrat, vetoed the Prohibition Amendment but his veto was over-ridden and it became law in January of 1920.

 

The progressives of that time were urging that alcoholism and the abuse of alcohol should be treated as a disease and a public health approach be taken - not prohibition and criminal penalties.  This is the position our Society has now adopted for alcohol abuse and addiction.  It is the position that should be taken for all recreational drugs, legal or illegal.  Recreational drug abuse (alcohol is used as a recreational drug JUST LIKE POT - just a lot more dangerous) is actually a disease and can be treated.Being able to relate history means knowing what the words liberal and conservative means. Todays conservatives like to make up new meanings for the words every time one of their "heroes" decides to flipflop on an issue. 

 

Using the terms liberal and conservative to apply to whatever positions you happen support rather than what they actually mean is a very important skill liars and fear mongers use.   One can be liberal on issues and there are usually different positions, liberal and conservative, taken by a single person on the range of issues affecting society today. 

 

Mr. Stern, I would like you to actually approach this issue in a serious manner and produce and article worthy of your skills as a journalist (they are obvious). 

 

Watch "Hemp for Victory" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokV8xlJTNE

 

QstionEvythng
QstionEvythng

 @raystern  And I guess I was a little harsher than I needed to be.  I impugned "your writing" but it was really just this article that threw me.

 

raystern
raystern

 @fairymagic13  @LegitQuestions Thanks for your opinion, Legit. My aim is to please, so I'll try to do better next time. As to fairy's comment, I will never deny being conservative or liberal.

 

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...