• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative Case for Drug Legalization

Porchev

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
2,491
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I find myself recently drifting a little bit away from the so-called Republican party line when it comes to occasional marijuana use (although there are Republicans that smoke pot too). I am not ready for the full blown legalization route, but at least marijuana laws should be relaxed a bit especially since there have been verified medical uses, such as controlling seizures...amongst other things. I don't smoke pot, I am just discussing it. And this is only concerning pot, hard drugs such as cocaine and acid are a totally different story.

With that said, I find a lot of what she says in this short video to make sense:

Her bio first:
"Julie Borowski is a Policy Analyst at FreedomWorks, an organization dedicated to lower taxes, less government, and more freedom. Her writings on economic policy have appeared in numerous newspapers and online outlets. She is on the Board of Advisors for the Coalition to Reduce Spending and she launched an independent YouTube channel called:

TokenLibertarianGirl in June 2011.

She was previously selected to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow with the Institute for Humane Studies where she worked at the Center for Competitive Politics. Most recently, she was a government affairs associate at Americans for Tax Reform.

Julie has volunteered for political candidates in Kentucky and in her home state of Maryland. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from Frostburg State University in May 2010 where she studied political science, economics and international studies. She is now located in Washington, D.C."

 
I don't think there is a "conservative" or "liberal" case for drug legalization. I think there is a common ****ing sense case for drug legalization.
 
She makes some good points but misses on some of the very same points:

Made point: Those that do not "condone" (non-alcohol) recreational drug use can now deny employment/housing based on it being criminal.

Missed point: Decriminalized/legalized marijuana use (not abuse) can still be used for employment or housing discrimination. Wrong - as it is then simply illegal job/housing discrimination.

You cannot deny an adult a job or housing simply because they drink alcohol. You can test for "sobriety" on the job, but that opens up a huge can of worms - do we really want to "legally" fire someone (or deny them a place to live) because they once had a BAC of .02%? One can detect Marijuana use (not abuse) as long as 30 days past the time of use.


Point made: Kids will smoke weed no matter what so stop arresting them.

Point missed: Kids will drink alcohol too but that is still illegal prior to age 21.

The bottom line is that nearly any argumment made for/against marijuana can be made for/against alcohol.
 
I don't think there is a "conservative" or "liberal" case for drug legalization. I think there is a common ****ing sense case for drug legalization.

There is also a lot of common sense behind not legalizing currently illegal drugs.
 
Does she usually make video's for Nickelodeon or Disney channel? Possibly the most annoying presentation style I have seen in years.... Im not judging the content here, she does make some good points, but damn she comes across like nails on a chalkboard....

Also anyone connected with the Koch brothers probably has physical signs of being touched by the devil... Cant get within 30 feet of those dudes without spending a week getting the smell of sulphur and brimstone out your clothes and hair for a month...
 
She makes some good points but misses on some of the very same points:

Made point: Those that do not "condone" (non-alcohol) recreational drug use can now deny employment/housing based on it being criminal.

Missed point: Decriminalized/legalized marijuana use (not abuse) can still be used for employment or housing discrimination. Wrong - as it is then simply illegal job/housing discrimination.

You cannot deny an adult a job or housing simply because they drink alcohol. You can test for "sobriety" on the job, but that opens up a huge can of worms - do we really want to "legally" fire someone (or deny them a place to live) because they once had a BAC of .02%? One can detect Marijuana use (not abuse) as long as 30 days past the time of use.


Point made: Kids will smoke weed no matter what so stop arresting them.

Point missed: Kids will drink alcohol too but that is still illegal prior to age 21.

The bottom line is that nearly any argumment made for/against marijuana can be made for/against alcohol.

I am not sure where she was going about the apartment thing, however, when it comes to jobs, no matter if marijuana is legal or not, I think an airline should definitely be able to fire a pilot or jet engine mechanic if they are stoned or have been drinking on the job. From what I understand the marijuana tests can tell different levels of it in your system and can discount readings of just getting second hand smoke at a concert vs. if you really smoked. And not using pot could be simply part of the written conditions of employment.
 
I am not sure where she was going about the apartment thing, however, when it comes to jobs, no matter if marijuana is legal or not, I think an airline should definitely be able to fire a pilot or jet engine mechanic if they are stoned or have been drinking on the job. From what I understand the marijuana tests can tell different levels of it in your system and can discount readings of just getting second hand smoke at a concert vs. if you really smoked. And not using pot could be simply part of the written conditions of employment.

What? That makes no sense at all. You would continue to allow pilots to drink legally and in moderation, but not to use marijuana in the same way? This sounds like the classic, moronic, bigoted logic of we drink alcohol so that is OK, but they smoke marijuana so that is bad.
 
Does she usually make video's for Nickelodeon or Disney channel? Possibly the most annoying presentation style I have seen in years.... Im not judging the content here, she does make some good points, but damn she comes across like nails on a chalkboard....

..

As my wife said after watching a few of her videos, "she seems kinda whacky". Yes she does come across a little bit like Amanda Bynes when she had that "Amanda" show. I don't think I am in the target audience this presentation may be directed towards, but I like her content and she is funny at times and I hope people her age tune into her Youtube channel. She does write articles too if you don't want to watch her.
 
What? That makes no sense at all. You would continue to allow pilots to drink legally and in moderation, but not to use marijuana in the same way? This sounds like the classic, moronic, bigoted logic of we drink alcohol so that is OK, but they smoke marijuana so that is bad.

I said stoned or drinking on the job. Pilots right now as we speak are not allowed to drink something like 12 hours prior and during the flight. Doesn't that seem reasonable that the pilot or the jet mechanic is not working on the aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or pot?
 
I said stoned or drinking on the job. Pilots right now as we speak are not allowed to drink something like 12 hours prior and during the flight. Doesn't that seem reasonable that the pilot or the jet mechanic is not working on the aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or pot?

Read your post #7, to which I replied, again. You wanted an employment contract restriction against marijuana use (not abuse) and did not mention any such restriction on alcohol use.

It also seems reasonable to limit the use of many psychoactive substances, including prescription pain medications, but that is unlikely to be tested for on a regular basis.
 
As my wife said after watching a few of her videos, "she seems kinda whacky". Yes she does come across a little bit like Amanda Bynes when she had that "Amanda" show. I don't think I am in the target audience this presentation may be directed towards, but I like her content and she is funny at times and I hope people her age tune into her Youtube channel. She does write articles too if you don't want to watch her.

That's probably best, I don't like to let my gut dictate my opinions on individuals and their idea's... I like to think I form them from listening and critiquing... She would make a half decent Red coat at Butlins though to be fair to her

In my late 20's and already iv fallen out of the young click, damn... I coulda been a contender....
 
There is also a lot of common sense behind not legalizing currently illegal drugs.

Maybe you should stop getting your "common sense" from the septic tanks of people who think honey boo boo is quality television. Prohibition fixes drug use just as well as self-mutiliation fixes depression.
 
There is also a lot of common sense behind not legalizing currently illegal drugs.

Might you give an example?

After a century of drug prohibition, we reached the point years ago where children are selling the drugs and bringing them to school, and the substances are behind prison walls. How can common sense be invoked to say that is a good policy?

BTW, such conservatives as Milton Friedman and George Schulz were advocating legalization decades ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom