Bush and mar1juana? How could I stand for both? Posted by Mark Edward Manning on February 26, 2005 07:45 PM I was recently asked on my home blog how I could support George W. Bush for president and yet advocate the legalization of mar1juana. The simple answer is that I'm not a single-issue voter. I am, after all, a conservative Republican. How could I reject Bush based only on my pro-legalization views? That would be akin to a liberal rejecting an anti-abortion Democratic candidate based only on his views on one topic. He could satisfy any liberal voter on a whole range of issues, but he would not get past the gate based solely on one stance. I just cannot conceive of that way of thinking. To reject someone for only one point of view is unrealistic, and I feel sorry for anyone who does vote with that sort of mindset - actually, it's more accurate to say that I feel sorry for any candidate that has to face any member of the electorate that votes in such a way. Now, given that Bush doesn't even drink alcohol these days, it sort of goes without saying that he'd be anti-drug. And his choice of John Walters for drug czar, and not forgetting the indefatigable John Ashcroft as Attorney General, is certainly in line with his moralistic view on the topic. But, unfortunately, along with that moralistic opinion of drugs and drug use comes a fair amount of heavy-handedness. I laugh whenever anyone mentions "the debate on drugs." What debate? There is no debate at all. We can't even discuss the merits of medical mar1juana without lawmakers, politicians and a good chunk of the American citizenry panicking. I think it makes sense to "go Dutch" with cannabis and legalize it, even if only unofficially. I've been to Amsterdam many times and I've witnessed how it works. I, too, was anti-drug before visiting the Netherlands for the first time in 2003. Seeing the Dutch approach to cannabis convinced me enough to do an about-face concerning my own stance on soft drugs. In Holland, considerable amounts of time, money and police work get freed up to tackle real crime, not young kids getting silly on shake. There would, of course, have to be limits. No-one can hold down a job or take care of their family for long with a serious drinking problem, and, by that same logic, if smoking several joints is a habitual thing, day in and day out, then yes, you will lose out. The pros and cons of legalized mar1juana would take some wrangling in order to take effect, but I do believe, if carefully executed, it could work. I believe that this hysteria concerning mar1juana is unjustified. With cannabis so decriminalized to the point of near-legal status in the Netherlands, it does not seem to have an adverse effect on Dutch society. Dutch schoolchildren are perennially at the top of their studies when compared with the rest of their European counterparts, regularly excelling in math and the sciences, and they grow into adults who are multilingual, even-tempered, law-abiding, and sure of their place in the world. And if Dutch teenagers do have a problem with any substance, it’s that old demon alcohol. Got that? In a country where any young person can cheaply purchase a joint, drink is, as in so many other prohibitionist countries, still the problem. We are badly losing the War on Drugs. Drugs continue to increase in availability and decrease in prices. Dealers rule the market for drugs and they blight cities with their gang warfare. Anti-drug advertising goes nowhere, because as any kid who's tried mar1juana knows, it's an effort to even pick up a gun and aim it properly, never mind shooting your best friend after smoking a bong. This is just nonsense. (In fact, the real question we should ask ourselves after that public service advertisement is, how did the kids get hold of the gun? How they got hold of the pot would be purely secondary to my thought process.) This particularly obnoxious PSA is explored in more detail by conservative Rich Lowry in this column. There is nothing unusual in a conservative taking a pro-legalization stance on drugs. Right-wing libertarians - which is what I consider myself to be - have consistently sided with the Left on this topic. The Religious Right, some members of whom are genuine and well-meaning, always has something to say on the topic, but I wish they'd realize that you cannot force Christianity on people. You just can't become someone who gets high on Jesus and life on the spot. Preach the Word, but don't force it. Quite simply, if a drink or two or a puff of a joint gets you through the night, then that is your business. Every time a misguided member of the Religious Right foams at the mouth over drugs, they violate the Christian belief in free will. (And I will admit that the hard-core Bible-bashers are the unfortunate baggage that comes along with supporting Bush.) I can understand raids when they involve substances like cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin. But where it involves mar1juana too, which is hardly in the same league as those other drugs, I balk at the drug laws. The impulse to bash "potheads" is far too vindictive for my liking. Legalization would also free all the non-violent prisoners whose only crime was to get caught indulging. Yes, you should respect the law. But the price that mar1juana users pay for breaking it is often far too severe. Quite often, evidence gets tainted and manipulated for the purposes of locking up casual users on counts of intent to supply. In fact, ask yourself why you would feel uneasy if you found out that a family member of yours was smoking mar1juana - would it be because you fear he or she would move on to harder drugs, or because of the very real possibility of him or her being locked away with rapists and murderers? This is one of the best articles I've read that deal with that very possibility. At the very least, I want a debate on drugs to take place in America - a serious debate, not this patronizing state power trip masquerading as such. There should be a full, detailed analysis of the subject before Congress that would examine all the pros and cons, with contributions from lawmakers, politicians from both political parties, lawyers, doctors, psychologists, pharmacists, citizens who've been terrorized by government agencies for possessing soft drugs, and even reformed dealers. And if such a debate swung in the direction of continued prohibition, then I would accept it. At least a thorough debate would have been had. But at any rate, I do not feel hypocritical for supporting both Bush and the legalization of cannabis. I hope I've adequately explained why, given that I generally support Bush's conservatism but feel aghast at this continued War on Drugs.
