An emailer whose wishes to remain anonymous (paranoid from his gage binging, no doubt), offers the following as a solution to the NSA controversy. I present it with limited commentary, hoping instead that it will generate discussion all by its lonesome:
I think I have a way for the Bush administration to pretty much the anti-surveilance Left. Legalize marijuana (and, preferably but impossibly, other soft drugs.)
As a former paranoid and former drug user [LIAR!], I’m fairly well convinced that a large proportion of those worried about the “wiretapping” in the war on terror are not actual privacy absolutists, they’re just (consciously or unconsciously) worried that once the Federal Govt. has confirmed it’s right to these powers for the purpose of the War on Terror, they will begin using them for The War on Drugs.
End that possibility, and I think you will see a large part of the opposition melt away, or at least soften into irrelevance. I think this would be entirely analogous to the significant decrease in opposition to the war in Vietnam once the Draft was abolished. (And indeed, without the threat of a draft, all the vitriol spewed against the war in Iraq never manifested itself as feet on the ground.
Hell, if Republicans were smart, they’d be out in front of this for purely selfish reasons. Legalize pot, and you get the following electoral advantages:
1) The votes of lots of college students and other youth who vote Democrat just because they think the Democrats are cooler.
2) The utter decimation of the Libertarian Party, leaving it an even more intense collection of Nativists, Randroids and zero-tax Utopians.
3) Leftist Political Organizing becomes even more of an oxymoron, as their anger and bitterness becomes harder to sustain and an angry post on DU or Kos becomes a less compelling option than another game of Madden and a bag of Doritos.
4) Given #3, a significant rise in profits for Frito-Lay and Yum Brands.
What do you think, sirs?
The only thing I’d add—but one of the biggest obstacles to the plan that I can come up with off the top of my head (sorry, but it’s lunchtime, and I always follow my microwave Smart Ones™ Pot Roast meal with a doobie the size of a baby’s arm)—is that to pull it off, you’d have to completely rebrand “conservatism” in a way that so musses the cleanly-parted and carefully-sprayed hair of its social conservative public face that the ensuing battle, though probably necessary for the longterm success of the GOP, would lead to great violence: Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds in a steel cage deathmatch; Fred Barnes in tortoise rimmed glasses being served by a trashtalking Bill Ardolino in a dark and threatening hoodie…
It could get ugly.
But the basic premise—if we can presume that opponents of the NSA program really are concerned about mission creep (which I find unlikely, given the NSA’s circumspection)—might have some merit.
Plus, y’know—HASH BROWNIES, bros!
Discuss
Hewitt loves weed. He and I smoked up at a matinee of Narnia a few weeks ago.
Did he bogart the spliff? Yes he did.
If there were two people in this world that I would most like to split a blunt with, it would be Jeff and Allah. What that has to do with the NSA, I have no idea, but I would school both your asses at Halo 2. There, I said it.
Thanks, JB, but I’ve never touched the stuff. Allah obeys the law, UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE.*
*Does not include laws pertaining to downloading of copyrighted material, which are unnatural and offend God.
I think this would work better if we did not need to worry about repurcussions with old searches for “barely legal….”
Not that has anything to do with me, of course, just sayin’.
Allah, did you cry like I did when they shaved Aslan? That was, like, totally sad.
There’s the rub. Are they or aren’t they? They say they are – not so much about its creeping into the War on Drugs but about its creeping into the War on People Who Oppose Whoever’s in the White House. But are they really, or is it just all a Bush thing and if Gore or Kerry (double shudders) were in the hot seat they’d be fine with it?
My advice:
It’s important to cook your hash brownies on LOW heat—no more than 350 degrees, and under 300 is better—so as not to evaporate the THC, which contrary to popular belief does not “burn” out of marijuana but evaporates out at a temperature well below the ignition point.
It’s a novel idea to create more “conservative” converts by legalizing weed. I’ve been a long time proponent of legalizing weed, peyote, shrooms, and any other naturally formed drug. Anything that must be manufactured or manipulated is off the table (coke, crack, crank, acid, etc.). People that want to do it are doing it anyway. Regulate and tax it the same way as alcohol and tobacco.
The stumbling block is devising a scientific apparatus to detect those who are under the influence (DUI or DWI) much the same as a breathalyzer. Granted, I know some people who drive better while stoned off their ass. Perhaps it’s a more complicated field sobriety test?
Another benefit is freeing up space in the prison system. Bail all of the non-violent criminals connected to these “soft” drugs. I’m guessing that would clean out about 15% of the total population.
In most cases, cops could give a shit about weed. In my state it is a ticketable offense so long as it is less than a quarter bag. It’s not as bad as speeding. Cops are more worried about the hard drugs.
Oh, and all of the above would have ZERO effect on the NSA controversy. Just in case you thought I was a lunatic.
This shit is all stems, man.
The Democrats have a total brain-lock on the Hash Bloc, because…they…uh…well, their last Pres candidate was the Lord of All Pothead Incarcerators, and not a single one of them actually supports legalizin’ it (for any definition of “it”), but…y’know…they wear casual shirts on TV sometimes…and…they take our money and…stuff. (This is why I don’t smoke pot.)
Republicans *are* the ones who could make a principled case for legalizationâ€â€states’ rights, at leastâ€â€and outside the Party, they’ve made it for decades (Will, Buckley, blah blah blah, list goes on for miles), but the Party is electoral, not philosophical. They get the votes they need by playing to the social “right” instead (and without ever actually doing anything that group wants (which is why some libertarians prefer to vote R, rhetorics aside)â€â€just like the D’s do with the potheads).
So the D’s and R’s say, Why mess with what works? and I say, Where’s the lobbying group that pretends you can make shampoo and pants out of cocaine? I’ll back those well-hung fellows.
It’s a fun idea to bat around, but the majority of the target voting block are so paranoid, Repubs could do it and still wouldn’t be cool, let alone trusted.
The flip side is we’re trying to get the booze crowd (political reps of any stripe) to lighten up on the weed crowd. They can not relate. Plus, they’re worried about their kids, whom they are sure have been managing to score dope from the maid or their art (or English) teacher.
Look at Noelle Bush, for crying out loud.
Well, it’s not like they vote. They mean to, but, like, stuff always comes up.
The only youth you can count on to vote are the cause-heads and the Young Republicans.
I agree with Jamie. I just don’t think the people opposed to the wiretaps are worried about mission creep. I don’t think many people are even opposed to them. They can claim whatever they want but the only groups that are truly concerned to any real extent are civil libertarians. And let’s face it, they constitute a rather small portion of the public and they regularly take extreme positions on such matters. The Democrat base gets OUTRAGED(!!!!) over everything the administration does. It makes no difference.
But decriminalizing marijuana (not legalizing it) is much more possible, and I don’t think social conservatives would get too upset over it. Beyond the pragmatism of such a shift in policy it could be very beneficial to Republicans if, of course, they could actually take credit for it without the Democrats stepping in and saying they were for it all along and they’re responsible for making it happen, etc. It could snap a large number of voters out of their knee-jerk hatred of Republicans and it could help show that the Party isn’t only made up of the kaki pants crowd and social cons. The pot crowd is much larger than just the berkeley left, and they think clearly enough to recognize such a move. Plus it wouldn’t change things much. In most places the police already choose not to make arrests unless there seems to be an intent to sell, an amount that is obviously more than needed for personal use, or if the person did something else and is being a dick to the cops. They just grind it into the ground
or write a ticket.
What were we talking about?
I’m hungry.
Considering it’s been the editorial position at NR for a few years, probably not. It’s not like the arguments haven’t been hashed out over and over.
On the note of legalizing weed, I guess the war on tobacco by the Left would take a turn due to the fact that Big Tobacco will be the ones to mass produce it, sell it cheap, and thus make even more money. Sending the ‘truth’ commerical idiots screaming in the streets not to protest them for cigs but because the pot isn’t potent enough (see examples via Canada). What an even crazier world that’ll be considering the whole “second hand smoke will kill you” crap now reversed with “please shotgun me in my mouth”…thy sweet spliff you smoke. Cali and Boulder would get a whole lot interesting…my guess is that ALL smoking bans would be abolished in the Universe.
As someone with a reputation for being more ‘conservative’ than my peers and a strict habit of avoiding anything with more of an effect than a glass of wine, people are surprised when I say I favor decriminalization of marijuana. It would be too much to hope that such a move might directly influence some of the libertarian-leaning voters to switch Republican, but a long-term effort by the Republican party to crack down on government, especially federal government, intrusion into civil liberties would go a long way towards persuading the middle ground that the anti-terror actions of the government are really only directed against terror and not a stepping stone to abuse in other areas.
The problem is that a decriminalization of marijuana, while a dramatic step, is not enough. You’d have to combine it with a number of other areas… dropping a lot of the anti-obsceinty FBI work (not child porn, however), the crusade against violent video games, etc. You’d have to make it a serious, multi-front effort, and that means sticking it to the social conservatives. You could stem the damage a bit by throwing the issue to the state level, which is sound policy anyways.
As a gamer, and one who frequents a lot of the news sites that cover the hobby (ex. Slashdot), I see how much the Democrats have annoyed the young ‘libertarian left’ by attempting to curry favor with social conservatives and the progressive left by legislating against video games. It seems to extend to those who don’t pursue it as a hobby who believe that the Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans when it comes to regulating social behavior. If we can sincerely convince them we’re not out to legislate away liberties without a damn good cause (national security), we’ll have a good chance to win some over.
The problem will come when we see how little marijuana gets into peoples hands after the regulations get through with the idea, which may again prove another boon for small-government Republicans…
It may be a bit of a stretch on my part, but it seems to me that a concerted push could get Hillary of all people lumped in with Tipper Gore as an enemy of the material freedoms treasured by the young libertarians…
Jeff, is this your subtle way of telling me you want to be invited along on my friends’ and my next bi-annual pilgrimage to Amsterdam?
I mean, I was already assuming that’s what you were trying to tell me via the coded messages you were sending to me via the fillings in my teeth, but then I realized that I don’t have any fillings, so I’m seeking clarification.
And I don’t think it’s realistic to presume that the anti-NSA crowd fears a drug-war correlation. What seems most obvious, especially given the past actions of the Clinton administration (and Gore’s approval of such actions) is that people are simply playing a game of ‘gotcha’ with Bush, and any scandal-esque activity would do. They’re just running with NSA because, well, that’s what happened to come up. I don’t think the Left is any more concerned with the actual threat to their privacy rights than the Right was concerned with cum stained blue dresses.
Recently my wife also used the phrase “soften into irrelevance.” She was talking about something else though.
I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to see the damage done by the war on drugs is far worse than what would happen from legalization. From the drain on police man power and funds to the insane amounts of money and power attained by the criminal element, it makes no sense to keep doing what we are doing.
You make some good points there, B Moe, but I don’t think it’s quite so cut and dried on the law enforcement side of the equation. I think there’s a serious tug of war between those who see it as a drain on their manpower and resources and those who see the drug war as a big time source of funding for their agencies, not to mention what they can get out of property seizures.
Also, when chopping your marijuana for brownies, a small cuisinart is best. With a larger device, too much dust will be lost in crevices, while hand-chopping is time-consuming and tends to leave large chunks of stem or leaf unchopped, making your brownies much less stealthy.
A nation of Jeff Spicollis. By gosh I’m looking forward to that in my old age.
Somebody would have to crunch the numbers but my feeling is that whatever the R’s gained in Libertarians and young voters they’d lose in concervative protestants with kids. At best it’s a zero sum game.
That would be conservative.
I bet John Hawkins dislikes you even more now, Jeff.
”The utter decimation of the Libertarian Party, leaving it an even more intense collection of Nativists, Randroids and zero-tax Utopians.”
You mean the LP actually has a meaningful existence now?
I guess I see it as more of a long term shift in attitude. Right now, the libertarian-left I am in contact with percieves the right as represented by the Republican party as monolithically social conservative and prone nanny-statism in the name of conservative values. They are aware that the left is developing a push for progressive regulation in the name of ‘protecting the children’, but thanks to a strong PR push still believe the conservatives are the real threat.
Besides, I see tendancies to government over-protectiveness as bad in general, so to me this is a good policy decision.
I don’t know about that. Sure, big-L Libertarians are irrelevant to the point of comedy, but there are a lot of anti-government waste and anti-government stupidity (especially in the name of “protecting the children”) tendancies in the twenty to thirty age bracket. They don’t want the government to waste time fighting crime with useless arguments against video games. They’d like to keep more of their taxes, especially when the alternative is pork. Perhaps its exaggerated for me because I’m pretty young, but as a long term strategy I’d wager its a sound investment.
You’d just want to keep this sort of debate on a national level, so those conservative states are free to pass their own regulations. From a purely political standpoint, you can probably hold the conservative family vote with a few big ticket items, namely pro-life and defense of marriage. Pound ‘Christian compassion’ for those in jail on marijuana posession charges, especially minorities, and put some funding into treatment programs. Draw a distinction between violent offenders and non-violent addicts. [I’m feeling especially cynical today.]
Here’s an idea: rather than decriminalizing marijuana because it is a politically-astute maneuver, how about decriminalizing it because (a) the reasons for the original criminalization are specious at best and outright lies at worst (b) prohibition does not dent consumption: it simply drives the law-abiding out of the production end, leaving a void to be filled by the non-law-abiding, and thus driving up the profit margins for the criminal element of society (c) having the alternative of marijuana available may drive down the consumption of the really dangerous drugs like alcohol and (d) decriminalization would immediately relieve pressure on the overcrowded prisons, by removing people who are there for non-violent acts that are considered “crimes” only by fiat.
Saute’ the cut up ganja in oil or butter. Do it on moderate heat, and the active ingredients will be extracted into the oil. You can use this in place of the plant in your batter, with this oil replacing some of the oil, butter or other fat already in the recipe. Or so I hear.
You must really not like Bill Ardolino. I remember back in ‘82 when Fred Barns and I were running drugs for the CIA, he killed five guys with one arm, while snorting a line of coke from his shoulder to his fingertip on the other.
As one of those responsible adults who spent her younger years enjoying the good times. I can honestly say that alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana.
I suppose I’m utterly unaware of the statistics, but just from the impression I’ve always been under of libertarianism–namely, that young college students adopt it with about the same long-term seriousness as young ladies these days take to calling themselves bisexual, and that those who hold to it longer are a heterogeneous collection of assorted cranks, nuts, eccentrics, and university professors–I’m a bit flabbergasted by the idea of libertarians as any kind of unified political force to rival the social right. It’s a bit like being told that the Society for Creative Anachronism should suddenly be mobilized to replace the Texas National Guard. (I kid because I love–but seriously. . .has the political landscape changed so much?)
alex,
I see Libertarions as Democrats who have grown up. But refuse to settle down with a rocking chair, crocheted afghan and a bible in each hand.
Scott – the difference with that” irrelevence is, that with any luck at all it makes a cum back….
– Concerning Gaunza. I don’t happen to do it, but too each his own, and from what I can tell it dosen’t seem to be one of the “cpiminalizing” substances, so why not. a good social change and political gold in one move.
– There is one thing. Looking at the $5 + price of a 25 cent pack of smokes, a tax windfall that has forestalled a number of states from pure economic chaos, which calls in to question just how badly they’d really like to see it curbed, how long do you think it would take before a dime bag was laden with a 500% tax?
TW: ….minutes turn into weeks, and weeks into…. eh…. hmmm…. into…. what were we talking about again?
You mean the LP actually has a meaningful existence now?
Man, I was there when the LP was foudned, and I promise you, it’s no less meaningful now.
Unified political force… no. When you attempt to unify a bunch of libertarian-leaning types, you end up with a microscopic political group that will be relevant “real soon now” and an awful lot who will just drift away. The reason the libertarian left and right don’t have much pull on their respective political parties is that they are by nature not prone to orginization and collective effort.
That’s not to say there’s not a lot of them, it more like there’s no coherent group of them. But to just write off a massive section of the electorate just because they’re not organized into groups to lobby for their position.
I know a fair number of people I would have sworn would naturally fall under the Democratic label complain about government pork, high taxes, and intrusive regulation, topics that should make any fiscal conservative sense a kindred spirit. Heck, I suspect a good portion of the right wing blogosphere leans more libertarian than social conservative.
One of the big complaints among my peers is that government keeps throwing stifling regulations on individual behavior… smoking, drinking, food, media content regulations, etc. None of it seems like a good use of government tax dollars or time. Remember the arguments over the backdrop Ashcroft supposedly put up over the naked statue? Little things add up, and what they add up to is the public perception that the social conservatives don’t want anyone else to have any fun, and they dominate the Republican party.
I wouldn’t underestimate this.
According to a professor of mine: when it became apparent after 9/11 that the FBI had utterly failed in its counterterrorism goals (they were focusing on other issues, such as drug trafficking, kidnappings, etc., for which it was famous), the FBI made a quick turn-around and began focusing intensively on counterterrorism, not so much because America was threatened (although that certainly helped the FBI recruit more people with expertise) as much to preserve its counterterrorism purpose: if the Government decided the FBI doesn’t work, they may create a rival agency, and to it would go the funding, budget, and support the FBI received/receives for counterterrorism.
Budgetary (is that a word?) concerns can mean life or death, vitality or stagnation for some agencies of the Government.
Ed Minchau,
Because we already know that. Now we need to see how it would play out.
STOP SHOUTING.
*koff*
“What are you, people? On dope?”
Legalize pot only on election days…
Nope, don’t do dope. It’s against the law.
Hmmm.
I’m sorry but I’m not giving up my brylcream unless they pull it from my cold dead asian hands.
Brylcream, the anti-drug.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT
Democrats are doing everything they can to excuse and ignore true evil and what is worse they and the liberal media defeatism are trying to brain wash the American public in an attempt to rationalize it, dissent only works if your able to live long enough to see if you were right. Democrats are beyond technically being guilty of incredibly stupid and bad analysis of the Middle East. Trust this I am an American of Arabic ancestry I don’t have to guess about the Arab state of mind. No political pundit of any side can take that from me, I know the present day Arab reality, they want it all – and by all – I mean a Pan Arab world…. and when you’re fighting World War Four in your front yard, liberals don’t cry to me.
It was five months ago on October 17, 2005in fact technically over a year ago the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fager re-published the Danish Cartoons from the Danish news service Jyllands-Posten, So why is the Islamic world now a year later up in arms over it?
Ask the President of Iran…(Mr.Wipe Israel off the map)
hint.. read the writing on the “nuclear wall”
Liberals will try and play the Bush fear card, oh this is another George Bush phony terror fear plot ..Yeah right… so sorry..Its real the Islamic cartoon riots is worldwide, people are being killed over a cartoon!
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN
AND A DEMOCRAT IS
REPUBLICANS DONT HAVE BLIND FOLDS ON.
So why is Muslim world suddenly inflamed?
Why is Iran suddenly going nuclear?…
Why am I suddenly about to slap you in the face?
The Middle East apocalypse leaders would like nothing better than to commit total jihad genocide against their infidel neighbors and the world. They are now actively engaged in starting a flash point of racial and ethnic and religious cleansing of the world. You all need to hear this again let me quote the words of true leadership,
There is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success,
and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure.
Hindsight is not wisdom, and
Second-guessing is not a strategy.
My immediate family ancestry in this century lived (some of them) through a Muslim genocide attempt… its not going to happen again
President Bush will not allow it.
Apparently there is a New Quran and it is a “living document,” capable of sprouting all-new text and reinventing new provisions and new Islamic law at will. The new Quran and the new Islam forbids portrayals or depictions or (pictures) of the prophet Muhammad, this is a new recently acquired Islamic law, never before found in the Quran in over 600 years.
The Rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam and the new Quran prohibit any depictions (pictures) of the prophet Muhammad
The text of the old and new Quran both are vague and ambiguous even void in its text on references about beheadings of U.N peacekeepers, suicide bombings car bombings and most of all has nothing about flying jet passenger planes into skyscrapers.
These days one would or could conclude that Islam is a
CAR-BOMBING
I-E-D MAKING
MOB RIOTING, FLAG BURNING
BUILDING DEMOLISHING,
JET PASSENGER PLAN CRASHING,
SUICIDE CULT,
AND NOT A RELIGION
By the way when you’re out there applauding Jimmy Carter and the Senate Democrats on the judiciary committee exposing the NSA wiretap program to the world and specifically telling the enemy Al-Qaeda how we are fighting them, step back and thank yourself liberal you just put the entire country in peril and no doubt extended this war on terror for decades, remember this my friend
OSAMA hears every word you say,
that is not a White house or Republican party threat,
that is a FACT
INJUSTICE PREVAILS,
Thank you for that.
INJUSTICE PREVAILS. In America we have a saying for rants like this: You are preaching to the choir.
What you need to do is cut and paste this over to DailyKos and Democratic Underground. Course they’ll delete it and ban you, cause they’re all about civil rights. But at least you tried.
What?
No one else noticed the permalink at 4:20 p. m.?
C’mon people!
I have a hash brownies story. Dallas, 1973. In town for the Elton John Yellow Brick Road concert at the Cotton Bowl. Ran into a bunch of old high school buddies. Elton wore purple. That’s about all I remember.
Note to Injustice Prevails: You need some hash brownies, man.
No, they’d lose their votes from Libertarians and young voters who wake up on Wednesday morning, turn on the TV, and go, “Aw shit, man, was that this week?”
jpok: PW’s posts adjusted for local time zone. So to someone like me on the East Coast, the time stamp is 5:20. As such, Goldstein actually wrote this at 3:20. Still, very amusing coincidence for Central time zoner dwellers.
When a batch of brownies is finished, it’s best to try a small piece at first, as the potency can vary quite a bit, even when you use the same amount of herb. Start with a piece about 1” square, and allow a couple hours to judge the effect.
Once you’ve determined the optimal size, you are ready to fully enjoy “Sin City” or “Star Wars III” in-theatre—without the potential embarassment of being caught smoking in the bathroom, or the inconvenience of missing several minutes of the film. It’s generally best to have one portion at the beginning of a film, and another about halfway through, as the effect tends to peak at 30 to 45 minutes after consumption, and fades about an hour after peaking (you should vary the timing, of course, with the length of the film).
Turing: writing. As in, I’m just writing this stuff, I’ve never actually done anything like it.
You know, legalizing drugs as a way to get votes sounds all well and good until you realize that pot smokers don’t get out to the polls as often as they’d like.
“So… did you remember to vote yesterday?”
“Dude… what? That was yesterday? Ohhh man! I thought it was Super Wednesday!”
I think the emailer has a few pretty good points. Leftists are especially worried about the Patriot Act with regard to the hopeless drug war. I also agree with Jeff that the Republicans are likely too traditionalist to lead the way with this–unless, perhaps, ending the drug war can be cast in terms of state and local autonomy. Such is the case with prostitution being legal in only one state, and a Red one at that. And, actually, anyone who lives in New York and other big cities can tell you that soft drugs already enjoy defacto legality, and prosecution only occurs when users and sellers cross certain lines (mmmm, lines) while plying their trade.
One more thing: Where the hell did he come up with “Randroid”. That’s hiliarious, though you gotta give Ayn her props for inventing the hate fuck. Oh yeah, Dominique, take that you little whore!!!
Post timestamps only adjust for those who are registered and logged in. Those not logged in will see the “native” timestamp, meaning Mountain Time, regardless of where they are.
Furthermore, when I registered with this site I chose the Mountain time zone, just because I’m weird. And to me that timestamp says 4:20.
Wow, man. Hea-vy!
I could, like, swear I’d already commented on this thread. Y’know?