Marijuana

The 'Constitutional Conservative' Who Wants to Legalize Pot—and Anything That's Peaceful

A Texas legislator makes a Christian case against drug prohibition.

|

Texas House of Represenatives

David Simpson, the Republican state representative who wants to repeal marijuana prohibition in Texas, is a radical. I mean that in a good way. The bill he introduced on Monday would not merely allow specified marijuana-related activities—the approach taken by every state that has legalized marijuana so far. Instead Simpson, who is in his third term representing an East Texas district that includes Gregg and Upshur counties, aims to eliminate all references to marijuana from the state's criminal code. In an essay published by The Texas Tribune's online opinion section, he explains why, laying out "The Christian Case for Drug Law Reform":

As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity's charge to be stewards of the same.

In fact, it's for this reason that I'm especially cautious when it comes to laws banning plants. I don't believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.

New York Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes likes what Simpson has to say. "I don't think I've read a more concise and persuasive conservative argument for rethinking marijuana laws," Downes writes. But Simpson's goal is more ambitious than that:

In the name of protecting the public, certain substances have been declared evil and contraband. So evil are these substances that state and federal agents are empowered to enforce laws with little or no regard for constitutional protections of individual rights, the sanctity of one's home or the right to travel freely….

Our current "war on drugs" policies [are] spurring a proliferation of ever-changing exotic designer drugs and a disregard for contitutional protections in the name of eliminating drugs at any cost. Just think of no-knock warrants, stop-and-frisk, civil asset forfeiture and billionaire drug lords.

The time has come for a thoughtful discussion of the prudence of the prohibition approach to drug abuse, the impact of prohibition enforcement on constitutionally protected liberties and the responsibilities that individuals must take for their own actions….

Should we be concerned for our friends and neighbors who abuse a substance or activity? Yes, we should help them through sincere and voluntary engagement, but not with force and violence.

Is there a place for prohibition? Yes, a prohibition of aggression (Romans 13). Our laws should prohibit and penalize violent acts. This is the jurisdiction of the magistrates under the new covenant—harm to one's neighbor.

Civil government should value everything God made and leave people alone unless they meddle with their neighbor.

This is not just a brief against marijuana prohibition, or even the war on drugs in general. It is a brief against using force to stop peaceful, consensual activity. Simpson, who calls himself a "constitutional conservative," elaborates on that libertarian theme in his campaign biography:

Man's actions which harm other men must be checked by force to preserve human life and liberty. I believe that this is the legitimate role of civil government—to do justice and to protect individual rights of life, liberty and property. This consists of enforcing the rules between individuals (contracts), punishing the wrongdoer who harms his neighbor here at home, and defending us from our enemies abroad. Civil government, otherwise, should leave us alone and free.

We need more Republicans like David Simpson.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

142 responses to “The 'Constitutional Conservative' Who Wants to Legalize Pot—and Anything That's Peaceful

  1. It would be nice if he could make his arguments without all that bible bullshit.

    1. Yeah, he should be a libertarian, just like the majority of politically-minded atheists!

      1. I’m pretty sure he actually is a libertarian.

        Or at least close enough.

        1. Goddammit, Eddie.

          ‘SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be. Because marriage and the family precede the government and the government has no business either redefining marriage *or denying it recognition.*

          My objections aren’t confined to SSM laws, but extend also to “no-fault” divorce, the promotion of single motherhood, and legalizing adultery under the name of “remarriage.”‘

          Since adultery precedes the government I think the government should recognize it. Also, I’m relatively certain that gay dudes shacking up probably pre-dates the government.

          1. Since adultery precedes the government I think the government should recognize it.

            Well that and the fact that the prohibition on divorce is a uniquely Christian innovation that is not shared by its spiritual ancestor Judaism, nor its Abrahamic cousin Islam, not to mention that such a prohibition is ludicrous from a Dharmic view. So I see no reason why the views of a religion I don’t adhere to should have any legal impact on my choice to continue my relationship with my spouse.

            1. But didn’t Buddha say:

              “He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.”

              So Buddha was also against adultery.

              1. Adultery, as in sexual intercourse with someone who is married to another, yes. What Buddhism doesn’t believe is that marriage is an eternal sacrament of which divorce is spiritually prohibited. Eddie’s calling marrying someone else after a divorce “adultery” because he views marriage as a relationship you can’t end unless the Pope grants an annulment.

                1. I’m in no way a papist, but that is exactly what Jesus said, so any Christian should agree. Except for the Pope/annulment part.

                2. Ah. I did not know that.

                  I went to a Bible study once and we ended up talking about Jesus and divorce. In one gospel, he says divorce is OK in the event of adultery and in another he says it is forbidden completely.

                  The preacher said that when he finds a contradiction, he goes with the passage that is more restrictive.

                  herp herp herpaderp

                  1. “The preacher said that when he finds a contradiction, he goes with the passage that is more restrictive.”

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

                  2. Well, I suppose it’s better to be on the safe side.

                  3. The preacher said that when he finds a contradiction, he goes with the passage that is more restrictive.

                    Just like the government does when it comes to our freedom!

              2. In my very basic understanding of Buddhism, abstinence from sex is more a suggestion for improved spiritual life, rather than a direct commandment. It’s not something that would be constructed legally into anti-adultery laws, it’s about personal development through restraint.

                1. abstinence from sex is more a suggestion for improved spiritual life, rather than a direct commandment.

                  For the laity. For monks, any emission of semen that wasn’t the result of a wet dream is referred to as “spiritual defeat” and leads to immediate defrockment. In the monastic code, there are these long and detailed descriptions of what you can’t do, presumably because someone tried it…so basically you have these long lists of “No, a monk can’t have sex with a pumpkin. No, a monk can’t have sex with a female dog. No a monk can’t have sex with a skull. etc. etc.”

                  The list for nuns is much shorter.

                  1. What about emitting semen from taking a really big dump? That’s happened to me before.

                    1. What about emitting semen from taking a really big dump?

                      I’m guessing that wouldn’t count.

                    2. There’s your loophole, buddhist monks. Get to work on this cumming-while-shitting thing.

                    3. That’s….the manliest thing I’ve ever heard.

                  2. Can I get a copy of this list? I’m hoping there’s at least one that says ‘No, you cannot have sex with mummified corpse of Luang Pho Daeng’.

                    1. It’s somewhere in a commentary on the Vinaya, but not in the Vinaya itself, if I remember correctly.

          2. Admittedly he’s never hidden the fact that he’s perfectly willing to use the government to force people to conform to his social beliefs. Of course, when he starts complaining about other people doing that to him it starts to come off as disingenuous.

            I’m curious as to what Eddie wishes the response/punishment for making remarriage/’adultery’ illegal would be.

            Stoning? Got to go with the classics.

    2. I’m pretty far into the hardcore side of atheism, and I found what he said to be refreshing and welcome.

      I am never going to persuade a Christian nanny-stater with my arguments. But this guy might. More power to him.

      1. Agreed. He can believe whatever he wants, provided he’s not forcing it on someone. To stick to those principles is refreshing. Shows there is a place for all under the libertarian tent.

        1. I wasn’t proof enough?

          1. robc, your beliefs are so unobtrusive that they went unnoticed. 🙂

            1. I have never advocated forcing anyone to act on my beliefs – well, except that they MUST accept deep dish pizza as a perfectly acceptable food.

              1. Casserole is a food.

        2. And there are at least two others who believe this! Those are the ones that I know personally. Christianity is not about forbidding activities. It is about loving one another, finding ways to treat everyone as we would want to be treated, allowing liberty and free will to abound. Many of the restrictions denominations put on the parishioners are made up and not following the teachings of Christ. But, don’t tell the Baptists that the first miracle He performed was changing water to, the best, wine at that wedding. They think being tea total-ers is Biblical! We all fail. People should consider that, when they judge others. When it came to adulterers, the famous quote “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” happened. We should stop casting stones and start treating others with the respect and forgiveness (love) of which we are all instructed to do. Why in the world should we (Christians especially) think that we should be proud of having the highest incarceration rate of developed countries? We need to stop putting people in prison for doing things that we don’t approve of, but are not directly harming others?!

    3. Personally, I thought it was important that he was using that “bible bullshit.” while I’m no fan of mixing church and state, many who do want to do so need some guidance away from their statist positions by someone who uses the very same tools they do.

    4. I think its important that he includes all the “bible bullshit”. Most people are not very intelligent, so its important that we discover new ways of persuading people using their own pre-existing convictions.

      The ends certainly justify the means in this case (since the means are non-violent).

      1. Stupid sexy Flanders!

        1. Like I’m wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all…. nothing at all….

      2. So, it’s re-Neducation using their own logic.

      3. The problem is that one of the first things god does in the Bible is to prohibit Adam and Eve from consuming a plant.

        Then he goes all apeshit and punishes them when they do consume a plant despite the fact that no harm to anyone seems to have happened.

        So, yeah I do think the Bible is DTF with the Drug War.

        1. Yes. People have always had free will. Prohibition did not work then and has not since. It was the only thing that God prohibited!

          It was a Christian woman, who turned away from the Volstead act and Prohibition, who helped reverse it!

    5. Given that he said this:

      “In the name of protecting the public, certain substances have been declared evil and contraband. So evil are these substances that state and federal agents are empowered to enforce laws with little or no regard for constitutional protections of individual rights, the sanctity of one’s home or the right to travel freely….

      Our current “war on drugs” policies [are] spurring a proliferation of ever-changing exotic designer drugs and a disregard for constitutional protections in the name of eliminating drugs at any cost. Just think of no-knock warrants, stop-and-frisk, civil asset forfeiture and billionaire drug lords.”

      I’ll overlook any disagreements I have with him regarding metaphysical matters. This is probably the best statement on the drug war I’ve ever heard from a politician, and it’s amazing that it’s coming from a conservative religious Republican.

      If you want to get religious people on our side (and guess what? They make up 85-90% of the country) then you’re going to have to accept help from people whose arguments you might not find entirely convincing.

      1. That’s more or less the exact way I came to understand that libertarianism was correct, the Scripture backs it up.

        I’m ashamed of my fellow Christians when they aren’t the ones standing up for NAP. They ought to know better, but apparently never actually open their Bibles.

        (They also don’t know a danged thing about logic, but most of them went to government schools so that’s to be expected.)

    6. Why exactly does it matter that what amounts to the non-aggression principle was informed to him by that “Bible bullshit?”

    7. Hugh Akston|3.4.15 @ 1:07PM|#
      “It would be nice if he could make his arguments without all that bible bullshit.”

      I’m more concerned that he’s gonna run int difficulties with his co-religionists. Quite a few are not happy with many peaceful activities.

    8. It would be so much better if he would make these arguments based on these higher natural laws that are just so fucking obvious that anyone with a brain not only agrees that they exist but also agrees with what they are.

      You just can’t compare this bible bullshit to real evidence and reasoned based rhetoric like “it is just natural law that one has sovereignty over their own body”.

      1. “Real evidence and reasoned based rhetoric” is also not applicable to ‘hey this book I believe in says this so it must be true’.

        1. John thinks so.

          He actually used Nietzsche to defend his “only ‘God-ordained’ arguments are valid” position, so uhh, yeah.

          In other words, John is a fucking tool who wouldn’t pass an 100-level philosophy survey course if he was auditing it.

    9. @Hugh Akston Just accept that someone agrees with you. You don’t need to wonder why. Is living up to Christian standards instead of being a hypocrite really so terrible?

    10. The pure liberty argument won’t work on a lot of people. I have no problem with approaching it from lots of different angles.

      1. I have approached it from lots of different angles. I have come around to Christianity, but regardless of where I start I always end up at the NAP being the most moral system of government.

    11. Do you subscribe to the NAP? Well, the principle existed in sacred scripture long before libertarians discovered it.

      Have you not heard: “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”? Or, the Jewish version from Hillel: “That which you do not like, don’t do to others.” And Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

    12. It would be nice if he could make his arguments without all that bible bullshit.

      When you are making an argument to people, you use a language they can understand. His constituency is fluent in bible-speak. This is the correct way to communicate with them.

      This would not be the way to make the libertarian argument on Long Island. But he is Texas. It is also appropriate to use “Ya’ll” when making principled arguments in Texas. Just as one might invoke the flying spaghetti monster if speaking before the New England Skeptical Society.

      Know your audience.

      1. “YaY’all”

        FTFY

    13. I (we) can. But I hold the Scripture higher than Rothbard.

      If you’re offended that he’s speaking from the Bible, then he’s obviously not speaking to you. He’s trying to get your dreaded “So-Cons” to lay down their arms. And you insult him? The heck is wrong with you?

  2. We’ll find out he published racist newsletters or something pretty soon.

    1. LOL

    2. “We’ll find out he published racist newsletters or something pretty soon.”

      Those were his father’s. This is the Simpson that smoked pot and jokingly tried to force a female peer to worship the Aqua Budda.

  3. I believe that this is the legitimate role of civil government?to do justice and to protect individual rights of life, liberty and property. This consists of enforcing the rules between individuals (contracts), punishing the wrongdoer who harms his neighbor here at home, and defending us from our enemies abroad. Civil government, otherwise, should leave us alone and free.

    Amen, brother.

    1. But what about protecting us from our worstest enemies: ourselves.

    2. I don’t even know how this guy can call himself a ‘constitutional conservative’ given that if he actually believes that he’s basically a libertarian. I guess a constitutional conservative is just a libertarian who goes to church on Sunday.

      1. Mostly I think they’re libertarians who actually want to get elected.

        1. This is probably it. Plenty of libertarians are Christians.

      2. The Constitution, as written, is a very libertarian document. Maybe not as much as I or some others might like, but I’ll take this guy as an ally.

        1. The Articles of Confederation make the Constitution look like the New Deal.

          1. Well, I suppose it was at the time.

            The Articles of Confederation really are completely neutral from an individual liberty point of view as it left the state governments to do as they would. People understandably spend a lot of time worrying about the federal government, but it still is, and always has been, the sates who do most of the violating of individual rights.

            1. The Constitution itself left the states to do as they would to infringe on individual liberty. It was later jurisprudence and amendments that incorporated (some of) the Bill of Rights to the states. One of the few restrictions it directly placed on state governments from the outset was the requirement to ‘have a republican form of government’, which is rather vague.

              As a federal document, the Constitution codified certain usurpations of private and state authority. America’s long running chronic illness with national and central banking would not have been possible if Congress didn’t have ‘minting authority’ that it could delegate to political banks and banking cartels. Without that provision, at worst we’d be dealing with state currencies that would have competed with each other for primacy or at best we’d be dealing with private currencies that would compete with each other. Our path towards unsound money began in 1789.

              1. I am sure what you say is true. But people would have perverted the A of C just as badly as they have the Constitution and we’d probable be in about the same place today. Maybe with more sovereign nations in North America. And a more parliamentary form of government.

                1. But people would have perverted the A of C just as badly as they have the Constitution and we’d probable be in about the same place today.

                  They would’ve have perverted it because it was a statist constitution after all, no question there. But to suppose that we’d be right where we are today with the Articles still in effect, you’d have to also argue that the present Constitution has made no meaningful jurisprudential difference versus the Articles of Confederation.

                  While I agree to some extent with that Spooneresque view of constitutionalism, it doesn’t account for the notable difference in character that the US government has (at least historically) had and it works against your case that the 1789 Constitution is superior to the Articles of Confederation.

              2. ‘have a republican form of government’, which is rather vague.

                Low taxes and a strong national defense, natch.

                1. I thought that meant you had a Doge, some kick ass brass music and a really big arsenal in a lagoon?

                  Oh…that was the Venetian Republic. Nevermind.

        2. The Constitution, as written and interpreted by 99.999% of its readers, is not a libertarian document. Unlike the Articles, it actually recognizes slave ownership as a legally enforceable right in states where slave ownership is prohibited.

          The only way the Constitution, as written, is libertarian is to take Lysander Spooner’s interpretation, which, though intelligent, is a bit sophistic.

          Add to that the fact that today’s national security welfare/warfare state is the actual result of the Constitution, and the argument that the Constitution is even kind of libertarian is unpersuasive.

          1. Not quite true, when compared to the modern system of government, the Constitution looks like total NAP to most people (including myself a few short years ago). The Constitution is so very much less oppressive than what we do now, I can see why people confuse it with libertarianism.

      3. The L-word is still seen as negative by a lot of people, and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. A label like ‘constitutional conservative’ is probably just as appealing to his demographics as his Biblical quotes. He’s tailoring himself to an audience, and that’s absolutely fine. The positions he presents, under any name, are what’s important. A rose by any other name. Except Nazis I guess.

      4. Some of us are still libertarians. Although I did miss the last few Sundays.

        1. Those of us who are still libertarians aren’t running for office.

  4. I’m not religious at all but if this method can be used to persuade the Christian right, then I’m all for it.

  5. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,

    http://www.work-mill.com

  6. How does the Lone Star State keep producing these weirdos?

    1. The healthy economy allows more men to specialize.

      1. One more argument for a freer market!

    2. Arguing to end the “War on Drugs” is weird?

      1. For a politician, it certainly is.

      2. “Check Sarcasm Detector” light on.

        1. *thumps dashboard, squints, stares suspiciously around*

      3. The word is “unusual”.

        1. Isn’t “weird” just a slightly less nice word for the same thing?

      4. Weird is normative. So, yes.

  7. Well okay then, preach brother.

    That being said, can someone find his opinion on prostitution?

    1. “Mary was a total whore.”

      1. Didn’t she have a hit in the 1970s?:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9S072UBKYs

    2. He doesn’t believe that when God made loneliness [H]e made a mistake that hookers need to fix.

      1. Where do you think hookers came from?

    3. Jesus liked prostitutes, didn’t he?

      I’ll bet he doesn’t argue that it isn’t consensual because the john’s spouse might not have consented.

      1. He hung out with people he identified as “sinners” and “the sick”. They knew they did wrong but the legalists didn’t know that.

        The point is that as all sinned (against God), and all need God in order to have life (eternal life), then all need to have their sins paid for – think about an accounting balance – in order to live with God. As we can’t pay that price, Christ paid it for us, all of us, all we have to do is accept it. It doesn’t matter how “good” or “evil” you are, you can’t simply bring yourself back to God; he had to do it for you.

  8. Well by that logic we should be able to smoke tobacco or plutonium.

      1. [Files trademark application for Tobaccotonium.]

        1. Too late. It’s already trademarked by Rodr?guez Crime Concepts Inc.

    1. Simpsons did it.

    2. If you can get it to stay lit…

  9. Bo, tell us again about how we should disregard anything that a SoCon says.

    1. Since Bo’s not here (man) I’ll mention that the word of someone who really believes that he could suffer eternal torments for having a wank really should be given careful scrutiny.

      1. Since Bo’s not here (man) I’ll mention that the word of someone who really believes that he could suffer eternal torments for having a wank really should be given careful scrutiny.

        Well, so should any statement by an elected official.

        1. Indeed.

          I do wonder if you’re not getting caught up in thinking that, just because the guy has one position that you like, he’s the next “Great Libertarian Hope”.

        2. Come on, R C, you just can’t trust people who really believe that there will be eternal consequences for their misbehavior.

          1. I would posit that you can’t trust people who really believe that the reason they should do right instead of wrong is the fear of supernatural consequences.

            1. Believing that there are consequences that others may not think valid makes one less trustworthy?

              1. Believing that there are consequences that others may not think valid makes one less trustworthy?

                The guy who doesn’t rape someone because he’s afraid of magical beings is less trustworthy than the guy who doesn’t rape someone because it’s wrong/immoral/unethical and so on.

                1. I’d still trust them more than the guys that say that if a law didn’t exist they’d do the same thing.

                  *cough*Tony*cough*

                2. Those are the same reasons.

            2. I’ve encountered enough people who say that they would do bad things if not for fear of supernatural consequences, that I am glad religion exists. I think there are better ways to determine whether or not you should trust people. Trustworthiness seems to be more an inherent personality trait than a result of specific beliefs.

              1. *glances around conspiratorially*

                *whispers*

                Trust no one.

                *folds up newspaper, finishes off coffee, exits through the kitchen door*

              2. I think there are better ways to determine whether or not you should trust people.Trustworthiness seems to be more an inherent personality trait than a result of specific beliefs.

                Of course there are lots of ways. I didn’t say that was the only one. But someone’s latent desire to commit evil or inability to instinctively recognize evil when they see it, is not something that’s irrelevant in judging their character.

                When someone wants to borrow money from me, or sell me something with the pitch that “You can trust me, I’m a Christian”, I can start making safe assumptions about that person’s philosophy towards evil; namely that there is no evil that’s too evil unless an old book written by 2,000 years dead goat herders doesn’t rule it out. Which is a shaky foundation to say the least.

                But yeah, it’s good that some would be rapists, thieves and murderers don’t act on their desires because of their own irrationality. It would be even better if people were taught to think rationally about what constitutes ethical behavior towards their fellow man.

                1. I do good because Christ does it through me. Why do you do good?

                  Do you want to do evil, ever? Why did/didn’t you? Are you as pure as the wind-driven snow?

                  The question I never get an answer for is this, why shouldn’t a politician (or otherwise power-hungry human) not do evil if they can get away with it?

                  Even if NAP were the best way to live life for everyone, why should I live that way if my life were to be presumably better if I didn’t? It’s like a perverse prisoner’s dilemma, our results will theoretically be better if we’re bad.

                  If there is no ultimate justice, then why not? And why didn’t you?

      2. Eh, as long as he’s not pushing for torments in real life for having a wank.

      3. Is it like one torment per wank? *shudders*

        1. You have to eat all the cum you’ve ever spilled. Mixed with hot sauce and bits of glass.

          1. I hear one can pay certain women who will force that upon their customers already. No need to wait for the afterlife, if that’s what you’re looking for.

      4. Your record of being both obnoxious and stupid about every subject is still intact.

    2. Huh?

  10. “I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.”

    Awesome. So when can I get my legal cocaine, hashhish, and opiates?

    1. Baby steps, not Jehovah steps.

      1. Nice.

  11. “We need more Republicans like David Simpson.”

    We need more Politicians like David Simpson.

    1. We need more people like David Simpson.

      1. And fewer like SusanM.

        1. Yer breakin’ mah heart!

  12. Whats with all the bitching about the bible on here? I didn’t realize that being an Atheist was a prerequisite for being a Libertarian.

    Considering that Jesus stopped a crowd from stoning a prostitute to death, I think if more Christians seriously asked themselves WWJD we would be living in a far more Libertarian world right now.

    1. Some atheists aren’t really atheists, they’re just attention whores with daddy issues. The actual atheists you don’t really hear much from about being atheists.

      1. But did you know I do cross fit and am a vegan?

        1. That’s fascinating! You are definitely an adequate human being with many interesting qualities!

        2. Well played.

        3. CROSSFIT?!!!

          *Turns back to BiMon*

        4. Cross fit?

          Enough with the Jesus talk!

    2. Amen.

    3. I didn’t realize that being an Atheist was a prerequisite for being a Libertarian.

      Well, that’s good because if you did you would be stupid and wrong. Have you not noticed that there are many religious people who comment regularly here? Did you even read past the first comment before leaping to conclusions? If you are religious and have that much of a persecution complex, you had probably better examine your own beliefs first.

      You may notice that at least half of the comments are not bitching about the religious content and many, even those made by atheists, are defending what this guy says as a good thing.

      I do happen to be an atheist, but I agree with you. I don’t think Jesus would have been for enforcing a bunch of victimless crime laws. Too many Christians (and people in general) think that if something is wrong then there ought to be a law against it.

      1. What the hell? I’m not even sure how to respond to your first paragraph. You seemed to have missed the point entirely. But you are correct in that Jesus probably wouldn’t have gone after people for petty victimless crimes.

        1. What was your point, then? Sorry if I missed something. It seemed to me that you assumed based on a few comments that everyone is an anti-Christian bigot who thinks that libertarianism and the Bible are incompatible. Sorry if I got it wrong. I’m still not sure what point you were making, though. A few obnoxious atheists made comments. Many more people commented that it is a good thing to get some religious conservatives on board.

  13. New York Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes likes what Simpson has to say. “I don’t think I’ve read a more concise and persuasive conservative argument for rethinking marijuana laws,” Downes writes. But Simpson’s goal is more ambitious than that:

    Don’t worry, Larry, eventually Simpson will get around to stuff like an unfettered free speech, a broadly interpreted second amendment that means “the people” when it says “the people”, and then hell, he might even begin to show support for that pesky fourth amendment. That’ll give you plenty to hate.

  14. Prohibition is not a Conservative policy.

    “Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy … and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with ‘scientific support’ … fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. … The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents.”
    — William F. Buckley,
    Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

  15. Prohibitipn is not a conservative policy;

    “Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy … and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with ‘scientific support’ … fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. … The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents.”
    — William F. Buckley,
    Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

  16. Prohibitipn is not a conservative policy;

    “Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy … and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with ‘scientific support’ … fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. … The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents.”
    — William F. Buckley,
    Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

  17. You can say that again..

  18. David Simpson was also the guy who authored the TSA bill several years ago. Best libertarian I know of in any legislature.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.