Marijuana

Glenn Beck Calls for the Repeal of Federal Drug Prohibition

"I'm moving deeper into the libertarian realm," says the talk show host.

|

The Blaze

Today on Glenn Beck's radio (and TV) show, I debated marijuana prohibition with Robert White, co-author (with Bill Bennett) of Going to Pot: Why the Rush to Legalize Marijuana Is Harming America. The conversation turned to the war on drugs in general and also touched on federalism, the Commerce Clause, the nature of addiction, and the moral justification for paternalistic interference with individual freedom. Reading from my recent Forbes column, Beck said he is strongly attracted to the Millian principle that "the individual is sovereign" over "his own body and mind," which rules out government intervention aimed at protecting people from their own bad decisions. "I'm a libertarian in transit," he said. "I'm moving deeper into the libertarian realm….Inconsistencies bother me." By the end of the show, Beck was declaring that the federal government should call off its war on drugs and let states decide how to deal with marijuana and other psychoactive substances.

The show is three hours long, including commercials. White makes his case during the first hour, I take my turn in the second hour, and we interact in the third hour. You can listen here. If you must see our handsome faces, you can watch here, but it will cost you a buck. The recording is supposed to be posted shortly after noon Eastern time.

Addendum: Marijuana Majority's Tom Angell notes that Beck indicated he favored marijuana legalization back in 2009, saying, "I think it's about time we legalize marijuana…We either put people who are smoking marijuana behind bars or we legalize it, but this little game we are playing in the middle is not helping us, it is not helping Mexico and it is causing massive violence on our southern border…Fifty percent of the money going to these cartels is coming just from marijuana coming across our border." As far as I know, however, this is the first time Beck has explicitly called for an end to federal prohibition of all the other currently banned drugs.

NEXT: Ireland Perched to Become First Country to Legalize Gay Marriage Recognition Via Vote

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.

  1. “I’m a libertarian in transit,” he said. “I’m moving deeper into the libertarian realm.”

    Whoa there, chief, not on my watch. There are some purity tests you’re going to have to pass before you waltz through these pearly gates.

    1. The good news is that his old-timey-looking glasses can be readily converted into a monocle.

    2. Hey man, he’s got the conspiracy theorizing down pat.

      1. Like that one where he said the middle east would turn into a caliphate…

    3. Yeah, we couldn’t have people start to *agree* with us, now could we?

      1. Glenn Beck is influential in conservative circles. This is a very good thing. People need to STFU and at least try to embrace people moving in our direction instead of responding with a 300 question purity test. Glenn Beck isn’t exactly perfect but if he is moving the ball towards liberty he needs to be encouraged.

        1. Next up. Rush Limbaugh.

          1. I’ll eat my hat if that happens. That and Sean Hannity not being an asshole would be indications of the end of days.

        2. Oh come on, this is Reason. Maintaining ideological purity and self righteousness is much more important than becoming a big tent of ideas that actually accomplishes anything.

          1. I think we have different definitions of “accomplishes anything” if you think Republicans and Democrats get a lot of done of any value. I’ll even extend to you the advantage: anything doesn’t actively harm people.

    4. Like not being a shameless, shiftless attention hound?

      1. Or turning into a party of limp-wristed geldings, like the liberal party in England? (The Liberal Party in Australia has the cojones to respect the individual rights of men and women both!)

    5. “Purity tests?” How often do you come across someone like him who is intrigued or learning this way of thinking? Give him a chance. This is a good thing.

    6. I find your comment odd considering that there is not set of questions out there that define what a libertarian is…. I mean both the LEFT and the RIGHT think that Libetrians have more in common with them…. Me, I am on the conservative side of that… I think America should project power where it can and I have no problem bring death and destruction on those that would harm this country… Then again I think if you want to take drugs…. take them but when you screw your life up don’t come riunning to me, Mr. Taxpayer, and ask me for help because you lacked personal responsiblity or intestional fortatude to take care of your self…

      1. I think America should project power where it can and I have no problem bring death and destruction on those that would harm this country

        Where do you plan on getting the money to pay for this? I hope you don’t mean to send men with guns to take it from me…

        Molon Labe

      2. dpbisme then you can’t rightly call yourself a libertarian, a libertarian wants to stay out of everybody’s affairs, other countries included, unless you are attacked first. War is the biggest most costly government program both in money, lives and the broken minds that come back from war, maybe you might want to review the whole “libertarian” thing.

        1. Cops and soldiers are the only government employees they do like.

          1. They who?

  2. “I’m a libertarian in transit,”

    If he’s said that, why not just go all the way? “I’ll just take a couple years to arrive at the logical conclusions of these precepts I now believe, thanks.” I don’t get it.

    1. *shrug*

      You can believe in NAP or self-ownership and disagree with full thrust of libertarian thought. Mill of Utilitarianism is not a libertarian either. There are things like religion, externalities and utility that muddy the waters a lot. So I think it’s fair to say “I like these principles, but I won’t commit to conclusions just yet.”

      1. You can believe in NAP or self-ownership and disagree with full thrust of libertarian thought.

        I take it you’re not a “brutalist” then?

        1. Hell, I’m not sure I’m full “libertarian”, as opposed to 19th Century Liberal (minus colonialism). Until I found Bastiat (and thank you H&R for that), there wasn’t really a political writer I agreed with fully.

          1. Colonialism was always connected to mercantilism, of which Locke, Hume, and Smith were some of the biggest critics. I think you’re good on that front. You were more likely to encounter 19th century Liberal though among the Anti-Imperialist League than among Teddy Roosevelt and his blood-stained Progressives.

            1. In US yes, in England Liberals (when in power) had no problems with gobbling up foreign lands. For their own good, of course, to develop and civilise, we don’t really want to but our hands are forced etc. Gave Socialists a big entry point into Asia and Africa, sadly. Worst part is, they did do objectively good stuff along with horrible stuff. Hell, for all the bitching we west Balkan peoples have about them, wherever Austrians took over, there was peace, order and reasonably good government.

              Of course, Bastiat was anti-colonialist as well, which is why he’s my hero! 🙂

              1. wherever Austrians took over, there was peace, order and reasonably good government.

                If you exclude the Austrians who were former corporals, sure.

                1. You know who else was originally an Austrian…

                  1. Conchita Wurst?

                  2. You mean that Italian guy?

            2. Kinda… but Adam Smith still endorsed enforcing the Navigation Acts with grapeshot and solid rounds against the Dutch. The best that can be said is that he was a low-tariff, pro-rights mercantilist–certainly better than the closet socialists and mystical prohibitionists making the laws here.

              1. I thought for sure someone would say Falco… 😛

          2. i really liked “the seen and the unseen”, but my favorite political book is “the discovery of freedom” by rose wilder lane. it’s posted at the mises institute website, and if you havent read it yet you really should

    2. He’s still running the numbers on the effect on his viewership and ratings.

      1. Wish I’d said it that way.

    3. I’ve listened to him some, though not often. I did listen to his local show in Tampa (his springboard to national success), and what I can say is that he has definitely moved from vocal social conservative to vocal something else. He seems to have some libertarian notions in his head, though he hasn’t come all the way to libertarianism. If nothing else, his disgust with the Republicans has grown, which points a bit to the obvious alternative (which, for him, of course, isn’t the Democrats).

      He and Penn are pretty friendly, by all accounts. I wonder if that has anything to do with this?

      I’m not a fan and don’t consider him to be a libertarian, but he at least has a growing distrust of government, no matter who is calling the shots. That’s progress.

      1. I haven’t listened to him in a while, but he always had a healthy respect for the Founders and the Constitution. I think anyone who starts there eventually moves towards libertaranism – at least the small “l” version.

      2. There is a talk show host in Houston who’s show is groeing national in scope. His name is Michael Berry. He also has grown toward Libertarianism over a couple of year period.

        I believe it is almost imperative that someone who speaks on politics as much as these guys do if they are sincere and want to maintain intellectual consistency.

        Everyone should check him out on iHeart if necessay. it’s 740 KTRH am in Houston, other stations inPortland, New Orleans and upstate New York among others, or iHeart Radio.

        His show is not full time politics but culture, food, and music topics as well.

        1. Check Armstrong & Getty both on iHeart and podcasted from Sacramento! Both pretty reasonable on the political front!

          6:00 – 10:00am M-F

      3. I think he’s been full-blown libertarian for quite a while now, but he’s been leading his listeners along in baby steps.

      4. I have never wasted a second of my life expectancy on any of Glenn Beck’s mystical ravings. The best thing I ever did was quit teevee for bicycles and audiobooks decades ago.

    4. Maybe he’s uncomfortable with the sodomy?

      1. It is a founding principle of libertarianism, after all. That and mandatory drug use.

          1. They fall into both sodomy and drugs.

        1. Nothing’s better than a burrito, margarita, a joint, and then a little anal to wrap up the evening. Woo, LIBERTARIANS!

      2. I don’t know how anyone could be comfortable with a dick in their ass.

        1. Maybe you should try it so that you can know for sure.

          1. “Should”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        2. You just didn’t try it often enough.

          1. Something tells me that’s not the issue.

            1. More lube?

              1. More lube?

                Always

            2. He’s letting us know that he’s the most non-gay person in the world. For some reason.

              1. The one single, solitary time that Tony would be able to intelligently converse on the only subject of which he has useful knowledge, and of course he’s nowhere around.

        3. Still smarts?

        4. (EXIT*ONLY)

          1. Whoever wants to stick their dick into shit could just fuck the toilet.

            1. It’s a little cold!

        5. I know this is going to sound crazy, but people have different preferences. I know, right?!??!

        6. Maybe comfort was never the intent.

        7. There are “natural” bottoms . . .

          1. You mean ass enhancement is not allowed?

    5. I don’t get it.

      I kind of do. For a lot of people emotional bromides are very powerful things. Sometimes, even if people can see the logical conclusion of what they claim or contend, it can be tough for them to overcome the “yeah but…” factor or the “ick” factor. Yeah, they know what is the logical conclusion and still not yet have gotten themselves comfortable with what that means.

      The best response is to just keep arguing to people like this and have some faith in their ability to work through the issues.

      1. You can’t reason someone out of a conclusion they reached through emotion because they don’t think it, they feel it. You can’t change what they feel.

        1. Not entirely sure this is true. People can sometimes use logic to overcome their emotional reactions. They do have free will. Sometimes they need more time to integrate new knowledge.

          Think about it this way, I have little doubt that some of the libertarians here who came from the left took a little bit of time to realize they weren’t talking about throwing orphans in the street. I’m sure a number who came from the right took a little bit of time before they got comfortable setting Tony Montana loose on our playgrounds. They took time to get comfortable with where their principles led.

          1. Yes, but they have to want to. You can’t force it on them. Attempting to reason someone out of an emotional stance will only elicit an emotional response.

            1. Yes, but they have to want to.

              Absolutely. But, that’s why Beck’s comment doesn’t sound particularly strange to me. He’s acknowledging that he gets the basic underlying logic. He’s just trudging through the emotional baggage of a thousand unquestioned assumptions. .

            2. It can be forced, by immersing people in a vastly different level of liberty than what they are used to.

              It still takes time to realize that liberty is better than security or tradition.

      2. There are gay guys that don’t admit it until they’re in their 60s. If you can take 60 years to transition to something as unalterable and fundamental as that I think taking a few years to transition to Libertarianism is sort of reasonable.

      3. Or the “can’t I just point a gun in their faces and bark out orders?” factor. Logic is not the strong suit of the superstitious. Take Bush and the Islamofascists, please!

    6. Libertarianism can be a hard pill to swallow. Depending on background, you may have to overcome a lot of preconceived notions, a lot emotional gut reactions, and some very human urges to attack that which you might find personally disagreeable.

      Plus, not everyone may look at the NAP and have this sudden epiphany that all of libertarianism immediately follows. There are some complex ideas at play here and really analyzing the implications can take time.

      Personally, I’m glad to see someone take the time to move slowly and really give a lot of thought and consideration to what they believe and that means. Anyone who just read Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman and just decided to become a libertarian probably isn’t going to be as solid a spokesperson as someone who really takes the time to educate themselves and challenge their ideas.

      1. People are inconsistent. Even libertarians.

        We have all sorts of arguments about vaccinations, abortion and IP law. And there are libertarian arguments on both sides.

        As you noted, people enter into this world taking a lot of things at face value and, even if they have committed to the principal of Non Aggression (and many have not), it takes awhile to visit all those things they’ve generally accepted and revisit them to reconcile them with the NAP. There is emotion at play, yes, but not everyone is committed to feeling their way through life, it’s just that overcoming those emotions takes time.

      2. As a libertarian that started out as a conservative, I mostly have only one major pill that I can’t swallow. The NAP is great for relations between consenting adults, but it can really suck for children.

        Back in the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was a custom where some parents would abandon their babies and leave them at the mercy of the weather, wild animals or some stranger. If NAP is the only standard for morality, then that behavior is acceptable.

        1. Child neglect, to me, qualifies as aggression. Leaving some defenseless kid to fend for him/herself when they have little to no experience in being on their own? That’s mental aggression at least.

          1. I strongly agree that child neglect and abandonment is evil,(and in my view abortion is as well) but I don’t see how it violates the NAP.
            The parent that commits these evils are not actively taking any property from their children nor selling them into slavery, nor are they killing them (abortion aside for a moment). Under NAP, they are doing the same as if they ignored a homeless person on the street.

            1. Those unquestionably unable to claim and defend their own rights, is a tough case for the literal interpretation of the NAP. From very low mental functioning adults, to children, to pets even.

              Leaving a child who is unable to feed or clothe themselves, and seek shelter from the weather and predators in the woods, is the same as murder. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting.

              Libertarianism clearly comes with other ideas than just the NAP, you can’t have freedom or rights without responsibility. So if you take responsibility for another creature by giving birth to/fathering it, or adopting it, you have effectively claimed certain rights for that creature which is then your responsibility to uphold until that creature can claim those rights for itself (or forever, in the case of pets or retarded offspring.)

              Now, forcing others to pay for your inability to uphold your responsibilities that have come as a result of your actions or ignorance, is not OK. So it’s still not alright to claim responsibility for an entire group of society and force others to be responsible for their upkeep.

            2. It’s a difficult case to make, but I sort of see it like this.

              Imagine if you picked up a hitchhiker from a crowded rest stop promising her that you’d take her to her destination, but on an empty road without much traffic, about halfway through your journey, you change your mind, and tell her to get out of the car. She now has to find a new way to get to her destination, but you’ve actually harmed her prospects and put her in danger because you’ve abandoned her in a clearly worse position than she was before. Before she met you, she was at a rest stop with lots of options. There was food, water, a bathroom, lighted areas, a pay phone, etc. Now she’s in the middle of nowhere with much fewer options, especially much fewer safe options, because you decided to opt out halfway through the promise you made. You also put her at risk.

              Does the NAP obligate you to return her to at least the same position you found her in? Is it an act of aggression to take on a responsibility and then leave that other person much worse off than before, someone who’s wholly dependent on you? You certainly didn’t have an obligation to help her at all, but once you signed yourself up and then opted out without taking into account the worse situation you left her in, that changes the moral dynamic.

      3. True dat. I had read Atlas when I trailed an econazi into a libertarian meeting in 1980. I was unprepared for their curt dismissal of engineering efficiency as a basis for legislation, and it took months for the big picture to finally sink in. The yapping of “former” communist infiltrators claiming that anarchy and legalized murder were manifestations of nonaggression didn’t help.

        But asking looters how they plan to accomplish their goals without shooting a few people as examples at least shortens pointless conversations.

      4. I pretty much realized I was a libertarian on my own. I always had a live-and-let-live mentality since my childhood, that even though some people did things that grossed me out, they had every right to do them as long as no one else got hurt. And I wanted people to be taxed fairly and lightly, to fund a minimal system of government. This alienated me from many groups, since I wasn’t 100% on the same page as them, but I didn’t care, I was gonna stick to my beliefs. I considered myself aligned with the Republicans until 1992, when they suddenly went KULTUR WAR on everybody.

        Nowadays the only thing keeping me from full libertarian is the “open borders” thing. I’m sorry, but to me this is more of a security matter for me. We have enough of a problem keeping out threatening diseases and terrorists, let’s not make it any easier for them. As for our Mexican neighbors, I’m all for an easier and faster naturalization or work-visa process, and I think it would still be compatible with tighter border security.

    7. Many of us, at some point, were “libertarians in transit”. How long from when I first began reading about libertarianism until I concluded that drugs should be legal? A few months. I remember telling my wife… she cried. It was a paradigm shift and was distressing. She took a little bit longer, but now, 4 years later, she’s more or less come to the same conclusion. It’s different for different people, changing your worldview. But I wasn’t someone who made a living writing books and hosting a TV show about my closely-held political philosophy. Frankly, I’m shocked anytime someone like Beck changes ANY of their beliefs over ANY length of time.

    8. It took me years to come to libertarian conclusions. Give him a chance, this isn’t something that happens overnight, especially if you’ve grown up with such different and closely-held beliefs and understandings for such a long time.

    9. It took me years to get over to recognizing that government should have nothing to do with marriage.

      I pity those on the journey but certainly would encourage them.

  3. NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1

    /buttplug curries away!

  4. ……curries

    Fucking quirrelz.

    1. Indian food tonight?

  5. “I’m a libertarian in transit,” he said. “I’m moving deeper into the libertarian realm.” By the end of the show, Beck was declaring that the federal government should call off its war on drugs and let states decide how to deal with marijuana and other psychoactive substances.

    That’s something, but his train still has a way to go before it pulls into the station.

    1. I’m not convinced that I want his train ever pulling in. I think Glenn is a thoughtful and sincere guy, but he’s also a fucking lunatic and a national punchline, and we have enough of those.

      1. Agreed. I do believe the guy is sincere, however he carries a lot of unnecessary baggage. Most of which he packed himself.

      2. Yeah, he’d be a dangerous ally, full-time.

      3. I’ll take whomever we can get at this point.

        1. Even me???

          1. I would take the Irish before we take Warty.

            1. Can we not take either? I’d be fine with not taking either. Except in my ass. I think that would be pretty comfortable.

            2. WHAAAT?????

              Oh, you said “The Irish”.

          2. Do you promise not to get anyone sued again?

          3. Warty, STEVE SMITH, all of ’em.

            We need numbers, people!

      4. Yah, libertarians are already the national punchline! We don’t need Beck stealing our spotlight!

      5. Agreed with Warty. Really, thanks Glenn, but we don’t need any more help at marginalizing ourselves.

      6. He’s influential with conservatives.

        Is he going to convert Democrats and progressives? No.

        Is he going to convert the soft middle? Probably not, because of his baggage, but I don’t think he would necessarily turn them away.

        Could he convert a significant portion of the conservative base? I think he could. That is value added.

        1. Could he convert a significant portion of the conservative base? I think he could. That is value added.

          So much this.

          There are a significant number of Conservatives, especially the youngish ones who grew up in conservative households, who are with the GOP because they have always been with that TEAM. Half the time, they argue for hawkishness and the War on Drugs largely because they feel it is the position of the Other Team and therefore must be wrong.

          Noteworthy people inside Team Red can reach these people and convince them that these aren’t the positions of enemies, they are just the right positions.

        2. Could he convert a significant portion of the conservative base? I think he could. That is value added.

          So much this.

          There are a significant number of Conservatives, especially the youngish ones who grew up in conservative households, who are with the GOP because they have always been with that TEAM. Half the time, they argue for hawkishness and the War on Drugs largely because they feel it is the position of the Other Team and therefore must be wrong.

          Noteworthy people inside Team Red can reach these people and convince them that these aren’t the positions of enemies, they are just the right positions.

        3. Glenn Back does not convert anyone. He is an astute observer of people who is good as saying the sorts of things that will tend to rally those people to him. In other words he is, first and foremost a showman.

          It seems like he is picking up on much the same vibes that many of the commenters here in this thread have noticed – that when you look at conservative websites, or articles, you find the comment section to be much more liberty minded and much less statist/establishment than their ostensible “leadership.”

      7. Compared to whom? I would say he is cool,every bat shit sane compared to any and all progressives. He is on,y a ‘national joke’ because the progtard media paints him that way. Which is a plus in my book. Anyone they consider ‘normal and reasonable’ is a piece of shit.

      8. I second that. Now that the supply of surplus commie/anarchist infiltrators has finally slowed to a trickle, the last thing the LP needs is to be associated with pulpit-thumping mystical bigots firing rifles into family planning clinics. That the superstitious are slowly wandering away from the lynch mobs of organized coercion is a blessing we owe to the libertarian party platform of 1972 in its uncompromising defense of individual rights. Let the looters suddenly see the light and drop their guns, torches and pitchforks.

        Like Country Joe said to Lyndon: “…drop yer guns, baby, and reach for the sky!”

    1. “LIT” – Libertarian In Transit

      1. “CLIT” – Committed Libertarian in Transit.

        1. I think you might have made someone feel unsafe with that little crack.

          1. You punsters are a bloc unto yourselves.

          2. Well, Glenn’s an old man… does he have a boat? ;P

          3. You can fit more stuff in a bigger crack.

        2. SLUT – Sometimes Libertarian Unwilling to Transition.

          1. LULS – Libertarians Under Litigation Suck

            Ok I’ll stop.

          2. Triggered triggered!!!

      2. That makes my girlfriend a “CLIT”

        California Libertarian in Transit

        1. Damn you Paul!

        2. That makes my girlfriend a “CLIT”

          California Libertarian in Transit

          Sloopy is your girlfriend? Oh…transit. Never mind……I thought it said “California Libertarian in Texas.

    2. FART

      Former Republicans Against Thedrugwar

      1. That’s FRAT, bro.

        1. FORMER AGAINST REPUBLICANS… fuck. Fuck you.

          1. Fundamentally Un-Certain about Knowledge.

      2. Dude, that’s already taken by Fathers Against Rude Television.

  6. This is good news. His audience is pretty conservative, and they respect him. If he does indeed come out against the drug war, then he may be able to sway some of his audience. Or they may abandon him. But I kinda doubt it. He’s a loon, but he’s a popular loon. Having him on our side isn’t a bad thing.

    1. I’d prefer that he remained outside of libertarianism, label-wise, but advocating more and more libertarian values. His audience is friggin’ huge.

      1. And they vote.

        1. Right. I really don’t care why people want to gut the government, only so long as they work on making it happen.

          1. Exactly. Here’s your shovel, pick axe and sledgehammer, now get to work.

      2. I just had this conversation with a liberal friend a few weeks ago. I’m not a fan of Beck generally, but if he’s going to pull his audience away from the worst knuckle-dragging tendencies of the party toward the libertarian end of the spectrum it could be a good thing, but him labeling himself a libertarian is uncomfortable.

        1. Well, he didn’t exactly say “I am a libertarian”. He said “libertarian in transit”, which is different.

          Ideally, libertarianism should be the biggest of big tents. You and I don’t agree on [X, Y, Z], but we both agree that the state shouldn’t force me to agree with you or vice versa. But we’re not going to look like a big tent if we’re all a bunch of ex-Republicans.

          How many libertariarian-leaners from the left will fall in when Glenn Beck is waiting on the other side? I think ProL’s recommendation above would be a bigger help than anything else Beck could do.

          1. If only it were the biggest of big tents. Unfortunately, that distinction seems to go to “people who either one to control others or be told what to do by others.”

            1. What about the guy that wants to be told how to control others?

    2. Well from Colorado, I can say that the legalization of pot had absolutely nothing to do with liberal/conservative. Conservatives like Tom Tancredo and some of the ministers actually had a far more libertarian rationale for legalization than liberals did.

      And they are more honest too. Most pro-legalization liberals I know supported it cuz tax/regulate – and they are almost without exception still buying it illegally cuz its cheaper

    3. Religious conservatives on “our” side, paleface? If libertarian candidates drain off enough meaningful votes to get Slick Willie’s co-wife into the saddle, that will end all GOP/Islamic State hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade. Like their Christian National Socialist forbears, conservatives believe that “goodness” (meaning altruism) is a genetic trait. If they choose to momentarily back off of jailing hippies and brown people in hopes of forcing women to squeeze out Aryan pups “for their own good,” that only shows how committed they are to the worship of racial altruism. Already in Texas–which imported Germans and their ideologies an masse in the 1840s–there is a movement afoot to ban competing political parties much like that of 1933.

  7. Show me who your friends are, etc:

    Pat Gray is one of his closest friends, is part of the radio show. One half of Pat & Stu on The Blaze. Not quite Rush Limbaugh, but could probably replace Sean Hannity without the show losing its essence.

    Stu Burghiere has been with Beck for a long time. The other half of Pat & Stu. Can best be described as a conservatarian over libertarian-conservative. On his own TV show, Stu called for the government to get out of all marriage.

    Penn Gillette needs no introduction here.

    Andrew WK has been discussed often by Reason recently, and he just landed a radio gig on The Blaze.

    Dana Loesch, Buck Sexton, and Andrew Wilkow are other broadcasters employed by The Blaze. Boilerplate right-wingers.

    David Barton is Beck’s strongest remaining tie to TEAM RED, and if Beck is concerned about the optics of his libertarian moment, he would do well to break that tie.

    1. Good list, Mx. I like Stu because he drank a cocktail of roundup and fracking fluids to piss off the environazis.

      1. I should have mentioned that, my fellow Mxican. It was a great FURB to this bullshit.

    2. Wilkow’s back with the Blaze? I thought there was an acrimonious split…

      1. My information may be out of date in his case.

      2. Ppwhat was the deal with all that anyway?

    3. Buck Sexton should change his name to Sex Buxton and start a career in porn.

  8. Beck said he is strongly attracted to the Millian principle that “the individual is sovereign” over “his own body and mind,” which rules out government intervention aimed at protecting people from their own bad decisions.
    ####
    Hey Glenn, how about you get serious about that and call an end to prescription drug laws and medical licensure laws? How about Reason get serious about that?

    Letting people get stoned is nice and all, but freeing us from the rent seeking medical mafia is actually transformative.

    1. Ooh, I agree!! Allow me to purchase drugs I need, on my own diagnosis, until such time as I’m shown in court to have clearly abused such drugs, to the detriment of others.

    2. Dude, learn to accept good things when they come.

    3. How can you be against the AMA, the doctors’ labor un… er… those good people who want everyone to have excellent health care?

    4. Bribing the rent-seeking medical mafia with a tighter monopoly is what got the Harrison Act passed and guaranteed its enforcement, the Justice Department acting as the Utilitarian Monster eager to make an example off any recalcitrants who stood out.*

      Oh, did I mention that enforcing prohibition actually caused the Crashes of 1929, 1987 and 2008?

      See druglibrary.org 1929crash.com

  9. The worst Beck-associaie I’m aware of is Frank Gaffney. Their campaign to “out” Grover Norquist as a Muslim Brotherhood spy is bizarre.

  10. I listened to Beck quite a bit back in 2008–2010. When he focused on economic issues he was actually pretty good. Definitely kooky, definitely divisive, but genuinely funny and entertaining, and intelligent (despite what his critics might say). I can definitely say that Beck brought ME closer to libertarianism. I probably would not have ready Hayek and Rand and Friedman if not for his show.

    It’s when he veered into the SoCon and conspiracy territory that he lost me.

    But if he takes a softer tone on that stuff he could be a REAL asset to libertarianism. Like I said, he is genuinely funny and entertaining. I could see him playing an analogous role to John Stewart for libertarianism. We could use that.

    1. I agree…except some of his “conspiracies” have been proven true. He is a kook still.

      1. Why is he a kook still?

        1. Because “signaling”..

          But seriously, the dude is a kook.

  11. I honestly do not know how anyone can listen to his show. Even when I agree with him he’s just so self-righteous, self-centered, and all around insufferable. Add his showmates who must be the most annoying sycophants on earth and I can’t take 5 minutes of it.

    1. Strange, I don’t get that impression at all. He always seemed fairly down to earth to me. I mean I suppose if you interpret his self-deprecating comments as sarcastic, and any actual sarcastic comments as true…

      1. He doesn’t seem to take himself all that seriously. Definitely less egotistical than a number of radio hosts I can think of. I do like Wilkow’s show np better though. Despite his recent ‘go cops’ theme.

    2. Almighty — I’m OK with just Glen if he’s giving political analysis. Those other clowns on his show send me up the wall though. I can only take about 5 minutes also.

  12. As far as I know, however, this is the first time Beck has explicitly called for an end to federal prohibition of all the other currently banned drugs.

    Then allow me to scoop you: He said it on his radio program in the previous decade. Only he didn’t specify federal.

    I never saw him on TV, but understand the character of his TV show was different. Maybe the content too.

  13. The Illinois Senate today sent a bill decriminalizing possession of some marijuana to the governor’s desk. The guv has not indicated if he’d view for it.

    1. Rauner is my state’s last hope…but if he shoots that bill down, he needs nut punched.

      1. He should get nut punched once as a warning.

  14. Welcome to club, Beck. Now we just have to convince the imbecile drug warriors, as well as all the cannabis supremacists who have deluded themselves into believing weed is special yet pretty much every other drug should be illegal. Both groups are at least somewhat learning disabled and predisposed to a fascism, so it’s going to be a long uphill climb.

    1. When organized superstition finally got the Alcohol Prohibition Amendment, it was because, as Mencken pointed out, John Barleycorn was identified to ku-klux christianity as the long-sought embodiment of Satan, cloven hooves and all. While it is true that heroin and alcohol are deleterious, the fact that psychedelics and pot helped wean people of addictive dope and cancel militarist brainwashing threw the alcohol, tobacco, pharma and fieldpieces industries into a blood frenzy. “Drugs,” to the programmably superstitious, are the Demonic Possession that only the State is big enough to exorcise. If they weren’t even more fanatically committed to forcing women to reproduce white altruists and fearful of losing power, prohibition wouldn’t even be on the table.

  15. The Harrison Act, the first drug control law was enacted in 1914. Prior to that, if one wished to have narcotics, one went to the local pharmacy and purchased the stuff. The country, established in 1776, survived all manner of travail, a Civil War included, without Drug Control Laws, funny isn’t it? It has survived the years since 1914’s Drug Control regime and routines, though at considerable cost and damage to the body politic. Mighten it now be time for the nation to take a cold, hard, dispassionate look at what it’s goals re narcotics are or should be, how to reach those goals, assuming they are reachable, and reasonable, and also to examine the cost in dollars as well as in lives that Drug Control, as it is politely known, has laid on the body politic. Seems to me that it is.

    1. Actually, The Country passed prohibition law, August 5, 1861. CHAP. XLIV. An Act to Prohibit the Sale of Spirituous Liquors and Intoxicating Drinks in the District of Columbia, in Certain Cases…. on the same page as a “general” tax even higher than the tariff rates that gave rise to the Civil War in the first place. The mystics of mind control have always cooperated readily with the mystics of ordinary looting whenever their bipartisan consensus dictated that guns be pointed in a given direction.

  16. He’s also on your side regarding ass sex and messicans. I think maybe the real headline is “Reason shocked to discover inaccuracies in DailyKos caricature of right wing radio personality”.

    1. Best we all join together and stamp out progressives (literally) than fight amongst ourselves.

  17. Glen always was a little slow. Better late than never.

  18. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnGET OFF MY PHONE!!! GET OFF MY PHONE!!!

    Jacob, you can help me out. I’m in the midst of dinner with some political science friends and I’m trying to argue– without laughter and jokes– that modern day libertarian ideologues are, infact, distinguishable from People that yell into microphones every day on The Great American Screech Fest on AM radio. Any good tips on how to go about this?

    1. Get some friends smarter than you?

    2. just start flingimg poo at each other while ooking and eek ing. You will sound far more sophisticated than you do currently.

    3. Another thought…..’political science friends’. Sounds like useless progturds who have never worked a real day in their life. Yes, I’m sure they have great intellectual contributions to make.

  19. Today I learned that some clown named Robert White is a goddamned lying narc.

    -jcr

  20. Why did it take a constitutional amendment to enact alcohol prohibition, but drug prohibition was enacted by legislative fiat? I’ve never gotten a good answer to that question.

    1. I’ve asked that question in the comments here and on NRO and likewise, never got any kind of answer.

    2. China banned narcotics imports in 1911, which cause a glut and war in the opium-producing Balkan states. Opium-producing Great Britain shifted much of its surplus Indian opium and morphine to the USA through Canada, causing a currency drain and addiction problem. Austria-Germany, the leading producer of heroin, went to war against its Balkan suppliers and Congress was prompted to exclude morphine products (some of which were even added to alcoholic beverages). Superstitious competition with the Saloon Forces embraced both classes of drugs, but narcotics were kept out of the media as much as possible so as not to embarrass wealthy families with political clout. It is embarrassing to “friendly nations” to bring this up, but probably OK here–where they’ll never see it. Prohibition and taxes are closely bound up with war and financial collapse, much as in Adam Smith’s day.

  21. I am all for legalization of all drugs,,, no resrtictions but of course the Idiot Democrats make sure that when these drugged out loosers become addicted or screw up their lives, it will be the Taxpayers problem. I mean loook how they have made the Black Underclass dependent (and all for votes).

    Hell, I think of all the new job oppertunities that will open up as once productive people destroy their lives… BUT it is thier life and they get to make those decisions…

  22. See how powerful a multiplier effect 1% to 5% of the vote can have? If the LP keeps fielding candidates ol’ Glenn’ll suddenly realize girls are individuals too, and that the 14th amendment secures the rights of actual “persons born”. Who knows, maybe when there are six or seven genuine libertarians in Congress he’ll suddenly realize the Income Tax was published in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. There’s no telling where this could go with a few more spoiler votes!

  23. “By the end of the show, Beck was declaring that the federal government should call off its war on drugs and let states decide how to deal with marijuana and other psychoactive substances.”

    That sounds all good and Libertarian and stuff, but the problem I have with statements like this: Whether it is the federal government taking away my individual freedom or the state, I still lose my freedom. All this does is change the onus from feds to states. Then as states enact different laws, there comes confusion, people arrested from not knowing individual states’ laws, interstate commerce issues, etc. We already have situations like this concerning alcohol. I recall reading here at Reason about a couple from New Jersey that moved to Pennsylvania and ran afoul of PA ABC because of their wine collection/club. Just give me back sovereignty over my body, period.

    1. The goal should remain getting rid of prohibition at all levels, but that starts at the federal level.

      And I highly doubt the States (most of which have balanced budget amendments) would/could expend the resources necessary to fight the drug war. Get rid of prohibition at the fed level and you may go along way towards decriminalization at the state level (if not outright legalization) of a lot of drugs.

      1. It helps to understand that poppy drugs, unlike all but their imitations, really do enslave by addiction. Imperial nations with chemical plants used this to transfer wealth from brown and yellow populations much like a self-enforcing tax. There is evidence that WWI and WWII were both opium wars like the wars of 1840 and the late 1850s directed against Chinese Prohibition. US banks loaned money to the belligerents and got dragged into WWI when Russia went communist.
        No such phenomena involve to marijuana, peyote and psychedelics in general, nor even to natural stimulants like coca and catha. But the secrecy surrounding “dope” in its international ramifications fed the superstitious fears which plague the US and which the US now foists off elsewhere to our peril. The old Steppenwolf song drawing the distinction is apropos.

    2. The 21st Amendment is good reading on this topic. FDR was made President For Life because he had the guts to push repeal of the 18th Amendment.

  24. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  25. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  26. I’d be interested in seeing his opinion of Federal vs. States rights when there is a Republican in the Oval Office. Plus, I don’t understand how that’s even a ‘libertarian’ position. If all the states decided to make marijuana illegal and punishable by life imprisonment, Beck doesn’t have a problem with that. I don’t see why the guy gets a pat on the back for saying he doesn’t want Obama or Clinton to have more power, that’s pretty much the default setting of anyone who doesn’t vote Democrat.

  27. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  28. Glenn Beck is wrong in one respect, it is not up to the States to decide what I or any other adult puts in our bodies if, as adults, we actually have the full and complete ownership of our bodies and minds when our behavior is otherwise honest and peaceful. That’s the principle of inalienable rights, which, of course, has been trashed by the so-called war on drugs (really a war on your rights for personal moral or religious purposes).

    If the government (federal, state, or local) had the legitimate power to stop people from using certain substances for the harm those substances cause to the user and/or other people, then the government would have to, once again, prohibit alcohol, the number one violence-causing drug in America. Tobacco would have to be prohibited also for all the disease and early deaths its use causes.

  29. By identifying himself as a “conservative” Glenn spared me from ever spending a minute of life expectancy listening to or reading his screed. To the extent that all of them seek laws to force women to reproduce against their will–and prohibitionist laws to boot–I write them off by modus ponens as mystical fanatics to expose rather than reason with. If Jacob can find and change a mind in one of these characters, he is one persuasive fellow.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.