A wildly incorrect but occasionally believed stereotype is that every single person who wants cannabis legalized either medically or recreationally is a kale-eating and Prius-driving ultra-liberal and that no conservative could ever support cannabis reform. While it’s understandable why some would believe there’s a conservative bias against marijuana given the several high-profile elderly Republicans who remain strong prohibitionists, the assumption that all conservatives across America hate cannabis and want to continue the costly prohibition couldn’t be any further from the truth.
When Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced his vocal opposition to House Bill 63 via Twitter and incorrectly assumed that HB 63 would legalize cannabis in Texas, the responses were close to entirely in disagreement. The general Twitter consensus, quite like the endless individuals who testified in favor of the numerous cannabis bills in the 2019 Legislature, consisted of people from every conceivable walk of life and political affiliation all in disgust of Patrick’s continuing prohibitionist stances.
Yet of the thousands of accounts that commented on Patrick’s cringeworthy Twitter post, one stood out not only for the name of their account but also because of the content of their response.
Houston Young Republicans brilliantly and respectfully brought up why Lt. Gov. Patrick’s stance is both problematic and in direct violation of both the platform of the Texas Republican Party as well as important values of classic American conservatism.
For a deeper dive into the viewpoints of cannabis among Millennial and Gen Z conservatives and the fallacies in the recent statements made by Patrick and the drug war from a conservative standpoint, Texas Cannabis Collective had the pleasure of speaking with Houston Young Republicans Communications Director Chase Bradstreet.
JK: What is the general consensus of House Bill 63 within the membership of Houston Young Republicans? More positively in favor or have some members showed reservations in the bill passing?
CB: Given that all but a couple of us voted in favor of the civil penalty plank in the platform at the convention, there are probably none of us who would oppose reduced criminal penalties. At a minimum, 50% are in favor of full outright legalization.
JK: Would you say that HYR’s consensus of House Bill 63 agrees with the thoughts of other young Republican/conservative groups similar to HYR in Texas?
CB: I would venture to guess that HYR clubs in rural areas are going to find a different spectrum of views, but that the majority in these clubs would still support reduced criminal penalties. The other urban clubs likely have substantially similar views to HYR.
JK: An exponentially increasing number of conservatives across America support either full cannabis legalization or at least the lessening of criminal penalties. Why, however, is Lt. Governor Dan Patrick so vehemently against any cannabis reform in the slightest?
CB: Either through genuine belief or the desire to tailor a message to his older, more religious base, the Lt. Governor parrots a lot of the old misconceptions about addiction, intoxicants in general, and cannabis in particular. He thinks that cannabis use is both a symptom of and conduit for societal moral decay – an assumption that is as much about disapproval of the assumed aesthetics around act of smoking as it is about misunderstanding of the intoxicating effects. He buys into the DARE “gateway drug” propaganda, and likely has been influenced by the various bunk studies about permanent negative side effects from mild/moderate use.
JK: From a conservative standpoint, would there be any way to possibly change Lt. Gov. Patrick’s mind on his staunch prohibitionist stance?
CB: There are multiple ways to go about arguing with prohibitionists from a conservative standpoint. Of course, it would be great if you could simply say that cannabis is a mild-to-moderate intoxicant with fewer side effects than any of the legal intoxicants one would never think to prohibit, and thus it’s unfair to single out its users and unjust to subject them to the indignity of an arrest. But unfortunately that would require a straightforward acceptance of the science by people who aren’t disposed to do so. Other arguments:
A– Legal traditionalism and our common law heritage – it used to be that a valid mens rea (or mental intent) for a criminal offense was inherently concerned with some trespass to another. Removing this requirement opens the door to the regulation of any form of activity via the criminal code.
B– Conservatives are supposed to prize individual responsibility and decry nanny state parochialism. Just as the state shouldn’t hold your hand through life, it shouldn’t put adults in a crib for fear they fall out of bed.
C- Conservatives are supposed to favor fiscal efficiency and practical efficacy in governmental administration. Policies that after decades don’t achieve their stated aims shouldn’t get the “we just need MORE MONEY” treatment. Policies that entrench and shield self-interested bureaucracies should get the stink eye. Policies that increase paperwork waste taxpayer money. Policies that divert important public institutions from their core, seminal duties cut at the very legitimacy of those institutions.
Despite all of the money and the effort expended, the intoxicant abuse rate remains today as ever independent of any coordinated level of police action. There are simply too many types of intoxicants on the market, too many sellers willing to undergo the risk, and too continual a demand for them to make a scratch through putting an arbitrary slice of available intoxicants on the contraband list.
It follows that diverting police resources to this is a waste of resources. For anyone concerned about the conviction rate for violence and property offenses, that should be distressing.
The inefficiencies, though, do not stop at the investigative level. Public confidence in our criminal trial process is a necessary element in preserving the perception of the system’s political legitimacy. There is a judicial economy – a limitation of time, resources, and actual human attention. If the flood of drug cases mean less trial time for defendants, then the public faith in the accuracy of convictions and the justness of sentences is bound to decrease. In jurisdictions where judges hear both civil and criminal cases, the flood of drug cases directly impacts civil litigation as well.
Given what we know about the psychology of addiction, it’s fair to say that for those users that cause society itself a problem, intoxicants are what economists call substitute goods. Most addicts are addicted to not being sober rather than to any one particular drug, and the choice available to them is endless. Alcohol, compressed air, dextromethorphan, nitrous oxide, glue, nicotine, caffeine, and spray paint are sold over the counter. Sketchy gas stations stock new synthetic drugs faster than the DEA can regulate them onto the CS (Controlled Substances) list. Plants containing mescaline and DMT are legal for internet order. Psychedelic mushrooms literally grow wherever there are cows. Modern hydroponic techniques make mushrooms and cannabis easier to grow than ever. The rise of the dark web means new, technically legal designer drugs and any of the old controlled substances can be shipped in undetectable packaging to one’s doorstep.
Simply banning one of these options isn’t going to keep people from getting intoxicated. Given that people in all cultures have been doing that as long as archaeology can trace back, the urge to do so seems to be hardwired in our brains somewhere. Conservatives are supposed to take note of human nature and how it limits the potential for policy success. An approach based on harm reduction is one much more likely to succeed than one based on harm elimination. A focus on giving people a greater sense of purpose would do more to encourage sobriety than policy based on fear of punishment. Human nature mandates both carrots and sticks if you are to lead people to better things. Dan Patrick seems only to acknowledge the stick.
D – Conservatives should be wary of the constitutional implications of drug prohibition. Enforcement of contraband lists is inherently disruptive to police discipline – it puts them in contact with too much cash and other liquid assets with too little supervision. Our contraband laws are the primary vector through which most violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments occur. They are the vector through which the castle doctrine leads to citizens fighting the police. They are the vector through which the spirit of the 3rd Amendment is degraded by police playing soldier, cavorting around in armored vehicles in full tactical kit.
E– Conservatives should be made aware that our contraband laws break up nuclear families, interferes with many fathers’ ability to meet their child support obligations, and artificially reduces the labor pool. A criminal conviction takes white collar workers and makes them blue collar workers, takes blue collar workers and makes them gig workers, takes gig workers and makes them indigent, and takes the indigent and makes them homeless. To the poor, bail is expensive, sitting in jail means loss of employment, and traveling to the courthouse over and over is costly. If it’s for a transient reason that they regard as nonsense, the feeling of being picked on by the state is alienating and disenfranchising. Especially in rural areas, multiple go-arounds in the criminal justice system cause young men to check out of society and give up on productive work. And these multiple go-arounds are often prompted by failure to pay fines or failing a drug test rather than some substantive criminal offense. Businesses make up for the labor shortage this causes by hiring illegal immigrants, something which conservatives generally frown upon.