Legalized Recreational Narcotics: A Conservative Statits Wet Dream

Disclaimer: I truly hate the state in all of it’s forms. It has been, and forever will be a way for the few to control the many. The greatest horror of the “American Experiment” is that the oligarchy, which has been in control since the beginning, has fooled the many that they actually need the few in order to live in peace with their immediate neighbors, and their world neighbors. None of that is true. The many never need the few.
One of the many that thinks he’s needs the few is my father. He’s a pastor in a really small town in Alaska. He claims he’s not a moralist, but he always votes in ways that will control behavior he disagrees with. One of those records of voting is a staunch record of not allowing people the freedom to put in their bodies whatever they want to. He, in the name of Jesus, feels that it is his responsibility to make sure the people in his town live a moral life. If he can’t convince them of the joys of Holy living, he will make sure they at lest live like it. On a side note, no one wants to serve a god who uses coercion to get its way. I do not believe the God of the Bible does use coercion. I think it’s actually an anarchist text at the meta-physical level.
But, this isn’t about me or my thoughts of the unGod. It’s about people like my pops. For the record, I love my dad. He worked really hard to take care of his family. I never missed a meal. He randomly gave gifts to his children for no other reason than to show love. When I was dealing with being horrifcally bullied, leading to thoughts of self harm in high school we’d go to get soft-served ice cream once a week (Carvel, Seaford, Long Island) and we would just talk and make jokes. That sounds so childish when I read it, and when I read it out loud. Maybe it was, but it helped keep me, literally, alive for a few years. He is a great dude! I just happen to disagree with a lot of his worldview.
The songs Sweet Home Alabama, and Okie From Muskogee were written and sang by people who disagreed with the politics they were singing about. But those artists loved the people in their lives that did think like that so much that they wanted to give us the point of view in it's purest, non-straw-manned form . This following treatise is my attempt to give a cogent argument in favor of the anarchist view of legalized narcotics using the conservative Republican definitions of the states reach and purpose. I hope to do this without straw-manning their point of view. I think I'll be succesful as I'm a recovering Republican Statist. Just like alcoholism, statism is a one drink and drunk to of mindset. It's insidious. I'm sure my anarchist views will spring up throughout this.I will let you know what are actual beliefs of mine at the current moment.

If you peruse the Libertarian pages in social media boards what you and I should see are people wanting No State. What you actually find are Republicans wanting to be hip but not actually understanding the platform. They want to get rid of income taxes, but that’s about the only Non-State thing about those people. They want the government. They truly do. They want a huge government. They will use the state via the Bullet of the Voting booth to make sure the things they do not like are not allowed. Who you want to marry, and what you want to put in your body are fair game to them. So, when us anarchists say things like, we believe in free marriage, legaized drugs and getting rid of ICE, therefore initiating easy, open borders they get pissed and say that we are being overrun by Liberal Democrats. This is horse-poo identity politics at its worst. "You disagree with me, therefore I'm going to throw the biggest insult I can at you!" It's no different than a conservative saying, "if you want a decent job it'll be a lot easier if you don't drop out of high school," leading to allogations of racism. The problem isn't that the Libertarian view is Liberal or Democrat, but rather that, when the democrats agree with us, we just think it's awfully Libertarian of them. What is also funny is that Libertarians want to abolish the EPA, FDA, DOE, etc. That is definitely NOT "Liberal Democrat."
Anyway, I digress. Let's talk about recreational weed. Now, as a true anarchist, I believe in the legalization of all drugs for recreational use. I also believe that if you want to use them, you don't get to act like an idiot, be dangerous, rob liquor stores, etc. Also, if you want to do them, don't come crying to a nanny state for help when your brain is fried, and your unemployable and broke. Your decisions are your decisions-- own them. Is this brutal? Maybe. But it'll take one generation of chaos to bring us order. As opposed to now, where there is the appearance of order, but there really isn't. But again, as I'm sure I'll be doing a lot of in this post, I digress.
I'm going to only argue for the case of Marijuana here as it is the only recreational legal drug there is at the moment in Alaska where I am. In the Town I'm in, Cordova, every new business needs to get the towns permission via a majority vote if they want to open. What I'm not going to do is go into how Goddamn un-American it is that people can vote you out of owning your own business. I'm NOT going to rant about that, no matter how much I want to. OMGosh it pisses me off so much! (I'm going to take a drink every time I digress...)
   Recently there was a group of people that wanted to build a dispensary in town and it needed town approval via the opression booth. This was being angrily opposed by the religious moral right in this town. You know, the conservatives that don't want the government to tell them how to express their religious views, but are totally ok when the government tells pagans how they should live. You know. Those people. There were two arguments against it by the hypocrites, I mean republican Christians, that I'd like to address. I’d also like to point out that from their statist point-of-view, they should have been supporting the opening of the dispensary with all of their being. That dispensary actually helps the Control-Behavior-Theocracy that they are trying to enact through voter violence.
The first argument is obvious, isn't it? Weed is bad for you! We don't want to give people easy access to it. The argument goes that if we as a society “allow” a free market business into town then we as a society would be encouraging the use of weed. This a royally screwed up argument on so many levels. Firstly, weed is not any worse than the alcohol that is consumed at dinner, or the hydrocodone that I know several ministers in this town take like candy. When the fact that those pills are synthetic heroin is addressed, the excuse as to why those drugs are ok flow like candy. The excuse is that since some person with “MD” at the end of his/her name that is wearing a long white coat said it was totally safe it is therefore now morally acceptable. My father is a minister here and when I asked if mom was to die, and he was having prostate problems and the doctor said that sexual abstinence was causing the problems, and that solution was to jerk one off a few times a week, would my dad comply? As a devout Christian, he would not. He would not do that because he finds it immoral at a theological level. He would never agree that heroin use is ok for the same reason. It destroys the mind. It destroys the body. It destroys the soul. But, when an atheist wearing a long white lab-coat writes on a piece of paper with terrible handwriting and calls the heroin some fancy Latin name and deems it OK, the heroin magically becomes morally acceptable. Why? It’s still doing the same thing to the mind, body and soul. If drugs violate the will of God, how do atheists make it OK? 
    As a personal aside, I think the free-love hippie, and minority use of weed is the biggest factor here. They don't take the heroin pills and smell like they used too.
But, my point is that if drug behavior needs to be controlled because it’s bad for you physically and spiritually, then it always is. Doctor’s have been shoving horrific drugs into our systems because of a statist controlled FDA. This FDA, which can easily control the heroin production, can not control the underground manufacturing of a plant. This FDA uses the anti-hippie sentiment of the religious Boomers to push their narrative, and all the while killing the people that blindly support them with one of the most dangerously addictive drugs on the planet. 
Also, in regards to this first argument against pot shops, I'd argue that the control-your-behavior-republican-theocracy should love the idea that all pot sales are in one major location. If a pot shop is set up we will know the following: who is going in. Who is coming out. What is going in. What is going out. Also the age of the people going in. As it stands right now, weed is easier to score than booze if your underage. Why, because we don't know who is selling, where they are selling, what they are selling, etc. I'm not saying that just because a pot shop is set up that there won't be any more underage sales. That goes beyond naive, and straight into stupid. What I am saying is that, with the shop we'll see the majority of buyers using weed in the town, and the authorities can spend their time finding the illegal sales. Literally, setting up the pot shop helps the control-your-behavior-republican-theocracy keeps tabs on the pagans. And, as we who have been attending church our whole lives know as Gospel truth, there is no one else on this planet that wants to keep track of people's outward sins like control-your-behavior-republican-theocracy church goers. The pot shop should thrill them, not scare them.
The second main argument is as follows: since weed is against federal law, no banks can take the money from the pot shop as a deposit. This seems to be a coup-de-grace. But it's totally not. Well, it shouldn’t be. Why? If that is indeed the law, that's a stupid law at the conceptual level. The government itself should be against this law. What this tells me is that if a drug dealer wants to deposit his money in the bank, therefore making his income trace-able for tax purposes, he is literally told not to. Think about this at a purely fiscal statist stand-point. Not letting the drug dealers deposit their money is a sure fire way to encourage tax evasion. As Capone proved, tax evasion will get caught. But why make it more difficult? Why waste government money on task forces that aren’t even needed? Take the money generated from the taxes, and fund some other statist task force: like the stopping of murderous gangs that control our inner-cities from literally destroying South Chicago. I’m actually personally against a full-time police force from an anarchist world-view. I’m just saying, if we’re going to be all statist and crap we should do it efficiently!
Let drug dealers deposit the money, and put the cash back on the grid (again, I’m not personally advocating any of this; this should be the opinions of statists). Money that doesn't get put into banks doesn't circulate through the overall economic system, and leads to a decline in state control, which, again, is the end game for these conservative statists!
Personal side note in regards to the second reason for no pot shops, From a purely control-your-behavior-republican-theocracy point of view: just because something is federal law doesn't mean it's just. Ask any church goer if given the choice between having  the legal obligations of doing  gay marriages at their churches, or not doing them leading to the government shutting them down, because of federal hate-crime/discrimination laws, many, if not most would choose to shut down. Why? Because the legality of a thing doesn't equate to the righteousness of the thing. And, just like the MD/Masturbation scenario, the states narrative isn’t always the most clearly thought out or moral.  
Anyway, I love my parents. It sounds like I'm taking cheap pot shots at them. I'm not. Well, not consciously. I am pointing out inconsistencies in their arguments and using absurdity to do it. The term "Conservative" has been co-opted by the Republican Neo-con machine. The founders of that movement would not be using that term for themselves today, and, I don't believe, that they'd be using the Elephant as a bed fellow either. Conservatives seem to only believe in liberty when it suits their narrative. I believe in it more so when it doesn't suit my narrative. I've never done a non prescription drug in my life. My first sip of any kind of alcohol (that wasn't cough syrup), was when I was 29. But, my personal feelings on these matters shouldn't be used by me as a way to dictate someone else's life. I also read the Bible for several hours a day. But I have no political opinions based on that book. They all come from a constitutional outlook. The ten commandments say don't murder and don't steal. I believe both of those actions should be illegal. Why? Because the 2,000 year old book constructed of mostly allegorical fantasies that I read every day says so? No, because the constitution says all people have a right to life and property. Murder and theft violate those. This was the conservative position until Bush 2. Now, Christians are the inventors and perfectors of identity politics, which I hate on a fundamental level, and they love to tell us how to live.
     I can truly say that I've never used the state to force people to live within my moral frame-work. If my conversation with you isn't convincing enough, I just have to come up with better arguments. I am glad that I came to my senses before I ever voted in support of oppresive violence. I never felt comfortable doing so the first two times I was eliglble, and when I finally discovered Ron Paul in 2008, I quickly went from Conservative → Minarchist → Anarchist within the course of six months… It’s always a course of six months.
Well, I  tried to use the point of view from the Conservative Statist in this humble post. Growing up in that environment helps me dissect their arguments a lot better than the Liberal Statist's argument because I know them so well. 
Finally, as I tell my leftist friends with children, being given the choice between Democrat or Republican at the voting booth is no different than when they give their kids the choice between peas or lima beans. Those kids will eat a vegetable. The parents  let the kids choose the easiest ones to choke down. But this is a lie. There is no choice. Non-voting, no aggression, is a statement. It is the actual choice. Let people live how they want as long they aren’t victimizing anyone else. And you are only victimized if your rightsare taken from you.![2munw9.jpg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmcNz5nw5bPrSNcNEwYLz2A49hm9K5US1zkWpcQuxQGrJ8/2munw9.jpg)