Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why do nanny-state conservatives love the drug war so much?

All it has given us is prison overpopulation, people with criminal records because they like to get high, and expanding deficits.

I see no reason for it's continuance if we claim to be free.


Government deciding what a person is permitted to do their own body is the nanny-state.

If a man does not have dominion over his own body, then he has no freedom at all.

23 Answers

  • Trev
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The war on drugs is a manufactured war. Big-business grow the drugs, sell the drugs and profit from the drugs. The war on drugs is a war against the end-user only; the working-class end-user mostly! Targeting the end-user will have no impact "at all" upon the fantastically profitable drugs trade. Big-business (mostly) controls world governments, the war is their own idea, which is proved by the fact that it is completely ineffectual. Those punished are in themselves the victims of the drugs trade! Punishing the victims is a policy much seen in this society. We are endlessly brainwashed by the never-ending bombardment of anti-drugs propaganda, which does little more than make drug users laugh, and those who haven't used drugs (mostly) realize that that which they are being told must be untrue; which in turn generates temptation, which increases drugs sales, which benefits the businesses that tell our governments what to do in their war on drugs. Do you understand now?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    progressives in both parties like anything that extends control over the people. I think what people do to themselves is of no concern to anyone else. The only time the law should be involved is when your actions infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another person. And if the government would butt out of people's personal health care needs then those foolish enough to become drug addicts could die anonymous death and never be missed. But liberals insist on providing everything for everybody, so the question of "why should my tax dollars go to those people" always comes up. So people write laws to try to carve out exclusions in programs that never should have existed. If we just allowed people to take responsibility for themselves for better or worse this wouldn't be an issue.

    Most of the conservatives I know are actually for the decriminalization of Marijuana. Be careful throwing around stereotypes.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • snell
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    particular and what's up with all of those liberals attempting to shove anti homicide regulations down our throats? what would be next? regulations against stealing? incredibly, I even tend to consider you. I even have in no way enjoyed donning a seat belt even in spite of the indisputable fact that i be attentive to that's a good concept. I buckle up now by using fact I have been given bored with finding out to purchase the fines. Now, driving a motorbike without helmet is basically dating catastrophe. nevertheless, there should not be regulations against stupidity and the warfare on drugs has basically made the drug company extra worthwhile by using using up expenditures. The warfare on drugs isn't a liberal marketing campaign. that's a conservative one. Liberals are extra probably to giggle powder and smoke weed than tight @ssed conservatives. yet, i'm getting your element. There ought to be a decrease on government intrusion into our very own lives.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Do you know what a nanny state is? Do you know what a Conservative is? That is a contradiction in terms. That being said I could care less what kind of poison people choose to put in their bodies, but when the poison has a direct effect on those around them, children for example, then they no longer have the "freedom" to do as they please. Drug addict parents do not take care of their children, the drug becomes more important than the children, guarantee me people who take drugs will not have children and not drive a car and hey I am all for them taking whatever and as much as they want. That is the problem with legalizing drugs, why should people who do not take drugs suffer the consequences of those that do.

    Source(s): Your view is askew on what a nanny state is.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Actually, the drug war was officially ended by Obama's "Drug Czar," Gil Kerlikowske, on May 13, 2009.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because it gives them an outlet for self-righteous and moral indignation along Manichean lines.

    If one really wanted to wage a war on drugs they should wage a war on the most deadly-and perfectly legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco.

    But it's really just about agency survival. Drugs aren't going anywhere, but neither are the law enforcement personnel whom have jobs which depend upon this false war.

    You see, so long as this war goes on the officers have justification for their salaries.

    The only thing that has been defeated in the war on drugs has been the fear of many law-enforcement personnel becoming obsolete.

    What in on this gig? Simply find a problem and make it worse-then provide the people with a solution.

    The reality is that small town police HAVE to be corrupt for a reason-it's the only way they'll stay in a job, and police officers in the city really don't crack down on gang ridden areas because it's better to just waltz in there from time to time to meet your quota.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't know any nanny-state conservatives.

    This conservative believes that if I own anything on this earth it is my body

    I also think prisons should be for violent criminals only..the others should get work details...but the real nanny-staters would see that as taking away government "jobs".

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I live in "nanny state Australia" and smoke a legal drug which costs me a small fortune for the right to do so (government taxes)

    I argue the fact illicit drug-users have access to FREE methadone progammes

    It will cost me the price of cigarettes in patches/drugs etc

    Being the good little "conservative" that I am - I will PAY for my LEGAL habit

    As I am too old to steal to support my habit

    Source(s): It is the effect on the non-users, you know them? The ones that never asked for the burglary. theft and home invasion! IE spending my dollars on campaigns telling me about the harms of smoking/drinking and anything else you can dream up
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Who said we do? Did you take a poll?

    And why do you believe that Democrats don't support it? Did you take a poll?

    You seem to be coming at this topic with what you believe is already the answer, and with fabricated "facts" to support it.

    Not a very bright way to try to generate rational discussion is it?

    Or was your question just an attempt to strike out at conservatives like an irrational child would throw a temper tantrum?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Nothing says reduced crime like making a crime legal.

    Ever consider that, while under the influence, people become more willing to commit crimes such as robbery?

    Maybe drugs are illegal because people are dangerous when under the dominion of addiction. Oh wait, drugs arent addictive right? You can quit any time.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.