Tucker Carlson on Marijuana

[PAF]

And lots of people talk about Common Core.

Really? Where?

 

[Brett85]

That is what you have to look out for. It is rare to hear a voice that stands up for things we believe in, so it is easy for us to embrace them. With that embrace though, we cease critical thought. When you hear Tucker supporting prostitution but advocating against legalizing drugs, alarm bells should go off in your head.

This guy used to be on CNN. His business, his way to making more money, to improve his life and his family's is to get the best ratings. He is doing well.

He doesn’t claim to be a libertarian, correct? If that’s the case, then I don’t see why it matters. He’s an anti interventionist conservative, which is rare today, especially on Fox News.

 

[Superfluous Man]

My first time I realized how stupid of an idea that is was when Shawn Hannity trashed Ron Paul in the 2008 election. I was only 27 at the time. I used to like Hannity, and gave him a pass on the things I disagreed with him on for the same reasons you do with Tucker.

Tucker is way better than Hannity in every way.

 

[Superfluous Man]

He doesn’t claim to be a libertarian, correct? If that’s the case, then I don’t see why it matters. He’s an anti interventionist conservative, which is rare today, especially on Fox News.

I think he used to call himself a libertarian. I don't know if he does any more. He supported Ron Paul not only in his presidential runs as a Republican, but also as a Libertarian in 1988.

I googled his drug war views, and it seems like he's still for legalization, but tends to speak out of both sides of his mouth concerning it.

The main issue where he's never been libertarian is immigration.

 

[BrooklynZoo]

Tucker Carlson has stated on air that although he saw himself as a libertarian in the past, his perceptions of its political ineffectiveness in combating Progressivism have influenced him to be more conservative. He believes it will take strong activism to fight the leftists.

His objections to legal marijuana are some of his least reasoned points and seem to be more out of disgust with those he grew up around that were lazy and unmotivated. He conflates their personality traits with their marijuana use. This is a mistake as it's not the marijuana which causes their problems any more than liquor is the primary problem of an alcoholic.

 

[Superfluous Man]

His objections to legal marijuana are some of his least reasoned points and seem to be more out of disgust with those he grew up around that were lazy and unmotivated. He conflates their personality traits with their marijuana use. This is a mistake as it's not the marijuana which causes their problems any more than liquor is the primary problem of an alcoholic.

On a more basic level, even if he sees marijuana that way, and even if he's completely right about it, it's still not an argument against legalization, just an argument against choosing to use it.

And this is where it looks to me like he contradicts himself on this issue (again, I say this based on googling, not actually watching his show). He seems to waver between making those points as arguments against using marijuana, while still opposing prohibition, and as arguments against legalization. Sometimes it seems like he wants to criticize politicians for favoring legalization and say they're promoting marijuana use, and then turn around in the very same segment and say that he's not against legalization.

 

[dannno]

I think he used to call himself a libertarian. I don't know if he does any more. He supported Ron Paul not only in his presidential runs as a Republican, but also as a Libertarian in 1988.

I googled his drug war views, and it seems like he's still for legalization, but tends to speak out of both sides of his mouth concerning it.

The main issue where he's never been libertarian is immigration.

Tucker doesn't talk on both sides of his mouth on cannabis legalization...

I'm for legalization of heroin, if people want to use it I won't stop them, but I don't think anybody should use heroin (other opiates are better for pain management or recreational use)

Tucker is for legalization of herb, he just thinks people shouldn't use it on a widespread basis because he believes some of the propaganda about cannabis causing psychiatric disorders.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Tucker doesn't talk on both sides of his mouth on cannabis legalization...

I'm for legalization of heroin, if people want to use it I won't stop them, but I don't think anybody should use heroin (other opiates are better for pain management or recreational use)

Tucker is for legalization of herb, he just thinks people shouldn't use it on a widespread basis because he believes some of the propaganda about cannabis causing psychiatric disorders.

Based on what I saw when I googled it, it looks to me like he does talk out both sides of his mouth. Maybe you saw something different.

 

[Philhelm]

Is it better to have no allies?
Ron worked with Kucinich who was much worse than Tucker.
You have to watch your back but you need to work with people who aren't perfect.

We have a love affair with losing.

 

[dannno]

Based on what I saw when I googled it, it looks to me like he does talk out both sides of his mouth. Maybe you saw something different.

No, you are wrong. Tucker does not think we should keep herb illegal, he just doesn't think people should use it. You will not find a quote from Tucker saying we need to keep herb illegal.

It's the same view Ron Paul has about heroin. I don't know why this is so difficult for people on this site.

Probably the same reason some people think Tucker likes Elliot Abrams. You just can't stand to see somebody who mostly embodies the conservative/libertarian viewpoint become successful, so you have to pick at the little things you disagree on to make sure other libertarians don't support them.. it's a downright mental disorder.. either that, or you people don't want libertarians to become successful, ever.

 

[Superfluous Man]

No, you are wrong.

How do you know?

I don't know why this is so difficult for people on this site.

You have this habit of assuming that people who know about things that you don't know about must fail to grasp concepts.

Consider the possibility that I saw something from Tucker other than whatever it was you saw.

You just can't stand to see somebody who mostly embodies the conservative/libertarian viewpoint become successful

Please provide the quote from me that indicates I can't stand seeing somebody who mostly embodies the conservative/libertarian viewpoint become successful.

 

[dannno]

How do you know?

Because you always try and divide the liberty movement by pitting the base against whoever is doing well and is generally on our side. Why would I expect anything different this time?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Because you always try and divide the liberty movement by pitting the base against whoever is doing well and is generally on our side. Why would I expect anything different this time?

Can you find any examples of my doing that?

Even in this thread, I've mainly defended Tucker.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Is it better to have no allies?
Ron worked with Kucinich who was much worse than Tucker.
You have to watch your back but you need to work with people who aren't perfect.

You raise a valid point, anti-swamp purism is getting bit out of hand lately.
Even MAGA himself is working closely with his top funder Sheldon 'US should drop nukes on Iran' Adelson who may be even worse than Soros.
MAGA is also working closely with Bibi 'Iraq war will be great' Netanyahu on Iran/mideast policy who may be even worse than Saddam Hussein on war crimes/human rights violations.
MAGA is working closely with Iraq war neocon Elliot Abrahm on Venez intervention project and with Jeffrey Epstein's 'sweet dealer' on other America-First cabinet projects.
MAGA used to work with and fund Hillary who may be worse than Obama.
Many more such examples.

Point is that pragmatism is the name of the game, sometimes you have to work with those in the swamp to get out of the swamp. Let's leave the idealism of 'drain the swamp' in the pre-election campaign days where it belong.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The video from Tucker's show is available at the bottom of the article.

I know that there are other times where he's said he's for legalization of marijuana. But here, he frames the entire segment around a general opposition to legalizing it. Most of what he says could be called just criticizing the use of it and not the legalization of it. But at parts, he's definitely talking about legalizing it, and says so.

He may be able to turn around and say that nowhere in this segment does he ever explicitly say that he's against legalizing it. But there's no getting around the fact that that's the general tenor of the whole segment, from his opening remarks about Canada, to the text shown on the bottom of the screen, to the fact that all that his guest is arguing for is a very moderate legalization with regulation position and Tucker has not a single positive word to say about his position, to the multiple times throughout the segment where he explicitly criticizes politicians and corporations solely for supporting legalization. Tucker makes a rhetorical move throughout the whole segment where he conflates support for legalization with support for smoking weed. It's not I who am doing that, it's Tucker who does. He's the one who, in this segment, finds the distinction between supporting the freedom to do something and supporting actually doing it hard to grasp.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...tober/19/tucker-carlson-s-marijuana-malarkey/

So, when Tucker at other times turns around and says that he's still for legalizing weed, is he talking out both sides of his mouth. Yes, I think so. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Here's another segment where Tucker tries to take both sides of this issue at once right within this single segment. After showing videos of Cory Booker and Kamala Harris speaking in support of legalization, he prefaces the rest of the segment by saying that he doesn't think people should be put in jail for smoking weed or believe that the drug war has worked very well. But then, from that moment on, the entire segment criticizes politicians simply for supporting legalization, and repeatedly accuses them of supporting marijuana use itself, and even pushing it on people, simply by way of wanting to legalize it. And repeatedly he (not me, but Tucker himself) conflates support for legalization of marijuana with support for using it by bringing up all these alleged ill effects of using it as a basis for criticizing politicians merely for wanting to legalize it.

But then we could go right back to his opening remarks and ask him if he is for or against legalizing it. This, to me, is a case of speaking out both sides of his mouth. It's not I who am failing to grasp the distinction between supporting a vice and supporting legalization of it, it's Tucker himself going out of his way to muddle that distinction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlBTOLDo7Xk

Again, I'm not a hater of Tucker. I have generally liked a lot of what he's done (mainly in the past more than recently). But we don't have some obligation to defend someone when they say something wrong just because other times they say something right.

 

[specsaregood]

Tucker Carlson and marijuana...

Which is odd, because, in person, Paul doesn't seem like a freak. He seems like someone's grandfather. I first met up with Paul after a rally at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He apparently hadn't known I was coming but accepted my arrival with Zen-like calm, welcoming me into the seat next to him in the minivan and offering me baked goods from a plate on his lap. We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with marijuana," he said.

--Tucker Carlson

I still laugh at imagining Dr. Paul with a mischievous grin saying that to a shocked Carlson.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Tucker Carlson and marijuana...

I still laugh at imagining Dr. Paul with a mischievous grin saying that to a shocked Carlson.

Funny story , but it does touch on a pet peeve of mine.

I am for decriminalization of marijuana. The war on drugs is counter-productive, destroys the Bill of Rights, is extremely costly, and hasn’t achieved anything. People who like it should feel free to use it for themselves.

At the same time, I would recommend against kids (or anyone) using it. Before any marijuana users freak out, go ahead, keep using, but don’t expect everyone in the world to use wth you, or to praise you for your use.

And sadly, we now have an unintended consequence of decriminalization, which is cooking a drug into food. There are new cooking shows on TV about how to cook with marijuana. This is such a bad idea. Are these people high? Obviously this has disaster written all over it. Kids, pets, people who don’t want to use marijuana will mistakenly take it. It will happen, guaranteed.

Are other drugs cooked into food? “Hey, here’s a nice pasta sauce with viagra, everybody dig in!” “Grandma made some cake with estrogen replacement drugs, who wants a piece?” “Have a brownie made by your sister, it’s the best way to take birth control.” “Crazy Uncle Lou made some wonderful guacamole, you can hardly taste his schizophrenia meds in it”. Brilliant.

 

[dannno]

Funny story, but it does touch on a pet peeve of mine.

I am for decriminalization of marijuana. The war on drugs is counter-productive, destroys the Bill of Rights, is extremely costly, and hasn’t achieved anything. People who like it should feel free to use it for themselves.

At the same time, I would recommend against kids (or anyone) using it. Before any marijuana users freak out, go ahead, keep using, but don’t expect everyone in the world to use wth you, or to praise you for your use.

And sadly, we now have an unintended consequence of decriminalization, which is cooking a drug into food. There are new cooking shows on TV about how to cook with marijuana. This is such a bad idea. Are these people high? Obviously this has disaster written all over it. Kids, pets, people who don’t want to use marijuana will mistakenly take it. It will happen, guaranteed.

Are other drugs cooked into food? “Hey, here’s a nice pasta sauce with viagra, everybody dig in!” “Grandma made some cake with estrogen replacement drugs, who wants a piece?” “Have a brownie made by your sister, it’s the best way to take birth control.” “Crazy Uncle Lou made some wonderful guacamole, you can hardly taste his schizophrenia meds in it”. Brilliant.

LOL, ya, you have some really misguided views on cannabis. That doesn't bother me a whole lot, because most people are learning the truth about it and some day you may come around.

The reason people put it into food and the reason people like it so much is because it treats hundreds of conditions in a safe and effective way. These are common conditions that most people experience at least one of. You can't overdose, it can't hurt you. If you take too much, it's just a matter of sleeping it off. There is no hangover, no toxicity, etc. It doesn't do any longterm damage. It doesn't kill brain cells, it helps regenerate them.

Most people who use it consider a health tonic.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's another segment where Tucker tries to take both sides of this issue at once right within this single segment. After showing videos of Cory Booker and Kamala Harris speaking in support of legalization, he prefaces the rest of the segment by saying that he doesn't think people should be put in jail for smoking weed or believe that the drug war has worked very well. But then, from that moment on, the entire segment criticizes politicians simply for supporting legalization, and repeatedly accuses them of supporting marijuana use itself, and even pushing it on people, simply by way of wanting to legalize it. And repeatedly he (not me, but Tucker himself) conflates support for legalization of marijuana with support for using it by bringing up all these alleged ill effects of using it as a basis for criticizing politicians merely for wanting to legalize it.

But then we could go right back to his opening remarks and ask him if he is for or against legalizing it. This, to me, is a case of speaking out both sides of his mouth. It's not I who am failing to grasp the distinction between supporting a vice and supporting legalization of it, it's Tucker himself going out of his way to muddle that distinction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlBTOLDo7Xk

Again, I'm not a hater of Tucker. I have generally liked a lot of what he's done (mainly in the past more than recently). But we don't have some obligation to defend someone when they say something wrong just because other times they say something right.

I didn’t see Tucker contradicting himself in that video. His premise, stated right from the beginning, is that leftists like Kamala Harris have overseen a major decline in living standards and high levels of discontent, and Tucker proposes that they now support marijuana to pacify the ignorant masses. Call it the “soma” hypothesis (re: Brave New World). An opiate for the masses. Bread and circuses and drugs. Tucker likes to be outlandish, but it does make one wonder about motivations, especially with regard to centralized establishment authoritarians like Kamala Harris.