close
more_vert

grufty jim wrote:
by granting individual states more power over cannabis policy, Obama is -- rather cleverly -- advancing a left-liberal agenda while simultaneously splitting the right, by appearing to appeal to libertarian principles while he's doing it.

It's a good move and worthy of support. But it does beg certain questions (like: If Obama thinks it's right for Oregon to set its own laws regarding pot, why doesn't he think it's right for Mississippi to set its own laws regarding abortion?)

It's not really a hypocritical position to take, tho. Allowing doctors to prescribe pot and not interfering with the supply expands individual rights. And so does keeping abortion legal.

It's when the states want to shut down individual and civil liberties that the federal government should intercede.

That said, the feds should get out of the way and let the states vote on their own drug policy to it's logical ends.... decriminalization at least.

They'll HAVE to, anyway. The U.S. prison population has doubled since the 1980s. My state of Massachusetts alone* pays out 1.25 billion a year to incarcerate people, at least half of which are in jail on petty drug 'crimes'. Under our last governor Mitt Romney, 'corrections' expenditures topped higher education's share of the budget.

*and Mass. isn't the worst. That odious honor goes to Georgia, which has one out of every 13 of it's people either in jail or on probation. The war on drugs crowd is also the 'smaller government' crowd.... but they haven't figured out yet that those goals are at odds with each other.

handofdave wrote:
grufty jim wrote:
by granting individual states more power over cannabis policy, Obama is -- rather cleverly -- advancing a left-liberal agenda while simultaneously splitting the right, by appearing to appeal to libertarian principles while he's doing it.

It's a good move and worthy of support. But it does beg certain questions (like: If Obama thinks it's right for Oregon to set its own laws regarding pot, why doesn't he think it's right for Mississippi to set its own laws regarding abortion?)

It's not really a hypocritical position to take, tho. Allowing doctors to prescribe pot and not interfering with the supply expands individual rights. And so does keeping abortion legal.

It's when the states want to shut down individual and civil liberties that the federal government should intercede.

It's worth pointing out that drug law reform and "pot politics" were -- in many ways -- my introduction to activism. Any liberalisation of prohibitionist policies is a great thing in my view. So don't imagine that I'm anything other than 100% behind this move.

Now, if his stated rationale is that this "expands individual rights" then fair enough. But, there is a slight problem *IF* Obama is using "State rights" as the reason for doing this. That's all I'm saying.

It's a philosophically difficult position to support "the right of a State to make it's own decisions" but only when those decisions tally with (a) your own principles, or (b) some pre-defined notion of "individual rights". Could a person in Mississippi not argue that their individual right to set their own laws (on, say, abortion) are being trumped by some centrally controlled moral compass?

Again, as I said, I'm in favour of full legalisation of pot and also in favour of a woman's right to choose an abortion should she wish. But I'm in favour of them because I believe they are Right. Not because I'm in favour of local democracy (which, without severe limitations placed upon it, I'm not).