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