3 ms·

Very few people ever supported “state’s rights” on principle: not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to

Very few people ever supported “state’s rights” on principle: not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state. If you’re for legalization in Oregon, you’ll also be for legalization in Mississippi. Claiming “state’s rights” is therefore never more than a convenient argument when you want to avoid the substance of the issue. And if that substance is racist, you are likely to be called a racist no matter what.

whatshisface 9y ago
That's not a good argument at all. Thinking that legalization should happen in every state has nothing to do with thinking that it will probably happen in some states before others. Why would a legalization supporter want to make it a federal issue when fewer than 50% of states support the idea? If people with different views are concentrated in different areas, we can maximize total democracy (i.e. representation of citizen's opinions in government) by allowing them to pick their own local laws.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
I believe that local control is a very important aspect of a free people, especially in a country as large and diverse as the United States. States right is not a convenient excuse, it is a protection against totaliarism. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protected blacks, and States had to comply, and States right was a specious argument. It was a matter of Constitutional protection. But I firmly believe that most laws of governance should be state and local so there is choice, reasonable chances for an individual to effect change, and a lower bar to experiment with policy.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state This over constrains "legalization" to a single dimension. Cannabis is a difficult policy space, marrying the complexity of liquor laws with the harm reduction imperatives of medicine and drug policy. Sample: medical versus recreational standards, personal limits (if any, and if so, what?), tax levels (quantity? dollar amount?), where to apply the taxes (consumer, retailer, distributor, and/or grower?), constrain grower or distributor size (+: more independent shops, -: higher costs), give this to alcohol regulators or create a new regulatory umbrella, what about the cash (state-chartered bank or credit union? criminality and money laundering concerns?), monitoring adolescent usage, risk education, heavy metals monitoring, et cetera.

whatshisface 9y ago

That's not a good argument at all. Thinking that legalization should happen in every state has nothing to do with thinking that it will probably happen in some states before others. Why would a legalization supporter want to make it a federal issue when fewer than 50% of states support the idea? If people with different views are concentrated in different areas, we can maximize total democracy (i.e. representation of citizen's opinions in government) by allowing them to pick their own local laws.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

I believe that local control is a very important aspect of a free people, especially in a country as large and diverse as the United States. States right is not a convenient excuse, it is a protection against totaliarism. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protected blacks, and States had to comply, and States right was a specious argument. It was a matter of Constitutional protection. But I firmly believe that most laws of governance should be state and local so there is choice, reasonable chances for an individual to effect change, and a lower bar to experiment with policy.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state This over constrains "legalization" to a single dimension. Cannabis is a difficult policy space, marrying the complexity of liquor laws with the harm reduction imperatives of medicine and drug policy. Sample: medical versus recreational standards, personal limits (if any, and if so, what?), tax levels (quantity? dollar amount?), where to apply the taxes (consumer, retailer, distributor, and/or grower?), constrain grower or distributor size (+: more independent shops, -: higher costs), give this to alcohol regulators or create a new regulatory umbrella, what about the cash (state-chartered bank or credit union? criminality and money laundering concerns?), monitoring adolescent usage, risk education, heavy metals monitoring, et cetera.