6 ms·

As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how

by blahedo 14y ago

As much as I support marijuana legalisation, I'm always puzzled at the righteous anger summoned against the federal government for prosecutions like this---how dare they, when the states have said it's legal! The problem is, that argument is an extremely shady one, with an extremely sketchy past. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where, faced with the Brown v Board ruling in the 60s, many counties just defunded their public schools entirely and funneled the money to "private" academies for white kids, with the state's blessing. The movement was called "Massive Resistance". Several other states across the South had other policies that were not permitted to stand when they conflicted with the federal government. Don't get me wrong, I think the tide is moving in a different direction here---marijuana legalisation, particularly medical marijuana, is a matter of "when", not "if". But in the meantime, it really shouldn't be a matter for surprise or outrage when the federal government prosecutes on it.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Federalism is a shady argument? And Obama came in saying he wouldn't do exactly this? I don't see any reason to be to not be outraged about it.
netcan 14y ago
You can never completely separate the meta-argument about who should make rules & how from your feelings about the rules themselves. People's minds (unless specially trained and disciplined) just don't work like that.
iandanforth 14y ago
This is a very cynical viewpoint. It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong. It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government would find itself on the right side of history. In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history. Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits. That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Benferhat 14y ago
The Federal government has no right to criminalize intrastate medical marijuana operations. Their constitutional argument is that it falls under their power to 'regulate interstate commerce'. Even if the flowers never leave California. Weak. [0] On top of that, marijuana is incorrectly scheduled as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" [1], which is like spitting in our faces and telling us it's raining. [0] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+medical+marijuana https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+me... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
DoubleMalt 14y ago
The current state of the law aside, I think there is only one justification for federal involvement in states business. That is if states violate fundamental rights of their people (Even the I would rather propose to cut them loose than to stage an intervention.) Enforcement of victimless crimes is something that congress should not have the power to mandate and the executive branch should not be allowed to do.

by blahedo 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Federalism is a shady argument? And Obama came in saying he wouldn't do exactly this? I don't see any reason to be to not be outraged about it.

netcan 14y ago

You can never completely separate the meta-argument about who should make rules & how from your feelings about the rules themselves. People's minds (unless specially trained and disciplined) just don't work like that.

iandanforth 14y ago

This is a very cynical viewpoint. It speaks well of people when they are surprised by indifference and slavish obedience to the letter of the law. It also speaks well of people when they are outraged by things they think are wrong. It's easy to call people who are surprised and outraged naive, but I would argue that without that naivete change is less likely to occur. Cynicism, in my experience, breeds apathy.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

The primary error in this line of thinking is to draw parallels between a racial issue and a drug issue. In the case of the racial issue, the federal government was acting on the behalf of a portion of its citizenry, and against the will of a smaller portion of citizens; in this case the federal government would find itself on the right side of history. In the drug case, the federal government is acting against the expressed will of a larger portion of citizenry, to the extent that many of those citizens have expended considerable effort to pass legislation contrary to the federal government's enforcement; in this case, I think it is quite likely that the federal government will find itself on the wrong side of history. Merely drawing parallels from issues of states' rights versus federalism in the past isn't very enlightening. You have to consider each issue on its own merits. That "righteous anger" isn't because this is simply a states' rights issue; rather, it's because the federal government is acting against the wishes and welfare of the citizens of states, and it is not doing so to protect the interests of some demographic group of victims.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Benferhat 14y ago

The Federal government has no right to criminalize intrastate medical marijuana operations. Their constitutional argument is that it falls under their power to 'regulate interstate commerce'. Even if the flowers never leave California. Weak. [0] On top of that, marijuana is incorrectly scheduled as having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment" [1], which is like spitting in our faces and telling us it's raining. [0] https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+medical+marijuana https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=interstate+commerce+me... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...

DoubleMalt 14y ago

The current state of the law aside, I think there is only one justification for federal involvement in states business. That is if states violate fundamental rights of their people (Even the I would rather propose to cut them loose than to stage an intervention.) Enforcement of victimless crimes is something that congress should not have the power to mandate and the executive branch should not be allowed to do.