Today is election day. I expect lots of ridiculous comments from the pudantry on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That's part of what makes this so much fun. I have read a lot of commentary and analysis about the coming election, but there is one connection that has not been discussed. It popped in my head when I heard a story about the governor of Arizona Jan Brewer (America's hard-liner on illegal immigration) campaigning in California. The ensuing story was about California's proposition 19, which proposes legalizing recreational pot use in the Golden State....
If you saw the movie "the Fly" remember what happened when a fly was accidentally mixed with the human in the teleporter test? Hang with me here just a second...hopefully the uncommon mixture here is not quite as tragic.
It seems to me, that supporters of Arizona's new immigration law and California's push to legalize recreational pot smoking are on the same side of their arguments and should support one another...though I suspect they would both be generally perplexed and offended at this suggestion.
Arizona is pushing a state's right to enforce essentially existing immigration laws - at the state level, primarily because the feds have done such a crummy job of enforcing federal law. After lots of grandstanding over this issue and much angst in the professional media, as we stand today the 9th Circuit court will decide whether or not a state can write and enforce a laws that are currently the domain of Federal law.
Now, let's look a the California pot smokers. I have heard and read several times that the Californians can pass any law they want with respect to smoking pot for recreational purposes, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because smoking pot is a federal crime covered by federal statute and the California law will be trumped by federal law....hmmmmm, aren't the pot smokers arguing the same position as the pro-boarder security crowd in Arizona...state law - based on local needs and local conditions should trump federal intrusion or federal inaction? Why yes it is.
It seems to me in the record of missed opportunity this is a biggie. Pot smokers and boarder security advocates pushing for the same fundamental rights - they are both being tormented by "the man". I think if they are intellectually honest they could see a formidable coalition in the making. Consistency is not always pretty nor convenient, but if you think about it, theses folks are on the same side of the fence, whether they like it or not.
1 comment:
Politics makes strange bedfellows, eh? Ironically, all the pot growers in CA are against the referendum, as they believe that if legalized, large entities will move in and push out the poor little pot farmers of Humboldt County and other northern California pot-growing strongholds.
If not for the moral opposition of conservatives, pot would have been legalized a long time ago. Enforcement is a joke and it is my understanding that medical studies have determined that marijuana is no more harmful than is alcohol(although both are indeed harmful). If alcohol is legal, why not marijuana? Is it because alcohol use can be traced back to the Egyptians and perhaps earlier? I guess the thinking is that if beer and spirits have been part of man's culture for thousands of years, it must be okay and it would be ridiculous to legislate its use. I guess the Rastafarians should have gotten an earlier start.
Our constitutional framers intended for states to wield the majority of power and that the Federal government should have only those powers expressly granted to it in the Constitution.
Google "Tenth Admendment" for more discussion of this topic.
Post a Comment