I just did a post ripping conservatives for their support of Drug Prohibition. I didn’t want to dilute the article by covering too much but this is too good to pass up. It is about Federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
…the Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Obamacare this summer cited the precedents of Raich many times. Dissenting conservatives on the court attempted to find a distinction between the two rulings, but many commentators noted the corner into which Scalia in particular had painted himself, viewing federal power as nearly unlimited concerning medical marijuana but restrained on health insurance. Thomas was right in Raich that a federal police power that can supersede state marijuana laws, bust down someone’s door, and jail him for growing a plant for personal use, faces no effective limits and is the very face of tyranny. The liberals who endorsed unmitigated federal power on Obamacare as well as on medical marijuana were being completely consistent. The logic of the drug war is the logic of the New Deal, national supremacy, and everything conservatives profess to hate about Obama-style governance.
Drug laws expose the tension within the conservative movement: devoted to localism and nationalism, freedom and law and order, today’s conservatives, if they are to mount a meaningful resistance to the unrestrained bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., must choose between their conflicting values. Many on the Tea Party right have come to regard the Bush-created Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as clumsy and despotic. They cling proudly to their guns and religion. They worry about their privacy in the face of a relentlessly growing central state. But it was the drug war that first shredded the Bill of Rights in modern times.
The quote is from The Right & the Drug War or (my addition) Why The Right is Wrong.
We have covered the Raich decision extensively here at Classical Values. I particularly like States Rights which quotes part of the Thomas dissent in Raich. I think it is worth a requote:
Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California-it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
Do you see how that works? Every power you give the government will eventually be used against you. ObamaCare is effectively the revenge of the dopers.
I guess, since I’m mostly addressing social conservatives, I ought to let Jesus have his say. Not because I’m a believer. I’m merely an admirer, but for the sake of completeness:
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
Revenge of the dopers indeed. You have turned a medical problem into a Federal case and have gotten an abominable Federal medical law in return. I’d say just deserts. If I had a vindictive turn of mind. Which I, more than occasionally, do. Sometimes, although I am aware of the defect, I don’t keep it in check.
Comments
13 responses to “This Is Too Funny By Half”
I’m rather surprised at the Thomas dissent; he is usually one of the better scholars on the Court. The particular issue he is discussing (noncommercial personal use) was already decided back in the 1930’s when some farmer was successfully prosecuted for growing fodder for his own animals. The Court then ruled that the farmer was, in fact, engaged in interstate commerce and subject to Federal regulation and control.
Actually, you can make an economic case that personal production for personal consumption is interstate commerce because it affects (bv lowering) total demand.
Anyway, if you don’t like this stuff you have to get rid of the whole Constitution. I personally favor a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Spot on
Every power you give the government will eventually be used against you. ObamaCare is effectively the revenge of the dopers
bob,
I think Thomas’ point was that Wickard was incorrectly decided.
Is a law criminalizing cannibalism responsible for the general elimination of cannibalism? How many states outlaw cannibalism? Are there federal statutes against cannibalism? What effect does a law actually have in determining behaviour?
.
Don’t Eat People
Simon,
I think it is pretty pointless to exact revenge on today’s social conservatives for something Richard Nixon started.
Neil,
I am not disgusted with them for something Richard Nixon started. I am disgusted with them for continuing it.
It comes from the same impulse as alcohol prohibition.
I have socons tell me all the time that they are not Progressives. I then bring up that things like Drug Prohibition are a Progressive idea and lead to things like limits on soda consumption.
And the response (mostly).
Silence
When they stop acting like progs I’ll start voting for them.
“Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” – Robert A. Heinlein
scalia and thomas hippocrits? You just found that out? Your to old to believe in santa clause or fox news!
Scalia. Not Thomas. Pay attention.
I never liked Scalia.
Simon,
Social conservatives are quite feeling chastened by the last 20 years. They’re feeling vulnerable, and more likely to be interested in keeping government out of their lives than in trying to control anyone else’s. Progressives are feeling their oats, and feel that they have within their grasp the goal of control over every detail of every individual’s formerly-private life.
Which group do you think is more amenable to an alliance?
Neil,
For 70% or more of conservatives all I have to do to end the alliance is start talking “End The Drug War”.
All I have to say is that it is an abomination
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/19/drug-warriors-kidnap-and-sexually-assaul
and the good feelings evaporate.
My alliances with either party are on an issue by issue basis. And my vote for a candidate is the same.
I’m not too fond of the “legitimate rape” guys either.
I’m against abortion – but I’m against government involvement in the issue. Our conservative friends only hear the first part of that statement.
And I’m even not too strongly in favor of Rand Paul because of his stance on abortion. I fear the kind of policing that would be done to prevent it. See link above.
“Faith in government” is the disease.
Neil,
We are confronted with the essential nature of humans.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
I’m content to teach the youth and wait for the old to die.
I’m comforted by the old saying “There is a lot of ruin in a nation”.
If that ruin bothers you try to change the minds of the conservatives. There is one I discuss with on another forum who believes that every word in “Refer Madness” is true. He is of a scientific bent. I can show him the science. And none of it gets through.
It is quite difficult to change people’s minds after age 30. Even the minds of those who claim to be evidence based. No doubt this is not true of all the population and I may be an outlier in that respect. But it is generally true.
It is one of the reasons that great scientific discoveries are generally done by people in their 20s.
Or take our “Constitutional Conservative” friends.
Mention the 18th Amendment and say that there are powers the Federal government doesn’t have. I get either silence or rationalizations.
All that was required to head off ObamaCare was for Scalia to say in Raich that Wickard was wrongly decided. But he hated pot more than he loved the Constitution.
And you know what? Conservatives just loved the Raich decision. You will excuse me because I’m going to revert to profanity here. Stupid fucks.
The liberals on the court were more strategic.
And you know what? Angel Raich is still getting her pot. She probably avoids growing her own though.