Monday, December 27, 2010

States' rights and pot

The US Attorney's office is trying to force the state of Michigan to turn over the records on those arrested in the ongoing controversy over medical marijuana.
It is bad enough that the state cannot seem to define what is legal and what is not under the law approved by state voters.
Now the feds are coming in and telling us that it does not matter what voters here want, pot is illegal by federal law and they are going after anyone involved in marijuana -- medical or otherwise.
Hmmm. Now where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is granted the power to regulate drugs and that power supercedes states right to regulate drugs? Actually, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution holds that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are retained by the individual state governments, or the people.
The argument that the feds control it is based on an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Pretty loose.
OK, so there is no sound Constitutional foundation for this approach, now, how about a practical approach. The federal government should be trying to save money, not spend it pursuing "lawbreakers."
I would have to agree with Pat Robertson on this one, the government spends too much time and money chasing people who smoke pot. Our federal employees have better things to do.
And for all those who says that government spending has been cut to the bone, this would be a pretty good example of where additional spending reductions would make sense.
It is also a matter of priorities. There is a full-blown drug war going on right across the border from Texas. That war actually affects the safety of Americans and it is getting worse. If the feds have personnel to spare on fighting drugs, shouldn't they be going to Texas?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home