Skip to main content

President Obama on marijuana in Colorado and Washington: another subtle shift toward an authoritarian state

I can recall that back in 2008 then-candidate Barack Obama said that the US had higher priorities than sending the DEA to raid medical marijuana dispensaries in states where such was legal.

And then, of course, his administration had the highest recorded rate of such raids in American history over the next four years.

Now President Obama is saying much the same thing about recent votes to legalize marijuana in Colorado and Washington:
“It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal,” he said.
Parse this carefully, please.

He's not saying, "We will respect the laws passed by the citizens of these states."

He's not saying, "We won't arrest people using marijuana in these states."

He's not saying, "These states have the right to regulate their own social affairs."

What he is saying is that right now, as I speak, I don't see it as real important just today, but the Federal government still possesses the power to completely ignore the wishes of American citizens within these states, we can change our mind any time we want to, and your so-called "rights" as a citizen depend wholly and completely on our sufferance, not any constitutional, legal, or judicial limitations.

In other words, right now it is politically expedient to lie low, but later we will continue to do whatever the hell we want, regardless of the law.

Much like President Obama's successful assertion that he can order even American citizens killed abroad without judicial process, that his administration can ignore court orders with respect to Gitmo detainees, and (most recently) that the government can maintain extensive files on all citizens forever just because, you know, they are the government . . . .

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...