When (now) President Obama was running for office, he took the word "change", and made it his mantra. Today he may have taken his furthest step yet
When I read this article, the US marijuana policy is not what is going through my head. Personally, despite one's feelings on marijuana in general, I find this to be a significant article. Not at all because of marijuana, but because I believe it is a huge step forward in state's rights. Personally, I believe the founding fathers were greatly in favor of states being able to express disagreement with the federal government. Historically, when states (or any significant group) rights are trampled or threatened, succession or revolts happen. For instance, most think the civil war was about slavery, it was not. The federal government was attempting to dictate what states would be free, and slave states. The states did not agree, and began to secede. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued (Lincoln freed all slaves in the Union, whether or not the state agreed), it became an all out battle between several states and the United States government. The Civil War was about whether or not the states had the right to make laws that contradict that of the federal government. Slavery was just the catalyst for that issue.
Even looking at the founding documents, it is clear to me that the founding fathers greatly favored states rights over that of the federal government. A quick glance over the second amendment (the right to bear arms) gives ample proof of their belief in states rights. Despite what many on the left would like you to believe, the document was not written "so we could have guns to hunt and shoot skeet with". The amendment was passed so that if worse comes to worse, citizens could take on a tyrannical government. If the document was followed in the spirit in which it was written, we would be able to buy hand grenades at our local department store. The second amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Clearly, this is not referring to "hunting" or "recreational shooting", this is referring to citizens standing against tyranny..
That said, I would like to state for the record I do not believe that fully automatic weapons, rpgs, and hand grenades should be purchased freely at any local or major retailer. Clearly, laws governing 2.5 million (the rough estimate of the 1776 population) should be different than the laws governing 320 million. However, the principles should not. The citizens should have a way to express and act on disagreements with the government (in this case, by passing legislature in the state). Again, I do not connect the real significance to this article to marijuana. Whether one thinks it should be completely legal, prescription, or completely illegal is a debate for another day.
I firmly support the states rights to make their own laws, after all, does this not follow the general law of democracy? If a state wishes to make a certain substance legal, by all means, they should be able to do so. However, they should (and will) suffer the consequences of doing so - whether those consequences be positive or negative. Should this prove to be an unworthy venture, then by all means, they should be able to undo their ruling using the same system they used to put it in place (democratic voting process). This, in my opinion, is the source of the beauty of the land of the fruits and nuts. We were built a great nation on the foundations of debate and free exchange of ideas, not legal scare tactics to keep any that oppose silent. I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have the right to tell me I'm wrong. It's what this country was founded on, and the way things should be.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.Throughout his first few months in office, he took great care to change (reverse) any and all decisions of his predecessor. He immediately outlawed "harsh interrogation tactics", something that had been defended by both in office previously. Former President George W. Bush fought to keep Guantanamo Bay open, President Obama closed it down immediately. Today demonstrates yet another massive change from the Bush-era policy on marijuana (and drugs in general), Obama issued a statement today effectively stating that it was no longer federal policy to enforce laws (relating to medical marijuana) that conflicted with federal laws. Fourteen states have legalized "medical marijuana" so far. Until now, despite it being legal according to the states law, "patients" that were found to be in possession of marijuana were prosecuted just as if there were no "legalization" laws in place. This was done because of the way the US legal system is set up. While there are laws on states books, there are also essentially Xeroxed copies on federal law on many issues. Hence, a state may legalize a substance within itself, but according to the federal law, said substance is still illegal (since the state would still be under federal jurisdiction). This gives federal agents legal footing to prosecute actions, even though they may be legal in the state itself.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
When I read this article, the US marijuana policy is not what is going through my head. Personally, despite one's feelings on marijuana in general, I find this to be a significant article. Not at all because of marijuana, but because I believe it is a huge step forward in state's rights. Personally, I believe the founding fathers were greatly in favor of states being able to express disagreement with the federal government. Historically, when states (or any significant group) rights are trampled or threatened, succession or revolts happen. For instance, most think the civil war was about slavery, it was not. The federal government was attempting to dictate what states would be free, and slave states. The states did not agree, and began to secede. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued (Lincoln freed all slaves in the Union, whether or not the state agreed), it became an all out battle between several states and the United States government. The Civil War was about whether or not the states had the right to make laws that contradict that of the federal government. Slavery was just the catalyst for that issue.
Even looking at the founding documents, it is clear to me that the founding fathers greatly favored states rights over that of the federal government. A quick glance over the second amendment (the right to bear arms) gives ample proof of their belief in states rights. Despite what many on the left would like you to believe, the document was not written "so we could have guns to hunt and shoot skeet with". The amendment was passed so that if worse comes to worse, citizens could take on a tyrannical government. If the document was followed in the spirit in which it was written, we would be able to buy hand grenades at our local department store. The second amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Clearly, this is not referring to "hunting" or "recreational shooting", this is referring to citizens standing against tyranny..
That said, I would like to state for the record I do not believe that fully automatic weapons, rpgs, and hand grenades should be purchased freely at any local or major retailer. Clearly, laws governing 2.5 million (the rough estimate of the 1776 population) should be different than the laws governing 320 million. However, the principles should not. The citizens should have a way to express and act on disagreements with the government (in this case, by passing legislature in the state). Again, I do not connect the real significance to this article to marijuana. Whether one thinks it should be completely legal, prescription, or completely illegal is a debate for another day.
I firmly support the states rights to make their own laws, after all, does this not follow the general law of democracy? If a state wishes to make a certain substance legal, by all means, they should be able to do so. However, they should (and will) suffer the consequences of doing so - whether those consequences be positive or negative. Should this prove to be an unworthy venture, then by all means, they should be able to undo their ruling using the same system they used to put it in place (democratic voting process). This, in my opinion, is the source of the beauty of the land of the fruits and nuts. We were built a great nation on the foundations of debate and free exchange of ideas, not legal scare tactics to keep any that oppose silent. I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have the right to tell me I'm wrong. It's what this country was founded on, and the way things should be.
Very cool and I just bookmarked this site!
Hiya came across your site on bing, enjoyed reading this, incredibly thought provoking. I've book marked your blog to keep up-to-date, keep up the great job. Paul
Well done! I continually read blogs that prove to me the people of this great nation have a greater understanding of the Constitution than the politicians that took an oath to uphold said document. Keep up the good work! -COTErack