Whilst watching the CBS Evening News this evening, I was particularly incensed by a "news" story regarding the legalization of marijuana in California.
The gist of the story was that the federal government says they will still enforce and prosecute violations of the federal law even if the State of California forbids us, the police, from enforcing them.
When the cameras were taken around San Francisco, most of the people interviewed said "This is not something the federal government should try to regulate. The state should be able to make its own laws regarding the growing, sale and use of marijuana."
The part that spun me out was thinking back a few months to when Arizona passed their immigration law. When the cameras toured San Francisco that time, everyone interviewed said "Arizona can't do that. There are already federal laws in place controlling immigration. The feds should enforce it rather than the state trying to take it over."
I guess what's good for the illegal is not necessarily good for the stoner.
That's just lovely. All we need is a bunch of illegal day laborers with the munchies hanging out in front of Home Depot refusing to work because their "back hurts"...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Heh. Yup. Seattle has a policy that adult possession of small quantities of weed is the police department's lowest priority. Really, the public gets to dictate what the police will and won't enforce? I don't like that precedent.
I think the difference here, is that Arizona wanted to be more restrictive on personal freedoms and have stricter laws than the federal government, while California wants to be less restrictive and have less strict laws than the federal government.
Personal views aside, their argument is not as hypocritical as it first seems. Their choice of words though is definitely ironic.
Not getting into the reasons for/against legalization of marijuana, but I do think in my lifetime it will become as available, legal, and regulated as alcohol.
I imagine in the next couple decades police officers will ask "Have you been drinking or smoking tonight", and have a field sobriety test for marijuana and some type of field test like the breathalyzer.
Just hope that if it is legalized, people who ruin their lives over it have a better chance at getting help, like alcoholics do. Alcoholics don't have to face jail time for their addiction to get help with their problem.
When a pothead in California smokes a blunt, thats a pothead in California. When an illegal immigrant crosses the border, thats not an isolated problem for Arizona, thats a federal security threat, and something that will produce tangible problems for other states. A pothead in Cali wont have nearly the same affect.
Immigration is a federal issue, at heart. What can and cannot be smoked/drunk/injected isnt.
It gets smaller [and stupider] than that.
Around here someone in a county gov't said, "Hey, people are dying from texting and using cellphones while driving, let's make that illegal to do."
And great cheer went up.
Then someone else in the same county gov't got the bill put aside, because, "The state should make this law and they're going to any minute now."
That was, I believe, over a year ago.
I never know what scares me more, when I see people yapping on their phones [and weaving all over the road], when I see people texting on their phones [and weaving all over the road], or my new favorite, people who are bopping out to their music... through earbuds.
Though my all time winner [so far] is the guy I saw with an earbud for music in one ear [the other earbud was hanging under his chin] with a cellphone up to his other ear. And yes, he was weaving all over the road.
"Really, the public gets to dictate what the police will and won't enforce? I don't like that precedent."
Yes. Thats how it should be in any democratic nation, thats the whole BASIS of democracy. If a nation/city/village has the right to self-govern, then their laws should be decided by the people. If 90% of the good people of Makeupacountryistan decide that murder is a-ok, then it should be legal in their country.
Would you prefer the precedent that the state decides whats legal and illegal without consulting its people?
Moose I think I can beat your Music / cell phone Idiot. I know of a driver who had his hands through the steering wheel playing with a computer game while steering with his wrists.
As far as drug laws go I believe any leniency is a mistake.
@Melissa
Either I'm misunderstanding what your point is, or you're misunderstanding the way government works.
The public -does- dictate to police what will and won't be enforced, by electing government officials that write the law.
This works because at the most generalized level, no one wants to get hit by a drunk driver going 100 mph. So laws are created against drunk driving, and speeding.
Police don't decide the laws, or their budget.
Government officials elected by the public in Seattle probably assessed the tax payers money was better spent going after other crimes.
Post a Comment