Monday, July 28, 2014

Marijuana Vs. Gay Marriage. Liberalism's Conundrum

This week the New York Times is publishing a lengthy editorial on why the regulation of marijuana should be taken out of the federal government's jurisdiction and handed over to the states. They note that marijuana is legal in one form or another in 37 states. They can be used as everything from "medicinal" purposes with a doctor's prescription all the way up to free-for-all recreational use in the states of Colorado and Washington. The NYT ridicules the Drug Enforcement Agency's classification of marijuana as a Schedule One substance, as dangerous as heroin or LSD with no known medical use.

The paper wants to decriminalize the sale and use of marijuana by the U.S. by allowing the individual states to decide for themselves how pot should be regulated. They obviously see the hypocrisy in their position by noting the difference between marijuana and other liberal ideologies. Says the Times, "Consuming marijuana is not a fundamental right that should be imposed on the states by the federal government, in the manner of abortion rights, health insurance, or the freedom to marry a partner of either sex." They go on to restate a mantra conservatives have been making about the right to decide whether gay marriage should be allowed, "(Marijuana legalization) is a choice that states should be allowed to make based on their culture and their values."

Since when did the Times rediscover states' rights? Gay marriage has been banned in 31 states by their citizens and their state representatives. Some of these laws are even enshrined in their states' constitutions. Yet the federal judiciary has been slowly dismantling the states' rights to self determination one court district at a time. The NYT have been one of the loudest proponents of this destructive fiat by unelected officials. Yet when it comes to drug use, suddenly the states have the right to decide which of their citizens can get a legal high? Last time I checked, marriage is actually an official function of the state government, "By the power invested in me by the state of X, I now pronounce you husband and wife." Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution but that hasn't stopped the third branch of government from imposing its values on the general population. Meanwhile drugs are clearly regulated by federal laws. Otherwise this country will have fifty different rules for drug manufacturing and distribution. Yet we should make an exemption for pot?

The problem with labeling something as a universal right, like their classification of gay marriage, is that universal rights mean different things to different people. Homosexuals may believe that same sex marriage is a universal right, but more than half the American population would disagree. I would bet that more people believe owning guns is a universal right than believe in gay marriage. And possessing a gun is actually something that is specifically written in the U.S. Constitution, not any of the other "rights" the Times lists as universally desirable. Yet the Times would be the first to sign on the dotted line if it ever has a chance to repeal the Second Amendment.

So come on New York Times. Try to stay consistent with your message. You say citizens should have a say in how they are governed, but only if it conforms to your liberal viewpoints. If they prefer a less progressive state, then somehow they need to be educated about what is right or wrong by the feds. That kind of condescension is what makes people suspicious of liberal motives. At least conservatives in general are consistent with their opinions. Individuals are allowed to decide for themselves how they are to be governed. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Conservatives don't deviate from this principle based on the subject at hand. If the citizens of the states have the right to decide how they want to deal with marijuana drug laws, then they should have the right to determine how they should live with all state laws that aren't superseded by the U.S. Constitution.

No comments:

Post a Comment