Sunday, October 25, 2009
By Jacob M. Jordan
Recently, the Justice Department announced a major shift in drug policy: there will be less of a focus on those who sell and use marijuana for medical purposes in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.
There are surely traditional conservatives who may be up in arms about this move. I find it refreshing, actually. It’s just a shame that the president is so selective in his “states’ rights” stance. For instance, consider South Carolina’s governor, Mark Sanford. Sanford rejected an injection of bailout money into his state on two grounds: Firstly, the premise that any new programs that began with the bailout money—especially education programs—would eventually become unfunded. Continued injections of federal cash would not continue, Sanford believed, even though the newly-created programs would most likely continue to expand. Secondly, and most importantly, was Sanford’s contention—expressed in a Wall Street Journal piece—that the federal government is already bankrupt. Sanford opined, “There’s something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.” It is worth mentioning that Sanford was not alone in his opposition to bailout money—Texas governor Rick Perry and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal were also against the measure.
Sanford knew that there is a good chance that budget shortfalls would be a consequence of using this federal money, yet he was still forced to accept the money, after South Carolina’s Supreme Court ordered him to do so. True, you could argue that it was not Obama who forced South Carolina to accept the money. Yet it must be asked: Could not some high legislative or executive official have rescinded the doling out of federal cash?
Why do I bring up this bailout issue from ages ago? I bring it up because there is a lack of principle exposed on the part of the Obama administration. In a May 5, 2009 New York Times article, it came out that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was looking into the tax-revenue benefits of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Although I personally support such decriminalization, there are surely many who would be offended by this controversial stance. It is strange that five months later, we now see a loosening of federal law and less government intervention in California. Two things are important to keep in mind here: California is heavily democratic, giving President Obama 61% of the vote in 2008, and also the fact that California’s budget was such a wreck, that the state was forced to start paying its employees with IOUs.
Do you see the hypocrisy here? When South Carolina’s governor objects to the bailout cash on the solid grounds of economic principle, he is branded as an insensitive conservative who simply does not want his state to enjoy any prosperity—even though the governor knows such “prosperity” will be short-lived and lead to deficit issues—issues being experienced by California. When welfare-ridden California experiences a budget issue, the insolvency does not put attention onto their bloated welfare system. Instead, the president selectively changes highly contentious federal drug laws in order to facilitate new taxation measures within that state. In essence, the president is saying the state knows its needs better than us, and knows how best to manage itself.