Are Liberal States More Willing to Challenge the Feds than Conservative Ones: About that War on Drugs

Today’s guest post raises the interesting point that it isn’t all liberals who are for marijuana legalization.  It’s also interesting that it is the more liberal States who are directly challenging the feds.  Sure the conservative ones are talking about challenging ObamaCare, but they’ve yet to do anything substantial and the morons put a R for ObamaCare on their ticket for Pres.  Legalizing pot with a D President is D’s with some R’s challenging other D’s.

Considering that these were referendums, rather than laws, perhaps it’s more appropriate to ask are liberals more willing to challenge the feds than conservatives?  It appears that some conservatives are, but they haven’t pushed as hard.  The Tea Party has been largely ineffective and “conservatives” are not unified.  You have fiscal conservatives like myself who aren’t bothered by homosexual marriage.  God doesn’t recognize it anyway so who cares if the State does.  Then there are social conservatives who want to use the government to force their moral and religious beliefs on society.  The Santorums of the world are focused on homosexuals while the fiscal boat is sinking.  Thus, the social conservatives are more likely to go along with the federal government when it suits their agenda, even if it’s unconstitutional.  Bottom line, I think most are only willing to challenge the federal government when it suits their agenda.  Only a small number of people challenge the federal government on the constitutionality of something.

By Eric Holcombe:

So, I’m expecting Fast-N-Furious illegal arms dealer Eric Holder (appointment confirmed by rock-ribbed conservatives, Corker and Alexander) to drop the hammer on Washington and Colorado any day now as part of the dutiful waging of the War On Drugs™.   After all, the CIA doesn’t want the competition. They’ve been at it a long time crafting their market share, creating future enemies to fight later, funding “rebels” that we later can declare “terrorists” when needed or desirable – depending on when we get tired of the dictator we put in place and want a “regime change” (see Sadaam Hussein, Momar Gadaffi, Mubarak, etc.). In other words, we are funding both sides of the “war”.

Maybe the loyal Dem voters in Washington and Colorado will eventually be declared “terrorists” and invaded by U.N. “peacekeepers” or alternatively, they could enjoy U.S. military protection of their marijuana crops. I guess it could depend on how much of a cut the CIA/IRS gets from their illegal drug trade.

There is something interesting about the Colorado vote. Every single county had a majority vote in favor of legalizing marijuana, regardless of whom they chose for president. I found that odd, because conventional wisdom would blame the vote on “liberals” and many states the Dems win are based on capturing the large urban centers and they typically do not win about 80% of the land mass on a county basis, especially a “toss up” state. You might be thinking, wow, they must be big libertarians in Colorado. Nope. In fact, Gary Johnson received only 1% of the vote and more voted for legalizing marijuana than voted for both Obama and Johnson combined. Washington marijuana votes by county were somewhat more a reflection of how they voted for President but still a mixed result with 13 of the 20 counties that approved marijuana use going to Obama and the other seven to Romney. This compared to the more expected look of their sodomite initiative which is concentrated at the urban centers. Again, the Libertarian Gary Johnson received only 1% of the vote in Washington. Remember, this is the party the Big Two love to lambaste as being for legalizing everything illegal (right before they tell you they can’t win anyway). We now have legalized pot, courtesy of Republican and Democrat voters, not the “fringe” or the “extreme” or the “3rd party” voters.

In any case, this will be an interesting 10th Amendment showdown. Is the federal government’s power derived from “these united States” (note the little “u”) or is this a top-down, federalist Oligarchy? I think pot-smokers are an easy, unlikeable target for the feds to get most of America to agree to an illegal federal government smackdown of State’s rights (no boogieman in a turban required). Maybe we will even get some federal-government-appointed federal judges to agree with the federal government. Then you won’t have any reason to object to federalized Obamacare mandates or federalized Common Core “State” Standards for education. The basis of the States’ argument is the same.

One thought on “Are Liberal States More Willing to Challenge the Feds than Conservative Ones: About that War on Drugs

  1. Conservatives don’t really like marijuana. And basically, I think they just figure that if we’re going to let Congress regulate everything else, it would be unfair to prevent Congress from also regulating weed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>