Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
PowerLine brings us (along with many, many other sources) the sordid tale of Andrew Sullivan’s non-troubles with the long arm of the law…
Sullivan was caught smoking marijuana in a National Park and was prosecuted, consistent with the usual policy of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. But Sullivan’s pull with the Obama administration got him a sweetheart deal: the U.S. Attorney decided to drop the charges, even though there evidently is no doubt about Sullivan’s guilt. The issue here isn’t whether marijuana possession should be illegal, or should be prosecuted. It is illegal, and the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts does routinely prosecute such cases. But not Sullivan: Barack Obama and Eric Holder paid him off for his slavish devotion.
The U.S. Attorney’s action in dismissing the case against Sullivan was so extraordinary that it prompted this stinging rebuke by United States Magistrate Judge Robert Collings, who presided over the case:
When the case was called, the Court expressed its concern that a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law…
:
In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances. …In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.
I’ll just re-state my marijuana position one more time right now, because I know there are better-than-even odds that I’ll have to say it before we move on. The longest threads at The Blog That Nobody Reads, after all, by far-and-away are the ones that extend beneath the pot posts. And I just don’t get that. It’s a law about controlled substances, one that arguably doesn’t make much sense…but which controlled-substance laws are immune from such an argument? There’s a law. Some folks like the law, some folks don’t, but if you break it then everything’s cool. Until you get caught. Then not.
Some folks think the fact that marijuana is illegal, is some kind of special issue, some notable encroachment upon our freedoms…outside of the blatant violation against the Tenth Amendment. They seem to think there’s some iron-clad human right to smoke whatever you want. I think they’re evolving into liberals and don’t realize they’re evolving into liberals — they’ve tumbled down to the fifth terrace of liberalism. True conservative principles say, if you think you should have a right to do something and your locality prohibits you from doing it — you move. You don’t riot, you don’t claim some “human right” you just pulled out of your ass, you don’t go claiming the Founding Fathers had this vision that you should be entitled to do what you want but they were so distracted by the lack of air conditioning in August of 1787 that they forgot to scribble it down.
Having said all that, my position is this: The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to be prosecuting these cases. None. In fact, the Constitution clearly says they are prohibited from having anything whatsoever to do with drug laws, except for cases in which a drug-related crime was committed across state lines.
Within the states, the local populace can do whatever it wants. I don’t care. Force people to smoke pot every day. Cut off hands if people are caught smoking it. Discriminate. Let Catholics smoke pot but prohibit Protestants and Muslims from partaking in the evil weed…or vice-versa. Let men smoke pot, but not women, unless the women are topless while they’re smoking it, but not if they’re wearing tassles, unless it’s a Tuesday. Pass out free joints with the welfare checks twice a month. I. Don’t. Care.
Of course if the punishment was stocks in the town square, I’d be thrilled. Not because I want to see pot smoking punished. I just want to see the stocks brought back; I think they would represent a huge step forward in implementing my vision of what a civilized society really is. But pot? In my little village, I’d vote to keep it illegal. The next town down the road can do whatever it wants. It’s a local issue, and there’s absolutely no reason in the world to make it anything other than a local issue.
If there’s a court decision somewhere that finds differently, that decision is wrong.
Regarding the special treatment of Mr. Sullivan? Let us presume, perhaps recklessly, that this stops somewhere short of the top. Some US/DOJ lackey wanted to please his superiors, Holder and Obama knew nothing about it. Presume that, then investigate. Vigorously.
If “mistakes were made,” then heads should roll. The day has come to go spend some more time with your family. This administration, quite frankly, should be looking for some ways to renew its commitment to us that it will be running a transparent, ethical, and equitable form of government. It has been providing lots of compelling evidence lately to indicate this is not the case, and if the administration cannot take the initiative to figure that out for itself then it has fallen woefully short of possessing the intellectual acumen we were promised last fall it would be bringing.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This administration, quite frankly, should be looking for some ways to renew its commitment to us that it will be running a transparent, ethical, and equitable form of government.
Renew? They never made it in the first place. Oh, sure they mouthed some platitudes in the campaign, but when Mr. Obama’s first opportunity came up, he did not establish that commitment. Nor will he ever.
He is, however, very transparent in one way: His radicalism is/was blatantly obvious to anyone who bothered to read up on this man prior to and during the election, but that’s not something I’m going to give him kudos for.
- KG | 09/13/2009 @ 08:57Great, can we now move on to “special treatment” of folks holding seats in
- CaptDMO | 09/13/2009 @ 16:46Congress, as well as The Presidents personal advisers (that he inexplicably felt needed some “official” title for their unofficial importance), that have deemed “I forgot” as a positive defense from the most assuredly Federal Offense of tax fraud?
Unless, of course, there’s been some sort of opaque (as in non-transparent) Presidential Privilege of pardon bestowed upon their tiny little heads, because, well, some animals are more equal than others.
Having said all that, my position is this: The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to be prosecuting these cases. None. In fact, the Constitution clearly says they are prohibited from having anything whatsoever to do with drug laws, except for cases in which a drug-related crime was committed across state lines.
Uhm, Morgan? Sullivan was smoking in a national park. Note the word “national.” That means it’s federal property. That means the federal government has the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed there if it so chooses.
- cylarz | 09/14/2009 @ 23:07In my little village, I’d vote to keep it illegal. The next town down the road can do whatever it wants. It’s a local issue, and there’s absolutely no reason in the world to make it anything other than a local issue.
The only problem with such a libertarian approach is that if something (not just pot, but anything) is illegal in one jurisdiction, but legal “just across the border” in some other jurisdiction, then that first one is going to have a harder time keeping the verboten item out of its borders.
So many of the arguments that are invoked on both sides of the cannabis issue could also be applied to gun control, really. The restrictions on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms are like night and day in California, as compared to Nevada or Arizona. This stupid state passes one gun control law after another, and yet remains mystified because the laws don’t seem to be having any appreciable effect on crime. The latest hoo-ha is a couple of bills that just landed on Ah-nold’s desk: AB962, which imposes a ton of new restrictions on the purchase of handgun ammo, and SB585, which bans gun shows at the Cow Palace.
Hello, McFly? Anybody home? What’s to stop people who can’t buy handgun ammo, from buying bullets in AZ or NV and then bringing them back into California? Hmm?
If pot were illegal in Sacramento but legal in Reno, how hard would it be for people to make the two-hour drive up I-80 and return with all the pot they could use? For that matter, what’s to stop them from selling it here on the black market and making a killing? The cigarette taxes levied in New York City have created precisely this situation, and NYC didn’t even ban smoking entirely.
“Let them all pass whatever laws that suit them.” Sounds great on paper, doesn’t work so well in practice.
- cylarz | 09/14/2009 @ 23:15[…] THE SORDID TALE of Andrew Sullivan’s non-troubles with the long arm of the law …. […]
- Steynian 383 « Free Canuckistan! | 09/15/2009 @ 05:54