A few observations:
Chicago Joe is virtually alone in arguing against the legalization of marijuana. He cannot persuade the rest of us that grass should remain illegal, and he certainly can't be persuaded to change his own point of view. Nor should he.
It would seem to be a fruitless enterprise to continue the discussion indefinitely, but in the last page, or so, the discussion appears to be taking a different turn: How much authority should the Federal Government have over the private behavior of individuals? At what point should a balance be struck between individual and collective rights?
Addressing that question, Thomas offered:
Quote:"I don't know that I can draw a sharp line. There will always be some amount of judgment involved. But for what it's worth, here is how I would try to reach that judgment:
1. I would start with a presumption of individual liberty -- of the government not governing.
2. I would allow this presumption to be rebutted under two conditions. A government intervention into individual liberty is non-oppressive if, and only if, two points are established with clear and persuasive evidence:
[a] the intervention is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest, under a conservative interpretation of "compelling". (Lilly-livered girlyman compellingness as in "achieving a racially diverse college student body" doesn't count.)
the intervention could not effectively be conducted on a lower level of government, or by the private sector.
As I said, this is not a bright line because it depends on the interpretation of terms like "clear and convincing", "compelling", "narrowly tailored", and "effectively". But it's a clear enough standard to decide my opinion on most policies. In particular, it's a clear enough standard to decide that current drug regulations fail the test."
That's a pretty good standard philosophically. I think most American Conservatives would agree with the notion that the Government should avoid meddling in the private affairs of citizens. In practice it's a bit more complicated.
Government has several important functions that transcend the private preferences of individuals and groups. We are a Republic, not a Democracy on the Athenian model, for good reason. Only when decision-making is restricted to small numbers can effective policy be formed. Our Constitution vests that decision-making function in the Congress, Executive and Judicial Branches. Congress has long been noted for its propensity to talk even critical measures to death, and far too often adopting legislation favoring one private interest against others. For many issues that actually works pretty well by slowing the rush to judgment, and watering down legislation that is certain to offend the voters back home who elected the representatives in the first place.
Up until the Twentieth Century, the Federal Government did pretty much adhere to the standard that Thomas gave above. Do-Gooders managed to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to make alcoholic beverages illegal, and modern organized crime became more powerful and dangerous to the body politic. Individuals and public officials flouted the law, graft and violence increased. It took another Constitutional Amendment to correct the situation, but the harm caused still lingers in our society.
To restore confidence in the system, FDR got a lot of legislation passed that involved the Federal Government in State, local and private affairs. The Supreme Court struck most of that legislation down as un-Constitutional, but the legislation was widely popular. That trend of involving the Federal Government in private and social affairs was accelerated by LBJ, and has become a touchstone of the Democratic Party and the American Left.
Much good has come from making the Federal Government pro-active. Without the strength of the Federal Government the Civil Rights Movement's successes might have been indefinitely postponed. Federal money pre-empted States and local jurisdictions in the construction of the infrastructure that has served us so well. Federal oversight has caused forced confessions and corrupt local police to declined. Businesses are constrained by extending Federal jurisdiction over private business practices. Federal law protects us against toxic foods, dangerous working conditions, and dangerous pharmaceuticals. Prejudices have been covered over by imposition of Politically Correct words and behavior. No one starves in this country, and Federal subsidies lighten the burden of countless poor and disadvantaged people. However much we have benefited by these laws, we have also given up much of our State, local and personal liberty.
In a Republic there will always be folks whose views are over-ridden. No one likes taxes, but taxes are essential to the effective maintenance of government. The policy choices for some government functions (inter-state commerce, military and foreign affairs, the postal service and the currency), all require prompt Federal decisions and a coherent national policy; that is ultimately the responsibility of the Executive. Those essential government functions must be funded, yet the tax dollars we all pay have to be shared out with other, less essential government functions. Many of those functions have become entitlements and the money to pay for them can't be touched. An army of bureaucrats to (more or less) administer government programs, and prevent fraud against the taxpayers, is necessary. We pay for our own velvet chains.
