Perfect Drug – Nine Inch Nails
Kevin Drum has a strange post today on Prop 19 (legalization of marijuana in California). He first points out that a standard criticism (it would provoke a conflict with the federal government’s laws on the subject) is in fact a selling point: “Anyway, a showdown with the feds might not turn out well, but then again, it might produce some useful fireworks. Sometimes that’s what it takes to make progress.”
Absolutely right. The point of this wouldn’t be to generate a perfect new legal mechanism in California. It would be to make a clear statement that the whole national structure of our drug laws is completely insane–and to force the federal government to make a proactive case for its position. If California voters declare that they are against the status quo, and if California law enforcement is instructed to ignore these federal violations, it requires the folks in DC to either punt and let California do what it likes, or it forces them into the difficult position of having to actually defend this stuff.
So, why then, does Drum end by saying: “(So am I going to vote for Prop 19? I’m tempted. But my presumption for voting No on all propositions is pretty strong, and Prop 19 really does have some drawbacks that are probably not suitable for enshinement for all time in the state constitution. So probably not.)” ?
What are those drawbacks? Further, while I respect the general principle of a high threshold for presumption on matters of direct democracy (basically: I don’t really trust direct democracy very much at all), this seems like a case ideally suited to the matter. Where the potential problems with the proposition are kind of the point. The issue is that there are institutional checks within government that make it (think that it is) completely incapable of addressing this matter in a sane and rational way. In such cases, blowing things up a little bit through the proposition process seems fair.