#278 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday February 18)
Good morning,
RIP, P.J. O’ROURKE
We lost one of the wittier commentators on the American scene this week, with the death of P.J. O’Rourke. Among his pithy one-liners:
“To mistrust science and deny the validity of scientific method is to resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or wild animal”.
“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”
“…no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”
OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS
We went on a local hike the other day and had to consider the rules on bringing a dog. It would seem pretty simple to get at these rules, but it’s not. Some parks are City, some County, some State, some federal land. Each has its own rules about dogs, bicycles, and services.
In the depths of the pandemic, we had similar problems differentiating among County and State Beaches and their rules for whether one could sit on the beach or were required to keep moving. Moving from one beach to another, without a noticeable dividing line, finds one subject to different rules. Similarly, one needs to go on-line each time one contemplates a hike, in order to see whether the governing jurisdiction allows for dogs.
The overlapping of jurisdictions is a real problem and is playing out with much bigger stakes in other arenas. There is little doubt that, with a little bit of effort, the many places where local, federal and state laws intersect should be able to be worked out. Why not agree to a “lead agency” along the beach and/or in the mountains and parks? In this way the rules could be more consistent and understandable and the mish-mash of overlapping responsibility could be done away with. But as is the case with most issues these days, logic or efficiency do not seem to be values informing decisions.
STATE CONTROL OF SOCIAL ISSUES
Things get even more complicated when the rules governing behaviors more significant than walking a dog come into play.
It is a common refrain that States’ rights is a rallying cry for the right. And certainly it makes sense that different states should have the right. within reason, to dictate what is and permissible within their state. But often proves to be unworkable in real life and the conflicts abound. I increasingly do not see the clear value of the “laboratory of the states,” nor the justification for such extraordinary differentiating policies. The states were quite different at the founding of the country (including the rural/city divide and the preservation of slavery in the South). Increasingly, the distinctions are not nearly as great.
ISSUES WHERE SOME NATIONAL CONSENSUS SHOULD CONTROL?
While the issue of gay marriage would seem settled nationally, imagine how ridiculous it would be if governed by one state’s laws or another. If one lived in a state that permitted it, only to cross border to take a new job that didn’t permit it, would your union no longer be recognized, and how would it relate to employment benefits? In the abortion arena, as evidenced by recent extreme laws in Texas and Mississippi, states are pressing their claim to primacy in that area. Roe v. Wade likely will be overturned. In some sense, there will be minimal practical impact, given that the states that would prohibit abortion already have such stringent laws essentially making it nearly impossible anyway, even though currently permitted by federal law. The argument that is the downfall of Roe v. Wade is that, through some pretty stretched reasoning, a federal right where many thought it didn’t exist (it was within the penumbra of rights). Now the right wants states to decide. And they will, and it will be a mess, but it may serve to galvanize the Democrats.
FEDERAL CONTROL OF CANNABIS
I recently attended a great seminar on the state of cannabis, its growth and sale in the U.S. Now that many states have legalized marijuana cultivation, sales and use, one would think they could dictate the rules governing such uses. But no. The federal government still criminalizes these activities. The right seems comfortable with this state of affairs because it serves their interest of limiting a “sin” through federal action. This seems inconsistent with their view otherwise on other laws.
The effect of federal involvement creates a number of issues, including the applicability of federal bankruptcy laws. But it also impedes the ability of the cannabis industry to use the instrumentalities of our financial system. Because many banks are federally chartered, they cannot handle accounts, credit card payments, and financial transfers without risking their charters. This results in a cobbled-together process of multiple accounts, utilization of local credit unions, handling large amounts of cash (with its attendant attractiveness to criminals) and the like. Meanwhile, national owners of property that lease to the cannabis industry find themselves between State legality and federal criminalization.
MEANWHILE, BACK IN PRISON
It appears that the logjam on the acceptance of cannabis has broken. That said, the criminal justice system is behind the curve. Criminal justice reform and the need to address justice equity clearly overlaps with the increasing acceptance of drug use. Over 40,000 people currently are serving time in prison for cannabis related non-violent crimes.
Can we get to a civil, just, reasonable system to manage cannabis, tax it and keep it safe, without the criminalization of its cultivation and sale? And can we make it easier for states to collect taxes, banks to act, and consumers to benefit from their purchases? Finally, can get people out of prison? That would be enough for me. We can worry about beaches, parks and trails after that…
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: