Opinion

You Have to Be High to Be Mad at Jeff Sessions for Enforcing Federal Pot Laws

|
Posted: Jan 08, 2018 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
You Have to Be High to Be Mad at Jeff Sessions for Enforcing Federal Pot Laws

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who himself seems stoned much of the time, just announced that his Department of Justice is going to start enforcing the federal laws against pot again despite a bunch of states doing a bong hit version of bombarding Ft. Sumpter. Look, no one is more annoyed than I am that Sessions decided to megapunt on his duties with regard to Democrat corruption and the Trump/Russia/Idiocy pseudo-scandal, but he doesn’t deserve all the grief he’s now getting from agitated hopheads and fussy libertarians – to the extent there’s a difference.

Dude, you’re like, harshing my buzz, dude.

Sessions is right not to allow a cheesy end-run around a clear set of laws just because reforming those laws is going to be hard. And no, it’s not “prosecutorial discretion” to refuse to enforce the law. What the legalize-it crowd wants is no prosecution, which is the opposite of exercising discretion. The fact is that Sessions swore to enforce federal law. Pot is against federal law. It’s against federal law because our representatives in the House and Senate passed the laws and the president signed them. The people spoke. Remember that “I’m Just a Bill” Scholastic Rock cartoon?

Yeah, man, that cartoon bill looks like a big fattie joint. Heh heh. Dude, where are the Doritos?

See, if the people of this country pass a law thorough their elected representatives, it’s kind of central to the whole point of having a republic that the executive enforce those laws. You don’t cut corners by demanding that the executive branch just not enforce unpopular statutes. If you don’t like a law, here’s how you change it. You go pass another law that changes that law.

Heh heh, pass the dutchie, man!

Look, there’s a real problem here. Barack Obama’s DoJ didn’t help by kicking the dime bag down the road, and as a result lots of people are caught in this state-legal, federal-illegal twilight zone. These include casual stoners and investors in what one entrepreneur I spoke to insisted on referring to as “the cannabis space.”

Now, because people decided to try and game the system, we have confusion. Many states are asserting what I and many other folks think is their prerogative to make terrible decisions involving their own territory. Colorado is now pretty much Jamaica in the Rockies. My own state of California just legalized pot, as if we needed more lazy and boring people here.

States’ rights is an important concept – it’s sure nice to see some Democrats joining in on supporting it now for the first time since they last asserted states’ rights to enforce Jim Crow – but see, the federal government gets to control interstate commerce. Thanks to the liberals, the concept of “interstate commerce” is pretty much interchangeable with “any commerce.” Leaving aside the interstate movement of pot, the feds have a right, under the current understanding of the regulation of interstate commerce, to outlaw dope everywhere. But hey, if the vocal corps of hemp enthusiasts out there wants to advocate for the Supreme Court to overrule the expansive reading of the commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn, I’ll totally inhale.

What’s a commerce clause, dude? Is it like, related to Santa?

The idea of changing the law by means of simply not enforcing it is worse than lazy – it’s undemocratic. There are a lot of people out there who think pot should stay illegal. No, they’re not hip or edgy, but they are American citizens and they have a right to be heard too. And they were heard – marijuana is against federal law. This idea disenfranchises them. I guess we tell them, “Well, we all decided that the law you support is uncool so we decided to repeal it without giving you a say.”

That’s not a democracy; that’s a dictatorship. Of course, good luck rousing the dazed and confused stormtroopers of the dictatorship of the pot-letariat from their moms’ couches and getting them to put down their bongs long enough to pick up their bayonets.

Huh? Hey, where’s my other shoe, dude?

The fact is that expecting Jeff Sessions to somehow provide us with an easy way around the Constitution by simply refusing to enforce a legitimately-passed law because some of usz don’t like it is obnoxious, and it’s a dangerous precedent. Actually, it’s not even a precedent. Barack Obama tried to do that with the so-called Dreamers, illegal aliens who ought to be dreaming of going back home. One of the many reasons WHY YOU GOT TRUMP was the sight of our Commander-in-Choom deciding, “Nah, I don’t like the law you got passed, so too bad.” Trump rightly refused to continue the charade, and threw the problem over to Congress, where it belongs.

Of course, Congress doesn’t want to deal with DACA, or dope, because these are controversial issues and it’s easier and safer to palm them off on Jeff Sessions, who doesn’t appear to be particularly busy anyway. But that’s a cop-out, and even people who think we ought to let dope smokin’ morons stumble about free and unhassled by the Man should demand that reform happen the right way – by a change in the law enacted through our democratic processes.

Look, I despise pot. It’s use for medical purposes aside, recreational dope smoking makes you tiresome and slothlike, instead of witty and suave like wine drinking does. Despite what the hemp-loving weirdos will tell you, it has serious health risks. Plus, science has established that marijuana is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to reggae – a musical genre whose listeners are too high to even notice that there is actually only one reggae song and that the musicians simply give it different titles to fool the fans.

Wait, like, reggae is what?

But there are strong arguments for letting states evaluate the costs and benefits and handle this issue themselves. One size never fits all; maybe Alabama has no use for kush, but California does since it’s a lost cause anyway. States should decide this for themselves, even if their decision is one I or you or others not in those states disapprove of. Oh, and by the way GOP, millennials hate you, but maybe getting behind moving these choices back to the states where they belong is a way to show them that our conservative principles are not completely at odds with their views. So as a matter of conservative policy and politics, it seems obvious that the feds should not remain in the position of having to try to play prosecutorial whack-a-mole with those “in the cannabis space.”

A lot of Americans in a lot of states want change, and they have a right to it if they can convince enough of their fellow citizens to go along with it. That’s the way to do it, not this borderline fascist notion that the executive gets to arbitrarily post ex facto veto laws that really loud, vocal groups disapprove of.

Congress, fix this. It’s your job. Stop blaming Sessions for doing his. He’s screwed up enough that there’s still plenty to blame him for.

Righteous, dude!