5 thoughts on “The State knows…”

  1. Interestingly, the local state (California) sides with her on this one in principle, while the non-local state (the federal government) is the party pursuing this case. It’s federal agents who have been making all of the busts since California lifted prohibition on medical marijuana.

    I think it’s hilarious how, in the federal vs. state divide, people are champions of states’ rights when those states hold positions that they agree with. I guess it’s inevitable.

    I think it’s more than a little ironic that this case, covered by the national media, will do far more political damage to the anti-drug cause than just letting it slide.

  2. @Scott: I think Will was using the word “state” to mean “5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people” (thanks M-W)
    That aside, your comments are all good ones.

    @Will: BTW I was really impressed with the discussion at the end of your first linked article. It’s rare that something like that doesn’t degrade into a flame war.
    … Maybe that’s just the sites I read…

  3. @ギャビン: Duh. Both are “The State.” It’s just that there isn’t a neat heirarchy that places California as a child of the US. Since we voted to allow this locally, it means that assholes in other states are persecuting our citizens for choosing survival over compliance with their rules.

  4. overcoming bias is a great site…

    Scott, I think persecuting is the wrong word. Someone persecutes because they have some strongly held beliefs and they have the power to impose those beliefs on the persecuted. Its not clear in this case anyone actually has the strongly held belief that a dying woman shouldn’t be allowed to smoke weed. This is more of a case of paternalistic bureaucracy run amok. I think this is much worse than simple persecution.

  5. The article is probably sensationalizing a bit. I think this case is getting the attention it’s getting because it appears that the woman is supposed to die rather than smoke weed. That makes it more than a simple “terminally ill people still need to follow the law” issue, which is the pattern that most of the objections I’ve read follow.

    I once read a piece opposing “right to die” legislation. The author’s core argument was that the process of dying is one of spiritual growth, and that no one should be allowed to deprive themselves of that growth through voluntary euthanasia. Seriously.

    At least the “hellfire and damnation” people had good music.

Comments are closed.