Montana was admitted into the United States federal union as the 41st state on November 8, 1889. On the same date in 1960, John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in one of the closest presidential elections of the 20th century, becoming the 35th president of the United States.
Indubitably:
The U.S. Congress overrode President Richard M. Nixon’s veto of the War Powers Resolution on November 7, 1973. This resolution ostensibly limits presidential power to wage war without congressional approval, hence Nixon’s veto. Nowadays, however, it is often referred to as the expansive terms for the “Imperial President’s” license to engage in military conduct, and a dereliction of congressional duty to direct the United States’ foreign policy and warfare.
Every man is guilty of all the good he didn’t do.
For those arguing for drug reform for decades, Oregon’s successful ballot measures 109 and 110 are hugely hopeful signs in sensible drug policy.
They may, however, prove better signs of a general trend beyond just drug policy.*
The best reason to oppose drug prohibitions is not to maximize our freedom but to inculcate a culture of responsibility while getting government out of the business of interfering in our lives.
And while Measure 109 is about psilocybin mushrooms, what it actually does is establish a government board to set up a regulatory system to distribute and license possession of consumable psilocybins.
May work out great. It may also turn out very badly.
As one would expect from this sort of government program.
Measure 110, which also passed on Tuesday, made “personal non-commercial possession of a controlled substance no more than a Class E violation (max fine of $100 fine) and establishing a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state’s marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings.”
Both are very “liberal” programs, based on notions of state aid and government program-building rather than traditional, more “conservative” prohibit-and-punish models. Both the old and the new approaches skirt around personal responsibility.
What the measures show, though, is that Oregonians are effectively defying federal laws on “controlled substances.” The new approach is very old: federalist, more about local rather than national control.
As such, it shows the current tide turning away from making a federal case out of everything.
The next President of These United States, and both houses of Congress, should take notice.
On drugs, they are not only not needed. They are not wanted.
Apply that to health care in general, I say.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* These Oregon measures were the only two “hard drug” ballot measures this year. There were quite a few marijuana ballot measures around the country. All passed.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
You touch on a disheartening truth. People never want to be told anything they do not believe already.
James Branch Cabell, The Cream of the Jest: A Comedy of Evasions (1917), Ch. 13: “Suggesting Themes of Universal Appeal.”
The pollsters were way off. Again.
Sure, there were a couple outfits that, prior to Election Day, said the race between Trump and Biden was going to be close, but most portrayed Biden as way ahead.
Instead, it’s a squeaker.
Still, Biden’s pulling ahead — Michigan was declared for the Democrat as I type this.
Before we blame the pollsters for drawing the wrong conclusions from their data, let’s not draw the wrong conclusions from the most important data of all: Tuesday’s actual votes.
We must remember: people vote for and against candidates for a variety of reasons — personal, tribal, single-issue, broad-spectrum, you-name-it. But how do we determine their actual political values?
Here’s one good indicator, voting . . . on ballot measures.
From Tuesday’s elections we learn, at the very least, that the American people are not foursquare behind the socialistic pandering of Kamala Harris.
Just before Election Day, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate explained why equality of treatment wasn’t enough: people must be compensated for their past disadvantages, to make outcomes equal. She was pushing a recent meme common on the left, framed as “equality” versus “equity.”
Mrs. Harris may be on her way to Number One Observatory Circle (the vice president’s residence) and then the White House, but Americans aren’t onboard her socialistic egalitarianism. On Tuesday, her home-state Californians repealed Proposition 16, which would have stricken down an equal rights measure of the 1990s in favor of a compensatory hiring and firing scheme based on racial qualifications.
Woke socialists really like this sort of thing. Yet supposedly ultra-blue (pink?) Californians defeated it 56/44.
Once the politics of personality and party are put aside, Americans are not as divided as the political class wishes we were.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
[A]re the gains of the privileged company, national gains? Undoubtedly not: for they are wholly taken from the pockets of the nation itself.
Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy (1903, first pub. 1855), Book I, Chapter 17.
On November 5, 1781, the second session of the United States in Congress Assembled began, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This “Second Confederation Congress,” as it is popularly known, ended on November 2, 1782.
And on that Fifth of November, 1781, John Hanson of Maryland was elected to serve as president of the United States in Congress Assembled. He would become the first president of Congress to serve a full one-year term as specified under the Articles of Confederation, for the second session of the Confederation Congress. Of course, this presidency was nothing like the presidencies under the Constitution. Hanson merely presided over Congress.
On November 5, 1872, Susan B. Anthony defied the law to vote, and was later fined $100.
Headline: “Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted.’”
“Must”?
The proposed legislation targets speech alleged to promote prejudice. It is backed by Scotland’s secretary for justice, Humza Yousaf.
Might the law be deployed to squelch debate regarding, say, radical Islam?
“Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims?” Yousaf asks. “Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home?”
I suspect that here we have someone who has never attended a sizable family gathering. Many attendees might report “hate talk” but oppose fining or imprisoning the so-called hate-talkers.
Could the law be directed against journalists and others who publicly express loves and hatreds?
“We wouldn’t want to give the likes of Tommy Robinson a defence by saying that he’s ‘a blogger who writes for The Patriot Times,’” says Yousaf.
“Stirring up hatred” is, of course, not identical to threatening or instigating violence. Presumably it is already illegal in Scotland to plan murder and mayhem over the dinner table.
There’s an awful lot of speech out there with which we might vehemently disagree. Plenty of dumb, hateful, prejudice-laden speech that violates the rights of no one does get uttered in homes and Internets. We must preserve the distinction between “things that are wrong to say or do” and “actions that should be illegal.”
Scots should resist these hateful assaults on their right to speak freely.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts