Letter to the Editor

Tieg Slattery,

I'm confused as to your reasoning regarding the legalization of marijuana. At one point in your article "SMC student liberties 'up in smoke' to keep feds happy" you state:

"It's really quite simple: take a vote, if the majority of the country supports legalizing marijuana-do it. Problem solved. Too often the moral subjectivities of a minority with an agenda lead to policy that doesn't fairly represent the people."

Here's a couple more ideas; let's take an up-and-down vote on same-sex marriage, tougher immigration standards, and capital punishment. If citizens (legal citizens) were to vote today on any of these issues on a federal level, same-sex marriage would be banned, illegal aliens would be sniffed out and sent back to their home countries, and the death penalty would be deemed perfectly acceptable. You're right; the moral subjectivities often cloud the majority's true sentiment. The funny thing is, the majority of this country is conservative.

See, you walk a fine line with this up-and-down voting business insofar as you cannot have a buffet style democracy. You cannot say that it's acceptable to vote for legalization of marijuana but not for same-sex marriage. The fact of the matter is we do not live in a true democracy; we live in a constitutionally based republic. Our laws are written, they are clear and they are unwavering. If a majority of the country, as it once did, would like to enslave a group of people and they had the votes, our constitution would strike it down. The majority, therefore, does not have final say. Even if the majority may support a constitutionally valid proposal, the idea that you can pick and choose what is voted upon is ridiculous; either the American people can vote on anything or nothing.

Let's take the conversation down to a state level. If you would like to make the case for the legalization of marijuana as a state right for the citizens of California, on principle you must support S.B. 1070 in Arizona. Why? Well, it's a lesson in classic leftist hypocrisy. The main argument the left is using to deem the bill "unconstitutional" is that it violates the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause, of course, is the constitutional mandate that essentially gives the federal government a final say or veto over any state law. Federal law trumps state law. Opponents of S.B. 1070 (mostly those on the left) claim that the bill violates the supremacy clause by placing Arizona state law before federal law banning discrimination.

Even if that claim was true (It's not, by the way. S.B. 1070 clearly states that race cannot play a factor in seizures or arrests) it should not matter. The same people who want the supremacy clause dumped in California in terms of pot use and distribution are the same ones who want the supremacy clause upheld in Arizona with the immigration law! Typical leftist hypocrisy.

It all boils down to this; you cannot have a buffet style government. If you want to vote up-or-down, you have to stick with it for everybody and everything. If you want the supremacy clause in Arizona, you better have it in California. And a side note, the left clouds the majority's wishes in this country. They are a fringe at best, and a hypocritical, loud fringe at that.

Done My Research,

Kenneth Vlahos

P.S. If you want poll numbers on the support for capital punishment, banning of same-sex marriage, and/or tougher immigration standards, feel free to ask.