Friday, September 24, 2010

In an editorial yesterday, the L.A. Times came out against legalizing Cannabis - at least as the law is currently consituted in Prop. 19. The Times focused on two major points. One, is that Prop. 19 would leave regulation to individual counties and towns. The confusion that would follow is obvious; what's legal in L.A. County would not be legal in Orange or Humboldt. The other big problem with legalization according to the Times is that whatever legalization measures are taken, the law would still violate Federal statutes. Both are valid objections. What's the point of passing a local law if the Feds suddenly decide to enforce the law of the land?

While it's refreshing not to hear the "Legalize it, tax it and screw the consequences" from the usual Left-leaning newspaper, you sort of wish the Times would adopt a more consistent position on local laws complying with Federal law. For instance, the paper has never run an editorial against cities with "Sanctuary" laws because those laws violate Federal statutes. Just the opposite. The Times, through its staff columnists and on the editorial pages, has consistently sided with Sanctuary cities and called for blanket amnesty. In other words, they don't like the Federal immigration law and they want to change it.

You have to wonder wonder why the Times doesn't call for a change in the Federal law on Cannabis. Just something to think about.

No comments: