Prompted by “Bernie Sanders Has A Plan That Could Revolutionize Nation’s Marijuana Industry Beyond Just Legalization”: https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/bernie-sanders-has-a-plan-that-could-revolutionize-nations-marijuana-industry-beyond-just-legalization/
Let me wear my devil’s advocate hat (the ugly one with the massively threatening horns sticking out).
Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and socialism in the United States cannot constitutionally occur without the factually (but publicly ignored) illegally redefined Commerce Clause from “regulate commerce” to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’.
Importantly note the intent of law (which matters in judicial circles) clearly shows our Founding Fathers did not intend for massive government interference in economic affairs by way of that clause, but simply intended to avoid national deterioration over state economic favoritism.
Sadly the Commerce Clause is terribly vague, and that’s the real discredit against constitutional leverage towards preventing the abuse of law — that abuse clearly and logically being the fundamental reason why our nation even exists, according to our national declaration and common sense.
That illegal redefining ironically is the “constitutional” basis for Certain Drug Prohibition (obviously including Cannabis Prohibition), which is also factually unconstitutional by any sound reasoning.
Traditional leftists want you to focus solely upon Nixon’s formal declaration of the War on Drugs, and upon Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign, but those two prominent areas just exemplify Republican hypocrisy to their discredit. The real source of the drug war is traditional leftism via that illegally redefined clause (with thanks to Roosevelt’s New Deal).
Simply restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause would completely destroy socialistic progress, and effectively instantly and judicially demand the merciful end to the national brutality of the war on some drugs ruining the lives of many millions of non-violent citizens. That leaves drug use and abuse exactly where they logically belong — as a health and educational (nonetheless depoliticized scientific) issue.
Socialists focus solely upon private sector abuse, and demand public sector leverage to deal with it — unethically ignoring the strong historical record powerfully recognizing public sector abuse.
The problem is there’s no real sector line in power. Leaders of the private and public sectors are often close with each other (and change roles between sectors), so have access to greater leverage to form the inevitable oligarchy actually governing our society.
When Sanders talks strongly about the healthcare industry, he necessarily intentionally fails to mention that obscene price fixing comes from not only greedy private sector interests, but from the serious government intervention discriminatingly solely in that marketplace. That intervention judicially formed (and maintains) the monopolistic construct allowing that price fixing righteously understandably ruled illegal in any other market.
The public sector created that private sector mess for the sake of “improving” healthcare access.
I live in Massachusetts — the state laboratory that inspired the Affordable Care Act subjecting my financially limited self to fines that cost less than health insurance that my ‘at risk’ financial health cannot afford.
Health insurance prices here have not come down (and healthcare quality has not gone up, at least based upon my mom’s experiences — and she has budget-challenging but excellent health insurance coverage). Instead, insurance prices continue to rise, while coverage for too many people out there is going down — in part by unreasonable multi-thousand dollar deductibles that most people cannot afford (effectively negating the whole point in having insurance).
Real leverage against private sector abuse comes best from the combination of consumer choice (at least on par with the voting lever) and innovative small business competition (which complex regulations too often easily bypassed by the affluent effectively prohibit).
socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. — dictionary.com
Socialism (and communism btw) — in any form — cannot possibly work. Here’s an excerpt from my Liberty Shield informational roots explaining that impossibility…
Progressive is defined as “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters” (noting that also contains the definition of liberal).
Despite the unfortunately overwhelming consensus to the contrary, current pressures to empower the public sector against private sector abuse are ironically unprogressive.
Intentionally (or otherwise) exploiting youth by persuading them with (at best) superficial partial truths (too often overwhelmingly pressing upon their youthful energy to naturally passionately negate composure necessary for optimal intellectual exercise) and styling expressions often imbued with popular youthful cultural references to form the illusion of progressivism (while passionately and youthfully promoting the same tired and demonstrably failed approach spanning many — if not all — generations) is equal to putting lipstick on a pig (facetiously yet honestly noting I have nothing against pigs); the pig remains a pig regardless of any makeup being applied.
That standard (so not progressive) approach is fundamentally logically flawed by always insisting upon empowering the public sector to the seriously powerful degree necessary to oppose powerful private sector operatives, but instead historically and currently leaving that power to form an alternative elitist class — merely an oligarchical shift — with all of the same problems (favoritism against public safety) prompting that empowerment.
True progressivism/liberalism is covered by Liberty Shield, and as you will read herein, the result logically matches the honest and positive intentions of the political left. That includes always being committed to maximum equality, and encouraging maximum education and science for the benefit of humanity and any species impacted by our existence.
Liberty Shield is innovatively all about scientific constitutionalism, which leverages the power of certainty in law for simpler (so publicly understandable) and concise harm-based (never the ironically terribly risky risk-based) law.
Otherwise, any flavor of wild subjectivity (the only solution ever applied by humanity) will always logically ensure oligarchical favoritism against public (obviously including your) safety.
No Constitution can work with wild subjectivity, because judicial interpretation is always vulnerable to politicized and biased opinions entrenched as legal precedence (a terrible metaphorical weed growing hideously strong these days against fairness, so justice, in law).
For prime example, there’s leveraging an illegally redefined Commerce Clause to tell you that you can’t hold a certain relevant plant in your American hand (and the obscenely many lives ruined by that judicial insanity). That would be impossible, if scientific constitutionalism gains enough traction to dominate.
That traction frankly will likely take generations to achieve, but I remain healthily confident that it provides the only logical solution to clean up the massive judicial mess threatening us all on a regular basis.
So as my posts fly by the WordPress.com reader generally with zero likes and comments (my obscurity is the only traction sadly these days), and as I continue to wear this ugly hat for public benefit, feel free to consider the meticulously formed reasoning (spanning several years) that reasonably survives scrutiny even when I remove the hat.