Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
I see stuff like environmental issues as true "interstate" areas of federal concern, because one state's pollution impacts us all in profound ways, but as for drugs and most other stuff, even though they're technically a part "interstate commerce", I just wish that concept wasn't stretched that far. The Idaho State Police have a field day with their drug dogs on the highway between Boise and Oregon making a ton of marijuana trafficking arrests. And a lot of people in Idaho are pissed off that so much gets in from Oregon, but I just don't think it's a big issue that's worth trampling on state autonomy over. I don't think anybody would legalize heroin, but if they did or tried to, there would be a ton of political pressure for them not to from other states, and if they somehow overcame that, I just don't think it'd be that bad either. Other states would crack down on drug enforcement and prosecute the traffickers harshly and it wouldn't be that appealing a line of work. THAT kind of tension between states is not a bad thing I don't think, I think that's the kind of thing that leads to progress (different states doing different things, failing and succeeding, as opposed to huge federal legislation which is so hard to evaluate because it's the only reality we know)
|
I don't know how you can feel that way about environmental issues but not others that can impact a neighboring state. Why is smog somehow more important than automatic machine guns?
That's not saying everything should be done on a federal level. States should have the right to make some decisions for themselves. But it is the federal governments job to protect states from other states whether it be environmental or something else. If Wisconsin legalizes hand grenades, that causes problems in Illinois and Minnesota where it is illegal. The actions of Wisconsin in that case harm other states.