Connect with us

Opinions

Marijuana coming to a California city near you

Published

on

If you are not aware, California voters in 2016 approved the use of marijuana for recreational use. This voter-approved measure will allow cities and counties across the state to determine whether to allow recreational sales of marijuana in their jurisdiction and if so what regulatory restrictions to impose on retailers.

According to the Sacramento Bee, on Tuesday, Sacramento City Council approved the sale of marijuana for recreational use beginning on January 1, 2018. Other cities like Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose have recently adopted ordinances allowing the retail sale of recreational marijuana, and San Francisco should follow suit shortly.

My city Anaheim, along with Fresno and Bakersfield have banned the retail sales.

My thoughts

Even though I didn’t vote in favor of this law, I believe the principles found in this bill is what most of our laws should look like. I believe in local control.

As a federalist, I believe that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug policy in individual states. The federal government has the authority to ban the foreign import of all drugs into this country but has no jurisdiction over California in this matter. The sole authority to regulate the use of marijuana is reserved to the states. The federal government should also cease its actions in hindering states from self-determination by removing the restrictions it places on legal marijuana dispensaries from fully utilizing credit cards and banking institutions. We the people have not given the federal government that authority and we the people in California will decide what is best for us, not D.C.

I also like the principles of this law because it allows cities to determine if they want recreation marijuana in their jurisdiction. The law establishes the basic blueprint and parameters. For instance, you must be 21 years old and you can only partake in a private home or a licensed business, but it doesn’t force cities from having dispensaries. What is right for Sacramento might not be right for Anaheim.

That is why I’m running for California State Controller. I believe the state should create the basic blueprint but people within their own communities should determine what is best for them. That is why I created the idea of trickle-up-taxation. Once, the structure of trickle-up-taxation is created, the people should vote to accept or reject my idea. If people want a heavy-handed state government determining what local governments should do then I would say don’t vote for it, if you want greater autonomy and greater local control, then I would suggest you vote for trickle-up-taxation.

The problem with politics on both sides of the political aisle is that they want to force their beliefs and ideology down your throat. I’m a Republican and it wouldn’t shock you to hear that I don’t like the politics of San Francisco. Shocker I know, but guess what. I don’t live there, so as long as they don’t infringe on people’s constitutionally protect rights and engage in illegal policies, I don’t care. It’s none of my business, they can decide what is best for their community, and I will work within my community to help shape what is best for us.

In like fashion, the Republican-controlled federal government shouldn’t tell California what to do within its borders. Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to stop his crusade of stamping out the legal use of pot in the 29 states that currently allow some form of legal marijuana use. Jeff Sessions and the federal government should be focused on protecting our constitutional rights not infringing on powers reserved to the states.

I hope that the principles behind this law of allowing greater local control will be utilized more often. It’s time we bring politics back to the local level instead of centralized government dictates from Washington D.C. and our state capitals.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Healthcare

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Published

on

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Some believe vape products are a wonderful way to stop cigarette smoking, both for those who are currently smokers as well for future smokers. Others see it as a gateway through which kids can become addicted to nicotine and eventually start smoking real cigarettes. That’s a debate that should be happening through education and public awareness. Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t believe in people being able to think for themselves properly, so they’ve decided to consider another measure that will protect the people from their own stupidity.

At the center of this measure is Juul, the fast-growing vape company that happens to be based in San Francisco. Lawmakers have been out in force proclaiming the company is evil and how they don’t want them anywhere near San Francisco. They don’t want e-cigarettes sold in the city. They don’t want the people to be able to have them shipped to the city. They don’t want them used in the city.

Let’s keep in mind that this is a city with more drug addicts than public school students, a rampant homelessness problem, and so many regulations that people need a herd of lawyers just to navigate the process of trying to do business there. They’ve elevated the cost of living to be so prohibitive, only the truly wealthy can live there comfortably, yet it’s a city that proclaims to be caring of their fellow men. In reality, they’ve crafted an authoritarian society within the boundaries of the United States that has been empowered to subvert rights at a grand scale.

Here’s their grand plan:

One bill that Herrera and Walton introduced at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting would ban the sale and shipment of e-cigarettes to San Francisco stores and customer addresses until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begins a vetting process known as a pre-market review, in which manufacturers must prove their products are appropriate for public health before selling them on the market.

The city already bans youth-friendly flavors like candy and fruit in tobacco products through Proposition E, which voters passed in 2018. Physical stores are barred from selling them. The bill would ban all e-cigarettes regardless of flavor so long as they contain nicotine, and it would also ban the shipment of such items to private residences in San Francisco.

The second bill would ban companies that sell, manufacture and distribute tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, from city property. San Francisco already prohibits tobacco companies from doing business on city property, and this measure would explicitly add e-cigarettes to the existing ban. The proposed bill would not be applied retroactively, so it would not kick Juul out of its current space at Pier 70, but it would prevent e-cigarette companies from leasing city property in the future.

Juul is not producing an illegal substance. It has not been accused of breaking other laws in the way it operates its business. Studies have been done with mixed results about whether or not Juul is a gateway for nicotine use by children, which is why the city voted to ban fruity and other kid-friendly flavors. But rather than address the actual problems within their dysfunctional city, they’d rather draw attention to the evils of vaping.

It’s a wonder how any Libertarians or liberty-loving conservatives can continue living there. It’s the nanny state of nanny states.

San Francisco has become a punchline of a city. They don’t believe in individual rights. They do believe that government can and should try to solve everything. If any American city needs an infusion of conservatism, it’s San Francisco.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report