On May 24, Delaware governor John Carney vetoed a bill — passed by super-majorities of both houses of the state’s legislature — which would have legalized possession of small quantities of marijuana by people over 21.

Carney’s justification: “I do not believe that promoting or expanding the use of recreational marijuana is in the best interests of the state of Delaware, especially our young people.”

Yep. Even though the bill applies only to those over 21 years of age, Carney felt compelled to play “for the chilllllllllldren” card.

It’s easy to see why, as the rest of his justification doesn’t hold water, either.

The bill wouldn’t have “expanded” the use of marijuana. Anyone who wants to use marijuana can already get it without much effort. Including the kiddos. It’s a common plant that’s easy to grow almost anywhere — it’s called “weed” for a reason — and nearly a century of “war” on it hasn’t dented its popularity. Quite the opposite. Fifty years ago, 4% of Americans admitted to having tried marijuana. As of last year, that number was 49%.

Nor, unlike most state recreational legalization schemes, would the Delaware bill have “promoted” the use of marijuana by creating a state licensing regime relying on big sales numbers to generate tax revenue. In fact, sales would have remained entirely illegal absent further legislation.

If anything, Carney’s veto, along with the continued prohibition of sales, actively promotes the distribution of marijuana to those under 21.

If it’s illegal to possess marijuana, and illegal to sell marijuana, heck, what’s one more “crime” to the “criminal?” He’ll sell it to anyone with the money to buy it. He’s already taking the risk, so why forego the additional profits?

If it’s legal to possess marijuana, and legal to sell marijuana, but only to those over 21, at least some sellers will decide to avoid those younger customers. They’re no longer at legal risk as long as they only sell to adults.

Prohibition-era speakeasies didn’t care what ages their customers were. They were headed for the hoosegow if they got caught anyway. Modern bars and liquor stores demand ID because they’re good to go so long as the guy who bought that mojito or pint of bourbon was over 21, and in trouble if he wasn’t.

The kids will still get marijuana and booze either way, of course.  I probably drank far more between the ages of 17 and 21 than I have between the ages of 40 and 55. I doubt today’s kids are, on average, any smarter about that, or any less capable of acquiring it, than I was at that age.

Why did Carney really veto the bill? Well, he also mentions “serious law enforcement concerns.”

“War” on marijuana means more police jobs and bigger budgets for police departments. And perp-walking a harmless citizen over a bag of weed is much safer than, say, saving a school full of children from a gunman.  Officer safety is the first priority, followed by job security. Back the Blue!

Leave the kids out of your police union featherbedding schemes, Governor Carney.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

After someone — we still don’t know who — leaked a Supreme Court “draft opinion” in Dobbs v. Jackson (the case in which the Court is widely expected to overturn Roe v. Wade), Chief Justice John Roberts  characterized the leak as a “betrayal … intended to undermine the integrity of our operations …. a singular and egregious breach of that trust.”

Emory Law professor (and former SCOTUS law clerk) Alexander Volokh explains succinctly, via CBS Atlanta, why Court prioritizes confidentiality and why the leak is so controversial: “Justices rely on the ability to be candid.”

Something about that claim reminds me of another recent, and very different, controversy:

Throughout the various investigations of former president Donald Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021  Capitol riot, Trump and his lawyers have fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of documents to the US House Committee exploiti … er, investigating … that event by the US National Archives, on grounds of “executive privilege.”

I’ve argued (and the courts seem to agree) that even if “executive privilege” is justifiable, it inheres in an office (e.g. the presidency), not a person (e.g. Trump). That is, the power to release or not release presidential documents belongs to the current president, not whichever former president may have happened to generate those documents.

I got some pushback on that argument from more than one acquaintance, and their counter-arguments universally went something like this:

“If a president asks for my advice, will I give my best advice if I have to worry that whatever I say may eventually become public?”

The “would I be candid if what I say wasn’t kept secret?” argument doesn’t carry any weight with me.

If you want to wield power over, and collect a paycheck from, the public, what you say and do pursuant such activities is the public’s business.

If you’re not comfortable with the public knowing what you’re up to, there are plenty of jobs to choose from in the private sector.

If you’re not willing to be “candid” with the public you claim to work for, you’re not a “public servant,” you’re a “public enemy.”

I’m not big on creating new government sinecures, but if Allen Funt still walked among us we could do worse than to appoint him to the position of “transparency czar.”

Government activity shouldn’t take place — at any level or in any department — “in camera.” It should all take place on Candid Camera.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“The trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday (May 20),” Jonathan Turley writes at The Hill, “when a key witness uttered the name ‘Hillary Clinton’ in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.”

The witness: Robby Mook, who managed Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.

The revelation: According to Mook, Clinton personally approved the initial disinformation campaign that eventually became “Russiagate,” an attempt to explain/excuse Clinton’s poor performance and ultimate loss, and Donald Trump’s victory, as a function of Russian “meddling” in the election.

Sussmann is on trial for lying to the FBI — namely, misrepresenting himself as an independent actor rather than a Clinton campaign operative when he brought faked-up “evidence” of a communications channel running between the Trump campaign and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the bureau’s attention in 2016.

It was clear from the beginning that there wasn’t much substance to Russiagate. Its wild claims were held together with lots of duct tape and chewing gum, falling apart under even cursory examination, and the whole thing was finally revealed as a Seinfeld-like “show about nothing” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report.

It was also clear from the beginning that it was a “pot calling the kettle black” situation, insofar as the Clinton campaign itself  “colluded” with Russian sources to get “dirt” on Trump, even as it accused him of doing the same to get “dirt” on her.

Those sources — tapped by former MI6 Russia Desk head Christopher Steele, on behalf of a firm (Fusion GPS)  acting as a Clinton campaign “deniability” cut-out — provided the content of the “Steele Dossier” the Clinton campaign later used to push the Russiagate scam.

It’s unlikely that Clinton will ever face criminal penalties or other severe consequences — beyond of course, losing a presidential election and discrediting herself in ways that preclude a comeback — for her leading role in this substanceless melodrama.

The best we can hope for is that history will treat her as very much the political twin of Donald Trump — a con artist, a sore loser, and a Big Liar.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY