Interview with Mr Steves in the New York Times:
Mr. Steves, a travel writer and public radio and television host, is an outspoken activist for the legalization of recreational marijuana, which is on the ballot next month in North Dakota and Michigan. He says smoking pot is like a “declaration of independence.”
Marijuana Legalization Has Gone Mainstream. Rick Steves Has Helped.
Well as some of you may realize marijuana is now legal in Canada , all of Canada .
Nothing has changed , the streets are not teeming with drug addicts ( anymore than they ever were I mean lol )
It’s basically a “ non event “ here.
I am glad it’s been legalized , I do not partake but have never felt threatened or annoyed by someone who has smoked pot the way I have felt by people who have had too much to drink !
It's legal in Massachusetts as well. We remain one of the best places to live in the USA. YMMV
It is legal in varying degrees in 31 states and the District of Columbia. RS has been at the forefront of an ethical, common-sense approach to legalization and de-decriminalization.
I get the impression that your post was written in the hopes of initiating responses critical of RS and the only reason I say that is the quote you chose out of an entire article. If I am mistaken I apologize in advance. In any case I applaud RS and his efforts. And I applaud the fact that he is out there speaking out for something he believes in and backs it up by paying for it out of his own pocket.
Thats more than most of us can claim.
Anyone who has seen his tv shows will have zero surprise at his statements in the NYT. He's already gone there many a time on camera.
The NIDA reports that 30% of pot smokers have some degree of "use disorder" - which often means dependence - not independence.
The Declaration of Independence was an assertion that the colonists had a right to separate themselves from Britain and King George based on certain unelienable rights (right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) that a government cannot take away. The parallel for Steves is the right for states' citizens to separate themselves from the Fed's policy, go their own way, and pave their own path forward (via a legal referenda process). Another important parallel is the Declaration's central tenet of "all men are created equal". Steves argues that justice is not distributed fairly across pot users but disproportionately punishes certain segments of the population based on social class and race. Rich white folks (or even less rich ones) can smoke away with impunity, while the poor and minorities are incarcerated and harshly punished at higher rates (see his reference to "the new Jim Crow").
RS has been active on this front for years. This is not news or new.
the Declaration's central tenet of "all men are created equal".
Unless, of course, you didn't happen to be white. Or, indeed, were not male. In which case the Declaration meant a century or more of slavery, expansionist genocide and mysogany.
Nick... very well said.
I think Rick Steves a bit naive and narrow-minded by suggesting that states should be free of federal policy if they so decide.
That was the crux of the defeated argument that ended formal racial segregation in the US South, which required even federal troops to enforce laws thought as "unthinkable" by the then-majority of bigoted and racist registered voters of the region.
So he needs to fight for national change in policy. Even if it means only his children will actually be alive to witness national change.
Andre,
Are you familiar with the US system of federalism or the 10th Amendment? The federal government can only exercise those powers specifically granted in the US Constitution ("enumerated powers"). Any power not listed is reserved to the States or the people. It will be up to the Supreme Court to interpret whether States have exceeded their boundaries in allowing recreational marijuana within their borders. If grown, taxed, and distributed entirely within a State, it would not fall under the interstate commerce clause.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-i-section-8-federalism-and-the-overall-scope-of-federal-power/
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-x
States already have mechanisms to deviate from federal policy via waivers - an example is California's regulation of car emissions. Another example is Bush's No Child Left Behind (national) education law which has been pretty much stripped apart because States did not want to comply with it. In other words, the States don't always tow the line when there's a federal policy they don't agree with.
Rick shows up briefly in one of Seth Meyers' bits this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xEz1uSedEM at about 4:15. And a warning, it is political, and Rick just appears as a joke about packing.
I get the impression that your post was written in the hopes of initiating responses critical of RS and the only reason I say that is the quote you chose out of an entire article.
Arthur - the text is from the article's sub-heading / intro at the very top of the page. This is how the paper introduced the article.
