Weed was never on the radar of the Cheeto-in-Chief, but his shrunken apple doll of an Attorney General had a big stick up his butt about it. Way back at the beginning of the year, in a moment that must have aroused him more than the most tempting Siren, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III rescinded Obama-era guidance to the Justice Department to leave us potheads in Colorado (and an increasing number of states) alone.
I imagine that nothing would have come of the rescission; the genie is out of the bottle and everyone knows how much money is in it. But rather than remain silent and hope for the best, Cory Gardner not only raised hell, he blocked the administration's DOJ nominees. He stopped doing that in February, ostensibly because progress had been made. Indeed, last week he secured a promise from the administration's boss that the feds really don't give a flying fuck about weed and there will be no raids. I can just imagine Sessions's weed hard-on going flaccid.
I've been proud of Cory Gardner for stepping up. Sure, it's all about money, and no, I'm sure as shit not going to go join his campaign or anything. But I like my weed, and I appreciate my representative's push to represent the will of his constituents despite his party's (completely wacky anti-federalist) platform.
Gardner's politics are mostly still repulsive however.
Other than pot, he's consistently GOP party line, with votes to limit access to abortion and to limit access to health care. He's generally considered hostile to LGBT rights; it's well known that he's personally opposed to same-sex marriage. However he seems to have a more overt position of just not talking about it.
His clear commitment to keeping weed (and the zillions of dollars that come with it) legal raises a question that I often struggle with, that is: to what extent can anyone make an ally out of others who share some passions but have others that are repugnant?
Potheads and federalists. Progressives who work to end poverty and churches that serve the impoverished. Animal rights activists and small family ranchers. There are opportunities for coalitions here, and I'm not sure that we are exploiting them as much as we could be to make real change.
On the other hand, I also understand the reluctance to get into bed with people who hold certain abhorrent views. Do I really want to work with the family rancher who only likes me 'cause he mistakes me for a white person? Can I serve food to the hungry side-by-side with someone who would tell an impoverished person that they are morally obligated to continue a pregnancy?
I don't know. I don't know what the answers are. Do you?
Other than pot, he's consistently GOP party line, with votes to limit access to abortion and to limit access to health care. He's generally considered hostile to LGBT rights; it's well known that he's personally opposed to same-sex marriage. However he seems to have a more overt position of just not talking about it.
His clear commitment to keeping weed (and the zillions of dollars that come with it) legal raises a question that I often struggle with, that is: to what extent can anyone make an ally out of others who share some passions but have others that are repugnant?
Potheads and federalists. Progressives who work to end poverty and churches that serve the impoverished. Animal rights activists and small family ranchers. There are opportunities for coalitions here, and I'm not sure that we are exploiting them as much as we could be to make real change.
On the other hand, I also understand the reluctance to get into bed with people who hold certain abhorrent views. Do I really want to work with the family rancher who only likes me 'cause he mistakes me for a white person? Can I serve food to the hungry side-by-side with someone who would tell an impoverished person that they are morally obligated to continue a pregnancy?
I don't know. I don't know what the answers are. Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment