Why Rep. John Hall (D-NY) voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher...liberal fear of federalism
Today I called the Washington office of my congressman, John Hall. I have vigorously supported him in the 2006 election against a Bush rubber stamp Sue Kelly. He was seemed to be a progressive democrat (indeed he joined the progressive caucus after entering office). However, he voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher, refusing the step to stop DEA from raiding the dispensaries.
A gentle lady answered the phone, and I asked about the reason why he voted against the amendment. She told me to wait for a moment, then she came back telling that Hall voted that way because he believed it should be "discussed at the federal level" and states should have the ability to do whatever they want.
I do understand the knee-jerk fear of states' rights by liberals like Hall, but when federalism means saving people's lives, playing political ideology is just cruel and inhumane.
digg
reddittypo
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 08/03/2007 - 10:24amI meant the *elimination of* the ban on mmj...
Yes and no...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 08/03/2007 - 10:23amHe has a point -- that the ban on medical marijuana should happen at the federal level. After all, it could conceivably do his constituents no good, and possibly even some harm, if Hinchey-Rohrabacher were to pass. How, you ask? See the front-page post of a few days ago (sorry, no link...) suggesting that maybe H-R is not ambitious enough. If it passes, perhaps all the folks in CA will be happy and the rest of us will be stuck holding the bag.