States know better than feds what people want

There are a couple of questions being asked on the national scene lately and I wanted to address them for a second.

Now, this is not some sophomoric article about how we should all smoke up. I already wrote that one.

No, the California, Arizona and recent Brady Bill Supreme Court hearings bring up just one question. If the states' legislation contradicts the federal government's, who wins?

In the last election, right below Prop. 209, which you have probably heard of, was Proposition 215. California's 215 called for the legalization of marijuana for any medical reason. Not just glaucoma or for AIDS patients, but the flu, the common cold, rickets, head lice, bed-wetting, temper tantrums, canker sores, constant twitching, short-term memory loss or any other ailment for which your doctor gives you a verbal prescription.

That's right, he or she doesn't even have to write it down and send you to a pharmacy. You can legally grow your own.

Are you surprised that California was the first state to do this?

But before you hop on a plane to Los Angeles, we'll leave California and head a few miles southeast for just a second.

Arizona's Proposition 200 was passed in the same election. In case you don't know, Proposition 200 legalized any drug (examples would include LSD, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana) for medicinal use.

Yes, with the expressed written consent of two doctors, in a serious medical situation, one can be issued a few hits of LSD.

"Whoa," said the federal government, "Who do you think you are, Arizona? What's going on? Are we losing control? Arizona, California, you get your butts to D.C. now. We gotta talk about this."

And Senate hearings quickly ensued.

Now, I hope you trust whomever you voted for in the past senatorial race. This issue could set a precedent that will change the country.

Here's one that doesn't fit. The Brady Bill. I doubt that Bill Brady is interested in the recent changes to American drug laws.

But now the U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon, by the good people of this country, to determine Brady's law and its constitutionality.

Some states feel as though blatant violations of the second amendment may be grossly unconstitutional and that the federal government has no right to impose them on all of the states. If the decision was left up to the states, they would be able to decide who can carry guns within their own communities.

Well here comes the question. If the states' legislation contradicts the federal government's, who wins? Well, we'll see, but let me tell you what I think, because I am allowed to.

The states win.

That's right. I have been saying it all along. The federal government has no business passing laws such as drug laws.

They should be more worried about foreign affairs.

We don't need their laws when every state has their own versions that they have determined to be best for the state.

Does that make any sense? The governors, legislatures and state courts are much more in touch with what the people of their state need and want. When the U.S. Congress or Clinton makes a law that sweeps through the entire country, it can't fit the needs of every specific state and county in America.

That is why we have local elections.

That is why we have states.

The Senate is calling for an immediate investigation into California's freely elected law.

And therefore, the Senate is questioning not only the intelligence of California's voters, but of the election process itself. They ask for the same in Arizona.

It's a shame really.

If everything was left up to the states, then we would have much more say as individuals and we would be much more free.

What do you think?