Last week, conservative Ann Coulter took a swipe at libertarians, calling them “pussies” for their stance on marijuana. Coulter’s best qualities are her bluntness (get it?) and her willingness to fight. In her “pussies” comments, she argued that, since the US is a socialist welfare state, people’s choices regarding their lifestyles are her business – hence MJ should be illegal. Coulter has a point; socialism turns strangers into family. However, her conclusion that statism and central control are warranted is an abandonment of principle.

Libertarians come in several flavors, and nearly equally from left and right backgrounds. The actual Libertarian Party is dominated by barely reformed hippies and ideologues, who put drug policy front and center. Most libertarians, however, do not belong to the LP. While libertarians like GOP Sen. Rand Paul do not support the war on drugs, that issue is just an example in the spectrum of Constitutional abuses and overreaches by today’s government. Perhaps coincidentally, the Tea Party has embraced much of the constitutional libertarian platform of confining government to its enumerated powers.

When conservatives complain about the cost of providing services to immigrants and their children, libertarians blame welfare, not immigration. When conservatives like Coulter complain about the harm drugs do (never mind tobacco and booze), libertarians blame socialized medicine, not drugs. Perhaps Coulter is being pragmatic by acknowledging the US socialist family, but she is conceding this generation’s key battle and even the soul of the US by doing so.

Socialists refer to their subjects as family much as dictators refer to their subjects as their children. Under collectivism, the consequences of an individual’s bad choices (e.g. smoking, or drinking, or irresponsible debt) are borne by everyone. This creates what economists call a moral hazard. By mitigating the negative consequences of bad behavior, the deterrent is minimized. Why not borrow too much when the government will always bail me out? Why not smoke crack when food, shelter, and health care are available no matter how worthless drugs make me? Of course the government might outlaw crack, but the criminal deterrent has proven to be less effective than the personal ruin deterrent. The best policy regarding vices is for people to live with their decisions’ consequences, but socialism is a family where consequences are limited.

Coulter is a big sister who thinks MJ should be illegal so she does not have to pay for whatever negative consequences its users might incur. However, the socialist family is not one which libertarians wish to join. Banning drugs is ineffective at best, and the consequence of proscription might actually be more drug use based on decades’ long trends. Libertarians are not in favor of MJ, they are opposed to substituting personal responsibility for the socialist family. Liberals just like MJ for policy reasons. While MJ is a popular example and a clear policy argument, the issue is only an example of why the government should not be the master of a socialist family.

Still, Coulter has a point. The US is a socialist welfare state, and she is forced to be responsible for the bad choices of others. She is not wrong to expect good behavior from her wards. Perhaps Coulter has illuminated the key difference between conservatives and libertarians – Coulter is willing to be a member of today’s deeply flawed US socialist family, while libertarians are still willing to fight. As such a famous fighter, Ms. Coulter should try harder and expect a little more.

This November, as many as eight States will have marijuana ballot issues before their voters. Most are medicinal issues, but States like Oregon and Colorado will decide on full legalization. Just as judging the average alcohol drinker by observing gutter drunks is unfounded, most marijuana users are not actually wild smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies (as annoying as they can be). Pollsters estimate that 25 million Americans regularly consume marijuana, and there simply are not enough Rasta cab drivers and jazz fans to fill those ranks. Politically, the tide is turning in favor of recreational marijuana use, but for the 90% of Americans who are not regular partakers, the marijuana issue has more impact than getting high. In fact, the marijuana issue is a test bed for the entirety of the wrongs Washington imposes on the States and the People.

Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign. Contrary to government propaganda, marijuana does not engender violent or dangerous behavior – unlike tequila. Further, the drug’s use does not seem to rise or fall based on its legality. In The Netherlands, where marijuana is more or less legal, its use is less prevalent than in the US, where marijuana is mostly illegal. Dreamers who think states can balance their budgets by taxing marijuana like tobacco or booze will be disappointed as marijuana usage cannot generate a large tax base as do cigarettes and liquor. Those who foresee a fall in crime as the illegal profit is eliminated are also overly optimistic. Until all vices are legal and regulated, cartels will still trade in violence. In short, should marijuana become legal in the US, expect essentially no impact.

Why, then is the marijuana issue relevant? The marijuana issue brings the 10^th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause to a poignant head and is a colorful wedge for those who generally support individual liberty and responsibility. Washington’s corruption withers in the light of the marijuana issue.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that FDR’s multi-year attempt to help farmers by forcing them to farm less acreage than they wanted was constitutional. They held that even if farm produce were grown in a single state with seed, fertilizer, and water from only that state, for consumption intrastate, the Commerce clause allowed Washington to dictate any aspect of that farm’s operation because the activities of the farm might affect markets out of state. Nothing had to cross state lines to be regulated as interstate commerce. Fast forward 80 years, and this same logic (under a different name) allows Washington to force individuals to buy a minimum level of healthcare products. For those who think Washington knows best, these rulings are wonderful news, but for the libertarian they invite tyranny.

Regardless of Supreme Court decisions, the plain language and original intent of the Commerce Clause is to ensure that states do not enact trade barriers between themselves. It does not say that commerce may be regulated within a state; it does not say that the commerce of individuals may be regulated. The Commerce Clause puts regulating interstate commerce at the same level as trade with foreign nations and Indian tribes, clearly implying that Washington’s role is to facilitate free trade, not to dictate how many acres a farmer may plant. Quite often the plain language reading of a law is truer than the convolutions of talented specialist minds.

FDR outlawed marijuana about the same time as he regulated farmers and under the same Commerce Clause authority (in the form of a tax, if that sounds familiar). Indeed, most of Washington’s departures from the Constitution’s enumerated powers stem from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Should a State fully legalize marijuana this November, the very heart of Washington’s bloat will be tested. Interestingly, Justice Roberts’s horrid logic that Obamacare was illegal under the Commerce Clause but legal as a tax gains traction in such a showdown. Should a State’s perfect document, its Constitution, be amended to legalize marijuana, that State would be obligated to take the issue to the Supreme Court unless Washington backs down. The marijuana issue may give libertarians another swipe at the Commerce Clause, a gift given by States broadly in favor of Obamacare.

Can Washington imprison someone for growing a plant in Colorado using Colorado materials, all for Colorado or even personal consumption? Is there any boundary to Washington’s power over the States and the People? Is Washington’s law supreme over a State’s, even when Washington’s law is not authorized under the Constitution? Does the 10^th Amendment mean anything? Should marijuana be legalized somewhere this November, these questions might be revisited and the tide of Washington’s tyranny over its purported masters could be reversed. Even for those who find the herbal libation distasteful, these are good reasons to vote to legalize marijuana.