Ineffective Government

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

Nearly all the well-informed and honest citizens of the United States agree, Scott Adams (How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big) suggests, that the Federal Government should not enforce marijuana prohibition in states that allow medical marijuana:

That’s an easy law to change, right? I mean, if something like 80% of voters agree on an issue, it’s a no-brainer.

But our ineffective government couldn’t pass a law that had overwhelming support because, I suppose, it is bad for reelection if someone labels you pro-drug. So instead, Congress quietly just removed funding for the FBI’s weed-chasing efforts. No budget means no action in the future. In effect, the federal war on weed is over.

While I appreciate that the government is moving in the direction the citizens prefer, how much does it tell you about the effectiveness of our system that lawmakers couldn’t change a law that nearly 100% of well-informed and honest (meaning not taking money from private prison lobbyists for example) folks prefer?

My point is not about weed. That fight is essentially over. We’re just waiting for the referee to count to ten, although that might play out over several years. Full legalization for adults (in effect) is inevitable because the data will be so clear after a few states do their test runs.

My point is that if your government can’t pass a law that has has nearly universal approval, do you really have a functioning government?

Comments

  1. Alrenous says:

    Try attacking the government. You’ll find it functions quite well. It just isn’t a democracy in any sense except optically.

  2. Steve Johnson says:

    I mean, if something like 80% of voters agree on an issue, it’s a no-brainer.

    But our ineffective government couldn’t pass a law that had overwhelming support because, I suppose, it is bad for reelection if someone labels you pro-drug.

    You’d think he’d rethink the who isn’t budging and the why they aren’t changing their position rather than making the silly assertion that supporting a policy that 80% of voters support could be bad for reelection.

    Maybe that giant hole in his logic will cause him to notice things, and maybe it won’t, but the only interesting writers are those who mull over that particular why. Mulling over that why also gets you ejected from the public debate, unless you come to the “right” conclusions — that the religious right and Fox news have such a stranglehold on the country that they can keep an unpopular policy around.

  3. RL says:

    Cf. the oft-cited factoid that 92% of NRA members support “universal background checks.” That the factual premise is obviously false isn’t the point.

  4. Scott Adams says:

    Steve Johnson:

    What giant hole in my logic did you hallucinate?

  5. Steve Johnson says:

    You’d think that 80% of voters being in favor of something would mean that politicians wouldn’t fear their potential opponents exploiting that issue against them.

  6. Steve Johnson says:

    You could be making the point that there’s so much paralysis that the government can’t openly do even popular things, but at the same time there is no shortage of actual overt action on unpopular things like — just to pick one example — TARP.

    That doesn’t worry politicians?

  7. Rollory says:

    Mr. Adams: I believe Mr. Johnson’s point is that large majorities of the public supporting or opposing a policy has no impact on what policies actually get implemented, because the people implementing policies are never affected by democratic processes; with the implication that the government of the USA is representative of the people and responsive to their preferences in pretense only.

Leave a Reply