Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month is …

posted at 3:35 pm on March 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

It’s an all-pot edition of Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month for March 2011, which isn’t exactly a surprise, given Reason’s efforts to end criminalization of marijuana.  During the presidential campaign, they thought Barack Obama had a similar take on the issue, at least as it related to federal enforcement in states where voters approved legalization or decriminalization (although they didn’t support Obama as a candidate).  Despite promises to stop marijuana raids in such states, the DEA conducted raids in California and Montana in this month alone, which makes Obama the Nanny-in-Chief:

This time top dishonors go to the Drug Warrior-in-Chief Barack Obama, whose DEA banned fake pot, thwarted a scientist’s decade-long campaign to study marijuana, and raided dispensaries in Montanaand California—all in one month!

(Seems like only yesterday when Obama promised he wouldn’t waste Justice Department resourcesraiding medical marijuana dispensaries.)

Presenting the Nanny of the Month for March 2011: President Barack Obama (with DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart grabbing a dishonorable mention)!

I don’t necessarily disagree with the decision, especially given Obama’s pandering to the youth vote on this issue during the 2008 campaign.  Those expecting a hope-and-change contact high with President Obama have instead gotten a buzzkill with a bitter aftertaste.  Whether or not one supports legalization, the dishonesty — especially given the lack of any explanation from the White House on the position change — certainly should get noses out of, er, joint.

But if we’re talking nanny-state awards for Obama, I’d prefer to talk about issues of wider import, such as the White House’s opposition to restarting the DC voucher program, announced yesterday by the administration:

While the Administration appreciates that H.R. 471 would provide Federal support for improving public schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.), including expanding and improving high-quality D.C. public charter schools, the Administration opposes the creation or expansion of private school voucher programs that are authorized by this bill.  The Federal Government should focus its attention and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for all students.  Private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement. The Administration strongly opposes expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and opening it to new students.  Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that the D.C. program has not yielded improved student achievement by its scholarship recipients compared to other students in D.C.  While the President’s FY 2012 Budget requests funding to improve D.C. public schools and expand high-quality public charter schools, the Administration opposes targeting resources to help a small number of individuals attend private schools rather than creating access to great public schools for every child.

In other words, don’t let low- and middle-income parents have the choice that the Obamas themselves exercised in selecting a private school for their children.  No, let’s force parents to keep from using their tax dollars to choose how their children get educated and keep them trapped in the public-school system.  Even for those who oppose federal involvement in education, the DC system falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government.  By opposing this bill, Obama has set himself up as the real Nanny-in-Chief — and consigned thousands of children in the nation’s capital to failing schools and a lifetime competitive handicap.

Update: Guy Benson followed the House debate today on the voucher bill and, well …

Discounting better classroom results, higher graduation rates, sky-high parental satisfaction, and glittering cost-effectiveness, “private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement.”  Tell that to Virginia Walden Ford.

Be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

In other words, don’t let low- and middle-income parents have the choice that the Obamas themselves exercised in selecting a private school for their children.

This makes perfect sense. What decent parent would not take action, within their authority, to prevent “those kind” of kids from sitting next to their little angel in school, uh?

BHO and MO just have a bit more authority than the rest of us.

Two America’s. Guess which one Obama likes to be in….

BobMbx on March 30, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Those expecting a hope-and-change contact high with President Obama have instead gotten a buzzkill with a bitter aftertaste.

They got a Dope ‘n Change, but not their kind of dope.

Schadenfreude on March 30, 2011 at 3:40 PM

This is one reason I have trouble taking the “Big L” Libertarians at Reason.TV seriously at times: their obsession with truly minor issues, such as pot legalization or home distilling.

irishspy on March 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Wouldn’t want Sasha and Malia getting mixed up with the Proles…

PatriotRider on March 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

In other words, don’t let low- and middle-income parents have the choice that the Obamas themselves exercised in selecting a private school for their children.

Everything with Obama has an expiration date, absolutely everything. He is the Lord of the Lies.

Geraghty was the first and stands as the arbiter of this truth.

Schadenfreude on March 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

They got a Dope ‘n Change, but not their kind of dope.

Schadenfreude on March 30, 2011 at 3:40 PM

They got the Dope ‘n Charge.

fourdeucer on March 30, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Don’t expect Barry to do anything regarding public education. It’s a Democratic gold mine for campaign funds.

GarandFan on March 30, 2011 at 3:49 PM

That Reason if given over to pot heads does not exactly inspire confidence in the group.

Count to 10 on March 30, 2011 at 3:56 PM

their obsession with truly minor issues, such as pot legalization or home distilling.

irishspy on March 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM

The national debt is for me the single biggest problem facing the nation. That said, I would argue that personal liberty is not a “truly minor” issue.

entropent on March 30, 2011 at 4:03 PM

During the presidential campaign, they thought Barack Obama had a similar take on the issue…

Is that why so many of them voted for Obama?

sharrukin on March 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Just because dispensaries happen to be legal in a given state does not mean all disepensaries in that state are meeting the state’s requirements. Montana, in particular, limits the plants to 6 per patient. My experience is that these raids almost always involve dispensaries that are not, in fact, operating within state guidelines/laws. Joint task forces (which include all levels of law enforcement) are then utilized for the raids.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 4:21 PM

A belief that pot (or all drugs for that matter)should be illegal is one thing. But for people to be thrown in jail simply because they don’t happen to believe the same as you is another. The LIBERTY to do what I wish to do as long as I do no harm to others, is AMERICA.

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Obama is a creature of the unions, and the NEA is one of the biggest. He’s not about to buck them by supporting school vouchers.

RebeccaH on March 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM

No one is suggesting those who believe drugs should be legalized should go to jail. However, believing drugs should be illegal does require an acceptance that those who are guilty of either doing or selling them would go to jail. It’s not the believe, it’s the actions.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 4:48 PM

so you can have the belief and freedom…. but exercise it …welllll …that’s different

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM

the Administration opposes targeting resources to help a small number of individuals attend private schools rather than creating access to great public schools for every child.

Which is like preventing people from using the Titanic’s lifeboats and making them wait for the leak to be fixed. Save everyone or save no one.

As for cost, this voucher program cost $7500 per student as opposed to $17600 in the public schools.

The goal of government schools is to create well indoctrinated and malleable servants of the state, not educated and independent adults. That’s only for the children of the anointed. This is about government power control and always has been.

RadClown on March 30, 2011 at 4:55 PM

so you can have the belief and freedom…. but exercise it …welllll …that’s different

Some believe they should be able to drive any speed they want to. Some believe they should be able to sell children to the highest bidder. Those beliefs aren’t the trouble unless they are exercised.

So yes, exercising beliefs is the problem here. That’s the case no matter what law you’re talking about.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

In other words, don’t let low- and middle-income parents have the choice that the Obamas themselves exercised in selecting a private school for their children.

The liberal elites that can afford to send their kids to good private schools really don’t want vouchers, because that means lower classes will pollute their private schools. Little Buffy and Shaniquah might end up associating with the wrong people and they just can’t have that.

slickwillie2001 on March 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM

I wish it was as simple as them not wanting their children associating with mine; we could easily address that by the fact that no school would be forced to accept vouchers. No, the problem is with the NEA’s stranglehold on education policy.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Some believe they should be able to drive any speed they

want to. Some believe they should be able to sell children to the highest bidder. Those beliefs aren’t the trouble unless they are exercised.

So yes, exercising beliefs is the problem here. That’s the case no matter what law you’re talking about.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Firstly…. today, driving or the operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway is a privileged granted to you by the state….. not a right.

Secondly…. selling children???? I fail to see how that relates to drug law in America.

Finally…. Drugs…. whether or not YOU decide to consume them is your decision and the state has no business in that personal decision. Funny how the state will allow a woman to take another human life as long as it still resides in the womb. But will throw her in jail for a couple of tokes on a pot bong or crack pipe.

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 5:17 PM

First of all, I wasn’t discussing the merits of drug laws, only the difference between going to jail for beliefs and what’s actually happening. I chose extreme examples for a reason. You can believe what you want about our laws, any of them, but when you decide to break them for whatever reason you risk jail.
Second, I agree with your assessment of the irony between abortion and drug laws; although I suspect my resolution of the irony would differ from yours.
There is an argument to be had about the merits of our drug laws, but again, it’s quite separate from the accusation that people are going to jail for believing something.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Anyone notice that the congressional heroes in the school voucher debate are almost all Republicans? Then, why in the world do they keep voting for Democrats who are in the back pocket of the NEA? Remember the definition of insanity is…

College Prof on March 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

It is your belief and people like you… that make drugs laws in this country possible. Why do you have the need to prevent individuals from doing what they wish and are hurting no one. Why must YOU protect others from making choices that You think are bad? Have you not read the constitution? Do you not believe in individual Liberty? Sure the individuals goes to jail for actions. But it is YOUR (in the collective) believes that make those actions illegal.

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Well, now we’re at least past the incorrect insinuation that people are going to jail for their beliefs.

I’ll just say this, if I was sure drug use only affected those who used them, I’d be more inclined to favor legalization.

They don’t, and I’m not.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Oh, perhaps you could show me where in the constitution drug use is protected. I can’t seem to find it.

Snaqwels on March 30, 2011 at 6:07 PM

I’ll just say this, if I was sure drug use only affected those who used them, I’d be more inclined to favor legalization.

There is no sure thing….

http://www.wddty.com/aspirin-it-kills-20-000-americans-every-year.html

Kills 20,000 people in America alone..

Americian Drug laws are the most basic assault on individual liberty. Arguing otherwise is like a three legged cat trying to bury his poop on an ice pond.

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Oh, perhaps you could show me where in the constitution drug use is protected. I can’t seem to find it.

The Constitution “The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

so I guess it up to you to show where the Government has the power to make drug laws.

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Nuff said

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

roflmao

donabernathy on March 30, 2011 at 6:23 PM

“Drug abuse hurts no one but the user.”

Roflmao

JannyMae on March 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Marijuana isn’t dangerous enough to justify spending ton of money for the feds to enforce.

Let the states crack down on the consumers if they feel its justified.

V-rod on March 30, 2011 at 7:10 PM

We just had another series of pot busts today here in the San Fernando Valley.

I hope they included the 007, window-shades-down-24/7 house next door to me.

The pot smell reeking from that place is ridiculous.

The Ugly American on March 30, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Let me put it this way; there is a good debate to be had regarding the legalization of marijuana. The introduction of medical marijuana, however, is a scam designed to press towards legalization. When the medical marijuana proponents are willing to have their product subjected to the same testing, regulations, dosing, and monitoring; I’ll be willing to listen. Until then…. (crickets).

If you want to challenge their constitutionality, do it. It’s a whole and separate issue from the merits of the laws themselves.

Your constitutional reference may (I stress “may”) preclude federal laws, but it does not preclude me (and those who believe like me) from criminalizing mj on a state level. My point was, there’s nothing in the constitution that protects your right to get stoned.

It does, however, make me wonder why federal mj laws haven’t been struck down yet.

Snaqwels on March 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM