For me, if people have a right to do as they please up to a certain limit, that limit has to apply everywhere I go in the US without taking a passport with me.
That kind of all-or-nothing thinking is not very "centrist" of you... <g>
If you insist that the limits not vary and your version of the limit is not what passes Congress, then you're SOL. You have a much better chance of getting a limit you think appropriate in your state than you have in Congress. And if not in your state, then in some state that you could visit or live in.
As for the Kerry voters in Texas, should Californians be deprived of something just because some Texans can't have it? That makes no sense to me. And consider this--one of the reasons that limits are set where they are is because people are habituated or are scared of the consequences. If a more libertarian state allows it and folks can see that the world did not come to an end and/or that they can go there and enjoy it themselves, liberties are bound to expand, assuming that the fear was unwarranted. And if the fear is warranted, if it isn't a good thing, then we can learn from the state that made the mistake and not nationalize the problem. There's a lot to be said for trying things on a small scale first, for demonstration projects.
Yeah, it's a nuisance to have to "carry a passport" when going from state to state, but things should even out on their own over time and it would have been worth the temporary nuisance. If it would just shut up the screaming heads on TV and in Congress it would be worth the nuisance. After all, your exposure to state differences would be small, probably irrelevant. |
