Because making somebody a felon for violating contraband law is the epitome of nanny-state Tyranny.
Prohibition not only doesn't work, but it makes criminals out of huge swaths of everyday citizens who want nothing more than to pursue happiness as they see fit.
When an individual's "pursuit of happiness" is defined by the State or a mob (majority Tyranny) it loses its core meaning.
Putting somebody in prison for possessing the wrong plant (or chemical, or medicine) is morally wrong.
If an idividual infringes on somebody else's rights via force, fraud, or negligence, that is when the law is legitimate.
In all other cases, the law is arbitrary, Tyrannical, and downright Unamerican, IMHO, and it's no wonder that so many everyday citizens lose respect for its legitimacy and disregard it when they see fit.
The only people "good enough" to represent conservatives will be goody-two-shoes church ninnies.
Conservatives deserve to continue to get destroyed in the power game of politics.
They don't know how to play and it looks like they will never learn.
OK, so you’re coming at this from the decriminalization of drugs.
I think you could make the case that true freedom also means the freedom to do with your own body what you want to do. I always wonder why it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol but a simple congressional fiat to ban other chemicals.
I am open to the idea of decriminalization of drugs from a liberty standpoint.
However, this representative broke the existing law, which he is required to uphold. We all are. If we think the law is wrong or unjust, we should fight to change it.
I question you this: Did he ever put his money where his mouth is, so to say, by submitting a bill to decriminalize drugs? Did he vote against any and all funds for drug law enforcement? If so, not only is he now a felon, but a hypocrite, too.
When Clinton stood before a crowd praising a new sexual harassment law (which I thought criminalized free speech) to get more votes from women, only to have that same law used by Paula Jones against him, I thought it was deliciously ironic. There is not a separate law for our masters and another, more draconian one for us peons. All are equal before the law.