More on Subsidiarity and Medical Marijuana

Rick's post on the medical marijuana case posits that one could invoke subsidiarity in defense of the ruling if one thinks that a national drug policy intolerant of state opt-outs is "wise." I know Rick was playing Devil's Advocate in framing this argument, but I want to clarify what a defender of the ruling would need to show to align the outcome with subsidiarity. I resist the notion that subsidiarity allows the higher collective to usurp lower bodies whenever the collectivizing impulse is in service of a policy deemed "wise." Rather, it would seem that a critic of lower bodies' efforts to address a problem should show that the effort is misguided or inadequate in some significant sense -- i.e., that human flourishing, properly understood, requires the higher body to step in. In the context of this case, then, we can't just say that state-by-state opt outs make a national drug policy more difficult; don't we need to identify and articulate why a broader availability of state opt outs in this area would hinder human flourishing in particular and significant ways?

To take an obvious example, suppose that a state legislature decides that children would benefit if they were given at least one nutritious and balanced meal each day, and that since many children do not receive one such meal, the state will require all children to eat dinner at a government food service agency in their community. One may conclude that the benefits to children's physical health would be a positive development, but subsidiarity would never stand for such a measure -- the lower unit (family) must be protected from the higher unit (the state). California, of course, does not have the same standing as the family in Catholic Social Thought, but doesn't subsidiarity still put a thumb on the scale in California's favor, at least when aligned against the federal government? If so, don't we need to show something more than our judgment that the centralized approach promotes a wise policy?

My fear is that if the subsidiarity inquiry is allowed to turn on the purported wisdom of empowering the higher body, the doctrine will live up to its critics' allegations that it serves as an infinitely malleable rhetorical device.

Rob