Consistency, thy name ain't Lee Anderson

As noted here previously, the Times Free Press has a perhaps unique policy of two editorial pages and two editorial policies ... sort of.
The Times has a left-wing fascist approach; the Free Press has a right-wing fascist approach.
Lee Anderson, long-time editorial writer for the right-hand pages, claims to be a strong supporter of the Constitution.
He is pretty consistently against further federal taxes (though he pretty consistently supports additional local taxes) and further federal encroachment ... unless his personal moral code calls for further federal encroachment.
For example, in an editorial on Sunday, 25 October, titled, "Wrong policy on marijuana," he takes to task the Obama administration for what seems to be its very first correct stand on legal matters.
Obama's attorney general Holder has decreed the feds will no longer violate the Constitution by harassing users of medical marijuana, at least in those states that have voted to legalize that particular herb.
Mr. Anderson's last paragraph reads, "Government cannot stop all illegal drug use, but its actions ought not to send the destructive, false message that drug abuse is OK."
Nowhere have I seen that Mr. Holder, or even Pres. Obama, endorses abusing marijuana -- they are too busy abusing taxpayers and citizens and Fox News.
But Mr. Anderson, handicapped by his superstitious Southern Christian background, fails miserably in being consistent, in being logical, in being rational.
To say "We won't throw you in jail because you have a different lifestyle or moral code from ours" is not the same as saying "Yeah, man, let's go wild and smoke that pot."
Forgetting for the moment that marijuana is less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol -- and obviously Mr. Anderson (who was probably there) has forgotten that alcohol once was itself illegal -- let's just carefully read the Constitution ... and we find there is not one word that allows the feds any authority to tell people they can't use marijuana, and especially is there not a word or syllable allowing the feds to override state laws on the subject.
Perhaps a foolish consistency is to be avoided, but it would be nice to find an intelligent consistency.