Pro-Pot Justice?

I guess I could be reading too much into this, but in today's Supreme Court brouha (PDF) on gun control in D.C., Chief Justice Roberts asked "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Call me crazy, but it looks like Roberts is now pro-drug. I mean, if he thinks it's unreasonable to have total bans on possessing things, I'm not sure why that wouldn't apply to drugs too.

And in case you thought he misspoke, he asks this shortly afterwards:
So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?

And seeing as how that's an idea he clearly found flawed, it's obvious that he thinks that if it's ok to possess guns, it's ok to possess pot. Or at a minimum, if it's ok to possess Oxycontin, it's ok to possess pot. I mean, a drug's a drug, right? And if the government is going to allow one kind of thing, it's got to allow related things too, right? But I'm joking, of course, as Oxycontin can really fuck you up, while pot just gets you high.


On a separate note, this entirely confirms my idea that Roberts is a "two clever by half" numbskull who would make a much better lawyer than a judge, as he'll say anything in order to advocate his position and really doesn't give a damn how stupid it really is. While someone like Scalia might try to weigh down his rationalizations in historical precedents cherrypicked for his own purposes, Roberts doesn't even bother and gives you the kind of responses that just make you want to smack your head in frustration. You know he's wrong, but it takes so long for the words to form that he imagines he's said something clever, simply because you had to make more effort to debunk his nonsense than he took to say it. And the fact that he really didn't believe anything he said is the best part of his joke on you.