By "reflexive", I mean that someone in the government sees what they feel is an ill in society, such as gambling, and they decide to try to use a law to cure the ill. They are, the vast majority of the time, responding to individual problems as they come.
I won't contradict this point, to a point. There are politicians who aren't rich and who aren't part of the cabal-at-large that leads the parties and their agendas. Some genuinely (albiet stupidly) believe that laws can cure social ills. While this only adds to the ability of government to restrict individual action, they aren't consciously trying for that affect - oh wait, they actually are, it's just that their motivations for doing so are "better." I suppose I can applaud them for doing exactly the same thing as assholes like Kennedy, Bush, Hillary, Pelosi, Lott, etc, but doing so with "good" intentions.
You also seem to have the idea that politicians act as some sort of unified force.
They're called political parties.
People very rarely work together, and very rarely make palns.
I don't really know what to say. I mean, as far as the big time decisions go, it's all down to the two political parties, their leadership cabal, and the agenda each of the two is trying to push. So yes, they do make plans, they do it all the time, and they are quite unified.
It defies common sense.
I never said it didn't. I never said the stupidity of government action made any sense at all.
Not to mention you have instances like California passing a medical marijuanna law.
This is actually a good point. I do indeed see where the confusion may stem from; individual states and local governments (even though they have their own set of problems) are not really the primary problem, and perhaps I didn't specify. States are supposed to be "laboratories of democracy", where the people of a state can choose their way of governance, and are free to continue or discontinue it as they see fit. Other states, seeing the results, are free to attempt the same thing or steer clear of it if the results are negative. The federal overbearance we are seeing (and which is that "primary" problem I talked about) prevents this from having the intended benefit. In the instance you provided, even though California may pass medical marijuana bills, it is still illegal federally, and there are numerous examples (some of which I have expounded on in the past) of people who are given permission and legally use, grow or distribute to patients medical marijuana, under the authority of the state of California and the city they live in, yet are still stormed upon by federal stormtroopers and imprisoned for doing what they were under the impression was a legal, state-authorized activity. I know that I get riled up and make generalities about government, but it's really federalism and the rise of federal power (as well as those that wield it - primarily the big-money politicians in the big positions) that's the problem.
Also, do you have any sort of evidence of a unified agenda to usurp power
Political parties. There are only two of them, and they frequently collude to infringe upon the rights of individuals and states.
One other thing I've been wondering about. We have an administration that is trying to do away with habeas corpus, that has already eviscerated the right for a warrent and for due process, that is trying to destroy the wall between church and state. There are such huge and earth-shaking constitutional infringements that could forever damage our country and rule of law, yet you get most excited about smoking and gambling bans. Why such small fish when we have huge man-eating sharks out there?
Every battle to ensure the rights of man is a battle worth fighting.