| June 10, 2005 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig It’s been a hazy week here at Insurgent Headquarters. The US Supreme Court, that holiest of holy legal bodies where men (and two women) sit high on their thrones and decide the fate of the rest of us plebes, has seen fit to deny cancer and AIDS patients access to legal medical marijuana in ten states, including Alaska. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court landed a knockout punch to defenders of state’s rights and Pink Floyd fans everywhere with their conclusion that federal anti-drug policy trumps compassion concerning the sticky icky. But is this really about marijuana? Is it really about restricting access to legal weed for terminally ill patients? You don’t have to be a ‘Reefer Madness’ alarmist or a consummate couch-entrenched pothead to figure out that it isn’t. It’s about power. On Monday, Bush Administration drug lackey John Walters boldly stated that, “ ... today’s decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue.” Is that so, John? Are cancer patients so weakened by their terrible disease that they lack the strength to go find a cheap eighth bag from their friendly neighborhood drug dealer? Does this monumental court decision spell the end of marijuana use for everyone? Will the Fed’s new powers make their strict policy of locking up all the stoners as successful as Prohibition? Of course not. Sick folks who depend on marijuana to restore their appetites and ease their suffering will still be able to acquire the stuff, albeit at the minor risk of violating an almost unenforceable law. And the Dazed & Confused set can comfortably keep truckin’ along with their PlayStations and glass bongs packed with fresh buds (they were never really concerned about medical marijuana, anyway). The ones who really get hurt by this latest expansion of federal power are the rest of us. Like stem cell research and Terri Schiavo before it, this is just the latest salvo in a relentless attempt by the Bush zombies to swipe power from the states in the name of high-minded Christian morality. How Christian, by the way, to deny cancer and AIDS patients shelter from the storm of their brutally debilitating diseases. The bad news is that it seems to be working. The Bible Belt, which is growing in direct proportion to America’s fat underbelly, is thrilled at the prospect of criminalizing further a drug whose most sinister side effect is a case of the munchies. And legions of drug-hunting federal stormtroopers across the country are relieved by this new level of job security. The good news is that this fight is not over. House Bill 2087, sponsored by 37 Congress members of all political stripes, is presently making its way through Congressional channels. It states that: “No provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict ... an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use by such individual.” Sounds like good policy. So what’s up, libertarian Alaska? Not only are we one of the states who, until last Monday, had legal medical marijuana, but we have come the closest of any state to outright legalization of the stuff. Let’s get behind HR 2087, not only to help our sick and dying, but to make it perfectly clear to the federal government (again) that we don’t like them messing around in our private affairs. Let’s start with Uncle Ted and Lisa. They love emails and phone calls. Let them know that polls show that 80% of Americans who don’t sit on the Supreme Court support medical marijuana. Let them know Alaskans support HR 2087 and are sick of men (and two women) in long black robes deciding what’s best for the rest of us. Regards, Aaron Selbig Editor, Insurgent Media AK |
-
Columnists -
- related items -
http://stevens.senate.gov/ Uncle Ted's email http://murkowski.senate.gov/ Lisa's email http://capwiz.com/norml2/ issues/bills/?bill=7623626 info on HR 2087 - column archive - June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||
