Guest Editorial Suggests That We Stop Spending Taxpayer Money to Harass Medical Patients in Chronic Pain
Time for Congress to Get Real
Several states have passed "medical marijuana" laws. But the federal government continues to spend money, not on protecting citizens or taking profits out of drug smuggling, but on harassing individuals who have been specifically authorized by their state governments to use marijuana for chronic pain relief under a doctor's supervision. Is this harassment a high priority for you? Should federal taxpayers be forced to spend money to attack these medical patients and state taxpayers forced to spend money to defend them? Doesn't this look pretty stupid, especially since medical patients facing chronic pain are not high on the list of dangers to American civilization?
Here's a statement from our friends at drcnet.org
by David BordenTwo pieces of news last week serve to highlight the extraordinary stupidity inherent in aspects of US anti-drug policy:
I'm not in a position to evaluate the Bin Laden claim, but it is certainly possible. So why would Congress vote down the Hinchey amendment? If they're serious about protecting the nation, they should be shifting as many of their agents to that task as they possibly can. As drug reform elder statesman Arnold Trebach pointed out in an interview last month, "It is absolutely obscene to think we are wasting one second of law enforcement time on drugs" while there are dangerous people in the world who are determined to kill Americans on our own soil and who have a track record for doing so.
- On Wednesday, the House of Representatives rejected, for a second time, an amendment originally offered last year by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that would have forbid the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using its resources to undermine state medical marijuana laws.
- On Thursday, the Bush administration announced that Bin Laden is organizing to attack the United States again, this year.
Not that all conventional law enforcement can be scrapped, of course. But the drug fight was lost before it began. Seventy-three years ago this Tuesday, governments of the world convened the "Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs," purportedly attempting to stop the non-medical use and abuse of drugs through global prohibition. Yet three score and thirteen years later, estimates for the annual flow of money through the illicit global drug trade range from $150-$400 billion per year.
Those who allow themselves to think outside the box on this issue understand that these vast funds fuel the criminal underground because of prohibition, not in spite of it or for lack of enough of it. How much crime and violence, how much disorder, how much corruption flows from this warping of the global economy? Though the government's "drugs fund terrorism" ads are fundamentally flawed, they do point to a scary truth: The unregulated profits generated by drug prohibition provide an easy source of revenue for terrorist organizations, some experts think perhaps as much as a third of their money -- another reason that the terrorism problem cries out for a move to some form of legalization of drugs as one part of a strategy to address it.
How much more extremely do these reasons apply to medical marijuana patients and their providers, in states that consider medical marijuana legal under their own laws no less? And with at least one court just one step under the Supreme Court's level, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, considering federal prohibition of medical marijuana to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal?
Such concerns didn't stop DOJ from sending numerous personnel to raid one of California's well-known medical marijuana coops less than two weeks after September 11th. Nice timing! Congress did nothing to address that bizarre and offensive misallocation of resources. So it's not surprising, even in the face of overwhelming public support for medical marijuana, that they would again opt to allow the feds to waste resources attacking sick people who need to use it and disrupting their supply systems.
Any member of Congress who voted against the Hinchey amendment must not be truly serious about security or public safety -- or the Constitution.
David Borden is Executive Director at drcnet.org
To find out how your Congressperson voted on the Hinchey amendment, visit: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/345/thankorspank.shtml
Email this article Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email
Tell your opinions to The Progress Report's readers:
Page One Page Two Archive Discussion Room Letters What's Geoism?