Criminalizing cancer and AIDS patients for using a substance that is (a) prescribed by their doctors and (b) legal under the laws of their state has always been abominable. The Obama administration deserves major credit not only for ceasing this practice, but for memorializing it formally in writing. Just as is true for Jim Webb's brave crusade to radically revise the nation's criminal justice and drug laws, there is little political gain -- and some political risk -- in adopting a policy that can be depicted as "soft on drugs" or even "pro-marijuana." It's a change that has concrete benefits for many people who are sick and for those who provide them with treatments that benefit them. So credit where it's due to the Obama DOJ, for fulfilling a long-standing commitment on this issue.Painting this issue as a states' rights issue neatly disarms the GOP as well. I'd like to see what the tenthers like Texas Gov. Rick Perry have to say about this, personally. I'm betting that Perry's going to find himself having a pretty small eye of a needle to thread on this one.Beyond the tangible benefits to patients and providers, there is the issue of states' right. Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana, many by referendum. The Bush administration's refusal to honor or even recognize those states' decisions -- by arresting people for doing things which are perfectly legal under state law -- was one of many examples giving the lie to the conservative movement's alleged belief in federalism and limited federal power (see here, for instance, how John Ashcroft and GOP Senators tried deceitfully and undemocratically to exploit the aftermath of 9/11 to prevent Oregon from implementing its assisted suicide law). Constitutionally and otherwise, what possible justification is there for federalizing decisions about whether individuals can use marijuana for medical purposes? Ironically (given the "socialism" and "fascism" rhetoric spewed at it by the Fox News faction), the Obama administration's decision is a major advancement for the rights of states to have their laws respected by the federal government.
My personal observations on the War of Drugs are that it's a great way to criminalize large portions of the populace. Yeah, there are problems out there with drugs and violence, you have only to look at any newspaper for that, but there are plenty of people in America's prisons who really shouldn't be there.
Politics makes strange smoking buddies, however.
Posts
1 comment:
Here's my thinking when I read this story: why is it that people get so heated about the rate of progress under Obama for same-sex couple's rights when he, for now, is letting states lead the charge (point in case, Maine) but then are quick to turn around and pat him on the back for empowering the states to undertake their more liberal drug policies outside of the federal government's perview?
For me the pace with which he is approaching these two similar issues (legalizing a relatively benign drug and a benign legal recognition) is right on track with how he campaigned on them. First make sure to limit the negative effects of current legislation while still following the law as it stands. Second, open the door to willingness to take on the issue. Third, addressing difficult, high risk, high reward topics (health care0 that build up his political capital while the nation continues to grow more used to the idea of same-sex couples and the idea that a "war on drugs" is stupid and unwinnable. Movement at the state level, and his own achievements in office help to propel the next step which is to convince our very conservative national bodies (Congress and the Pentagon) to acquiesce to the will of the people.
Of course, all of that assumes that things are happening behind the scenes, and the state driven action is just the groundwork for the President to introduce national action.
Post a Comment