cannabisnews.com: EDITORIAL: Whose Life Is It Anyway? 





EDITORIAL: Whose Life Is It Anyway? 
Posted by FoM on October 22, 1999 at 09:03:08 PT
By Adam J. Smith, Associate Director
Source: DRCNet
This week, Governor George Bush indicated that he, like other conservatives, believes in the concept of states' rights. Unlike many of his philosophical brethren, however, Bush, when asked, was unwilling to make an exception when the issue of medical marijuana was brought up. 
Saying that he was opposed to the medicinal use of marijuana, Bush went on to say that the decision should nevertheless be left in the hands of the states. This is a significant policy position, in that under President Clinton and the Republican congress, the federal government has done everything in its power -- and some things that the federal courts have deemed to be beyond its power -- to stop six states and the District of Colombia from implementing the will of their voters on the issue. And there are more statewide medical marijuana initiatives in the pipeline. How refreshing then to find a major party candidate for President who does not believe that the federal government has the right, the duty even, to lay down the law on anything that he or she personally opposes, regardless of the will of the people. Bill Bradley is on record as saying that he doesn't think that current laws should be changed, and Vice President Gore has spent the past two terms as part of the very administration that threatened to prosecute doctors for even mentioning marijuana to their patients. (A federal court has since blocked any such action on First Amendment grounds.) But Bush's statement regarding the states' right to determine their own policies in this area are likely to bring him the greatest amount of grief in his own party and at home. Congressional Republicans have been the most ardent proponents of federal action in opposition to the medical use of marijuana. Last week, in fact, they passed a DC appropriations bill which struck down a medical marijuana initiative that passed in the District by a whopping 69-21%. And that followed a period of nearly ten months during which the results of that vote were kept from the public under a rider attached to last year's appropriations bill by Georgia Republican Bob Barr. The most difficult person for Bush to explain himself to, however, is likely to be his mother, Barbara Bush. The former first lady not only opposes the medicinal use of marijuana, she went so far as to lend her voice to an anti-medical marijuana advertisement which ran in a number of the initiative states, and that is likely to be run again in the final weeks of the medical marijuana campaign going on now in Maine. Apparently, mom doesn't share her son's enthusiasm for local control. George Bush Jr., with his record of advocacy for punitive drug laws in Texas and his fudging on the question of his own past drug use, isn't likely to be anyone's idea of a reform-minded President when it comes to drug policy. But on this issue, he has found the balance and the sanity that has somehow eluded the national elected officials of both major parties as they have struggled to stem the tide of public opinion. Sick and suffering people and their doctors should be allowed to take whatever reasonably safe measures they deem necessary to make life bearable for the patient. Marijuana hasn't killed a single patient in more than 4,000 years of medicinal use. If a relative handful of cancer, AIDS and other patients truly believe that it will help... why make a federal issue out of it? Click the link to read all of DRCNet's Weekly Update News:The Week Online with DRCNet Issue #113http://www.drcnet.org/wol/113.htmlRelated Articles:Bush: Marijuana Laws Up to States - 10/22/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3373.shtmlGeorge W. Bush Backs States' Rights On Marijuana - 10/20/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3355.shtmlLegislation Introduced to Overturn DC Initiative - 10/17/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3319.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on October 23, 1999 at 09:37:58 PT
Sucker bait, get yer sucker bait, right heah!
Look, we know "Junior" is just as two-faced as his Daddy. He has sent hundreds of non-violent people to a fate he has neatly dodged, largely through the intervention of Daddy. What you may not know is this: Just like Daddy, "Junior" has a lot of investments in not just construction (Bechtel, practically a Bush fiefdom, got the main contracts to rebuild Kuwait after the Gulf War) but *pharmaceuticals*. The cognoscenti here might remember a little brouhaha in the late 80's about his Daddy committing a little conflict of interest vis-a-vis interfering in a Gov investigation of Eli Lilly... of which Daddy was a heavy investor if not an actual board member. Does anyone here honestly believe that he is going to shoot himself in the foot by okaying MMJ when Lilly is trying to market its' own version of Marinol? If you do, I'd like to sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona; cash please, no checks.There had been warnings about Billy Boy and how corrupt he was; some of those stories actually got to press before he was elected. But few people believed them... and some of the poor b------- who voted for him are languishing in prisons, the result of his increased War on (Some) Drugs. (Query: why was the first White House doctor who was to treat Billy Boy fired? Answer: Because he had asked about Clinton's medical history. *The man has never taken the urine tests that are demanded of every person privy to classified information.* Perhaps because he couldn't have passed one to save his life?) Junior is just another political snake in the grass, waiting, waiting until after the election is over, and then he'll show his true colors. But at least we can hear the s.o.b hissing.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Tim Stone on October 22, 1999 at 15:43:18 PT
Getting snookered
I can't believe how some usually suspicious and skeptical drug policy reformers are fawning over Shrubya's apparent quasi-endorsement of "state's rights" as an endorsement of medpot. By being for "state's rights," Bush doesn't threaten his core conservative base. And he has overtly come out against medpot. Yet some reformers - who should know better - see his recent statement as some endorsement of medpot that Bush might actually follow through on were he elected. Horsehockey. If Bush is elected, he - via the people who run him - will be a more ardent drug warrior than Clinton and will repudiate and attempt to kill the medpot movement in a heartbeat. In his recent statement, he's just stolen a page from Clinton's playbook and is trying to be an all-things-for-all-people seeming moderate. The only reason Bush made the statement about state's rights is because it is operationally meaningless, yet sounds soothing and conforting. It's a classic bait-and-switch con. Bait the public to support him as a "reasonable moderate," then switch to right wing mode when he's in office. Beware of Dubyas bearing gifts, oh ye policy reformers!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by libertarian on October 22, 1999 at 09:38:52 PT
Bush Babies in the Briar Patch
Maybe this is just another reason not to trust this liar. Interesting story, but I wonder if it's true.
Bush Babies in the Briar Patch
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sledhead on October 22, 1999 at 09:31:23 PT
I guess he didn't inhale either
Just as Clinton played to the MTV crowd with his marijuana BS, G-Dub is playing the same game. If elected, he'll expand the "WAR" to unprecedented levels. Neither major political party should ever be trusted with this issue. While playing to the masses, these slimeballs will say anything, but the "Anti-Drug Cartels" control them. We've got the best government money can buy & don't ever forget it.Sledhead 
Drug Testing Clearinghouse
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: