-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.38/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.38/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 38</A> ----- Laissez Faire City Times September 27, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 38 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Shepherd for the Sheeple by Sunni Maravillosa Many individuals understand the analogy of the state being a protective shepherd of its citizens. Indeed, many well-intentioned people think this is an acceptable activity for the state to engage in. Those who value liberty more than security are apt to think otherwise, however, and with good reason. The United States’ federal government is an excellent example of the inevitable outcome of good intentions coupled with state control. In its never-ending bid to protect us from ourselves, the number of laws that control what a citizen can and cannot do, or that mandate paperwork, fees, waiting periods, and other life-draining measures has grown exponentially. That trend has continued at the state and local levels as well. The result is, many legal experts have opined, a tangle of regulations that make it virtually impossible for anyone to conduct business and be in full compliance with all relevant laws. In the United States, however, the law is only one aspect of the way the US government shepherds its flock. Agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Drug Enforcement Agency are charged with creating and enforcing national policy in their various areas of jurisdiction, all with the lofty goal of "the good of the people" in mind. Since such agencies are paid for by the state (never mind that the real payee is the taxpayer—the bureaucrats conveniently overlook this fact routinely) and are dependent upon the state for their continued existence, which "good" do you think will be served when the good of the people and the good of the state are at cross purposes? The War on (some) Drugs is a classic example of disastrous public policy that is touted as being "for the good of the people." Begun as nothing more than racism focused on some minorities’ choices of mind-altering substances (primarily the Chinese and their use of heroin), it is today an enormous sinkhole of resources—including human lives ( http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.35/daniel.html). It is extremely irrational that highly addictive nicotine is so readily available, yet less addictive morphine and heroin are not. It is illogical that alcohol—responsible for millions of dollars of damage, and many deaths annually—is legal to adults above a minimum age, yet marijuana—fairly widely used, yet without similar costs in its wake—is not. In fact, it’s particularly egregious that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance (no recognized medical use), because the evidence is increasingly supportive of a wide variety of beneficial uses for it. Among these include: reducing the intraocular pressure that threatens the vision of individuals with glaucoma; pain relief for some chronic pain conditions; nausea relief; stimulating the appetite; and anxiety reduction for certain conditions. As individuals become aware of these uses for marijuana, and the relatively low risks associated with its use, support for medical marijuana (MMJ) has grown. Voters in several states, including California, Arizona, and Oregon have passed laws legalizing MMJ use with a physician’s approval. Washington DC’s MMJ ba llot result was suppressed for months because the powers-that-be couldn’t decide how to handle the issue; now that they’ve been announced—surprise, surprise—the result has been declared "moot". (That should be sufficient to wake up anyone who still believes the civics-lesson crap about voting actually making a difference.) Yet, like hungry dogs guarding their bones, agencies involved in the War on (some) Drugs continue the press against marijuana use. In the states where MMJ use is now legal, the DEA—without so much as a blink—has continued its rabid hounding of MMJ users. Part of this activity seems driven by DEA boss Barry McCaffrey, who gives all the appearance of a zealot in his tireless crusade against "the evil weed." As a result, critically ill people have endured the feds’ best drug raid tactics—as if someone taking chemotherapy would be able to wrestle a team of the boys in blue to the ground with her or his bare hands. Such actions make it clear that in this case, the good of the people is far from uppermost in the DEA’s decision-making. Interestingly enough, a recent decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court will help shed some light on the state’s motivations in the matter. According to a September 20 Los Angeles Times story (http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000084324.html), the three-judge panel has ruled that marijuana is "legal for the seriously ill". The ruling, which came in response to an appeal involving marijuana clubs, said in part that a lower court erred in not allowing club operators to use "medical necessity" arguments as part of their defense. The decision also stated, "The government . . . has yet to identify any interest it may have in blocking the distribution of cannabis to those with medical needs." One of the first tests of this ruling will come from well-known author and longtime MMJ advocate Peter McWilliams, who has cancer and AIDS. (See his web site, http://www.mcwilliams.com, for background on his case.) Accused by the DEA of being the "money man" for a large marijuana cultivation project, McWilliams was arrested and jailed on charges of conspiracy to grow marijuana. McWilliams believes, along with others who have followed his activism, that he has been targeted by Barry McCaffrey as a result of his public criticism of the DEA chief. Among the conditions of McWilliams’ bond is that he not smoke marijuana, and that random urine tests check for his compliance. As a result, his viral load—an index of the HIV virus’ activity in his body—has soared, and his health is at correspondingly greater risk. McWilliams’ attorney, Thomas Ballanco, has repeatedly appealed to the court, asking that those terms of bail be reconsidered, for the sake of his client’s health. The court has refused, saying that it cannot authorize someone to break the law. Ballanco has stated that he will use the appellate court’s ruling as a basis for another request for McWilliams to be allowed to use MMJ, the only thing which has kept his nausea at bay in the past, and allowed him to keep his life-saving medications down. The request will bring up several interesting issues. One is the discrepancy between federal law and California law, which has made marijuana use legal in certain circumstances. So far the tenth amendment has been trampled upon by the DEA and other federal agencies in this area, but with the ruling coming from a federal appellate court, a change may be astir. Another is the prosecution’s claim that the ruling doesn’t apply to McWilliams, whose situation is not that of being part of a cannabis club, but that of a marijuana cultivation financier. This position neatly sidesteps the fundamental issue, which is the right of someone with a medical need to choose to use MMJ. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on that argument. And of course, the larger issue of what is good for Peter McWilliams as compared to the federal government’s war on drugs will be addressed yet again. In a delicious twist of irony, how the judge rules will probably matter little. If he chooses to parrot his previous "can’t-help-someone-break-the-law" decisions, the same three-judge panel which gave the pro-MMJ decision is the court to which Ballanco will appeal. One would think that given the opportunity, the panel will clarify their intent by ruling similarly to their existing finding in McWilliams’ case. That seems unlikely to happen, however, given the distaste judges have for being overruled. Of course, the real test continues to be McWilliams’ case, and others like it pending in California. While the federal government does have an interest in blocking access to MMJ by those with medical needs, it’s not the one they claim to be fighting for, and it would be a very surprising turn if the truth were admitted. Could it be that, given the current meddling of the state in almost everyone’s life, especially in the areas of health care and insurance, it is in the state’s interest that those whose medical needs are greatest (and the most expensive) die sooner rather than later? Like any good shepherd would say, if some of the sheep are "beyond help" they should not continue to use valuable resources. Medical marijuana appears to enable those who are beyond help, long term, to meaningfully extend their lives; that means that they will probably be more of a drain in the state’s eyes. Or could it be that this shepherd isn’t really concerned with the well-being of the flock at all? Could it be that it simply craves power over its herd? What the MMJ battles ultimately come down to is the preference of the state for dominance, and a healthy herd at least cost furthers that goal. The demonstrated good that MMJ brings to cancer patients, AIDS patients, and others with chronic health problems is inimical to that purpose. No one will admit that directly, but it is worth keeping in mind as the cases play out in court. Invoking "for the good of the people" is a ploy that allows the shepherd to control his flock while continuing to harm many of them, all the while keeping most of the sheeple with the wool pulled over their eyes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunni Maravillosa is a psychologist and web mistress for the Liberty Round Table (URL http://home.lrt.org/ ). -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 38, September 27, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
