Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Mary Jane, Again

What are we so scared of, Bush? A weed, whose medicinal properties have been known to man for thousands of years? It’s beyond belief, to me, that six out of nine Supreme Court justices of the United States should deny, in their wisdom, even the right of states to institute and honor their own laws regarding the medical use of cannabis. The federal laws prevail. No matter that states have passed legislation recognizing the right of their citizens to grow and use marijuana in order to ease the pain of cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, AIDS… federal agents are now empowered to march into the homes of the sick and suffering and cart them off to jail. Prosecutors may indict and try them for their transgressions, and judges may impose strict sentences.

So what are we afraid of? Who are we protecting, with our senseless and draconian federal laws? Our young? As I understand it, they already have absurdly easy access to drugs that are far more harmful in their effects than good old Mary Jane. Are we protecting those who claim to experience significant relief from pain? Are we to understand that the negative effects of cannabis are worse for them than the pain they are called upon to bear without it? I heard one pompous “expert” pontificating about the possibly harmful effects of smoke! As though a terminal cancer patient was to be protected at all costs from the evils of inhalation!

Here’s my intuition, Bush: we’re all scared to death of being out of control. That is, of being out of control ourselves, and of anyone else being out of control around us. We’re scared of states of consciousness other than the one we already know and approve—the one we like to call “reality”. So we tighten our controls—or at least our attempt to keep things under control—and by doing so deprive ourselves of the opportunity to acquire knowledge and wisdom beyond the familiar, beyond the already known.

It’s sad, in my view, that we can’t even trust the experience of those who have found relief from pain. We dismiss their first-hand reports as “anecdotal,” and because we lack “scientific evidence” either way—the necessary research would be illegal!—we substitute our ignorance for the knowledge of these victims of disease, and deprive them of the one thing that they know will bring relief. Shame on those Supreme Court justices; and shame on those who were so convinced of their own moral rectitude and so eager to prosecute the sick and dying that they felt obliged to pursue this case to its bitter conclusion.

I'm afraid it's another case, Bush, of a bunch of ancient, uptight, upright, short-sighted, unimaginative white guys (of all ages and sexes) deciding what's best for the rest of us and imposing their self-righteous will.

No comments: