The RAnts of RA

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government can still ban possession of the drug in states that have eliminated sanctions for its use in treating symptoms of illness.

The ruling does not overturn laws in California and 10 other states, mostly in the West, that permit medical use of marijuana. In 2003, Maryland reduced the maximum fine for medical users of less than an ounce of the drug to $100.

But the ruling does mean that those who try to use marijuana as a medical treatment risk legal action by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration or other federal agencies and that the state laws provide no defense, according to an article which ran in the Washington Post.

One has to wonder why so many are dead set against old folks and sick folks smoking a little dubage to alleviate the pain and discomfort of illness. The DEA has actually incarcerated cancer patients and other terminally ill patients for possession of this dastardly weed. What’s all the fuss and why do so many have a stake?

Current healthcare trends have seen costs of medical insurance skyrocket in recent years. Pharmaceutical companies have a huge lobby in Washington D.C., to make certain that natural methods of healing and pain relief remain regulated and out of reach of those who need it most.

If everyone were simply allowed to grow a plant or two, they could just head out to the backyard and pluck a leaf or two, instead of spending big bucks on an office visit and the resulting prescriptions.

Law enforcement agencies would be forced to make drastic cut-backs if marijuana were to become legal, even if it were simply for medicinal purposes. More people are put in jail and in prison for having or using marijuana than for the use of any other substance. Just think of all the prison guards who would be jobless if they stopped locking up grandpa and grandma.

For those of us who have serious illnesses: such as fibromylgia, degenerative disc disease and arthritis; few options remain. We are being held hostage by the medical community. Either we pay the exorbitant prices demanded of prescription drugs and suffer the consequences of taking them, such as: addiction or lifelong dependency, not to mention the fact that taking one drug almost certainly leads to the taking of another, just to deal with the side-effects of the first drug or we face jail time for self-medicating.

This is simply wrong! Changes must be made.

I am certainly not an advocate of universal medical insurance but if an individual in this country is not free to make appropriate medical decisions for themselves, then the burden falls on the government to make certain people aren’t suffering needlessly.

Too many are suffering needlessly today because of lack of affordable medical care and archaic laws, which limit the ability of a free society to properly care for themselves.

Either we are a free nation or we are a nation of slaves and from where I’m sitting freedom looks a long way off.

On May 5, 2005, New York City offered free nicotine patches to the first 45,000 eligible smokers who called their hotline. The NYC Health Department received an $8 Million donation of patches from Pfizer to Help New Yorkers Quit Smoking.

What I have to wonder is why we aren’t seeing a program such as this in every state across the nation? After all the states divided a huge pot of money from the tobacco settlement in 1998, that is expected to net over $246 billion over a 25 year span. That loot is being used primarily for marketing.

In fact,
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids charged that tobacco companies spend $23 to market products for every $1 states spend on tobacco prevention.

The report goes on to say that, "States that have properly funded tobacco prevention programs have produced dramatic declines in tobacco use. Maine reduced smoking by 48 percent among high school students and 59 percent among middle school students between 1997, when it launched its tobacco prevention program, in 2003."

It’s a shame that the tobacco settle funds are being used to market universal preschool programs here in California, instead of being put to good use helping people who want to quit smoking. After all a large percentage of people who smoke also have children in the home. One would think that protecting a child’s health would trump free daycare but not in California.

Perhaps if cigarette taxes didn’t provide such a huge incentive for states, many of whom have become dependent on the revenue, we would see real assistance provided to those so inclined to break the habit.

By: Chad Groening

A conservative military watchdog is pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on whether universities can close their doors to military recruiters without jeopardizing federal education funds.

Justices will review a lower-court ruling that threw out a 1994 law that required law schools to give recruiters full access or lose their federal money. The appeals court said the law infringed on free-speech rights. But Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness says it is the military that is being discriminated against.

"I don’t understand why they feel that they can accept that kind of money, but then not allow military recruiters the same type of access that is allowed to other potential employers on the campus once a year," Donnelly states. "This is a matter of discrimination against the military. It is an anti-military attitude [that] has to do with the military’s sound and constitutional policy regarding homosexuals in the military."

Donnelly explains that she agrees with the Bush administration’s contention that if schools want to ban recruiters, they can simply turn down federal dollars. Still, the CMR president admits she is disturbed by the anti-military vitriol on college campuses today.

"It’s quite alarming," she says. "In Washington State, near Seattle, recruiters were pelted with water bottles and literally driven off the campus in a way that is most disturbing. [It makes] you wonder what these kids are learning in school these days."

Donnelly is hopeful the Supreme Court will follow its tradition of giving deference to the military by throwing out the lower-court ruling and giving recruiters access to students. "[It’s] a legal concept that’s been upheld time and time again," she points out. "I think the schools will be required to comply with federal policy on this matter."

The high court will not hear the case until its next term, which begins in October.

Center for Military Readiness

Join the Christian Underground