I have long suspected that the marriage of convenience between religious-right and nanny-state conservatives must inevitably end in a messy divorce.
Other than a desire to achieve political power in order to compel the rest of us to follow their vision (by force, if necessary), these two groups actually have no more in common than say, for instance, environmentalists and feminists — strange bedfellows from the other wing of the bird.
Now, it appears the catalyst for the final breakup may have arrived on the scene in the person of Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
Right to Life, the Roman Catholic Church and their fellow travelers are well aware of the fact that their successful campaign to defeat Proposal B last month (which would have permitted physician-assisted suicide under strictly regulated conditions) is ultimately only a holding action.
The scare tactics about granny being brow-beaten into submission by greedy heirs — and, ironically, the appeal to libertarian objections to the intrusiveness of the proposed new bureaucracy — will finally give way to the sensible notion that human beings are entitled to at least the same level of compassion society has for its suffering pets.
Dr. Kevorkian made this point rather forcefully a few weeks ago on network television.
That’s why some of the Citizens for Compassionate Care who fought Proposal B are now calling for a significant overhaul of state laws regarding pain management.
This, of course, means adopting a new attitude about and approach to the use of drugs — the ultimate bugaboo of their allies of convenience in the conservative movement.
Now there is little dispute in the scientific community that the most efficacious treatment for intractable pain would be the refined version of morphine, the best drug currently available.
Not surprisingly, the more potent form provides better pain relief at lower doses and with less side-effects. Indeed, this drug was originally developed more than a century ago for precisely those reasons. Prior to being made completely illegal, it was marketed in the United States by the Bayer company under the trade name: Heroin.
We can probably gauge the reaction of the nanny-state conservatives to a proposal to make heroin available for medical use by their response to similar recent proposals with regard to marijuana — a drug so mild that there has never been so much a single recorded instance of a fatal overdose.
In 1996 medical marijuana proposals appeared on ballots in California and Arizona. They passed in both states.
The feds promptly went ballistic. A furious federal “Drug Czar” McCaffrey, flatly repudiating conservative’s erstwhile 10th Amendment arguments about the right of states to make their own laws, threatened to pull the prescription writing privileges of any doctor who dared recommend marijuana to a patient. (That drug has long been recognized as effectively ameliorating the side effects of cancer and AIDS treatments, as well as relieving the symptoms of glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and certain other chronic maladies.)
This year similar measures appeared on ballots in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia. In addition, the legislature in Arizona put a referendum on the ballot asking its citizens if they didn’t want to reconsider their 1996 vote.
The results were that medical marijuana passed in all four additional states. Further, the good citizens of Arizona said, no, they were not interested in rescinding the approval they had previously given for medically-indicated marijuana.
As for the vote in D.C., the results remain unknown. It seems that Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) managed to insert a provision in the District’s budget authorization bill last October prohibiting the local government from expending any funds whatever on any vote for any measure that would reduce the penalties for marijuana possession. Too late to amend the already printed ballots, the vote went ahead. The election results were simply not tabulated.
The American Civil Liberties Union promptly filed a lawsuit demanding that the results be released under the federal Freedom of Information Act, further charging that the budget measure attempting to prohibit the vote was n any case a “viewpoint-based restriction” in violation of the 1st Amendment.
The Libertarian Party filed an Amicus brief and joined the complaint which was heard by U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts on December 18th. A ruling is expected by year’s end.
Whatever the outcome, one thing recent events have made manifest is that the drug jihad hysteria of the nanny-state conservatives has reached truly astonishing proportions. They not only no longer care about the wishes of the people. They refuse to even recognize that in a democratic system the citizens have a right to make their wishes known.
Of course, the religious-right zealots who want to stop Dr. Kevorkian at all costs are a pretty determined bunch themselves.
It’s definitely going to be a messy divorce.
* * *
More on the War on Drugs:
- Going around politicians to help sick people
- Drug war casualties
- Prohibition — No nobler the 2nd time around
- Yet another “Worst Drug Ever”
- Drug Wars
