The Aftermath

It seems that every night on the news we hear of someone shot to death. I wonder, after what my family has experienced the last two weeks, if anyone understands the aftermath.

Two weeks ago we had a tragedy in our family. My ex-husband and father to our three children committed suicide in the backyard of the home he shared with our disabled daughter and her two young children. He used a shotgun. My daughter found him. The word “tragedy” does not go far enough in describing this horror.

But what happens after the fact? I think the news stations should do an in-depth story on the aftermath. It’s not enough to tell the viewing public that someone has been shot or that someone committed suicide. They need to hear about the horror that follows. Reporting a gunshot death has become so mundane that we don’t even hear it anymore. It (sadly) takes a madman and the shooting of a young person and a politician to gain our attention nowadays.

Four and a half hours of questioning, pictures, fire, police, medical examiners, detectives and crisis teams kept my daughter with Crohn’s disease and her two young children trapped in the home where this happened. When they finally took his body away, we were told that a company licensed to do biohazard cleanup had to be contacted as soon as possible. We were told that the renter’s insurance would pay for it - after deductibles. We called the Farmer’s agent first thing the next morning. It took another 48 hours before we found out that the renter’s insurance was denying the claim and we needed to contact the homeowners. Nine days later, after a pissing match between the two insurance companies, the homeowner finally paid for the cleanup - out of pocket. That was nine days that my daughter and her children could not go out into their yard. That was nine days of blood, bone and brain matter baking in mid-seventies heat. And after the cleanup finally happened? Imagine the horror when my son decided to cut down the bushes (that we thought had been thoroughly cleaned) only to find that he was covered with his father’s remains. Imagine the horror of seeing spots of blood still left behind on the block fence ten feet from where this happened. That any of us even had to deal with any of this is incomprehensible. The cold and uncaring manner with which we were treated is unfathomable. My daughter ended up in the emergency room the day after we found out that the renters insurance was denying the claim. With Crohn’s, stress is the main catalyst for a flare. She was exhibiting all of the signs of PTSD along with the severe effects of her disease. How does a 28 year-old disabled single mother of two go on with her life after an event like this? The tragedy of losing her father in such a horrific manner is bad enough, but she is left to try to figure out how she will survive financially, where she will live, how she will manage to take care of her children and on and on and on.

The estimator from the cleanup company told us that in 30 years of doing this he had NEVER heard of a renter’s insurance denying a claim like this one. This was the insurance company that my ex-husband had used for auto, homeowners (and later) rental insurance from the age of 16 to the age of 60. And one of the main reasons for his suicide was the physical pain that he was in after being struck by an uninsured motorist while riding his bike. This same insurance company refused to cover anything but basic treatment.

There is a story here. Whether it’s a story about the after-effects of a shooting, the horrors of suicide, or the complete disdain that insurance companies have for their customers, there is a story. If your viewers were aware of the aftermath of a shooting, maybe it will make one person think twice about using a gun. Sometimes we need to be shocked and horrified before we think beyond the mundane reports that are all too common on the nightly news. Although I know that my ex-husband was not in his right mind when he decided that this was the answer to his problems, I honestly feel that if he had seen a report on the horrors that follow an event such as this, maybe he would have thought twice about doing this. Maybe not, but it certainly seems worth reporting.

A Political Parable

A parable is defined as a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth or moral lesson.  Today I've decided to write a nice little parable.

There is a woman.  Let's call her Billie.  Billie works hard, saves money and is quite successful.  After years of working and saving and success, she ends up with a nest egg of a million dollars.  

Billie meets an out-going, gregarious man who is the kind of guy you'd just like to sit down and have a beer with. Let's call him Georgie.  They marry.  Now that Georgie has access to Billie's savings, he traipses on down to the neighborhood bank and borrows a fist-load of money, using his wife's nest egg as collateral.  What is Georgie going to do with all of that borrowed money?  

Good old Georgie hands the money out to his friends of course - after all, they are the people that introduced him to the rich woman - he figures he owe's them, right?  There's more than enough to go around.  The guys have a great time with the money.  They do a guys weekend to Vegas.  They buy cars, boats, motorcycles, toys, toys and more toys, all kinds of useless, unneeded stuff.  


A short time later Georgie realizes that his friends have blown through their windfall.  Since he's such a great guy, he runs on down to the neighborhood bank and borrows even more.  Once again, he hands it out to all of his buddies.  Several years pass and he suddenly comes to the realization that he's spent his wife's entire fortune.  The cost of making payments on the loans, with accrued interest, have bankrupted the couple.  Not only is there nothing left, there's a mountain of debt.

What does Georgiie do?  He walks.  Hey, he's put in his time.  It's not his problem any more.  Let someone else figure out how to solve the problem.  It was fun while it lasted!

A couple of years later a friend of Billie's runs into Georgie and scolds him for his irresponsible spending.  What is Georgie's response?  "Oh come on!  I'm not even involved anymore," Georgie whines.  "If she can't dig out from under the debt, that's not my fault is it?  Let's just hope the bank doesn't agree to lend her even more.  Can you imagine how she'd spend that?  She'd probably just use it to pay for my fun."

Sound familiar?

Women in Politics

Our nation has a long and storied history of women in politics.  Women like Shirley Chisholm, Frances Perkins, Bella Abzug and Elizabeth Dole paved the way for our daughters and granddaughters. 

Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman elected to Congress and was a tireless advocate and activist for women’s and civil rights.  Frances Perkins was literally the woman behind the man.  She was one of the foremost defenders of worker’s rights and the first woman to be appointed to the U. S. Cabinet as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Secretary of Labor.  Most credit her as the driving force behind the New Deal.  Bella Abzug was an outspoken rabble-rouser from the Bronx, identifiable by her big hats.  She was a Civil rights lawyer and peace activist before running for Congress in 1970. Her six years as a representative demonstrated her dedication to social justice issues, and she co-authored additions to the Freedom of Information Act and the Right to Privacy Act.  Elizabeth Dole was a graduate of Duke University and Harvard Law School who served as Secretary of Transportation under Ronald Reagan and Secretary of Labor under George H.W. Bush before becoming head of the American Red Cross.

There is Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Lydia Chapin Taft, Patricia Harris, Geraldine Ferraro – all of whom brought honor and respect to the role of women in politics.  You may not agree with their politics, but you can agree with the fact that their strength and intelligence made a huge impact on the importance of women in government and in the representation of the “fairer sex”.  As a mother and a grandmother I thank them for being exceptional role models for generations of women to come. 

Because of the admirable nature of the aforementioned, I am puzzled and saddened by a new crop of women in politics.  These new women show an insufficient knowledge of history, a miniscule understanding of The Constitution and a sparse, woeful attribute for leadership. 

I’m fairly certain that Sarah Palin is a lovely person and a dedicated wife and mother.  But to elevate her to such a level of adulation, with her limited abilities, is bewildering.  I am sure that Ms. Palin did a modestly reasonable job as Governor (while it lasted).  But I thank the good Lord she did not become our Vice President.  Ms. Palin’s good looks prove her worthy of her beauty-queen accolades.  But ask Abraham Lincoln if looks are tantamount to governance.  Thin-skinned and defensive, she lashes out at anyone who dares question her ethics, beliefs or lack of knowledge.  If President Obama had the same proclivities, we would have seen a firestorm each day for the last two and a half years coming out of the White House. 

I’m equally sure that Michele Bachmann is a lovely woman and a dedicated wife and mother.  But the same can be said for my next door neighbor.  Unfortunately, it does not make her any more capable of leadership than it does Ms. Bachmann.  She, like Sarah Palin, seems to hold a large majority of the American people in contempt.  It’s a barely disguised contempt that rears its ugly head when she speaks on the state of our economy, on religion in this country, on patriotism or on any of a multitude of other topics.  Any woman that believes that a wife should be subservient to her husband is not my idea of Presidential leadership material.  One thing I can say about Ms. Bachmann – she has Choots-pa! 

I worry that in this day and age of “Housewives” and “Mean Girls” and Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears and Lindsay Lohan and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman that my daughter and granddaughter will grow up without the kind of strong role models that we were fortunate enough to be blessed with in my generation - the kind of role models that stood up for, and changed, the role of women in government.  There is no place for the petty and the vindictive in the annals of great American women.   It’s past time for recognition of the truly great women in the political arena today.  I will begin with just a few – Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Amy Klobuchar, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano and Christine Todd Whitman.  Let us hope that our daughters and granddaughters recognize the qualities of the best among us and follow their lead.  

Taxes are Dues...Pay Up!

I’m fairly certain the most (if not all) of our Nation’s millionaires, billionaires and CEO’s belong to exclusive country clubs.  To be a member they must pay dues.  They must pay a very large sum to belong to this exclusive gathering of other millionaires, billionaires and CEO’s.  Isn’t that right?  Once they pay these dues, they are privy to the exclusive benefits – private golf courses, private tennis courts, private dining facilities, etc. etc. etc. 

The United States pays for highways, schools, firemen, police, food safety, transportation safety, clean air, Social Security, Medicare, defense, and on and on and on.  We pay “dues” for these public privileges by way of taxes.

So, it begs the question, “If billionaires don’t mind paying dues for COUNTRY CLUB benefits, why don't they want to pay dues for COUNTRY benefits?" Taxes ARE dues - pay up!  How can it be that I paid more in taxes last year than General Electric or Exxon or Bank of America or Chevron or Boeing or Bolero Energy or Goldman Sachs or CitiGroup or ConocoPhillips or Carnival Cruise Lines?  How can it be that those 10 mega-corporations in fact paid NO taxes?  Well, despite billions and billions in profits, they paid no taxes thanks to tax breaks and loopholes. 

Tax breaks and loopholes are the two targeted items that the Democrats are proposing to reduce or eliminate to put our fiscal house in order.  Republicans are saying, “No way!”  In fact, as Vice President Biden was attempting to negotiate, the Republicans walked out the door rather than even discuss this option.  Now, the Republicans are threatening default rather than raising taxes on the wealthiest among us.

Some facts:

*Taxes are at their lowest point in 60 years.  That’s a fact. 

*During times of war, taxes have increased.  That’s a fact (well, until George W. Bush that is…)

*To build a business, one must spend money.  That is a fact that any first-year business student  learns.

*To build a business, one must have capital (more first-year business course basics)

*To increase profits, a business must increase revenue and reduce cost.

Right now in our Nation’s Capitol, the Republicans and Democrats are fighting over what the rest of us know to be basic facts.  We need to raise taxes (capital) and reduce costs (waste and redundancy).  We must raise the debt ceiling – just like we did 19 times under Reagan and 7 times under Bush – or the United States of America will be in default.  Default!  Default is defined as a failure to pay an obligation or repay a loan.

What happens to average Americans if they fail to repay an obligation or a loan?  Foreclosure, repossession, bankruptcy and a drastically reduced credit rating are all consequences of failure to pay.  So, what would happen if the United States defaults?  There are differing opinions but consider this:   Many believed the global economy would have collapsed had Greece gone into default.  One can only imagine what would happen if the United States defaulted on its debt.  Surely, financial markets likely will start experiencing very, very serious problems. 

According to a recent article in The Examiner:  “Many of the world's largest banks, which are still hardly on solid footing after the 2008 financial crisis, would go bankrupt due to their exposure to the United States.  Credit for simple things like houses and car loans may become unavailable as a result.  Most large companies use short-term credit to make their payrolls.  That credit would disappear, and as a result, many workers would have to start going without a paycheck.  There is a very real possibility that people would go to their local bank or ATM and not be able to withdraw cash from their account.  Hyperinflation could very likely ensue as the United States dollar becomes basically worthless.  The "full faith and credit" of the United States is the only thing holding up the value of the dollar, so when that credit is gone, it is hard to imagine the dollar's surviving with it.

In response to the crisis, businesses would once more lay off workers, only worsening matters and creating a downward economic cycle, which results in a depression.  The stock market would plummet as well, negatively affecting the 401(k) accounts of millions of Americans.  The price of oil would skyrocket, and with it likely the price of gasoline.  Ironically, the only people to benefit may be the firms which invested in the kind of credit default swaps that caused the 2008 financial disaster.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com   [url]What happens if the United States defaults on its debts - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/so-what-happens-if-the-united-states-goes-into-default#ixzz1RG94Sb7S[/url]

Right now China holds a very large portion of “the mortgage” on America.  President George W. Bush borrowed money hand over fist to pay for his two wars.  Not only are we paying the principal for that borrowed money, we are accruing HUGE amounts of interest on those loans.  And those loans weren’t just to pay for Bush’s wars.  He also borrowed money to pay for tax cuts (in a time of war – unheard of in our history).  Think about that - he BORROWED money to pay for tax cuts.   Does that make sense to anyone?  The anticipated revenue that was WIPED OUT by these tax cuts is a whopping $6.3 Trillion dollars.  That is enough to reduce the deficit to zero – with a boatload of money left over.  Imagine our country showing a surplus!  Oh…that’s right…we actually did – under Clinton.  Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich!

The Republicans like to claim that they are “fiscally conservative”.  The term “fiscally conservative Republicans” is an oxymoron.  It’s a myth.  It’s a farce.  It’s a lie perpetrated on the American people for years.  If you look at a chart of the last 30-plus years, our Nation’s debt has INCREASED under each Republican President and has been reduced or remained static under every Democratic President.  http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html and  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1091433

The Republican plan?  To reduce or completely eliminate programs that are essential to the health and welfare of the middle and working-class while leaving tax breaks and loopholes intact.  A healthy middle class is essential to a healthy United States.  If you are old enough, think about the 1950’s.  There was a strong and robust middle class in our country.  It was called “The Decade of Prosperity”.   The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation, which had wreaked havoc on the economy immediately after World War II, was minimal.

The answer, then, seems fairly simple.  Protect the middle class.  In 1965, CEO pay was 26 times that of their average worker.  Today it has reached 500 times.  If their wages have increased to that degree, then why not their taxes?  Taxes are dues – pay up!

Republicans - Stop holding the economic future of the United States hostage and do your jobs –  do what’s right!

Our Liberties and The Fourth of July

I'm writing this entry in honor of our nation's independence and to celebrate our liberties.

“What does it take for millions of individuals to support a philosophy that explicitly negates their personal value?”

I saw this question asked somewhere out in Internets-land and it stuck with me.  It’s a question that begs one to study a little history.  Now, mind you, history was NEVER my best subject.  In fact history was way, way down the list.  But as I get older (and have a history of my own), I realize how important it is that we understand what has happened in the past and how that history could so easily be repeated.  Once we understand the mistakes that were made in the past, doesn’t that make us better able to avoid those mistakes presently and in the future?

I’ve asked myself that question many times through my life.  I’m one of those that need to make a mistake several hundred times before it finally sinks in that “Maybe I’m going about this the wrong way.”  But my mistakes don’t affect an entire nation.  At least I sure hope not!

Maybe a quick look at the rise of Fascism?  I know, I know….another “ism”.  But maybe this “ism” is an important one to ponder eh?

 A fascist regime generally gains support by promoting a series of ideas through the media, public rallies and other forms of propaganda. We’re all familiar with propaganda.  During the fifties, anyone who had to go through “duck and cover” drills was subjected to a form of propaganda.  Fear is a great motivator and fear of the Soviet Union by the U.S. (and conversely) fear of the U.S. by the Soviet Union, went a long way towards building a military-industrial complex in both.  We see fear tactics being used every day in television advertising – “you won’t get the girl if you drink THAT beer” “you won’t get the guy if you don’t use THIS toothpaste”.  We see fear tactics being used every day in politics – “You won’t have a job if we let those brown people stay here” “You won’t have a future if Muslims are allowed to worship in New York” “Death panels” “The 3 a.m. phone call” “Socialism” “Others”.

 
It’s that very deliberate manipulation of our sensibilities that leads us to a paralyzing fear.  We end up with a country that cares not for its citizens but for the power of its leaders.  They propagandize with, “We know what’s good for you.  We know what you need.  We know what to do.”  We are especially susceptible to this propaganda when our nation is in crisis, when “The State” is in decline.  Rather than point to the power-grab by unscrupulous leaders, they try to convince us that it’s the fault of racial or ethnic groups.  “They make ‘The State’ impure” and “They weaken us.”  They claim that there is a vast conspiracy by those groups that aims “to keep ‘The State’ down.”  They remind us of an idealized past and raise former power-hungry leaders to a status of sainthood.  Ronald Reagan has been elevated to a level beyond rational consideration by the Republican Party.  Knowledge of history would remind us that he was the first to provide “amnesty” (a dirty word to Republicans) for millions of illegal immigrants while doing nothing about border security.  It would remind us of Iran-Contra Affair.  At the time Ollie North swore that Reagan knew nothing about it.  Later, he admitted that Reagan had been part of the operation all along.  And Reagan’s economic policies and deregulation policies have led to thirty years of a declining middle class in America.

Now the Republican party (aka Grover Nordquist/Koch brothers/Pharma/Oil) are trying to convince the working and middle-class that the only answer to our problems is the need for us to submit to major changes - a new social structure and way of life - in order to achieve revival.

I describe the classical liberal idea this way.  Individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government.  Government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed.   The principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize “The State”.  These are the very ideals and liberties that were crushed by Fascism in Europe after World War I.  These are the very ideals and liberties that are currently being crushed by the corporate take-over of America, with full backing and glorification by the Republican Party.  

The Manipulation of Insecurities

Last one for now.  I wrote this DailyKos article about Arizona's SB1070 shortly after it was signed into law by Governor Brewer.

In politics, fear has been used as a tool for decades.  Propagandizing any political position gives it strength and a pseudo-credence.  Never before have we seen the use of fear as we have recently with the new anti-immigration law passed right here in my home state of Arizona.

Remember this?  Jan Brewer’s statement after signing the bill into law hyped danger and fear.  She said, “We are out here on the battlefield getting the full impact of all this illegal immigration.”  Interestingly enough, according to the FBI, statistics show that the top four big cities with the lowest rates of violent crime are San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin.  All are in Border States.  Additionally, Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.  A Customs and Border Patrol study shows that 3% of Border Patrol agents and officers were assaulted last year, mostly by assailants throwing rocks.  This compares with 11% of police officers and sheriff’s deputies having been assaulted during the same period, usually with guns or knives.  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/...

   

Recently our Governor, Jan Brewer made the audacious statement that, “The majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in.”  It is this kind of manipulative rhetoric that serves up a great big plateful of fear.  Law enforcement authorities claimed that Phoenix is “The kidnapping capital of the world.” And mainstream media took that fear-based sound bite and ran with it.  A dear friend, who speaks with clients from all over the country, has been asked time and time again about our “dangerous” city.

Republicans use money, race and the media to manipulate insecurities.  With a far-reaching network of right-wing think tanks and foundations, they exploit fear of immigrants, racial minorities, gays, feminists and terrorists (along with socialism and Democrats) to gain power.  Americans then willingly support a party that seems to offer them security, just as it delivers greater economic and political insecurity.  

And even as the Republicans are screaming that the Obama administration has not done enough to secure our border with Mexico, President Barack Obama has taken as strict an approach to the issue as any other president.
"No administration has been tougher on enforcement," David Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday." "We have more manpower there than ever before- more equipment drones, helicopters, airplanes. We're doing this in a smart, more efficient way and we're producing better results."  The facts bear this out.  In February of 2010 the Department of Homeland Security said that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. dropped by 1 million over two years.  During a recent trip from Phoenix to San Diego, I witnessed the massive increase in border security first-hand.  I’ve driven this route countless times and had never seen such a heavy presence.  We were stopped at check points along the way no less than four times and we saw dozens of Border Patrol agents along highway 8.  

I find it interesting that in 2007, Arizona voters passed an employer sanction law that could suspend or revoke the business license of any entity that knowingly hired undocumented workers.  I also find it interesting that this new law was promptly attacked by a group of business owners.  They sued on the basis that the law was “unconstitutional because only the federal government can make immigration laws.”  But along came SB 1070 (this time passed by the legislature).  Simply stated, the new Arizona law is unconstitutional (if one uses Senator Kyl’s definition) and is not needed.  It has hurt our state’s economy with cancelled conventions at a time when our economy is in a free-fall.   It is a form of racial profiling and it is a political ploy based in fear.  Now, our Senator, Jon Kyl says that “the Obama administration claims that the law defied federal government authority is wrong.”  

Once upon a time, Jon Kyl endorsed the path to citizenship proposed by George W. Bush back in 2004.  Of course he supplied caveats.  One being that any illegal immigrant must apply for a green card in their country of origin.  Another was that they would not be able to get in line ahead of others seeking the legal route to naturalization.  He also believed that they should pay fines before being allowed to pursue citizenship.  Now, when the Presidency is held by a Democrat and the same ideas are being put forth, the Republicans are blocking any and all attempts at immigration reform.  The party of “No way!” is at it again.

I’ll end with a few personal observations about immigration.  Back in 2007, the fee for filing the forms to apply for citizenship went from $90 to $675.  Doesn’t this just serve to dissuade people from pursuing the legal route to citizenship?  There are 8 million legal permanent residents in the U.S. eligible for naturalization.  Fifty percent of those are Latino.  In the coming years, statistics show that Caucasians will become a minority in our country.  This causes fear.   The estimate on the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is anywhere from 8 million to 20 million depending on who is quoting the figures.  

In December of 1992, George H. W. Bush sponsored NAFTA and that policy is most likely the most significant contributor to illegal immigration.  NAFTA increased the wealth gap between rich and poor in Mexico forcing the population to look elsewhere to provide financial support of their families.  The World Bank statistics show that in 1992, the richest 20% of people in Mexico held 54.2% of the wealth while the poorest 20% held 4.3%.  In the year 2000, the richest 20% held 59.1% and the poorest 20% held just 3.1%.  It was a systematic erosion of the middle class (sound familiar?).  The Economic Policy Institute says that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting worker’s rights.  In the five years prior to NAFTA, an estimated 80,000 illegal immigrants came to the U.S.  In 2004, that number had ballooned to 485,000.  That’s a 505% increase.  Mexico’s constitution included article 27 before NAFTA.  It provided ejidos – communal farmland of a village assigned in small parcels to villagers to be farmed under a federally supported system.  In order to implement NAFTA, the Mexican president had to severely reform that article to permit private capital to purchase or lease ejidos land.  

It’s past time to fight the fear mongering, to dispel the myths, to battle the manipulation and to understand and empathize with the Hispanic people who come here legally or illegally to try to provide for their families.  If the erosion of the middle class in the U.S. continues, we may all find ourselves in the same boat.

Medical Marijuana

I wrote this for DailyKos last year as well.  It's a very personal subject for me as you will see.  As a "product of the 60's", I smoked pot.  GASP!  Over the years I've been prescribed a wide variety of narcotics for various reasons.  I have dear friends who have serious prescription drug addictions.  Marijuana has gotten a bad rap in my humble (ooops shouldn't have used that word - and you'll see why) opinion.  So here you go....

Will Humble was appointed as director of the Arizona Department of Health Services whose motto is “Leadership for a healthy Arizona.”   As Arizona's top health official, he stated that voters should reject a ballot measure that would allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients.  He claims that health chiefs from states with similar laws have told him that most of the “medical marijuana” cards were for people with “severe and chronic pain.”  Well, heaven forbid we should vote for a measure that would help people suffering from “severe and chronic pain.”  But Mr. Humble, who is not a doctor, states, “There is no evidence marijuana actually alleviates pain.” 
 

But there is evidence, and good evidence that, not only does marijuana help to alleviate pain, but that it has been shown to be very effective in battling the nausea from chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome, glaucoma, amelioration of nausea and vomiting, and stimulation of hunger in Crohn’s, AIDS and cancer patients in whom “wasting” often leads to death.

According to Bill McCarberg, M.D. with The National Pain Foundation, numerous studies have now established that cannabinoids (the various forms of marijuana) help lessen pain and affect a wide range of symptoms and bodily functions. Such research has also demonstrated that cannabinoids may work together with opioids (prescription pain medications) to enhance their effectiveness and reduce tolerance.

According to Jocelyn Elder, M.D., the former U.S. Surgeon General, "The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day."

Mr. Humble has made a unilateral (and obviously uninformed) decision to advise Arizona citizens to vote against what amounts to just another medication that could be used for various purposes.  My question Mr. Humble is this:  Why is it that the prescription of opiate, or narcotic pain medications such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Norco, and Hydrocodone are commonly prescribed by physicians to treat pain and you seem to have no problem with that fact?  Addiction to prescription painkillers has become increasingly prevalent in the United States.  How many times a day do emergency room physicians deal with patients who are there “drug seeking”?  How many prescriptions are written each day for these opiates and narcotic pain medications and given to patients who may have benefitted as much or more from over the counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen?  Will you likewise discourage doctors from writing prescriptions for pain killers because some may not need them?  Isn’t this a prime example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?  

My 27 year-old daughter suffers (and it IS suffering at its highest level) from Crohn’s disease.  She has gone from being an energetic, employed, 145 pound woman to a fatigued, unemployed, 105 pound woman in two years time.  Her doctors keep adding more and more medications to her regimen and recently advised that she begin taking a drug among whose side-effects include death.  While researching various treatments and alternative medicines for Crohn’s, we found article after article extolling the virtues of medical marijuana.  Why is it that her doctors cannot prescribe this drug for my daughter?  Why is it that drugs that cause death are fine but drugs that may make her a little “high” are not?  The doctors have had no problem prescribing narcotic pain medications, sleeping medications, anxiety medications and steroids.  After 5 trips to the emergency room and 2 hospital stays in the last month, she is ready to give up.  She has wasted away to skin and bones.  She is having a great deal of trouble caring for her two young children.  She feels that she has no future.  Now tell me why this one man, who will be taken seriously by some simply because of his appointed position, has the right or the temerity to dictate what drug my daughter can or cannot be prescribed.   As the laws stand now, she will not try a drug that is illegal for fear of being jailed.  That is tragic!

Why the prejudices against this drug?  A little history may help.  Marijuana has been around for thousands and thousands of years.  It has been used as a natural analgesic since discovered.  In the 17th century, American growers were actually encouraged to plant hemp.  In fact, in 1619 the Virginia assembly passed a law requiring every farmer to grow hemp.  It was allowed as legal tender in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.  But in 1930, Henry J. Anslinger was named as the first director of the newly formed Bureau of Narcotics.  He quickly realized that it was an amazing career opportunity.  But focusing solely on cocaine and heroin would not be enough to help build his agency so he decided that marijuana would be the “evil weed” that would make the bureau indispensible.  And, in fact, he held the position until 1962.   Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create.  Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to him:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

I’ve written in the past about the politics of fear.  Here is another prime example of not only fear-mongering, but out and out racism.   It’s interesting that in Los Angeles, which has a medical marijuana law on the books, the LA Times’ Gregory Rodriquez reported:

“Nationally, crime has been up in some places and down in others. But overall? Dramatically down. And here in Los Angeles, the drop is particularly stunning. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, compared with the same period in 2008, homicide is down by 32%; rape 12%; robbery 3%; burglary 6%, and grand theft auto a shocking 18%.”

Not exactly the Armageddon predicted by the drug war bureaucrats.

Harry Anslinger got help from William Randolf Hearst, who owned a chain of newspapers.  It is widely reported that he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain.  Hemp paper would have been competition to his investments.   Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa – presumably the reason for his hatred of Mexicans.   Fourth, telling lurid lies about the devil marijuana weed causing violence sold newspapers, making him rich.  Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have certainly followed this lead.  

Hearst and Anslinger were supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis.  Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition.  The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

Once again media, pharmaceutical companies, multinational corporations and power-hungry politicians have made decisions for their own benefit without regard to the health and welfare of the general public.

All I am asking is an option for my daughter’s treatment regimen.  Is that too much to ask Mr. Humble?  She and thousands of other Arizonans need alternatives to the medications available now.  Whether or not she will pursue this option, I do not know.  But, should she decide to do so, wouldn’t it be proper, even humane, to give her the alternative?