Recently, under the radar of all the other arguments that our culture is currently debating, the senate passed out of committee a bill entitled, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” (at this writing it is not clear to the author what the current status of the bill is). The act would establish the “Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications.” It directs this new office to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. The bill is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I, Connecticut), Susan Collins (R Maine) and Tom Carper (D Delaware).
The biggest concern about the bill is that it would authorize the President of the United States to shut down all or parts of the internet during Internet-based attacks that threaten national security without review of the courts. Whenever the term “national security” is used, it is suppose to make all of us flinch and allow our freedoms to be limited. It provides the ground work to take action without authorization from the courts much like Bush’s actions after the 9-11 attacks.
Before anyone thinks that this is national issue that doesn’t affect main street and your neighborhood, please reconsider. The uprisings in many countries around the world over the last year, especially during the Arab Spring, have been supported by the internet. The right to free speech about the issues in those faraway places was enhanced by communication on the internet. It drove the passions of people that seek their freedom from the dictators of countries that oppressed their citizens for far too long.
If the freedoms of everyday people in those oppressed nations had not been stomped down, there would have been evolutionary change in the governments that control those countries and violent change would not have been necessary. But, since freedoms that are basic to all people were suppressed, the governments held a firm hold over the masses. It was the rise of the internet that allowed people to coordinate protests (the basic right of assembly) and demand change (a redress of their grievances).
With the free flow of information about issues, we can all make informed decisions about the threats that face our community. To hear from many voices about the ideas and actions of others is to foster an open dialogue about solutions and actions to take. In the countries that experienced the upheavals of the last few months, especially the more sophisticated and developed countries, the internet was controlled or in some places shut down as a first line of defense to the protests. In the United States, or any nation, to place the same power as is held by the dictators in the hands of very few people without review, is a dangerous act.
But, there is a more practical and simple reason to prevent such power without review to take place. Much of our communication not only between political groups but also between loved ones, friends and others is facilitated by the internet. To be able to connect with them in times of trouble is to ease the fear and panic that is created by crisis.
There does need to be a policy, well developed and measured, in the event of attack to the internet. We can’t be blind to the fact that there are those that would do us harm. The community needs to respond appropriately to prevent the loss of lives and assets. The creation of a cybersecurity team may be the correct path to take. But, the power placed in the executive branch must be balanced by a review from both the courts and the congress. This will prevent a stomping down of rights that is the hallmark of totalitarian governments.
This is the way an open community works best.
Note: Three things presented themselves while writing this blog post.
The First amendment of the Constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also of the press. The authors clearly meant to identify two issues, speech and the right to distribute that speech through a medium, in this case the internet.
Second, another issue linked to this one is net neutrality. There are those in congress that would like to limit the amount of the internet that users can connect to, leaving that decision to the market. But, as is identified above, the Constitution clearly makes the distribution of speech a right. To limit it would be hard to justify.
Finally, the word cybersecurity used in the act. It is such a new term that the word processing software used to write this post didn’t have the term in the spell check data base. Therefore, it marked the word as misspelled. This is how new this issue is in our culture.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Helmet law repeal should be, well, repealed
Without a doubt, those that ride motorcycles and would like to repeal the helmet law in Michigan would disagree, but wearing it is a very small price to pay for better safety and a decrease in insurance cost for every driver in the state.
The Michigan senate has passed legislation that would repeal the requirement for riders of motorcycles to wear a helmet. It was passed along party lines, Republicans in support and the Democrats against. One Republican, a doctor, joined the Democrats. The measure now goes to the house for consideration. Governor Rick Synder said it was not a priority of his administration, but would consider it with a larger insurance reform package later this year.
It is within the rights of the community to respond when people are harmed by another individual’s action. This applies to direct and indirect harm. The helmet requirement law in Michigan for those who drive or ride a motorcycle is a reasonable response to problems caused when an individual doesn’t wear a helmet and is involved in an accident.
When motorcycle riders are involved in accidents, the number of head injury cases are much higher for those are not wearing a helmet. This means insurance costs is greater for the care of the injured. This cost gets passed along to every other individual in the state that purchases insurance – all insurance.
The insurance industry in the state are asking that the legislation die. They know it will increase their cost of doing business in the state. Since there is a benefit to individuals, the Governor should veto the bill if it passes in the house and reaches his desk.
-----
The Michigan senate has passed legislation that would repeal the requirement for riders of motorcycles to wear a helmet. It was passed along party lines, Republicans in support and the Democrats against. One Republican, a doctor, joined the Democrats. The measure now goes to the house for consideration. Governor Rick Synder said it was not a priority of his administration, but would consider it with a larger insurance reform package later this year.
It is within the rights of the community to respond when people are harmed by another individual’s action. This applies to direct and indirect harm. The helmet requirement law in Michigan for those who drive or ride a motorcycle is a reasonable response to problems caused when an individual doesn’t wear a helmet and is involved in an accident.
When motorcycle riders are involved in accidents, the number of head injury cases are much higher for those are not wearing a helmet. This means insurance costs is greater for the care of the injured. This cost gets passed along to every other individual in the state that purchases insurance – all insurance.
The insurance industry in the state are asking that the legislation die. They know it will increase their cost of doing business in the state. Since there is a benefit to individuals, the Governor should veto the bill if it passes in the house and reaches his desk.
-----
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Violent video games should be restricted
The community received a punch from the Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that the citizens of the California community can’t ban the sale of violent video games to children under 18 years of age without an adult in tow. Therefore all other communities that have or are considering such restrictions must abandon their positions.
The people of California working through their legislature enacted a law that bans the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. Research has demonstrated a relationship between children interacting with the violence in video games and aggressive, antisocial behavior. It was enacted to support the rights of parents that may not want their children to engage with the games.
The court ruled, with Justice Anthony Scalia writing the majority opinion, that video games are protected free speech, therefore they can’t be banned. The Supreme Court clearly identified three areas of speech that historically have been restricted, that which is obscene, inciting and fighting words. Scalia said the state of California did not prove that violent video games harm children therefore the court could not carve out another form of restricted speech.
The suit against the people of California was brought by the video game association whose only roll according to its function is to sell product not protect speech. The association for that reason should have no standing to bring the suit. In addition, the self imposed rules that the association encourages its retail members to follow are the same as the law codified. If the law is unconstitutional on free speech grounds, then the rules of the association is also wrong.
This ruling takes a long step away from any practical understanding of the First Amendment. It doesn’t separate commercial and political, educational or religious speech. The videos that California is attempting to restrict are videos that have entertainment value only. It states in the law that if any reasonable person can see no value other than entertainment, the sale of the game can be restricted. It avoids any attempt to restrict those that take a political stand on issues, institutions or politicians. It also states that games can’t be restricted that have educational or religious value. Certainly the founders’ intent was to protect political speech and was not an absolute right to say or express anything. As evidence of that, even Scalia in the majority opinion said that there are at least three restrictions.
On another point, the law doesn’t ban the videos entirely. Those that are 18 years of age or older may purchase the videos. The law recognizes that when an individual reaches the age of majority the individual can act with greater maturity. Full freedom therefore is granted at that age including the right to purchase video games that are violent in nature.
The purchase of violent videos is not a life or death situation. Neither is it a case where the child will be burden with a great weight for a long period of time if the purchase isn’t made. There is no reason the community shouldn’t restrict the purchase of the videos unless allowed by a parent.
At the end of the argument, parental control is what it is all about. The law did not ban the videos but stated that a parent or guardian must approve if purchased by someone under 18.
Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and often a political soul mate with Scalia, did not support the majority opinion. It was clear to him that rights are not absolute and that the founders’ never intended for children to have rights beyond what their parents grant. The California law supported those rights by reserving for parents and guardians the right to make the decision to purchase the games for their children.
The Supreme Court made a bad decision in this case. While the research about violent videos causing harm to children may not be as strong as it could, the court didn’t consider the practical aspects of the rights reserved for individuals in the Constitution. No right is absolute and as long as legislatures are not choosing sides in a debate about those rights but applying rules to all equally, there is no reason a community can’t act to protect their children, even if the threat is small.
-----
The people of California working through their legislature enacted a law that bans the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. Research has demonstrated a relationship between children interacting with the violence in video games and aggressive, antisocial behavior. It was enacted to support the rights of parents that may not want their children to engage with the games.
The court ruled, with Justice Anthony Scalia writing the majority opinion, that video games are protected free speech, therefore they can’t be banned. The Supreme Court clearly identified three areas of speech that historically have been restricted, that which is obscene, inciting and fighting words. Scalia said the state of California did not prove that violent video games harm children therefore the court could not carve out another form of restricted speech.
The suit against the people of California was brought by the video game association whose only roll according to its function is to sell product not protect speech. The association for that reason should have no standing to bring the suit. In addition, the self imposed rules that the association encourages its retail members to follow are the same as the law codified. If the law is unconstitutional on free speech grounds, then the rules of the association is also wrong.
This ruling takes a long step away from any practical understanding of the First Amendment. It doesn’t separate commercial and political, educational or religious speech. The videos that California is attempting to restrict are videos that have entertainment value only. It states in the law that if any reasonable person can see no value other than entertainment, the sale of the game can be restricted. It avoids any attempt to restrict those that take a political stand on issues, institutions or politicians. It also states that games can’t be restricted that have educational or religious value. Certainly the founders’ intent was to protect political speech and was not an absolute right to say or express anything. As evidence of that, even Scalia in the majority opinion said that there are at least three restrictions.
On another point, the law doesn’t ban the videos entirely. Those that are 18 years of age or older may purchase the videos. The law recognizes that when an individual reaches the age of majority the individual can act with greater maturity. Full freedom therefore is granted at that age including the right to purchase video games that are violent in nature.
The purchase of violent videos is not a life or death situation. Neither is it a case where the child will be burden with a great weight for a long period of time if the purchase isn’t made. There is no reason the community shouldn’t restrict the purchase of the videos unless allowed by a parent.
At the end of the argument, parental control is what it is all about. The law did not ban the videos but stated that a parent or guardian must approve if purchased by someone under 18.
Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and often a political soul mate with Scalia, did not support the majority opinion. It was clear to him that rights are not absolute and that the founders’ never intended for children to have rights beyond what their parents grant. The California law supported those rights by reserving for parents and guardians the right to make the decision to purchase the games for their children.
The Supreme Court made a bad decision in this case. While the research about violent videos causing harm to children may not be as strong as it could, the court didn’t consider the practical aspects of the rights reserved for individuals in the Constitution. No right is absolute and as long as legislatures are not choosing sides in a debate about those rights but applying rules to all equally, there is no reason a community can’t act to protect their children, even if the threat is small.
-----
Monday, June 27, 2011
Religion is the first right
The headlines of the Oakland Press a week ago said that Muslims had purchased a school building in Farmington. If it was Catholics, Baptists or Methodist no one would have paid much attention. But, because it was a group associated with Islam, a religion many in America have trouble with, it raised some concern by the community. Enough concern that the Oakland Press placed it on the front page.
Religion in America is the most scared of rights. It is the first right that is given protection in the first amendment of the Constitution.
The founders knew well the troubles that England and Europe had with religion and all the wars it caused. (or at least, like those that claim there are good Muslims, the wars that religion was given as the reason – but more on that in another post). Religion was one of the biggest reasons people came to the “New World”, second only to making money. They traveled across the ocean, a scary thing to do at the time, in search of a place they could practice their religion without interference. The immigrants set up communities that were for the most part, doing just what they were escaping from in England. They formed communities whose government and culture were dictated by the official religion of the community.
This was okay at first. Most everyone practiced the established religion, or at least played along. But, the new country grew from just a few settlements along the coast to, what was at the time, large cities. As trade begin to happen between the communities, people that didn’t follow the established religion of one community, moved in. The same trouble that communities in England experience could have happen here, if it wasn’t for a bold idea. Everyone agreed, although with some difficulty at first, that everyone could practice their own religion in their own space.
Looking back, many believe that this is a Christian nation, born from the belief of those Christians that traveled here from Europe. Jews were well established in New York and Islam had a community in Philadelphia. Even among the Christian religions, there were many different sects that, in some cases, aggressively disagreed with the beliefs of others.
Those that created the nation and its government didn’t call it a Christian nation either. In documents and treaties at the time, they removed religion from the government. There are treaties that state we are not a Christian nation, meaning that there is no state religion. In the First amendment, it states that government shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. It does not state on any document that set up the United States government that religion should play any role. In fact, in the main body of the Constitution, it clearly and emphatically states that there shall be no religious test - twice. A very clear statement considering that some phrasing of the Constitution is vague.
Even if there wasn’t a Constitution that barred religion from government and provides an atmosphere for religious freedom, it would be the right thing to do. There is little chance that followers of a religion that is barred from freely exercising their beliefs and prevented from participating in community life, would support the community. The reality is, that when anyone feels isolated from the main street community for any reason, they will be less supportive, if not anti-social in their conduct.
To draw from the supporters of another right, religion doesn’t harm people, people do. No matter what the religion may or may not teach, it is individual followers of a religion that may use it as an excuse to be violent. These individuals should be stopped when their action causes harm others, not the religion. To exclude an entire religion is to prevent other, none violent citizen in good standing from following their right to practice their faith.
With some exceptions, no right is absolute, all should be allowed to practice their religion in their own space. To do otherwise is to limit the freedom of the community.
-----
Religion in America is the most scared of rights. It is the first right that is given protection in the first amendment of the Constitution.
The founders knew well the troubles that England and Europe had with religion and all the wars it caused. (or at least, like those that claim there are good Muslims, the wars that religion was given as the reason – but more on that in another post). Religion was one of the biggest reasons people came to the “New World”, second only to making money. They traveled across the ocean, a scary thing to do at the time, in search of a place they could practice their religion without interference. The immigrants set up communities that were for the most part, doing just what they were escaping from in England. They formed communities whose government and culture were dictated by the official religion of the community.
This was okay at first. Most everyone practiced the established religion, or at least played along. But, the new country grew from just a few settlements along the coast to, what was at the time, large cities. As trade begin to happen between the communities, people that didn’t follow the established religion of one community, moved in. The same trouble that communities in England experience could have happen here, if it wasn’t for a bold idea. Everyone agreed, although with some difficulty at first, that everyone could practice their own religion in their own space.
Looking back, many believe that this is a Christian nation, born from the belief of those Christians that traveled here from Europe. Jews were well established in New York and Islam had a community in Philadelphia. Even among the Christian religions, there were many different sects that, in some cases, aggressively disagreed with the beliefs of others.
Those that created the nation and its government didn’t call it a Christian nation either. In documents and treaties at the time, they removed religion from the government. There are treaties that state we are not a Christian nation, meaning that there is no state religion. In the First amendment, it states that government shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. It does not state on any document that set up the United States government that religion should play any role. In fact, in the main body of the Constitution, it clearly and emphatically states that there shall be no religious test - twice. A very clear statement considering that some phrasing of the Constitution is vague.
Even if there wasn’t a Constitution that barred religion from government and provides an atmosphere for religious freedom, it would be the right thing to do. There is little chance that followers of a religion that is barred from freely exercising their beliefs and prevented from participating in community life, would support the community. The reality is, that when anyone feels isolated from the main street community for any reason, they will be less supportive, if not anti-social in their conduct.
To draw from the supporters of another right, religion doesn’t harm people, people do. No matter what the religion may or may not teach, it is individual followers of a religion that may use it as an excuse to be violent. These individuals should be stopped when their action causes harm others, not the religion. To exclude an entire religion is to prevent other, none violent citizen in good standing from following their right to practice their faith.
With some exceptions, no right is absolute, all should be allowed to practice their religion in their own space. To do otherwise is to limit the freedom of the community.
-----
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Between truth and lies is free speech
In politics, one person’s truth is another person’s lie. The real truth is usually found in the middle but people are free to make their claims.
Senator Mike Kowall, Republican from White Lake Township, is organizing legislative hearings on the bridge project. The project is a proposal that the State of Michigan build a second bridge across the Detroit River to Canada. It is needed, the supporters say, because an increase in capacity to move goods and services across the international boundary will provide an economic boost to the region and the state. Those that are opposed to the idea say that if it is needed, then business should pay for the bridge and accept all the risks.
There is a lot of politicking from both sides of the aisle on the issue. One of the most high profile are the ads that are running on television in the Detroit market giving all the reasons why the state should not build the bridge. They are paid for by Matty Moroun, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. Others don’t have the money to buy media, so they are working under the spotlight.
Kowall, publicly states he is a skeptic on the project. But, he said the hearings that his committee will host will be fair and impartial. Even though it is very unusual for legislative hearings to request subpoena power, Kowall says he will request it if “he thinks someone is blowing smoke.”
If the committee thinks there is a crime being committed, let’s inform the authorities and get it sorted out. But, this is not a criminal investigation, it is open debate on a legislative issue. To use the threat of a subpoena to discuss open debate is a threat to the freedom of speech. If every time a committee chair thought that someone should be summoned to a hearing because they expressed an opinion that didn’t fit with their view of the world, we would have a constraint of free speech. People would hold their opinions about the issues for fear of repercussions. You can hear it in the voices of people interviewed by western press officials on the streets of places like China. They give a nice answer but you know they are stressed about it.
In a political debate about an issue, it is wise to consider the advertising world. Many claims are made about how wonderful a product is. If the claims are false, then they are investigated by the agency that regulates their action. If not, they are left alone. If calling for hearings on every claim that was made became common place, image what would happen if a U. S. Senate was upset because his deodorant didn’t work.
Let’s get on with the process without all the threats.
-----
Senator Mike Kowall, Republican from White Lake Township, is organizing legislative hearings on the bridge project. The project is a proposal that the State of Michigan build a second bridge across the Detroit River to Canada. It is needed, the supporters say, because an increase in capacity to move goods and services across the international boundary will provide an economic boost to the region and the state. Those that are opposed to the idea say that if it is needed, then business should pay for the bridge and accept all the risks.
There is a lot of politicking from both sides of the aisle on the issue. One of the most high profile are the ads that are running on television in the Detroit market giving all the reasons why the state should not build the bridge. They are paid for by Matty Moroun, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. Others don’t have the money to buy media, so they are working under the spotlight.
Kowall, publicly states he is a skeptic on the project. But, he said the hearings that his committee will host will be fair and impartial. Even though it is very unusual for legislative hearings to request subpoena power, Kowall says he will request it if “he thinks someone is blowing smoke.”
If the committee thinks there is a crime being committed, let’s inform the authorities and get it sorted out. But, this is not a criminal investigation, it is open debate on a legislative issue. To use the threat of a subpoena to discuss open debate is a threat to the freedom of speech. If every time a committee chair thought that someone should be summoned to a hearing because they expressed an opinion that didn’t fit with their view of the world, we would have a constraint of free speech. People would hold their opinions about the issues for fear of repercussions. You can hear it in the voices of people interviewed by western press officials on the streets of places like China. They give a nice answer but you know they are stressed about it.
In a political debate about an issue, it is wise to consider the advertising world. Many claims are made about how wonderful a product is. If the claims are false, then they are investigated by the agency that regulates their action. If not, they are left alone. If calling for hearings on every claim that was made became common place, image what would happen if a U. S. Senate was upset because his deodorant didn’t work.
Let’s get on with the process without all the threats.
-----
Monday, June 13, 2011
Palin's fear is a poor trait to support
The request by news organizations that was made for Sarah Palin’s emails were a rational inquiry into a person that would like to lead the nation.
One of the many complaints that Palin and her supporters have is that news organizations have not asked for the emails and other documents from other politicians. A quick search on line finds that news organizations have said that they have or are requesting the emails of other officials that are running for offices. If it is true that Palin is being focused on more than others it is because she makes good copy. It will sell papers and get people to log on to news sites to find out the juicy gossip, even if there isn’t much there.
Looking beyond the mere content, the emails provide a glimpse of a profile that is reminiscent of another political leader during the 60’s, President Nixon.
President Nixon was without question paranoid about his political foes and even some of his own people. He, like Palin, thought the “liberal” press was out to get him in ways that they weren’t after others. Nixon’s political base, again like Palin, was partially built on renouncing the liberal press and how they were after him. Also, like Palin, Nixon appealed to patriotic Americans, calling them the silent majority, for support.
Out of the eyes of the press Nixon did many things that demonstrated how far this fear went. As an example, Nixon taped conversations without telling anyone that they were being recorded. Nixon was certain that if you disagreed with him, you were being disloyal to America. He can be heard on the tapes blasting those people.
The most famous example of Nixon’s irrational response driven by fear was Watergate. Nixon may have not planned the break in but he fostered an atmosphere that gave people the idea it would be acceptable. Nixon’s involvement in the cover up provides a clue to someone that is more afraid of the press and the public’s reaction than getting out in front of the truth. It can be argued that if he had just come clean, Nixon may have finished his term.
Palin is not Nixon. But, like Nixon, it does appear she is a politician that fears an open examination of her credentials to lead the free world. If she makes a mistake about a subject, when the press makes an issue about it, instead of coming clean she claims the press is out to get her.
Like Nixon, Palin also divides the nation into two groups. There are patriots and those that are out to destroy America. Her hope is that with the patriots, and those that are fearful of not being called a patriot she will find enough votes win an election. This, rather than developing rational policy that respects all citizen of the community as a basis to govern.
Fear is not a way to live or lead. We need leaders with rational and cool heads. Fear will force the leader to cross the line between a measured response and an irrational assault.
Let’s select leaders based on sensible policy that addresses problems not fearful responses that save the leaders career.
-----
One of the many complaints that Palin and her supporters have is that news organizations have not asked for the emails and other documents from other politicians. A quick search on line finds that news organizations have said that they have or are requesting the emails of other officials that are running for offices. If it is true that Palin is being focused on more than others it is because she makes good copy. It will sell papers and get people to log on to news sites to find out the juicy gossip, even if there isn’t much there.
Looking beyond the mere content, the emails provide a glimpse of a profile that is reminiscent of another political leader during the 60’s, President Nixon.
President Nixon was without question paranoid about his political foes and even some of his own people. He, like Palin, thought the “liberal” press was out to get him in ways that they weren’t after others. Nixon’s political base, again like Palin, was partially built on renouncing the liberal press and how they were after him. Also, like Palin, Nixon appealed to patriotic Americans, calling them the silent majority, for support.
Out of the eyes of the press Nixon did many things that demonstrated how far this fear went. As an example, Nixon taped conversations without telling anyone that they were being recorded. Nixon was certain that if you disagreed with him, you were being disloyal to America. He can be heard on the tapes blasting those people.
The most famous example of Nixon’s irrational response driven by fear was Watergate. Nixon may have not planned the break in but he fostered an atmosphere that gave people the idea it would be acceptable. Nixon’s involvement in the cover up provides a clue to someone that is more afraid of the press and the public’s reaction than getting out in front of the truth. It can be argued that if he had just come clean, Nixon may have finished his term.
Palin is not Nixon. But, like Nixon, it does appear she is a politician that fears an open examination of her credentials to lead the free world. If she makes a mistake about a subject, when the press makes an issue about it, instead of coming clean she claims the press is out to get her.
Like Nixon, Palin also divides the nation into two groups. There are patriots and those that are out to destroy America. Her hope is that with the patriots, and those that are fearful of not being called a patriot she will find enough votes win an election. This, rather than developing rational policy that respects all citizen of the community as a basis to govern.
Fear is not a way to live or lead. We need leaders with rational and cool heads. Fear will force the leader to cross the line between a measured response and an irrational assault.
Let’s select leaders based on sensible policy that addresses problems not fearful responses that save the leaders career.
-----
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Let's not make an example of a 70 year woman in an attempt to stamp our the evil weed
An Oakland County woman who is 70 years old faces the possibility of spending up to 4 years in prison because she used marijuana.
Barbra Argo as reported by the Oakland Press was convicted of one count of delivery of a control substance. She was working in a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale. Argo told police that raided the facility that she was growing plants in her Lake Orion home. Sure enough, when police searched the home they found the marijuana plants and other items. Argo is a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver, which arguably allows her to have the plants for personal use and provide it to others.
All of this confusion over the laws that govern the growing, use and distribution of the weed has come about since Michigan voted to allow it for medical use. The state legislature bungled the job of clearly defining the use of marijuana in medical cases. Jessica Cooper and others in Oakland County including County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Sheriff Michael Bouchard have been on a crusade to stamp out the use of the drug. All of this, while Arizona (yes, Arizona of all states) is challenging the federal government’s right under the constitution to dictate to states the use of marijuana and other controlled substances.
Authorities on the county level are attempting to force the state to clarify restrictions on the use of marijuana, and could perhaps be correct. But, as a result, they are upsetting the lives of people who need the drug to ease their pain and suffering.
It was clear from the state wide vote a few years ago that the people should be able to have access to the substance. In 2008 the vote was 3.7 million to only 1.7 million in support of the initiative. Every county in the state supported the measure. The state should have made the laws as clear as the outcome of the election. But, those in the legislature that didn’t like the will of the people decided to make it difficult, if impossible, to use the drug with a prescription.
Some cities across the state have refused to enforce the law until the state comes clean with a process to govern the use of the substance. Instead of finding 70 year old grandmotherly types guilty of a crime that hurts no body, Oakland County officials should have done the same thing.
It is within the judge’s power to give Argo a light sentence. The judge should do just that. Let’s move on Ms. Cooper. With limited budgets because of the recession, let’s use the funds to go after real crime, that which injures people.
-----
Barbra Argo as reported by the Oakland Press was convicted of one count of delivery of a control substance. She was working in a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale. Argo told police that raided the facility that she was growing plants in her Lake Orion home. Sure enough, when police searched the home they found the marijuana plants and other items. Argo is a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver, which arguably allows her to have the plants for personal use and provide it to others.
All of this confusion over the laws that govern the growing, use and distribution of the weed has come about since Michigan voted to allow it for medical use. The state legislature bungled the job of clearly defining the use of marijuana in medical cases. Jessica Cooper and others in Oakland County including County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Sheriff Michael Bouchard have been on a crusade to stamp out the use of the drug. All of this, while Arizona (yes, Arizona of all states) is challenging the federal government’s right under the constitution to dictate to states the use of marijuana and other controlled substances.
Authorities on the county level are attempting to force the state to clarify restrictions on the use of marijuana, and could perhaps be correct. But, as a result, they are upsetting the lives of people who need the drug to ease their pain and suffering.
It was clear from the state wide vote a few years ago that the people should be able to have access to the substance. In 2008 the vote was 3.7 million to only 1.7 million in support of the initiative. Every county in the state supported the measure. The state should have made the laws as clear as the outcome of the election. But, those in the legislature that didn’t like the will of the people decided to make it difficult, if impossible, to use the drug with a prescription.
Some cities across the state have refused to enforce the law until the state comes clean with a process to govern the use of the substance. Instead of finding 70 year old grandmotherly types guilty of a crime that hurts no body, Oakland County officials should have done the same thing.
It is within the judge’s power to give Argo a light sentence. The judge should do just that. Let’s move on Ms. Cooper. With limited budgets because of the recession, let’s use the funds to go after real crime, that which injures people.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)