Let’s get ready to rumble! It is time to duke it out over the Patriot Act.
It is amazing how many people have so much to say about this controversial law, yet how little actual debate our elected officials allowed before rushing the latest extension through. It is also simply incredible how many of those entrusted with upholding the Constitution sway from one side of the argument to the other like fallen leaves in a political breeze.
But, here is an opportunity for some of the most opinionated to explain whether or not our government should sacrifice the civil liberties of its citizens for additional security from terrorists. We have paired up some of the real heavy hitters for this Patriot Act Ultimate Verbal Sparring Tournament. Some of the flip-floppers will find themselves ironically matched against their own words.
Keep your guard up at all times. There will be no biting or kicking. However, hitting below the belt is encouraged. Let’s get it on!
You have the scorecards. You be the judge. After all, as citizens, you are ultimately responsible for protecting the Constitution.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana are pictured on a T-shirt seen in Central Florida. The caption reads, “Ask your doctor which of these is least harmful to your health.”
That’s a timely question. On March 10, 2011, Rep. Jeff Clemens (D- Forth Worth) proposed a bill to allow medical marijuana in Florida. Given the conflicting information available on the dangers and benefits of marijuana, consulting a physician seems an excellent way to get an informed yet unbiased opinion. However, getting a public response from a physician can be a challenge.
The Florida Medical Association has had two somewhat contradictory policies in recent years regarding medical marijuana. In one, the FMA urged “governmental agencies to expedite unimpeded research into the therapeutic potential of smokeable marijuana.” Another resolution stated the FMA “vigorously opposes any attempt to legalize marijuana as a medicine…until such time as its medical efficacy is proven through long established scientific and medical testing procedure.”
Neither resolution is still on the FMA books. A spokesperson says the organization no longer has any official policy on medical marijuana and will offer no quotes on the subject.
Photo courtesy ezioman
Individual physicians also appear content to remain silent. Several who declined to give their educated opinions for this story claimed, off the record, they were concerned about possible reprisal and intimidation from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The DEA says it has no policy of retribution and practices no intimidation tactics against physicians who speak out publicly. Chris Jakim, DEA Staff Coordinator of Public Affairs, said in a telephone interview, “Absolutely not. No one here is going after individual doctors…we have too many big fish to keep us busy.”
Jakim says the DEA does “conduct criminal investigations against doctors who are breaking the law,” but says, due to lack of staff, they are unable to “debate each and every one with whom we disagree.”
Mary Lynn Mathre counters, “Clearly the DEA intimidates, there is no doubt about that. If a doctor says something openly, they will be looked at.”
“There is more and more science available,” she stated in a phone interview. “Doctors know in their hearts it is medicine, but are reluctant to say so. There is the threat of being investigated, so the intimidation is real.”
During her interview, Mathre insisted on using the term “cannabis” rather than “marijuana,” which she considers a slang term with a historically negative and racist origin.
A look into the history of cannabis reveals it was legal in this country for many years. America’s first cannabis law was in 1619, and it actually required farmers in Jamestown to grow hemp to be used for such products as rope, sails, tarpaulins, flags and paper.
Photo courtesy Squeezeomatic
In his book, “Reefer Madness,” author Eric Schlosser wrote, “In the latter half of the nineteenth century marijuana became a popular ingredient in patent medicines and was sold openly at pharmacies…as a cure for migraines, rheumatism, and insomnia.”
According to AllMedicalInfo.com, “the name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s, which deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the populace against the idea that it should be legal, playing upon attitudes towards race. Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the 'deadly marihuana' was identical to cannabis indica, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety."
The late Charles Whitebread, who was a law professor at the University of Southern California, studied the legal history of marijuana. He said one of the biggest reasons many states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana between 1915 and 1937 was hostility towards Mexican migrant workers, who sometimes used the drug.
The first federal law against marijuana was the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. Whitebread says there were three bodies of testimony. Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, speaking for the government, said, “Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." Next came testimony from spokespeople representing industries that were financially threatened by hemp. Finally, two pieces of medical testimony were introduced.
According to Whitebread, “The first came from a pharmacologist…who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died." The other testimony came from Dr. William Woodward, Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association, who testified, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug, “ to which a Congressman replied, “Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"
Photo courtesy SMercury98
Scientists and doctors continued to study the drug. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia reported THC slowed the growth of cancer in laboratory mice. Shortly thereafter, President Gerald Ford banned public cannabis research. Major pharmaceutical companies were given exclusive research rights, but that research is very expensive and there is little incentive for the drug companies.
Dr. Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, has studied cannabis since 1967 and is not bashful about answering the question posed at the beginning of this story. Grinspoon says, “While it’s certainly not harmless, it’s much less harmless than alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is remarkably non toxic. In all the years that marijuana has been used, there's not been one single documented death from it. I don't know that you can say the same thing about any other drug.”
Mathre isn’t buying the government’s argument that it needs more time to study cannabis. She says, “Watch the medical ads on TV for legal drugs. Listen to all the disclaimers about potential dangers. But, they want cannabis to be perfect. Everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves.”
Mathre was one of the featured speakers when Clemens introduced his bill at the state capitol in Tallahassee.
At the podium, she argued, “We don’t need more research. We welcome more research, but the patients need this medicine now.”
Despite increasing support for medical cannabis, the bill is still expected to face a tough uphill battle. Jodi James, Executive Director of Florida Cannabis Action Network, said in a telephone interview that the bill, “simply puts it on the ballot. Considerable amounts of money would have to be raised. But, this resolution is great for starting the debate.”
Given the conflicting messages from advocates and the government, it sure would be beneficial if doctors would get more involved in the debate.
Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson are running for president in 2012, both hoping to represent the Republican Party. Their political beliefs, however, differ in many ways from those of the others seeking the Republican nomination. That was evident in the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month, when both Paul and Johnson expressed their Libertarian viewpoints.
The question is whether American voters will support those views, which include ending the War on Drugs, bringing the troops home from the Middle East, not extending the Patriot Act, supporting civil liberties and downsizing the government. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times recently presented several reasons why his own party will not support Ron Paul’s views.
Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party will be choosing its own presidential candidate. It has built an impressive war chest for 2012, reporting more than $284-thousand in cash with no debt, and looks in better shape to promote its platform than in any previous election.
Those wishing to follow Libertarian presidential candidates and the latest political news may find the link below helpful. This Google Reader, which bundles together a collection of media outlet web pages, a Google Alert for “Libertarian President 2012,” and an advanced Twitter Search for “Libertarian” gathers a lot of valuable information together and makes it easily accessible.
There is no doubt Osama bin Laden accomplished his goal of hurting the United States financially. Just look at the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Using inflation adjusted “constant dollars” the Congressional Research Center provided these estimated war costs:
While falling far short of World War II, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined have exceeded the combined costs of Vietnam and Korea. And those numbers reflect only the amounts appropriated to cover war-related expenses.
Some reports place the overall cost on the War on Terror in excess of $3 trillion dollars. So, yes, the quantitative data tells that story very well. Painfully well.
What is more difficult to gauge is the extent of the damage to our civil liberties. One can’t build a similar graph depicting such controversial issues as the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless search and seizure, eavesdropping and spying on American citizens, interrogation techniques which many consider torture, detaining suspects indefinitely without trial, airport pat-downs, and expansion of Executive Branch powers.
Benjamin Franklin advised, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Furthermore, as John Adams so wisely explained, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” Despite the advice of our founding fathers, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll last year found 51 percent of Americans thought, “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."
George Bush claims his actions in battling terrorism were not a threat to civil liberties. In an interview on C-Span’s Q&A, Bush said, “I worked assiduously to make sure that civil liberties were not undermined.”
Turley claims in a USA Today article that “President Obama has continued, and even expanded, many of the controversial Bush programs. His administration moved to quash dozens of public interest lawsuits fighting warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, officials for torture under the "water-boarding" program — despite clear obligations under treaties for such action. The Obama administration has continued military tribunals and the Caesar-like authority of the president to send some defendants to real courts and some to makeshift tribunals. The administration recently instructed investigators that they can ignore constitutional protections such as Miranda rights to combat terror.”
This is certainly not the America that existed prior to 9/11. As Turley points out, the greatest tragedy is not what bin Laden did to us, “but what we have done to ourselves.” Without a precise means of measuring that damage, the question of whether bin Laden's greatest damage was to our economy or our civil rights may not soon be answered.
The word was out. Mass murderer Osama bin Laden was dead.
The terrorist who has orchestrated the deadly attacks of 9/11 had been killed by American troops, and America was celebrating the news. Some ventured into the streets party, others took to the Internet to express their pleasure on Twitter and Facebook.
Chris Douglas-Roberts voiced his opinion. The 24-year-old professional basketball player tweeted, “It took 919,967 deaths to kill that one guy.”
That tweet would get him more recognition than any shot he’d made in his three seasons in the National Basketball Association. Just as he might steal the ensuing inbounds pass and take it back right back to the hoop for a slam-dunk, Douglas-Roberts followed with another tweet that read, “It cost us (USA) roughly $1,188,263,000,000 to kill that...guy. But we winning though. Haaaa. (Sarcasm).”
Many readers called foul, and Douglas-Roberts discovered what it is like to express a thought that runs counter to impassioned, maybe even virulent, patriotism. He was verbally mauled by such thoughtful retorts as, “Shut your dumb f*cking mouth” and “if you don’t like America then get the F out bro” and “you ignorant un-American piece of sh*t…we don’t want you in America.”
Congressman Ron Paul can likely relate to Douglas-Roberts. When he stood up during the 2008 Republican primaries and voiced his opposition to America’s foreign policy, he was mocked and derided in much the same manner.
In October of 2001, Dr. Paul introduced bills suggesting the United States utilize Letters of Marque and Reprisal against terrorists as an alternative to launching a war.
Kent Snyder, chairman of the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign, explained in a press release, “Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property.”
The White House and the media ignored his suggestion. His legislation didn’t pass. However, the manner in which bin Laden was ultimately taken down lends credence to Paul’s argument.
Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt America, and did a pretty good job of leading us to the brink of economic collapse. The cost of our War on Terror is mind-boggling.
A report by the Congressional Research Service released in March said the war on terror has cost $1.28 trillion dollars. A Washington Post article by Linda Bilmes and Joe Stiglitz put the cost in excess of $3 trillion. Ezra Klein suggested, also in The Washington Post, $3 trillion might even be a low estimate because we need to also figure in how the airline industry and its passengers have been affected.
The national debt was $5.8 trillion in 2001. It has skyrocketed to more than $14 trillion.
Maybe Douglas-Roberts can gain some reassurance from the fact that much of what Ron Paul was maligned for saying years ago is now widely gaining acceptance.
Does patriotism sometimes leave us unable to differentiate between criticism of our leaders and criticism of our country? Do you think there is a difference?
Justice at long last. Osama bin Laden has been killed by American troops. President Barack Obama made the announcement late Sunday night, nearly ten years after the 9/11 attacks that were orchestrated by bin Laden.
How did you react to the news? I felt an odd sense of relief. Not just relief that an evil man has been exterminated, but it was as if a burden was suddenly lifted.
I have never believed much in closure, but this news did bring a sense of comfort. It even came with its own soundtrack. I was hearing "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" from "The Wizard of Oz." Sing it high! Sing it low! The wicked bin Laden is dead!
It ticks me off to witness some moron running a red light, especially when there is no police officer there to ticket them.
photo by katmere
I breathe a sigh of relief when that violation results in no accident and no loss of life. Nevertheless, I oppose the use of red light cameras.
I’m not the only one. Here in Florida, protesters have been busy the past couple of weeks trying to shut down the cameras. Some carried signs at intersections, many spread the word on the Internet.
Maybe they caught the attention of their elected officials, as the House Appropriations Committee voted this week to send a bill advocating the banning of red light cameras, HB 4087, to the full House. Though many trumpeted the victory through their Tweets, this was just one battle in what may be a difficult war to win.
It’s also important to follow the money trail. Ask who is supporting this issue and do they benefit financially. Auto insurers support red light cameras. No surprise. Increased citations result in increased premiums.
The fines from violations result in revenue for the municipalities, the states, and the camera companies. More violations means more revenue generated. Shortening the yellow light time can increase violations. That could never happen, right? Wrong. It can and it has. Several cities have been caught in this dangerous act.
Then there is the issue of constitutionality. Our country guarantees us basic rights, including due process. That means you are presumed innocent, you have the right to a trial and the right to confront you accuser. With red light cameras you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Good luck with that. Even if someone else is driving your car, you are still guilty. How are you going to confront your accuser? There is no witness, just a photograph.
I just love it when someone argues that if you obey the law, you’ll have no problem. Here all along I have been led to believe that our Constitution is our law.
photo by brewbooks
I would be remiss not to mention how Orwellian the red light cameras are. I bring up the Big Brother connection last because I didn’t want to paint this as a government conspiracy. Still, if the government wins the argument that this is Constitutional, it opens the door wider for more cameras and more invasion of our privacy. It strengthens the government’s argument that to keep us safe it needs to be able to monitor our actions at all times.
Is this yet another government over-reach? It sounds to me like they're using a million-dollar bandage without attending to the wound.
