RELL VETOES A BAD BILL by Tim Siggia

RELL VETOES A BAD BILL

By Tim Siggia

June 29, 2007

It's not often I come out swinging for Jodi Rell, but on this issue she deserves support and a "well-done": She has vetoed the bill approved by our Politburo, I mean legislature, to legalize the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Claiming to have wrestled and agonized over this decision, Rell has in fact vetoed a bad bill which, if enacted, could only have led to trouble.

The bill's supporters, most notably Sen. Andrew MacDonald of Stamford, did in fact present powerful arguments on its behalf, with their claim that patients suffering from ailments like multiple sclerosis and certain forms of cancer had nowhere else to turn for relief from the agonizing pain of these diseases, and that the measure had 83-percent support according to a poll commissioned by the University of Connecticut. Rell is herself a cancer survivor, and therefore able to empathize with the plight of such patients.

What the Hartford Courant and other local news media are not saying, however, is what is perhaps the real reason for the introduction of such a bill, namely, to serve not as an avenue for pain relief for cancer sufferers, but, in reality, to serve as a back-door step toward full legalization of marijuana growth and use, an issue long advocated by such organizations as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), as well as the more extreme elements of the American Left. As the legitimization of same-sex civil unions served only to embolden the advocates for gay marriage, so this would serve as a rallying point for those who would legalize pot altogether, not only for medicinal use, but simply to "get high." Enactment of this bill would have been, in effect, an opening of Pandora's Box.

Consider, for instance, what the proponents of "medical marijuana" are not saying. First of all, why is it absolutely necessary that marijuana be smoked in order to achieve the desired relief of pain? Is there not some alternate delivery system that could be used? Could not the THC, or whatever other ingredient, be extracted from the plant and put into the form of a pill or capsule? Secondly, why are the critics of "Big Tobacco" so silent on this issue? Are they not aware that smoking marijuana is just as detrimental to human lungs as is smoking tobacco, if not more so? And, since Sen. MacDonald brings it up, what are some of the details about this University of Connecticut poll that found 83 percent of respondents in favor of "medical marijuana"? How many people were polled? What were the demographics? Was the poll even scientific, or rather, were the people polled pre-selected by virtue of their known opinions? What were the questions, and how were they worded? And finally, why are the proponents of this measure so willing to go with the results of a single poll, with no corroboration from other sources?

No reasonable man or woman derives any enjoyment from the suffering of others. As much as anyone else, I would like to see, if not a total cure, at least a legitimate system of pain relief for those suffering from debilitating diseases. This is why research is so important, in order to not only ease the pain of sufferers, but, more importantly, to do so in a way that does not put our state government in defiance of federal law and open the door to widespread drug abuse.

Though conservatives may disagree with Governor Rell on a widespread variety of other issues, we must nevertheless give her credit for the judicious use of her veto power. This is the second time she has used her veto in the face of a supposedly veto-proof legislature. The first was when she vetoed a Democratic tax proposal that was, in fact, a tax increase masquerading as a tax cut. This is the second.

Kudos to Governor Rell, and may we see more of this type of governing.