Dana Rohrabacher: Assistance Medical Marijuana for Our Veterans
Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican representing California in the United States Home made a statement on the accessibility of medical cannabis for Veterans. Read his crucial story about among his political fans who is a staunch conservative
Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, represents California’s 48th District in the U.S. House.
Not long ago, a supporter of mine, going to from California, came by my Capitol workplace. A retired military officer and staunch conservative, he and I spent much of our discussion discussing the Republican agenda.
Finally, I drew a breath and asked him about a problem I feared may divide us: the liberalization of our marijuana laws, specifically medical marijuana reform, on which for many years I had been leading the charge. What did he think of that questionable position?
“Dana,” he replied, “there are some things about me you don’t know.” He informed me about his three boys, all whom enlisted after 9/11.
Two of his boys returned from the battleground whole and healthy. The third, however, got back suffering several seizures every day. His prospects were bleak.
His medical care fell under the total guidance of the Department of Veterans Affairs, whose physicians came under federal restraints relating to the treatments they might recommend. (Amongst the treatments permitted were opioids.) Nothing worked.
Finally, an understanding doctor recommended our young hero to see him in his private office, where he might prescribe medication originated from marijuana. The prescription worked. The seizures, for the most part, ceased.
“Dana,” stated my friend, “I could hug you right now for what you have actually been doing, unwittingly, for my son.”
What had I been doing? With my Democrat friend Sam Farr, the now-retired California congressman, I wrote an amendment to spending expenses that forbids the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana cases in states where voters have actually legalized such treatment. The modification passed 2 successive years, the 2nd time with a larger margin than the first, and has been extended through continuing resolutions and an omnibus spending expense.
Remarkably, offered the Obama administration’s usually liberal approach to cannabis, its Justice Department aimed to interpret the amendment in such a convoluted way as to allow counterproductive raids on marijuana dispensaries. The courts– most just recently the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit– consistently ruled that our change meant exactly what it said.
Unfortunately, my long time friend Jeff Sessions, the chief law officer, has actually advised Congress to drop the modification, now co-sponsored by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.). This, despite President Trump’s belief, explained in his project and as president, that states alone need to choose medical marijuana policies.
I should not have to remind our chief law enforcement officer nor my fellow Republican politicians that our system of federalism, also referred to as states’ rights, was created to fix simply such a fractious issue. Our party still bears an acne for wielding the “states’ rights” cudgel versus civil liberties. If we bury state autonomy in order to reject patients an option to opioids, and ominously federalize our cops, our hypocrisy will deserve the American individuals’s contempt.
Majority the states have actually liberalized medical marijuana laws, some even legalizing recreational use. Some eighty percent of Americans favor legalization of medical cannabis. Just a benighted or mean-spirited mind-set would wish to block such progress.
Regardless of federal efforts to restrict supply, studies continue to yield promising outcomes. And mounting anecdotal proof reveals again and once again that medical marijuana can considerably enhance the lives of people with epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder, arthritis and numerous other disorders.
Most Americans know this. The political class, not remarkably, drags them.
Part of the reason is the failure of a lot of conservatives to use “public choice economics” to the war on cannabis. Sound judgment, as well as public choice theory, holds that the federal government’s interest is to grow, simply as private-sector players seek earnings and build market share.
The drug-war apparatus will not offer ground without a fight, even if it denies Americans of medical options and inadvertently produces more dependence on opioids. When its presence depends on property seizures and other affronts to our Constitution, why should anti-medical-marijuana forces care if they’ve contributed accidentally to a large market, both legal and prohibited, for opioids?
I invite my colleagues to go to a medical cannabis research study center and see for themselves why their cultural distaste might be misplaced. One exists near my district office at the University of California at Irvine, another at the University of California at San Diego.
Even better, they might take a trip to Israel– that political assisting light for religious conservatives– and discover how our closest ally in the Middle East has placed itself on the cutting edge of cannabis research. The Israeli federal government recently decriminalized very first usage, so unworried it is about what cannabis may do to its conscript armed force.