The hard work to set up and regulate voter-approved medical marijuana was proceeding deliberately, responsibly and appropriately at the state Capitol. But then, on Thursday, the Church Lady started whacking people about their heads with her handbag.
I speak metaphorically, not transgenderally. I refer, you see, to state Sen. Jason Rapert, who is not a "her" and who carries no handbag. Let's not get that started.
It's just that Rapert's preening sanctimony and nanny-styled disapproval of others sometimes remind me of the Dana Carvey character of Saturday Night Live lore.
Rapert sent around a mass email to journalists containing a packet of self-important information. He said that marijuana is a prohibited substance under the federal drug law. He said that asking him to vote for enabling legislation for our state's new medical marijuana amendment was tantamount to asking him to violate his oath of office by which he promised to abide by all state and federal laws. He said he was filing a bill to say the new medical marijuana amendment, approved by the voters, would not take effect until and unless federal law was changed to make it expressly permissible.
He also attached a request for a formal opinion from Attorney General Leslie Rutledge on whether a state senator would have standing to go into court and argue that he was being put in an untenable position. He told Rutledge that the only reason legal marijuana was creeping up among the states was that "Barack Hussein Obama"--it's always Barack "Hussein" Obama with Rapert, and it's always Obama at the root of all iniquity--had greased the skids.
Oh, one other thing: Rapert also said that federal law supersedes, just as federal law invalidated our state voter-approved constitutional amendments against abortion and gay marriage.
Therein, you see, rested Rapert's real purpose. It was a petty argumentative one--a whine that the self-contradicting feds would take away the Church Lady's righteousness on abortion and sexuality, but, under Obama, permit what the Church Lady deemed an abomination on smoking marijuana.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," he tweeted, giving himself away.
Sen. Will Bond of Little Rock, a lawyer and Democrat from Little Rock, had sought in a committee meeting a few days before to explain to Rapert the difference in those matters. It basically has to do with constitutional rights versus federal pre-emption of state acts, and it applies as follows: The abortion and gay-marriage court cases dealt with violations of individuals' federal constitutional rights. But a state's allowing a sick person access to marijuana for relief does not raise any issue of a constitutional right.
Instead, the federal Justice Department--yes, under Obama--formally advised states that it would not interfere with their authority at the state level to regulate marijuana. It said that it would "trust, but verify," meaning it would let states proceed and get involved only if, after the establishment of a regulatory system, something seemed especially egregious.
That's how Colorado and Washington proceeded to legalize recreational marijuana and it's how a bevy of states, including Arkansas, have moved to permit marijuana growing, selling and use for medical purposes.
For that matter, federal courts have ruled specifically that the federal controlled substances act does not prohibit states' ability to regulate marijuana as they see fit under their criminal codes.
Rapert invokes a problem that exists more in the Church Lady's mind than in the wide realm of the actual.
But that might not be his biggest problem. His beloved president, Donald J. Trump, specifically said as a candidate last year that he believed marijuana provided real medical relief and should be decided on a state-by-state basis.
It is true that Trump could lean on his new attorney general, a scrubbed-up Alabama version of Rapert named Jeff Sessions, to undo the "Barack Hussein Obama" directive to let states proceed to regulate marijuana.
But Trump would have to put Colorado out of business, not to mention his home state of New York, on medical marijuana. And he would have to contradict himself, which shouldn't be a problem, considering that the conventional wisdom even among his supporters is not to take him literally when he's talking or tweeting.
For example, there's the instance recorded in 1990 when Trump told the Miami Herald at a luncheon that the only way to win the war on drugs was to legalize all drugs.
Such ancient truth-telling aside, and absent reversing action by both the new Trump administration and the federal courts, no legitimate impediment currently exists to prevent Rapert, or any legislator, from voting to enable the will of the people and permit a regulated system of medical marijuana.
Rapert could abstain as a matter of personal conviction to protect his personal view of how his oath applies. But there's not a lot of grandstand value in a quiet conscientious abstention, now is there?
------------v------------
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, was inducted into the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame in 2014. Email him at [email protected]. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.
Editorial on 01/29/2017