From 1920-1933, the United States instituted a prohibition on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol. The measure failed in large part because it was perceived as arbitrary and unnecessary by the public. History certainly has a way of repeating itself.
A Sept. 20 Detroit Free Press article said the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents voted unanimously to ban medical marijuana on the EMU campus. To be fair, EMU does find itself in a precarious position because while federal law opposes marijuana usage, an Oct. 6 Daily Tribune article notes 63 percent of Michiganders voted medicinal marijuana should be allowed.
The Tribune of Royal Oak goes on to explain the conflict between the federal law and Michigan law is ambiguous at this point. What will happen insofar as the law is concerned remains to be seen, yet what is obvious is the will of Michiganders is secondary. Also, the capitulation of the Board of Regents on this issue is disheartening.
In fact, for an institution that emblazons “Education First” across its property, one cannot help believe, at least in this case, “Authority First” would be more appropriate.
Consider the quotation from EMU Executive Director of Wellbeing, Ellen Gold, taken from a Sept. 20 AnnArbor.com article: “It’s a tough juxtaposition, but it’s really important for us to do what we need to do to comply … At the same time, we need to be sensitive to students’ needs.”
The problem here is that students’ well-being is clearly being put second to the obeying of an ambiguous legal complication.
Students’ well-being absolutely should be the main concern here, too. After all, an Aug. 11 Livestrong article details the multiple benefits medical marijuana offers: pain relief, increased appetite (paramount when weight loss is an issue like with cancer), decreased nausea and muscle relaxation. Even in the face of these clearly demonstrated benefits, the ban has been passed.
Consider the story of Roger Chalmers, a middle-aged cancer patient. The April 9 issue of Montana’s Missoulian recounts his long battle with cancer leading him to say, “The marijuana is by all means the only good thing that has come along to help me out.”
The question then is would we be willing to, at any level, prevent a Chalmers from having the help he needs? The ban on medical marijuana from EMU clearly says “yes.” Apparently one must leave EMU’s campus – a place thousands call home – in order to feel comfortable.
Overlooking the overt ethical transgressions of the medical marijuana ban, we must analyze the larger picture being offered here.
In a phenomenal dissection of American “Drug War” policy, an April 2009 Foreign Policy article asserts: “ ‘Most of my colleagues know that the war on drugs is bankrupt,’ a U.S. senator told me, ‘but for many of us, supporting any form of decriminalization of drugs has long been politically suicidal.’ ”
So the support for a failed measure is ultimately boiled down to politics; that certainly sounds familiar. The lunacy of this thought process is immediately obvious, especially at the level of something medically legitimate. Beyond this, the article goes on to note it is simply impossible for the police force to win a war on a nameless, faceless enemy.
We should ask ourselves: Are our police-people not better off scanning for violent offenders? Or perhaps disorderly students? Or even annoyingly audacious drivers who ignore parking regulations? Ultimately, the ban adds yet another offense – is it fair to even label it as such? – to the list of activities to be watched.
According to an Oct. 2010 Huffington Post article, Attorney General Eric Holder boldly claimed the federal government will “vigorously enforce” laws against anyone carrying, growing or selling marijuana. That sounds familiar. It appears Holder and those supporting EMU’s ban on medical marijuana need to brush up on their history.
