By Mike McGann,
Greetings from one of the last Internet outposts not hacked by the Chinese (we don’t rate) or calling from (allegedly) Microsoft Technical Support to assist you with your computer issues once you give us your password, credit card number and home address information.
In comparison, the recent shenanigans in the state legislature probably seem a bit like the work of amateurs — I mean they don’t even bother to fake the caller ID — but in some ways, they may prove more troubling.
And while there are dozens of examples of why our state legislature acts like the worst of today’s reality shows, here’s two that may typify things, one measure blocked by one legislator and another blocked by the entire state house.
First let’s discuss medical marijuana.
As we all know, medical marijuana is highly dangerous and in the hands of unauthorized users can led to long-term addiction and fatal overdoses. Oh wait, those are opioids like Percocet — which are perfectly legal for doctors to prescribe and the abuse of which have directly or indirectly led to the recent explosion of heroin abuse in our community.
No, we’re talking about marijuana, which poses a terrible, terrible threat to the nation’s Doritos’ supply. In fact, we’re really only taking medical marijuana — not recreational use, but rather prescribed by a doctor to, you know, make someone less sick or help them to get out of pain.
Now, of course, those radical hippies in the state Senate — and man, do I want to party with those wild folks — passed SB 3 to legalize the prescription of marijuana and THC-based medicines in Pennsylvania.
Which sent the measure to the state house, spoiler alert: buzz kill!
One statehouse member, Rep. Matt Baker (R-68 — obviously, since it’s clear he owes someone one) — has moved single-handedly to protect Pennsylvanians from doctors prescribing medicines to patients in need. As chairman of the House Health Committee, he, by his own self, can stop the legislation — which polls support show overwhelming support by the public — dead in its tracks.
Democracy in action, baby.
Baker claims that the use of marijuana for medical purposes needs more research and that the federal Food and Drug Administration still hasn’t signed off on its use and it might be dangerous to use.
More dangerous than opioids?
Critics also point out that Baker has taken large amounts of bri… — uh campaign donations from large pharmaceutical companies, which may have something to do with his steadfast and courageous battle to preserve the state’s Doritos population.
And it has nothing, nothing, I assure you, to do with the fact that marijuana can’t be patented easily and probably would be a lot less profitable for big pharma than continuing to sell opioids. Right.
And before you cry foul about besmirching the reputation of the state representative, the next person who can reasonably explain the difference between bribery (paying money to an elected official to get an outcome) and campaign donations (paying money to an elected official to get an outcome) will be the first one to do so.
Whether the state should legalize recreational use is another matter — and I can see why there would be issues with that and far more and than one elected official against it. But this is for trained medical professionals to prescribe to actual patients to take them out of pain, or allow them to eat during chemotherapy.
That one man can stop those folks from getting help is pretty sad.
Personally, I don’t use anything illegal. My sins amount to a few craft beers, a cigar or two and some, gasp, reality TV. I don’t think anyone has even offered me a joint since the Clinton Administration and more than likely Reagan was president the last time I consented and even then, it was never really my thing.
But it’s hard for me to see stopping legitimate medical use of a substance far less dangerous than many others routinely prescribed by doctors. It makes even less sense that one man can stand in the way of something the overwhelming majority of people in the state support.
Now, moving onto something with a little less (read virtually none) support:
Elsewhere in stupid political pet tricks, the entire state house voted no on the budget proposed by Gov. Tom Wolf.
Aside from the fact that the tax proposal was, well, pretty out there (proposing a tax on diapers and day care was either naive or Rendell-style arrogant), bringing it up for a vote, as the GOP did, was nothing short of a political stunt. And yes, the Republicans, as often seems to be the case of late, totally outsmarted the state’s Democrats, who were forced to vote against it. That led, predictably to emails and “district newsletters” from Republican State Representatives crowing about how Wolf’s budget is so bad that “not one” Democratic state house member voted yes on it.
And yeah, it is pretty awful — but at the same time, the state needs more revenue and it seems like Wolf threw everything at the wall hoping something might stick, some of it far-fetched or even foolhardy, some of it worth discussion.
The funny thing: even the GOP recognizes the need to increase taxes — and is proposing increases to both the income and sale tax to help close the state’s structural deficit.
If we could get past this sort of political theater, maybe it would be possible to get real work done, such as a viable, long-term solution to the public pension problem and finally resolve the liquor privatization issue.
Any hope for a final budget deal by the state’s June 30 deadline is pretty much dwindling at this point — and this may well drag out through the summer, as both sides seem more fixed on scoring points than solving problems.
Such is the state of our commonwealth’s government.
No comments:
Post a Comment