10 questions with...... Bob Newland
I've been sitting on this 10 Q for a while, as I have one ahead of it that's very timely, but the person who has it has not had a chance to get it to me yet (they're busy with a project that's in the news). But, really, this one is equally as good and informative.
So, how does a conservative Republican like myself write an introduction for Libertarian party member and Medical Marijuana spokesperson Bob Newland? I'm not sure.
What is the phrase thrown about by Evangelical Christians? "Loving the sinner, but not the sin?" I fully support Bob's right to his opinion, and I will defend his right to free speech. But, by the same token, I'm against the MM measure, myself. And at some point down the line, I'll detail why.
But giving credit where credit is due, Bob's an intelligent and articulate guy. He's been around the political scene for many years as a Libertarian candidate, and to his credit has long carried the banner for that party in South Dakota. He's been a publisher, political gadfly, candidate, and many other things. As you will read, one has to admit, he can certainly debate the issue.
So, without further ado, here are ten questions with Bob Newland.
1. Are you still doing the Libertarian Party thing? I haven't seen much mention of it lately.
I am a libertarian, and I am registered to vote as a Libertarian.
Being a libertarian entails holding a core belief, a principle that guides a libertarian’s assessment of any aspect of public policy. That belief is encapsulated thus: No one -- neither a mugger nor a group of suits in some capitol building -- no one has the right to initiate force or commit fraud in pursuit of personal or political goals.
Being a Libertarian entails signing a piece of paper at the auditor’s office saying you are a Libertarian. Many registered Libertarians are not libertarians.
We libertarians (some of us are even registered Libertarian) do what we can to limit initiation of force and commission of fraud.
Elected Republicans and Democrats appear to delight in finding new ways to commit fraud and initiate force.
2. The third party movement in South Dakota seems on occasion to be election spoilers, sucking 2-5% off a candidates' election results as with Thune in 2002. Since there hasn't been an elected Libertarian in SD, is acting as 'spoilers' a valid goal for the party?
Consider a race wherein the R and the D are polling close to each other, with a one-digit-percentage of the voters either undecided or committed to an alternative party’s candidate.
The R and the D will likely explore ways to try to attract some of that small percentage of voters while not alienating those who are already committed to them. One might make a concession to the alternative candidate’s fan club, sending a message something like this, “I agree with you libertarians that the second amendment is sacred, and I will never vote to further infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms, and furthermore, I’ll promote legislation that rolls back some of the current infringements. My strongest opponent can’t say that without losing some of his base. If you libertarians will vote for me instead of your candidate, I’ll win this election and keep my promise. By the way, I’m also in favor of ending government subsidies to businesses. If you vote for your candidate instead of for me, my major-party opponent could very easily win this election and you know where (s)he stands on gun rights and government subsidies.”
One reason there is no longer a Socialist Party in South Dakota (last time a Socialist appeared on the ballot in SD was 1932) is that its platform was absorbed, plank by plank, by the Democrats and Republicans, in order to appeal to swing voters in tight races. A socialist organizer couldn’t find work in South Dakota (or almost anywhere) these days. That work's been done.
Socialists may not have elected a single candidate in South Dakota, but they succeeded in making their opponents socialists.
In the Thune/Johnson/Evans race of 2002, even though Evans dropped out (after the ballots were printed) and asked his supporters to vote for Thune, 3000 still voted for Evans. The margin of victory for Johnson was about 500 votes. Thune’s people called Evans a spoiler; Johnson’s people ignored the obvious.
The goal of the Libertarian Party is to lessen the size of government, and to lessen the incidence of initiation of force or commission of fraud. The goal is worthy, and any action that moves public policy in that direction is honorable.
3. Is the Libertarian Party actively recruiting for members and candidates?
Yep.
4. Are we going to see the LIB party run anyone new this next year? (Who and where?)
I don’t know.
5. Okay - lets get to it. Here's your chance. Why should South Dakotans get on board your ballot measure?
I assume you’re referring to the proposed “South Dakota Safe Access to Medical Marijuana Act of 2006”, that will, if passed, allow doctors to recommend marijuana for patients who need it, and will allow patients, with such a recommendation and a Dept. of Health registry card, to possess and use marijuana for their medical conditions.
Nearly everyone believes that sick, disabled and dying people should have access to the medicines that alleviate their conditions. That includes a majority of South Dakotans.
Notable exceptions are Tim Johnson, John Thune, Stephanie Herseth, Mike Rounds, and about 85 members of the legislature.
6. I'm thinking it sounds to me that the goal of this is to have MM self prescribed. Is that a myth?
The goal of South Dakotans for Safe Access is to change South Dakota law to provide legal, safe, access to an herb of proven medical value for those who need it, provided their doctor will recommend it.
7. Back a few years ago, my mom suffered badly from cancer during her last year of life. If you'll permit my devils' advocacy, Why is MM better to relieve symptoms than the physician prescribed morphine pump she used? And in any case - what ailments do you see it appropriately used for?
Cannabis is widely used to alleviate the nausea suffered by most people during radiation therapy and chemotherapy for cancer. It might have done that for your mother during that phase of her battle with cancer. It might not have. No medicine works for everybody.
Cannabis is also used widely to alleviate pain, although I am not sure to what extent it has shown positive results in terminal cancer patients’ pain. It may not have worked for your mother for her pain.
However, if it had worked to relieve her pain, even though it would not save her life, shouldn’t she have had legal access to it? Do you know anyone who maintains that cannabis is “worse for you” than morphine?
Cannabis works to palliate discomfort--ranging from chronic low-level pain to excruciating acute attacks of pain, to the discomfort and threat to life caused by nausea, loss of appetite, and muscle spasms--in a wide variety of patients with a wide variety of medical syndromes. Documentation is available for thousands of cases.
If a doctor thinks a course of cannabis therapy might benefit a patient, (s)he can recommend cannabis with confidence that, even if it doesn’t alleviate the discomfort, it will at least cause no harm. There is no current legal prescription medicine about which (s)he can have such confidence. (S)he can’t even recommend aspirin with such confidence.
The Safe Access Act text (which it appears you’ve not bothered to look at) lists several medical conditions that would qualify for cannabis therapy if doctor and patient agree:
Cancer, glaucoma, or positive status for human immunode-ficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or the treatment of these conditions;
A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following:
(i) Cachexia or wasting syndrome;
(ii) Severe or chronic pain;
(iii) Severe nausea;
(iv) Seizures, including epileptic seizures;
(v) Severe or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by spinal injury, multiple sclerosis, or Crohn's disease;
(vi) Fibromyalgia; or
Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the [SD] department [of Health] by rules.
8. You've mentioned in the past that you have been involved in the use and sale of illegal drugs. Doesn't this make you a bad spokesperson?
Why would actually knowing what I’m talking about make me a bad spokesperson for a given public policy proposal?
I mean, I know it’s rare for public policy proponents to know what they’re talking about, especially in South Dakota government, but it’s not unknown.
Perhaps you'd prefer a spokesperson who was involved in sale and/or use of illegal drugs, but who denies it. I'd have thought you'd be tired of those types by now.
9. Your critics (including myself) think this is a back door way to move towards a more general legalization. Are we mistaken?
Spend some time with a person with a spinal injury who is subject to muscle-tearing, bone-breaking muscle spasms. Watch that person smoke a little cannabis, and watch the spasms subside immediately.
Spend some time with someone undergoing chemotherapy, who is so sick he wants to die, who is too sick to eat. Watch that person smoke a little cannabis and watch the nausea go away.
Spend some time with a migraine-sufferer. Watch the terror in her eyes as she notices the precursor symptoms that used to signal that, starting in a few minutes, she is going to spend five or six hours writhing on a bed with her head locked in the vise of migraine pain. Then watch as she smokes a little cannabis and averts the migraine attack.
Then ask me why I want sick, disabled and dying people to have safe legal access to medicine that works for them, especially when that medicine is so cheap and conveniently available.
10. So, what's next for Bob Newland after this?
I’ll get a few more signatures on the Safe Access Act petition sheet. I’ll also update the South Dakotans for Safe Access website at http://www.SoDakSafeAccess.org/
Bob, thank you very much for doing the ten questions. As soon as I get around to it, I owe you a SD War College T-Shirt.
I noticed today that we're coming up on my 200th post. Wow. I must be really, really verbose. I'll see if I can line up something special in celebration of the event.
So, how does a conservative Republican like myself write an introduction for Libertarian party member and Medical Marijuana spokesperson Bob Newland? I'm not sure.
What is the phrase thrown about by Evangelical Christians? "Loving the sinner, but not the sin?" I fully support Bob's right to his opinion, and I will defend his right to free speech. But, by the same token, I'm against the MM measure, myself. And at some point down the line, I'll detail why.
But giving credit where credit is due, Bob's an intelligent and articulate guy. He's been around the political scene for many years as a Libertarian candidate, and to his credit has long carried the banner for that party in South Dakota. He's been a publisher, political gadfly, candidate, and many other things. As you will read, one has to admit, he can certainly debate the issue.
So, without further ado, here are ten questions with Bob Newland.
1. Are you still doing the Libertarian Party thing? I haven't seen much mention of it lately.
I am a libertarian, and I am registered to vote as a Libertarian.
Being a libertarian entails holding a core belief, a principle that guides a libertarian’s assessment of any aspect of public policy. That belief is encapsulated thus: No one -- neither a mugger nor a group of suits in some capitol building -- no one has the right to initiate force or commit fraud in pursuit of personal or political goals.
Being a Libertarian entails signing a piece of paper at the auditor’s office saying you are a Libertarian. Many registered Libertarians are not libertarians.
We libertarians (some of us are even registered Libertarian) do what we can to limit initiation of force and commission of fraud.
Elected Republicans and Democrats appear to delight in finding new ways to commit fraud and initiate force.
2. The third party movement in South Dakota seems on occasion to be election spoilers, sucking 2-5% off a candidates' election results as with Thune in 2002. Since there hasn't been an elected Libertarian in SD, is acting as 'spoilers' a valid goal for the party?
Consider a race wherein the R and the D are polling close to each other, with a one-digit-percentage of the voters either undecided or committed to an alternative party’s candidate.
The R and the D will likely explore ways to try to attract some of that small percentage of voters while not alienating those who are already committed to them. One might make a concession to the alternative candidate’s fan club, sending a message something like this, “I agree with you libertarians that the second amendment is sacred, and I will never vote to further infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms, and furthermore, I’ll promote legislation that rolls back some of the current infringements. My strongest opponent can’t say that without losing some of his base. If you libertarians will vote for me instead of your candidate, I’ll win this election and keep my promise. By the way, I’m also in favor of ending government subsidies to businesses. If you vote for your candidate instead of for me, my major-party opponent could very easily win this election and you know where (s)he stands on gun rights and government subsidies.”
One reason there is no longer a Socialist Party in South Dakota (last time a Socialist appeared on the ballot in SD was 1932) is that its platform was absorbed, plank by plank, by the Democrats and Republicans, in order to appeal to swing voters in tight races. A socialist organizer couldn’t find work in South Dakota (or almost anywhere) these days. That work's been done.
Socialists may not have elected a single candidate in South Dakota, but they succeeded in making their opponents socialists.
In the Thune/Johnson/Evans race of 2002, even though Evans dropped out (after the ballots were printed) and asked his supporters to vote for Thune, 3000 still voted for Evans. The margin of victory for Johnson was about 500 votes. Thune’s people called Evans a spoiler; Johnson’s people ignored the obvious.
The goal of the Libertarian Party is to lessen the size of government, and to lessen the incidence of initiation of force or commission of fraud. The goal is worthy, and any action that moves public policy in that direction is honorable.
3. Is the Libertarian Party actively recruiting for members and candidates?
Yep.
4. Are we going to see the LIB party run anyone new this next year? (Who and where?)
I don’t know.
5. Okay - lets get to it. Here's your chance. Why should South Dakotans get on board your ballot measure?
I assume you’re referring to the proposed “South Dakota Safe Access to Medical Marijuana Act of 2006”, that will, if passed, allow doctors to recommend marijuana for patients who need it, and will allow patients, with such a recommendation and a Dept. of Health registry card, to possess and use marijuana for their medical conditions.
Nearly everyone believes that sick, disabled and dying people should have access to the medicines that alleviate their conditions. That includes a majority of South Dakotans.
Notable exceptions are Tim Johnson, John Thune, Stephanie Herseth, Mike Rounds, and about 85 members of the legislature.
6. I'm thinking it sounds to me that the goal of this is to have MM self prescribed. Is that a myth?
The goal of South Dakotans for Safe Access is to change South Dakota law to provide legal, safe, access to an herb of proven medical value for those who need it, provided their doctor will recommend it.
7. Back a few years ago, my mom suffered badly from cancer during her last year of life. If you'll permit my devils' advocacy, Why is MM better to relieve symptoms than the physician prescribed morphine pump she used? And in any case - what ailments do you see it appropriately used for?
Cannabis is widely used to alleviate the nausea suffered by most people during radiation therapy and chemotherapy for cancer. It might have done that for your mother during that phase of her battle with cancer. It might not have. No medicine works for everybody.
Cannabis is also used widely to alleviate pain, although I am not sure to what extent it has shown positive results in terminal cancer patients’ pain. It may not have worked for your mother for her pain.
However, if it had worked to relieve her pain, even though it would not save her life, shouldn’t she have had legal access to it? Do you know anyone who maintains that cannabis is “worse for you” than morphine?
Cannabis works to palliate discomfort--ranging from chronic low-level pain to excruciating acute attacks of pain, to the discomfort and threat to life caused by nausea, loss of appetite, and muscle spasms--in a wide variety of patients with a wide variety of medical syndromes. Documentation is available for thousands of cases.
If a doctor thinks a course of cannabis therapy might benefit a patient, (s)he can recommend cannabis with confidence that, even if it doesn’t alleviate the discomfort, it will at least cause no harm. There is no current legal prescription medicine about which (s)he can have such confidence. (S)he can’t even recommend aspirin with such confidence.
The Safe Access Act text (which it appears you’ve not bothered to look at) lists several medical conditions that would qualify for cannabis therapy if doctor and patient agree:
Cancer, glaucoma, or positive status for human immunode-ficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or the treatment of these conditions;
A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following:
(i) Cachexia or wasting syndrome;
(ii) Severe or chronic pain;
(iii) Severe nausea;
(iv) Seizures, including epileptic seizures;
(v) Severe or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by spinal injury, multiple sclerosis, or Crohn's disease;
(vi) Fibromyalgia; or
Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the [SD] department [of Health] by rules.
8. You've mentioned in the past that you have been involved in the use and sale of illegal drugs. Doesn't this make you a bad spokesperson?
Why would actually knowing what I’m talking about make me a bad spokesperson for a given public policy proposal?
I mean, I know it’s rare for public policy proponents to know what they’re talking about, especially in South Dakota government, but it’s not unknown.
Perhaps you'd prefer a spokesperson who was involved in sale and/or use of illegal drugs, but who denies it. I'd have thought you'd be tired of those types by now.
9. Your critics (including myself) think this is a back door way to move towards a more general legalization. Are we mistaken?
Spend some time with a person with a spinal injury who is subject to muscle-tearing, bone-breaking muscle spasms. Watch that person smoke a little cannabis, and watch the spasms subside immediately.
Spend some time with someone undergoing chemotherapy, who is so sick he wants to die, who is too sick to eat. Watch that person smoke a little cannabis and watch the nausea go away.
Spend some time with a migraine-sufferer. Watch the terror in her eyes as she notices the precursor symptoms that used to signal that, starting in a few minutes, she is going to spend five or six hours writhing on a bed with her head locked in the vise of migraine pain. Then watch as she smokes a little cannabis and averts the migraine attack.
Then ask me why I want sick, disabled and dying people to have safe legal access to medicine that works for them, especially when that medicine is so cheap and conveniently available.
10. So, what's next for Bob Newland after this?
I’ll get a few more signatures on the Safe Access Act petition sheet. I’ll also update the South Dakotans for Safe Access website at http://www.SoDakSafeAccess.org/
Bob, thank you very much for doing the ten questions. As soon as I get around to it, I owe you a SD War College T-Shirt.
I noticed today that we're coming up on my 200th post. Wow. I must be really, really verbose. I'll see if I can line up something special in celebration of the event.
Comments
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12691394&postID=112458058749577184
It appears that Epp and PP are on the same side on this issue, for equally obscure reasons.
?blogID=12691394&postID=1
1. You don't seem willing to present the reasons for your opposition of the Safe Access Act publicly (although you say you will at some point) in this same forum so that a reasoned discussion can ensue.
2. Neither, apparently, does anyone else (except Eddie), although many people will present "safe" statements during the next year, statements that, although perhaps ludicrous, will have no chance of being refuted by fact in a timely manner.
No. 2 above seems to be true no matter what side of the question people are on.