Tuesday, June 07, 2005

All Hopped Up

Today is the three-month anniversary of highwayscribery. the scribe has stayed up 50 nights now getting something out there to you all. It was promised in the first post that we’d be taking certain journalists to task with our new toy (“Why highwayscribery?” March 7), but that really didn’t pan out. Once the scribe had to come up with an article five times a week both the need and possibility of calling fellow journalists to task became obsolete.

In the meantime, we hope you have enjoyed the political potpourri, the poems, the poetry reviews, snippets of literature and, of course, that all important manual for metrosexuals, “The Sidewalk Smokers Club.”

As it turns out the blog does not receive comments from readers although we know there are readers by virtue of our hit counter. That’s okay, the scribe doesn’t really have time to respond.

On the whole, the business of the blog has turned out to be more time consuming than expected, but also more therapeutic. There is no substitute for being able to sound off and relieve some of the frustration produced by the repressive, racist, close-minded and, ultimately, warlike times we live in.

Thanks for tuning in.

the scribe would like to point out that the big medical marijuana decision isn’t such a big decision. You know, the way these cases are framed, very narrowly, does not really allow for the development of policy, all the (r)epublican palaver about “judicial activism” notwithstanding.

Still, hopheads need not despair. Things have hardly changed a hair from what they were a day “before the big decision” Some states (still) have established legal provisions for the distribution of medical marijuana, and the federal government (still) opposes those measures.

Justices Rhenquist, O’Connor, and Thomas are not poster children for the sexy highwayscribery set, but hats off to them for remembering their states’ rights pedigree (after that awful lapse in Bush v. Gore). All three dissented on grounds that the individual states should decide what is criminal within their boundaries and all three were right.

It should be noted that Justice Stevens, in his majority opinion, expressed a clear degree of discomfort with the ruling and seemed forced by the case’s parameters into accepting Congress’ jurisdiction as well.

Congress, kiddies, has always been at the heart of this matter and maybe after the (r)epublicans bite it big because of the Tom “DeLay factor” in the 2006 midterms, we’ll begin to see some movement on marijuana, medical and otherwise.

But probably not, for we are from any kind of tolerance where the idiosyncracies and proclivities of our fellow citizens are concern. The (r)epublicans would never reform the country’s drug laws and the Democrats are too cowardly.

To quote the dearly departed Beat novelist William Burroughs, “That vile salamander Newt Gingrich, squeaker of the House, is slobbering about a drug free American by 2001. What a dreary prospect!...No dope fiends, just good, clean-living decent Americans from sea to shining sea. How I hate those who are dedicated to producing conformity.”

No comments: