Alright, I found something to say.

This is going to be just a couple of short stories.

I have a good friend from college. I knew him as we both transferred from a small town college to a major metro college in the same major, and we circulated through the same friends. we were roomates for a while. Let's call him...Jim

As many college students, Jim was a pretty enthusiastic partier. He liked a good beer, even several; he also had a fondness for getting high. Also as most people of college age have found, smoking a little pot did not essentially change him, or turn him into some kind of an addict (Jim is now a fine, responsible professional with a wife and four children, a couple of dogs, and a nice suburban home with 1/4 acre of yard. And he still likes a joint now and then).

Jim also, at one point, found himself arrested for possession. Fortunately, at the time moderation was practiced in legal circles (and sentencing was not mandatory) so Jim was only subject to a fine.

At about the same time, Jim's mother developed lung cancer; of course, a full course of chemotherapy was applied, over the course of about half a year. She did not take to it well, and the process was hindered by her reactions to the therapy. In order to overcome the nausea created by the chemo, Jim would supply his mother with marijuana; he taught his mom to roll joints, and gave her a water pipe (bong for you cognoscenti). To my understanding, this was with the complicit knowledge of her doctor; we don't have medical marijuana laws in our state. It was also with the knowledge and even cooperation of his older sister.

Did he help extend his mother's life? How should I know? ask her doctor, dammit, I'm an architect. But his illegal actions certainly enabled her to tolerate her chemo better, and made her days undergoing treatmetn not only tolerable, but likely was one of the things that made them POSSIBLE.

Today's SCOTUS decision really doesn't alter things, right? Well it DOES. Not only does it remove any possibility for a State to make their own determination on how to deal with the situation (something Republicans usually pay lip service to, but when a real world situation like this comes up, how quickly they backpedal, revealing their own hypocrisy); But the legal environment is far different now. There are Federal Minimum Sentencing requirements, as well as the good old Three Strikes Law. In today's milieu, Jim, as well as his sister and even possibly his mother, would be subject to arrest, prosecution, and most likely required jail time. And that would help...how?

But even worse, what the subtext to this decision says is that mindless obeisance to a misguided prohibitionary tactic; to the Edicts of The State, takes pre-eminence over the suffering and misery of terminally, horribly ill people. Even over the best recommendations of educated, knowledgeable health professionals. And this ruling WILL make the lives of several thousands of people shorter and full of misery.

Second story: My own parents died over the past several years within a couple years of each other. Both died from various forms of cancer, after off-and-on treatments and removal operations. Thankfully, they both tolerated chemotherapy moderately well, and their terminal stages were mercifully short, so I and my siblings were not forced to make similar decisions. I have no doubt that we would have done the same as Jim.

Why do I feel that the 6 Supreme Court judges who made this decision have never faced a similar dilemma? And, to my own discredit, why do I find myself hoping that they will?

Of course, as part of the ruling class in this country, I expect that when the necessity arises, Antonin Scalia would be able to access some reefer for his loved ones. Punishment is for us normal fuckin people.

Sorry. The savage, self righteous, smug, moralizing hypocrisy has made me cranky.