david holt
Politicians In Oklahoma Send Confusing Messages on Drug Policy
We have all had authoritative figures in our lives tell us “I would never ask you to do anything that I was not willing to do myself.” When we actually believe our parents or employers, it will usually result in a healthy level of respect for that individual. Conversely, if you do not trust the hollow words, it can actually be antagonistic.
Lawmakers in Oklahoma have been sending confusing messages to residents of the Sooner State. Oklahoma is known for its harsh stance on any drug conviction. Low level first offense marijuana possession can result in one year in prison. Even more baffling was a law passed last year aimed at those who convert marijuana into hash. Although there have only been a handful of hash production cases in Oklahoma in the past decade, they felt compelled to enact one of the harshest drug laws in United States history. Even the first conviction for hash production in Oklahoma now carries the potential for a life sentence (minimum 2 year sentence). With an already overcrowded prison system, many legal analysts have been shocked at Oklahoma’s handling of marijuana and hash laws.
The hash law has created even more confusion. Was there a hash epidemic we all missed? In the class warfare we have seen developing over the past several years, it has become a popular idea (started first by Arizona) to target and require drug testing for those receiving government assistance. These laws typically target the younger welfare recipients, but never require Medicare participants to prove their moral superiority via urine samples. The whole concept sounds well and good until any financial analysis is performed, which is surprising because the financial guru candidate for president, Mitt Romney, has also championed the idea of drug testing welfare recipients. However, further analysis shows that since drug tests are not free of charge, that it will actually cost taxpayers far more.
Oklahoma has joined over 20 other states that are considering this new legislative trend. There was an interesting twist in the case of Oklahoma’s law. The proposed legislation included provisions to also require anyone seeking public office to pass a drug test. Democrats opposing the welfare recipient drug testing on the grounds of constitutionality, had added the provision. GOP Sen. David Holt categorized the action as a “stunt” and removed the language from the bill that would require legislators to submit to drug tests. Although it may indeed have been a bit of political grandstanding by state democrats, would it not have provided validity to the bill if those who sign it also abide by it?
According to politicians, the only people where drug abuse is a concern is for welfare recipients. Thankfully no politicians or Medicare eligible members carry the potential for substance abuse. Even those on welfare have voting rights and politicians work for the people. If the legislation saved money it would be worth considering, though this still would not preclude it from the constitutionality discussion. We should no longer allow our politicians to say “Do as I say and not do as I do.” Elected officials often forget, but they work for us and should be abiding by the same guidelines we do.