Indiana - Where Bad Ideas Never Die

So, the nation's worst legislature is at it again. Just today, the Indiana Lawyer (as well as NPR, which I listened to this morning on my way to work) discussed a new bill put forth by Indiana lawmakers:

Senate Bill 201, authored by Republican Sens. Liz Brown of Fort Wayne, Linda Rogers of Granger and Travis Holdman of Markle exempts nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists from being required to perform an abortion or assist in such a procedure. The legislation was approved by the upper chamber on a 39-to-1 vote and is moving to the House floor after being approved by the House Committee on Public Health along a party-line 9-to-4 vote.

So, let me get this straight . . . if nurses, PAs, or pharmacists have religious objections to participating in abortion (however they want to define it, which increasingly includes issuance of birth control), they get to keep their jobs and not do the work?

Am I the only one who notices how our "small government conservative" legislature keeps passing out "government goodies" to its favored constituents? Where is the bill that provides a police officer or a prosecutor exemption from being required to arrest or prosecute small-time drug offenders because they believe the War on Drugs is counterproductive and racist?

Oh, I hear the crickets. Those bills are only for gun makers who don't want to be held civilly liable for the utterly predictable consequences of their products; for gunowners who don't want to be held civilly liable for their trigger happiness; for so-called Christians who can't abide sending their children to public school but don't want to actually, you know, pay for their children's Christian education and upbringing (instead, they want the government to pay for it).

Note, I have merely ranted about the actual bill, not whether it passes constitutional muster, be that at the state or federal level. Something tells me that an employer has a pretty good takings argument, i.e. the government is taking the abortion provider's money by forcing it to employ someone in a ghost position who won't do the work of the business. (Interesting side note: How does this fit in with the arguments about Right to Work? How does this fit in with Indiana's "at-will employment" status?)

For those who can't tell, I've about had it with this sanctimonious group of ass bags calling themselves "public servants," to and including Senator Mike Young (who, of course, voted for this monstrosity).

Mike Young for State Senate 2020: Government Goodies for Favored Interest Groups

Sen. Mike Young & Hate Crime Legislation

Maybe you are OK with Indiana being one of 5 states without a hate crimes law. That's your right. Maybe you like that Indiana gets lumped in with Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wyoming for this purpose (places with less-than-stellar track records of protecting minority rights). That too is your right.

The Indiana state Senate, yesterday, debated a hate crimes bill. It passed out of committee 9-1. For those keeping track at home, those 9 committee votes didn't all come from democrats; there are only 10 of them in the entire senate and 3 on this particular committee.

Anyway, the pertinent language out of committee was this:

The person committed the offense, including an offense involving the property of an individual or a group of individuals, with the intent to harm or intimidate an individual or a group of individuals because of a perceived or actual characteristic of the individual or group of individuals, including: (A) race; (B) religion; (C) color; (D) sex; (E) gender identity; (F) disability; (G) national origin; (H) ancestry; (I) sexual orientation; or (J) age; whether or not the person’s belief or perception was correct.

After debate was commenced on the floor of the senate, Senator Freeman (essentially representing Franklin Twshp. in Indianapolis) offered the following amendment:

“The criteria listed in subsections (a) and (b) do not limit the matters that the court may consider, including bias, in determining the sentence” 

So, if listing the criteria above doesn't limit what the court can consider in determining a sentence, then why do we list them? I deal in litigation on a daily basis; factors and criteria are precisely what people use in the justice system to determine whether they're following the law. Sen. Freeman, in essence, added another section to this hate crimes law that said, "Well, what we said before about protecting certain historically downtrodden populations doesn't really carry any weight."

And here's the punchline: your own senator, Senator Mike Young, like the good party man he is, voted with the majority of his Republican party colleagues to make sure that those in the minority in Indiana, whether the ethnic, gender, religious, or other minority, got the message loud and clear that they don't care about you.

If you voted for Mike Young, you voted for this. If you don't like this, don't ever vote for Mike Young again.

More on Mike Young

I mean, how much more worthless could this guy be? Here is his "2019 Legislative Priorities," replete with TableTopJoe's annotations:

Recently, the Senate Republican Caucus announced its legislative priorities for the 2019 session.

During the next several months, lawmakers will work to prioritize the following initiatives:

Maintain an honestly balanced budget
Like all hardworking Hoosiers who balance their checkbooks, Senate Republicans know responsible government means making tough choices and spending within our means. Therefore, passing a two-year state budget that funds necessities and protects reserves is a top priority.

Good job Mike! You have dedicated yourself to following the Indiana Constitution! Also, this just in, I have refrained from murdering anyone in the past year; do I deserve a prize?

Protect vulnerable children
Due in part to the drug epidemic, the Department of Child Services’ (DCS) staff and resources are being stretched too thin when it comes to protecting the state’s children. Senate Republicans will support operational reforms as well as an appropriate level of new funding for DCS to protect Indiana’s vulnerable children.

This is a nice way of saying that they're not going to "throw money at this problem." It seems to me that they've done everything under the sun except "throw money at the problem." It kind of reminds me of the story my Dr. brother told me one time about a patient who was severely overweight and told him, "Doc, I'd do anything to lose some weight." The only thing my brother could think, as he tells the story, is, "You mean, you'd do anything except eat right and exercise." Similarly, Sen. Mike Young will do anything to protect Indiana's children . . . except spend money to do so.

Support education
With more than half of the state’s General Fund devoted to K-12 education, Indiana spends a higher percentage of its budget on education than all but two other states. This session, Senate Republicans will maintain that strong commitment to students, teachers and schools in the next budget.

This is a strange brag. Yes, IN does spend more, as a % of its budget, than all except two states. However, this fails to note that IN's budget has been shrinking due to our previous governor's corporate tax cuts that continue apace; it also fails to note that Indiana has one of, if not the, largest voucher program in the nation. Thus, public money gets to go and support religious schools. And before you applaud that, just remember that the very next religious school to open up could be teaching dogma that you find terrifying.

Improve school safety
Protecting schools from violence takes vigilance on the part of every Hoosier. At the Statehouse, Senate Republicans will work on school-safety improvements based on the recommendations made to Gov. Holcomb last year, including allowing Secured School Safety Grants to be used for mental and behavioral health services.

"Gun violence in school has nothing to do with guns, so don't even ask if we're going to do anything about guns."

Advance workforce development
To address Indiana’s long-term skills gap, the General Assembly has implemented many workforce-development reforms in recent years. In 2019, Senate Republicans will focus on changes to ensure our existing training programs result in meaningful career paths for all Hoosiers.

Spare me. I don't know a single person who's ever gotten any meaningful help from one of these so-called "existing training programs." I find it interesting that politicians like Mike Young believe that when rich people aren't investing and trying to make more money, it's because they don't make enough already; however, when working class people aren't investing their own time in themselves to get training, nobody thinks that, perhaps, it's because the job for which they would train doesn't pay shit.

I could rant on and on about this do-nothing jackass, but I'm pretty sure my feelings are well known. Perhaps if Sen. Mike Young actually worked in the free-market that he so lovingly espouses; if he actually had to pay for the things that his policies make more expensive; in short, if he actually had to live with the consequences of his own policies . . . then, just maybe, we would get some actual effective policy from him.

I won't hold my breath.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

Insult or Injury - Part 2

Tabletop Joe is no friend of Senator Mike Young's politics. This much is clear. And like most people, Tabletop Joe doesn't care to be lied to.

Mike Young likes to lie to me or, at the very least, communicate with me in bad faith. My lone reader will recall my recent rant about Mike Young and his track record on education. Well, this morning, Mr. Career Politician who got his law school paid for by the public and has spent his life currying favors for his donors Young sent me another message, this time touting the new policy that will allow for the use of public money to put metal detectors in schools. Nevermind the reason why the metal detectors are necessary, right?

Well, that inspired me to look up some advocacy groups' "scoring" of Senator Worthless Young. My research found:

• A grade of D from the Indiana Coalition for Public Education in 2016; and
• An award for Excellence from the American Conservative Union in 2016 (which scored positively, among other things, Sen. Young's votes to allow guns in the capital and school corporations to hire unlicensed teachers).

There is plenty more, but I note that Sen. Young brags about "protecting schools" while doing nothing whatsoever to curtail the epidemic of gun violence and undercutting the quality of the teachers in the classroom. 

I voted for Phil Webster in 2016 and would do so again in a heartbeat. I know Coach Webster personally, worked with him at Decatur Central, and have the utmost respect for him. Mike Young? Not so much.

Hearing Mike Young tout his record on education is like listening to Tipper Gore express her affection for the first amendment. 

Insult or Injury?

I was a public school teacher for the better part of a decade.

I left teaching to become a lawyer. People often ask me why, and I've settled on a fairly simple answer: a profession should be rewarding, either personally or financially. Teaching wasn't.

It wasn't personally rewarding for me. I could enumerate specific reasons, but this is not long-form writing . . . it would take too long. Simply put, teaching ceased to be personally rewarding because seemingly everyone, from the President to the Governor to my students' parents to my students themselves, expected me to care more about my students than any of them, including their own parents and indeed themselves. The old meme about "Welcome to teaching, where the pay sucks and everything is your fault" rings very true.

As to the finances, I'm fairly certain plenty has been written about that already. I tend to hear people who've never taught talk about how easy teachers have it; that's a crock of $hit. Anyone making such a claim is hereby challenged to (1) get licensed; (2) teach every day for a year; (3) live on a teaching salary for a year; and (4) continue talking about how easy teaching is.

As I've noted before, I am a civil litigator. I have tried cases that could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments against my clients, bankrupting their businesses and ruining their lives. Particularly when weighed against the annual income, the total stress of litigating doesn't outweigh the total stress of teaching by much.

Anyway, this is all a lead-up to the "insult to injury" email I got from Sen. Do-Nothing Government-Funded-Lawyer/Lobbyist Michael Young. Sen. Young, having voted to hamstring teachers' ability to collectively bargain for better wages, having voted to make school funding a statewide issue (so that it can be underfunded), having voted to wrench local control away from schools, now has the brass to send an email to me about Scholarships for Future Educators.

How about this Sen. Young? Maybe, instead of throwing paltry scholarships at prospective educators, you treat current educators with the same respect you would treat opposing counsel? Maybe you acknowledge that their jobs are difficult and valuable? Perhaps you acknowledge that teaching is not a hobby but a profession, and that requires actually paying people. Maybe you can acknowledge that for decades, society has been getting teachers at a cut rate because their labor is undervalued as "womens' work" as opposed to the "manly" work of construction or factory work (both of which pay better, I might add, and construction allows its seasonally laid off employees to collect unemployment; teaching? not so much).

Simply put Sen. Young, perhaps you could acknowledge that there is a large swath of society that actually makes money by working instead of trading off connections to do stuff like be a lobbyist, get elected to the state legislature, or get your law school tuition paid.l

Stewards of your Tax Dollars

For at least seven years, Indiana has been controlled at all three electoral positions (Governor, House, Senate) by Republicans (including the underwhelming Mike Young). For seven years, the Indiana state legislature (including career politician Mike Young) has passed anti-abortion legislation. For seven years, the ACLU has responded to this anti-abortion legislation by filing lawsuits. For seven years, Indiana's anti-abortion laws have been struck down as unconstitutional by Indiana's courts. 

See here:

As the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky marked yet another legal victory in a challenge to an Indiana abortion law, the leaders of the organizations say they hope state lawmakers will begin to see what they say is the futility of the annual passage of abortion-restricting legislation.

On Wednesday, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision in House Enrolled Act 1337 signed in 2016 by Gov. Mike Pence that required women to obtain an ultrasound 18 hours before having an abortion.

Or, if you like, see here:

 “Indiana politicians continue devising new and ever more demeaning ways to interfere with women’s constitutional rights and endanger their health,” said Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. “The ruling affirms that deeply personal decisions about abortion should be made by women in consultation with their doctors, not politicians pursuing an extreme ideological agenda.”

Finally, there is this little nugget:

 The state’s Legislative Services Agency, in its report on that bill, noted that past efforts to enact abortion restrictions have been successfully challenged by ACLU of Indiana, resulting in the state paying about $290,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

A free piece of advice to our state legislature . . . stop picking fights that you're destined to lose. We know that you love guns and hate abortions. You don't need to spend a quarter million dollars of OUR money (in attorney fees to your arch enemy the ACLU) to prove it.

Let's just agree to disagree, OK Mike Young & Co.? I believe that determining when, whether, and under what circumstances a woman carries a child is her own fundamental right. You believe otherwise. Can we just agree to disagree? Will you please stop picking my pocket to make your point?

Classic Indiana "Legislation"

My first law job was in Chicago, and it dawned on me that the dynamic in Illinois is essentially reversed from that in Indiana. In Illinois, Chicago essentially makes all decisions for the rest of the state, and the rest of the state just has to deal with it.

Contrarily, in Indiana, it has always seemed to me that the rural portions of the state make the decisions that the people of Indianapolis (and to lesser extents, Ft. Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, etc.) just have to deal with it.

Well, today I got an email from my state Senator Mike Young (boooo!). The notable portion of the legislation he touts:

Through the program, the Indiana Department of Transportation matches up to $1 million when localities invest in road and bridge repairs. Counties with populations below 50,000 and cities and towns with populations below 10,000 receive a 75/25 percent match, while counties with populations greater than 50,000 and cities and towns with populations greater than 10,000 receive a 50/50 percent match. 

So, to be clear, our Senator pushed through and now touts legislation that he presumably voted for that punishes his own constituents for having the temerity to live in a populated area, that he represents.

This is classic "kids gloving" the rural areas. Are they unable to pick up the tab for their own roads? I thought they were supposed to be "real Americans" who wanted the government to "leave them alone." I thought that Indianapolis was full of takers, per our state representatives? Why is it that the state picks up considerably more, proportionately, for roads in small counties? Add to that the fact that there are fewer people in such small counties, and we have a state government that spends considerably more per person who uses a road on rural routes than on urban ones.

Of course, it's not as though Indianapolis needs the money or anything, as anyone who's driven our pothole-riven roads will aver.

Will someone please run against this empty suit, Mike Young, and give us some real representation?

And the award for most competent public official goes to . . .

I'm not really talking about the Town Council, but they are included in this observation. So far as I can tell, here are the people who represent me at all levels of government, starting here in Speedway:

• Eileen Fisher (R), Speedway Town Council
• Joe Hogsett (D), Indianapolis Mayor
• Rep. Karlee Macer (D), IN House of Representatives
• Sen. Mike Young (R), IN Senate
• Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), IN Governor
• Rep. Andre Carson (D), US House of Representatives
• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), US Senate
• Sen. Todd Young (R), US Senate
• Pres. Donald J. Trump (R)

Of all of these people, I would say that I have the most confidence in Gov. Holcomb. While I tend to disagree with some of his priorities, I believe him to be a competent manager of people who is in the office because he wants to do something as opposed to being in the office because he wants to be something.

As pertains the remainder of those on this list:

• I have no doubt that Eileen Fisher is a nice lady. I have been fortunate to meet her and found her pleasant and agreeable. However, I have not seen much by way of any policy ideas that she has pushed. Insofar as she has acquiesced to the extortion over parking that is going on down on Main St., my feelings on this are well known.
• Likewise, Joe Hogsett seems like a nice enough guy. However, his track record as US Attorney leaves much to be desired.
• Karlee Macer is a nice lady who I have had the pleasure of meeting. She likewise seems pleasant and agreeable, and I am glad to have at least a few seats in the state legislature occupied by anything other than the self-proclaimed "conservatives" of the Republican party. However, I am unable to identify any major achievements of hers.
• Mike Young is your typical pseudo-conservative politician: feed at the public trough while lecturing others for doing the same . . . make sure that policy comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. 
• Andre Carson . . . inherited his seat from his grandmother and has no legislative accomplishments.
• Joe Donnelly. Caved on the Neil Gorsuch nomination. Resides squarely in the "Joe Lieberman/centrist/spineless" camp
• Todd Young - see my comments on Mike Young, and multiply by a thousand.
• Donald Trump - turn on the TV.

Gov. Holcomb, however, actually has ideas and is willing to take risks to do what he believes is in the state's best interest. Could you imagine Mike Pence agreeing to raise taxes, for any reason, at any time? Me neither. Gov. Holcomb recognized that roads need to be paid for, and taxes pay the government's bills. He recognizes that if the populace wants "stuff," they have to pay for it; "starve the beast" has been a miserable failure, perhaps "serve the bill" will work to shrink government.

Gov. Holcomb also recognizes (unlike the US Atty. Gen.) that the opioid epidemic is a public health problem and not merely a criminal justice problem. Again, can you imagine our ex-Gov. Empty Suit Mike Pence conceding something this monumentally obvious?

So, congratulations Gov. Holcomb, you have the vote of confidence of TableTop Joe. Congratulations, or something.

Motorsports Investment District/Slush Fund

I read a great piece of reporting in the Speedway Town Press the other day regarding the proposed expansion of the "Motorsports Investment District." Being the curious and nerdy person that I am, I started looking into exactly what this "MID" is.

The first place I looked was in the Indiana Code of state laws. I found a few interesting tidbits:

For starters, this entire thing is a vehicle by which our legislature showers our tax dollars on private enterprise. Please remember this the next time Senator "Small Government" R. Michael Young talks about his "conservative values."

Next, this golden shower of taxpayer coin is available for "Qualified Motorsports Facilities," a term defined by statute to mean a race track that is at least 2 miles in length and holds at least two events per year, the combined attendance at which is at least 200,000. Hmmmm. Can't imagine who that's directed at.

The law creates the Indiana Motorsports Commission, which is empowered, among other things, to receive federal pork and incur debts. It is also authorized to request money from the State, not to exceed $5,000,000 per fiscal year.

The entirety of the statute is available for viewing at Indiana Code 5-1-17.5. Here is a link to the Indiana Code.

My point in this is not to trash IMS, which I believe to be a wonderful partner in our community. Given the largesse showered upon the Pacers and Colts, not to mention seemingly every casino project in the state, I can't blame them for trying to get a piece of the action.

The real blame lies with our state legislature, which has never encountered a piece of corporate welfare that it could resist. Remember, these people sell themselves as fiscal conservatives and then turn around and give your tax money away at every opportunity.

As they used to say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." Mike Young, show your fiscal conservatism or shut up about it. I would say the same thing to the remainder of our state legislature. Until you show some balls and forego the opportunities to shower well-heeled interests with public funds, your "fiscal conservatism" should be regarded as the sick, hypocritical joke that it is.

For more reading on the subject, I suggest reading Paul Ogden's blog or the late great Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana.

The tail wags the dog

I read a great post on Masson's blog (link to the right) a few weeks ago about how Indiana has this great business-friendly climate, and Masson asked the entirely relevant question: so what?

So what if Indiana is a great place for businesses to locate if they continue to pay poverty-level wages? So what if taxes are low if our infrastructure crumbles? So what if businesses love it here but our quality of life is in the bottom 1/3 of America? Who cares?

I care.

It is in light of that post that I read today's toilet paper rag Indianapolis Star touting Indiana's Government receiving a #1 national rating.

Uhhhhhh.

Now that we've all recovered from our shock, let's try to figure out why the RFRA-loving, culture-war inciting, wacky gun-lobby appeasing IN state legislature gets such high marks.

Indiana's excellent credit rating, low pension fund liability, budget transparency, use of digital technology and overall fiscal stability were key to its success in the government category. 

Great. The state gets credit cheaply. Wonderful. It also has low pension fund liability. OK. I suppose that bodes well for those of us who aren't baby boomers (i.e. we won't get stuck with a huge tab for a party we never got to go to . . . thanks mom and dad).

However, what about the stuff that actually affects people's daily lives?

Indiana didn't do as well in health care (41) and education (27)

Huh. Well, I suppose if we're going to be sick and stupid, at least we have low taxes? Talk about the Star polishing a turd.

I also like how they say that IN is No. 4 nationally in "Opportunity." I suppose that's why so many grads from Indiana's public colleges leave Indiana. It must be because they have worse opportunity elsewhere. (Imagine what happens to that number when you eliminate lawyers, who have to choose which state to take the bar.)

As a closing quote, instead of the fluff garbage fed to us by the Indy Booze Scene Reporter Indianapolis Star, here is a conclusion that is actually based on facts:

One year after graduation, 66 percent of graduates from public institutions remained and were working in the state. Over time, however, the remain-rate falls to 59 percent after three years and, after five years, 55 percent of graduates were working in the state. Does this imply that Indiana suffers from a brain drain?

Or does it imply that Indiana suffers from an opportunity deficit? These are huge questions that can’t really be addressed in a short, descriptive article informed by secondary data. Secondary data can’t answer the why questions, but one may speculate that the reason Indiana engineering graduates have a relatively low remain-rate is a lack of employment opportunities at competitive compensation in the state.

The low remain-rates for engineering may impinge on Indiana’s ability to compete, innovate and sustain leadership in high-tech manufacturing. Policy makers may also begin asking the why questions as to whether and why other STEM-related disciplines move away at above-average rates over time.

Majors with generally higher remain-rates tend to be graduates that find employment that is driven by population, for example, health care, education, and security and protective services. (It would be interesting to see how many of the business majors stay in the state and work in retail.) Other majors—English or history, for example—may move away over time at greater than average rates as they transition from just-out-of-college-stop-gap employment in the state to more permanent career opportunities out of state.

This analysis presented the nuances associated with the question of brain drain in Indiana. Remain-rates depend on a graduate’s major and the length of time since graduation. Over time, the IWIS database will also be able to answer the question about whether those graduates that left the state soon after graduation returned. Let us hope that answer is yes. The state could use the human capital.

Hate to be the Debbie Downer today. I just can't stand it when I feel that I'm being propagandized.

Senator Young and HB 15

Fortuitously, on the same day that I post a rant about how drug addiction is not a moral failure and should instead be treated as a health issue, I read in the Speedway Town Press a laudatory article about our intrepid Sen. Mike Young and his recent authorship of Senate Bill 15.

The summary of this bill is as follows:

Cannabidiol for the treatment of epilepsy. Defines cannabidiol and establishes a cannabidiol registry for certain physicians, nurses, individuals, and caregivers for the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of a person with intractable epilepsy. Establishes a pilot study registry for physicians who want to study the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Requires the state department of health (state department) to develop and maintain both registries. Provides civil, criminal, and administrative immunity for physicians and nurses in the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of intractable epilepsy if certain requirements are met. Exempts physicians, caregivers, nurses and individuals from criminal penalties for possession or use of cannabidiol under certain conditions. Permits a pharmacy to dispense cannabidiol subject to specific requirements. Encourages state educational institutions to research the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of other intractable diseases.

A few comments:

1. Why is Mr. Small Government Republican supporting any prohibition on whether or not my neighbors can ingest something that grows naturally. It seems to me that if it grows naturally, outlawing it is pure "tomfoolery." If it's all right with God, who is Sen. Young or the IN state legislature to say otherwise? Are we next going to outlaw Dogwood trees? Count me in the opposition to that!

2. Again, Mr. Small Government Republican, what is the obsession with creating registries? Why do you need to keep track of what kinds of treatments doctors are prescribing their patients? Do you also propose a registry for all patients who ingest antibiotics? If so, how is that small government conservatism? If not, what is the difference? Don't even get me started on your likely reaction should someone propose a registry for gun ownership . . .

3. I have noticed that supporters of this bill are quick to point out that Cannabidiol can not be used recreationally, i.e. it won't get anyone high. I ask again, Mr. Small Government, what concern it is of yours whether someone wants to get high, listen to some Pink Floyd, and eat some Doritos Locos tacos? Why is it better if nobody can enjoy it? Would booze be somehow less bad for people if they couldn't actually enjoy getting drunk? If instead it just made them do stupid things and not think about the consequences of their actions, but was not in any way enjoyable?

4. I also notice that this creates a certain class of "deserving" people (those with "intractable epilepsy") who can use this treatment, and leaves everyone else out. What about the guy who has anxiety or wants to use marijuana to ease his chronic pain? Isn't this better than allowing ever more "pain clinics" to open up and peddle opioid narcotics? Why the special treatment for one particular health ailment? What about the cancer patient who gets nauseous?

These are scattered thoughts, at best.

As the graph below clearly demonstrates, the War On Drugs has been an abject failure. It is ironic, isn't it Senator Young, that members of a party that believes that (a) government can't accomplish anything ("government is the problem, not the solution") nonetheless believe that (b) government can protect people from making their own self-destructive choices and (c) government can eradicate a substance that grows naturally.

This bill is a half-yard solution to a third-and-25 problem. I applaud that it passed, relative to nothing passing. I simply find it ironic that this is the best solution we can come up with.

My grandparents generation won WWII and went to the moon. This is the best we can do now? Where's the big thinking? Where's the boldness?