The people of Arizona vs. 'the people'

Recent referendums in both California and Arizona allowing medical professionals added liberties in the prescription of so-called Title 1 substances, currently illegal under federal law, has set the stage for yet another bout between lawmakers and representatives in the different tiers of our government. While California prepares to step onto the battlefield over the implementation of this legislation, lawmakers and medical professionals in Arizona are patiently standing as spectators on the sidelines. To no one's surprise, President Clinton took a firm stance against the intentions of West Coast physicians. Whether it be humanely motivated or not, the president's office promised severe penalty and prosecution for any medical professional who chooses to break camp against current federal law. However supported by the precedence of federal legislation over that of the state's, one might suggest that the President get his own recreational drug use story straight before tossing any stones at those interested in the public health.

In contrast to the federal threats, a recent statement by the San Francisco District Attorney pledged "the full weight" of his office behind any physician that decides to act under California's new policy. One has to wonder who is going to hear this case, since clearly any body short of the Supreme Court fails to offer satisfying objectivity when it comes to the bickering between the states and the federal government.

Any student of American History will charge me with understatement when I say that the issues and proponents of state and federal jurisdiction have been at odds in the past. Though, while perhaps the primary topic on the minds of those who drafted the Constitution, I am certain that the federalist situation in the United States would defy of our forefathers' wildest imaginations.

Looking beyond the innate stupidity of the War on Drugs, this issue brings forth a central question to our evolved democracy: What is the meaning and influence of popular sentiment in the scope and activities of our federal political machine?

Having spoken with the offices of several of our federal representatives, I am left with the impression that regardless of meaning, our statement as a state by means of popular vote influences them very little.

They opposed the referendum before it was voted upon, and continue to do so afterwards either through position or apathy. Somehow this reflects the spirit of representation in only the most vague sense.

Why this surprises me I'm not sure, since our "representatives" are the federal government. While we might wish to think otherwise, our political system only seeks voter opinion to choose between the candidates the two parties offer us. Beyond that, we're expected to shut up and let them get on with their business until that inconvenient time when they have to act like they care about us again.

This might seem like a harsh interpretation. However, the alternative, where our opinion is ignored based upon an elitist view of what is best for us, is far worse. If our representatives are patronizing or ignoring popular sentiment based upon personal or moral conviction, then it would fair better to coin our government as a kinder, gentler aristocracy that we could certainly do without.

Is there any hope for us in the future? Perhaps the future of media and telecommunication will bring about the return of the popular vote as an instrument of legislative power. We can certainly watch our courts and legislature on television, maybe alluding to the possibility of one day interacting with them. Though a lofty ambition for an enterprise obsessed with Beavis and Butthead, mass media holds a special promise for the future of the Republic.

Under such optimistic light, one day we might change the federal role of our nation's government to the more important task as a champion of our right to decide, leaving the actual decisions about our health and lifestyle to the only governing body in a free nation that can truly maintain it: The People.

Jason Pyle is a senior majoring in engineering physics. His column, 'Critical Point,' appears every other Monday.

By Jason Pyle
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 17, 1997