POLITICS SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE

POLITICS SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE
Washington Post: The midterm election campaigns drawing to a close have not, according to most assessments, inspired many voters. Slanderous advertisements and an effort to dodge major issues have dominated many campaigns. One explanation for this dispiriting reality, as The Washington Post's political reporters have made clear in an enlightening series of articles, is the 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans, who are, David Von Drehle and Dan Balz wrote recently, "more evenly divided ... than at any time in over a century." This split was manifest in the 2000 presidential election, decided by a few hundred votes in one state; in the Senate, where the defection of one man cost the Republicans control; and in the House, where a half-dozen seats keep the Republicans in the majority.
The even split did not produce total paralysis in Washington, despite appearances at times to the contrary. In its first year, the departing Congress mustered bipartisan support for several of President Bush's initiatives, most notably his tax cut and education reform, and for quick legislative responses to 9/11. In its second year, bipartisan majorities overcame Mr. Bush's opposition or tepid enthusiasm to reform campaign finance laws, election procedures and corporate governance. But often stalemate has been the consequence of the near-even split.
Campaign cash
Neither side wants to give the other the slightest advantage, because a tiny tilt could tip large piles of campaign cash in the same direction and start a reinforcing cycle. So on important issues such as homeland security, both parties seemed more interested in locking up debating points for the campaign than in passing laws. On other important issues, both sides preferred just to duck. Thus did Congress and the administration once again shirk their responsibility to begin planning for the retirement and medical costs of the baby boom generation.
The same tendency to duck and weave has characterized the campaign. Because the parties mutually agree to gerrymander most of the country, a shamefully small number of congressional districts are in play, along with some key Senate seats. In most of those, candidates have not chosen to lead and persuade, as one might hope. We don't believe that most Democrats are enthusiastic about Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, nor that they have lost their fervor for gun control; but the party isn't talking much about either, because to do so would be considered tactically unwise. Similarly we doubt that Republicans have abandoned their dream of replacing part of the Social Security program with private retirement accounts, but for the most part they will no longer say so. Again, the tacticians counsel euphemism, throat-clearing and subject-changing attacks.
An election should be a time for parties to state their views and seek support. This election has been a time for parties to gauge the winds and trim their sails. That may explain another likely split on Tuesday -- between the minority of the electorate that will vote, and the majority that won't bother.
PRESCRIBE POT?
Sacramento Bee: The legal haze surrounding medicinal marijuana became a little clearer thanks to a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
By this court's logic (which sometimes is not all that logical), it is OK for a physician to "prescribe" pot (which really means to suggest that a patient use it) or to speak in favor of its use. This ruling doesn't clear up other conflicts between state and federal laws, such as whether that same patient can grow, purchase or somehow obtain the marijuana and then possess it. But at least for now, the doctor-patient relationship remains above the legal fray.
This was a weak case against the doctors who are recommending marijuana to their patients. Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department had argued that the advice of these physicians amounted to a blow in the government's overall war against illegal drugs.
Setting aside for a moment the touchy issue about whether medicinal marijuana should be legal, there is some research (not conclusive) to give this treatment some credibility.
AIDS patients
The strongest case may be as an agent to combat nausea, particularly for patients with AIDS or cancer battling the side effects of their treatments. This doesn't come from the scientific fringe, but from sources such as the White House Office of National Drug Control.
States regulate the practice of medicine, but a federal license is needed in order to prescribe certain potentially addictive drugs that are medical mainstays. Taking this license away would be a severe economic blow to many physicians.
The circuit court came to view this case as one about doctors and free speech, not medicinal marijuana. Both in the court of public opinion, and before three jurists, the tactic of muzzling the physicians didn't go over very well. The case struck "at core First Amendment interests of doctors and patients," wrote Mary M. Schroeder, the circuit's chief judge.
The federal crusade against these physicians is reinforcing the notion that when it comes to medicinal marijuana, Washington should be giving states more leeway, not less.