Wisconsin State Journal, Jan. 25
Don’t divide and conquer the DNR
Gov. Scott Walker’s “divide and conquer” strategy, originally aimed at labor unions, shouldn’t be applied to the state Department of Natural Resources.
The Republican governor should reject a state lawmaker’s plan to scatter the DNR’s duties across five agencies, two of which would be new departments.
Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake, claims the DNR “is not working in its current form,” but he offers little evidence or specific concerns to justify his divisive proposal. He wants to separate environmental protection from fish and wildlife programs - even though they are intimately related. Jarchow also would move forestry management to the Department of Agriculture, and divert state parks to the Department of Tourism.
Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay, a leading voice on environmental issues and chairman of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, wisely opposes Jarchow’s plan.
“To break up an agency and create more bureaucracy and more confusion, it doesn’t appeal to me at all,” Cowles said last week.
“It would make things more confusing, more expensive, and deter from the ultimate mission of the DNR: to protect the resources in a reasonable way.”
Amen to that.
The governor’s own DNR secretary, Cathy Stepp, said she hopes her agency isn’t split up in the next state budget. She has been working on a reorganization plan to consolidate, rather than disperse, DNR functions.
Five of Stepp’s predecessors, serving Republican and Democratic administrations, have criticized Jarchow’s idea. They warned this month that a sliced up agency would increase cost, slow the state’s response to pollution and undermine efforts to preserve quality hunting grounds and fishing holes. Decisions on forest management, for example, would be made in four separate state agencies, under Jarchow’s plan. Currently, the former DNR leaders said, the DNR’s forestry division does all of that work for parks, fisheries, wildlife and natural areas.
Republicans often tout smaller government. But Jarchow’s proposal would inevitably create more government offices and higher-paid administrators who would be less coordinated and less efficient in getting the job done while balancing competing interests.
That’s not to say the DNR can’t improve. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have made streamlining DNR decisions a priority in the past. Common sense sometimes can get lost in the agency’s many regulations. And decisions to grant or deny permits can take too long.
But none of that justifies breaking this vital agency into pieces.
The governor, who called Jarchow’s proposal “interesting,” should quickly discard it so Republicans who run the statehouse can focus on improving, rather than dissolving, the DNR.
___
Leader-Telegram, Jan. 19
Marijuana’s medical benefits can’t be ignored
Medical marijuana use should be legal in Wisconsin.
Twenty-eight states - Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota and Ohio joined in November - and the District of Columbia allow for such use. California was the first to legalize medical marijuana 11 years ago.
There are signs that Wisconsin may eventually adopt that stance. Although Republicans in the state often have opposed such measures, The Associated Press reported that state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, is circulating a bill that would make possessing a marijuana extract used to prevent seizures legal with a doctor’s certification.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, also recently told AP he would consider it, though Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Gov. Scott Walker remain opposed. Advocates have said it’s less harmful than opiates as painkillers. Approved drugs often are as intoxicating as marijuana but can be more habit-forming.
“If you get a prescription to use an opiate or you get a prescription to use marijuana, to me I think that’s the same thing,” Vos said. “I would be open to that.”
Democrats have rekindled the issue as well. The AP reported that state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, and Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison, are looking for bill co-sponsors. “They say … the public supports such a move to help those who are suffering with debilitating illness,” the story reads.
___
A new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine addresses the issue in detail.
“One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults,” the report reads. “The committee found evidence to support that patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a significant reduction in pain symptoms.
“Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there was conclusive evidence that certain oral cannabinoids were effective in preventing and treating those ailments.”
It also improves patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms. Other conclusions in the report included:
There is “moderate evidence” that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
- Improving short-term sleep outcomes in those with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain and multiple sclerosis.
There is “limited evidence” that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
- Increasing appetite and decreasing weight loss associated with HIV/?AIDS.
- Improving Tourette syndrome, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.
The study addressed harmful side effects as well, though almost any drug will have drawbacks. It also lists several ailments for which marijuana doesn’t help and made specific suggestions regarding future research.
___
Medical marijuana should not be a partisan issue, though it will require a bipartisan effort in Wisconsin.
We need to explore all possible avenues when treating a person in chemotherapy who cannot eat because of severe nausea, a patient enduring chronic pain or a victim suffering the debilitating effects of multiple sclerosis.
Legislation legalizing medical marijuana use can include parameters to limit its use and avoid abuse. But let’s leave it to the doctors, not legislators, on how it should be applied.
It’s critical for health care providers to have as many resources as possible. Medical marijuana would be one more tool with which they could provide the best care possible.
___
The Journal Times of Racine, Jan. 22
State’s courts shouldn’t be for sale
Take the “For Sale” sign off Wisconsin’s courts.
That was the simple message last week from more than four dozen retired judges in the state as they asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider new rules that would require judges and justices to recuse themselves in cases involving parties or lawyers who spent money to help elect them.
It’s a good idea, and one that is direly needed now that campaign finance laws have been so riddled by cases like the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that gave corporations the free speech (and campaign spending) privileges of citizens, and recent state high court rulings that have undercut previous bans on politicians, including judges, from coordinating their campaigns with special interest groups.
Wisconsin used to have a judicial system that was widely immune from the high-spending influences of partisan politics, but the changes in the political landscape have put big dollars into play in our court system.
That has become particularly evident in races for the state Supreme Court, where outside interests have helped change the ideological and political slant of the court in recent years to give conservatives a 5-2 majority.
Going into last year’s high court race, special-interest groups using “issue ads” spent more than $13 million on state Supreme Court races over nine years, with conservative-leaning groups outspending liberal-leaning groups by a 2-to-1 margin.
That has had an impact on the partisan makeup of the high court, and on its rulings, as shown by its dismissal of the John Doe probe of conservative groups that supported Gov. Scott Walker’s political campaigns.
Under the state Supreme Court rules on recusal, which were adopted in 2010, donations by groups and individuals and independent spending don’t, by themselves, require judges to step aside from a case involving those parties. The decision is left to the judge.
Those Supreme Court rules on recusal don’t only affect the high-spending special-interest groups like Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce in cases they may bring before the court, they extend down to the small cases involving ordinary citizens.
Who among us would like to go before a judge - no matter the reputation for fairness and impartiality - knowing that your legal opponent, or his/her attorney, has donated even a few hundred dollars to the judge’s election campaign?
Sidebar, Your Honor? Are you still accepting campaign donations?
The remedy proposed by the 54 retired judges is to require municipal judges to step aside in a case if they’ve received at least $500 from a litigant or attorney. For circuit court judges the threshold would be $1,000; for appellate judges, $2,500; and for high court justices, $10,000, which is half the individual donor limit for a justice.
The limits also would apply to issue advocacy groups, even if they have not directly contributed to a judicial campaign but clearly do work that influences the judge’s election - which would apply to groups running attack ads against an opposing judicial candidate.
Wisconsin’s judges and justices should be in the business of interpreting and upholding the law fairly and honestly, without regard to dollars flowing into their re-election campaigns.
The state Supreme Court should rewrite its rules and take the money bag off the scales of justice.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.