As a former resident of Tupelo, I sit here 2400 miles away with my perfect lens watching a very sad situation. First I see an institution having a high moral motive of aiding the pain of the dying and giving support to their loved ones as the time of being passes to a time of nonbeing.
Apparently a war of politics was brewing somewhere in the higher levels of government and this institution became a target. Eleven families were found that had received service from the center for comforting the dying. These families suffer from a very common spiritual malady. They do not grieve in a way where good memories of their loved one replace the pain of the loss. They are not at fault. The Hospice House was developed to help, but these eleven families show you cannot help everybody.
The charges against these individuals come from the drug prohibition laws. These laws date back to the early 20th century. It is a failed public policy that gets worse. It is the dream of every politician and prosecutor to receive public approval. I detest these laws because they show an ignorance of addiction. They are based on the “potential for abuse”
The onset of these laws gave the medical professional their pen and pad. However the causes of addiction are obscure to all, even the medical professional. The cluelessness of pharmacology as it relates to addiction has all (including doctors) in a state of discomfort because of the 100 year war on drugs.
To me the answer lies: The two accused should demand their Vl Amendment Rights of a speedy and public trial. Bring forth all their accusers, the experts, the doctors, the lawyers, the politicians. Prove to a jury of the accused’ peers two things: One, how do you addict someone that has been determined to die within the next six months? Two, the addiction, proven in the first case, will be worse than the dying’ pain.
As I began, this is sad. We have a policy scattered over 100 years which intended to keep drugs with the so called “potential for abuse” in the hands of professionals, under legal restrictions, for medical use, but out of the hands of the public. These individuals were indicted via a conglomeration of these laws, created to continue a popular flawed policy.
However these individuals must be defended from the creation of these laws: “potential for abuse” which does not exist. This is like indicting a 25 year old man for statuary rape for having sex with a willing 25 years old woman. The crime did not happen no matter what daddy said.