Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s latest boutique lawsuit—one arguing that Colorado’s recent legalization of marijuana violates federal law—conflicts with his legal obsession with states’ rights when it comes to Obamacare.
But, really, that’s the least of the problems with the lawsuit, which was filed just before Christmas as a joint effort between Pruitt, pictured right, and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.
Colorado voters legalized marijuana in 2012. Pruitt and Bruning argue that some of the pot cultivated under Colorado’s system is making its way into neighboring states, such as Oklahoma and Nebraska, where pot remains illegal and thus the federal government should enforce its controlled substance laws. The lawsuit, if successful, would shut down the commercial and cultivation aspects of marijuana sales in Colorado, but it could also have major repercussions in the symbiotic relationship between states and the federal government.
Of course, shutting down Colorado’s marijuana cultivation and retail facilities would once again give control of the sale of pot, which most people consider less harmful than alcohol, to drug cartels and the black market in that state. States like Colorado and Washington, which have legalized pot, are indirectly challenging the catastrophic and failed “war on drugs” begun by former President Richard Nixon in the 1970s. Law and order conservatives don’t like it. This is part of the pushback.
Pruitt’s most public defense of his lawsuit came in a Dec. 26 op-ed article published in the Tulsa World.
Pruitt argues that his main point is that Colorado has developed a system in which “large-scale commercial growers cultivate huge amounts of marijuana and then sell it in retail stores throughout the state.” Some of that pot, Pruitt argues, finds its way into states like Oklahoma “whose people have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of legalizing marijuana.”
The article, however, offers no dense statistical and independent evidence that Colorado pot is flooding into Oklahoma or that it presents a major problem even if it is. Pruitt argues, “Some sheriffs in bordering states say they have pulled over drivers and found edibles and marijuana from multiple Colorado retail outlets.” That hardly constitutes enough reason for a taxpayer-funded major lawsuit. How about just asking Colorado to place some signs on highways leading outside into other states that marijuana is not legal in those states? Maybe they’ve already done that. If so, then people buying pot in Colorado and bringing it into a state in which it is illegal are just rolling the dice they won’t get caught. At least it’s not the work of a major drug cartel.
Also, Oklahomans have absolutely NOT “rejected the idea of legalizing marijuana,” as Pruitt argues. He points to a recent failed initiative petition drive to legalize medical marijuana here in a process “where it’s relatively easy to get a state question on the ballot.” It’s NOT easy to get a question on the ballot here. Some activists here have long argued the short 90-day time frame allowed for a petition drive and the number of signatures needed—right now it’s at 155,216—are an impediment to democracy. Compare Oklahoma’s ballot petition drive process with other states here.
The lawsuit is frivolous and about ideology not about a major law enforcement problem happening in Oklahoma. As I mentioned earlier, it’s also a major contradiction of Pruitt’s continued war against Obamacare through lawsuits, all of which have been philosophically premised on privileging states’ rights over the role of the federal government.
Yet, as at least one other writer has pointed out if the lawsuit were to prevail it could open the door to more federal intervention in and control of states’ governance, including “gun control and pollution.” Do lax gun regulation laws in some states lead to violent crimes in their neighboring states?
Can two specific states require another state to modify one of its specific laws? Minimum wages were just recently raised in 21 states. Could Pruitt argue these new laws represent a threat to commerce here in Oklahoma because “sheriffs in bordering states” have pulled over people who claim they are moving from Oklahoma to a state with higher wages thus depleting the workforce here? Of course, just asking these tortured rhetorical questions just shows the lawsuit’s lack of merit.
Pruitt has become a lighting rod for publicity with his lawsuit war against the Affordable Care Act, and he has also attracted negative outside criticism during his service as attorney general. A recent New York Times article pointed out how Pruitt sent a letter, which was actually written by someone who worked at Devon Energy, under his own name to the Environmental Protection Agency. This act of plagiarism and Pruitt’s cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry was actually condoned by the editorial board of The Oklahoman, the state’s largest newspaper.
Oklahoma taxpayers are footing the bill for Pruitt’s ideological gluttony. The Colorado lawsuit is just another example of the extremist conservative excess pervading the state right now.
(Here is the last of four posts featuring posts on Okie Funk published in 2014. Click on the title to read the entire post. It was a dismal political year for progressives in Oklahoma, but there IS hope for a coming shift and realignment in 2016, at least on the national level. As always, thanks for following this blog. Best wishes to you this holiday season.)
Some Senate Republicans have issued what they are calling a “report” on the virtues, righteousness and basic overall goodness of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.
Fracking, according to the political manifesto, i.e. report, is not only one of the most wonderful things to ever happen for the economy but has also strengthened our country’s geopolitical position in the world. What’s more, so it goes, fracking is also extremely safe and not harmful to the environment. Don’t listen to those Hollywood elites, people. All is well.
Here’s some language from the document just to show how serious it is:
This report highlights the incontrovertible benefits derived from the domestic production of oil and natural gas through the use of hydraulic fracturing. At the same time, it thoroughly discredits the leading claims made by the Obama Administration and their far-left allies who are rooted firmly in the fight against accessing America’s abundant domestic energy. It subsequently undermines the credibility of those who are seeking to devastate America’s energy security, economic opportunity and the livelihoods of families across the country through a coordinated war on hydraulic fracturing and domestic oil and natural gas.
Real scientific stuff, right? Note “far-left allies” and the hyperbolic “coordinated war.” The idea that there’s a real war of any type of oil and gas production in the country is utter fabrication. The frackers here in Oklahoma, for example, frack with impunity. If there IS a figurative war, then it’s a war against the environment, and the frackers are winning it hands down.
What happens to Oklahoma if the recent boom in oil and gas production propelled by hydraulic fracturing goes bust?
If it’s anything close to the 1980s glut that led to steep price drops for oil, a devastated state economy and an ensuing exodus of people from Oklahoma, then it could be an extremely bad problem. For those of us who lived through the 1980s in Oklahoma as working adults, the sheer thought of another major bust should generate a lot of anxiety if not downright panic.
All this doesn’t even take into account the damage to the environment that would get left behind because of the hydraulic fracturing or fracking extraction process, which environmentalists claim contaminates water supplies and leads to earthquakes caused by wastewater disposal. Who’s going to pay for the clean up? Bankrupt or financially struggling oil and gas companies?
I’m posting about this topic because billionaire oilman and Oklahoma State University alum T. Boone Pickens recently gave a speech here in Oklahoma City in which he said oil production in the United States has doubled in the last 10 years and is creating a glut in the world market, lowering barrel prices. NewsOK.com quoted Pickens as saying, “Now we’re producing too much oil.”
The prices are much higher per barrel than they were in the 1980s and supposedly the state economy is more diversified now, but let there be no mistake that any major slowdown in the oil and gas patch is going to strain the Oklahoma economy and especially state revenues. Crude oil prices have dropped from more than $110 per barrel to approximately $80 per barrel over the last year, and some experts expect the decline to continue.
The Oklahoman editorial board’s take on the oil and gas fracking boom gone bust here is as insanely laughable and ridiculous as it gets. It’s cray cray, people.
Here’s the key point in a recent editorial in the newspaper about dropping oil prices and its impact on the state economy: “. . . populists will join the anti-fossil fuel crowd in cheering the pain awaiting oil company employees and their investors.”
See, it’s all about those crazy “populists” excessively worried, as the editorial notes, about those “obscene profits” made by energy companies, which “has never been matched by reality.” The oil company executives, you know those people with courtside seats at The Thunder games, bless their hearts, have nothing to do with it. They match reality. Populists can’t even match their socks on a good day.
It’s as if the writers and editors at The Oklahoman have never experienced or read about or studied the oil boom and bust cycle that has defined this state, well, basically since its inception by the federal government as one of the last states in the nation. I know 1982, the year Penn Square Bank failed, signaling the symbolic end of a major oil boom, may seem like ancient history to a 20-year-old getting ready to take finals next week, but it isn’t to those of us who lived here as adults that year.
(Here is the third of four posts featuring posts on Okie Funk published in 2014. Click on the title to read the entire post. It was a dismal political year for progressives in Oklahoma, but there IS hope for a coming shift and realignment in 2016, at least on the national level. As always, thanks for following this blog. Best wishes to you this holiday season.)
The Oklahoman published a really goofy editorial this week about earthquakes and wastewater disposal wells used in the fracking process that bears noting and refuting.
For anyone else that follows the newspaper’s editorial page as closely as I do—and I only do it in an attempt to undermine the right-wing propaganda—you will immediately recognize the stylistics of this particular commentary, titled “Looking for fault as earthquake swarm continues in Oklahoma.”
It’s one of those tongue-in-cheek editorials, complete with what the writer must see as clever wordplay and with attempts at humor on an issue that some people are taking very serious. So we get “NIMBY, meet NUMBY,” not in my backyard but, instead, not UNDER my backyard. Get it? Disposal wells would be UNDER a backyard, right? A real knee slapper. How about this one then? The earthquakes are just maybe because “Atlas is just shrugging more than usual these days.” Hilarious.
But beyond the grating attempt at humor, the editorial does a grave disservice to Oklahomans for not supplying crucial details about studies linking the recent earthquake swarm here to injection wells used in the fracking process. Instead, it relies on generalizations and presumes the issue has produced a mob mentality that—it’s the NUMBYS’ fault—is off target.
The editorial’s thesis is the same argument made by most people in the oil and gas industry. The argument goes like this: There is no definitive proof linking injection wells to the earthquakes, and thus everyone should shut up here and let Atlas do what he’s going to do.
But can there ever be the definitive proof along the lines sought by The Oklahoman and the oil and gas industry, whatever that might be? I would argue that no scientific evidence, no matter how compelling and revealing, would force the oil and gas industry and their sycophants in the media to accept liability for the earthquakes.
(Here are the obvious solutions to the teenage pregnancy problem in Oklahoma: (1) Establish more comprehensive and required sexual education courses in public schools starting in early grades that continue through high school. (2) Offer students at an appropriate age free contraception, including Plan B and condoms. (3) Ensure women here retain the right to have an abortion. (4) Stop electing right-wing politicians who oppose these sensible ideas.)
It should come at no surprise that Oklahoma continues to have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the nation.
But a story in The Oklahoman about the issue omits this crucial factor: It’s the right-wing religious folks here who oppose appropriate and extensive sexual education that goes beyond abstinence-only dogma. Until public schools can offer more required courses that directly and explicitly address sex and its ramifications, and even offer birth control to students at an appropriate age, Oklahoma will continue to struggle with this problem, which obviously costs taxpayers.
Let’s be real. Oklahomans elect numerous right-wing Christian politicians who profess themselves to be deeply religious. These politicians, using their religious beliefs, prevent the state from realistically addressing the state’s numerous social problems, such as the state's high teenage pregnancy rate.
The Oklahoman, of course, endorses many of these right-wing politicians or supports their overall ideology on its editorial page.
A new report shows the overall quality of Oklahoma’s nursing homes is among the worst in the nation and, unfortunately, that’s an old story dating back at least three decades.
I know the timeline well because, as a former journalist, I wrote a series of articles in 1982 along with another reporter outlining the overall poor quality of the state’s nursing homes and the political forces that helped make it so.
I visited several nursing homes in 1982 as part of my research for the series and while I found there were some outstanding homes there were simply far too many with problems, including substandard care.
The new report, issued by Families For Better Care, ranks the quality of Oklahoma’s nursing homes as 49th in the nation, only behind Texas and Louisiana. A major part of the problem then and now is the lack of professional staffing. The report notes, for example, that “. . . more than 80 percent of nursing homes had middling to below average professional nursing levels.”
This is from the 1982 series about the specific staffing problem:
The reason for the shortage and high turnover stems from the nature of the job. It's an unglamorous task. Nursing aides are responsible for bathing residents, cleaning up messes, helping residents use the bathroom or, in some cases, changing diapers. Aides also must help lift heavy bodies and empty portable toilets.