Whatever it is, it gives us the opportunity to view the issue from different perspectives. Bringing the stories together creates context and meaning that would not be possible otherwise.

Today, there are three excellent examples of this.

The first is an AP story from Washington, D.C. via Washington State about how the Veterans Administration is going to lead the way in making the medical profession more aware of the importance of treating pain. There is no mention of medical marijuana in this story, which tells us something. However, the medical profession has been so seemingly indifferent to – or perhaps afraid to deal with – their patients’ pain, this should not be entirely surprising.

The second is from an Addictions Specialist in the UK who describes the absurd timidity of medical practice there in prescribing even synthetic THC, which is -- oddly – more readily available here than there.

The third is a devastating essay by the former managing editor of the Little Rock newspaper, the one that Bill Clinton supposedly still reads. He doesn’t pull any punches.

The message that is very clear in these three articles -- from very different sources -- is that modern establishment medicine is doing a very bad job of treating pain.

A staple of prohibitionist propaganda is the claim that medical marijuana is unnecessary because all of the problems for which it is used are already more than adequately addressed by existing pharmaceuticals, including synthetic THC.

Obviously, this is not true.

It also widely reported that some 40 million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of others have only very limited coverage. Extrapolating from these numbers we can conclude that there are many millions of people in chronic or severe recurring pain who also have no insurance. They cannot afford whatever medications that might be available, even if pain were being properly treated, which it is not.

For example, a new drug for the treatment of arthritis pain was announced recently, but it costs roughly $1,000 per month.

As the article from the UK makes clear, even when there is socialized medicine and the patient does not have to pay, cost restraints still apply. One of the problems in getting synthetic THC in the UK is that it is considered too expensive for chronic conditions.

So, not only are doctors not prescribing what is available, and not only do these drugs often have debilitating side effects, they are often simply beyond the reach financially of many patients – and even governments.

Bear in mind that the UK and DEAland are two of the richest countries in the world, with some of the best health care. If pain relief is unattainable in such advanced societies, then think what it must be like in most of the rest of the world.

Now, if only there were some relatively safe and inexpensive source of pain relief, one that could be grown everywhere and be self-administered by patients who may never see a doctor.

If such a plant existed, it would surely be heralded by those who are always claiming to speak on behalf of the poor. If such a plant existed, it would surely be utilized by those in advanced societies who have recognized that we are undertreating pain. If such a plant existed, it would surely be demanded by those who are trying to control health care costs. If such a plant existed, it would surely be hailed by those who are concerned about iatrogenic addiction to opioids. If such a plant existed, it would surely be advanced as a possible alternative to physician assisted suicide for the chronically ill and depressed. If such a plant existed, it would surely be prescribed to alleviate the suffering of disabled veterans who fought for our freedom.

If such a plant existed, and it was not vigorously backed by all the above, then it would surely indicate malpractice and malfeasance on an astonishing scale.

But, if such a plant existed and it was not merely ignored but actively suppressed by all the above, and if those who needed it most were viciously persecuted for using it, and if their few brave advocates were ostracized by the best Universities for even mentioning it, and none of our moral leaders and champions of freedom spoke out against this, what would we be dealing with?

Do you understand why I am so endlessly fascinated with this?

The question is not why the worst do their worst, but, rather, why the best help them.