Peter McWilliams is dead.
Age? Fifty. Profession?
Author, poet, publisher.
Particular focus of interest? The federal
judge in California (George King) would
decide in a few weeks how long a
sentence to hand down, and whether to
send McWilliams to prison or let him
serve his sentence at home.
What was his offense? He collaborated
in growing marijuana plants.
What was his defense? Well, the judge
wouldn't allow him to plead his defense
to the jury. If given a chance, the
defense would have argued that under
Proposition 215, passed into California
constitutional law in 1996, infirm
Californians who got medical relief from
marijuana were permitted to use it. The
judge also forbade any mention that
McWilliams suffered from AIDS and
cancer, and got relief from the
marijuana.
What was he doing when he died?
Vomiting. The vomiting hit him while in
his bathtub, and he choked to death.
Was there nothing he might have done
to still the impulse to vomit? Yes, he
could have taken marijuana; but the
judge's bail terms forbade him to do so,
and he submitted to weekly urine tests
to confirm that he was living up to the
terms of his bail.
Did anybody take note of the risk he was
undergoing? He took Marinol -- a
proffered, legal substitute, but reported
after using it that it worked for him only
about one-third of the time. When it
didn't work, he vomited.
Was there no public protest against the
judge's ruling? Yes. On June 9, the
television program "20/20" devoted a
segment to the McWilliams plight.
Commentator John Stossel summarized:
"McWilliams is out of prison on the
condition that he not smoke marijuana,
but it was the marijuana that kept him
from vomiting up his medication. I can
understand that the federal drug police
don't agree with what some states have
decided to do about medical marijuana,
but does that give them the right to just
end-run those laws and lock people up?"
Shortly after the trial last year, Charles
Levendosky, writing in the Ventura
County (Calif.) Star, summarized: "The
cancer treatment resulted in complete
remission." But only the marijuana gave
him sustained relief from the vomiting
that proved mortal.
Is it being said, in plain language, that
the judge's obstinacy resulted in killing
McWilliams? Yes. The Libertarian Party
press release has made exactly that
charge. "McWilliams was prohibited
from using medical marijuna -- and
being denied access to the drug's
anti-nausea properties almost certainly
caused his death."
Reflecting on the judge's refusal to let
the jury know that there was
understandable reason for McWilliams
to believe he was acting legally, I ended
a column in this space in November by
writing, "So, the fate of Peter
McWilliams is in the hands of Judge
King. Perhaps the cool thing for him to
do is delay a ruling for a few months,
and just let Peter McWilliams die." Well,
that happened last week, on June 14.
The struggle against a fanatical
imposition of federal laws on marijuana
will continue, as also on the question
whether federal laws can stifle state
initiatives. Those who believe the
marijuana laws are insanely misdirected
have a martyr.
Peter was a wry, mythogenic guy,
humorous, affectionate, articulate,
shrewd, sassy. He courted anarchy at
the moral level. His most recent book
(his final book) was called "Ain't
Nobody's Business If You Do." We were
old friends, and I owe my early
conversion to word processing to his
guidebook on how to do it. Over the
years we corresponded, and he would
amiably twit my conservative opinions.
When I judged him to have gone
rampant on his own individualistic views
in his book, I wrote him to that effect. I
cherish his reply -- nice acerbic
deference, the supreme put-down.
"Please remember the Law of Relativity
as applied to politics: In order for you to
be right, at least someone else must be
wrong. Your rightness is only shown in
relation to the other's wrongness.
Conversely, your rightness is necessary
for people like me to look truly wrong.
Before Bach, people said of bad organ
music, 'That's not quite right.' After
Bach, people said flatly, 'That's wrong.'
This allowed dedicated composers to
grow, and cast the neophytes back to
writing how-to-be-happy music. So,
thank me for my wrongness, as so many
reviews of my book will doubtless say,
'People should read more of a truly
great political commentator: William F.
Buckley Jr.'"
Imagine such a spirit ending its life at
50, just because they wouldn't let him
have a toke. We have to console
ourselves with the comment of the two
prosecutors. They said they were
"saddened" by Peter McWilliams' death.
Many of us are -- by his death and the
causes of it.
