Declaration review
Kudos to Philip Martin. I often wonder how bare the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette daily and Sunday pages would be without his prolific and prodigious offerings. He must be paid by the word. And he scores a big one now and then. His Nov. 16 Sunday review of Walter Isaacson’s book, “The Greatest Sentence Ever Written,” could be considered the greatest review ever written about the meaning of the 35 crucial words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal … .” I’ve got to read the book.
Even if I don’t read the book, Martin did a fine job plumbing and tackling the ever-changing meaning and interpretation of those words in American life over the past 250 years. The book and Martin’s review give critical thinkers, of whom there seems to be a shortage these days, much to ponder. The hope of reinforcing democracy and continuing the American Dream may depend on whether we in the United States and other nations seeking to build and maintain a free, stable and worthwhile government system can assimilate and actualize the book’s premises.
Also, Martin mentioned Brent Walker’s hallowed and spirited reading of the Declaration of Independence following the annual Midland Hills community parade through the Hillcrest neighborhood on July 4 in Little Rock. In recent years amid Arkansas and national political trends, perhaps that patriotic event warrants changes. Inviting participation of folks from a multiracial neighborhood group and an additional reading are in order. In addition to reading of the Declaration of Independence, I suggest that excerpts from Frederick Douglass’ July 4, 1852, speech–“What to a Slave is the Fourth of July”–also be read. Such changes for the community event would be in keeping with the premise of Martin’s column and Isaacson’s book.
DAVID F.L. KERN
Little Rock
Dictatorial position
“Punishable by death.” Yep, that’s what our illustrious president had to say about the proposed fate of congressional leaders who are saying military personnel do not have to follow orders telling them to perform illegal acts.
The question now is what do our illustrious congressional leaders say about that? I’ve not read or heard a peep. Does that mean they support the president’s dictatorial position?
LARRY COLE
Conway
Policy, not medicine
Buried in the Fiscal 2026 agriculture appropriations package is a major change to federal hemp policy. Although promoted as a crackdown on intoxicating products like Delta-8, the new rules would effectively outlaw most non-intoxicating full-spectrum CBD products that patients depend on for relief.
As a physician who regularly treats patients with cannabinoid-based medicine, I’m deeply concerned about the consequences.
The 2018 Farm Bill allowed hemp products containing less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC, which made full-spectrum CBD extracts, containing naturally occurring trace THC, legal and widely accessible. The new law replaces that definition with a “total THC” standard and adds an extraordinarily strict limit: no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container. A typical bottle of full-spectrum CBD oil contains 25–100 mg of THC, still non-intoxicating when used as directed, but now far above the new threshold.
This change would eliminate an estimated 90 to 95 percent of today’s hemp-derived CBD products, including oils, topicals, capsules, and tinctures used by patients with chronic pain, anxiety, sleep disorders, inflammatory diseases, and neurological conditions.
The problem is simple: Full-spectrum CBD works differently. Unlike CBD isolate, which has a narrow “sweet spot” of effectiveness, full-spectrum products provide more consistent relief at lower doses because of the natural synergy between multiple cannabinoids and terpenes. Patients forced to switch to isolate-based products often experience reduced benefit, higher cost, and far more difficulty in dosing.
These rules are a policy choice, not a medical one. Unless Congress revises the law before it takes effect in November 2026, millions of patients may lose access to safe, non-intoxicating treatments that improve their quality of life.
Lawmakers should target truly risky hemp products, not the therapies patients rely on.
BRIAN NICHOL
North Little Rock
Immigration policies
Democrats’ unrealistic, harmful open-border and sanctuary policies disgust me. One of their main arguments seems to be a need for labor, particularly in agriculture. I’ve worked with farmers and processors in 11 Midwestern and Western states, and it seems to me the need for labor has declined since the 1960s due to mechanization; an exception might be in meat processing. However, the number of workers for those jobs is a tiny amount, I believe, compared to the immigration we’ve had.
If excuses for their policies are weak, why do Democrats rabidly defend them? Smuggling by cartels is a huge business. Are Democrats in high places getting a payoff?
RON NELSON
Mountain Home
