New at Reason
Steve Chapman raises the issue that makes presidential candidates squirm, no matter how popular it is with the rest of us: medical marijuana.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Untermensch | October 8, 2007, 7:25am | #
The reason none of them (excepting Ron Paul) support medical marijuana, even if most republicans support it, is that the supporters are not the ones who vote in primaries. Same reason most of them won't criticize Bush and the War in Iraq. Until the candidates see a change in the way they have to position themselves for the primaries, medical marijuana will be off the table. If these rent-a-face candidates thought they could win the primaries by advocating for medical marijuana, they'd be all over it and saying how they have always supported it.Taktix® | October 8, 2007, 7:58am | #
The only way to turn the tide is to make pot more commonplace.Get out there and get smoking, people...
Warren | October 8, 2007, 9:12am | #
As long as politicians like John McCant think they're better served spouting Drug War propaganda, I don't see much reason for hope. Other than RON PAUL that is.RON PAUL IS
the Hope for America
VM | October 8, 2007, 10:03am | #
"Steve Chapman raises the issue that makes presidential candidates squirm"errr. telling the truth?
Ben Rushing | October 8, 2007, 12:39pm | #
This is real Libertarian commentary that Reason needs to report on moer often. Real criticism of the Republican party, not the phony stuff that you get in the press. The problem with Republicans is that they have grown more Centrist in order to (as they feel) get elected. This has caused an assault on both personal freedoms (an over reaching Patriot Act) and economic freedom (Steel Tarrifs and the lack of the school voucher program that we were promised). The Republican party needs to get back on track with the more and more Libertarian Conservative movement out there and quit appealing to the so called "liberals" of the world. They wouldn't even have to pull out of Iraq to do this, just stop the silly appeals and the useless "bi-partisanship" that we see today that has lead us down the road towards mild statism.Christina | October 8, 2007, 1:14pm | #
We all understand why none of the GOP candidates but Ron Paul will support rolling back the WoD. The are trying to appeal to social conservatives. But what I don't understand is the Democratic party's complete avoidance of the issue altogether, especially when one of their most notable constituencies is the black community, which is disproportionatly affected by the WoD.Is it simply that such an tack would require a repudiation of all their other attempts to turn the US into a total nanny state? Because, really, the Democrats don't typically have problems with advocating conflicting polticy prescriptions.
Brandybuck | October 8, 2007, 1:30pm | #
This is not a dispute between Republican voters and Democratic voters. It's a dispute between Republican politicians and everyone else.Let's not be too partisan in choosing which statists to scorn. The Democrat politicians are just as bad when it comes to drugs. Remember when Clinton was too afraid to admit he inhaled? When he called Elders to the woodshed for daring to consider question drug war orthodoxy? Or more current, as Democrat run cities are zoning and regulatin otherwise legal pot clinics out of existance. While a few in the current crop of Democrat candidates may mumble that they support medical marijuana use, they still aren't in support of general decriminalization.
scurvybro | October 8, 2007, 1:31pm | #
It goes without saying that McCain is full of it on the topic of marijuana, but it escapes me how Mr. Chapman decided to lead his piece with the notion that McCain has "somehow avoided becoming a complete phony."I missed that. Sucking up to religious right is just one example of his hypocritical pandering, but hardly the only one. Or is Mr. Chapman's contention that McCain is only a "partial" phony, and not a "complete" one?
I wonder to whom McCain is really pendering. Most of the conservatives I know, even the Bible-thumpers, are fairly lenient where medical mari-hootchee is concerned...
Jim Walsh's Proof-Reader | October 8, 2007, 1:57pm | #
That should be "pandering." Guess I need to preef-rood better...Douglas Gray | October 8, 2007, 2:54pm | #
You can rant and rave against the evils of drug use and support the WoD, to appease social conservatives, but still support the use of medical marijuana. I can't understand why all the Republican candidates don't take this position.The sad thing is marjuana does not correlate with violent behavior the way alchol does.
If we still want a war on drugs, let's make war on Speed, Crack, and Cocaine, but legalize Marijuana, and heroin (just a painkiller, really, no different from morphine or oxycontin)
I believe Huckabee has also criticized the failed war on drugs, although I’m not sure yet it he’s ready to take the steps necessary to end prohibition.
BakedPenguin | October 8, 2007, 8:17pm | #
...what I don't understand is the Democratic party's complete avoidance of the [medical marijuana / WoD] issue altogether, especially when one of their most notable constituencies is the black community, which is disproportionatly affected by the WoD.The Dems have the black community sewn up. Blacks typically vote about 5% or so Republican. The Libertarian party is too stupid to actually try to get the black vote, so the Dems know they don't have to address the WoD and its devastating effect on black communities.
If the Libs would field a few candidates who would go out and speak to black voters about ending the WoD, and reining in out-of-control prosecutors, I think the traction gained on these issues would be huge - the Dems would have to address them, for fear of losing a big enough chunk of their base.
americanhelot | October 9, 2007, 12:24am | #
Don't you know the state is never wrong? Besides drug companies wouldn't be able to charge enough for an herb to bankrupt its customers requiring them to receive state insurance.Jerry Hepnar MD | October 10, 2007, 12:02am | #
One hundred years ago a physician would write a prescription for a patient to chew one foxglove leaf a day. Today we dose digoxin in precise doses of 0.125 mg a day titrating the dose to the desire effect. Dronabinol, the active agent in marijuana, does have medical indications and should be prescribed as any other drug. It is available in pharmaceutically pure exact doses. Telling a patient just to smoke a joint is sloppy medicine, irresponsible and borders on malpractice.potworksforme | October 10, 2007, 11:24am | #
Medical Cannabis is a life saver. For any info regarding the issue www.thecompassionclub.org this is the Canadian Compassion Club pioneer that started the whole ball rolling.I support finding medical use of marijuanna but that is not what most supporters are looking for. They are looking for total legalization. While not the worst thing in the world I don't think it is a good idea. For those that compare Pot to booze here is the reason I see why pot should be illegal. One doesn't necessarily drink to get drunk. Many do but not all. One smokes pot specifically to get high and there are no exceptions.