PayPal
BitCoin
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon
RSS
iTunes

DoseNation Podcast

Weekly news, talk, and interviews. More »

SUGGEST A STORY  |   CREATE AN ACCOUNT  |  
DoseNation.com

Ask 3 presidential candidates about medical marijuana and you'll get 6 different answers

The SF Chronicle wrote a review of the presidential candidates' positions on medical marijuana Monday. Here's the bottom line summary:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is less explicit, recently softening a pledge she made early in the campaign to halt federal raids in states with medical marijuana laws. But she has expressed none of the hostility that marked the response of her husband's administration to California's initiative, Proposition 215.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has gone back and forth on the issue - promising a medical marijuana patient at one campaign stop that seriously ill patients would never face arrest under a McCain administration, but ultimately endorsing the Bush administration's policy of federal raids and prosecutions.

Jacob Sullum at Reason digs in a little deeper to Obama's position in particular. His conclusion:

Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it.

He's right that seemingly innocuous statements about marijuana should be "controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed" and "subject to [FDA] regulation like other drugs" could be a lot more radical change than people might realize. Wouldn't that mean getting access to that legendary government grown pot? Or to strains certified with certain THC and cannibidiol levels. Or at least stuff that doesn't have freakin' lead in it.

It's not clear quite what that would mean, or whether Obama could really make it happen. But it sure does sound better than what we got now.

Posted By avicenna at 2008-05-16 01:22:18 permalink | comments
Tags: medical marijuana drug policy legalization Obama Clinton McCain Sullum
Facebook it! Twitter it! Digg it! Reddit! StumbleUpon It! Google Bookmark del.icio.us technorati Furl Yahoo! Bookmark
» More ways to bookmark this page


Nowhere Girl. : 2008-05-17 03:07:28
Zupakomputer, don't worry, I can't understand it either. ;) I just don't understand how can the state deny people the right to experience certain states of mind, how can politicians even think it's their business.
For me it's much like a different version of the early 70s radical feminist slogan: "Personal is political". This policy just shows that privacy is an illusion, it always remains under control. But still I dream of a world in which "the political sphere" wouldn't be something dirty and threatening.
omgoleus : 2008-05-16 23:58:20
Wait, don't tell me, is it because they're using other people's minds to generate electricity to power their robot-controlled virtual reality?

zupakomputer. : 2008-05-16 09:02:58
In the future, there'll be documentaries on the rabid psychosis of these here times, that prompted anyone to have such a problem with growing / using pot that they'd actually go as far as raiding places and speaking out against growing / using it.

Seriously, wtf is their problem? How can it possibly be doing them any harm if ALL that's being done is growing / using pot. How the fuck do they justify their even making it their business.

Think Real Hard About This, if it ain't dawned upon you yet:

Why would anyone REASONABLY be bothered about what is going on INSIDE ANOTHER PERSONS MIND.

Can you see what they are yet? Have I been blatant enough here? No?, fine then:

THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DRUGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING OTHER PEOPLES MINDS FOR SOME KIND OF SELFISH, EXCEPTIONALLY ABUSIVE, AND UNSPOKEN (NOT OPENLY ADMITTED TO) PURPOSE.

I won't go into the details of that purpose; the point is that it shouldn't be able to happen.

The comments posted here do not reflect the views of the owners of this site.

HOME
COMMENTS
NEWS
ARCHIVE
EDITORS
REVIEW POLICY
SUGGEST A STORY
CREATE AN ACCOUNT
RSS | TWITTER | FACEBOOK
DIGG | REDDIT | SHARE