Can Herman Cain Rise Back Up on a Cloud of Marijuana Smoke?
See Parts 1 and 2 in my ongoing series on political magick and its role in the GOP primary campaign.
The most puzzling aspect of the practice of magick — and the reason so many people resist it as a metaphor — is the question of whether it actually “works.” If I perform some silly little ritual to project my will out onto the universe, if I spell out the way I want the world to go, will it actually have the effect I want? If the world does happen to change as I wanted it to, was it really my performance of the ritual that caused it or would it have just happened regardless? The humble mystic will alternate back and forth between thinking there’s actually something supernatural involved, and reverting to a scientific skeptic dismissing any odd synchronicities as just patterns that he’s tricked his brain into finding. Robert Anton Wilson has observed that when one starts to lean really hard in one direction then all of a sudden evidence will appear to pull you the other way. That’s been my personal experience too in my dabblings.
Same story in the practice of New Media Political Magick. When we write the world as we wish it was and then we see the change manifest, we always doubt if our spell was actually the nudge or not. “Did the candidate read what I wrote and make the decision based on my argument?” Probably not, but why not enjoy entertaining the fantasy for a moment?
On October 23, I published “Our Deceitful Marxist President’s Cruel War on Sick Medicinal Marijuana Patients” here at PJM. The article excoriated Obama’s betrayal of a campaign promise and advocated for the then-front runner to start bringing up an issue that could tip both the primary and the general election in his favor:
Next: Time for Herman Cain to formally unveil a reset on GOP drug policy that will further secure 2012 victory and solidify a generation’s conservatism?
2.The federal government does not have the authority to tell its citizens which of the plants God set growing on this earth they are permitted to utilize for medicinal purposes. Regulating such matters as best benefits the community is the responsibility of state and local governments. If Alabama residents want marijuana to be illegal they can do that. If California votes for weed to be sold at Wal-Marts they can do that. And citizens can then live where they want. Problem solved. The best way for marijuana counterculturalists to proceed is to buffer transitional periods toward legalization with a decade or so of a medicinal marijuana program. The culture needs to continue to shift toward understanding drugs as tools used by responsible people to fix medical problems and raise ones’ quality of life, not party pills for recreation.
In my article I noted that Cain had already quietly endorsed a states’ rights position on marijuana. On Tuesday he did exactly as I hoped:
“If states want to legalize medical marijuana, I think that’s a state’s right,” Cain said, according to NBC News. “Because one of my overriding approaches to looking at all of these issue –most of them belong at the state, because when you do something federally . . . you try to force one-size-fits-all.”
Given that it’s now a Cain-Gingrich-Romney race (or a Gingrich-Romney race if you’re discussing it with Newt’s groupies), we need to review where the Genie and Knight stand since the Wizard has now quietly cast his spell.
This is a simple issue: is it the role of the federal government to spend tens of billions of dollars each year to try and prevent its citizens from becoming addicted to certain drugs? Surely Gingrich has been consistent on such a fundamental question as the conservative understanding of the limited duties of the federal government, right?
Next: The must stunning — and brain dead — flip flop I’ve ever seen…
Medical pot is great in theory, but hard to police in practice, even by the medical profession itself. With nearly any drug, “off label” uses are widespread and often may occur more frequently than FDA approved uses. In most cases, that doesn’t lead to abuses, but pot is a whole different matter because the market is far, far bigger than the rare appropriate medical user. And there are plenty of unscrupulous doctors and growers who want in on that.
Montana’s experience with this is illustrative. After a truly unbelievable couple of years experience with legalized medical marijuana, with “doc in the box” practitioners writing literally hundreds of prescriptions a day and individual pot shops outnumbering the estimated number of total patients who needed them, it became clear that the medical pot law was engineered by those who want to legalize marijuana for everyone. In short, Montanans had been sold a bill of goods- it wasn’t about helping a handful of very ill patients, it was about have weed available for anyone who wanted it. However, that’s not what Montanans thought they were voting for. So the Montana state legislature cracked down by requiring patients to grow their own. They also tightened up the prescribing requirements because the abuses were so egregious.
I’m also not sure what the point is about opiates. They’re tightly controlled by the government (although doctors still have wide leeway regarding what they’re prescribed for) because they’re dangerous- but they have a great many proven uses. Whereas medical pot only treats a handful of very rare conditions. Opiates can obviously be abused, but modern medical care can’t function without them. But most docs could go their entire career without ever having a reason to prescribe medical marijuana.
The whole medical marijuana push really is just a way to back-door legalization for everyone. I don’t want to get into the pros and cons of that, only to say that this is just a dishonest way of doing it.
I notice that you don’t actually respond to any of the arguments I presented. Like this one: ” is it the role of the federal government to spend tens of billions of dollars each year to try and prevent its citizens from becoming addicted to certain drugs?”
“Whereas medical pot only treats a handful of very rare conditions.”
This isn’t true at all. Medicinal marijuana is effective for treating a wide variety of ailments including many that are quite common.
“They also tightened up the prescribing requirements because the abuses were so egregious.”
Who is the one who should decide if marijuana would help someone’s medical issues, the individual and his doctor or the state? What are these “egregious” abuses that you speak of? Sure, a minority of people will just fake a bogus medical condition so they can get marijuana to use recreationally. But so what? Such people who would go to the trouble are the same people who would just buy it illegally to do the same thing. They have nothing to do with the grown ups talking about how this plant and its chemicals can be utilized for responsible medical treatment. And invoking them is really no different than talking about drunk drivers to try and promote alcohol prohibition.
The reason why I didn’t respond to that point is because, as I said, I don’t want to get into the overall issue whether pot should be legal or not. I am discussing the area of medical marijuana.
And I should clarify. Medical pot CAN treat several conditions- but it’s far from necessary for any condition. It is a good treatment for intractable nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, some kinds of rare glaucoma, and cachexia. But a patient can get a pill of THC without resorting to something that is illegal. The numbers of people that have NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to marijuana are truly very low, indeed. The intent of the law was to loosen up restrictions so these folks could have access to it, but that’s not what happened.
Because of the privilege of the doctor/patient relationship that you rightfully point out, once that door to prescribing is opened it can’t be shut, and the abuses were enormous. Here are just a few: there was a doc who rented out the Holiday Inn convention center down in Billings and literally wrote hundreds of prescriptions a day. That is not good medicine (I’m a doctor, so I can say that), and with the help of the MMA the legislature shut that kind of activity down. It was predicted perhaps a hundred people in the state would need the medicine- instead there were over a hundred pot shops. Easily. People were completely taken aback by what happened. This is live-and-let-live kind of state, but not even we could accept how easily available it was. Again, Montanans thought they were voting to help a few sick individuals feel better. They didn’t think they were okaying the practice of buying a prescription with a five-minute chat with a doctor who just go their Montana license a week ago. They felt duped.
Regarding your last question- so what? Well, the legislature in Montana answered that already. It was clearly enough of a problem that they took the extraordinary steps that they did to restrict medical marijuana use by dictating how it could be prescribed. That is, as you say, a place where the state shouldn’t get involved- and the fact that they did (with the blessings of the MMA) shows just how bad the problems were.
“The reason why I didn’t respond to that point is because, as I said, I don’t want to get into the overall issue whether pot should be legal or not. I am discussing the area of medical marijuana.”
By choosing to hide your position on the former (and trying to avoid the whole question) you undermine the credibility of what you have to say on the latter.
“Medical pot CAN treat several conditions- but it’s far from necessary for any condition.”
Who’s saying it’s necessary for any condition? You’re arguing with straw men instead of arguing with what’s actually argued in my post.
“But a patient can get a pill of THC without resorting to something that is illegal.”
A patient living in a state where medicinal marijuana is illegal can get THC pills? That doesn’t sound right at all.
You still haven’t listed any negative consequences that Montana endured as a result of the supposed abuse of a doctor writing many scripts a day. Here in California the way it works is that there are doctors that write perhaps a hundred
What percentage of the population has a chronic disease that could be improved by marijuana? The answer is we really don’t know. The criminalization of the drug has stunted research and we don’t know all of its potential applications or how it could be more effective if refined. How are we going to find out if people keep letting emotional fears of smelly hippies prevent science and the free market from exploring this drug?
My primary point in this whole discussion is that if pot advocates want to legalize pot, then that’s what needs to be brought up and discussed. What they did in Montana was duplicitous, and in the end it backfired on them.
However, I’m sure it’s because they (correctly, as it turns out) assumed that if they did hit the topic head-on people would turn down the initiative. We see this tactic used all the time to back-door issues that the left favors and just because this is a libertarian cause doesn’t make that tactic right.
It’s not necessary to discuss why writing hundreds of prescriptions a day is wrong- on the face of it even nonmedical people understand that a proper medical evaluation can’t be done in five minutes. It is exactly like the doctors writing permission slips for the protestors in Wisconsin- an obvious breach of decent medical care, and those doctors were called on it as well. Your demanding I name a reason why that is so is like a five year old yelling “Prove it!” Well, no, I won’t. It’s unacceptable medical care, that’s all.
By the same token, having the Montana legislature severely restrict the medical marijuana act, with help from the Montana Medical Association (in fact, some doctors didn’t think they went far enough) is evidence enough that the people of the state didn’t like what happened after the law was passed, as well as evidence that it’s medically marginal treatment. It’s not necessary to go into exhaustive detail why a intelligent people decided the law as it stood was unacceptable, unless you want to question the ability of your fellow citizens to govern themselves. Again, that’s a tactic seen primarily on the left.
The people of Montana have spoken- whether you like what they have to say is a different matter entirely.
I’m finding this to be a disingenuous discussion as you’re mostly ignoring when I make reasonable objections to your alleged knowledge base on this issue. For example, you claimed that patients in states without medicinal marijuana laws have access to THC in pill form. I raised objection to this claim. You ignored this and did not address this point I raised. If I’m really going to continue having a dialogue with you on this subject I’d like you to back that up.
“It’s not necessary to discuss why writing hundreds of prescriptions a day is wrong- on the face of it even nonmedical people understand that a proper medical evaluation can’t be done in five minutes.”
Here’s how it works in California. A person has documentation from their doctor that they have a condition that would be helped by medicinal marijuana. They go to the medicinal marijuana doctor, he examines the documentation, takes about 10 minutes to talk with them, and then decides if marijuana would probably help their condition. He doesn’t need to do the multiple visits to make the recommendation because the patient already has the documentation from the previous doctors.
Apparently Montana didn’t set up a very good system if someone could go and write a hundred scripts a day without having to make photocopies of documentation that proved the individuals needed it. (That’s how it’s worked in California for over a decade. Doctors have to be able to justify their recommendations to the state.) It doesn’t really bother me that Montana’s culture wasn’t ready for medicinal marijuana or that their legislators passed laws that were inadequate. As already stated in the article, it’s not my objective for medicinal marijuana to be the law of the land in all 50 states, just that there is greater agreement that this is a state’s rights issue.
And it’s the state’s rights issue also that you refuse to discuss…
Well, right, Dave. The original MMA (medical marijuana act, not montana medical association) in Montana was far too lenient. And it unleashed a whole host of problems that the legislature was forced to deal with two years later (because our legislature only meets every two years, thank God). The point being that the intent of the law’s advocates was NOT to restrict it to legitimate medical uses, or they wouldn’t have fought the modifications tooth and nail since they went into effect.
As for the THC issue, how do you want me to back that up? If a doctor writes for THC pills (Marinol), patients can get it. That’s it. I don’t have a link for it, just like I don’t have a link for any of the thousands of other FDA approved drugs. But I can assure you that the lawmakers in Montana have neither the inclination or expertise to reinvent the wheel. If the FDA approves it, that’s good enough for them.
Another deception. Marinol is synthetic THC — and promoted by the DEA… I’m talking about a real pill containing real THC from a real marijuana plant. Such pills can only be purchased in states where medicinal marijuana is legal.
THC is THC- that’s just chemistry. Now if your point is that this is a corrupt arrangement, you’re right, but if you’re arguing efficacy, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Bless your little heart, David!
If the Feds can’t conrol marijuana, they can’t control and other drug. The man from Montana has it, belatedly, correct. The lazy, lascivious loadies want to offer all americans the opportunity to get loaded and stay loaded and watch the country collapse.This is but another King Baby exercise in which all are alleged to be “entitled” to being spoonfed, nursed, butt wiped and tucked in.
If you want to waste your life as a marijuana drunkard and spend eternity in Hell, no one can stop you. But why do you wish to persuade and enable others to follow your selfdestructive walk?
And the pseudointellectual palaver about the “medicinal” nonsense fools no one. Drunk is drunk and drunks don’t function.
Could you give some Biblical evidence that marijuana is from the Devil? According to the Bible, no plant on earth has been labeled off limits by God since the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As for drunkards, Jesus drank wine and probably didn’t get drunk but that’s the issue isn’t it? Responsible people can have a glass of wine and not get drunk or ruin their lives over it. The same goes for marijuana. It’s just a plant that grows in the ground. God made it. Why did He? So He could send you to hell if you eat it or smoke it? That makes no sense. Eating food releases endorphines which are chemicals which make a person feel “high”…should we stop eating food too? Jalapenos and other hot peppters intensify the high effect…do you think God hates jalapenos? I’m just saying…what is your evidence from the Bible that God hates marijuana?
Dana, what’s dishonest is the 74 years this plant has been demonized by chrony capitalist and big government. You truly need to read the “Emperor Wears no Clothes” by Jack Herer and re-read Mr. Swindle’s article. The truth will set you free. As for Herman Cain, I think he’s listening to Gov. Gary Johnson’s views about marijuana. A sensible approach.
I don’t recall where I ever mentioned my opinion regarding the legalization of marijuana. You (and Mr. Swindle) assume I’m against it because I have decried the dishonest tactics its advocates have used in my home state, and the backlash they received as a result.
I actually don’t have an opinion, as I’m not in addiction medicine. And if the government and crony capitalists are to blame for the demonization of marijuana, I fail to see how fooling the public again in order to right that wrong is a laudable tack to take. It’s something that you see time and again on the left, though. They’re constantly bypassing the public to do things “for their own good.” Are you in favor of that?
Dana the medical profession isn’t in it to police it. The Statist is the problem. It’s as if the government is saying God made a mistake and we’ll see to it that it’s controlled.
The author is correct, it’s about the money, plain and simple.
Your own words, “the market is far far greater”, suggests the people have spoken in support of the polls presented in this article.
I like Herman Cain a lot. But I would like him more if the took the position that government, federal, state or local, does not have the right to tell citizens what they can and can not put in their. That should apply to Medical Marijuana, approved prescription drugs, cocaine, medical devices, heroin, breast implants, crystal meth, experimental and early stage therapeutic drugs, experimental recreational drugs and experimental breast implants!
This is not to say we should eliminate the FDA. There is a great role for the FDA in defining/regulating manufacturing and testing standards and the format for publishing data on efficacy, statistical certainty, etc. But the government should not have the right to control the bodies of its citizens.
well said.
We do not need the FDA for those aspect either. Those can just as easily be handled by a consumers report style entity or other private style entity like trade groups.
I could not agree with this article more. If the people in a state want to outlaw abortion or to allow legal marijuana use, then so be it. If the people of the state don’t like it, then they can work to change the laws. The state legislatures can better represent the balance of viewpoints within each state (rural, metro, moral, etc). If I am opposed to the elected views of the citizens in my state, then I can move to a state more in line with my own views.
The role of the Federal government should be limited to things that benefit us all – such as a common currency, interstate roads and commerce, the defense of the nation, as well as enforcing the constitution and bill of rights. Other than that, the feds should only get involved when the actions within the confines of one state directly impact the lives of citizens in another. For example: one state wants to pollute their waters, and those waters flow into another state.
The idea should be that we are a nation made up of individual states with a federal government whose sole purpoe is to manage interstate state issues, rather than the issues of the each individual state.
Just another reason to consider voting for Herman Cain. Thanks for this article.
Thank you for your support.
“Given that it’s now a Cain-Gingrich-Romney race…” Sigh. How many formulations of “it’s now an X-Y-Romney race” are we going to have to go through before pundits admit that the voters get to do the electing? These proclamations of conventional wisdom on the horserace are virtually never right.
I’m pleased to see Cain taking baby steps in the right direction, but I’d be happier if his approach had more philosophical backbone. Why is it any of the federal government’s business if you smoke a joint? The war on drugs has caused more violence than drugs ever did, and in my wilder (always sober) moments I even fancy that the concomitant dual erosions of the rule of law and civil liberties may have been the point. Pot isn’t dangerous to anyone but the user.
The above is what you should expect from a Paul supporter, and so I am. Unlike Gingrich, Paul can be trusted to tell you what he sincerely believes is right, and act accordingly. It’s a rare quality in a politician in either party.
Legal and illegal drugs of all kinds are both billion dollar a year industries.
If the drug trade didn’t generate immense sums of profits, they wouldn’t be both a court’s and law enforcement problem they currently are.
An hour doesn’t go by that some drug ‘mule,’ king pin, dealer or safe house owner isn’t hauled off to a sally port somewhere. This happens across the USA and in all four corners of the globe.
Case in point, two weeks ago, in a shoot-out in a Rio de Janeiro slum, Rocinha,near by where Rio’s elites play golf and polo, special forces of Rio’s elite SWAT team climbed up treacherous allys and byways to capture a well organized, well run drug king pin, his henchmen and assorted kilos of drugs.
Everyone was pleased with this effort, its attempt at eradicating a societal cancer. Upon careful scrutiny of computers, accounting material and expense notations this single nefarious operation netted, weekly, USD$50 million.
This immediately prompted questions as to why Rios Elite SWAT team was called to bear massive force at eradicating this cancer from society. Answer, the police were demanding a higher percentage of cut from drug king pins operation (little did they suspect the volume of profits).
So, legal and illegal drug sales are still a billion dollar a year operation, and local law enforcement is actively protecting drug king pins from interventon, if they include law enforcement in the ill gotten fruits of their labor. Any doubts? The US has a RICO act, allows law enforcement to participate, legally, in any assets apprehended in a suspected drug raid.
Talk about back-assward. It isn’t the high profit margin that makes drugs a crime, it’s making drugs a crime that makes them high profit margin.
As for Cain, certainly prohibition is a completely wrong headed idea in a free country (unless one’s livelihood is somehow tied to it). But, while calling drug laws state issues (correctly), he also said the 2nd amendment was a “state issue”, he’s recently come out to the left of FDR on public unions, his gaffe about China “going nuclear”, etc. I was a big fan of his and initially turned a blind eye to some of these mis-steps, but lately, I’m really starting to wonder about Herman.
The position that drug laws are none of the federal government’s business has long been held by Ron Paul (of course, it was also held by the framers of the Constitution, but hey, everybody says Paul is nuts. . . right?).
While I disagree with some of Paul’s foreign policy points, overall, I find more to agree with him on than pretty much any of the others running.
You are messed up, alright! Your facts do not sustain your illogical conclusions. Been smoking too much grass?
It seems to me that the “War On Drugs” has only produced criminals. And very wealthy ones at that. The jails are full of users and sellers. It spawns lots of violence; now kids kill other kids. I say just legalize most of the stuff and take a laissez faire attitude with a couple of exceptions for LSD and the date rape drug.
The war simply isn’t winnable unless we want to line up users and sellers and execute them. Why not just let anyone over 21 go to the drug store and get what they want after they sign a release of liability. The drugs would be clean and come in precise dosages. Then we could eventually unfill the jails and put money into good quality treatment.
Europe is sinking into the abyss. The Middle East is imploding or exploding or both. The United States has been downgraded, has a secret msrxist as president, is on the bring of becoming a full-on welfare state with no hope of recovery, and has unemployment by some accounting of about 20%…and we get 3-page tomes slamming Newt Gingrich for his viewpoints about marijuana. With cute illustrations to attract the kiddies!!
I hope this blockbuster information doesn’t hurt Newt’s numbers.
Quiet right! Let’s throw a couple of billion onto the DEA fire, oops, already did. Maybe if we can give enough people criminal records and confiscate their vehicles we can finally pull ourselves out of this mess! Let’s put the nanny in charge of everything people do in their homes, just in case their doing something we don’t approve of.
Statism, is statism no matter if it’s from the left or the right.
Is there anyone in the US, who honestly thinks that prohibition on “some” drugs is in anyway not an absolute disaster? I’ve never been a recreational drug user other than coffee and beer once and a while. I wouldn’t really care either way except I live in Baltimore City. As a major hub for heroin, I fail to see what has been accomplished at all. At this point, how could complete legalization of all drug be any worse than what is currently going on.
I’m in college now, abet at 30 cause I spent a bunch of years in the military, and I have had a few friends screw up and get caught with weed. I’m not arguing that they weren’t stupid but its amazing the mess they ended up getting into for a possession charge. Its utterly pointless to ruin this many lives over something that should be an individual’s choice.
At its best, the war on drugs seems insanely arbitrary. At its worst, it creates a culture of crime, and the lure of huge profits creates criminals who will do anything to get a piece of the action and protect that action. They especially have the will and the means to to what is necessary to keep their golden goose healthy and drugs illegal. You don’t think high profit drug runners won’t buy politicians in order to uphold a profitable status quo? Reefer madness has gone far enough.
You know, it’s a bad idea to post articles that simply ask a question that can be answered with the single word “no”.
Why? The headline seemed to accomplish its objective of getting you to click on the page. That the answer may be “no” is irrelevant.
I didn’t see any mention on the current status of scientific medical consensus on the issue. It seems to me that science and professional medical consensus should be more important considerations than politics.
To the best of my knowledge there is no “scientific consensus” because there has not yet been adequate research done into marijuana. But of course the whole idea of “consensus” goes against the scientific method… And given that the popular science ideas often change as new discoveries are made, so-called “consensus” is a poor tool for making public policy.
Last time I checked the Constitution supersedes medical or “scientific” consensus as the law of the land. Which begs the question often asked, why did prohibition of alcohol require an amendment but other forms of prohibition don’t?
The answer, of course, is that the federal government has no business in the prohibition business as made clear by it’s lack of Constitutional authority.
In his book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” Robert Bork offered a different argument for keeping marijuana illegal.
Bork pointed out that historically, each recreational drug has a culture associated with it. Drugs have cultural significance–different societies legalize some and outlaw others.
Marijuana, Bork pointed out, has always been the drug of choice of the youth counterculture. It was widely smoked by the youthful antiwar protesters and hippies of the 1960s, and it is widely smoked by the OWS protesters now.
Keeping marijuana illegal, Bork said, is a symbolic statement that society doesn’t want to take direction from the counterculture. And it gives society a practical weapon against that counterculture. We could arrest a lot of OWS protesters on drug charges.
Pot will NEVER be legalized!
There are too many entities that have a strong financial interest in keeping pot illegal.
1. The drug cartels.
2. The pot farmers.
3. The smugglers.
4. The local distributors.
5. The local dealers.
6. The alcohol manufacturers.
7. The alcohol distributors.
8. The alcohol retailers.
9. The pharmaceutical industry.
10. The IRS.
11. Control freaks of all stripes.
If pot becomes legalized, The first 5 groups on this list are put completely out of the pot business – Of course, you can make a strong argument that it would be a good thing – not only for the US – but for Mexico and central America as well.
The cartel is not about to stand by and let their source of income evaporate. It has a lot of money to spend on K street lobbying operations, and will naturally spend whatever it takes to protect their interests.
The alcohol and pharmaceutical industries will never allow a new competitor to come to market and reduce their profits. Like the cartels, they are well funded and will naturally spend whatever it takes to protect their interests.
The IRS will not stand for the loss of tax revenue as a result of decreased alcohol sales. Furthermore, there is no practical way for them to tax a plant that you can grow in your back yard.
The control freaks interests are obvious, and like the others, they will continue to make K street rich.
My own personal view:
Pot is a plant – invented by God himself – not fabricated in a lab. He created humans – and installed canabinol receptors in our brains. Seems pretty clear to me that we were meant to use it. I’d like to see the illegal drug industry crumble – it is so harmful – not only for our country, but many others. Legalization would go a long way to straighten that situation out.
Sadly the bottom line is simply money. Too many would loose – and they are not about to let that happen.
PJ, where did you get this Swindle(well named!) doper? Are you people actually supporting the legalization of marijuana? If so, get off my screen!
Did someone force you onto this website?? Like kidnapping? Or do you not know where the off button is?
the best candidate, Sarah Palin, wisely decided not to run in such a deadly, sick atmosphere.
According to the Tea Party Patriot’s rep that I spoke with this week, the Tea Party does not endorse any candidate. Perhaps your headline is confusing the Patriots with the off-shoot TP Express? You can’t just use a generic “Tea Party” in hopes of giving Cain more credibility. Kindly be more accurate in the future.
I am referring to Tea Party as a philosophy and ideological disposition, not anyone claiming to speak for the movement.
As a member of the 68 generation I have had plenty of experience of marijuana. At one point (70s into 80s) I smoked it just about every day for years. I don’t now. Like almost all drugs, natural or man made, it has its pluses and minuses. I can tell you from personal experience it leads to memory loss and obesity. Not good things. Paranoia also comes up with heavier doses. I have felt it and seen it others. Sure there are medical uses (probably not momentous) and sure states’ rights are generally a good thing. But I think making legalizing Mary Jane anything like the centerpiece of a political campaign in 2012 is absurd and takes the eye off the ball of truly titanic issues of the economy and foreign policy. I watched Gary Johnson on RedEye last night and he once again brought his LeMar views. Bor-ring. Kind of like a pothead.
As centerpiece of a campaign certainly not. But as a useful distinction between Cain and Romney/Gingrich, yes. This issue is really more important in the context of what it says about Romney and Gingrich. How on earth did Gingrich make such a 180 change in his position? How can Romney be so anti-medicinal marijuana for 80 lb sick people? Etc. That’s what concerns me and points to bigger “electability” issues vis a vis temperament and personality in Gingrich and Romney.
Here’s another question: can we think of a single post WW II election that didn’t ultimately just come down to a personality contest? It seems like every time it’s just the more likable personality that wins. And let’s be real here: Romney and Gingrich are not likable personalities. You put one of them up against now under dog again Obama? This medicinal marijuana — not full blown legalization — issue is related to having a likable candidate.
Progressive thought and politicians gave us the following:
- Banned opium dens and criminalized recreational drug usage.
- Federal progressive income tax.
- Prohibition.
- Massive growth of Government.
- Massive public debt.
I want the government out of my body, out of my bed, and out of my bank account. If I smoke some pot, maybe some I’ve grown myself (thus depriving anyone of financial gain), where is the harm to anyone but myself?
If ObamaCare is upheld, your health will fall under more extensive control of others. Nanny state imbeciles will be further able to ban or curtail fats, salt, and more, no matter whether you enjoy them. I wonder how long, post ObamaCare, it will be before scented candles, incense, and myrrh are banned as secondhand smoke, hence public health hazards. Good luck trying to get a religious exemption on the latter two.
That so many, especially our former pothead and coke-snorting Drug Warrior Pres (who would be the boob he is regardless of his past drug use), feel they can deprive others of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” by banning things “for others’ own good” stinks to collective statist high heaven. I own my body, with the short exception when I voluntarily (and proudly) enlisted in the military; neither Obama, Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Billary, you, nor anyone but myself owns me. How the fundamental right of self has been so repeatedly violated since at least “progressive” Woodrow Wilson’s time is a national and legal disgrace.
I exist, therefore I am. Nanny staters, “liberal” Puritans, and assorted busybodies, leave me alone as I leave you alone.
…….”Most “stoners” and counterculturalists are unable to be mobilized into useful voting blocs and are often indifferent one way or the other.”….
Doesn’t “soma” ring a bell with this sentence or are we as a nation already to “blunted” to hear it or care who or how the country is run.
Well every candidate has a downside I suppose.
Not fond of Cain’s stance on that at all.
Any state that legalizes pot opens pandoras box. ONE episode of COPS will convince you that stupified drivers will increase accidents, insurance rates and heaven knows what else, giving rise to more, not less, laws, therefore more, not less criminals. States already outlaw it, and law enforcement improve their facilities with seizure money (e.g. Laredo, TX). Most police and psych docs cite mj as a gateway, we don’t need the feds to grant tax money for grad students to feed weed to high schoolers to study what we know is true. Seriously, this should not waste space on any party platform. SUPPORT your local and state police: carry a kilo wherever you go!
No need to police the use of pot. It would be a health issue and not a legal one.
Look at the drug commercials playing every night to treat HBP, insomnia, and all – Then listen to the side effects listed. Liver destroying drugs that even might kill are released on the public after FDA approval. But, smoke from a weed (not tobacco, which kills thousands every year) is the target of billions in federal and state funds to keep it out of the hands of (otherwise) law-abiding people. There is more here than meets the eye, isn’t there, tobacco-drug-liquor lobbies?
(Not to mention the arms lobbies who make a fortune outfitting attack squads to destroy pot plots)
The CDC (which is a government entity) reports that as of 2008, there were 14,800 deaths from prescription painkillers. Some estimates indicate that the most recent numbers may be well above 20,000 per year and rising. These drugs are approved by the FDA ( a government agency) and prescribed by (government) licensed physicians.
The government also maintains a massive and costly effort to destroy marijuana production and arrest and imprison marijuana distributors and users. But how many people have ever taken a fatal overdose of marijuana?
Why then the massive waste of resources to eradicate a completely natural, non-lethal product and allow the continued distribution of a product proven to have killed tens of thousands?
“I notice that you don’t actually respond to any of the arguments I presented. Like this one: ” is it the role of the federal government to spend tens of billions of dollars each year to try and prevent its citizens from becoming addicted to certain drugs?”
Erm, reading up on the whole Dava/Dana Spat, isn’t it a moot point when Dana is talking about what the State of Montana did? By definition he’s not talking about federal control, but rather what an individual state allowed. I can see the argument for the federal constitution not granting federal legislatures such a power, but States should have the right to make laws regarding the purchase and sale of opiates and other mind altering drugs as they see fit.
Pot is less dangerous than alcohol, but that is a very low bar (see: Newt Gingrich is more conservative than Mitt Romney). People will still be stupid with it if made readily available. Drug dependence is no different than any other kind of dependence. It can and will be exploited by the party of dependence: the Democrats and the left.