Dean: No to medical marajuana

[wyldwolf]

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the only candidate who has actually killed a medical marijuana bill. Because of Dean's actions, Vermonters with AIDS, cancer, and other terrible illnesses still face arrest and jail under state law for using medical marijuana. Dean recently waffled on his pledge to direct the FDA to study medical marijuana. The only reason we give Dean an F+ and not a straight F is because the latter grade should be reserved for Bush, who is as cruel and heartless as anyone could possibly be on the medical marijuana issue.

What Dean has done: During 2002, Vermont's legislature considered H. 645, which would have protected seriously ill Vermonters from arrest and jail for using medical marijuana with their doctors' recommendations. Dean was, as the Rutland Herald reported, "a staunch opponent."

H. 645 passed the Republican-controlled Vermont House by 82-59, and there were sufficient votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it there. But Dean used his influence with Senate leaders -- who acknowledged that they didn't want to pass a bill that Dean would veto -- to make sure it never received a floor vote.

http://www.granitestaters.com/guide/dean.html

[Larkspur]

1. And Dean has said that he wants the FDA to first prove that

medical marijuana would be helpful as a drug for certain cases. He doesn't want it legalized to support diseases that other drugs are better suited for.

[wyldwolf]

2. same source...

In his August 4 CNN appearance, Dean said he would require the FDA to study medical uses of marijuana, which would constitute a major departure from normal FDA drug approval procedures. Moments later, Dean said he thinks "marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process." In essence, Dean used his standard "we need a study" waffle which, in turn, was devastatingly parodied on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. His confusion of the issue, his earlier reversal and his actions have shown that medical marijuana patients can never trust him.

[StopTheMorans]

3. call it a "waffle" if you must

but I'll take that over supporting someone with no positions any day. two can play at this game...

[wyldwolf]

4. Two are already playing at this game...

...if you'll check the thread on Clark saying no to decriminalizing marajauna, you'll see the Clark "comment" happenned first.

[sfecap]

9. Someone asked about Clarks position yesterday, I think...

I just had the time this AM to look at it.

[sfecap]

7. Actually, Dean's position is very logical.

I've spoken with him regarding it.

Marijuana is a Class I controlled substance. The Controlled Substances Act has a provision which permits the FDA to remove certain substances from the list if they have proven medical uses. In order to remove it from the list, the FDA would have to put it thru the normal approval process. If it is found to be useful in the treatment of various medical problems, the FDA can remove it from the controlled substances list. That is the best way to address medical marijuana use, by using the Federal Statutes to do it.

Dr. Dean has said that he thinks it would be useful in certain instances, but not in others.

Use the system, not make rhetorical statemets that can't be backed up.

[wyldwolf]

10. Which one of his positions?

The one where he said he would require the FDA to study medical uses of marijuana, which would constitute a major departure from normal FDA drug approval procedures, or the one moments later when he said he thinks "marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process." ??

[sfecap]

14. Perhaps you better look at the FDA regs.

Both statements are the same.

The FDA has NEVER studied the medical uses. They would have to do so in order to have it removed from the Class I schedule.

Dean is right on the process.

[Mairead]

28. Why was it legal until 1937?

Answer: because all clinical experience shows that it is LESS harmful than any number of substances, including sugar, coffee, and aspirin. It was made a 'class I controlled substance' because of racism and classism, not for any other reason. It should not merely be legal for medical use, it should be legal, period.

Science has absolutely nothing to do with Dean's position. Nothing

[MercutioATC]

31. Great! Then the FDA should reach the same conclusion.

The FDA is the agency we have designated to make these determinations. If marijuana IS so benign, the FDA should have no problem recommending its use for medical treatments.

ANYBODY can conduct a "study". Give me a week, and I'll type you a very nice report supporting the use of prostitutes and booze as a treatment for depression. Right or wrong, the FDA is the agency we have delegated this task to. Dean has said that he would deal with the issue based on the FDA's findings.

Again, if what you believe IS fact, we're talking about a 2-year or so wait for legal medical marijuana use. What issue could you possibly take with that?

[Mairead]

95. No, the FDA didn't make the conclusion in the first place.

It was made illegal by requiring a tax stamp that the government refused to issue. Catch 22. No FDA.

[MercutioATC]

101. I wasn't aware the FDA had already done a study and ruled on it...

...and THAT'S what we're talking about...having the FDA commission a study.

I'm not familiar with the "tax stamp" on marijuana. Can you elucidate?

[Mairead]

103. Until 1937, marijuana was entirely legal, like St. John's Wort today

Until then, Alice B. Toklas's hash brownies were a mere delicacy, perfectly legal and enjoyed by all.

In 1937, as the result of a push by the ancestor of the DEA, the feds passed the Marijuana Tax Act. It made it illegal to possess mj unless you could show you paid the tax. But they wouldn't let you pay the tax, so any possession effectively became illegal. (Thirty years later, SCOTUS finally declared the act a violation of the Fifth Amendment--self-incrimination--since by then mere possession with or without the tax stamp had been made illegal).

Now, why did the proto-DEA push for that law? Opinions differ, but there was a lot of social unrest during the '20s and '30s, the n*gg*rs were getting uppity and Whites were going to listen to jazz instead of maintaining the colour bar, the Commies were starting to do and advocate race-mixing, and Prohibition had made good booze very expensive -- horse and mj were cheaper anodynes. A nice, repressive law that targets the Lesser Races and Lower Classes is always cause for self-congratulation among the Better People.

But science was not involved at all. In fact, until the early '40s mj was listed in the US Pharmacopoeia as a remedy for, e.g., loss of appetite and wasting. The de-legalisation was politically motivated, purely and simply.

[MercutioATC]

104. I see where you're coming from, but I can say the same about cocaine.

Heck, Coca-Cola originally had coca leaf extract in it. Just because something used to be legal doesn't mean that we shouldn't legislate against it today.

I really do understand your point, but it seems to be more of an argument for legalization of all marijuana use than medical marijuana use. Politically, I don't think that's going to happen. However, I DO believe that, with a favorable FDA study, marijuana could be approved for medical use.

[Mairead]

106. It IS an argument for re-legalisation

But, since 'medical use' is contained in 'all use', it's also an assertion that the FDA argument is rubbish -- for the same reason that there were never any FDA approval studies of aspirin, coffee, or St John's Wort. Marijuana is prohibited because of racist politics, not science. Racist politics--the same reason that gets crack cocaine use punished more heavily than powdered cocaine use. There is absolutely no defensible reason for that difference, but it persists even though nobody even tries to fake one up anymore because of how hard it is to endure the scornful laughter of everyone within earshot.

Racism. Alive and well and living in Congress and the Courts.

[Terwilliger]

122. There's been a favorable study commissioned by Clinton

it was ignored, and Clinton's attack dog, the "honorable" Barry McAsslunch ignored the claims of the report and called California's Prop 215 "cheech and chong" medicine and criticized a Republican governor in favor of legalization of marijuana by calling him him Gary "puff daddy" Johnson

Same tactics as another great American...Joseph McCarthy

[AntiCoup2K4]

85. Not racism and classism, just pure profit motivation......

Most of the lobbying to make marijuana, and all other hemp, illegal came from two industries.

One was the timber industry, who realized that an acre of hemp could exponentially out-produce an acre of timber in pulp & paper production, and didn't want the competition.

The other was the breweries, who had just recovered from Prohibition, and didn't want any other recreational drugs cutting into their profit margin.

Now if we want to talk racism and classism in drug laws, there's the ridiculous discrepancy in penalties for crack cocaine vs the powdered stuff that Junior knows so well.

[TLM]

89. Actually it was made illegal to protect dupont's profits....

racism and classism is simply how they sold the propaganda to rationalize banning the substance.

The criminalization of pot was done to stop the production of hemp, which was the main source of fiber for rope. Cultivation of hemp was banned the same year that dupont came up with nylon rope.

[Spider Jerusalem]

120. Not to mention...

that William Randolph Hearst, owner of several paper mills and large tracts of pulpwood forest, feared competition from hemp paper (cheaper to make, longer lasting, and acid free, unlike wood-pulp paper). Hearst largely created the anti-marijuana hysteria of the 1930's by running articles in his newspapers about "reefer-crazed buck Negroes" going on crime sprees and raping young white girls (same tactic they'd used with opium, only the ethnic minority slandered and demonised there were the Chinese, back in the 1890's)...

[azrak]

99. Because

the whiskey companies paid big, big dollars to have it made illegal. No competition and payback for prohibition.

[blm]

88. He's down with the drug companies.

Most doctors are. It's called "supplemental income" of which many doctors take full advantage.

[TLM]

91. Oh that must be why Dean fully supports lifting the unfair

monolpoy advantage drug companies hold on medication production, and allow imports of generics from canada... clearly he's a puppet of the drug companies.


Tell me BLM, what is Kerry's position on marajuana and the drug war in general?

[blm]

96. He changed his position, TLM.

Y'know...that's what Dean does, if you bother to notice or hold him accountable for his own established record.

Kerry's position is that if the science is there, then they should examine the proper language to craft the legislation. He's all for crafting the legislation to legalize as soon as the scientists come to him with their guidelines.

[MercutioATC]

105. "if the science is there"????? That's Dean's position exactly!

If this is truly Kerry's position how does it differ from Dean's? Dean has repeatedly said that he'll base his policy on science (an FDA study).

This is a plus for Kerry and a negative for Dean how???

[blm]

107. Dean's a doctor and has seen the medical research

on this BEFORE in Vermont, and he weighed in against it.

Kerry has said he's prepared to craft the legislation upon the presentation of evidence.

[MercutioATC]

117. Again, the FDA is the body that needs to approve this.

There is "medical evidence" for both sides of the arguement. The FDA approves drugs for use. What's the problem with letting it study marijuana and make a recommendation?

[janx]

94. I'm with Dean on this one. FDA approval would legitimize

the use of medical marijuana. In my state, we voted for it, but the feds keep coming at us and taking our right away.

If the FDA approved the drug, there's no way they could do that anymore.

Think about it.

[tinanator]

8. this is insanity

nothing but enablers for a pharmaceutical shill. Hippocrates be damned. NOTHING has received as much testing and proven so totally harmless AND beneficial as marijuana. But anything that comes out of the mouth of this money grubbing corporate puppet is gospel, so...
nevermind.

[wyldwolf]

13. You are so correct... states like Oregon have approved it...

...as has Canada - or at least Ottowa.

[TLM]

92. Yeah but the FDA has to be the one to test it...

because they are the ones who can remove it from schedule 1.

[tinanator]

110. as opposed to all the heavy duty (killyadead) stuff

they pass out like candy without any real testing or concern for side effects? Yeah, the FDA is just lookin out for our own good.

[emad]

5. No campaigning politician is going to want to be pinned down

on the subject of cannabis, whether its legalisation or medical use. I expect the US will have to wait until the full results of UK trials are announced before anyone will committ. I guess they all know that once the medical ok is given the next rational, logical step would be de-criminalisation of possession and the imposition of taxes and levies similar to alcohol.

[janekat]

66. But he ACTIVELY pursued making it illegal .....

It's one thing to act like a politican and give a b.s. line about it BUT he went way over and beyond that.

<<<<<Howard Dean is the only candidate who has actually killed a medical marijuana bill. Because of Dean's actions, Vermonters with AIDS, cancer, and other terrible illnesses still face arrest and jail under state law for using medical marijuana.>>>>

[TLM]

93. Umm Dean made nothing illegal....

pot wasn't legal in VT before this bill, it was illegal.


What Dean did was stop a legislative effort to do something which is the job of the FDA.

He is right... it is stupid to make laws, then make more laws to contradict those laws, when one simply has to force the FDA to do the proper testing and remove pot from the schedule 1 list, so the laws no longer apply to it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. BOOOOOO

Dean is wrong on this folks. Just admit it.

[StopTheMorans]

11. so what "top-tier" candidate is right on this?

in the democratic party, and when are they going to come out and say it?

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. um....

none. But my point wasn't to say that Dean is wrong and X is right.

Just that Dean is wrong. And so is Clark, which is more forgivable considering his non-civilian background.

[StopTheMorans]

17. I don't think it's more forgivable

he's a damn candidate for president, they're all on the same playing field now. but I do agree that your post was not mutually-exclusive (ie. Dean's wrong, X is right). I just didn't like it as a slam at Dean, you should have thrown Clark in there too:) Maybe I'm just oversensitive b/c I'm going to the Dean rally this morning. My apologies:)

[w4rma]

21. No, actually I agree with Dean, exactly, on this issue

Let the FDA approve it for medical uses. If folks want to make a case for further decriminalizing pot, then they can build on those studies and do it later.

People need to get over this, "I want everything, now, or I'm taking my ball and going home." mentality.

Patience.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. you think that's going to happen?

The FDA takes years to approve drugs that have been legal in Europe for years.

They have to protect the interests of the pharmacy lobby.

There's tons of money to be lost in medical pot.

So, someone has to have the courage to make this an issue. It's both a civil rights, law enforcement, and medical issue and one that needs to be addressed immediately.

Studying the effects of pot shouldn't take longer than 20 minutes. People have been smoking it for centuries. Just get some scientists to any college campus in America and I'm sure they'll find it's just a harmless weed that relieves suffering and pain and enduces appetite.

[w4rma]

29. Actually, yes. I do.

And that is pure hyperbole that a scientific study should take 20 mins, and you know it. In a Dean administration there will be tests with hard evidence to back up your position that weed is safe (as I believe it mostly is) for medical use. Folks can build on that foundation later.

As for courage on this relatively inconsequential issue? I could care less about someone making a big deal about it. There are WAY more important issues to deal with right now. I think Dean goes far enough that he'll improve the situation and gain votes against Bush in doing it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. we can address the issue or address politics

If we want to address the issue of medical marijuana, it's a yes or no.

Enough study has been done.

If we want to address the politics of medical marijuana, then no, not enough study has been done - until NORML starts contributing heavily to the Dean campaign, that is.

[w4rma]

48. I say decriminalize pot. I also say that Dean's position is perfect. (n/t)

[Mairead]

109. Non sequitur: I think you have Clark's photo flipped, don't you?

Aren't ribbons worn on the left side?

[sfecap]

12. No. He's right.

And he advocates doing it right.

Use the statutes and the process to do it.

[bitchkitty]

77. I admit it -

and even if it's never legal, I don't care, I'll still smoke it.

And I'll still vote for Dean.

[wyldwolf]

16. Are Dean supporters starting singing group?

Called the Spinners?

[StopTheMorans]

18. are Clark supporters started a non-issues group

called the "know-nothings"?

[wyldwolf]

19. We know who the front runner is...

[StopTheMorans]

20. but do you know his positions?

has he stated them clearly, or would you like to just extrapolate them from vague statements? Front-runner means shit, your candidate is Arnold right now, and if he doesn't get some substance, he's going to start falling like Arnold. I'm not saying that he is an intelligent as Arnold, but that he has to put some more time into the issues SOON to keep the front-runner status IMHO.

[wyldwolf]

23. Of course, you're right about that...

Clark does have to put a little more substance in his position statements.

[StopTheMorans]

25. well I'm glad we agree:)

n/t

[einsteins stein]

81. "we know who the front runner is"

this sums up everything that is pissing me off about the Dem candidate wars on DU. You are having a debate over a very debatable issue, then it degrades into name calling, and then bullying and egotistical bragging.

Why is it that you think that someone who disagrees with you must be spinning the truth?

Your position is not as strong as you believe.


What does Clark's standing in the polls have to do with Dean's stand on the medical use of pot?

Nothing at all.


BTW - your comment that "we know who the front runner is" seems to indicate that you have some knowledge unavailable to us normal folk. You do not. Anyone who can read can find out that Clark jumped to front runner status over night, at least nationally. I haven't seen any new infor on New Hampshire or Iowa.

Of course, since reading skills are required for that knowledge, I bet Bush hasn't figured it out yet. :-)

If this kind of crap continues around here, it will drive away potential new voters. Is that the legacy you wish to leave behind?

[janekat]

78. Wesley Clark on the Issues.....

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[bread_and_roses]

22. Dean and Clark

are wrong, and they both must know it unless they both lived in a cave the past thirty years. Pandering to this nonsense supports the ongoing war on minorities in this country that is fueled by the insane war on drugs. It supports the ongoing war on civil liberties that uses the drug war as one of it's primary tools. To talk about "study" to decriminalize use of a WEED by sick people is ludicrous. Say it's a political ploy, that's honest, but don't try to justify it on any rational grounds to rational people.

[wyldwolf]

24. Amen!

[janekat]

73. At least Clark hasn't ACTIVELY pursued making it illegal n/t

[MercutioATC]

27. Why are people so upset about Dean's request for an FDA study?

Let's be sure we're separating the 2 issues here: 1) medical marijuana and 2) decriminalization of recreational marijuana use.

This has nothing to do with decriminalization of recreational marijuana use.

There are synthetics that perform, allegedly, the same function as medical marijuana and are legally available by prescription.

There are those who say that marijuana itself is a superior treatment (not studied or endorsed by the FDA).

There are those that say that marijuana is a dangerous, addictive substance (not studied or endorsed by the FDA as far as I know).

What's the problem with saying that you'd be reluctant to change the law until the FDA conducts a study regarding the benefits/detriments of the medical use of marijuana versus currently available treatments?

[Mairead]

Think about St. John's Wort

[MercutioATC]

36. Yes???

I'm not up on FDA studies on St. John's Wort. What I know:

1) Possibly helpful in treating depression.

2) Toxic in larger amounts.


What, specifically, am I supposed to be thinking about?

Disclaimer:

I grew up in an alternative medicine family, so I'm in no way resistant to natural treatments.

[Mairead]

97. My point is that nobody is calling for an FDA study

It's a herb, people can use it if they find it helpful. Even though it's psychoactive and has some real toxicity associated with overuse, there are no restrictions, no calls for FDA approval, no nuttin. Use it or don't use it, it's up to you.

[MercutioATC]

102. DEAN is calling for an FDA study. He's said so repeatedly.

Dean said that he's have the FDA do a study and he'd base his policy on medical marijuana on the FDA's conclusion.

Whether you believe him or not aside, if this is true and he does this, do you have an issue with this solution?

[Mairead]

108. Sorry, I meant nobody is calling for an FDA study on StJW

even though it's psychoactive and can be toxic. Why not?

As to your question: I'd be willing to bet $50 that he WON'T do it or he'll rig it in some way. I don't trust his good will because there was no scientific support for his position and he must have known that. With great hoopla Nixon commissioned a study because he thought that would put paid to the legalisation push. It didn't, so he ignored the very clear and unequivocal recommendation of the commission. It became clear to everyone at that point that science was going to play no role except as a whipping boy and delaying tactic. And, mirabile dictu, that's the role Dean has it playing today, too.

[MercutioATC]

118. I think the difference is that St. John's Wort is classified as an herb,

not a controlled substance.

As the law stands now, marijuana is illegal and therefore 1) cannot be prescribed as a treatment (no FDA approval) and 2) cannot be used as a "natural" non-prescribed treatment (illegal to possess). FDA approval and legislation would allow it to be used for medial treatment.

St. John's Wort cannot be prescribed for medical treatment (no FDA approval) but CAN be used as a natural remedy because it's not a controlled substance. There's no big push for an FDA study, because it can still be used, just not prescribed.

[Mairead]

119. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making circular arguments

Marijuana is also a herb, just like StJW. That is its nature.

MJ's status as a 'controlled substance' is the result of somebody's political decision, not the nature of the plant. Just as St John's Word is not a controlled substance as the result of somebody's different political decision.

You cannot point to anything about marijuana that would justify criminalisation because I can point to some legal substance that has the same characteristic.

[MercutioATC]

121. That's not what I'm saying...

I'm saying that we have to work forward from where the situation now stands. Marijuana is illegal. You asked why nobody was caling for an FDA study of St. John's Wort. The reason is that it's already available as a non-prescribed treatment because it's not illegal to possess. That's not a circular arguement, that's fact.

I don't think the current political climate would permit the decriminalization of marijuana. I do, however, believe that it very well might permit the medical use of marijuana if the FDA confirmed its value as a treatment.

Dean has said that he will base his policy on the findings of the FDA. It sounds to me that you're more concerned about marijuana decriminalization than the medical marijuana issue.

[w4rma]

30. IMHO, it's the all or nothing crowd. (n/t)

[Starpass]

32. hmmmm....do I smell drug companies wafting through the air

or is that a joint???? Drug companies want only what they are pushing to be legal and politicians have this nasty way of snuggling up to the biggest power in the land. That's why I want to know what's in Howard's papers.

[w4rma]

33. And you support Clark who isn't even in favor of an FDA study, Starpass?

"I don't favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. I might change my mind on that, but I don't right now favor that."

Source: WBUR Public Radio interview Jun 19, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[wyldwolf]

35. Whoa! There are two issues you are confusing here....

The decriminalization of recreational marajuana use and controlled medical use.

The Clark statement was about the decriminalization of recreational marajuana use and did not mention medical use or the FDA.

[w4rma]

38. Did Clark say he was for decriminalizing medical marajuana or not? (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

40. Again, two different issues...

Anyone who knows these issues will tell you the move to decriminalize marajuana applies to recreational use. Clark was inferring this. I still don't agree with him, but...

For medicinal purposes it is/would be a controlled substance.

There are tons of drugs that are used legally for medicine but criminal to use recreationally.

[w4rma]

50. I find interesting that you disagree with what you know of Clark's policy

and seemingly have no problem with Clark's position (including lack of a medical merajuana position separate from his position to *not* decriminalize pot) and go balistic over Dean's known position which is most likely either more or equally favorable to you than Clark's will be.

[wyldwolf]

51. I think you missed the first thread that sank real fast..

...a (supposed) Dean supported posted a thread on Clark's position unaware of Dean's similar position.

This thread was a FYI thread to point that out.

When I disagree with Clark, I say it. It has been my experience that Dean supporters will not do the same.

[w4rma]

52. Then say it. Go balistic on Clark.

It is my experience that Dean supporters DO understand and point out when they disagree. I've already done so in a previous post on this thread, thank you very much.

[wyldwolf]

54. I have said it. Multiple times....

..when I disagree with Clark, I say it. I have said it multiple times in this thread already.

But Bush is the only person I go ballistic on.

[w4rma]

56. Dean's position is closer to yours on this than Clark's is, correct? (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

61. I can't say for sure because of several reasons...

...he has made only one reference to it and decriminalization of marajuana is a different issue than medical use.

Clark has not defined his position on medical marajuana. Dean has.

And I don't completely agree with Dean on the issue.

8 states have laws that protect patients who use marijuana for medical reasons.

They did not arrive at this decision without medical and scientific study.

[w4rma]

69. That's not several reasons. That's one: You don't know where Clark stands

IMHO, if you don't want the next administration to overturn the decriminalization then you must build up a foundation of evidence and support. Having the FDA issue a study on it is the way most drugs are decriminalized for medical use.

[wyldwolf]

71. You can't count...

he has made only one reference to it and decriminalization of marajuana is a different issue than medical use.

1. Clark has made only one reference to decriminalization of pot.
2. Decriminalization is a different issue than medical use, which Clark has not spoken about.

[w4rma]

72. That boils down to: You don't know where Clark stands on MM. {one} (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

83. Which is what I've said to you a number of times...{two}

...and I know where he stands on decriminalization.

[janekat]

76. where does it say that he doesn't want an FDA study? n/t

[Egnever]

34. And now for the rest of the story

JUNE 27, 2002

GOV. DEAN QUIETLY SIGNS COMPROMISE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL
Advocates Expect Study to Lead to Legal Protection in 2003

http://www.drugwar.com/pgovdeanmedmar.shtm

This is a mixed bag," said Billy Rogers, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. "We had hoped that Governor Dean and the Senate leadership would accept the House bill, which would have spared patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis from the possibility of arrest simply for trying to relieve their suffering. They had an opportunity to protect Vermont's most vulnerable citizens, and they failed.

"Still, the committee this bill sets up isn't studying whether to protect patients, but how to protect them," Rogers added. "After they review the success of the eight state laws now on the books, we believe they will conclude that in 2003, Vermont should become the ninth state to protect seriously ill people who need medical marijuana. Chances are excellent for passage of a solid bill next year, but it's frustrating that people in real need have to spend another year living in fear."

[wyldwolf]

37. Very telling...

"We had hoped that Governor Dean and the Senate leadership would accept the House bill, which would have spared patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis from the possibility of arrest simply for trying to relieve their suffering. They had an opportunity to protect Vermont's most vulnerable citizens, and they failed.... it's frustrating that people in real need have to spend another year living in fear."

[MercutioATC]

41. Cocaine is a great painkiller. Should I be allowed to legally use it for

headaches? I realize this is an extreme example, but it does illustrate my point: Marijuana is a controlled substance. It's ridiculous to cry about people facing the "possibility of arrest simply for trying to relieve their suffering" when their attempt to "relieve their suffering" involves breaking the law.

Dean has said that he'll base his policy on the findings of an FDA study. HOW is this a negative thing?

[wyldwolf]

42. Yes...

If you have extreme migraines or chronic pain syndrome (a medical condition) and the doctor determines that particular drug would best treat the symptoms of you disease.

What is ridiculous are the folks who hide behind their prejudice of the drug - or spin it to defend a candidate.

[MercutioATC]

43. So the only drug approval process should be the opinion of your doctor?

Do you see where this could be slightly dangerous?

[wyldwolf]

47. That's not what I said...or what you asked...

...you asked: Should I be allowed to legally use (cocaine) for headaches

Let's fill in the missing pieces. For you to legally use a controlled substance, the FDA must approve it's use. Therefore, the legality of it was assumed in my response.

Are you suggesting a legality of any drug without FDA approval?

[MercutioATC]

53. We seem to have a misunderstanding

I said this in response to a quote that said that people were unfairly facing legal action for simply trying to relieve pain.

Cocaine is not an approved medical treatment (ok, not the best example...I am aware of its past use in dentistry) and, therefore, should not be USED as a medical treatment, in my opinion. I opined that saying that people were unfairly suffering because they couldn't legally use marijuana as a medical treatment was akin to saying that it was unfair that they couldn't use cocaine (another unapproved drug) as a treatment.

It was my interpretation that your response was that cocaine should be O.K. if that was what your doctor prescribed for your condition.

I took issue with that viewpoint in that individual doctors should not be deciding which substances (not approved drugs) should be appropriate for medical treatment.

Does that clear things up?

[wyldwolf]

55. Crystal.

[Terwilliger]

57. it's a lie

the evidence is there that MMJ helps people...a study commissioned by Clinton as a matter of fact!

Dean has fought this continually, even though nearly 75% polled say that doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana to their patients.

Marijuana is illegal, I'll grant you that...THANKS A HELL OF A LOT, DEMOCRATS!

[MercutioATC]

59. Again, I can find studies that say damn near anything...

Right or wrong, the FDA is the entity that makes these decisions. What's the problem with getting the FDA's findings on this?

[wyldwolf]

62. No problem...

...as long as we allow the use, like 8 states already do, until the FDA makes a conclusion.

[Terwilliger]

67. or not

Why should California have laws it made about the use of marijuana usurped by a federal government that won't get off the pot (so to speak) and make the conclusions today?

Democrats are trying to put it off and put it off...that's all.

[DrWeird]

98. The FDA already approved marijuana years ago.

delta-9 THC has been approved for human use by the FDA. But only if you use the synthetic kind that you have to pay a drug company an arm and a leg for.

[gully]

79. Good point

Not only that, but Marijuana is not all that great a pain killer. There are prescription drugs that are much more effective at killing pain.

I think this is what is called 'grasping at straws.' Forgive me if I have bigger fish to fry.

[Sterling]

112. Sorry don't try to mitigate that this is a loser.

Dean sucks on this issue but it seems he may suck a little less than all the other candidates. The Clarkys have succeeded in making me aware I disagree with Dean on this issue. Unfortunately for them they have also succeeded in letting me know Clark is probably worse on this issue.

Free the seed indeed.

[Jim Sagle]

74. But...but...but THAT would mean the anti-Dean bellowers

were (gasp!!!) LYING!!!!!!!!!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Potheads can't be bothered to vote

so who cares? I'd like to see the drug war ended as much as anyone, but this is low down on my list of priorities. Just toke up another, dude, the election's not for months!

[tinanator]

44. indefensible generalizations and slurs

do you actually feel like you are making an argument, or were you bitten by a pothead as a child? If you start to feel perceptive clarity overwhelming you, perhaps you will ponder the vote counters role versus the disaffected and (in this case) scapegoated itinerant voter's efforts.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

80. it's a joke

sorry :)

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

82. Unionization rate is at 10% - but legalizing pot is the key issue

yeah

[bicentennial_baby]

63. Excuse me?

Oh fuck it...you're not worth the energy....

[Arwennick]

75. BS

This pothead hasn't missed any election local or national since 1970.

I also wonder who has political ties to the drug corporations a Doctor or a General?

[Sterling]

114. It is not low on my list.

But Dean is no worse than the others on this, what a shame many of us will tolerate the government being so wrong headed and cruel.

[DealsGapRider]

45. I think anyone who doesn't believe in complete decriminalization

...is irrational. I'm not just talking for medicinal purposes. I want a presidential candidate to finally come out and say, for Christ's sake, of course you should be able to sit in your living room and smoke pot.

The fact that weed is illegal while Schlitz malt liquor is legal is the great hypocrisy of our age. Everyone who fails to acknowledge that is either cowardly, irrational, dishonest, hypocritical or a combination of the above.

[wyldwolf]

49. I think I agree with you...

I started this thread as a response to a Clark thread damning him for saying he wasn't in favor of it. I don't agree with Clark on that issue.

And I don't agree with Dean on his position and actions, either.

[Terwilliger]

60. not decriminalize...legalize

decriminalization only takes some penalties away from users...legalization is what's necessary

[Liberal Classic]

64. I would call it regulation

Better a 'drug regulation' than a 'drug prohibition.'

Which candidates have publically opposed prohibition?

[Terwilliger]

68. a difference between regulation and criminalization

the government regulates aspirin, but aspirin is not illegal for anyone to purchase

[Liberal Classic]

86. I like to say 'regulation' instead of 'legalization' because

It reminds people that I am not talking about marijuana cigarettes in the candy shops. Alcohol is legal, yet regulated, thanks to the 21st amendment. The existance of the 18th and 21st amendments is the reason I believe prohibition to be unconstitutional. The government has the power to regulate intoxicating substances, but I do not believe the government has the power to enforce a total prohibition such as with alcohol.

[Terwilliger]

111. IOW, legalization

if they think the reefer smokes will be in the candy shops, thats their problem

[DealsGapRider]

65. I agree in the long-run.

But I'm not sure the American people are ready to have weed sold next to the cigarettes at the gas station. Right now I'd settle for not getting handcuffed on the side of the road when a state trooper catches me with a joint (while the 18-wheeler Budweiser truck rumbles past).

Terwilliger, alert the media...we agree on something!!

[Terwilliger]

70. this is probably it

:hi:

Come, we smoke *passes bowl* :smoke:

[Sterling]

115. I agree shame on all the candidates.

Dean along with the rest deserve our wrath for this.

[einsteins stein]

84. I have two questions:

1) When speaking of whether pot should be legalized, people often fall back on the argument that alcohol is legal, why not pot?

But there is a different view point - Pot is illegal, why not alcohol (and cigs, for that matter)?

Why is the first argument more acceptable than the second argument?

...and question #2:

2)Do you think it is more important for a Governor to have fought a state law that you support, or for him to support a state's right to self governance? I don't really care what Dean thought about medical MJ as a Governor, because he only had his state to consider, and honestly, this issue is not a breaker for me. I do care about how Dean, or any other candidate, would deal with his Attorney General regarding Federal interference with a state issue.

anyone know where Dean, or Clark, stands on THAT?

[TLM]

87. The way Dean is doing this is very smart...

Understand that drug laws are written in this country based on if a drug is listed as schedule 1 or schedule 2 etc. etc.

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug... and as I understand it, only the FDA can change that.

Now if Dean as president says the FDA has to test marijuana for medical use, and as a result it is taken from schedule 1, then all the laws that apply to schedule 1 drugs all over the country will no longer apply to marijuana.

It looks to me as if Dean policy is a roundabout war of hobbling the drug war, at least on marijuana, while avoiding the whole legislative legalization issue, which is a political suicide issue.

[Mairead]

100. You have it backwards. Or inside out. Or something.

They shift drugs around on the schedules all the time. It's a political thing, it has nothing to do with science.

[gully]

90. Tune in NOW!

http://www.websoapbox.com/media/dean-boston.ram
Dean is speaking in Boston.

[Mass_Liberal]

113. while this is a difference

of opinion between Dean and me, I'm not going to denounce him for it.


Dean 04'

[Sterling]

116. I will denounce him

But he still sucks less than the rest. He needs to get it together on this issue though and do the right thing.