Public May Be Ahead Of Candidates On Medical Marijuana

Testifying before Congress last summer, the chief scientist in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dr. David Murray, reportedly said that the medical use of marijuana had sparked violence and robberies in California.

I suppose I've seen too many silly old movies like Reefer Madness. I envisioned, in grainy black and white, wild-eyed, pot-crazed cancer patients, knocking over convenience stores to get at the Milk Duds stash.

More seriously, this season's leading Republican presidential candidates seem to be toeing the White House line on this issue. The Democrats, characteristically, have been more open-minded. But they all seem to be trailing the American public.

As long ago as 2002, a Time/CNN survey found that 80 percent of Americans support the use of marijuana as medicine. And in the same survey, 72 percent said nonmedicinal users should be fined, not thrown in the hoosegow. In other words, they favored decriminalization.

Here's a video sampling of what some of the candidates, current and former, have said about medical marijuana.

Onward.


From Barack Obama, who admits having inhaled his share as a young man:



From Mitt Romney, evasion and swill:



Here's Hillary Clinton. At least she answered the question:



Now John McCain. He makes one thing perfectly clear -- he's opposed to incarcerating the dead:



This from recent dropout John Edwards. Even with some problems, I'm sad he's not still in the running:



Last, but not least, heeeere's Ron Paul. True to 19th-century American values, he's for states' rights on the issue:



That's all we have time for today, folks. Until next time, 2012, don't get diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "Public May Be Ahead Of Candidates On Medical Marijuana" >>

Wasn't there something I was supposed to blog about today?

Oh yeah - I remember now.

There's a Republican primary election in South Carolina and both parties held their caucus in Nevada today.


Nevada first...With 88% of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton was declared the winner with 51% to Obama's 45%. Edwards garnered 4%, and should probably think about withdrawing with his chances for a cabinet position - and his dignity - intact.

On the Republican side, Romney took it standing up with 51%. Ron Paul took 14%, John McCain came in with 13%. Huck and Fred tied at 8%. Rudy brought up the rear with 4%.

I guess the Nervous Nellies among Hillary supporters were a bit over-the-top. For the record, they totally took the wrong tack. They should have approached it from the position of "then you have to hold caucuses in hospitals, too." What judge would want to be seen as the guy who upheld a showgirls right to caucus, but nurses can go hang? It was a no-brainer. Apparently. Some no-brain out there fucked that up from Jump Street.

Okay - South Carolina - that's a Republicans-only primary election, and polls won't close for a couple of hours, but Politico.com has a pretty good summation:

Saturday's most crucial showdown was on the other side of the country, in South Carolina, where the Republican contenders try to wrest advantage from each other — after three different candidates won the first three major contests.

Most polls have shown McCain leading Huckabee, trailed by Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

The stakes for the entire GOP field are high if history is a guide — every Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan has won South Carolina.

And the weather is absolutely miserable. Can you believe it's snowing in parts of South Carolina?

Well it is.

In the part of the state where Mike Huckabee's support is strongest.

Wonder what God's own Candidate is thinking right now?

[Updates below the fold]


UPDATE - Pale Rider

God's own candidate, Mitt Romney, did well out in Las Vegas. I've seen some coverage writing it off, basically saying that an overwhelming Mormon vote is the reason for his win in Nevada.

Ron Paul pulling 14% and beating McCain is huge--as is the fact that Ron Paul has a larger constituency within the Republican Party than that of Rudy Guiliani. I'm reminded of Ron Paul explaining why we were attacked on 9/11 and Rudy "not getting it" and trying to belittle Ron Paul for his ideas. As nuts as he is, Ron Paul gets it right on the war and that's gotta be troubling for the overtly pro-war candidates on either side of the aisle.

UPDATE II - Pale Rider 7:45 PM- Eastern

Tucker Carlson is trying to fan the flames of a Hispanic vs Black split in the Democratic Party. As if. We don't even have a nominee yet. We don't have anywhere near enough information to make that assessment. We have yet to see a large, populous and diverse state vote yet. And the Republican shill machine is desperate.

Tucker--talk about Ron Paul beating main stream Republicans with 50 times the name recognition and then ask us about a split among Democrats. The split is on the Republican side, clearly, because they are seeing candidates who have spent millions go down in flames.

The MSNBC coverage is dominated by Olbermann and Russert. Matthews is the third wheel along for the Prom date, and no one wants to give him liquor because he'll get caught and everyone will get busted by the Gym teacher. This makes for stilted coverage. CNN is unwatchable. They have Bill Bennett in there and all I want to do is ask "did that lardass play the one-armed bandit all day?"

UPDATE III - Blue Girl

Lets look at the Nevada numbers:

Women were a strong majority for the Democrats in Nevada. 59% of Democrats attending the caucus were female, to 41% male.

On the Republican side, the numbers are closer, but males are a solid majority - 52% to 48%.

But more telling than the gender demographics are the age demographics.

Republicans

60-up_________45%
45-59_________27%
30-44_________17%
18-29_________11%

Democrats

60-up_________36%
45-59_________32%
30-44_________19%
18-29_________13%

The numbers tell this well-versed-in-stats political consumer that the Republican party is entering the twilight years, along with it's stalwarts. It is sooooo yesterday. People who want to move forward are throwing their lot in with the Democrats, and the demographics on the Democratic side are much more stable and desirable. If you read these numbers as if they were in the respective prospectus of companies competing for your investment dollars, where would you invest your money?

UPDATE IV - Pale Rider

Yes--the voters are turned off by the Republicans, they are identifying themselves as Democrats, and the Republicans can't raise money. It's shocking to see how broke some of them are--Guiliani and McCain are literally broke and running on fumes on a day to day basis. Romney is using his own money and Huckabee isn't spending any money. The only who has a legitimate fundraising machine is Ron Paul and he's not going to piss that money away. In 1999, George W Bush was raising millions and was building a massive war chest with which to run. There is no comparison this year. They are all running on fumes.

How about a shout out to Howard Dean? The Fifty State strategy means we are going to compete with Republicans everywhere, and we will make them play a full-court game. As their "brand" continues to sink, we will make gains in places the Washington DC establishment would have written off four years ago.

There's more: "Wasn't there something I was supposed to blog about today?" >>

Fox News excludes Ron Paul from the final debate

Pravda Fox News, the official propaganda machine of the GOP, is running scared from Ron Paul. They must find his adherence to Constitutional principles wholly intolerable, since they refused to let him participate in the final debate before the voting starts. (Remember, Fox also refused to run a pro-Constitution ad.)

Now, don't confuse me with a Paul supporter - I'm not - and no, I won't be converted in comments - but I am a Democracy supporter.

Now I feel bad for somewhat supporting the exclusion of Gravel from subsequent debates after his "love" rant last August, because that exclusion led to the exclusion of Kucinich, who is the one true progressive who articulates liberal positions and ideals, but isn't electable. We went down the path of letting the M$M decide who will be heard, and this is the payoff. The GOPers are excluding the only anti-war candidate in the Republican field. (I WAS WRONG. I SHOULD HAVE RAISED HELL WHEN GRAVEL WAS EXCLUDED. And so should have you, and you, and you, and you, and you. Let's learn a lesson from our mistake.)

In the case of Paul, the only reason to exclude him is to silence him on opposition to the war. And he called 'em on it:

Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.

“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

When 70% of America agrees about something, that's strong consensus. Unfortunately, it runs counter to the agenda of the war-whores at Faux News, and rather than deal with it, they chose to silence the lone voice of opposition.

Chickenshit bastards.

[And that's my final word on it.]

There's more: "Fox News excludes Ron Paul from the final debate" >>