Obama and Clinton good, McCain Unclear, on Medical Marijuana

Props to the major Democratic candidates for being clear on their position in favor of medical marijuana.

Presidential Candidates on Marijuana – TierneyLab – Science – New York Times Blog
Bruce Mirken, who has been tracking the issue for the Marijuana Policy Project, says John McCain has been dismissive of marijuana’s medical potential and has been unclear on whether he’d continue federal raids against clinics in states that have legalized medical marijuana. Of the two leading Democratic candidates, Mr. Mirken says, Barack Obama has been clearer in his support for medical marijuana

Neither seems to support legalization or decriminalization, but atleast (unlike John McCain) thay are clear that it should be a medical option.

15 thoughts on “Obama and Clinton good, McCain Unclear, on Medical Marijuana”

  1. Why is there even a question of whether people who throw up all the time because of chemotherapy or people who can’t see because of glaucoma should be permitted to legally get the medication that would allow them to feel better and function from day-to-day? (Unless you’re me), marijuana is a lot less dangerous and less addictive than commercially produced nicotine cigarettes.

    – fl (definitely not the kid with peanut allergies who asks them to ban peanut butter in the school cafeteria altogether ;))

  2. Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol and it’s not working with marijuana either. Perhaps there is some demand threshold, above which prohibition is doomed, yet below which it could function, like against heroin for instance.

  3. Except Obama is all for the supreme court applying the commerce clause where it doesnt belong.

    (from Reason.com : In addition to abortion and affirmative action, both of which are predictable litmus tests for any Democrat, Obama singled out the question of “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.”

    He’s referring here to the post-New Deal trend of Congress relying on its constitutional power, under Article 1, Section 8, “To regulate Commerce…among the several states,” in order to pass legislation touching on every aspect of American life, from economics to crime. In essence, as the legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued, by adopting the widest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause, “courts have granted Congress a near plenary power to do anything it wills and have thus nearly destroyed the system of limited enumerated powers.”

    Which is apparently fine with Barack Obama. So is the Court’s disastrous decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which struck down California’s medical marijuana law in favor of federal anti-drug laws “tangentially related” to interstate commerce.)

  4. Once again it is the lesser of two evils. We, the pro-cannabis crowd,i.e. The People, do not have a good candidate regarding the legalization of MMJ and the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. Why our lawmakers will let my dr prescribe Metroclopramide, the most commonly prescribed drug for nausea and vomiting control, which side effect is Irreversable Parkinson like tremors and shakes, while prohibiting the use of marijuana to control nausea and vomiting is down right wrong, evil, cruel and insane. Whereas the worst side affect in cannabis is the psychactive effect. It is best put this wasy, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is the safest most theraputically active substances known. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand betweeb those sufferer’s and the benefits of the substance,”—Francis L. Young DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge, 1988. Why was this report buried? Why wasn’t it widely recognized and accepted as the truth it is? Why, to this day, do the states have to force the Feds to change the laws concerning marijuana. Eventually marijuana will be legalized for medical and personal use simply because the reasons for prohibiting the use of marijuana were/are based on non-medical, non-scientific personal prejudice and opinion. It is clear today that the U.S. Government has been and continues to deny and lie about the effects and medical efficacy of the cannabis plant not to mention the financial windfall that would be realizrd by legalizing marijuana for medical and personal use. The “Reefer Madness” generation, i.e. the people brainwashed by the government regarding marijuana. its use and safety thereof are dieing off. I’m 54 and my 18 year old son’s generation will be the one to federally legalize marijuana. That’s how long it takes to let the brainwashed “Reefer Madness” crowd die out and a new generation of people who know the truth regarding marijuana use and that it is ridiculous for the government to tell scientists and doctors what drugs they can research and what treatments doctors are allowed to practice. Sure sounds like a Fascist government to me. I’m sure King George the II is pleased, for during WWII his great grandaddy Preston, along with others, tried to overtrow the U.S. Government for a Hitleresque type of America, don’t believe me, just Google “Bush Nazi’ and see what you get. Legalize marijuana NOW!!! For a healthier nation mentally. physically and economically. Peace be with you.

  5. fl,

    Why is there even a question of whether people who throw up all the time because of chemotherapy or people who can’t see because of glaucoma should be permitted to legally get the medication that would allow them to feel better and function from day-to-day?

    I know this question is rhetorical, and I agree with its sentiments, but the answer is the behavior of the underlcass.

    Adrian,

    Well, I’m sure prohibition worked to decrease total alcohol consumption. The question is amount of good you get by criminalizing a thing v. the amount of bad you get from the black market you just created.

    In the case of marijuana, the good is questionable and the bad is well known.

    bill,

    Agreed. Obama’s right on this particular issue, but wrong on the question of federal-state power.

  6. Jeff,

    Like much pro-marijuana rhetoric I’ve encountered, your posts begins reasonable and ends with a conspiracy theory. The conclusion part of your paragraph embarrasses your position and makes it harder to achieve what you wish to.

  7. I am a non-user who is pro-legalization. When I read stuff like…

    “Sure sounds like a Fascist government to me”

    …I know the pro-legalization advocates will be dismissed as lunatics. Couple that with the abuses of “medical” marijuana in CA, it isn’t going to be legalized for awhile.

  8. Tossing about the term “fascism” seems to be a trendy sort of rhetoric these days. So prolific that I wonder if a decade hence it won’t become mainstream in American lexicon.
    “Yo, fascist, stop bogarding that jibber.”
    And the Bush-Nazi comparison is tedious.

    That aside, like P’slog I’m a non-user (ex-user, really) but I’d like the entire drug war to go the way of the dime bag. Either go away altogether or be scaled back to such a tiny proportion that it’s not worth the effort.

  9. Jay,

    Agreed that the Fascism talk goes too far. I figure regular elections should count for something.

    But, what if the dimebag was the only way it could be worth the effort? As in, if you wanted to tax it and were worried addiction, the social consequences, etc, it would probably be best to sell it in the smallest quantity possible. [1]

    City Room: A 200 a gram tax on cocaine

    Note, I do not support the legalization of cocaine or other narcotics.

  10. Adrian’s comment about hitler is supported by a published article via wikipedia [1,2,3], so seems to be legit.

    I can’t wait for the field of biohistory to emerge — probably a lot of otherwise unsolvable questions (why did Hitler go from genius to idiot in such a short time) have biopsychic explanations.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
    [2] Doyle, D (2005). “Hitler’s Medical Care” (PDF). Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 35: 75-82. Retrieved on 2006-12-28.
    [3] http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/journal_35_1/Hitler's_medical_care.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *