Video: Mitt walks away from man in wheelchair over medical marijuana
posted at 8:50 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
He’s staring down the barrel of an Absolute Moral Authority bazooka here, and … he does not handle it well. The man’s entitled to his position; no one expects him to change it on the spur of the moment just to wriggle out of a tough spot. But a simple “I’m so sorry you have to deal with this and I promise I’ll give the issue another look” would have gone a long way.
Easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say, I know, but he sure is in a hurry to get out of there. Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Then you post this:
Where did I say painkillers should be removed from the oversight of physicians or removed anywhere?
I thought you would be smart enough to read what I wrote and how you responded. Looks like I have to spell out every word for you to understand.
I think this finishes this argument…and I hope you crawl away.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 4:06 PM
To whom it may concern:
Mitt said, and I quote, …and you have synthetic marijuana available.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 4:07 PM
r2b,
Crawling away? Hardly.
I said that you wanted to remove painkillers from the oversight of physicians not that you wanted to have them removed altogether.
I said that because you made this nonsensical statement:
Later you said this:
That makes no sense. You are literally using bassackwards thinking to make your argument.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Nothing funnier than retards trying to justify their pot use…
JWS on October 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM
What’s hillarious is that you all sound like you’re passing around a fat joint of the Sour Diesel right now.
Apparently, conservative postulating and pondering sounds just like a bunch of stoners debating which fast food restaurant has the best french fries.
Also, a lot of the moral arbiters in the house sound like they are intoxicated with anger and spite towards a lot of their fellow citizens. That’s very commendable.
cough cough!
The Race Card on October 9, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Oh, come on. That was a set-up and CNN was obviously in on it. Mitt answered the question and moved on. What’s the beef?
drewas on October 9, 2007 at 5:38 PM
But you are assuming, and that’s the part that concerns me. It’s very possible that he simply doesn’t want to give people easier access to the drug than they already have. Right now, medical pot proponents don’t really have a great argument against that.
It’s entirely possible that it has nothing to do with the idea of pot as a gateway drug.
I will say this. It is harder to get “v” than it is to get pot. If someone can legally smoke it, they can legally grow it, which means that they do not have to follow specific orders regarding doses.
With “v” they’re not giving the option of creating their own source for the drug and thus must rely on doctor orders.
I agree with you on that, but I see no proof that pot makes a person’s life more comfortable. I also see no proof that those in favor of legalizing pot aren’t being politicians themselves.
You just insulted all of us by saying we sound like we’re high and then proceeded to comment on name-calling here.
Maybe I am high, because I really don’t get that.
Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 5:49 PM
How do you argue against logic?
You are right, I am assuming, but I think my assumptions are not out of context. He either thinks of a gateway or that it is just bad (evil as I state), if he thought it was good but still deny that would not make sense.
And your argument about ease is debate proof. It is easy to grow, and is grown. And the abuse of giving “prescriptions” is much higher, I suspect, than any other drug. Still if it medically helps, then why not provide it…just like “v”.
And I struggle with that also, separating the real need from the Naral group drives your argument better than mine. I hate to side with the loonies. Still if it does help medically…
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 6:50 PM
csdeven:
Most pot comes from Mexico.
Are you sure? I read your DoJ link, and I do not see that claim anywhere. (e.g. they list the estimated net MJ production of Mexico, but do not list the estimated domestic production.)
The potency of pot has doubled since the mid 90’s.
So people smoke less of it. In the 60s, hippies would smoke entire joints. Now they just take a few hits off of a bong. Stoners are consuming the same amount of THC as they always did.
sandberg on October 9, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I can’t find it either, but the numbers suggest that most pot seized is from Mexico. Heck, I don’t even remember what my point was. Must have been real important.
csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 12:39 AM
The correct answer is, “It’s unfortunate that there are irresponsible people who abuse what would otherwise be a benefit to you, making it impossible for you to get the relief you need.”
Sensei Ern on October 10, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Finally, a decent counter-argument! Most anti-drug arguments are nothing more than “Drug users should be raped and executed!” (That’s consistent with “Christian love”, but it really isn’t an argument.)
People who are able to work do not want to work deserve to starve. All government welfare should be abolished. If a person wants to get so mind-blowingly high that he can’t hold a job, then I say let him starve to death in his squalor. It’s HIS life, not mine, not yours, and not “society’s”. Certainly not “god’s”, either, for that matter.
So the deprivation you describe is not caused by the drug user. It’s caused by the government, who, in their poor (yet “progressive”) wisdom, decides to deprive you of property to give stipend to losers. Put blame where it is due.
I didn’t ask if it “impacted the quality of life”. I asked how it deprived you of life, liberty, or property. Yes, I don’t want to look at homeless people. I also don’t want to look at people with facial piercings and facial tattoos. But as long as they’re not depriving me of life, liberty, or property, then I have no ethical claim against what they do.
You’re not doing drug users any good by persecuting them for using drugs. In fact, you’re not doing people who *don’t* use drugs any good by persecuting drug users. It makes things worse, not better. Let drug users destroy themselves if they so choose. Ending prohibition will decrease crime, since the “War on Drugs” is merely a tough but stupid euphemism for your desire to ensure that the drug market is handled by the black market (which *ALWAYS* increases violent crime everywhere) instead of by the legitimate market.
But those are logical arguments, and something tells me that this isn’t a logical issue for you. I’m butting up against pure hate.
Loundry on October 10, 2007 at 10:21 AM
For all the reasons you’ve just stated.
I still see no proof that it does, or at least no proof that it’s better than what is already legal.
Maybe casual stoners smoke less. There are certainly people who smoke entire joints by themselves though.
Esthier on October 10, 2007 at 10:26 AM
NO ONE has made that argument at all. This is simply how you view arguments against drug legalization. You are completely blind to what people are actually saying because you’re convinced that we all hate drug users.
And if the government cared about your opinion on this matter we wouldn’t have the welfare system that we have. The fact remains that if drugs are legalized more people will do them which means that more people will abuse them which also means that more people will wind up on welfare.
Disagreeing with welfare doesn’t change the fact that it exists.
Esthier on October 10, 2007 at 10:48 AM
You don’t need to see the proof, the ones dying with cancer and other diseases make those statements. How nice that you sit in judgment of them, saying they need “proof” for them to receive a drug that is harmless compared to what had been injected into them for months; by the way of Chemo-therapy. They spend tens of thousands of dollars, hours puking their guts out, losing their hair, weight, bone mass, and maybe eventually their lives…and you need “proof” to let someone die in grace and peace, or hopefully fight and live.
How selfish of you.
right2bright on October 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Loundry on October 10, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Apparently drugs have done nothing to expand your mind and it’s also also quite obvious to me that you are the “hater” in this contretemps.
I was addressing your specious assertion that getting mind-blowingly stoned doesn’t affect anyone else. I was not on an anti-drug tirade. Since anger and not lucidity are your hallmarks, I won’t bother addressing any of your tedious and deranged comments directly except this one:
I don’t give a flip if you weren’t talking about taxes or the quality of life or anything else. There is no rule, either written or understood, that my comments are limited to your narrow dictates.
I lived in NYC before Rudy came to town and “looking at homeless people” was the least of my worries. Like many New Yorkers, on various occasions I was physically assaulted, harassed, and hounded. I regularly endured them yelling obscenities at me for no reason other than that they were “mind-blowingly high”. The free access to certain streets, restaurants and shops were often blocked by them. On more than one occasion I was forced to step over them as they slept in the vestibule of my apartment building. It should be noted that I paid a handsome rent to my landlord for this privilege.
All of the situations I describe deprived me of liberty and occasionally property. Therefore I have a sound “ethical claim against what they do”.
Case closed.
Buy Danish on October 11, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Don’t drink, smoke or do Drugs. Yep, raised a Mormon, but I m not a Mitt fan. He did the second best thing he could do.
First would have been to play up to these idiots in the most absurd manner and watch them go apolextic.
“yes, If I’m elected President, I’m going to personally pull you and your vw bus over and tase you,Bro.”
‘scuse me whiles I lok for my
taserthrowin’ rocks.opusrex on October 11, 2007 at 3:48 AM
Talk about sitting in judgment of someone else.
I know very well how people with cancer suffer. I was there with my mother, driving her to and from chemo sessions. I saw her white-fuzzed bald head and her reactions to the drugs.
Please, don’t presume you can lecture me about how these people feel. What you don’t know about me could fill several novels.
The people who are suffering from disease are not the experts on drugs. As you have stated yourself, doctors are the experts there. If they can prove that pot is better for people with cancer than any of the other already legal drugs, then they should do so.
But if it’s not better than what we’ve already got, then why would we legalize it for medical purposes? I guess we already covered this one too, it’s because many people are using this as a political tool, even some doctors.
Oh, and as to this:
You are either being hopelessly naive or disgracefully dishonest. Pot can no more help someone fight and live than morphine can. It’s a depressant, not a stimulant.
This is disappointing. I thought we were having a thoughtful discussion on an issue that is highly complicated and controversial and instead you went straight to insults.
It is highly offensive for you to question my concern for cancer patients. Do so again, and consider this my last response to you.
Esthier on October 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Because for some people, it is better. For some people, it is the only thing that works. Also, making marijuana illegal has a huge cost in terms of having to police, prosecute, and incarcerate millions of non-violent “marijuana offenders.” It creates a dangerous black market that threatens the safety of our communities, it inflates the price of marijuana so that dangerous criminal enterprises control the market. Moreover the “war” that the government wages on this natural substance has a lot of collateral damage in terms of lives lost and civil liberties trampled by rash raids.
Marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol and nicotine, both legal substances to posesss and consume. It costs the government upwards of $42 billion a year to maintain this ridiculous stance on marijuana.
Red meat carrot: what could $42 billion do for border enforcement efforts?
Mark Jaquith on October 11, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Apparently I’m scoring points because you’re resorting to ad hominems. I like it! Maybe your position isn’t so strong after all?
Considering that you have yet to demonstrate the opposite, I don’t consider it quite so specious.
It’s soooo much easier to dismiss uncomfortable truths than it is to accept them. Namely, this one:
Whenever you use government force to “ban” the trade of a good or service, you never actually ban it. Instead, you merely create a black market to service the demand for the good or service. Since the purveyors of the “banned” good or service cannot rely on the government to protect their property, they have to resort to using their own force to defend themselves. This increases crime. Furthermore, since the black market cannot operate in the open, the price of the good or service (following laws of supply and demand) skyrockets. This concentrates massive amounts of cash in the hands of the black marketeers which makes them much higher targets for robbery. This increases crime.
Have I written anything in the prior paragraph which is false? (Yes/No)
In other words, if a person gets mind-blowingly high, then you are incapable of demonstrating how that is depriving you of life, liberty, or property. Consider that tens of thousands of people are mind-blowingly high at this very moment. How is that depriving you of life, liberty, or property?
Assault and harassment are already illegal. Anyone doing those things deserves to be punished with fines and/or jail depending on the severity of the crime. I take it you and I agree here.
You should have called the police. But what about the people who were mind-blowingly high who were NOT assaulting, harassing, or hounding you? And what about those people who were assaulting, harassing, and hounding you who were NOT mind-blowingly high? You’re trying to draw a correllation which does not exist.
Then lock them up! But they don’t have to be high to do those things. And those things are already illegal.
I agree! But supporting drug prohibition does not logically follow. You and I both know that the “Drug War” has NOT stopped people from getting drugs. Instead, it has merely made crime skyrocket and caused some drug dealers to get richly rewarded. Why do you think the way that you do? It’s so stupid.
So says you. But your arguments are retarded. If you actually engaged your brain instead of feeding your hateful feelings toward “druggies”, then you would realize that prohibition of any kind does much more harm than it does good, and it does no good at all considering that drugs have never *really* been prohibited. It’s called the black market, and you can never stop it no matter what you do.
Loundry on October 11, 2007 at 3:11 PM
That’s not an argument for pot. That’s only an argument against alcohol and nicotine.
Says who? That’s essentially the argument here.
And that’s not an argument for legalization either. It’s an argument in favor of decriminalization.
Pot is cheap, very cheap. It costs much less to get high than it does to get drunk. This inflated price comment makes no sense.
Yeah, decriminalization would work just as well for fixing that.
Esthier on October 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3