Video: Mitt walks away from man in wheelchair over medical marijuana
posted at 8:50 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: 1 2 3 Next »
That was ugly.
frreal on October 8, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Three people in wheelchairs asked him that on three different times earlier
What an idiot Mitt.
tomas on October 8, 2007 at 9:01 PM
You gatta inhale, really, really inhale.
And let the magic do it’s stuff.
Of course he’s not gonna arrest you. That’s Barney Fife’s job.
[caugh, cough]
Kini on October 8, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Well, if he’s going to make a habit of blowing off everyone he doesn’t happen to agree with, then he probably shouldn’t have signs hanging behind him that read…”Ask Mitt Anything”.
Just a suggestion.
The Ugly American on October 8, 2007 at 9:06 PM
My first impression of the scene was “Man Mitt, you really blew it that time. Don’t just turn your back on the poor guy and walk away”. Geez.
Sgt. Khe Sahn
1GooDDaDDy on October 8, 2007 at 9:07 PM
If abortion should be a states’ rights issue, why shouldn’t medical marijuana be?
Every major politician sounds like a hypocrite on this issue. If a woman can abort an
fetusunborn child, why can’t she smoke a joint for her menstrual cramps?The Race Card on October 8, 2007 at 9:07 PM
That was seriously painful…
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I really couldn’t watch it to well. But it’s not about medical MJ it’s about states rights. I live in a state that has voted on medical MJ by the people and it stands so what gives the federal government the right to discount the 10th amendment for an interstate commerce act?
and is it just me that local law enforcement has no problem enforcing the federal ban on mj but refuses to enforce the illegal immigration laws.
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Romney took as principled a stand as he could without resorting to some pandering “I feel your pain” politician garbage. Pot smokers want nothing less than full de-criminalization + $1,000 tax credit for growing your own weed. Nothing short of that will make the pot smoker change his mind when considering a vote for the white Christianist warmongering rich evil Republican on the ballot.
I had a relative that had cancer, lost weight, and used illegal pot to “get his appetite back.” Notice I said: “had” because the marijuana didn’t cure the guy’s cancer… That very real and very relevant situation hasn’t changed my mind about pot.
Romney could’ve said something about tax breaks for private funding of innovative medical research but then some “journalist” would’ve immediately hounded him for not supporting Federally-funded stem cell research coupled with the wholesale harvesting of living embryos.
Lose-lose.
ScottMcC on October 8, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Why does Mitt get all the lunatic fringe?
Why don’t Obama and Hillary get conspiracy theory and medical MJ questions?
I guess they have better handlers.
Or maybe these lunatic fringe types are only interested in embarrassing republicans?
kooly on October 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM
No! I’m sorry but I’m not going to bite on this one. ‘Are you going to arrest me?’ Really!? C’mon! Now, I know that this could very easily turn into a Maccaca moment, but that man in the wheelchair was not looking for any substantive answer to a question. Are you going to arrest me…geez…yeah, ol’ Mitt is going to pull up in a squad car and taze you bro.
Weight of Glory on October 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM
NOT GOOD!
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM
I agree
If it helps people, then doctors ought to be able to prescribe it. Just like they prescribe other drugs.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 9:21 PM
The guy in the wheelchair was being sincere, I believe. He wanted an answer and Mitt couldn’t get away from him fast enough.
I’m trying to keep an open mind about Mitt, but stuff like this sure doesn’t help.
techno_barbarian on October 8, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I’m not a big fan of Mitt, really, but as far as I could tell the guy asked one question, “Are you going to arrest me?” Not, “What kind of legislation would you encourage Congress to pass to address my situation?” Not, “Will you promise more funding to physicians to further research for those who have my problems?” No, he went right for the hyperbolic jugular with, are you going to arrest me?
Weight of Glory on October 8, 2007 at 9:26 PM
He did offer his apologies for what the young man goes through, but Mitt stated his position as well. I thought the guy was really sincere until the gentleman in the background started doing the talking…
Pam on October 8, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Hey, if Fred can lobby for terrorists and against victims of asbestos poisoning, I guess Mitt can dismiss a phony drug abuser pretending to be crippled.
Seriously, that was painful to watch, but I doubt he was being as callous as it appeared. Mitt’s wife has MS and has had to deal with the pain associated with that disease and could easily use medical marijuana to ease the pain.
I don’t get the attitude though, the American public over overwhelmingly supports it’s use.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Tell that to Vick!
Weight of Glory on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Personally, I think it’s a states’ issue. I’ll also state that Mitt isn’t my #1 or #2 choice this go-round. Further, I think that he handled this ambush the only way he could, by quickly disengaging once it became obvious that it was a setup. Watch the video closely and you’ll see people maneuvering around Mitt (first they are behind the guy in the wheelchair, then as the conversation turns, they fan out to either side). Once the “are you going to arrest me?” comes out, it’s basically akin to an encounter with a “911 truther”, the only course is to disengage and move on away. The fact that the other players in this setup begin repeating “are you going to arrest him?” “aren’t you going to answer his question?” point directly to this being a set-up. They begin asking their questions before Mitt even disengages.
Total setup and Mitt played it the only way he really could. I expect that the next time this card is played on him, he’ll have a more direct answer, but for not, the “I’m not in favor of Medical MJ” was the quickest, cleanest and most direct way to deal with the encounter. Mitt actually scored points with me on that even though I firmly disagree with his position.
Jason Coleman on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 PM
What about us smokers that believe in the constitution?
I guess we don’t matter and out states rights are a joke to the all powerful fed government.
But hey enforce the drug laws don’t enforces immigration.
And your very misinformed pot isn’t a cure, it’s a beneficial. Unlike marinol which is much harsher and if your throwing up your meds taking another pill wont help.
and I don’t want a 1000$ tax credit .
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Respectfully, I don’t think he was going for the jugular at all. Mitt was already blowing him off and so the guy quickly asked what’s actually a reasonable question for someone in his unfortunate position. Look at the guy’s eyes when Mitt blows him off. I think he wanted an answer and wasn’t trying to score points on Mitt.
Mitt, whether he intended to or not, came off as cold and uncaring in that exchange.
techno_barbarian on October 8, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Who cares? I need my maryjane, are you going to make it legal? Mitt should have had a decisive answer. But at least he did not pick him up out of his chair and throw him out of the venue. What a set up: BS: so is this whole deal.
mjkazee on October 8, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Reading the comments I don’t think I can watch this at all. This is why I like comments.
CrimsonFisted on October 8, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Friggin’ pot heads. How can wheel chair boy get sick from marijuana tablets made of the actual stuff that’s supposed to benefit him and give him relief, without the intoxicant, but he can bong bong bong away and he doesn’t get sick.
Cuz the pill version doesn’t get him high.
Anything from an ingrown toenail to cancer and any malady inbetween, plus the requisite $300, will get you a doobie scrip from a sleazy doctor willing to write it for the money. Real doctors in real hospitals aren’t convinced that marijuana does anything but give you cotton mouth and a mad craving for cheetos.
It’s a lame ass excuse while preying on weak people’s sympathys to legally smoke the chronic and get high. That’s all it is.
SilverStar830 on October 8, 2007 at 9:40 PM
A long way to what? Maybe he already has looked at it enough and saw no reason to be a phony and lead the guy on by saying that he would “give the issue another look”?
MB4 on October 8, 2007 at 9:41 PM
That was nothing but a set up and Mitt knew it and walked away from it. Kind of like asking him if he has stopped beating his wife. Want a real “exit question”? Why does this NEVER happen to the Dhimmis? This guy was a plant-plain and simple…
JWS on October 8, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Tell that to Mitt’s wife who has MS and clearly suffers from pain that medical marijuana could help with. Mitt was dealing with a truther type setup. He showed concern for the guy, explained the other options the guy had, and then disengaged him when the “are you gonna arrest me” remark came out. Right now the federal government does not recognized the use of medical marijuana because, among other reasons, the potential for abuse. I had a guy offer me some of his just because I told him that I always had a bad reaction to pot. So, yeah, the abuse issue is alive and well.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I agree. He was constantly nodding and looking around, obviously not really into this guy’s question. No doubt. That, however, happens with every politician at nearly every level on the campaign trail. It only looks worse here because the guy is in a wheelchair. He was also doing it to that Harvard student at the end, but that won’t be the focus because we are used to seeing that.
This is where I would disagree with you. I don’t find the question, “are you going to arrest me?” a reasonable one.
Weight of Glory on October 8, 2007 at 9:44 PM
It’s a yes or no attack question designed to make the answerer look like a jerk either way – and not answering it, or indirectly answering, is the only smart thing to do. Give a straight answer and which headline do your prefer, “Mitt OK with legal weed” or “Romney says he’ll arrest patients and their doctors.”
Mitt’s wisely not in favor of legalizing pot use for “medical purposes” because 84% of the population will be found to have a “qualifying condition.” Just imagine the road carnage.
Even Spicoli could figure that out.
T J Green on October 8, 2007 at 9:46 PM
The pill your talking about is marinol the problem with taking pills to easy nausea is they tend to get thrown right back up in the mix.
And the pill dose get you high just in a whole different way more of a narcotic high.
And why should I have to pay the drug companies for a pill when I can grow it myself and know what’s in it?
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 9:55 PM
This is one of the reasons I’m not a member of the GOP.
infidel4life on October 8, 2007 at 9:56 PM
REFER MADNESS!
If there’s one thing I know for sure, it’s that marijuana is much much worse than any terrorist. We need more jails for marijuana users – especially those in wheel chairs!
The government has spread misinformation about drugs since the early 30’s. George Washington grew pot. Hemp is one of the strongest and most useful fibers known to man. But hey, Refer Madness makes it the most awful vile weed mankind ever manufactured. . . or did it evolve, or maybe it was even created for mankind to have dominion over it like it says in the Bible.
This is the most disingenuous argument in the history of the world. People argue that ‘there is no medical use for marijuana’, but then they say – but we do have this synthetic version that is not illegal for you. It either has medical benefits or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t have medical benefits, why create a synthetic version of it that would also not have medical benefits?
I’m no truther, but your government has been lying to you about drugs for a long long time (about 70 years since they first made drugs illegal – it hasn’t been that long).
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Can you say SET-UP? He handled it the only way he could and not give the left a sound-bite that could end his campaign.
ctmom on October 8, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Nothing like asking a presidential candidate to help me by passing smoking laws. This was only a setup and no thing besides that. Pot sure does help sickness. All I have to do is think back to the early seventies at OU and dealing with a hang over to attest to that. But it is still ILLEGAL.
mjkazee on October 8, 2007 at 9:58 PM
And I don’t like the undercover gotcha kind of questions; I feel a straight forward question like “Mr. Romney how do you feel about states having the rights to decide on the legalities of medical MJ”
And I don’t disagree there are a lot of people that use medial MJ as way to get high but its no different then kids buying beer under age . Because some abuse it dose that mean no one can drink beer?
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I’m not a fan of Mitt but that was a cheap shot set-up. The whole medical marijuana issue is a hoax. It’s designed as a back-door legalization ploy. Cocaine and heroin might make some sick people feel better, but that’s no reason to make it easily available to anyone… as the medical marijuana laws would do.Having said that… Mitt’s an empty suit with good hair.
edgehead on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 PM
As I understand it, marijuana doesn’t really cure pain, but it can reduce nausea and increase appetite. So I doubt that Mitt’s wife could benefit from medical marijuana the way some cancer sufferers might.
I’m guessing that many of the medical uses for marijuana are being over-exaggerated by its proponents, but I don’t know.
Anyhow, personally, I think it should be legalized for recreational use, too.
sandberg on October 8, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Fair enough. Thanks for your civility.
But I still maintain that if I were in that 80 lb. guy’s shoes, and the only way I could eat was to smoke real mj to stimulate my appetite because the synthetic marinol(sp?) made me throw up, I’d want to know about the arrest thing too.
cs,
I’m sorry to hear about Mitt’s wife. Didn’t know she was afflicted. MS is no picnic. Cavuto’s got MS too, and you can see him bravely fighting through it when he’s having a bad day (which is thankfully not all that often for him).
I know someone who’s got MS and she told me her doctor surprised her by recommended smoking a little pot, if she was so inclined (I guess for pain or some other benefit, because she didn’t (doesn’t) have a problem eating). He couldn’t prescribe it to her, but he did recommend it. I don’t think she ever actually did it, though.
techno_barbarian on October 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Well, cocaine is used medically. So is heroin, in Britain; in America we use morphine (which is almost as effective).
The medical value of various substances is not a decision that should be made by either politicians or people who just wanna get high; it should be made by medical professionals only.
And I agree that most medical marijuana advocates are really just trying to legalize recreational use.
sandberg on October 8, 2007 at 10:12 PM
I don’t think the guy in the wheelchair was asking Mitt if Mitt would personally arrest him, but rather does Mitt support the current federal crackdown against states rights in regard to this issue. Several states have overwhelmingly voted to approve medical marijuana yet, against the wishes of the states, the feds have been prosecuting people within those states at a federal level. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask a candidate if they would continue that policy if elected president.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Yeah…this sounds rough to watch.
In favor of medical Mary Jane BTW.
This is so true and it pisses me off to no end, because there are people who seriously could use it, but stupid greedy stoners try and latch their recreational use to it, which makes the cause less sympathetic and it never makes progress, plus you have shams like the places that sell in California.
Bad Candy on October 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM
yes most are but is it any more harmful then say drinking???
underage drinking is illegal but because some kids do it should that mean adults cant drink???
just because some misuse the idea of medical mj should that mean i should have to pay the price for their actions?
now Im going to self medicate and play guitar hero :P
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Looking at the guy in the wheelchair there’s no doubt in my mind that his question was sincere.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 10:23 PM
People who buy pot are supporting terrorists.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I hope the guy wasn’t being a useful tool for those with a different agenda. Much like Michael J Fox was used.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 10:30 PM
He was trying to ape Fred’s shut up moment. Show who is toughest.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
AllahPundit, You sure do know how to stir up the “pot”.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Huh? You talking about when Fred told off Dobson? If that’s what Mitt was trying to do, you don’t do it to some guy in a wheelchair, you do it to a Truther or some other idiot who deserves it.
Bad Candy on October 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM
This looks sincere,but how do we determine if an ambush is in progress,when he keeps harping about arresting him and his doctor,I like Mitt,and it’s a case of Mitt being a straight shooter,I guess if CNN aires this for a few days will get our answer!
canopfor on October 8, 2007 at 10:40 PM
I doubt that’s true in the US, at least to any significant degree; and anyway, people who drive a vehicle or use plastic are probably supporting terrorists too. Even people who take the bus are likely supporting terrorists. In fact, even the few people in this country who don’t use oil products directly undoubtedly buy products that were shipped or packaged with oil products.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 10:41 PM
These guys are from a group called Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana and they go around to all the candidate forums to do this. In fact, they’ve been to the “Ask Mitt Anything” forums before and have gotten a long-form answer before.
Yeah, it doesn’t look good at first glance, but there’s a history here. CNN doesn’t give you that, though, do they?
ConBlog_NH on October 8, 2007 at 10:41 PM
So Mitt should kiss the kid’s ass because he’s in a wheelchair? Is that what you all are saying?
SoulGlo on October 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM
A moral coward unfit for the White House. Mitt doesn’t have the stones to look the guy in the eye and say, “yes I’d have you arrested because….”
I wasn’t going to vote for him anyways, but my contempt is now boundless.
“Are you going to arrest me?” Can’t imagine why this guy takes this issue personally. Legalize it, the guys dying. If smoking a joint makes him feel better the rabid Puritans should just learn to deal with it. “Compassionate Conservativism,” or how the Stupid Party learned to stop caring and fell in love with Leviathan. Still looking in the Constitution for where the Fed Gov is given authority over what someone grows on their land or what they smoke or on any matters of “substance abuse.”
Speaking of hypocrisy, Anyone opposed this guy taking a puff can give up their booze, and then start throwing rocks. As P.J. O’Rouke said, “America is drunk country.” Prohibition worked well on that little problem. Drug abuse won’t destroy what’s left of our freedoms, but the cure surely will.
Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM
So Mitt should kiss the kid”s ass…..
SoulGlo on October 8,2007 at 10:42PM
SoulGlo:No,will leave that up to Barney Frank!
canopfor on October 8, 2007 at 10:47 PM
And heroin, and cocaine, and, for that matter, MidEast & SoAmerican oil.
As for Mitt, that was a bad situation. Like everyone’s already said, it was a setup designed to be a gotcha moment on video. Like ScottMcC said, lose-lose no matter how Mitt played it. Walking away may have been the least bad option.
“Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM
That’s the only criterion? Done.
Now where’d I put those throwin’ rocks…?
Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 PM
No, the wheelchair would’ve gotten in the way and lifting the guy out of it and turning him around would have looked even worse.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Maybe if politicians were forced to actually talk to the people thier laws affected more often, we would have better laws.
Resolute on October 8, 2007 at 10:56 PM
…And fewer of them.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Allahpundit, you’re a genius.
dave_lantos on October 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I am referring to the terrorists south of the border that terrorize their respective countries. And to stop consuming pot would not create a negative effect on Americans.
I am sure that there is some connection in oil, but to stop all consumption of oil would be more damaging that the minute amount of money that goes to fund terrorists. We have lots of sanctions on those types of connections.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Harpazo: The Prohibition Party is still around, give them a call.
http://www.prohibition.org/
It worked in the 1920s and the War of Drugs started in the 1960s has been equally successful in achieving its alleged goals.
Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 11:03 PM
csdeven, try making the distinction between the problems of drug abuse and the problems created by prohibition.
Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Bad political move and I bet dollars to donuts that if you’re preferred candidate were confronted with the same scenario, you’d change your tune after you realized the consequences he would have paid.
Well that was clear when you expected a politician to destroy his own campaign.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Sorry it took me so long to respond.
You are right, that is not what that guy was thinking, but he didn’t use phraseology such as “are you going to have me arrested? or “would you support my arrest?” Rather, this guy used a rhetorical device, namely, personally ascribing certain actions to an individual, all the while knowing that the individual being questioned would not be directly responsible for those actions. It’s purposefully mixing up causes. It’s to make it sound as though Mitt is out to get him. And I’m supposed to say, “Stay away Mitt, and let him have his pot.”
Weight of Glory on October 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Mexican weed is dirt weed pure 100% garbage.
I can’t see how anyone in their right mind would smoke that garbage.
its like drinking a fine single malt vs thunder bird.
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I don’t have to. All I have to hear from drug legalization crowd is their refusal to accept responsibility for the havoc it would wreak upon society.
csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 11:10 PM
csdeven,
No, that was when I expected Mitt to be man enough to say what he really thinks. He gives opportunism a bad name.
I don’t have a preferred candidate right now.
Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 11:12 PM
csdeven,
All I have to hear from drug prohibition crowd is their refusal to accept responsibility for the havoc it would wreak upon society and what’s left of our Constitutional rights.
Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Thanks ConBlog. Useful background info that give this incident more context.
I still don’t agree with Mitt, but I don’t agree with this ambush tactic by the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana either.
techno_barbarian on October 8, 2007 at 11:15 PM
AllahPundit…thanks for stirring up the “pot” you magnificent blogger you.
This is what the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana have recorded Romney themselves..
In Short:
The former governor of Massachusetts has stated publicly that he does not support ending the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
What Former Gov. Romney Has Done:
Gov. Romney has neither cosponsored nor voted on any legislation specifically addressing medical marijuana.
What Former Gov. Romney Has Said:
During a town meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire, on May 29, 2007, GSMM staff asked the former governor if he would respect the will of voters and legislators in the 12 medical marijuana states and end the federal raids on patients and caregivers.
Mitt responded:
The questioner then clarified that he was asking about medical marijuana, not marijuana legalization, asking, “Can you articulate a benefit to arresting sick and dying people who use effective medicine?”
Mitt’s own words:
A week later, at a town hall meeting in Manchester on June 6, 2007,
Gov. Romney said
During a July 25 town hall meeting in Bedford,
Mitt touched briefly on medical marijuana, saying,
After the July 25 event, GSMM volunteers, including a seriously ill patient in a wheelchair and a medical professional, approached Gov. Romney to ask a follow-up question. After Gov. Romney ignored the ill patient’s repeated attempts to ask him a question, a GSMM staffer asked him, “I was wondering why you don’t respect states’ rights when it concerns seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana in the 12 states that have approved its use. Why don’t you respect states’ rights in that situation, a life and death situation?”
Gov. Romney responded,
When the medical professional introduced herself and explained that synthetic forms of marijuana are not effective for many patients,
Gov. Romney disagreed, saying,
.
.
.
Context is everything.
.
.
.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 11:15 PM
That’s would be a good point, except that I think most of the MJ in the US is grown in the US and Canada these days. Some of it comes from south of the border and I don’t know what percentage but I know it’s much less than it used to be. However, I think that ALL of the medical MJ is grown in the US. In fact the feds prosecuted a guy in California for setting up a controlled medical MJ grow operation on behalf of San Diego. So even if I’m wrong, which I doubt, and some of the medical MJ comes from south of the border, it’s not the patients that are responsible, it’s the feds. That being the case, the validity of the guys question becomes obvious.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 11:15 PM
What havoc is my smoking causing society???
The same can be said about drinking, fast food tobacco ect.
Its people’s personal responsibility that needs to be checked
.
Mojack420 on October 8, 2007 at 11:16 PM
And so, since the feds crackdown against the authority of the states is partly responsible for terrorism south of the border, perhaps the guy in the wheelchair should have asked Mitt, “Do you support terrorism in Central and South America by arresting people like me?” :)
I’d like to know the answer to that question, frankly, especially after Mitt’s comments in regard to Hezbollah a few months back.
FloatingRock on October 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM
That’s why it should be legal for all uses. If people are allowed to grow their own, then the black market that supports the cartels and terrorist organizations would be dealt a significant blow.
Troy Rasmussen on October 8, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Mitt screwed the pooch on that one.
Correct answer: Some form of: “I believe the decision should be left to the states.”
Acceptable answer: “Of course I’m not in favor of throwing you in jail, however there’s evidence of fraud at these mecidicinal marijuana facilities and it’s the job of the President to enforce the law against the distributors. I would never support throwing someone like yourself in jail over this issue”.
How is it that a moron blog commentator can come up with an answer in 2 friggen seconds off the top of his head, but Mitt can’t do better than a robot whos software parameters have been exceeded?
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 11:33 PM
I have come to the conclusion that THE ONLY issue libertarians give a rat’s bottom about is legalizing pot.
And that is all.
Here we have a person in a wheel chair asking why he is being denied access to the wonder drug that will improve his quality of life. Ease his pain.
HOW would this guy PAY FOR IT?!?!? GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT?!?!?
I find it amusing that out of one side your mouths you scream “NO DIFFERENT THAN ALCOHOL” but have yet to show ONE instance where a doctor PRECRIBES alcohol as “medicinal”. THEN, you point to the devastating effects that ALCOHOL can have on individuals! Are there no potheads?? Pot makes you a better person? Or are you saying that pot has NO effect?? If it has no effect, why use it?
What makes you pot users better than a LSD user? Or a crack head?? Or a alcohol abuser?
You liberaltarians rage at the “one issue, right wing, Christo-nazi, evangelical” Christians when they rally against ONE ISSUE(abortion for those under the influence)yet you all seem satisfied when your side unifies under a flag whose symbol is a pot leaf.
Is it better to smoke dope or not?
Talon on October 8, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Some lady asked Giuliani exactly the same question, phrased in pretty much the same way, a couple of days ago at a town hall meeting in NH. My spidey sense detects a coordinated campaign. I’ll bet it comes up at the next debate.
Big S on October 8, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Actually smoking is much easier than digesting for some people w/ illnesses like cancer. The medical properties of smoking marijuana have been documented. Go search through the archives of that hippy bastion known as the National Review and you will find them.
Dude, I don’t think he was pretending. At least now I know whose shill you are. Go Romney, hard question dodger.
Bill C on October 9, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Hey… lowlife druggy potheads need lovin’ too… and weed…. lots and lots of weed so they can be high all the time… and cheetos and pepsi… lots and lots of cheetos and pepsi…
I was gonna clean my room until I got high
I was gonna get up and find the broom but then I got high
my room is still messed up and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
I was gonna go to class before I got high
I coulda cheated and I coulda passed but I got high
I am taking it next semester and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
I was gonna go to work but then I got high
I just got a new promotion but I got high
now I’m selling dope and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
I was gonna go to court before I got high
I was gonna pay my child support but then I got high
they took my whole paycheck and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
I wasnt gonna run from the cops but I was high
I was gonna pull right over and stop but I was high
Now I am a paraplegic and I know why
- because I got high
- because I got high
- because I got high
I was gonna pay my car note until I got high
I was gonna gamble on the boat but then I got high
now the tow truck is pulling away and I know why
- because I got high
- because I got high
- because I got high
I was gonna make love to you but then I got high
I was gonna orally copulate you too but then I got high
now I’m jacking off and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
I messed up my entire life because I got high
I lost my kids and wife because I got high
now I’m sleeping on the sidewalk and I know why
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
- cause I got high
SilverStar830 on October 9, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Why is this simple fact so hard for people to understand. Legalize, tax, and end the reason for drug crimes while keeping the price high enough that casual users can’t easily afford it. End of drug problem.
Bill C on October 9, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I do take responsibility for it through paying my taxes and supporting the law of the land.
Nonsense. Your constitutional rights are not threatened because you are restricted from engaging in destructive behavior.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Mormons don’t drink, smoke or even imbide tea or coffee, so what would you expect?
I guess they missed the part about Jesus making his own wine?
Or George Washington growing hemp on his plantation?
(An important fiber crop in the U.S. until synthetics replaced it, post-WWII, and the oil-rich seed is a major component in “wild” bird food, in sterilzed form, still.)
profitsbeard on October 9, 2007 at 12:12 AM
The only good reason to stand against medical marijuana, at least it being a state’s rights issue, is a blind devotion to an antiquated policy. It makes no sense at all.
SouthernDem on October 9, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Legalize Cocaine? Legalize Heroin? Legalize Crystal Meth?
Are you HIGH !?
…apparently
SilverStar830 on October 9, 2007 at 12:15 AM
It is the flood gates of abuse and the consequences that create the havoc on society.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 12:16 AM
SouthernDem on October 9, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Actually, unless you’re going to go down the Ron Paul road and state that the FDA is unconstitutional, there are plenty of reasons why it is not a “states’ rights” issue.
Big S on October 9, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I can’t believe how many pro-drugs dipsticks there are here.
The brain damage it causes is OBVIOUS when you start seeing people here compare Jesus & wine and George Washington & growing nonintoxicant hemp for rope fibers and oils (which I highly doubt is even true), to smoking marijuana to get stoned.
It’s so utterly stupid and void of REALITY, it’s laughable.
SilverStar830 on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 AM
That would solve one problem but would open up others. There would still be a market for the drug. The cartels are not going to close up shop. They will sell the product cheaper. Or the US, in order to make the drug cost competitive, would make business deals with the cartels to provide the drugs for this country. They would then make it illegal to grow your own in order to protect the tax base.
And since the issue is constitutional rights, this would not stop at pot. It would extend to any drug that anyone could concoct.
This is the problem with stoners. Under the influence, every thing looks reasonably plausible. ;-)
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 AM
I was making fun of the lengths that Fred groupies go to justify all of Fred’s short comings.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Well, no, certainly not the Paul route. Forgive me if I’m making a redundant point. I haven’t read the thread.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no logical reason to deny it to people that could genuinely benefit from it. There are plenty of studies that show that cancer patients, for one, can use it to great affect to treat their issues with chemo and pain. Like I said, it’s an antiquated ideology that causes such strict adherence to complete prohibition.
SouthernDem on October 9, 2007 at 12:30 AM
No, there’s more. I want to be able to gamble online and decriminalize prostitution. So we are much worse than you imagined. We’re practically democrats. Boo!
I would start with marijuana but there is a very strong economic argument that keeping drugs illegal actually makes pushing them onto children lucrative. Pushers exist because of the high profits that are caused by the prohibition. Nothing radical about that idea. And, of course, pushers do not distinguish between drugs like marijuana and meth and their very different addiction profiles.
Seriously, I learned most of this stuff in the National Review which has been pushing, lol, for marijuana decriminalization for years.
Bill C on October 9, 2007 at 12:31 AM
No it wont. If the casual user can’t afford it, the cartels will sell cheaper than the government can/will. If you want to discourage use, then tax it. In your scenario, users will shun the high cost of government dope in favor of cheaper cartel dope. And if the government makes it illegal to own cartel dope, how do they enforce it? If government dope is packaged like a cigarette will they make it illegal to smoke pot unless it is rolled in the government approved form? If they don’t regulate the packaging, then a guy can buy cartel dope, roll it his self, and claim it is government dope, but he prefers his roll to the governments roll.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 12:31 AM
“That was ugly.”
That was also a “set up.”
Knowing what his position on MJ is, it is not a coincidence that an “absolute moral authority” was conveniently there to confront him, with a handy camereaman nearby.
This is a “have you quit beating your wife” kind of confrontation.
Get used to it, because we are going to be seeing a LOT MORE of them.
georgej on October 9, 2007 at 12:34 AM
SilverStar830-
I was being ironic.
Jesus did make his own wine. (Wedding Feast at Cana.)
Mormons claim to follow Jesus.
Something is disconnected in their no-drinkee logic.
Washington did grow hemp for rope.
It was a major crop in the period, since clothes, spinnakers, paper, and rope (The Age of Sail) were made cheaply from this very-easy-too-grow (and nitrogen-fixing for soil renewal) plant.
Birdseed, today, has sterilized (irradiated) hemp seed as a major component, because it is one of the most superior sources of their nutrition.
Biomass made from the hemp stalks is a good petroleum substitute.
Cannabis, however much it provokes the jerked knee, has an amazing amount of uses.
Keep the intoxicating aspect out of the mix if you like.
We should at least exploit its other properties for our benefit.
I prefer a good fume blanc or cabernet sauvignon myself.
Unlike Mitt.
profitsbeard on October 9, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I would never put the gov’t in the position of marijuana producer. I’m libertarian, not socialist. But seriously, how will a drug cartel even in Mexico grow marijuana cheaper than say Altria or ADM for example? The quality of the American pot would be better and probably cheaper.
There is a reason that bootlegged alcohol and tobacco are not popular despite the very high taxes on both vices. The quality of the product is very important to users.
Bill C on October 9, 2007 at 12:40 AM
What?!? Study some economics, will ya’? Do you have any idea how much the black market costs to operate, not only in relation to production costs but also shipping and sales? How many bootleggers are still around after the end of prohibition?
FloatingRock on October 9, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I haven’t read the other comments yet but I assume I’m in the minority when I say we should legalize marijuana in certain respects. The revenue it would bring to the economy and government for starters, plus the easing on the ridiculously overcrowded prison system are the best arguments for it.
BadgerHawk on October 9, 2007 at 12:56 AM
csdeven:
People who buy pot are supporting terrorists.
No, not usually. People who buy cocaine are almost certainly supporting murderers. But where I live, in Northern California, all the pot I ever see is grown domestically by American hippies.
By the way, I am not a libertarian, I’m a republican, even though I do think pot should be legal.
sandberg on October 9, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »