medical marijuanaCALLER: Hi Governor Dean. My question to you is, given your medical background and your view on states rights, in your opinion, what should the federal government do about medical marijuana?
DEAN: I don't think they should throw people in jail in California, but I think do think -- here's what I think. I think the process by which medical marijuana is being legalized is the wrong process. I don't like it when politicians interfere in medicine. It's why I am very pro-choice. Because I don't think that is the government's business. So what I will do as president is, I will acquire the FDA within first 12 months to evaluate marijuana and see if it is, in fact, a decent medicine or not. If it is, for what purposes -- for certain purposes, and I suspect it will be for cancer patients and HIV/AIDS patients. And it should be allowed for that. But I suspect it will not be allowed for things like glaucoma. But we have to do the FDA studies. I think marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process and there shouldn't be a special process which is based on politics to legalize it.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.htmlAnyway since there seems to be some confusion over Deans stance on medicinal marijuana I thought you folks might to see a post made by the Doc himself in answer to an 18 year olds query on the subject.
"Jeremy(from previous thread). I'm impressed that an 18 year old would spend time on a political blog site. Here is a short summary of my drug policy. 1) drug abuse ought to be treated as a public health problem not a judicial problem. I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your "crime", is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail. 2)I will order the FDA to study marijuana to see what medicinal effects it may have. I do not think marijuana should have a process different than every other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value. Based on the studies I have read, my guess is that the FDA may find that is useful in patients with HIV/Aids, and various forms of cancer, but not for such things as treating glaucoma, where there are other drugs available, and where the risks outway the benefits. I';m on the way back from New York, so i got to read alot of the blogging that went on today. You folks are terrific!! Thank you for an incredible day, and an incredible quarter. Howard Dean
Posted by howard dean at July 1, 2003 12:42 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1784&mesg_id=1784&page=abortionLet me tell you a story. As many of you know, I'm a doctor, I'm an internist, and I take care of all ages, pretty much--from five to a hundred and five. And one time I was sitting in my office and it was not unusual for young kids to come and talk to me because I knew the whole family. And one time a young lady came into my office, who was twelve years old, and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the test, and we did the exam, and she was pregnant. And she didn't know what to do. And after I had talked to her for a while, I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father. You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea--I will veto parental notification. In Vermont we don't have parental notification bills, but you know what? 85% of all minors that seek an abortion bring their parent with them voluntarily. It is the right thing to do. When I was practicing medicine, if a young lady came to me, and she was pregnant, I'd sit with her in my office and the first thing I'd do is try to convince her she ought to tell her folks, because I knew her folks, I usually treated them too. And sometimes she'd even say, "I don't dare, I don't dare--my father will kill me". In a small percentage of cases--that's true. And that's why we don't want the government telling us how to practice medicine.
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_02_02_dean2004_archive.html#90266826http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_dean2004_archive.html#90229380Russert: In terms of who you are, I want to refer you to your comments at the National Abortion Rights Action League in January. And I’ll read it to you and our viewers. “One time a young lady came to office who was 12 years old, and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the test and we did the exam and she was pregnant. ...And after I had talked to her for awhile, I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father. You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea. I will veto parental notification.” And then this in USA Today. “Dean told a powerful story but left out a key fact. ...What Dean didn’t say was that he knew the father was not responsible, someone else was convicted.” That’s a pretty big omission.
Dean: What do you mean?
Russert: To say to people at NARAL, “Leave us a suggestion”...
Dean: I don’t think it’s—omission. A pretty big omission, you mean? Yeah.
Russert: Yeah. That’s a pretty—to say that...
Dean: I don’t think it is at all.
Russert: To suggest her father may have been...
Dean: I thought it was. At the time, I thought it was.
Russert: But when you told that story, you knew otherwise.
Dean: That’s right.
Russert: Why didn’t you say that?
Dean: Because it didn’t make any difference. Because the fact that I thought that at the time, that that girl had been made pregnant with her father, under a parental notification law, I would have then been required to report that to her family.
Russert: But parental notification for a 12-year-old—this woman wants an abortion. According to Vermont law and all the laws I’ve checked across the country, a minor needs parental consent to get a driver’s license, a tattoo, see an R-rated movie. When we talked about the death penalty, you talked about the 12- and 15-year-old young girls.
Dean: Right.
Russert: And you said we need a death penalty as a way of dealing with those kinds of situations. Why not tell a parent, notify a parent that their 12-year-old girl is going to have an abortion, or if it’s an abusive situation, go to a judge. Why not?
Dean: Here’s what you do, and here’s what we do. You know, I, as an internist, saw a number of—I took care of all kinds of ranges of people. I saw a number of girls like this, none of whom I suspected what I suspected about this girl. I always tried to get the parents involved. Usually I knew the parents, and I would—the way I would do it is I would bring them in my office and I would say, “Look, the smartest thing to do is call your parents.” “My parents are going to kill me.” I said, “They’re not going to kill you. I know them. They’re going to be very upset. We need to get them involved.” I would never pick up the phone against their will and call them. Sometimes they’d say, “I can’t deal with it. You call them.” Once in a while, when a child says “My parents are going to kill me,” they’re not kidding.
Russert: But you go to a judge in that situation.
Dean: But judicial bypass has been shown not to work. There’s been a lot of studies about it in Massachusetts. It just doesn’t work. You have to rely—look, nobody’s going to take a 12-year-old child and give her an abortion without being—I hope without being sensible, thoughtful and trying to get an adult involved. But to have rigid parental notification laws make it more difficult to practice medicine. This young girl that I talked about turned out—of course, we reported the whole situation—turned out the person who had sexually abused her was convicted. Fine. That’s the right thing to have happened. But suppose we’d had a parental notification law, and suppose under the law I was then obliged to call up her parents and say, “I have this young girl here who, you know, is pregnant” and so forth and so on. What would have been the fate of that girl when she went home?
Russert: If you, in fact, thought it was an abusive situation, you can go to a judge. That’s the point of notification laws.
Dean: Yeah, but you know what?
Russert: And if you have one for tattoos and driver’s license and movies, why not for something as serious as abortion?
Dean: Every doctor knows that you should get a responsible adult involved, and I hope that every doctor fulfills that mission. I’ll give you an example. There have been judges that say, “Under no circumstances will I provide certification that this girl should have an abortion, because I’m against abortion.” Now, there are bad judges in the system, and some of them rule on these cases. Why can’t this be a matter between the doctor, the family and the patient? Why can’t it be like that? Why do we have to have politicians always wanting to practice medicine? Whether a woman can have an abortion, what has to happen...
Russert: But some 12-year-olds don’t want to tell their mom and dad, and you are supporting that.
Dean: No, I’m not. What I’m saying is if the 12-year-old doesn’t want to tell their mom and dad because they’re afraid of their mom and dad is going to hurt them, then you have an obligation to make sure that you talk with that 12-year-old and work—first of all, 12-year-olds don’t get pregnant, usually speaking, unless there’s a real problem. But if the 12-year-old has a legitimate reason, then there has to be a different way to do this.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.aspHowardDean.tv (includes Larry King video for download)
http://www.howarddean.tv/Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
