Which candidate support marijuana decriminalization?

[DrWeird]

Surely in the twenty-fucking-first century one of them's got to have their head out their ass.

[virtualobserver]

1. Maybe Kucinich, but I don't know

Politicians are so afraid of being "soft on drugs".

[twilight]

12. Kucinich is FOR legalization of medical marijuana

Check out Cong. Kucinich's agenda - the REAL agenda, not one covered up with lots of stories, misinformation and mere possibilities:

http://www.kucinich.us - THE TRUTH!

:dem:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

2. Dean

Dean sees drug use as a health issue, not a criminal issue. He sees little, if any, value in throwing people in jail for drug use, as opposed to rehab.

Also, he would ask the FDA to do a study which would probably show medicinal marijuana to be beneficial for cancer and AIDS patients. When (if, for the pessimists out there) pot is found by the FDA to have medicinal benefits, it would be well on its way to becoming legalized.

Not as extreme of a stance as I'd like, but it's surely a step in the right direction.

[virtualobserver]

3. does he really support decriminalization, though?

I didn't get that impression. I wish he would.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

8. Here's what I found

"Dean maintains he doesn't "believe the war on drugs is a criminal matter; it's a public health matter. To throw users in jail is silly." But he cannot stand state initiatives that seek to legalize medical marijuana. "I hate the idea of legislators and politicians practicing medicine," he says. Should the Feds be busting medical marijuana clubs? "Depends on the circumstances," he says. "In general, no." If he were President, Dean adds, he would force the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate medical marijuana, and he would be prepared to accept its findings."

"I am in favor of really hammering dealers. You know they are merchants of death and destruction and misery. I believe the rest of the drug problem the casual users is a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and we ought to approach it using a medical model."

"I particularly like something we're starting to experiment with in Vermont and which is further along in some states which is drug courts where when drugs are the problem the court has wide discretion to sentence people to rehabilitation. As a physician I was trained as a physician you know, sentencing people to rehabilitation when they quote-unquote didn't want to go was something that you didn't do, but you know now I think the drug problem is so serious that it's smarter frankly to send casual users of serious drugs to rehab rather than jail. And it's cheaper in the long run. Even though they will fail rehabilitation three or four or five times, that's what you have to understand about substance abusers. From a medical point of view, as a physician, and also as a governor, I think we ought to treat drug abuse a public health problem.

"I'm not in favor of decriminalizing drugs. The reason is it sends a very bad message I think to young people, we already have a serious problem with the drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco, and adding a third drug, a series of drugs, is not a good idea. But I do think we ought to use a medical model and not a criminal model for most cases."

http://www.marinfordean.org/article_text.asp?articleid=194

He doesn't have a great record on the Marijuana issue IMO, but he took a lot of heat for his stance in VT and since has rethought his position (yay!). He doesn't seem to support decriminalizing for recreational purposes, but like I said before, he sees drug use as a health issue.

[durutti]

10. Pot dealers "merchants of death"?

Gimme a break.

[Terwilliger]

17. he's a fucking drug warrior

like the rest of the Democrats

at least Kucinich knows that ITS ALL BULLSHIT!!!!

[Kolesar]

4. I vaguely recall that Jimmy Carter hinted of relaxing marijuana laws

I was about 16 then, so maybe we were just dreaming.

[durutti]

9. He did, but...

He quickly changed his mind. He didn't want to bite the hands that fed him -- the pharmaceutical companies, prison guard unions, etc.

[Terwilliger]

19. actually, it was a cadre of soccer moms

and a coke-sniffing health adviser that kept him from pursuing drug reform. Many bills toward decrim and legalization were strated in the 70's, but they always ended up on the political "Do-Not-Touch" heap.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/smoke.htm

With the election of Jimmy Carter, Nixon's cold war rhetoric fizzled out. So too with his War on Drugs. Keith Stroup's National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws was fighting to legalize pot, and had convinced eleven states to decriminalize the possession of it. Keith Stroup even wrote a part of one of President Carter's speeches, calling for a reduction in the penalties for marijuana possession. At one time, the president, his drug czar, the head of NIDA, and the American Bar Association all advocated decriminalizing marijuana. "Truely the kingdom of heaven was at hand" for the legalizers—or so it seemed.
Carter would be disgraced by his staff. His drug czar, Peter Bourne, made an appearance at a NORML Christmas party in 1978, enjoying some cocaine while he was there. Bourne further embarrassed Carter when he was caught writing a prescription for sleeping pills for one of his staff under a fraudulent name. White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan was allegedly seen snorting coke at the chic Studio 54 club in New York, and when another story broke that Bourne had prescribed an "obesity drug" for Jordan two years before, it looked like our government was being run by a bunch of dopers.

At the same time, parents around the country were becoming alarmed by the drug paraphrenalia marketed to their kids in record stores—bongs, roach clips, even spoons and scales for cocaine. Another Keith—Marsha "Keith" Schuchard, developed her "Nosy Parents Association" into a lobby of over a thousand organizations, and from this point on, parental fear of teenage drug use would take center stage.

[ComerPerro]

5. Dude, have you ever really looked at the blue and red colors in the forum?

I mean, really looked at them? They just kind of sit there, but then they come at you. Its like they are saying, "Hey, man, you gotta read this". And they sorta float off of the background. Especially if you expand the threads. You can almost hear the blue when you read it....


Im sorry, what was the question?

[Tinoire]

6. Comparing Dems on Drugs: The Presidential Contenders & Their Drug Policies

From the StopTheDrugWar.org : the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)

Dems on Drugs: The Presidential Contenders and Their Drug Policies 6/6/03

This week, DRCNet looks at the records and the platforms of the nine announced Democratic contenders. For those seeking a refuge from reflex drug war and law and order rhetoric, there is not much positive there. While one candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), has presented a startlingly progressive drug policy platform -- the most progressive ever articulated by a serious major party candidate -- several others are more or less notorious drug warriors, while some have had little at all to say on the issue. What is especially striking is how far out of the political limelight drugs and drug policy have fallen, at least in the eyes of the Democratic pack. None, except Kucinich, make drug policy an important plank in their platforms, and several don't even list crime in general among their key issues.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (http://www.deanforamerica.com) makes no mention of drugs or crime as key issues on his website. But an earlier version of his web site -- reproduced at http://www.deanvolunteers.org/DeanVolunteers/press_view.asp?ID=424 -- contains the following illuminating Q&A:

Q: I was wondering what your drug policies are?
A: I am in favor of really hammering dealers. You know they are merchants of death and destruction and misery. I believe the rest of the drug problem -- the casual users -- is a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and we ought to approach it using a medical model.

I particularly like something we're starting to experiment with in Vermont and which is further along in some states which is drug courts where when drugs are the problem the court has wide discretion to sentence people to rehabilitation. As a physician -- I was trained as a physician -- you know, sentencing people to rehabilitation when they quote-unquote didn't want to go was something that you didn't do, but you know now I think the drug problem is so serious that it's smarter frankly to send casual users of serious drugs to rehab rather than jail. And it's cheaper in the long run. Even though they will fail rehabilitation three or four or five times, that's what you have to understand about substance abusers. From a medical point of view, as a physician, and also as a governor, I think we ought to treat drug abuse a public health problem.

I'm not in favor of decriminalizing drugs. The reason is it sends a very bad message I think to young people, we already have a serious problem with the drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco, and adding a third drug, a series of drugs, is not a good idea. But I do think we ought to use a medical model and not a criminal model for most cases.

Dean is also notorious among drug reformers for opposing medical marijuana legislation in Vermont and for his opposition to methadone maintenance programs. Dean has repeatedly said that he would reconsider medical marijuana if the Food and Drug Adminstration were to declare it safe and effective. In other words, as the Rutland Herald noted last year, Dean would support medical marijuana "when pigs fly."

On the other hand, as Vermont governor, Dean supported successful 1999 legislation establishing needle exchange programs in the state. But neither he nor his successor has encouraged the legislature to fund the two existing programs.

Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (http://www.granitestaters.com), a Marijuana Policy Project web site that rates candidates on their stands on medical marijuana, gave Dean an "F+," the lowest grade given to any Democratic candidate (but still half a grade better than it scored President Bush).

<snip>

Former Cleveland mayor and US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us) was the first candidate to endorse medical marijuana -- despite voting against it in 1998 -- and his drug policy platform, drafted with assistance from Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access (http://www.safeaccessnow.org) and Mike Gray of Common Sense for Drug Policy (http://www.csdp.org), is the boldest critique of drug war orthodoxy ever heard in presidential campaign circles. It is worth reproducing in its entirety:

A safe, free and just America is undermined, not bolstered, by the costly and ineffective War on Drugs. While well-intentioned, this misguided policy -- which emphasizes criminalization over treatment -- has led to increased violent crime, misdirected resources of law enforcement and restricted Constitutional liberties.
Despite billions spent yearly on the drug war, addiction is up. Our country must rethink a policy that produces many casualties but benefits only the prison-industrial complex. Nonviolent drug offenders often receive Draconian sentences, tearing apart families.

Racial bias in the enforcement of drug laws is pervasive. According to a Human Rights Watch report based on FBI statistics, blacks were arrested on drug charges at nearly five times the rate of whites. Drug use is consistent across racial and socioeconomic lines -- yet in the state of New York, for example, 94 percent of incarcerated drug offenders are Latino or African-American, mostly from poor communities.

Countries in Europe and elsewhere are turning away from failed policies. They are treating addiction as a medical problem and are seeing significant reductions in crime and violence -- with fewer young people becoming involved with addictive drugs in the first place. In our country, due to misplaced priorities and resources, only one bed exists for every ten people who apply for drug treatment. Addiction is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system.

Most Americans believe that medical marijuana should be available to help relieve the suffering of seriously ill patients, and eight states have passed laws to allow it. But the Bush administration has harassed medical marijuana patients in an effort to assert federal authority. This is another aspect of the drug war that should be ended.

Kucinich wins the only "A" for medical marijuana from Granite Staters.

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/290/demsondrugs.shtml

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print.

I only snipped Dean and Kucinich but the overall grades on this were:

Howard Dean: F+
John Edwards: D
Dick Gephardt: D
Bob Graham: C-
John Kerry: C
Dennis Kucinich: A
Joe Lieberman: D+
Carol Moseley-Braun: ?
Al Sharpton: Incomplete

and just in case anyone cares,
George Bush: F

[Egnever]

7. good information Tiniore

Even if a little harsh for my candidate.

Dean is definately not the pro pot candidate I would like him to be. However I do think he recognizes its uses for medical issues.

He has said he would direct the FDA to do a study on medical marijuana and abide by the results. Not enthusiasticly suporting marijuana as I would like but I do think it would go a long way to dispelling many of the marijuana myths.

He gets an F from me also on this issue

He also recognizes the travesty that is going on in sentancing all these people to prison for non violent drug offenses so I feel at least a little better about it.

Also i just came accross this. Again not the endorsment i would like from him but clearly he recognizes there is a problem here. And wants to adress it.

Advocates Expect Study to Lead to Legal Protection in 2003

MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- Without comment or fanfare, on June 21 Gov. Howard Dean (D) signed legislation setting up a state task force to study how Vermont should go about protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest. While the measure provides no immediate protection to seriously ill Vermonters who need marijuana to relieve their symptoms, the new law sets the wheels in motion for solid patient protection next year.

http://www.drugwar.com/pgovdeanmedmar.shtm

I dont know where this lead but it apears to be at least a step in the right direction and leads me to believe he will at least try to do the right thing concerning medical marijuana at least if he gets into office.

Not my ideal stance on the issue. This and his stance on the I/P situation are where I am not entirely comfortable with him. But no body is perfect and these are not make or break issues for me.

[Tinoire]

15. That's what I love about you- your honestly

Since this isn't a major issue of mine- not in a world of death and destruction- I haven't been paying close attention to it and was frankly shocked to see Kucinich so high and Dean so low.

The I/P issue is the biggest problem I have with Dean, aside from his Centrism which I could easily tolerate.

Peace and here's hoping he relaxes on the marijuana issue ;)

[JohnKleeb]

16. I/P me too

I was suprised DK scored so high but that said this is a medium sized issue for me and I am impressed. I can tolerate centrism though I prefer liberalism and an open mind on I/P.

[w4rma]

11. Dean supports *medical* marijuana decriminalization for some treatments

…
KING: Santa Cruz, California, hello.

CALLER: 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.tv/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

Anyway 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=

[twilight]

13. Does Dean include?

Does Dean include multiple sclerosis on his "agenda"? That is what I would like to know! I've never heard him mention this horrible disease even once and it is one of the preferred treatments (legal or not) for many persons afflicted with this crippling/incurable disease.

So, Dean, what's the story exactly? Do you have to fit into a little category of your own to qualify or what?


:shrug:

[w4rma]

14. Maybe. He seems to want the doctors at the FDA to decide the specifics.

IMHO, it looks like the pattern is: The more extreme the disease, the more likely it'll be allowed as a prescribed treatment.

[twilight]

18. ok tinfoil hat on this one!

:tinfoilhat:

Right now, big named, big bucks drug companies like TEVA, Biogen, and Serano are pushing injectible drugs for this illness. Do these drugs work? Answer: ????????? No one really knows.

However, these drugs are being pushed real heavy by many doctors and they cost thousands of dollars a month.

I wouldn't put it past an M.D. to say that the drugs being pushed (which are endorsed by the FDA) are the proper treatments and leave those with this illness standing in the dark.

This would only shove more money to the likes of the pharmaceutical companies in on this whole 'treatment scam' as I call it. Side effects of these drugs are absolutely horrendous in some cases and they are certainly NOT a cure on any level at all.

I hope that Howard Dean isn't being bought by the pharmaceutical companies - that is one of my greatest fears about this man. ?

[w4rma]

24. M.D.s, Pharm.D.s, and Ph.D.'s who work for the FDA will decide

in Dean's proposal.

IMHO, if you don't want your candidate to have to go to the pharmaceutical companies for support, money or neutrality, you'll have to defend your candidate from these big buisnesses. I expect that Dean will make a comprimise with the pharmacutical companies to neutralize them, then take that comprimise to groups supportive of marijuana and form a coilition among them to help push this through.

example:
…
Back at the Santa Monica house party, Dean brings up the matter — which is, needless to say, more than a little controversial in this crowd — of his stance on gun control. “I’m not a member of the NRA,” he says, “but I’ve got a 100 percent rating from them, and here’s why . . .” He explains that during his years in hunting-and-fishing Vermont, he’s come to believe that aside from the three national laws that ought to be allowed to stand — the Brady Bill, the assault-weapons ban, and mandatory gun-show checks — further gun regulation is an area best left to state and local governments. His reasoning is that there are such different cultures for and problems with weapons in different areas of the country that a one-size-fits-all policy isn’t practical.

Unspoken is the likelihood that this view will make several of his other positions — the need for greatly expanded national health insurance, his solidity on affirmative action — more palatable, even persuasive, in parts of the country and among voters who might otherwise be less receptive to them. Dean likes to say he feels perfectly comfortable talking to middle-aged white guys with gun racks and Confederate decals on their trucks, because their kids don’t have health insurance either. But the truth is, once a commonality has been established, other opinions, even when they widely differ from your own, tend to seem more legitimate. (In Vermont, Dean explains on another occasion, he’s been able to rope the NRA into helping with land preservation: “They understand that if there’s no habitat, they can’t hunt.”) And that reasoning, which is not exactly unknown to the business dealings of many of the people in the room, seems to resonate quietly, and to calm them.
…
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/41/features-wolf.php

[Terwilliger]

21. Who the fuck enabled Dean, Democrats, or anyone else to decide this?

Its been decided. The research has been done. The fucking DEA determined that marijuana was safer than aspirin?!?!?!?!? What more research isa needed Ricky? There is no more research needed to get the government the FUCK out of my medicine cabinet. You people act like you're the ones put out by allowing sick people to smoke pot and feel better. How do you call yourself progressive?

[w4rma]

22. Neither Dean or the Democratic Party has the power to decide this, yet.

A) I'm stating the candidate's positions, not my own on this.
B) The FDA is the federal agency that approves drugs and food. They've never been allowed to look at any research on marijuana as far as I know even if another federal agency has. Basically, Dean's proposing to do it by the book.

[twilight]

23. National Academy of Science/Instiute of Medicine Report *typical*

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/Sourcebook-Marijuana.asp

[w4rma]

25. National Academy of Science/Instiute of Medicine Report <> FDA (n/t)

<> = not equal to

[Terwilliger]

26. Basically, Dean's serving the same interests that perpetuate the drug war

not liberal, not progressive, not sane, not rational

weeeeeeeeeee...lets vote for the Lying Doctor...he MUST be trustworthy! :eyes:

[w4rma]

27. He's definitely a huge improvement over Bush/Ashcroft.

who chose to raid state legal medical marajuana clinics over protecting America's security.

And disagreeing with you, Terwilliger, doesn't make him a "Lying Doctor". IMHO, you are the one being "not sane, not rational".

I'll agree with you that Dean is "not liberal, not progressive", though.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Marajuana criminalization = plain stupid

Any effort that goes into trying to stop people from doing marajuana at the very least takes away from the effort of trying to stop people from doing cocaine, exstacy, heroine, and many other more dangerous drugs. If I were a politician I would absolutely speak my mind on this as well as other issues.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Well it is not exactly about marijuana decriminalizaition

but it still seems on-topic to relate what first brought John Kerry to my attention. It was in the early nineties and I was watching a lot of cspan. Kerry was on the floor of the Senate speaking about mandatory minimums. Now of course ten years later I can't tell you what the exact words were but he described some of his constituents, just a couple who was selling a little acid so they could get their broken down VW bus to the next Grateful Dead show, and now they are in prison for life, and it just isn't right! Well I couldn't believe I was listening to a United States Senator speaking up for people just like some of my friends and doing so without really mincing any words. That was just about mandatory minimums, not decriminalization but to me it showed an underlying sense of not having his head up his ass, if that's how you want to put it. And it made me start paying attention to what Kerry had to say.