Originally Posted By ecdc I'll add that Mitt Romney is hardly the only politician that does this. They're all guilty of it. I just think it's funny that we're so used to spinning and non-answers from our politicians, that people read this article and actually think Mitt answered the question. If you answered a question from your boss, or your spouse, or anyone else in the real world, the same way Mitt Romney did, they'd look at you like you were an idiot.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Someone said earlier that the questioner may not have liked the answer, but that Mitt did answer it. >> The answer provided was the correct answer. Only a court of law and its associated judge and jury determines who should be jailed or not. Politicians should not be making hypothetical responses about how a court of law might make sentencing decisions with respect to criminal behavior. Again, the questioner didn't like the answer. The questioner wanted Mitt Romney to be judge and jury, which is not the role he is seeking election to perform. He answered the question based upon the role he wants -- the executive leader to establish broad policy that will be interpreted and enforced by the judicial system.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Politicians should not be making hypothetical responses about how a court of law might make sentencing decisions with respect to criminal behavior.<< They also shouldn't be making medical decisions, and in this case, he was. By keeping marijuana off the list of options for doctors and their patients, it keeps people in greater pain than they need to be. So, he shouldn't be squeamish about answering for that decision, face to face with someone it is affecting. Of course, he chose to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation. It's much easier to be so high minded about things at a fundraising dinner or amongst like-minded supporters.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The questioner wanted Mitt Romney to be judge and jury<< He wanted to know what the Romney administration's position would be where the rubber meets the road. Governors have to get involved at times in overruling court decisions in death penalty cases and such, and they all work with law enforcement in a number of ways. It's ludicrous to have an opinion about medical mariijuana being illegal without also having at least SOME inkling of what the punishment should be. Stand up for your beliefs, Mitt. Tell us if you would jail a guy in a wheelchair for smoking pot for medical reasons. Own that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And while you're at it, Mitt, please explain to cancer and AIDS patients, vomiting up even the smallest amounts of food, losing their appetites and withering away, why you know that's what's best for them and their families, why they must be prohibited from something that could ease their suffering a bit. Explain that.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << They also shouldn't be making medical decisions, and in this case, he was. >> I can totally understand that point of view. That's what the OP should have said in the first place. However, that's not the way this story was portrayed. Why can't we just say we don't like Mitt Romney because he doesn't support medical marijuana? Instead, we try to character assassinate the guy by saying that he doesn't answer questions honestly -- just another slimy politician. Why not just address the specific issue at hand? Romney did. He said he was against medical marijuana, very straightforward on what his policy would be as president. I think there is probably a decent sized group of folks that don't want to see marijuana legalized, and if you want them to be sour on Romney, you need to attack his character instead of his actual political position. Again, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I think these tactics of character assassination and distortion of the issues at hand are in bad taste.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But there's no distortion. He was asked by the fellow if he should be arrested. Romney wriggled away. Even when the question was repeated by someone else, he dodged.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I guess I'm just tired of politicians in general making statements about these things in an antiseptic way. They get to be all bluster and bravado on the stump but then when they have a chance to face someone, look them in the eye and explain their position, they sprint in the opposite direction.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I still believe he answered appropriately for a presidential candidate. If he were seeking a judicial position, he should answer questions about prison sentences.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Well, VBDad, there will always be a percentage of people that ruin their lives, their familes, and their health with drugs. In fact, they can do it very effectively and legally using the drug called alcohol. To be completely frank, alcohol is WORSE than cocaine and heroin combined (I haven't even mentioned grass). That's my personal opinion, and I have valid reasons for believing so. Having said that, I'll say that ALL drugs are "bad" (of course) if misused. Obviously, as people have mentioned, there is a market for percocettes and vicodine and all those other "super painkiller" stuff too, which gets you a lot higher than pot or a beer... That's simply not the issue here though...the issue is WE HAVE MEDICINE AVAILABLE, in fact the ONLY medicine, THAT HELPS PEOPLE FEEL BETTER AND EVEN PREVENTS THEIR DEATH. And that's the part I really, really resent. I couldn't care less if they legalize dope for recreation or don't...there are plenty of bars to provide legal, dangerous drugs, not to mention supermarkets to provide even stupider, dangerous drugs. Keeping marijuana away from people that really need it, though, REALLY need it (life or death here!), is sick, stupid, EVIL political pandering. And I hold those scumbags (LIKE this Mitt jackass) personally responsible for it!< well Mr X I was just responding to the way the thread was leaning - so I posted my views. I have had family die of alcoholism also - so I know what you're saying there- which is why I have some hesitancy with making anything else legal - as far as medicinal purposes I never commented on that at all - I have no issue with that - as long as someone polices it so that it doesn't become another avenue to recreational use. People need relief from pain , but as I am unknowledgeable in this area - is marijuana the ONLY drug that will work in some cases ? If that is the case - hen that is what is needed. The potential for abuse of the system would be a bigger concern for me than anything else -not the fact that someone who needed the weed for medicinal purposes was toking up in their home - non issue to me on that end
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Honestly, on the list of things important to the future of our country, medical marijuana is near the bottom of the list. They are lightning rod issues, like abortion, and special interest groups use them to pursue their agenda. I'm more concerned about what Romney wants to do about the budget deficit, the entitlements time bomb that is getting ready to explode with Baby Boomers retiring, our continued foray in Iraq, energy independence, etc. Whether or not I agree with him on medical marijuana or abortion makes no matter to me if he answers questions effectively on the more important issues and prioritizes his actions in office accordingly. If a POTUS ever gets down on the "list of things to do" regarding what to do about medical marijuana, then they are either a superstar that has accomplished miraculous things for this country on the economic, geopolitical, and social fronts, or their priorities are way out of whack.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I still believe he answered appropriately for a presidential candidate.<< Sure he did -- safely. I'm talking about answering one human being's question AS a human being. Look the guy in the eye and answer him. That shouldn't be so difficult. If it is, maybe his discomfort should lead him to re-examining his position.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Honestly, on the list of things important to the future of our country, medical marijuana is near the bottom of the list.<< Mine too, now that my father has died. But let me tell you, a month ago, it was a major source of frustration and undue discomfort. Many more people are going through that hell today, and it's so needless. I don't know if it would have helped my dad much or not. Nothing else really did. I resent it that we couln't even legally try. And considering the amount of manpower and money we squander going after this stuff, it's nuts.
Originally Posted By DAR << why you know that's what's best for them and their families, why they must be prohibited from something that could ease their suffering a bit. Explain that.>> And there lies the problem, the government THINKS they know what's best for you and I, when in most cases they don't have the foggiest clue what affects the American voter.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<In fact, I doubt anyone started smoking marijuana without first at least trying tobacco.>> {sheepishly also raises my hand on that one also} My Dad smokes cigarettes till I was about 7 or 8. Then he quit cold turkey. And he made it clear to us kids that smoking was about the dumbest thing you could do, that it could take years off the time you got to spend with the people you love, etc. etc. It was personal with him. As a result, I always knew I would NEVER smoke, and when some of my jr. high friends started doing it, I was never tempted - I just thought it was sad. He also gave us the "don't do drugs" speech later on, but it wasn't as personal. It took me till college, but I did smoke pot without ever smoking tobacco. I also had no idea at the time it was bad for your lungs!
Originally Posted By DAR How's this for backwards thinking. I never took up smoking regular cigarettes because a pack costs too much money. Yet I had no problem purchasing some pot every once in awhile.
Originally Posted By jonvn See, this is so amazing. Kids can't get a legal drug, tobacco, because it's legal and controlled. But the illegal one, well, you can get that easiliy. Isn't this the dumbest situation you've ever heard?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Of course, he chose to weasel out of an uncomfortable situation. It's much easier to be so high minded about things at a fundraising dinner or amongst like-minded supporters.<< And that's exactly my point and my problem with the story. It's illustrative of a bigger problem. People like Romney talk about issues like gay marriage as if they take place in a vacuum. He gets up in front of a crowd of supporters and rattles on about "family values" and "freedom" - things that have very specific meanings to the Christian right in this country. When Mitt Romney talks to his supporters about "freedom," it sadly has a very different meaning than when Barack Obama talks about "freedom" to his supporters. Mitt's pandering to the religious right hurts real people. It causes real harm. Yet he acts like it takes place in a vacuum, and when he's confronted with the reality of it, this time in the form of a patient who would benefit from medical marijuana, he balks and tries to walk away, making it so the patient has to ask him to stay and answer his question.
