Originally Posted By ecdc >>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.<< Wrong, Sport Goofy. That's not my intention at all. I support Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she wouldn't be much better than Mitt on this issue. I don't think any front runner would endorse medical marijuana - they know it's political poison. That's not why I don't like Mitt. I don't like Mitt for the reasons the article outlined (that he gave a roundabout answer and then tried to walk away) and the reasons Kar2oonMan gave. I don't like him because he wimped out when confronted on something. We all know Mitt would have no problem standing in front of a crowd of Republicans at a fundraiser and lambasting proponents of medical marijuana as wanting to hurt kids and to hurt our families. But when he's confronted by someone with a real problem that marijuana could help, he chickened out. Let's be clear: I'm not saying Mitt should have said "Absolutely, let's legalize it." All I'm saying is he should've stuck around to have the discussion with the guy. He should have explained why he isn't for it and why, although it might not help him, it's not worth the risks. He should have said why he believed, or why he didn't believe, this man should be imprisoned for using marijuana. >>Politicians should not be making hypothetical responses about how a court of law might make sentencing decisions with respect to criminal behavior.<< Except they have no problem doing it *all the time*. They're always talking about how they're going to be tough on crime. How they want three strike laws, how they want mandatory sentences for certain crimes. Mitt didn't do it this time not because it was the right thing to do, but because he couldn't stomach being faced down by someone harmed by his rhetoric and pandering to the Christian right.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Romney's response was fine. They questioner just got annoyed and upset because Romney wasn't going to take the bait. It was an impossible question to answer. The questioner knew Romney's position on legalizing marijuana. He then twisted it around to make it APPEAR that Romney and other marijuana opponents want to go around and arrest sick people. I will say that, had I been Romney, I would have asked they guy if he believes sick children should be allowed or encouraged to smoke marijuana. That might have put HIM on the spot. (I knew a young man who had terminal cancer who used the synthetic variety. A number of medications made him nauseous, but there were several remedies for that. So I don't quite buy into the man's argument that it's real marijuana or nothing. I think it's hilarious, though, that so many people have thought they have THE ONE devastating thing that's going to do-in Romney. Whatever.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper By the way, Romney didn't "wimp-out" or avoid the man's question. The man's question would have been similar to me asking the anti-war crowd, "So, if you don't want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, are you saying that you want Iraqi people to be tortured, bullied and fed into wood chippers?" I might have that result to boost my argument, but it does not follow that because someone else opposes the war that they would WANT to continue oppression. The man's implication was that Romney, because of his position, wants to throw sick people in jail. It was dishonest, manipulative and self-serving from the start, and the question did not deserve a response period, never mind the one he was seeking.
Originally Posted By Mr X If you don't "buy into the argument", that's because you have no clue how the stuff affects people. It is an extremely powerful anti-nauseant. The pills don't work nearly as effectively. And as for your "other options", what's the point of taking an anti-nauseant if you need other medicines to try and stop being nauseous. Duh. And yes, a sick cancer patient, even a child, should get the medicine he/she needs. That's a question I'd answer quite easily...if the doctor approves, why not? Kids are perscribed opiates when needed, are they not? Oh, and it doesn't APPEAR they want to go around and arrest sick people, that's their actual position. If he wants it criminalized, then obviously he wants the offenders punished. Otherwise, what's the point? Anyway, it's medicine and it is needed to keep sick people healthier and sometimes even prevent their deaths. Why do you have a problem with that? Why would you be against it at all?
Originally Posted By Mr X **and the question did not deserve a response period** Why the heck not? If anyone deserves a straight answer, it's that guy...obviously he's got serious medical problems and has doctors recommending a treatment this polititian is fighting to bar. What's wrong with asking that question? I don't really get what your problem is here, why are you being rude about the sick guy in the wheelchair here?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The man's question would have been similar to me asking the anti-war crowd, "So, if you don't want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, are you saying that you want Iraqi people to be tortured, bullied and fed into wood chippers?" >> Good analogy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It was an impossible question to answer.> No, it really wasn't. I strongly suspect that Romney HAS a real answer in his mind - which is that while he does not favor legalizing pot, he would not, in practice, favor arresting those who find a way to get it and smoke it due to their illnesses. He could have said THAT. But that wouldn't be ideologically "pure" enough for his base, so he didn't. It's not that unlike the question facing anti-abortion advocates; if you think abortion should be illegal, do you think a woman who gets one if it WAS illegal should be arrested and jailed? They will very rarely bite the bullet and answer that one either. In practice, what they tend to favor is making it illegal, and then if necessary arresting any doctor or other person who performs an abortion, but not a desperate woman who gets one. Politically, arresting the woman is just untenable, and no politician will say that they favor that. Likewise, someone who does not favor legal medical marijuana will say it should be illegal, and favor arresting those who sell it. But they almost certainly would not go around arresting severely ill people who find a way to get it. I imagine that is his practical stance. So no, it was not an impossible question to answer. But he felt he couldn't say it - and THAT is what is telling.
Originally Posted By ncnike7 "And yes, a sick cancer patient, even a child, should get the medicine he/she needs. That's a question I'd answer quite easily...if the doctor approves, why not? Kids are perscribed opiates when needed, are they not?" Are you suggesting that a child should be given marijuana if the doctor says so? My little brother had cancer and no doctor in either of the hospitals that he was treated in ever suggested marijuana as an affective or desirable treatment option, and he was treated by some of the best pediatric oncologists in the country. And as far as opiates go, my little boy was treated with some after some heart surgery, and do you know what? He was in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit the entire time. Are they going to monitor kids on marijuana that well? And what about the potential of overdosing? Don't we have enough to worry about with Tylenol overdoses?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I strongly suspect that Romney HAS a real answer in his mind - which is that while he does not favor legalizing pot, he would not, in practice, favor arresting those who find a way to get it and smoke it due to their illnesses. He could have said THAT. But that wouldn't be ideologically "pure" enough for his base, so he didn't.<< Precisely. Or, he is in favor of a no-tolerance policy and would, in fact, be fine with locking up sick people. He knows how that would play, too, so off he skipped.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think it's hilarious, though, that so many people have thought they have THE ONE devastating thing that's going to do-in Romney. Whatever.<< Whatever indeed. No one has said that, nor anything like it. Where do you get this stuff? But this little incident reveals, as part of a long campaign, an interesting glimpse into his character. It illustrates that he takes positions on things when it's comfortable, and squirms away when he comes face to face with someone likely to be affected by his position. On this issue, he doesn't seem to have the courage of his convictions, pardon the pun.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Are you suggesting that a child should be given marijuana if the doctor says so?" Why not? If that would help the kid, or would you rather see a child suffer? Is that what you are suggesting, that a child suffer?
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, and opiates and marijuana are two rather different things. You don't need to be in a hospital and be monitored if you smoke marijuana. Geeze.
Originally Posted By barboy "Are you suggesting that a child should be given marijuana if the doctor says so?" Anyone stricken with cancer regardless of age should not have to endure pain. If weed will help a child allevaite the agony then by all means let them have it. "Are they going to monitor kids on marijuana that well? And what about the potential of overdosing?" You've got to be kidding.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Are you suggesting that a child should be given marijuana if the doctor says so?** Are you suggesting a child on chemo that can't eat and is wasting away should just die? I'm no physician, and I don't claim to be. But yes, if this was a legal option and a doctor approved, sure. Why not? **My little brother had cancer and no doctor in either of the hospitals that he was treated in ever suggested marijuana as an affective or desirable treatment option, and he was treated by some of the best pediatric oncologists in the country.** Perhaps, like in Kar2oonMan's Dads' situation, the docs were just not considering it because of the legal issues. **And what about the potential of overdosing? Don't we have enough to worry about with Tylenol overdoses?** Tylenol overdoses are common and well-documented. Got any evidence that points to marijuana overdose being a big concern for ANYONE regardless of age or body weight? There isn't any. It's nearly impossible to overdose on it. But in any case, if the kid is under a physicians care, and being monitered in the intensive care wing or whatever is needed, than that's just another non-issue as well isn't it? My answer, still, is yes in my opinion, provided it is also the opinion of a qualified doctor.
Originally Posted By Mr X By the way, once again everyone is trying to invoke these silly images of a 5 year old kid toking up, and OH MY GOD WHAT IF THEY OVERDOSED, and bla bla bla. I'll mention once again that marijuana does NOT have to be smoked, it can be consumed, and it can also be perscribed in percise doses if that's the way a doctor wants to handle it. Not that there's much danger of an overdose, that's just nonsense. As Jon often says, you can die from drinking too much water too...and there's probably just about as much chance of THAT happening to a kid than a TCH overdose.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm" target="_blank">http://www.drug-overdose.com/m arijuana.htm</a> **The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.** **Unlike opiates, barbiturates or amphetamines, there seems to be little risk from the use of large amounts of marijuana.** Well, there you have it. A study by the FEDERAL GOVERMENT claiming that there is no such thing as a fatal overdose of marijuana. No why would the folks who brought us "the war on drugs" have any reason to lie? Looks like Jon's water overdose is a much more serious threat, actually. Next argument.
Originally Posted By Mr X NCNike7, this isn't usually my style, but since you wrote an obviously sincere post with some firsthand info, can you see now how your argument might be based on a false premise?
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.drug-overdose.com/codeine.htm" target="_blank">http://www.drug-overdose.com/c odeine.htm</a> On the other hand, a tylonol with codeine overdoes sounds pretty damned scary. Maybe THAT'S the stuff Romney and his ilk should be trying to ban! Symptoms of a Codeine overdose include: muscle spasticity slow and labored breathing shallow breathing loss of breath pinpoint pupils bluish colored - fingernails and lips skin itching spasms of stomach and/or intestinal tract constipation weak pulse low blood pressure
Originally Posted By jonvn Overdosing on water is actually something that can happen easily. Recently, a woman taking part in a water drinking contest at a radio station in Sacramento (a dump) died in this manner. It throws your electrolytes off balance, your heart stops, you die. Fun! It is very hard for a doctor to prescribe a specific amount of marijuana for someone because the strength of it differs from batch to batch. You don't really know how much drug you are getting, so it's not something easily done unless it was legalized and grown in a legit manner so it can be controlled. But since it is all uncontrolled, and the criminals are getting the money and making the stuff, we kind of have no real way of making a specific dosage. Some people are so very sick when they take this, that they can't even smoke it themselves, they have to have the smoke blown into their faces so they can breath it in. Yeah, that's really the sort of person who is going to go wild on the evil weed. Maybe they'll feel so good from breathing in the stuff, they'll hop on a chopper and fire shotguns at kids in schoolyards. And that is why it should remain illegal, I say. We don't want these nearly bedridden cancer sufferers to think they can act immorally.
