Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today on Line Out. | Clinton's CSPAN Cleavage »

Friday, July 20, 2007

This Week on Drugs

posted by on July 20 at 16:20 PM


For the Love of Christ: How many medical marijuana stories can one human post on a single blog? Not enough, apparently. The issue is a big deal this week for presidential candidates, who – for the first time ever – are forced to take a position to oppose or maintain controversial drug policies. Celebstoner has the lowdown on the showdown, beginning with Mrs. Didn’t Inhale.

During a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire on July 13, Len Epstein of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana told the senator and presidential candidate: “Twelve states allow medical marijuana, but the Bush administrations continues to raid patients.”

Clinton replied: “Yes, I know. It’s terrible.”

Would you stop the federal raids?” Epstein asked.

Yes, I will,” she responded firmly.

Here’s Obama’s wishy-washier take:

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.”

And the elephants in the room: John McCain made his diagnosis on July 14.

“I don’t think marijuana is healthy,” the senator stated. “I don’t think it is good for people and there is a large body of medical opinion that says there is plenty of other medications that are more effective and better and less damaging to one’s health to use to relieve pain.”

That’s basically the official position among conservative candidates. Here’s America’s mayor…

“You can accomplish everything you want to accomplish with things other than marijuana, probably better. There are pain medications much superior to marijuana,” he said.

Giuliani’s more full of shit than Paul Bunyan’s colostomy bag. Rudy’s clearly rooting for his former employer, Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin. But he is also intentionally redirecting the debate to focus on painkillers; marijuana’s greatest medical marvel is the ability to quickly curb nausea. Pills that you swallow and throw up again, not so much.

Why so chatty about the wheelchair weed?

Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) are sponsoring an amendment that would kill funding for federal efforts to preempt state medical marijuana initiatives… it would at least halt the DEA’s efforts to thwart the will of voters and legislatures in 12 states.

Cold Trail: New meth tracking system dispatches officers to drive in circles around parking lots where meth manufacturing suspects purchased Sudafed.

Crony Express: Drug Czar’s minions sent to campaign for vulnerable Republicans.

Up in Smoke? UK considers terminating relaxed pot laws.

Up in Price: New pharmaceuticals less effective than old, generic drugs.

Up in Arms: FDA wants to regulate cigarette advertising.

RSS icon Comments


For some reason, I can't shake the feeling that half of America is in love with John McCain right now. Sure, he appears to be in the hole, but then again we all thought nobody would dare vote to keep Bush in office.

McCain and Bush are Gods to America.

Posted by The slut girl advertising Lovers Package to the right. | July 20, 2007 4:21 PM

I am sooo sick of hearing about weed. Can't we just legalize it already?

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 4:37 PM

You're telling me, Dianna... Next week, we can have a weed-free edition of TWOD.

Posted by Dominic Holden | July 20, 2007 4:42 PM

Yah, unfortunately that won't be happening any time soon...I'm crossing my fingers that we see it in my lifetime. But not holding my breath.

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 4:59 PM

And I can personally attest that weed is good for you. I'd have lost my mind ages ago if it wasn't for it, or at least be a fairly regular sleeping pill/pain pill/anxiety pill user. I'll give opponents that it's not good on the lungs. But it's a trade off.

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 5:01 PM

Republicans are for states' rights except when they're against them.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 20, 2007 5:38 PM

Agreed, flaminbanjo. When it comes to oh, say, abortion, it's all about "states' rights" to restrict; but forget about it when it comes to drugs. Arg! Fuckers!

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 6:01 PM

Yikes, Hillary looks like she's rolling big time.

Posted by Ebenezer | July 20, 2007 6:13 PM

Yeah, what we need in this country is a bunch of stoned hippies trying to run an already broken system. Great.

More weed for everyone. Make sure you get stoned and go driving around town. After all, it isn't bad for you.

Posted by ecce homo | July 20, 2007 6:20 PM

So, we are going to get the stoners all pissed off at the Democrats for not wanting to legalize weed (see "How to loose a General Election") and then those same stoners will go and vote for... gee I don't know... Ralph Nader? Were any of you paying attention in 2000? Just plug your nose and just vote for the Democrat. Unless President Thompson is something that sounds exciting.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 20, 2007 6:38 PM

Speaking of paying attention, Cato, are we reading the same post? Clinton's and Obama's quotes are pro-reform. And, maybe stoners in other cities are getting the message from on high to support Nader, but the stoners in Seattle have been getting the message to support Dems.

Posted by Dominic Holden | July 20, 2007 7:01 PM

Though I'm in favor of both public smoking bans and marijuana decriminalization, I have to say I'm glad the public smoking bans are happening first.

Posted by lostboy | July 20, 2007 7:30 PM

I was living in England when cannabis was moved from "Class A" to "Class B." Then a few months after I went back to the States they moved it even lower, to "Class C." If they backtrack now-- after all the great changes they've made-- it would be severely disappointing. I'm glad that this proposed chage would require agreement of both houses of Parliament to become law. I'll be watching this one. Too bad David Blunkett isn't home secretary anymore.

And I've got to say, I appreciate Clinton's firmness on the DEA tip... if she becomes pres, I'm gonna hold her ass to it!

Posted by Jamey | July 20, 2007 7:51 PM

So Bush meets this Marine who lost both his legs in Iraq and says \"Good Man, We\'re Gonna Get Him Some New Legs...\" Bush is the guy Dan Savage supported to start a war in Iraq. The Marine is the guy who is paying the price for Bush\'s stupidity and incompetence.

Excerpts below from Dan Savage\'s \"Say yes to war\" piece Oct. 2002

\"While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not. \"We do not intend to put American lives at risk to replace one dictator with another,\" Dick Cheney recently told reporters. For those of you who were too busy making papier-mâché puppets of George W. Bush last week to read the papers, you may have missed this page-one statement in last Friday\'s New York Times: \"The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein.\"\"

\"In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we\'re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves\"

Posted by For the love of Christ | July 20, 2007 10:14 PM

Wholly assumptions, Cato. I'll end up voting for the Democrat; I definitely didn't vote for Nader in 2000.

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 11:43 PM

Way to make assumptions, Cato. I'll vote for the Democrat in 2008 and I certainly didn't vote for Nader in 2000.

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 11:57 PM

Damn! Again!

Posted by Dianna | July 20, 2007 11:58 PM

only a democrat in the start of their second term as president could even broach the subject of fucking legalizing it already.

hillary won't be the one. gore, maybe, but al junior sure put him in a hole with his idiotic drugged hybrid driving.

Posted by maxsolomon | July 21, 2007 11:49 AM

That's true, maxsolomon. Pushing "legalization" would be political suicide for a national candidate of either major party. But there's no reason to let semantics get in the way of fixing our asshatted drug laws. Candidates and electeds can safely advocate for incremental reforms that already have majority support, such as stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states, providing mandatory treatment instead of prison terms, and replacing jail terms with citations for adults caught with marijuana for personal use. These minor reforms are not election losers and aren't reserved for Naderesque asswipes.

One of the problems is that progressives repeat a self-defeating mantra that drug laws will forever remain a draconian mess. Why do we fucking do this to ourselves? It's not 1972 anymore. Local drug law reforms have been snowballing since 1996. We need to wake the fuck up and embrace that change is possible--but only if supporters insist that their mainstream candidates support popular drug policy reforms.

Posted by Dominic Holden | July 21, 2007 12:49 PM

I work for an organization, MAPS, that recently won a landmark lawsuit against the DEA regarding medical marijuana. With one more step in the approval process, we are urging the DEA to accept the recommendation by their own Administrative Law Judge to grant a license to grow marijuana for FDA trials to determine whether or not it has medicinal value. In an effort to put pressure on the DEA, Reps. John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept the Recommended Ruling.

This legal struggle has taken years. If the DEA rules against granting the license, there’s no telling how many more years will go by before marijuana is evaluated in FDA trials. For decades, the federal government has excluded marijuana from highly-demanded drug development research. Now is a unique window of opportunity to change this!

To learn more about MAPS, please visit our web site at -- For background on the case and to contact your Representative, see MAPS' DEA Lawsuit page

Posted by terri | July 23, 2007 12:12 PM

adult x dragonball

Posted by x dragonball of | July 28, 2007 3:35 PM

adult x dragonball

Posted by x dragonball of | July 28, 2007 3:35 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).