Dean's Listing

Jacob Sullum | January 6, 2004

The Marijuana Policy Project has issued its final grades for the Democratic presidential candidates, based on the positions they have taken (or refused to take) regarding the medical use of cannabis. John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman all got F's because they repeatedly dodged the issue. Howard Dean, who opposed a medical marijuana bill when he was governor of Vermont, fared only slightly better, earning a D-. It seems to me he deserves a higher grade, a C at least.

Judging from the statements collected by MPP, Dean has consistently taken the position that marijuana should be treated like any other medicine, passing muster with the FDA before it can be legally used. At the same time, he has consistently condemned the federal government's raids on medical marijuana users in California and other states that recognize the drug as a medicine. In other words, medical marijuana should not be legalized at the federal level until the FDA approves, but in the mean time the DEA should leave cancer and AIDS patients alone.

Obviously, one can disagree with this position, starting with the premise that the federal government has the authority to tell people what plants they may grow and ingest (for whatever reason). And Dean's stance is not exactly courageous. But it strikes me as sincere, given his technocratic tendencies, and it is certainly preferable to the aggressive posture taken by the Bush and Clinton administrations. In practice, it would allow states to go their own way on this issue even if marijuana remained completely forbidden under federal law.

Comments

fyodor|1.6.04 @ 1:55AM|#

Is this what they invented "grading on a curve" for?

D Lusional|1.6.04 @ 2:52AM|#

Hey I'd vote that dude.

ah what was his name?

|1.6.04 @ 2:58AM|#

Dean has consistently taken the position that marijuana should be treated like any other medicine
By, "treated like any other medicine", I pressume that he does not mean "receive widespread hysterical media denounciation and a meritless ban after 2 highly publicized deaths by incidental users." WWDD?

|1.6.04 @ 3:54AM|#

Bear in mind this stance is based on what Dean *says* during a campaign. Bush said he'd respect states' rights on the issue.

Woops.

Dean wants my ass strectched in prison just like everyone else.

|1.6.04 @ 4:06AM|#

How can you, in good conscience, say anything even remotely positive, or at least non-negative, about Dean. Rule #1 of Hit and Run is that Democrats must always be trashed, and never given even the tiniest credit where tiny credit is due.

|1.6.04 @ 5:10AM|#

Good things about Dean:

His name can be easily spelled and pronounced.

He doesn't come bundled with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

If he wins in 2004, he'd run for a second term and possibly save us all from the horror of Hillary in 2008.

|1.6.04 @ 5:12AM|#

marijuana should be treated like any other medicine, passing muster with the FDA before it can be legally used.

Actually, I think this may be a dodge.

I can't recall for certain, but I doubt that marijuana would have to pass muster with the FDA, just as any number of other herbal remedies do not have to pass such muster. Anyone know for sure?

If my dimn recollection is correct, then Mr. Dean is having us on, pretending to take a liberal position while hiding behind a (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the law.

If he means what he says, and if marijuana is not subject to FDA jurisdiction, and he says that he accepts the implications of his position (namely, that medical marijuana should be as freely available as, say, kava kava), then he will have broken new ground on this issue.

|1.6.04 @ 5:24AM|#

RC, I completely agree. Dean doesn't necessarily have a stance, he has himself a dodge. However, when adding "medical" to marijuana, then the door probably has been opened for FDA review, or worse, FDA tie up for years to come. We classify kava kava and other herbs as being "beneficial" but we don't consider it medical. Many herbalists will tell you that there is medical value with some herbs, golden seal for one, however, its rare for these herbs to provide immediate relief like MJ. They are mostly used as preventative maintenance.

|1.6.04 @ 6:14AM|#

Dean vetoed a very sensible and moderate bill in Vermont and had a watered down ineffective one passed instead even though polling in NH, VT and IA show vast majorities of 70%+ democrat likely voters in favor -- makes you wonder...

|1.6.04 @ 6:14AM|#

Dean vetoed a very sensible and moderate bill in Vermont and had a watered down ineffective one passed instead even though polling in NH, VT and IA show vast majorities of 70%+ democrat likely voters in favor -- makes you wonder...

Pete Guither|1.6.04 @ 7:16AM|#

Kucinich is the only candidate with a smart approach to marijuana. He not only in strongly in favor of medical marijuana, he endorses overall decriminalization.

Dean has, as best, shifted with the wind.

Note that even Bush, who has the most oppressive record regarding medical marijuana in history, when campaigning said "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose."

Clinton, after leaving office, indicated that a shift in priorities would have made sense (as did McCaffrey). Too little, too late.

My concern is, unless a candidate has a powerfully strong view about the importance of medical marijuana, the political and money pressures will lead them to continue the demonization of medical marijuana.

At this point, my guess is that Dean's approach will be better than Bush's (anyone's would), but not much better than Clinton's, unless the courts intervene (Congress hasn't got the integrity to do anything about it).

Will Spencer|1.6.04 @ 7:54AM|#

It is probably more unfair that Al Sharpton only received a B after his many years of pro-drug lobbying.

SteveInClearwater|1.6.04 @ 8:51AM|#

What is most often lacking in these interviews is the far more important 'second' question, after the respondant kay-fabes the first question, "Do you think MMJ should be legal?"

Unless they say, YES ABSOLUTELY, the followup should be, "Well until it's legalized, should patients who elect to use it with a doctor's recommendation be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution and time in a prison cage?"

This is one drug related question that can't be swerved with, "I don't agree with jail, I believe treatment is the answer", the current preefered method of ducking a Prohibition Good/Bad question.

|1.6.04 @ 11:35AM|#

~Sorry that nobody has access to pot~

If you think pot is costly now,
wait until the tobacco company sells it,
the government taxes it,
and the lawyers start sueing over it
because dosage by inhaling can't be controlled.

|1.7.04 @ 2:35AM|#

What's up with Carol Mosley Braun getting an "A"? Yeah, she's talked the talk, but hasn't actually DONE jack shit, despite plenty of opportunity. She also apparently believes that marijuana use should remain illegal, though its use should only be punishable by fines instead of jail time. How does that rate an "A"?

|1.7.04 @ 2:50AM|#

If you think pot is costly now, wait until the tobacco company sells it, the government taxes it, and the lawyers start sueing over it
because dosage by inhaling can't be controlled.

Tens of millions of Americans smoke. Odds are we all know at least a dozen or so people with the habit. How many of them grow their own tobacco? Or buy little bags of tobacco from illegal dealers, and then roll their own cigarettes?

Hell, the overwhelming majority of people don't even buy illegal, untaxed cigarettes -- although plenty of small vendors do, of course, prior to reselling them to consumers.

Legal marijuana will work the same as tobacco and alcohol do now. Virtually nobody will grow their own, except just for fun; prices will be dramatically lower, while quality and safety will be much highr; and some *retailers* will try to evade the taxes. A black market in legally-produced but untaxed joints will flourish in direct proportion to how high the taxes are. But nobody will yearn for a return to prohibition.

Anyway, the "lawyers will sue over it" goes without saying. Eventually we'll get tort reform and it won't matter, though.

SteveInClearwater|1.7.04 @ 4:14AM|#

RCDEAN: Last I checked, a quarter ounce of the really good stuff was going for about 30 - 40 times the cost of a pack of cigs.

SinC: Here in Florida, 3/4 oz of solid mid-grade (I can't get high on any lesser grades) will go for about $150. I use that measurement because that's about 20 cigarettes. So it's about 20/1. But yes, for the next grade (hydro/kind) you'd be looking at double that price.

RCD: I'll take being screwed by the big corporations over being screwed by the black market and the cops (not to mention my cellmate, Tiny) every time.

SinC: Well now we're reminded why that call it 'THE POKEY'.....but I digress.

Most of the people we've surveyed have told us they would be HAPPY to pay a (relatively) BIGG TAX if it meant removal of criminal penalties.
Using the above example of midgrade 'pack' of tokes would be $150 currently....Most of us would happily pay $15-50 (3-6 times price of tobacco).

But of course in a legal environment, many of us would indeed grow our own.

Unlike the example in previous post where mention was made that no one is likely to grow their own tobacco, many of us would love to grow our own pot.

Tobacco is nasty, pesticide driven, dirty smelly work.

Growing cannabis OTOH is for many of us a very spiritual process....a blend of general gardening along with knowing that we are creating a very healing herb.

For this group, getting that desired 3/4 of an ounce would cost well under $1.00 per 'pack'. In fact, it's not unlikely you would see many neighborhoods where just 1-2 people would be the growers and they would quite simply share their harvest with others. Since no commerce is taking place, it could continue to remain outside of government purview, not unlike my growing vegetables now and sharing them with neighbors.

|1.7.04 @ 9:59AM|#

If you think pot is costly now,

Boy, if only I could buy 20 joints for the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Last I checked, a quarter ounce of the really good stuff was going for about 30 - 40 times the cost of a pack of cigs. I'll take being screwed by the big corporations over being screwed by the black market and the cops (not to mention my cellmate, Tiny) every time.

|1.7.04 @ 10:49AM|#

Anyone who thinks they will get legal pot from the party that wants to take away your guns and cigarettes is truly a member of the Stupid Party.

|1.7.04 @ 11:32AM|#

> In fact, it's not unlikely you would see many neighborhoods where just 1-2 people would be the growers and they would quite simply share their harvest with others. Since no commerce is taking place, it could continue to remain outside of government purview, not unlike my growing vegetables now and sharing them with neighbors.

|1.8.04 @ 2:24AM|#

Growing cannabis OTOH is for many of us a very spiritual process....a blend of general gardening along with knowing that we are creating a very healing herb.

Brewing your own beer is also a great experience, and produces some very high-quality product. It is not, however, widely done (in per capita terms). I'd estimate that far less than one percent of beer drinkers do it regularly, and virutally nobody uses homebrew for all their beer drinking needs.

Something you have to remember is that pot's current illegal status means that people who become regular pot smokers are more likely to have a "special relationship" with the drug (as seen in your quasi-religious view of it); also, pot smokers tend to be culty. They are, after all, sort of members of a secret society.

Once pot is legal, that's largely going to go away. It's going to be just another drug, like alcohol. The overwhelming majority of users are just going to use it to get high, and not obsess over the plant's metaphysical significance.

This is, after all, the nation where Michelob and Miller Genuine Draft remain inexplicably popular even in the presence of quality alternative beers. :)