Daily Kos

Why won't democrats fight for medical pot, when a republican will?

by furiousxxgeorge

Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:09:56 AM PDT

The Hill reported June 7 that Rep. Maurice Hinchey (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation barring the Justice Department from spending money to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana users. The measure would be an amendment to a pending state, science, justice and commerce appropriations bill.
If a republican can take up this issue, why do the democrats still refuse it?

In a nation so concerned for the sick that Terry Schiavo is a household name, does anyone disagree that medical pot would be a perfect wedge issue?

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 18 comments

  •  It's not a powerful enough wedge issue (none / 0)

    While I'm for medical marijuana, it's just not a powerful enough issue. We're not going to win an election on medical marijuana alone, in other words.

    Gay rights, pro-choice/life, private/public schools, war, security, taxes - those are all wedge issues.

    I'm surprised Dems aren't like flies on shit in regards to conservatives, who are about small government, less intrusion, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibilty yet have managed to increase government, increased intrusion, and lowered taxes at the cost of outstanding and ever growing trade deficits, surplus losses, military spending, immigration prevention, No Child Left Behind, and overpaying on already once paid land deals in the Florida Everglades.

    Where's the fiscal responsibility? For real...what the fuck? That's our money!

    My signature beat up your signature.

    by Stand Strong on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 01:18:43 AM PDT

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      Med marij is too small of an issue.  It also has a stigma that a lot of people won't get past even if it would benefit them right now.  The obvious - many people see this as a baby step towards full legalization of m.  If we made this a big issue I think it would turn off some of the more moderate dems and dems in the making.

      Now, when we're back in, return to the inactive fed stance on it.

      Dear Lord, please save me from your followers

      by mz on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:14:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not so sure... (none / 0)

         The obvious - many people see this as a baby step towards full legalization of m.  If we made this a big issue I think it would turn off some of the more moderate dems and dems in the making.

        Remember how medical marijuana became a state issue?

        These laws were for the most part, passed by popular vote, where your arguments were made and rejected by the majority.

        It's probably a safe enough issue, but unless there's a poison pill in the GOP bill, there's no reason not to let the GOP take point on it.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:18:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh cmon now.... (none / 0)

          State's rights?

          That only works for things like voting against gay marriage, where the citizens vote for what laws they want in their states.

          Things like abortion and marijuana? That trumps the call for states rights as it "tears at the moral fabric of society."

          Or how 'states' rights' were explained to me by a conservative - certain things tear at the fabric of our life - and as such, it's the government's responsibility to handle.

          Other than that, sure - states rights are fine and desirable.

          What kind of rationale is that? Proponents for smaller government and states rights, whereas on the flip, saying core moral beliefs ought to be determined by the federal government.

          I'm sorry but in the reality based world, prodding a certain message, but then living two different belief sets just doesn't fit.

          </snark>

          My signature beat up your signature.

          by Stand Strong on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:26:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  who said anything about states rights? (none / 0)

            My point was that the laws currently on the books that permit (or don't discourage) medical marijuana are at state level because the Feds haven't done anything intelligent about it.

            A Federal law as it has been decribed wouldn't on the face of it be about states rights, it would simply say "Federal money shall not be spent"... the bill author doesn't want to deal with states' rights issues and neither do I, particularly at the moment.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 04:40:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lol (none / 0)

              did you notice the bottom of my previous comment?

              Especially the </snark> part?

              Pardon me - I've been hanging on Redstate lately and was just releasing a little pent up aggression. 'State's Right's' is something they like to talk about a whole lot over there.

              My signature beat up your signature.

              by Stand Strong on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:13:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately (none / 0)

    Being in the minority, Democrats rarely have a chance to put up their own wedge legislation.  Hastert only allows votes on bills supported by the majority of the Republicans.  The stem-cell fuckup a couple weeks ago happened because moderate Repubs managed to use their leverage to pass a spending bill in exchange for a vote on the stem cell bill.  Because a group of fiscally conservative GOPers wouldn't vote for it, the moderates could threaten to withold their votes as well, which together with Dem opposition would sink the spending bill.

    Back to medical marijuana.  Supported by around 80% of Americans (and the other 20% isn't too keen on using the police to bust cancer patients), it is THE definition of a wedge issue.  Thus, the only way it will get a hearing is with GOP support in the current House.  As it is, I doubt it will even come to a vote, lest the Democrats run it through over a sizable Republican opposition.

    by Skaje on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:18:42 AM PDT

  •  Because... (none / 1)

    not enough of them have experienced the kind of pain that is relieved by marijuana -- or been close to someone who has.

    I give you: The Dissent to End All Dissents: RENQUIST.

    Funny how you get a little more empathy when it's your own fucking cancer-riddled throat being denied legal access to the only drug that helps...

    -9.63, -7.03 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right

    by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:50:07 AM PDT

    •  i'm sorry but (none / 0)

      if you cant plant it and grow another one, it's not a drug.

      that said, i think democrats should educate the public on why it was prohibited in the first place (dupont/wall street) so the public can begin to see the fnords and realize this whole corporate duopoly is a circle jerk and that we need big business out of politics.

      anyway, i think my personal calling in life is to be a marijuana farmer so i hope they get on the ball and start the legalizing.

      Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding both puppets!

      by mediaprisoner on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:34:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You mean if you CAN plant it, (none / 0)

        I assume.

        Well, we're on the same page, but it IS a drug -- which shouldn't mean a damned thing. Nicotine is a drug. Caffeine, same deal.

        You can plant mushrooms; same with cacti. They're drugs.

        But this is mere semantics. As I said -- same page...

        -9.63, -7.03 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right

        by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:11:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  oops, yeah, you're right, if you CAN plant it (none / 0)

          not a drug.

          drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies using public or university (often public as well, but anyway) money for the purpose of enriching a few at the expense of the many in their times of greatest need.

          and from what i've read, usually they're simply revisions of previous drugs and are inadequately tested prior to being pushed onto the public through an endless barrage of television advertising (since only banks, pharmaceutical cos, autos and liquor manufacturers seem to have the cash to run national ads nowadays.

          anyway, to paraphrase bill hicks, prohibiting something that occurs naturally seems a little...unnatural, doesn't it?

          Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding both puppets!

          by mediaprisoner on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  because dems are too (none / 0)

    self-critical.

    I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

    by BiminiCat on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 03:41:18 AM PDT

  •  So wait... (none / 0)

    So...We don't want to push this issue, even though we believe in it, because it's not big enough....Sounds pretty politcal and partisan if you ask me.....

    by Jotorious on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Maurice Hinchey is a Democrat-- (none / 1)

    don't know why they listed him as a Rethug.  So, better change the focus of your diary!

    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

    by bibble on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:29:18 AM PDT

    •  His co-sponsor (none / 0)

      Dana Rohrabacher, is a Republican. Last year Rohrabacher was the lead sponsor. Last year, a similar budget amendment drew 19 Republican votes, and 70% of Democrats.  Notable Dems voting against: Emmanuel, Ford, Herseth, Langevin

      This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
      This is only a test.
      If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

      by ben masel on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Because only Nixon could go to China (none / 0)

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:48:20 AM PDT

  •  Voting, polling numbers (none / 0)

    Medical marijuana laws have won every time they've been on the ballot. Polling in Alabama showed 60% support. Here in Wisconsin, a Chamberlain poll showed 81% support. You can't get tose numbers for Apple pie.

    This is a test of the Emergency Free Speech System.
    This is only a test.
    If this had been an actual emergency, I'd already be locked up.

    by ben masel on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 07:56:39 AM PDT

Permalink | 18 comments