I was hoping she would say the right thing but this is just sad.

it “should be available under appropriate circumstances” for medicinal use.
She said, however, that she doesn’t believe there’s enough information available to decide when those circumstances are.
It is a very misleading title from the Hill too.

Although even merely getting it removed from the 'schedule 1 drugs' list would be a vast improvement, since it clearly has medicinal uses.

That would be insane. She and Bill were smoking dope and taking lines and doing all sorts of shit. She'd never ever admit that. A guy can, especially a black man, but a white woman? Holy fucking shit. No way in hell.

Why can't a white woman admit something like this?

sexism? religious bigotry?

It seems to me this is the same sort of "I didn't inhale" pov about the issue from the first Clinton era. That's long gone.

Ann Richards could admit she was a former alcoholic years ago. White woman. Sure, that was Texas, but that was also years ago, and alcoholism is far, far worse than experimenting with mj.

Frankly, I don't care about what someone did in the past - I care about their attitude toward the issue now.

Tho, yes, someone who has experience with marijuana is less likely to suffer from reefer madness simply because they know the experience is relatively mild (like a couple of glasses of wine, not a pint of tequila - assuming someone doesn't choose the Maureen Dowd Experience™ and use far too much at one time) and short term.

What's funny about this, btw, is that smoked or vaped mj is much better for people who want to be occasional "social" mj users - less expensive, less mj, more control over consumption - but our society has so demonized smoke of any kind, people cannot even be rational about talking about this - the immediate assumption, but not fact, is that any tiny bit of marijuana smoke will harm you...while ignoring, of course, all the pollution from car exhaust, but whatever - the point is this nation is... ridiculous sometimes.

The way to overcome this ridiculousness is to tell the more realistic, complicated truth.

Clinton, in the article, says she's willing to see how CO and WA play out... and she'll have to add Alaska and Oregon to that soon... and her stance on medical sounds like it could come from Chris Christie - or not - but Christie is definitely a drug warrior about marijuana - but obviously is not so harsh on those with his drug of choice... Clinton sounds like Wendy Davis in this regard.

Your assumption that a black man could say/admit something is sort of funny, tho, because I've heard the argument from Obama supporters that being a black man means he couldn't say something.

I think Obama has shown that any politician can say something - if they're willing to.

Because the ultimate reality is that it doesn't matter what a Democratic president or presidential candidate says - Republicans will attack them on the issue, no matter which side of any issue a Democrat takes if that person has power or wants to wield power.

The lesson from Obama is that it's useless to try to play the political game with most current Republicans. The only thing they respond to or know are scorched earth politics. So, go for the jugular with them, whether you do it outwardly or behind the scenes, because they will surely be doing the same to you.

It's only getting worse as our nation becomes more divided.

to make up for the effects of the TPP.

needs more research.
ya sure

to prove how EVIL it is, and nobody's found much of anything harmful about it. And we need more research? After 60 years of research?? Nope. We need rationality over research. But the cliche continues.

I was all set to say "Bravo Hillary", instead, meh.

That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Check please!



-p

Sure, we'd like her to embrace pot legalization, but she's a cautious politician. She is also the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination and she's NOT OPPOSING legalization where it's already happened.

I think the states are where legalization is happening, anyway. We've already got Colorado and Washington; Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, DC, will probably do it by initiative this year; and a bunch more by the initiative process, including California, in 2016.

But having a leading presidential contender NOT OPPOSING the experiments in the states is progress.

I predicted this months ago. Not saying it's bad, and I expect the Democratic Party Platform to be for legalization, but it's not a strong position. It's a safe go. Is that good? I think it is. Why not? Is it courageous or groundbreaking? No.

Still, it's a nice move and I appreciate it.

legal for medical marijuana, but for all uses. She does not address that in any way at all, she speaks of medical marijuana as if it was still an unproven mystery.
She does not say a word about the law passed in CO or WA. Which are by the way, laws not 'experiments'.

just not the blurb here.

I noticed that too, so I read the article. She says she is willing to "let the experiment happen" in CO and WA - which is what is going on right now.

This is in opposition to the Republican Party stance, which passed a bill to be able to sue President Obama for not forcing the DoJ to invade those two states and shut down the law.

However, I think the medical mj thing is a dodge, as you do. That's because the standard line in D.C. is that medical mj is an excuse to legalize - when the reality is that medical mj is an issue of interest to people with health problems who may benefit - and a consequence of medical mj is that people see the drug warrior lies for what they are.

This is what D.C. opposes the most - having to admit to lying to the American public for 50 years - Nixon going against the advice of his own DEA counsel in order to score political points, raving against the Jews, psychiatrists and hippies, Reagan moving from a hands off stance to drug warrior mode to appease the religious right as part of the southern strategy (i.e. the drug war is part of the racist culture of conservatism in the U.S.)

The facepalm emoticon indicates you are perturbed by her position?

She supports medical marijuana (sort of) and not legalization or even decriminalization.

And even on medical marijuana she claims there is not enough research on the subject, whent here most definitely is more than enough.

Marijuana has gone through extensive research. It is by far the most researched medicine ever. We've done shitloads of government funded research looking for negative aspects and we haven't found them. It's been researched more then all pharmaceuticals. Colorado and Washington aren't an experiment, prohibition was. An experiment that failed miserably. I'm sick and fucking tired of the dishonesty on this issue. I get that with as much negative social stigma this is going to be an uphill battle, but this is bullshit. This isn't progress, this is Hilary avoiding the issue.

She also said that the two states where it is ok for recreational use are like the laboratory and we will learn a lot how it works out.
She was not at all negative, just cautious.

What she did say is a load of triangulated bullshit ripped directly from the mid 90's. I'm open to Hillary, but I don't think we've done enough research yet.

The person who wrote that headline should be fired.

Marriage equality is nearly a done deal in the culture wars, but there's just too much money invested in prohibition and incarceration for a Chief Executive to come clean on the subject.

Not politicians.

But, you know, that's how most change comes to this nation. Politicians, generally, ratify what's already consensus among an influential group - whether it's activists or scientists, etc.

Politicians aren't leaders in terms of public policy - or haven't been since the 1960s - but, even then, they were responding to grass roots movements from civil rights activists, social justice activists all the way back to Eleanor Roosevelt...

That's why it does no good to rail against politicians unless someone is out there working with various local or national groups to try to create change.

If people just demand change from politicians - they will never see it - or they will never see it if everyone does the same, and the change they'll see will be the result of activists who have laid the groundwork for politicians to act.

We're supposed to be grateful they they are offering not to stand in the way if someone else does the lifting.

didn't go the route he did until union people were lynched and killed by Pinkerton men.

I think the joke is that we call politicians "leaders." We should call them the bureaucrats who get laws passed...based upon the will of the voter - that's where the tricky part comes in with economic issues and donors, and elitism, etc.

Don't put them on pedestals.

They are supposed to work for the American people by going to D.C. to enact laws we want.

Leadership is required for issues of foreign policy - which is why it's never good to have a conservative in office b/c their idea of foreign policy is McCain singing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.

...in which our leaders cringe and pule over small, objectively good ideas with popular support.

It used to be bigger challenges that frightened them.

The internet has made that more difficult.

But, honestly, it was civil rights activists who laid the groundwork for what happened in the 1960s.

Don't credit Kennedy or Johnson - they just did what had to be done because the only justification to continue was to say... yes, we're a racist nation and we let that stand here because political power is more important to politicians than justice.

MLK built his movement on the work of many others who came before him, as well, in the civil rights movement.

This nation didn't have enough moral fiber to end slavery until whites joined in via the abolitionist movement and war skirmishes broke out over western expansion and both sides fought in the streets either in opposition to or support of slavery. Our founders could've given a shit about the freedom they took from others while claiming that was their raison d'être.

They only cared about their own power in opposition to someone else who had some over them, but were willing to consign humans to utter degradation in this nation for their own advancement.

After slavery ended and Jim Crow was enacted - another version of slavery - politicians didn't give a shit. No one lifted a finger to stop the cruelty endured by African Americans in the south for another hundred years after slavery.

That's not leadership. That's being part of the good ole boys club.

That's what politicians aspire to... and if they make some changes along the way that activists are going to get anyway, well, pat them on the back. Really. I don't admire politicians. I want them to act like people think of them, but I have no illusions this will ever happen until they are forced - which is what is happening now in regard to marijuana.

Politicians have to ask themselves - am I craven enough to show I don't give a fuck if children die because bureaucracies in the U.S. enact slavery through drug laws (yet again.. isn't that a pervasive issue in American life... almost like the original sin this nation just cannot save itself from.)

And it's only when Americans tell them to stop being scum sucking assholes who care more about someone's job in D.C. than they do about American lives that the issue will and is changing.

So, please. Don't tell me about that fairytale that politicians are leaders.

Politicians respond to the pressure put upon them while they are in office. Lawyers outside of the political process do more for Americans than politicians because they bring pressure on the court to discuss issues and force the American people to discuss them.

Because money sure as hell leads when no one else does. We need leaders with better messages who engage more voters.

Uh, yeah, "we" have.

To deny the provision of a little bit of relief from the horrific ravages of chemotherapy, chronic pain and other sufferings by feigning uncertainty is, to my mind, an act of cruelty.

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

in relation to this issue.

I would ask Clinton if she is more informed than Dr. Sanjay Gupta. I would ask who, within federal bureaucracies, is more informed than Gupta since he said he went back and read the studies that are out there - many of them, he noted.

As I've noted here before, many FDA approved drugs have undergone fewer tests than marijuana for a variety of issues.

There's no doubt that cannabis stops wasting from chemo and nausea for a variety of conditions.

Nausea is really hard to treat with any conventional medicine.

But marijuana is an excellent treatment to stop nausea. To use it in this way, it should be inhaled - either through smoke, vaporizer or inhaler to get relief within seconds.

to effect legal, social and medical change.

But all I need to know is the little bit of relief it provided for my wife.

Thankfully, Washington State allowed me to legally acquire and produce a sufficient quantity to meet her needs. And I was quite willing to defy the law at the federal level to do so.

I miss her terribly, and wish daily I had done more.

Unfortunately, that is a lie.

Please give me a reason to like you Hillary, there is still plenty of time.

It is entirely possible. Even as someone 3 years younger, I know there were some in college with me who did not smoke pot. (I didn't - I hated smoke from cigarettes and feared that like tobacco, the smoke could cause cancer.) My experience was that students older than me were less likely to smoke pot than those younger.

Unless you have photos or Hillary comments speaking of smoking pot, she may be telling the truth. At this point, I don't think there is a political reason to lie if she did.

We were not smokers to begin with. By the early 70's you couldn't escape being exposed to it at parties. Always a small group in the corner. I always thought it smelled a whole lot better than cigarette smoke. I also wondered if I ever got a "contact high". Perhaps, but I don't really know.

I was sometimes offered to take a puff from what was being passed around in that little corner, and one time I did put an offered joint in my mouth. But I "DIDN'T INHALE", because I wasn't a smoker and I didn't want smoke in my lungs. It was a quick youthful impulse, a momentary thing. A brief second of curiosity. Like play-acting on my part. LOL

Possibly because none of them were cigarette smokers.

Typical.

Two of the most calculated bullshitters in politics.

Like her Old Man.

They think we are children.

It's an outright lie.

We don't need more studies to know if marijuana is safer than alcohol - it is. We don't need more studies to know if marijuana has medical uses - it does.

This is just bullshit from politicians who want to kiss the ass of the DEA without offending the American voter.

We all know they're lying - well, anyone who has spent any time reading about this issue. I've spend hours and hours reading studies from peer-reviewed journals about the medical efficacy of cannabis for various health issues.

I just have to assume the DEA, Drug Czar's office, etc. are full of illiterate buffoons - or liars. We know it's full of liars - the sad reality is that many of them have lied for so long they believe their lies.

But just to let you know this is nothing but pure BULLSHIT from the govt. - two Bush Drug Czar office appointees were lobbying the DEA to allow Sativex - whole plant cannabis medicine - in the U.S. Andrea Barthwell, scumbag, pretended Sativex wasn't marijuana at one meeting - she said... are opium and morphine the same? A chemist guy who was there asked her to explain the chemical difference between Sativex and cannabis.

She demurred.

Because she's just one more lying bureaucrat slurping up the gravy train of drug prohibition.

They all disgust me, frankly.

Alcohol in my estimation is about four or five more troublesome as pot. Some folks like to say pot causes no problems. It does. But the problems of alcohol are so much worse. The problems of meth, prescription narcotics etc are so much worse.

The drug laws of this nation suck. Legalize pot. (And le t me avoid potheads)

Sure, long-term use of alcohol can wreak havoc on your body - but so can long-term lack of exercise - but of course there are differences in these two states of being.

Marijuana is contra-indicated for anyone with schizo-affective disorder. I told that to someone once, btw, who is a schizophrenic who talked about smoking pot. It concerned me. She had not had a "schizoid" episode since she had gotten on a good course of medication, tho. She didn't use marijuana medically. She used it recreationally.

Alcohol, or marijuana, or anything, is often self-medicating.

This is a problem when it's all someone does, and never deals with the issues that led someone to self-medicate in the first place, imo.

There's an abundance of scientific information out there. She's in full-tilt equivocation mode these days. Sickening.

OKAY WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE ABOUT MARIJUANA REFORM, WHAT HAS ANY DEMOCRAT ANYWHERE MADE MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION THEIR TOP PRIORITY? AT LEAST SHE HAS THE COURAGE TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE...

IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE WE DON'T NEED THE REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE, WE 'DEMOCRATS' ARE DOING GREAT AT EATING AND BEATING OUR OWN PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND YES HILLARY HAS DEDICATED HER LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE...

And as I recall President Obama took a pretty damn big leap into the future once he'd finished "evolving" on the subject of marriage equality.

Hekate
* no, my ballot is still not filled in yet

...that we Democrats have been worked into a situation where we've watched our opponents stand steadfast in their convictions (right or definately wrong...) for so long, that we are beyond ready for our own party to speak with such conviction on our own issues?

Just stand behind a policy and position and forget posturing the position for possible fallout from one's conviction on the topic.

You cannot lead a position by following it with "doesn’t believe there’s enough information available to decide"

There's plenty of information available to support this position...

Then there is the undeniable ability for a consenting adult to make their own decision regarding it's appropriate use.

Stand tall and stand proud on this position, Mrs. Clinton. But don't tiptoe around the subject and take a safe approach to manage your public opinion polling.

It's bureaucratic job creationism that focuses on persecuting minorities, as the ACLU's report last year emphasized, and has become another form of Jim Crow, as Michelle Alexander articulated.

The drug war came about for political reasons.

Therefore, the U.S. has political prisoners - people in jail for using something that is safer than alcohol. The entire reason for this system, the entire reason, is racism and political posturing.

So, pardon me if I don't jump up and down with joy when a politician says they are open to the idea of repealing the war on marijuana. It's a war that should've never been started in the first place, and it's repulsive that it has continued as long as it has.

It has spawned laws intended to fill for profit prisons.

A place that bills itself as the land of the free should not have prisons as a capitalist enterprise. That, too, is repulsive. Legislators have agreed to pass bills that make it possible to keep for-profit prisons filled. This is outrageous, especially when we know places like The Netherlands have been closing prisons because they don't engage as drug warriors.

The only reason more Americans do not rend their garments because of this grotesque situation is that politicians allow bureaucrats to continue to control the drug war and issue propaganda daily to keep it intact.

Now that Americans are seeing children who are dying because of our politicians who pander to bureaucrats - you would think some of them would be ashamed of their actions enough to finally say "enough."

It's more important, however, to save face than save lives, so the drug war goes on even when we know children are casualties.

The entire edifice of the war on drugs needs to be torn down.

Politicians can't see the reality of the harm of the drug war because they're the victims of their own propaganda. The American people want politicians who will tell the truth. Dr. Sanjay Gupta told the truth. That's what we want politicians to acknowledge, too. The truth. The truth is that the DEA has lied to the American people, and politicians, and doctors, and on and on for 50 years.

People are tired of the lies.

Politicians want support - they earn it by their positions, and then their actions.

Clinton's remarks make it clear she is aligned, pretty much, with Obama on this issue. People had big hopes for Obama as the nominee because he was the first to admit that, yes, a majority of Americans have used marijuana at some point in their lives for the purpose of getting high. Just like the majority of Americans have used alcohol for the same reason.

People were greatly disappointed in Obama then going ahead with the federal crackdown on medical marijuana in states that have legalized it for this purpose. People were disappointed that Obama did not take the online petition seriously - the one that had the most votes from Americans, more than any other issue, that said Americans wanted the government to stop the insane illegality of marijuana. Obama lost support, lost the initial enthusiasm from many on the left as this issue was ignored - because people knew he knew marijuana prohibition is bad government.

Hell will break loose when marijuana is legalized. But only where it exists - and that is in the bureaucracies in D.C. who justify their existences by waging war on the American people. These bureaucracies are the "for-profit prison" industry writ large, federally large, and Americans do not want their taxes to support a war on their fellow citizens.

Americans want to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol and use the revenues in their communities, not tax us to support sclerotic bureaucracies in D.C. who promote reefer madness. People want to be able to use marijuana as an herbal for some health issues, and they don't want to justify themselves to the government in order to do so.

The longer politicians wait to take action on this issue, the more desperate the bureaucracies will become to justify their unjustifiable stances.

So, really, you also have to consider this issue through two terms of a Democratic president who has ignored the overwhelming majority of Americans (and the really overwhelming number of Democrats) who want the federal government to stop prohibiting marijuana for medicinal use, and the growing majority who want to stop prohibition for recreational use.

This is no longer one of those issues someone supports but is embarrassed to say so because someone will think they're just a stoner. This is a mainstream issue. Hopefully Obama will respond to the voters who put him in office, twice, before he leaves office and then this question would be moot.

but it seems that there are a group of people on here who just look for any little slip up (not saying this is just a slip up) to bash and bash away at her, its getting old. The point of my post is why do we need a Republican party to attack Democrats when there is so many willing to do so free of Kock brother money on this site.

Lets Find Some Common Ground

People are just sick of national politicians who won't bother to find out the truth or who won't stand up for it in regard to this issue.

Me personally - I'm just sort of down on politicians in general because I found out a girl whose parents petitioned for access to medical marijuana in Wisconsin died last month. While legislation was passed, so many provisos were included doctors didn't have legal access to made recommendations for their patients.

So Lydia died in her sleep. Most likely from a seizure.

But at least the bill that could've saved her life was named after her. Progress, huh? Pat those politicians on the backs.

Over the weekend, I read an editorial in the Miami Herald from a guy at a think tank who has worked in drug policy bureaucracy for much of his career who sneered at the idea that any male might have chronic pain, because the only reason for medical marijuana is for some guy to get high.

I wish he had to meet Lydia's parents and say that.

But he's a respectable asshole who has the ear of politicians. Is it any wonder that people are not too enthusiastic about the world of politics among those who have spent their lives within its echo chamber?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025109277