Some of the Republican presidential candidates have dismissed medical marijuana as unnecessary or “too dangerous.” Now they’re being offered $10,000 to come up with the scientific evidence.
The Marijuana Policy Project, a group advocating the use of medical marijuana, will be in New Hampshire next week with a mobile billboard offering to contribute $10,000 to the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain or Mitt Romney if any of the candidates can substantiate their statements about medical marijuana.
Before any of the candidates tries for that money, I’d recommend taking a look at this study showing a way to administer medical marijuana without patients inhaling harmful smoke. Or this one showing that marijuana offered pain relief comparable to morphine.
Somehow, though, I don’t think any of them will be poring over those studies. Now that medical marijuana has become an issue on the campaign trail — the candidates have been getting visibly irritated at the continual questions at their town hall meetings — the GOP candidates seem to have decided the best course is to try ignoring it. Here’s a collection of videos showing Mr. Giuliani, Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney dodging the question when asked if they’d continue the federal policy of raiding medical marijuana clinics and arresting patients in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.
Regardless of whether you agree with Ron Paul, so far his campaign has been refreshing as he has been the rare candidate who promoted his views, regardless of how controversial, as opposed to telling voters what they want to hear. Steve Benen is disappointed by two possible signs that Paul might becoming just like the other politicians. Upon reviewing the reports he cites, the evidence is equivocal but leans against Paul in one case and in the other shows that Paul’s views might be different than anticipated but he has been consistent.
The first charge comes from a report from The Politco regarding a mailing to veterans in South Carolina. To understand this it is necessary to understand the types of actions Paul would often engage in to make a point in Congress. Ron Paul both opposes the Iraq war and believes that, as stated in the Constitution, we should only go to war if war is declared by Congress. Therefore he has made a proposal in Congress to declare war in Iraq with the intent to vote against such a declaration of war. Paul’s mailing states he “Pushed for an official Declaration of War with Iraq.” The problem is that it only states this but not his reasons for the proposal or his opposition to the war, perhaps intending to give the impression that, like every other Republican running, he supports the war:
That it may, just may, have something to do with the fact that South Carolina is a military and retiree-heavy state is reenforced by other flashes of GOP politics-as-usual: a shot of a young Paul in uniform, a picture of Paul with a vet, a Ronald Reagan quote and promises to improve the VA.
The mailing does note Paul’s opposition to going to war against Iran but does obfuscate his position on Iraq. Anyone paying any attention to Paul’s interviews, web site, or debate appearances would know otherwise, but the question remains as to whether Paul is attempting to get people who receive this mailing to vote for him under false pretenses. Whether Paul has decided to conduct his campaign in such a manner will be clearer as he continues to campaign and will be something to watch for.
The second issue is based upon a report from TPM Election Central on a mailing from Paul on immigration which “traffics in nativism every bit as rank as that espoused by the other GOPers.” The mailing even includes a vow to “end birthright citizenship” as mandated in the 14th Amendment.
In this case Paul is being consistent with the views he has always held and I see no evidence that he has altered his view on immigration for political gain. The questions here are probably being raised by liberal bloggers who expected Paul to be better than conventional Republicans in more areas in light of Paul’s views on the war and civil liberties. What many fail to realize is that, unless one uses a big tent definition which becomes almost meaningless, Paul is not a libertarian. While Paul does have some libertarian tendencies, Paul is a right winger through and through. He is, however, influenced by the non-interventionism of the old right as opposed to the neoconservatives. Whenever I note this I inevitably receive comments protesting, arguing that Paul does not claim to be a libertarian. While Paul is running more of a far right than a libertarian campaign this year, many do have the misconception that Paul is a libertarian based upon having been a previous candidate of the Libertarian Party and therefore Paul’s conservatism is worth noting.
