Herb Fellow
New Member
Earlier this week, in my roundup of the remaining major-party 2008 presidential candidates, I characterized the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as more or less equal on the issue of medical marijuana. Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project rightly questions my assessment:
Personally, I'm not so sure it's a tie:
Asked by Willamette Week in Oregon, Hillary gives an answer with miles of wiggle room:
What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon's Medical Marijuana Program as legal?
"We've got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that's already been done. I don't think it's a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes."
So you'd stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's raids on medical marijuana grows?
"What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There's a lot of other more important work that needs to be done."
Should medical marijuana be covered by insurance?
"I don't have enough information to know anything about that."
---------
In contrast, Barack Obama has been much clearer:
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator (D-IL), stated in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Gary Nelson, Editorial page editor for the Oregon newspaper Mail Tribune:
"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate."
"I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."
"I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely. What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with."
Let's break this down a little bit and see if we can determine what, exactly, the two candidates are saying.
1. Both candidates favor a "lowest law enforcement priority" approach to medical marijuana.
Both candidates agree that using federal law enforcement agents to arrest providers of medical marijuana is an unwise use of resources. This distinguishes both Obama and Clinton from George W. Bush and John McCain, but it is not indicative of any long-term policy reform.
2. Mirken is right: Obama is the only candidate who seems interested in reforming federal policy on medical marijuana.
Despite being asked several leading questions, Clinton never indicates any willingness to revisit federal law on medical marijuana; her progressive position on the issue is limited to what she would do during her administration. This is not a huge difference between the two candidates--would either of them veto a federal medical marijuana decriminalization bill if it passed Congress?--but it does indicate that Obama is willing to make medical marijuana part of his policy platform.
3. Neither candidate has indicated that they believe medical marijuana should be covered by insurance.
Clinton backed out of the question; as far as I know, Obama has never been asked.
4. Neither candidate is willing to protect marijuana grown in the patient's own home.
Both are very clear that they would support medical marijuana legalization only in cases where the drug is provided under medical supervision.
5. Neither candidate is particularly well-versed on the issue of medical marijuana.
Obama admits to not knowing much about Oregon's medical marijuana statutes; Clinton does not appear to be aware of any research dealing with marijuana and pain relief, and admits that she doesn't know enough about the issue of medical marijuana to decide whether or not insurance should cover it.
So I would say that Mirken is right; my original assessment of Obama and Clinton, which characterized the two candidates as being essentially tied on the issue of medical marijuana, was incorrect. Obama's willingness to actually revise federal drug policy as it pertains to medical marijuana gives him a leg up on Clinton, whose reform initiatives would be limited to the duration of her presidency. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
Source: About.com
Copyright: 2008, About.com
Contact: Tom Head
Website: Obama vs. Clinton on Medical Marijuana
Personally, I'm not so sure it's a tie:
Asked by Willamette Week in Oregon, Hillary gives an answer with miles of wiggle room:
What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon's Medical Marijuana Program as legal?
"We've got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that's already been done. I don't think it's a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes."
So you'd stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's raids on medical marijuana grows?
"What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There's a lot of other more important work that needs to be done."
Should medical marijuana be covered by insurance?
"I don't have enough information to know anything about that."
---------
In contrast, Barack Obama has been much clearer:
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator (D-IL), stated in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Gary Nelson, Editorial page editor for the Oregon newspaper Mail Tribune:
"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate."
"I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."
"I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely. What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with."
Let's break this down a little bit and see if we can determine what, exactly, the two candidates are saying.
1. Both candidates favor a "lowest law enforcement priority" approach to medical marijuana.
Both candidates agree that using federal law enforcement agents to arrest providers of medical marijuana is an unwise use of resources. This distinguishes both Obama and Clinton from George W. Bush and John McCain, but it is not indicative of any long-term policy reform.
2. Mirken is right: Obama is the only candidate who seems interested in reforming federal policy on medical marijuana.
Despite being asked several leading questions, Clinton never indicates any willingness to revisit federal law on medical marijuana; her progressive position on the issue is limited to what she would do during her administration. This is not a huge difference between the two candidates--would either of them veto a federal medical marijuana decriminalization bill if it passed Congress?--but it does indicate that Obama is willing to make medical marijuana part of his policy platform.
3. Neither candidate has indicated that they believe medical marijuana should be covered by insurance.
Clinton backed out of the question; as far as I know, Obama has never been asked.
4. Neither candidate is willing to protect marijuana grown in the patient's own home.
Both are very clear that they would support medical marijuana legalization only in cases where the drug is provided under medical supervision.
5. Neither candidate is particularly well-versed on the issue of medical marijuana.
Obama admits to not knowing much about Oregon's medical marijuana statutes; Clinton does not appear to be aware of any research dealing with marijuana and pain relief, and admits that she doesn't know enough about the issue of medical marijuana to decide whether or not insurance should cover it.
So I would say that Mirken is right; my original assessment of Obama and Clinton, which characterized the two candidates as being essentially tied on the issue of medical marijuana, was incorrect. Obama's willingness to actually revise federal drug policy as it pertains to medical marijuana gives him a leg up on Clinton, whose reform initiatives would be limited to the duration of her presidency. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
Source: About.com
Copyright: 2008, About.com
Contact: Tom Head
Website: Obama vs. Clinton on Medical Marijuana
