Should marijuana influence your choice in the Democrat race?

[wonderfly]

The topic on Al Gore's son being busted for pot got me thinking...a few weeks back, there was a segment on Bill Orielly where he ran a clip from one of those silly Democrat debates, (where the nominees for President debate one another.)


I guess this one was debated on a college campus guessing by how stupid the audience was acting... :rolleyes:

One of the audience members asked all 9 canidates to respond to the question: "Have you ever smoked pot?" They answered, (if I recall correctly, and I believe I do) as follows:

Dick Gephardt: "Yes"

John Kerry: "Yes"

John Edwards: "Yes"

Howard Dean: "Yes"

Rev. Al Sharpton: "Yes"

Now here's where the responses got interesting. With each person that said yes, the crowd applauded, growing more and more loud with each round of clapping. (which is why I said it must be a stupid college crowd. "Pot smoking's cool! Woohoo!" :rolleyes: )

Dennis Kucinich: "Yes, and as President I would pass an amendment legalizing Marijuana!" HUGE round of applause.

Joseph Lieberman: "Given that this will be an unpopular response, I'd have to be truthful, and say 'No', I've never touched pot." Dead Silence. Not one person clapped. It figures. The one person on that panel that has morals and integrity, and that of course doesn't warrant applause. :o

Gen. Wesley Clark: "No" I can see that response coming from him. He's been a military man all his life. If he touched the stuff, he'd be beaten up by his military superiors.

Carol Ann Mosley Braun: "None of your business!" (Bill O'rielly said she made the intelligent response)


Bill Orielly went on to say that the candidates shouldn't have been asked that question, but Dick Morris, the person arguing with him, said that in this day and age, there are no secrets, and it was a perfectly reasonable question.

Do you think a Democrat's history with pot should influence how you vote for them?

[Jaguar]

I was going to joke about the thread title, but nah.

Anyway, no, it won't.

[Morpheus]

No, and I am voting for de Rev.

[TheSaint]

Dennis Kucinich: "Yes, and as President I would pass an amendment legalizing Marijuana!" HUGE round of applause. Let me guess the debate was in Berkley.http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I'd have to say that if any of these meatbags won, I just might change my stance on pot for a 4 year period.

[Eddie G.]

Do you think a Democrat's history with pot should influence how you vote for them?
Not really, I mean it's not like the man they'll go against never touched the stuff or did other things.

Anyway, I think the appluase was for two things; being truthful about their lives, and for the idea of legalizing pot.

Now I agree that the proper answer for this question is, "None of your bussiness." But I doubt people were clapping because the candidates get high.

[zmanjz]

When I weigh my candidates, I consider Pros and Cons. In my opinion beging a Stoner is a Con.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

No because while I'm against it people are going to do it anyway. It may as well be in the stores next to cigars, maybe filter it so it's not as deadly and tax it. Bennefit from all the smokers.

This is a topic that should not shape your choice. A person having tried weed doesn't mean they lack morals, it means they had curiosity and maybe lacked self control. However this is politics we are talking about so in that spirit Carol gave the right response. Honesty is important but in a topic like this it's best to remain nuetral.

[randomguy]

Well it depends what the question means. For what it's worth, I saw the debate in question, and the college audience pissed me off. What an utter lack of maturity...

At any rate, my choice won't be influenced by whether or not the candidate has smoked pot. Obviously, it would be a factor if the pot-smoking was carried to an extreme, that is to say, if one of the candidates was a junkie, but that's not the case for any of them. Save for maybe Sharpton. And I'm not voting for Sharpton anyway. My preference, of course, is that the candidate hasn't smoked pot. I prefer my presidents to have a history free of illegal intoxicants. I think it shows a certain degree of principle, and I can respect that.

However, marijuana policy could conceivably factor into my decision. That being said, I honestly don't think it's a very important issue in light of all the other things our country is facing... in fact, it might very well be the least important issue to me. But it could, theoretically, be a factor in who I endorse. For what it's worth, Kucinich's extremely liberal approach to marijuana is one of my biggest problems with him.

Mosley Braun gave the smartest answer, but I was happy with the responses Lieberman and Clark used. For the record, I support Clark.

[murmur]

When I weigh my candidates, I consider Pros and Cons. In my opinion beging a Stoner is a Con.Being a stoner? Do you really think these candidates are stoners? I suppose smoking pot once puts you in a downward spiral that destroys your life and causes you to sit around the house eating cheetos all day.

Anyway, I support all the answers given, and nah, it doesn't really affect my decision. I do, however, support legalization, so that might sway me. Of course, this society really isn't ready to support a candidate that makes that promise...but oh, think of the money we could save...maybe soon...

[Chad Bonin]

I have never smoked pot and don't plan too. Do I think it should be legalized? Yeah.

Marijuana is so widespread and such a minor nuisance to the Government, why not legalize it? From all accounts I've heard, nobody's died from marijuana use (Stuff can HAPPEN due to it, but not from the plant itself), unlike tobacco. There's always the people that could use it for medicinal purposes; and unlike beer, I doubt it makes people violent drunks or anything.

I really haven't been following this race. If there was one candidate that strongly supported it'd legislation, I'd probably vote for 'em. Would I vote depending on their use of it on the past? Nah. Hell, I don't think Clinton's sex stuff even was important; it's his life, shouldn't affect his job.

[Chris Wood]

Should marijuana influence your choice in the Democrat race?

Duuuude, Mary Jane influences ALL my choices. Usually snack food though. Peace out.

[Pilmedium]

Past use of the drug would be irrelevant now. It would, in most cases, no longer impact any decisions that whichever man would make. Most of them answered "yes," anyway, which just goes to show what kind of people run for government nowadays. If someone runs for president with the plan of trying to legalize it, I will hope that person loses.

[Delthayre]

Frankly, no. I would have reservations about electing someone currently using drugs (not really pot, but I'm noted as pro-legalization even if I abhor the stuff) and I think being influenced by their past drug usage is silly a provicincial.

[electricsheep]

Smoking pot, the legalization of, or whatever doesn't influence my vote one way or the other. Most people experiment with something in their lives, so whatever. Frankly, my mind is on their stance on more pressing issues.

I pity the foo' who votes for someone that wants to legalize marijuana but has crap other going for them as a candidate.

[Clayface]

Marijuana is so widespread and such a minor nuisance to the Government, why not legalize it?

We actually discussed this in another thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=96394). No one ever gave a satisfactory answer to one of my concerns about pot legalization.

Anyway, a candidate's history with pot would most definitely influence my decision. Any candidate that hasn't used it is, in my opinion, displaying (as randomguy put it) "a certain degree of principle, and I can respect that." So, a candidate that hasn't tried earns points with me.

Now, would I not vote for a cadidate simply because they tried pot at some time in their life? No. I can forgive a one time occurence, or some minor experimentation in their younger days - anyone can make a stupid decison in their life. But if a candidate was currently a regular/occasional user, then, yes, I would most certainly not vote for them.