WASHINGTON - An open letter by a marijuana activist sparked a flurry of attention Wednesday about which candidates for Minnesota’s U.S. Senate seat experimented with illegal substances in the past.
I’ve never understood why the question of whether or not a political candidate smoked marijuana in 1972 has any relevance at all to his or her fitness to serve. It has nothing to do with whether or not they can be an effective representative for their constituents, nor does it really have anything to do with their moral fitness. If a person’s past can be held to be an indication of what their future holds, then why wasn’t Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader’s © prior drug and alcohol abuse an issue in 2000 and 2004?
Personally, I could care less what Norm Coleman, Al Franken, and Mike Ciresi did during their dissolute youth. There’s no changing the past. What are you going to do for me now and into the future? How will you address the issues facing this country? How will you work to end the senseless war in Iraq and bring our troops home? What are you going to do about the things that CAN be changed? Past is not always prologue…unless you assume that Coleman will be smoking ganja on the Senate floor or Franken will be doing lines of cocaine in his office.
OK, I suppose if a candidate is an ax murdere or a child molester, then I might be somewhat concerned about their past. How many of us, though, would be in trouble if our past recreational drug use came to light? How many candidate would be disqualified by their drug use in college or their younger days. Man, if that was the moral yardstick I wouldn’t be fit to run for city dogcatcher. Isn’t it about time that we lose the hypocrisy about who inhaled and find out what they propose to do in the future?
"Drugs are bad. MmmmOkay?"
I was about to try pot back in in college, but my roommate took the first toke, fell over dead, and became a democrat.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
The reluctance of people to talk about their past experiences with recreational drug use is a testament to the effectiveness of the government's propaganda efforts.
In terms of dollars and lives wasted, the war on drugs has cost several times more than the war on terror. It has steadily eroded constitutionally protected freedoms, and has become the most glaring example of institutionalized racism on the planet. (And btw, has had very little impact on drug consumption or addiction.)
Our politicians need to talk about this problem instead of running away from it.
While I think the government has overreached on turning everyone into a criminal for drug use, these are laws that have been on the books. People know the laws and choose to break them. I feel there should be reform, but until there is, it's the law.
Example #1: If you receive five circulated twenty dollar bills from your favorite ATM, chances are good that one of them would field test positive for traces of cocaine, and according to current law you are in possession of cocaine. As a result, any and all cash in your possession at the time could then be seized immediately, pending a government initiated civil action that is independent of any criminal charge, i.e. The State vs. 100 Dollars...
Example #2:
Your dentist prescribed pain medication for use "as required" following a root canal (or whatever.) You're feeling pretty good the next day, so why bring the entire bottle of pills to work with you? Just tuck a couple in your purse or pocket, just in case... Bad move! You've just violated the law and could be accused of possession with intent to distribute because you separated the medication from the label that shows it was yours.
So much for being aware of the laws...
It would be different if the war on drugs had any true positive results to show. People need to talk about this stuff. By and large, our politicians don't have the guts to even approach the topic.