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?
