Mitt Romney to wheelchair-using medical marijuana patient: "I don't support medical marijuana. Bye."

Discuss

185 Responses to “Mitt Romney to wheelchair-using medical marijuana patient: "I don't support medical marijuana. Bye."”

  1. Wow. That was colder than a naked man at the South Pole. Geezes.

    • mtdna says:

      At least he stands by his principles.*

      *When it suits him.

      • digi_owl says:

        “the most sincere man you will meet is the guy chasing you down the highway with a axe, with the sincere intent of cutting your head off” from a unidentified Australian teacher.

      • niktemadur says:

        Correction:  At least he stands by his narrative.

        Narratives are what make people, when confronted by inconvenient facts, stick their heads in the sand.  Afterwards, mental gymnastics will tweak the memory in favor of the narrative, as in “I, Mitt Romney, was ambushed by that man in the wheelchair!”

      • revery says:

        So much for Romney helping the Average Joe… d*mn, he won’t even help a suffering dying Joe…. what a moron ! Colder than a witch’s t*t.   That man has zero empathy.

    • revery says:

      That has to be the funniest analogy I have ever read ! Good one ;)

  2. I heard ole Mittens is actually a serial killer so it kind of makes sense that he could be so cold.

    • Roman Berry says:

      Some pols turn their back literally. And some do it figuratively.

      NPR: Obama Cracks Down On Medical Marijuana

      Either way, the back is turned. Which is colder? That can be debated. I’d suggest that it’s every bit as cold to turn your back figuratively via the force of law and in direct opposition to earlier statements and pledges and what was understood to be policy after gaining power as it is to turn y0ur back literally when you have no power but are merely seeking it.

      On this issue, Romney is a huge fail. And on this issue, so is our President.

  3. eric eales says:

    Wheelchair users are not bound to their chairs, Cory. The tern “wheelchair-bound” is a pejorative, suggesting that the chair defines the person. The headline works just as well, and more accurately with “Mitt Romney to wheelchair-using medical marijuana patient.”

    • freshacconci says:

      Seriously? That’s what you took from this?

      • Jesse Cross-Nickerson says:

        That’s probably not the only thing that Eric noticed about the brief article and video, but it’s good that he posted it.  The term whellchair bound is regarded as offensive by many people who use wheelchairs, and by many others who have spent any amount of time thinking about disability rights.  Why is it a problem for you that Eric pointed this out?

        • Jeremy LaGant says:

          There was a lot more going on there than choice of words. But go ahead, point out the small stuff.

        • ocker3 says:

          Okay, so that’s two people who have mentioned that “wheelchair-bound” is offensive, Without offering a good replacement term. Wheelchair-using?? “I’m” wheelchair using, I’ve used wheelchairs to exit surgery after a general anesthetic, but it doesn’t mean I have to use one to get around on the average day. Sure, improvements can be made to western culture, but simply complaining doesn’t get you very far, you need to offer at least a suggested alternative.

          What other term explains the man’s general condition as succinctly?

          • marilove says:

            I will let someone in a wheelchair explain it:

            http://www.wheelchairpride.com/2010/07/journalists-stop-writing-wheelchair.html 

            Most people in wheelchairs would rather you use a different term, because they find it offensive.  Shouldn’t that be enough?  Even if you don’t necessarily agree with why?  Even though, honestly, they have a perfectly good reason.

          • ocker3 says:

            For some reason I can’t reply to your comment Marilove, so I’ll reply to mine. Wheelchair bound is a medical reference, it means someone is generally immobile without a wheelchair. I need to wear glasses to see long distances, does that mean I can complain if people refer to me as short-sighted? It describes a physical limitation I have, yes, but it’s accurate.

            Short-sighted even Has an accepted derogatory use, someone who is ‘short-sighted’ but doesn’t necessarily wear glasses is someone who doesn’t plan ahead enough, or ignores larger problems which might come up in the future. But as long as the term is used accurately, I don’t care.

            Also, the article you link to mentions Israelite as a derogratory term, as well as Negro. Now, there are quite hostile alternative words for those two populations, but the actual words listed are quite neutral in the vast majority of ways they’re used today. I’m not at all convinced.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            What other term explains the man’s general condition as succinctly?

            Wheelchair user.  How hard was that?

          • Warren_Terra says:

            To Antinous and others:”wheelchair user” is not the same thing as “wheelchair-bound”. Someone can “use” a wheelchair occasionally, temporarily, or even experimentally or recreationally. Someone who would be immobile without their wheelchair is in a different situation, and a term describing their situation is necessary. For one thing, they deserve additional consideration from, for example, callous politicians.I’m open to avoiding the term “wheelchair-bound”, because I don’t want to offend people and we have here several people saying they find the term offensive. But in replacing this apparently offensive term with another that does not give offence, it’s important that a suitably meaningful term be used. The hyperlink given above makes no suggestion, and the only suggestion I’ve seen in this thread is not adequate.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Someone can “use” a wheelchair occasionally, temporarily, or even experimentally or recreationally.

            That’s just silly.

            People don’t want to be defined by their prosthetics or other supports.

          • Tess says:

            Wheelchair user.
            Person in a wheelchair.

            Either is fine…

          • jphilipp says:

            I heard a good explanation before: the guy said *without* his wheelchair, he’d be bound to his bed. The wheelchair in turn *enables his freedom* to move around. (The guy is Raul Krauthausen, by the way, and he has a very interesting German blog.)

        • If you really can take that kind of bluntness, I can tell you, but it’s a rant that’s been coming for a while and I suspect you and Eric won’t like it:

          I think some of us are coming to the increasing impression that no matter what term we use for anything, and no matter how much effort we put into propitiating people who expect us to know everything about their lives, someone will take offense. And if we express frustration over it, we are immediately assumed to be reactionary thugs (and not the guilty white Commie hipster I actually am. :) )

          If we don’t check for the most recent PC etiquette for every extant minority about once a week, we will be given zero credit for our goodwill and good intentions, because there will turn out to be one more increasingly fine point of offense read into last week’s acceptable term. 

          And we will be corrected with condescension and humorlessness, no matter how clear the good intentions of the original commenter were, nor how devoid their comment was of prejudiced intent. 

          For instance, there is the implicit assumption that we don’t already know damn well that… um… “people who choose recurringly to sit in wheelchairs not that there’s anything wrong with it not that there would be”… are not helpless little lumps of erroneously printed protoplasm arc-welded to their seats until God puts them out of their misery. I’m sure you run into a lot of people with just that attitude, and they are abhorrent, but this is not AD 1507 and some of us know better. We just don’t filter our every goddamned word for its every unintended consonance like soundbite-wary politicians — nor do I EVER want to live that way.

          And that’s coming from someone who lives with a houseful of transgendered women, and knows how subtle and hurtful these language issues can be. I genuinely sympathize, and can totally see how a misconception about disability could turn frustrating. But OTOH, I have been a trans/queer ally for 15 years yet have STILL been, say, called a transphobe for utter trivialities like using “transgender” instead of “transgendered”… or maybe it was the other way around… by someone just a LITTLE bit more righteous (or overeducated, or fragile) than me.

          Now, if my own sisters drive me batshit like that, how am I gonna react to marching orders from a culture I’m not even familiar with?! Well, I’m going to follow them, because I’m not an asshat. But I’m also going to rankle a little bit if I’m treated like I should have already read them by now.

          But if we point any of this out, we get outrage over our “privilege” or get told to “educate ourselves” or how we “don’t get it” or some other thought-terminating cliche that totally alienates people who wanted to work with you to begin with. We get it. We just want a tiny little bit more credit that an occasional verbal slip doesn’t mean we don’t get it. We want things to be phrased as polite requests, not stern reminders of rules that some think are totally self-evident but are not.

          I think we’re all more than happy to help in any material way we can, including making as little of a deal about people’s differences as possible and letting our subtle prejudices be corrected. But there are things you can and should be doing on your own side to make this process less outright maddening for people on ours. That’s all I’m saying. A *little* understanding that language is imperfect to start with, and while rooting out hidden bias is noble, it’s real easy to come across as condescending and confrontational while you’re doing it.

          • Xof says:

            You know, while I believe your exasperation is sincere, it might just be good to balance things in your mind a bit: On the one hand, you got twitted for not using the right term. On the other hand, you’re not in a wheelchair.

          • jja says:

            Bravo to you for putting this so well. I’ve noticed this “more politically correct than thou” syndrome for a while but never had the words to express just what was wrong with it.

          • The system won’t let me reply to Xof, so I basically just wanted to say I don’t think they’re making a bad point at all. I’m speaking the very, very worst of what goes through my head in these situations, because I feel sometimes it’s healthy to fess up to it. But I hope that in practice, I balance that frustration and indignation with a little understanding. 

            I know this is something most people have to deal with for about five minutes a month, and disabled people have to deal with every day. I don’t expect people to be patient with our lack of awareness all the time, believe me. And if there is a snide term in the disabled community for whatever the rest of us are, I cheer for this fact because we probably deserve it. :) 

            I know it’s maddening to hear people reject this stuff as “political correctness” and I promise I reserve the term for extreme cases. :) It’s not that it’s totally unreasonable to ask someone not to say “wheelchair-bound” — I’ll probably avoid it, myself. I just felt a couple of the commenters were being a *little* hard on Cory for something that I don’t think really *is* self-evident for… er… non-mobility-device-assisted-sentient-Terran-entities. :)

            And see, that’s where most of *my* wariness comes from. Restricted language always makes me nervous. I’m not just being snarky up there — I was genuinely grasping for a term for the “”non-disabled”” that would not offend people, because I genuinely don’t know what it is, and am genuinely a bit terrified now that I am expected to. n_n; I don’t think disabled people should just shrug things off and laugh every time we accidentally cause offense — I just want to make sure we’re getting a real tolerance and understanding, and not just an increasingly restrictive speech code for it instead. :(

            (TL;DR version: I don’t mind at all being asked to use a different term for something. Sometimes, I do mind being TOLD to, especially when it seems to imply that it’s a willful prejudice on my part.)

          • Tess says:

            The horrible horrible price of privilege is having to educate ourselves about the lives of people without it if we want to be good people.

            I’m sorry you find it a huge burden.  I don’t; it’s an opportunity to learn.

            A person who uses a wheelchair probably does so every damn day.  I use a term to describe that person every now and then.  Their burden is rather greater than mine.

            But then, while I have some kinds of privilege, I definitely lack others, which I believe helps.

          • Would it tip you over the edge if I pointed out you keep using the word disabled, when the accepted term is ‘differently abled’?

            I agree though, the rules change faster than anyone can keep up with them.  The problem being that the terminology defines a traditionally negative trate, and therefore over time will become offensive.  It’s inevitable – no matter what word you choose.

          • jgs says:

            Offensensitivity!

          • Matt London says:

            Respectful request to use thoughtful language: 39 words
            Bristling against the request: 613 words

        • MythicalMe says:

          Get over it. Just because someone used a term that’s pejorative to one group of people that doesn’t mean the intent was meant to be offensive. The point of the article was to show what a douche-bag Mitt Romney is toward marijuana use.

    • oasisob1 says:

      Also, the ‘wheelchair user’ didn’t state a preferred gender, so we’d better not use traditional gender pronouns.

      • Marja Erwin says:

        It’s a reasonable consideration when we’re talking about gender. It’s irrelevant here, and comes off as concern trolling and/or being dismissive of respectful language in general.

    • Michael Rosefield says:

      He chose to use his wheelchair, yes, in that he also chose not to stagger after (and likely stumble, fall, and crawl after) Mitt in order to chase a response. That was definitely a choice.

      I am not bound to my glasses. I just choose to wear them so I can see anything at all and function in the most basic manner.

    • Cowicide says:

      I don’t know if you guys have heard, but it’s now on the news.  Apparently Cory calling this guy wheelchair-bound really offended him even more than his confrontation with Mittens.  We’ll see how it goes..

      Here it is on channel 9 in Denver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI-1Q1_95bM

    • Wreckrob8 says:

      Language cannot be policed. Newly coined ‘neutral’ terminology can rapidly be given pejorative connotations – by children for instance – and become ambiguous viz gay.

    • freshacconci says:

      See? This is what happens. Umpteen comments about your condescending comment instead of the actual topic at hand. All you had to do was post something like, “hey, thanks for posting this, but in case you didn’t know…”. Language shifts all the time and we don’t always get the memos.

      • marilove says:

        And he was asked not to use that term, but instead of saying, “I wasn’t aware. I apologize.” He was a total ass about it.  “Waaaaaah, I have to treat people with respect!”  Come on.  It’s not that hard to listen.

      • Shawnman Spiritbear says:

        Thank you. I had to scroll for a while to get to the first post pointing out that we have gotten far from the point at hand. Personally I think MMJ has been a roadblock to the real goal. Not arresting our citizens for self medicating that is safer and more benign than alcohol.

    • wysinwyg says:

      Never heard that before.  I’ve never thought of “wheelchair-bound” as pejorative in the least, merely descriptive.  Why assume the worst?

      • This comment thread is the most epic, deviation thread I’ve ever seen on BoingBoing.

        It’s a sight to behold.

        Can I turn it into a poster?  Does BoingBoing copyright allow such festivities? 

        • wysinwyg says:

          Where not otherwise specified, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the United States and other countries.

          I think you’re good.  Go for it.

  4. Andrew Singleton says:

    I would make a joke here but… That’s just beyond words or any attempt at humor.

  5. Childe Roland says:

    That’s how VCs roll. A dying man has no valid business model, no cash flow, no assets that can be stripped and sold off, so it makes no sense to invest time there. 

    • I am sure that wheelchair is worth something. Plus I am sure he is on Medicaid. While regular Medicaid is pretty good about choice of doctors, their are still Medicaid HMOs that were engineered to work better for some individuals that allow insurance companies to skim a few percent off of some disabled people.

      Maybe Mitt wants it to be all Medicaid HMO so that everyone will be skimmed.

      • rageaholic says:

        they got rid of medicare advantage a couple years ago, if thats what youre referring to.

        • bob ross says:

          no he’s talking about medicaid, not medicare. Several states allow medicaid funding to be disbursed through HMOS. Here in Minnesota you can have your medical assistance benefits (medicaid) handled by several HMOs such as: Medica, Ucare, HealthPartners, Blue Cross, etc.

  6. gaiapunk says:

    What a coward! I think there is another video of “Mitt the Ripper” talking with two male vetrans who ask him about gay marriage and he immediately says he’s against it, and one of the veterns says, well my husband and I strongly disagree.

  7. Susan Carley Oliver says:

    Dare I ask – how is this young man doing now? My heart just sinks as I watch this.  We’ve come so far in medicine; we have so much further to go.

  8. zombiebob says:

    I can’t even watch this

  9. Jeremy LaGant says:

    So, republicans, you really want a business man running this country? Why grow your own medicine when you can just buy a less reliable more dangerous alternative?
    What a dick.

  10. innerdave says:

    Christ what an asshole

  11. Ceronomus says:

    Wow…Proof that Mitt is fit to win the Republican nomination.

  12. the headline gives Mitt too much credit. he didn’t even say “bye” he just started talking to someone else.

  13. D Wyatt says:

    Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Freedom, Rights, Justice.  
    All things that will be taught to your children in a HISTORY LESSON, because it doesnt exist now, and it surely wont when they grow up. 

    America, where did you go?  The Proud Honest American citizens are still here but under the ownership of the FED, Congress, President, Massive Corporations, etc.

    Abe Lincoln:
    “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these HONORED DEAD we take increased devotion to that CAUSE for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these DEAD shall not have DIED IN VAIN—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH.”

    More like a government of the inhumane  people, to Control the people, to trick the people…

    The end isnt near anymore folks, the END IS NOW.

  14. bo1n6bo1n6 says:

    Evil plastic man with no emotions, I bet the only times he gets aroused is when he looks in the mirror or at his bank statement. 

  15. anharmyenone says:

    Too bad President Obama also opposes medical cannabis. If he would support moving it to schedule II, it would be difficult for a future president to put the genie back into the bottle. I remember when Peter McWilliams choked to death on his own vomit. I can forgive a politician who is sincerely mistaken on this issue, but not one who knows better.

    • zarray says:

      If Obama even gave a whiff of intent to legalize the Moral Majority™ would rise up in an armed  insurrection. 

      Who benefits the most from the War on Drugs™? The DEA, the largest gang in the world. The govt’ sanction mob has become the biggest blockage to democracy in history.

      • iburl says:

        It’s not just the DEA that benefits from making this plant illegal. Prohibition also benefits weapons manufacturers, the prison industry, big Pharma, alcohol companies, oil companies, tobacco companies, and any number of other interests whose purpose is to keep us in a box.

        • Moriarty says:

          Probably a minor point, but how would you say it benefits oil companies?

          • rokhard says:

            Theres a million things hemp oil could be a substitute for petroleum. The first gas and diesel engines were designed to run on hemp oil, until the oil companies stepped in. Petroleum is used to make thousands of products including plastics, that hemp oil is better suited for, cheaper, and more eco friendly. So, the oil companies would prefer to keep the competition out, rather than grow weed.

  16. Jeremy Duncan says:

    If he had said “Yes.  The law’s the law, and I would have you both arrested,” I would still loathe Romney, but I would still have to credit him with an ounce of integrity.  He’d still be devoid of compassion and common sense, but he wouldn’t be quite such a contemptible little chickenshit.

    In a way, I almost prefer his response here, so my contempt for the man can remain undiluted and his gut-and-heartlessnes can shine in all their disgusting glory.

  17. Dan McCleary says:

    So the choice in November is between this Republican asshole or the Democrat who has spent four years directing Federal prosecutors to shut down legal medical marijuana dispensaries, despite promising in his 2008 campaign to leave them alone?   No thanks — I’ll vote third party, for this and many other reasons.

    • Bad Juju says:

      Nice cop-out. I suppose “Nader 2000″ doesn’t mean anything to you.

      • Anonymous says:

         Wait you’re saying he shouldn’t vote for 3rd party candidates because it means the democrats won’t win.

        Read his post and read your post. His logic makes sense, yours does not.

      • Dan McCleary says:

        Over the last four years, there has been one man who could have deprioritized raids on medical marijuana facilities, who could have reduced the amount of the DEA budget allocated to “supply reduction,” who could have used his clemency power to pardon non-violent drug offenders, who could have granted permission for research scientists (like Lyle Cracker) to grow marijuana for scientific reason.  One man could have actually made a difference in moving the ball forward in this ridiculous fight over medical marijuana, and his name is Barack Obama.

        Do I think Romney would be any better on drug policy? Absolutely not.  Would I vote for him? Not a chance. But this notion that the Democratic Party owns my vote or the vote of any other progressive is utterly laughable to me.

        • flickerKuu says:

          I’m not happy with Obama’s policy on drugs either, however, I’m pretty sure it’s more rogue federal agents, and local DA’s like in my city than what he says. These cops don’t give a crap what we voted, they are shutting down dispensaries all over California, and it’s legal here. They bring in the IRS to tell the businesses they can’t deduct ANY business expenses, unlike EVERY other business in town. Why? Because they don’t care about laws, or voters, they want their seizure money, their prison money, and their Monsanto Marinol ™ profits.   Time to show them, we don’t care about laws or voting either.

          • Dan McCleary says:

            It is definitely true that in the drug war, there are more people arrested, convicted and imprisoned on the state level than on the Federal level. And there are plenty of horrible needless deaths to local militarized raids. But when it comes to the shut down of medical marijuana dispensaries in CA (and CO), look closely at where the orders come from — there is a coordinated effort by the DOJ.  It is important to note where US Attorneys (and the IRS) are involved. 

          • Layne says:

            Exactly – Romney is an obvious, plastic facsimile of a human sphincter who’s only defining presidential characteristics are being rich, enacting Obama’s national healthcare on an equally disastrous state level, and wanting to be president.
            Obama (an admitted pot-user) who rode in to office on hope, change, etc., actively stepped up chickenshit enforcement and harassment of state-legal pot dispensaries. If the DEA thugs don’t kick the door in, then the IRS runs their finances into the ground. Wheee!

            And on the rare occasion when he’s called out on his rank hypocrisy of not allowing people the intelligent choice of alleviating pain or enjoying a harmless, social drug, he laughs it off and treats his enthusiastic voting base like drooling morons.
            But when they keep blindly rallying to support him, maybe he’s not far off.

            There’s not a single tangible difference between Mitt or Barack - neither thinks you should make your own decisions about the drugs you use or the healthcare you receive. 

        • Xof says:

          So, you’re voting for Romney.

          Really, progressives have got to get over this idea that by voting for a candidate we are saying that they are now our BFFs and lurv them and want to have their progressive inclusive babies. A vote is a political decision on how we want the country run.

          We are going to be offered two options: Obama and Romney. The right is going to line up behind Romney in a very nice, straight line.

          Splitting the progressive vote just means President Romney, and nothing else. Nada. Zero. No one is going to care that by voting third-party you get to feel that you breathe a purer, more ideologically wonderful air than the rest of it; it just means we get four years of Prez Mittens. That’s all.

          We’ve had three third-party candidates in living memory who made a difference to the final result: Nader, Perot, Anderson. None of them made the *slightest bit* of difference to the policies of the party that was on the losing end of their candidacy, except to brand that party as a loser.

          • zyodei says:

            “You Must Vote For the Lesser of Two Evils.”

            The exact same logic that has gotten us all manner of awful presidents. 

            The exact logic that allows the political parties to select leaders instead of the people.

            The exact logic that has kept us locked into these two awful, corrupt, and homogeneous parties.

            I’ll pass. 

            Anyway, your vote doesn’t matter. There is a 1/100000000000 chance it will affect anything. By helping a third party get above 5%, there is a much more significant chance they will become viable.

          • Rindan says:

            I live in Massachusetts.  I am pretty sure that my vote literally does not matter.  If Obama somehow manages to lose in Massachusetts, he lost in 48 other states for sure as well.  The states where your vote actually matters can be count on one hand.  If your state really is in the balance, maybe you should vote for lesser of two evils.  If it isn’t, vote for the person you actually want and be open about what a fucking asshole the lesser of two evils is.

          • coffee100 says:

            We are going to be offered two options: Obama and Romney.

            And every time we participate in the two-horse dictatorship, we further solidify its power.

            If the Internet community alone instituted a nationwide write-in campaign, we could probably get Stephen Colbert 100 electoral votes.

            Politics is not the NFL.  We get the President we deserve.

          • Xof says:

            If you want a viable third party candidate, there are two ways to do this.

            1. You can start now (or, really, two years ago) busting your ass working to make your party a viable alternate to the existing parties, sweating blood, time and money for months at a time, so that a vote for this person doesn’t just split the progressive vote and hand an easy victory to Romney.

            2. You can pick your nose and post on internet forums about how they are all just the same and Obama broke my heart and I’m so cool and iconoclastic and no one should take my vote for granted and they’re not the boss of me, and then vote for the Cookie Monster in November, and enjoy Romney’s easy victory.

            Hint: Only one of these is effective doing what you claim to want to do. Get to work.

          • bob ross says:

            Perot gained enough of the popular vote to gain Federal funding for his party (no small accomplishment), but instead of using this “victory” to strengthen his party he choked it to death.

            Why are the majority of people bent on keeping the US a 2 party system? The more active political parties we have in National politics the better IMO.

          • Snig says:

            Zyodei, if Nader had won 10% of the vote in 2000, how would that have changed anything?  Kerry won 48% of the 2004 vote, Gore won 48%, Bush felt no obligation to cater to ANYTHING from the democratic side of the aisle.  If Bush had some class, he could have sent Nader a nice fruit basket for his work on his behalf, but he didn’t even do that. 

          • wysinwyg says:

            Oh, it’s not just some comment on the internet.  There’s thousands of you.  There’s so many of you that if you all put your support behind a 3rd party candidate, that 3rd party candidate would actually be viable and we wouldn’t have this problem.  Isn’t that ironic?

            No, you and people like you have crushed out any hope I might have had for a sane political system.  Now my only engagement with the political system will be making people like you upset.  I won’t enjoy president Romney but I won’t really feel bad about it either.  But you’re going to hate president Romney and that makes me feel wonderful.

          • Xof says:

            Now my only engagement with the political system will be making people like you upset.  I won’t enjoy president Romney but I won’t really feel bad about it either.  But you’re going to hate president Romney and that makes me feel wonderful.

            Yeah, I saw a t-shirt that pissed me off once, too. Now, I wear a t-shirt that pisses *them* off! That’ll show them.

          • Xof says:

            Maybe stop trying to guilt people into trying to agree with your politics, it’s really pretty ugly.

            Just pointing out that actions have consequences, and deciding which candidate to vote for is not an argument about who saw the band in a cooler, smaller club first. I realize this is not a popular position with some people.

            I also will point out that if you really want a viable third-party candidate, you have to work for it, and not just screech and throw feces at the one who disappointed you.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Heh, yeah, accusing me of “screeching and throwing feces” is going to win me over.

            Here is your problem: you’re trying to use a boogeyman argument to get people to vote against Republicans.  But boogeyman arguments are a Republican strategy.  “Vote for me or X will get you!” is a fundamentally dishonest strategy for debating this kind of thing.  Can you really not see yourself becoming the monster you’re trying to fight?  Can you really not see the authoritarian streak in telling people to ignore their consciences, their own beliefs, their own politics and to vote the way YOU want them to vote?

            The Democratic party already looks a whole lot like the Republican party and you’re making the resemblance even closer.  Good work, dude.  Keep throwing the feces.

          • Xof says:

            Can you really not see the authoritarian streak in telling people to ignore their consciences, their own beliefs, their own politics and to vote the way YOU want them to vote?

            “I refuse to vote for anyone who is not my perfect candidate in all respects, without any exceptions or variances, and anyone offering a contrary opinion is a nasty little authoritarian monster.”

            “And, in other news, why are politics so divisive?”

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            You two need to get a room.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Of course, I never said any of that.  You really should consider the notion that you’re the one being unreasonable.  I know zealots have a lot of trouble with that but it really is worth considering whether oneself might be in the wrong from time to time.

        • Snig says:

          Obama brought the full press and used what influence he had to press for universal health care.  Armchair quarterback to your heart’s content, he tried.  While medical marijuana is sane, having universal health care is more important.  For his troubles, the right wing outrage and left wing apathy left him with diminished support in congress, and even less ability to forward a progressive agenda.  Sitting on your hands or voting for the guy who’s going to come in third or fourth is not courageous, it’s a foolish way to give your support to Mitt.  Pharmaceutical companies are people, my friends, and they’ll be given even more love in the Romney years.  And you’ll have helped.   

          • acidrain69 says:

            I’d love for you to prove me wrong, but it sure looked like Obama rolled over on Universal coverage before the argument even started.

          • Snig says:

            acidrain69,
            do you think he did that from his own personal preference, or because he and his advisors felt a compromise would have a better chance of winning?  Again, his half measure was regarded as the arrival of Satan.  Why would going whole hog have succeeded?  Will you be happier when Mitt and his Minions in Congress dismantle it all?

          • bob ross says:

            Snig,
            I’ll be happy when SCOTUS dismantles the bill. As it stands now the only benefit of  ‘Obamacare’ is that it guarantees increased revenue for insurance companies and makes it illegal for me to choose to not hand over my money to a private insurance company. The bill does absolutely nothing to address the major problems with our healthcare system.

            Almost every major insurance company has increased its the economic burden on its customers as a result of the bill. Personally, I don’t think banning ‘prior condition’ clauses and increasing the time period children can use their parents insurance is a good enough trade off for society.

          • Snig says:

            Bob Ross,
            Status quo was insurance companies steadily increasing patient burden anyway, had been for a decade.  Voting against the guy who tried to change it will further discourage any future change.  Voting against Obama will further lead to  more Citizens united type victories. Romney is the utmost of  the corporate lovers.  United we stand, divided is a vote for Romney. 

        • faithnomore says:

          Whatever one’s political leanings and and opinions on Prez Obama, any sane person who is deeply concerned about trying to maintain a functioning (on life support, but still functioning) democracy in this country should realize that a third party vote = Romney vote = ALL THREE arms of the gubbmint under extremist right-wing control = institutionalized theocracy & corporatocracy forever. And I mean forever. Once the multi-nationals take final and full control, we will never be able to wrest it back. We are standing on the banks of the Rubicon here people; you can claim ideological purity all day long, but don’t fool yourself into believing that both men are essentially the same and the results therefore don’t matter.

          And while I’ve got a good rant going, I want to posit my hypothesis that one fundamental reason we’re in such dire straits is that so many American (of all political persuasions) have somehow come to believe that capitalism is our political philosophy, not simply our economic system. Economic systems are just a means to an end; how do we get what we need? Political philosophies ask much bigger questions about who we are and what kind of people do we want to be and what should the future look like. 

          I like living in a capitalistic economy, but it must be governed by (and subservient to) a political system that is democratic, balanced, and nuanced.

          • PTBartman says:

            I agree with your priciples  but couldn’t agree less with your conclusions.  Under BO (pun intended, causes yes I think he stinks) we got healthcare that benefits only BigPharm and BigMed, does nothing to control costs, just makes having Insurance close to mandatory.  We get more foreign involvements/war. We got SOPA. We gott Bush’s tax cut’s at the expense of the middle class.  The continuing war on medical privacy and choice. We even get articles that BO (pew) is more consv than Ronald Reagan.

            Please don’t ever tell me that using my franchise the way I see fit is wrong or misguided, that’s my choice, not yours.  To quote the old saw, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, The Democratic Party left me.  If the progressive wing of the Democratic party really wanted my vote they would have mounted a primary challenge against BO. Where’s the [strike] Right [/strike] Left Guard when we really need it most?

      • loroferoz says:

        Of course getting  opposite results to your wishes on something you care about should never ever influence your voting choices…

        Kang or Kodos? Choice is futile, I guess.

      • Prismo says:

        Yes, as a matter of fact, it does mean something to me.  If Al Gore hadn’t split the progressive vote in 2000 we might have had a chance of actually steering this country away from the oligarchy it’s become. 

        Also, Al Gore actually won that election and chose to drop out and not challenge the results when it’s clear that he should have…and, well, why did he drop out again?  Because democracy is too arduous of a process for the American public to endure?   

        Ultimately though, your logic fails because the Democratic party is not entitled to the progressive vote. They have to earn it.

    • Xof says:

      Great. Enjoy President Romney.

      • zombiebob says:

        it’s sad, but I agree with you

        • Xof says:

          If the US Presidential election had a runoff, either instant or otherwise, I’d happily vote third-party.

          However, a vote is not an alchemical marriage to the object of the vote; it’s a decision on how I want the country run. I’m not the least bit wild about Obama, but I would have to have rocks in my progressive head to prefer Romney to him.

          • PTBartman says:

            If My Mare had Testicles She’d be my Stallion.

            And I want the country run in a way that neither Romney nor Obama are willing or able to.  And I refuse to give either of them the legitamacy of my most sacred posession, my vote.

      • zyodei says:

        Obama and Romney are like a monkey and a human – they might appear quite different, but they share 99% of the same DNA.

        • Xof says:

          Truly, truly unfortunate choices of analogies.

        • wrybread says:

          I remember when people were saying that in 2000. “Bah! Bush and Gore, its all the same”. But of course we couldn’t have imagined how different they’d prove to be…

          And all this talk about how Obama got nothing done, or that he’s done some stupid stuff… Are we really going to ignore the fact that he has an entire political party positioning themselves as contrarian to every single thing he does, and what most be the most effective propaganda system in history (Fox News and conservative radio) hammering on him 24/7? I think its a frickin miracle he’s done as much as he has. And, by the way, he’s done a lot.

      • coffee100 says:

        Don’t vote for the candidate you want, vote for the candidate who is likeliest to win, then you will guarantee the preservation of the status quo and never change anything. 

        • Xof says:

          If US Presidential elections had runoffs or were Australian preferential ballots, I’d be voting for the most fringy candidates you can imagine. But they’re not, and splitting the vote just delivers the (far) worse of two evils.

  18. Jeremy LaGant says:

    Also, I immediately thought of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYbhkTRm9Qc 

  19. snipehunt says:

    To me what Mitt means is “Sorry, but the assholes who might vote for me would certainly want you to be arrested, so theres nothing I can do to help you, but saying so would be a geffe. PEACE!” 

    • RJ says:

      I agree with your point of view here. Mitt (and all the other candidates) don’t actually believe one thing or another; rather, such people only consider the political climate, then invest a campaign in showing what a great mouthpiece they can be for the demographic they’ve chosen to court. If their investment works out, the result is a powerful job and manifold return on the investment.

      Mitt doesn’t really care one way or the other about pot. He just knows he has to maintain the particular character he’s been presenting to the voters if he wants any chance at gaining the Presidency. In a way, it’s a bit like playing the stock market; you don’t really care if the XYZ Dildo Company is ensuring their plastic is safe; you just want to see your investment in the company turn a profit for you.

    • Although none of us can speak for his actual opinion… I do agree that politicians create their opinions based on what will get them votes with a target demographic, and then later what will earn the the most money.  There will of course be roots, a hard-left liberal isn’t gong to go into politics and aim for the republican crowd, but when looking at the finer points such as cannabis legalisation things become a bit less clear-cut.

      So technically speaking he is perpetuating a problem, but I don’t believe his opinions are any more true than anything else he says (like with any politician).

  20. iburl says:

    Compassion: Mitt has heard of them.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Mitt Romney gives medical advice too! Amazing!

  22. hab says:

    Marijuana does not treat or cure muscular dystrophy. 

    That said, I think marijuana should probably be legal like alcohol. There is an inconsistency in the law in allowing freedom of self-medication.

    The implicit question posed by Cory is not just over medical marijuana, but whether a political candidate has to say that a person in a wheelchair should be arrested OR that he is taking a recorded progressive that will alienate his base. This is not a heart-warming interaction, but he is not going to say either, especially with a camera present. 

    If a progressive candidate were confronted on camera by a poor resident of a third world country who asked if he supported an international treaty that limited his country’s ability to industrialize in order to limit carbon dioxide production, how should the politician respond on the record?

    • morgane says:

      the guy said he was 80 fucking pounds

      ever heard of medications that gives you nausea?ever heard of munchies?that’s why he smokes the stuff: so he gets hungry and eat and doesn’t die!so no, Marijuana does not treat or cure muscular dystrophy. But it still can make you live a little longer.there.

    • marilove says:

      Not to mention the benefits toward easing pain.  A friend of mine has really horrible arthritis, among some other health problems, and medical marijuana helps with her pain, and decreases her need for hardcore narcotics, which are far, far, far worse on you and for you than pot.  Yet they are legal.  Interesting, eh?

    • Xof says:

      Marijuana does not treat or cure muscular dystrophy.

      No one here is claiming it does.

      Really, the defense of Mitt Romney comes down to, “Well, he’s a politician, what do you expect?”

      If a progressive candidate were confronted on camera by a poor resident of a third world country who asked if he supported an international treaty that limited his country’s ability to industrialize in order to limit carbon dioxide production, how should the politician respond on the record?

      “That’s a great strawman you’ve got there. Did you make it yourself?”

    • flickerKuu says:

      Hey I know, how about having a candidate that believes in things I want for once. Not corporations, REAL people.  Romney is a joke.

      • rokhard says:

        If only REAL people would kick down billions for their campaigns like the corporations do.  Its like the REAL election is Dow Jones vs. Proctor and Gamble.

    • Sunny says:

      Speaking as an herbalist with 20 years of experience, I have to disagree with you on one point.  Cannabis will not “cure” muscular dystrophy… it will, however, treat symptomatic issues and make the lives of those suffering from the disease less miserable.  I do not grow cannabis, but I wish I legally could do so as it is useful in many medical applications.

      More importantly, the cannabis leaf, taken in it’s raw form (either juiced or as a tincture), is a potent anti-inflammatory, a strong immune-system booster, and chemically will act as an alterative to the entire human bio-system. (this is not the THC buds of the female plant – and therefore not psycho-reactive)

      So, in effect, the chemicals that in the cannabis leaf were patented by the FDA some 30 years ago, and they don’t want anyone using it.  They have, in fact, done their best to make sure no one even KNOWS about the benefits of the cannabis leaf.  What better way to prevent anyone from stumbling onto this natural and effective treatment for many illnesses than to ban the entire plant?

      • eryximachus says:

        Are you drinking Rick Simpson’s kool aid?

      • Jerry R says:

        Uh, you do know that patents only last about 17 years right? And, that all the useful info is provided in the patent as a matter of public record? That’s kind of the point of the patent system. So, if the patent expired 13 years ago, anyone can use the tech or info involved for profit, as it is now in the public domain. Patent argument- you’re doing it wrong.

      • rageaholic says:

        I’ve heard some weird stuff in my time, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that the FDA holds patents on anything. the FDA is a regulatory body, not an R&D lab. are federal agencies even able to file for or hold patents? (the only possibility i can think of is NASA, but i sort of doubt it.) their work-products are squarely in the public domain.

    • Snig says:

      You absolutely can’t say that Marijuana doesn’t cure or treat MD, as the study hasn’t been done.  It’s unlikely that it cures it, but it might help manage his symptoms.

  23. Chris Fitch says:

    I wonder how Ron Paul would have handled that

    • Phanatic says:

      The exact same guy asked Ron Paul pretty much the exact same question.  Here’s Paul’s response:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk

      “I would absolutely never use the Federal government to enforce the law against anyone using marijuana.”  He then explains that as a physician he thinks medical marijuana is very helpful, but then goes on to say that even if it’s not helpful at all, the Federal government simply doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to ban it, which is why Prohibition took a Constitutional amendment to make happen, as opposed to some Federal agency just saying “It’s on this list of banned substances.”

      • casualobserver says:

        Of course, if you ask Ron Paul: “What if a state decides on mandatory death sentences for selling or possession, would you as President act against that?” he would most likely say “Nope, that is fully in their rights”. Or more likely, he would talk about “how no state would do that”, without actually answering the question.

        Ron Paul might talk a lot about freedom, but that is only on the federal level, he is pretty
        clear when it comes to “state rights”.

        • coffee100 says:

          What if a state decides on mandatory death sentences for selling or possession, would you as President act against that?” he would most likely say “Nope, that is fully in their rights”

          And he would be correct.  Although mandatory capital punishment for selling or possessing drugs would probably run afoul of the 8th amendment, the President of the United States DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER STATE CRIMINAL LAW.  PERIOD.

          The sooner the various governments begin enforcing the concept of jurisdiction again, the freer we will all become.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Moderator note: Please limit discussion of Ron Paul and other candidates to this issue.  This is not an opportunity for a free-for-all about other candidates and their positions on everything.

  24. msbpodcast says:

    If the person would have enough money, he could get his own home-grown pot.

    He has committed the cardinal sin and the capital offense of not being rich.

    Nobody cares about the poor. He could die right there and it wouldn’t phase Romney one bit.

    It wouldn’t phase any of these [expletive deleted].

  25. flickerKuu says:

    Mitt Romney to crippled person:       
    “Have you tried synthetic marijuanna? ”  –    (so I can make a buck off of it)

    This is why I hate people like him.

  26. bluest_one says:

    This man is going places.

    Being a cold-hearted sociopath is virtually a qualification for achieving high political office these days.

  27. jennybean42 says:

    Christ, what an asshole.

  28. JoshP says:

     I want to comment on something everyone else seems to be missing.  Yes, Romney is creepy, and he has fashion sense lifted from bad eighties t.v. shows.  And when I look at him I have a hard time thinking that that he might *not* be made out of some bizarre fleshy plastic.  But, given that rational arguments favor the legalization of pharmaceutical grade weed and that Romney’s political acumen is lifted straight from a printout made by gnomes that free-base 24 hour news networks there is no point except hubris in doing what these two dudes did.
      Let me explain.  This isn’t the equivalent of showing Mitt killing a kitten in the service of Satan in order to placate middle class Americans.  It’s a couple of wise ass kids lulzing the hell out of Mitt, with a side of political satire.  No one that already wants weed legal is going to be surprised that Mitt is a stuffed shirt.  By the same token, people that favor con-stupidity will look at this and see the blatant ad hominem kidney jab it is.  Kids, don’t do this, it doesn’t help, it makes our side look less professional and who wants to bet me a fiver who made the local sheriff’s watch list?

    • flickerKuu says:

      What?

      • RJ says:

        He’s trying to say that he thought wheelie-man and camera-boy were antagonizing Romney, and in so doing, were hurting the Democratic party.

        • flickerKuu says:

          If a policy question is asked from someone who has a genuine MEDICAL interest in that policy is antagonizing, then I guess Mitt isn’t cut out for big-boy politics.  That actually brings up a valid point, notice how “mean” Romney gets when someone isn’t yes-manning him or he isn’t singing America the Beautiful? Not this video per-se, but all the other “Mitt flips out” videos. Honestly, if the Republicans where *ahem* civilized, they would just look at their mess of guys and forfeit.

    • rattypilgrim says:

      I disagree. The man with Muscular Dystrophy was soft spoken and polite. He asked a simple question that is on the minds of everyone who use marijuana for medical purposes. The DOJ is threatening and shutting down its dispensers.
      The voice that asked Romney why he didn’t give him an answer was well within reason with his question.
      Face it: Romney is sticking to his corporate agenda and no one is going to get in his way. He is a sociopath who has no conception, nor does he care, what the lives of those less fortunate than his are like. Also, in his CEO mind he is NOT to be questioned. Period.
      Notice Romney was all for big pharma’s synthetic stuff. There’s gold in them thar pills.

      • mr_frakypants says:

        FYI, when you are the chief executive of something with the size and scope of the U.S. Federal Government, there will always be people harmed by your decisions, regardless of what those decisions are. In many cases, the calls you make you cost lives either way. You have to be the kind of person who can live with that. No matter which way you choose, someone somewhere can show up and demonstrate harm and they will be right.

        You want that job? How long would you last? Have we created a situation wherein only people who have a “different way” of viewing their fellow humans can survive in that position?

        I’d say that an ability to be polite yet non-committal to personal, individual tragedy is one of the things that is required of the President of the United States. Let’s say Pres. Romney is unbelievably moved by this man who questioned him so long ago. He removes the restrictions, changes the drug classification, etc. Next campaign, he’s looking at a mother whose kid got high and slipped off the porch and now *he’s* paralyzed and in a wheelchair. And she’s crying on camera. Of course, THAT wouldn’t get any play on bb because most folks here including myself favor legalization or at least decriminalization of marijuana. It sure would play on, say, hotair or other such place.

        Policy by sob story is ridiculous. Find me any policy you care to name, and in a country of 300 million people I can probably find someone who has a sad, sad (and very true) story to tell about it.

        • rattypilgrim says:

          “Policy by sob story”?  Oh, I guess children who worked in the woolen mills up until the 1920′s who lost their fingers and hands were just “sob stories”. Every American who has gotten ill, injured, mistreated, discriminated against, etc, is a “sob story”?
          FYI, I think every president is headed straight to hell (if such a thing exists) for the very reasons you point out: their decisions will ultimately take the lives of innocent people, here and abroad.
          Romney was not polite. He insulted his fellow citizen, one of the millions he’s supposed to represent, by blowing him off with that far away, get me out of here, look on his face.
          Your fantasy Pres. Romney was not moved by this man and it wasn’t so long ago–4 years.

          • mr_frakypants says:

            In this context, yes those would be sob stories. Note that I said that they were probably true, and correct also. To me, a “sob story” is a tale of tragedy specifically told to make me feel bad and (perhaps) change my behavior. It is not a comment on the veracity of the story. Beyond the point about causing harm regardless, the main point was that you can’t make policy just because some person came up to you with their personal tragedy. If you’re unaware of the issues involved, it might make you take a look at it, but other than that — what is a policy maker supposed to do in that situation? What do you want him to say? “That’s rough, but someone is always going to end up with the shitty end of the stick. If it’s not you, it’s going to be someone else. This time, it’s you.”

            You don’t change the marijuana laws because one person in a wheelchair made you feel bad, and you don’t change labor laws because one person at a rally tugged your heart strings. You do it because available evidence indicates that doing one thing (labor laws, drug policy) is better than doing something else, or doing nothing at all.

            Romney already knew his position on this, and almost certainly so did the unfortunate young man who confronted him. What Romney really should have done (knowing he was maintaining his position) was as the poster above said: “It’s the law. I’m the governor. My job is to enforce the law. That’s very sad in your case, and I think you should talk to your legislator about it.”

        • Rindan says:

          There was an alternative way to answer that question.  Romney could have said, “sucks 4 u bro, but because marijuana causes instant insanity once consumed, I’m will to accept the greater of two evils.”  It is a fucking stupid position, but if he TRULY believes that marijuana is the devils weed and its social ills are so horrible that yes, people need to fucking die to keep it away, he could  have simply said that.

          A president can justify a war.  They don’t claim that no one is going to die.  They agree that people are going to die, and say that it is worth it.  They face down widows and parents and explains that their sons, daughters, and lovers died for something greater.  Romney could  have done the same for that kid.  He could  have faced him down and said that if dies because he can’t get medical marijuana, it is worth it, and done it with compassion in the same way that a president justifies a kids that death in war.

          The problem of course is that stated like that, it is a fucking stupid position.  You might be able to tell a widow that her dead husband died for a greater cause, and you might be able to tell a group of soldiers about to head out that if they die it is for a greater cause, but it is pretty fucking hard to look at a 80 lb guy in a wheel chair and tell him that he is going to die for the greater cause of keeping people from chilling and smoking while they watch TV.

        • wysinwyg says:

          The guy asked a reasonable question and Romney couldn’t give a reasonable answer.  You’re CHOOSING to interpret this as a “sob story.”  That is on you.

    • I detect a professional troll.

  29. hypersomniac says:

    Mitt Romney for Scumbag Human Being.

    • PTBartman says:

      OK, that’s just not fair, I’ll give you that Mitt may technically be a human being but I want you to appolgize to all the scumbags out there.

  30. qualtrough says:

    Videos like this only lend credence to Ickes’ theory that our leaders are shape-shifting reptiles. I laughed at first when I learned about his theory, but the more I learn the more I think he just might be on to something. 

    • wysinwyg says:

      Don’t give the ridiculously anti-semitic David Icke any credit at all.  “shape-shifting reptiles” is code for a particular ethnic group.

  31. simonbarsinister says:

    casualobserver ,

     So under Ron Paul, if I was dying I could move to a medical Marijuana friendly state such as California and the Federal government would actually respect the laws of the state. Sounds pretty good to me.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Moderator note: Please limit discussion of Ron Paul and other candidates to this issue.  This is not an opportunity for a free-for-all about other candidates and their positions on everything.

    • grimc says:

      Yeah, if you had a terminal illness the first thing you’d want to do is leave your friends, family and doctor behind and move to another state. Sounds fantastic.

      • Mike says:

        grimc – You argue against the Constitution and fundamental mechanics of our country. Sorry that you can’t always have it your way. At least you would theoretically have two options under Paul leadership: 1) vote for reps that share your view 2) leave the state for another.  Under current leadership you have only the former option; the Federal govt would simply supersede state law and your elected officials’ representations.

        • grimc says:

          Nonsense. My response has nothing to do with “the Constitution and fundamental mechanics of our country.” I merely pointed out that expecting terminally ill patients to leave their entire support system in one state and move to another doesn’t “sound pretty good” by any stretch of the imagination.

          And regardless what you may think, that is exactly the system that we have now, without the additional insanities (that we have been directed not to discuss) that going full Tenther would bring.

  32. Jonathan Roberts says:

    Watching Mitt’s face in this clip just creeps me out. That smile will haunt my dreams.

  33. chumpmeat says:

    And NOBODY is bothered when the guy (apparently shooting the video) says “you’re gonna just ignore a person in a wheelchair?”, like being in a wheelchair confers special pathos or moral authority.

    Mitt doesn’t owe him a better answer because he’s a constituent, or a voter with a legitimate question, but because he’s in a wheelchair.

    Really?

    • rattypilgrim says:

      Apparently, Mitt seemed to think he owed him no answer for any of the reasons you mentioned. The fact that the man was in a wheelchair had no bearing on Mitt’s choice to ignore him.

    • grimc says:

      You don’t think a guy with MS who’s in a wheelchair merits more compassion than a healthy person? That the guy with the camera who thinks he does deserves scorn?

      Really?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        On the internet, compassion is a controlled substance.

      • chumpmeat says:

        Sorry, the point I was trying to make wasn’t about compassion, it was about the lack of respect Mitt shows to voters generally.

        When the one guy says “you’re gonna just ignore a person in a wheelchair?” he makes it about listening to him because he’s in a wheelchair, not because he’s a concerned citizen with a damn good point. 

  34. Vincent Maldia says:

    plants are just complicated chemical systems. if smoking medical marijuana works and synthetic marijuana causes nausea (assuming its real and not psychological) then its just a matter of finding what’s wrong with the mix of chemicals in the medicine. Eventually some chemist will get the recipe right

    • Yeah’ but never completely emulate the natural one, and some big corporation or research business cannot make money out of it.

    • redesigned says:

      @google-e731220f6b0654c3aae94b2125645dce:disqus it isn’t that they can’t get it right.  They can synthesize the chemical compounds perfectly.  It is that they don’t want to get it right because they are trying to create a version of the compounds that still have medical uses but not any of the psychoactive effects of marijuana.  The main problem is that these two factors are not so easily separated.  Similar to creating an opiate based medicine that can kill pain yet not have any of the addictive or psychoactive effects when used in quantities more then the body needs.

      Opiates, cocaine, speeds, and even methamphetamine all have acceptable legitimate medical uses, the reasons that thc and canabanoids do not has nothing to do with the lack of medical applications or science supporting their use in legitimate treatment scenarios.  It is very much a political issue with roots in racist and big corporate money origins.  Whether or not people think it should be legalized for general use, the fact that it cannot be prescribed for legitimate medical use is ridiculous.Remember ALL prescription drugs are “illegal drugs” without a prescription, that is why you need a prescription to get them.

    • I didn’t know there WAS synthetic MJ. What makes it ok but THC from plants illegal?

    • redesigned says:

      @google-6b0b069b458c419b6eaf0e5490009e1c:disqus
      google: marinol/dronabinol/delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

      What makes it ok but THC from plants illegal?
      -It doesn’t get you “high” the same way that thc does, but even so very few prescriptions are ever given for it and it doesn’t work nearly as well except for a few select conditions.  Not anywhere near as effective and medical marijuana and a very poor substitute, but better then nothing for cancer patients i guess.

    • wysinwyg says:

      OR you can just let people grow the plant and you don’t have to worry about it.  Why does everything need to be a product?

  35. Mister44 says:

    LEE-GULL-LIES-IT!!!!

    But the point is moot – if he becomes pres, he won’t have anything to do with it – as it is run at the state level.

    • Well, the feds HAVE been putting pressure on over the states. The IRS has been going after the landlords of dispensaries. They seem to find a way.

    • librtee_dot_com says:

      You’d think that would be the case, but the recent crackdown on medical marijuana has very much been organized on a federal level. maybe they find some local goons to do the dirty work, but it’s the feds all the way.

  36. coffee100 says:

    Has anyone else noticed that Mitt Romney’s head is a vertical rectangle?  

    Ever notice most “business” people have the same shape head?  You know, business people?  The ones that cut funding and fire people and destroy companies and refuse to approve new ideas.   The ones that set out to fire 10 million people to put a stop to the “nerd success” of the early 21st century? We’ve all encountered them.  Most of us have fled corporate America to avoid them.

    But their heads are always taller than they are wide.   They’re all rectangle-heads.  I wonder why that is?

  37. HahTse says:

    Why is everyone paying so much attention to this idiot?

  38. loroferoz says:

    Straight out of A Drug War Carol comic. Scrooge McCzar (before his epiphany) would approve…

  39. coastwalker says:

    Pity all acceptable US politicians actually turn out to be indistinguishable from the Taliban.

  40. donovan acree says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen. It is time to put aside partisanship and vote for the person who you think will make the best leader. Forget about your party and who is and isn’t electable. Vote your true heart and sleep knowing your did what you could.

  41. BombBlastLightingWaltz says:

    From a neutral view, the handicapable man over shot his time limit on the ‘meet and greet’ whit his Anne Frank story. It was not a debate and asking silly hypothetical questions about arrest is antagonizing.

    • bob ross says:

      Anne Frank story? wtf?

      I don’t think its out of line to ask a politician his stance on political issues, regardless of the venue. Romney could have at least had the decency to finish the conversation. 

      I know if I was talking to someone and I asked them a question and their response was to turn around and walk away, I’d think they were any asshole no matter what their political affiliation was.

    • revery says:

      It’s a valid and credible concern. Why not ask it?? Attacked? i think not. Arrest is a concern to anyone with common sense. To this  young man  it means living a day in a life without the constant thought of debilitating pain. But then what does that cold a** Romney know of pain?  He looks like a spoiled brat to me.  Romney said he had his mind MADE UP. The END !  Nope, he will not get my vote !!

  42. orwell says:

    so….  mitt is against marijuana use, regardless of circumstance, but sounds ok with synthetic marijuana use?  either the justification must be a support for big business (god forbid citizens be allowed to grow their own medication) or his religious background is creeping into things?

  43. Shawnman Spiritbear says:

    I wish I could get close enough to kick him in the balls and then tell him I’m against ice.

  44. 777denny says:

    Romney is a RINO that when asked about industrial hemp, didn’t know what it was. This is a person who seems very callous when it comes to people and their pain who use cannabis to control it. Those who continue with the EVIL, racist, counterproductive, greed-driven War on Drugs will be guilty of the innocent blood that is daily being shed to enforce it, even though the U.S. Constitution doesn’t instruct to ban products, making criminals out of ordinarily law-abiding citizens. We were given the absolute RIGHT to control our own bodies, and this includes digesting or smoking whatever we wish that does not violate the Creator-given rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly of others. Cannabis has been legal about 99% of the time it has been known to mankind. A thriving hemp industry could create MILLIONS of jobs in a very short period of time, while saving our trees. Hemp is NOT a drug, but widely used in the U.S. and around the world. Newt at least said he would not arrest those who use drugs recreationally. Go Newt!

  45. revery says:

    Lets just say Romney is no Roosevelt, nor has EVER walked in his shoes.

  46. revery says:

    Testy Romney…. too good for
    the average Joe. But this young man wasn’t
    the average Joe.. he was a suffering Joe.
    There is just too much to say about the actions shown in this video. Truly, deplorable.

  47. arp says:

    Why is it so important to you what people call themselves? I have MS, I don’t care for the term disabled or differently abled… however differently abled is more precise in many cases. “Disabled” implies you are incapable of doing something. I’m technically disabled and differently abled, somethings I can not do, somethings  I can do but in a different or modified way from a “normal” person. It seems to me people who have this odd uptight issue about having to label people different from them in the way they feel is fit are in general the ones who have the most prejudice, ignorance, or distaste for the people in question. It’s always funny to me how many healthy normal people seem to forget that at any second they can have that taken away, and most likely at some point they are going to be seriously ill as well. Most people don’t just drop dead suddenly and peacefully in their sleep at 85.  If someone wants to be called disabled, differently abled, handy capable, crippled, a gimp, diseased, alternatively able, or whatever, what harm or businesses is it of anyone else? These people including myself have more than enough to cope with, without random people insisting on telling us what we should be called.

  48. PTBartman says:

    That wasn’t the point.

    My name is Bartolo.  If I’m at a party and I’ve been introduced as Bart and a little later Somebody comes up to me and says “Hey Bartholomew, Lemme get a haull off that fat daddy,”  I don’t yell and scream and call them insensitive louts who anglicize everything cause of their inherrant, deepseeded, cultral hatred of all american’s of Itallian Descent.

    I take a hit, pass it and kindly say, “Duude It’s Bartolo a derrivative of Bartolomeo (but somewhere along the line my family decided to hold the mayo). Then if they’re interested (and haven’t passed my joint back, yet) I tell them the history of the name and how it became Bartholomew.

    It just seems a more logical way of handling language issues. But what do I know, I’m brain damaged.  When I was 6 I was hit by a garbage truck and had seven skull fractures.  While there are probabbly more sensitive ways to describe my condition (Traumatic Brain Injury with Frontal lobe epilepsy) Brain Damaged is succinct and easy to remember.  It’s also a great pick up  line for one night stands.  “Don’t worry bout me respecting you in the morning, I’m brain damaged, I probabbly won’t even remember you”)And most importantly it’s not cutesy like Handi-capable or Differently abled et al. (sorry I’m cutseyphobic).

    Truthfully I care less about words and a hell of a lot more about context and actions.  Does it really matter if you call me Retard or Special if your intent is to Mock or humiliate me?  

  49. wysinwyg says:

    Ah, for the good old days when men were men, women were women, and people of color were chattel…

    (I’m being sarcastic but I have the sneaking suspicion that TokenCapitalist is not.)

  50. Nail on the head, CONTEXT.  Words become offensive through there use.  It’s only a matter of time before ‘differently abled’ becomes offensive, through use – I already consider it inappropriate, it still feels forced, bringing more attention than the alternative.  And don’t get me started on the term ‘Little people’; it’s not up to me what to call someone with dwarfism, but I feel offensive saying it, it’s degrading and less explicit.

    There must be a different solution than creating new terms every 10 years and vilifying anyone that uses an outdated term with no intended malice.

  51. arp says:

    It is overly difficult to always know the correct and polite current term for everything. There should be some other way than constantly updating the terminology. I’m not offended when someone with no intended malice says something outdated or not what I want. I’m just offended by the original poster insisting everyone has to be what he thought was correct.

Leave a Reply