Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana

[Nicholas_J]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 1, 2003



Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- In a statement posted on his campaign Web site today, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean retreated from a previous promise to ask the Food and Drug Administration to report on the evidence regarding marijuana's medical safety and efficacy within 60 days after he takes office.

Dean, after conceding on June 13 that medical marijuana has "appropriate uses," including treatment of symptoms related to cancer and AIDS, went even further during a June 14 appearance at the Wisconsin state Democratic convention. Questioned by local activist Ben Masel, Dean said that "on the day I take office" he would "direct the FDA to take a fresh look at the existing studies, and issue a report in 60 days."

But in a statement posted today on the "Official Blog" section of deanforamerica.com, Dean made no mention of such a 60-day review. Instead, he wrote, "I do not think marijuana should have a process different than any other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value." As governor, Dean opposed and eventually killed legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients from arrest under state law.

"We're more puzzled than ever by Dean's position," said Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana Campaign Coordinator Aaron Houston. "If he means what he wrote, the 60-day review he promised in Wisconsin is out the window, since it would be a major departure from standard FDA procedures. The full FDA approval process, from submission of the initial paperwork through the required studies to final approval, takes at least several years.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr070103gsmm.html


Dean Acknowledges "Appropriate Uses" of Medical Marijuana But Refuses To Protect Patients From Arrest
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Questioned at a campaign event last night by Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean conceded yesterday that medical marijuana has "appropriate uses." But the former Vermont governor refused to address the fact that seriously ill medical marijuana patients still face arrest and imprisonment.

Responding to a question from GSMM Campaign Coordinator Aaron Houston at a campaign reception in Manchester, Dean said he believes there are "appropriate uses for medical marijuana ... like for the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients."

But when asked if that means such patients should face arrest and jail -- as they do in Vermont, where then-Governor Dean killed a medical marijuana bill that was on the verge of passage in 2002 -- Dean ducked the issue. Dean, who has said that he opposes protection for medical marijuana patients until marijuana is licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, insisted that the FDA drug approval process "doesn't take years" to complete.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/gsmm_nr061303.html


Kerry has recently given approval to medical marijuana

Sen. Kerry Tells Seriously Ill Patient, "I'm in favor of" Medical Marijuana
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- After the opening of his New Hampshire campaign headquarters last night, U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told medical marijuana advocate Linda Macia, who suffers from nerve damage, fibromyalgia, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and degenerative arthritis, that he favors legal access to medical marijuana for seriously ill patients and a study to determine appropriate federal policy.

"I told him, `Senator, I'm very ill and I've tried taking narcotics and other medications. My body can't tolerate them, or I am allergic.'" Macia said. "`There's nothing they can do for me, there's nothing I can take. I've exhausted all my options. Would you support legislation to allow seriously ill people to have medical marijuana?'

"I was expecting the usual song-and-dance you get from politicians," Macia continued. "But he came right out and said, `I'm in favor of it.' Then he added that he wanted `a full analysis of it -- and some kind of commission dealing with the question of what do we do with it.'

"That's fine, as long as patients don't have to face arrest and jail while they're doing the study, like they do now," Macia continued. "When Aaron Houston followed up, just to make sure, the senator repeated, `I've been in favor of its prescription, its prescription for people. We even passed a bill in Massachusetts to allow that to happen.' I'm glad to know there are at least two presidential candidates who don't want to jail seriously ill patients for simply taking their medicine."

Kerry did not specifically address the U.S. Justice Department's raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers. Thus far U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is the only Democratic candidate to explicitly condemn such attacks on seriously ill medical marijuana patients. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who worked to kill a medical marijuana bill in Vermont last year, has said he favors an FDA study but has refused to protect patients from arrest. In May, U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) told the San Francisco Chronicle he has no objection to the Justice Department's arresting patients. U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) have previously supported legislation condemning state medical marijuana laws. The rest of the Democratic field has yet to take a position.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr070303gsmm.html

I figured I would get the Kerry/Dean arguments going again

[lcordero]

1. I feel a little bit better knowing that they aren't opposed to taking---

Progressive steps.
Hell, I think that if they were all for overall marijuana legalization they might cleave off a part of the freeper base completely.

[ParanoidPat]

2. Re: I figured I would get the Kerry/Dean arguments goin...

.....Yep, This should do it! :evilgrin:

If you don't mind I think I'll just stand back out of the way and watch! :)

[Nicholas_J]

7. No problemo

Hasta la vista, baby!

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Good find.

I appreciate Kerry's candor on this issue.

I wonder...could (or should) Dean's response go something like:
"Are you asking me to break the law? We have laws on the books, and until they're repealed, we have to work within the system. I said I wanted an FDA report, and I meant it." (just some confusion as to when) :-)

He could be sidestepping this issue just to get elected, or perhaps it's so unimportant to him that he hasn't thought of a snappy answer. Neither of those sound like him, though, so I wonder what the story is. Past use? Maybe nothing big, but any use can be a problem (c.f. Clinton, 1992).

I still favor Dean, because he has a chance of winning, like Kerry, but also because I'm salivating at the thought of the fireworks we'll see at the debates.

Kerry's no slouch, I know. It's just that Dean will chew him a new one from here to Sunday, on every single question. I don't just want us to win back the White House, I want us to win the hearts & minds. Dean is just the perfect response to Shrub, to right his wrongs immediately.

Of course Kerry's a good candidate, too. How about a Kerry-Dean ticket or Dean-Kerry? Now THAT would be something to see!!!

[He loved Big Brother]

4. Well

I for one think he needs to change his stance and quickly.

[plurality]

5. no waffling from Kucinich on this

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_drugwar.htm

A safe, free and just America is undermined, not bolstered, by the costly and ineffective War on Drugs. While well-intentioned, this misguided policy -- which emphasizes criminalization over treatment -- has led to increased violent crime, misdirected resources of law enforcement and restricted Constitutional liberties.

Despite billions spent yearly on the drug war, addiction is up. Our country must rethink a policy that produces many casualties, but benefits only the prison-industrial complex. Non-violent drug offenders often receive Draconian sentences, tearing apart families.

snip

Most Americans believe that medical marijuana should be available to help relieve the suffering of seriously ill patients, and eight states have passed laws to allow it. But the Bush administration has harassed medical marijuana patients in an effort to assert federal authority. This is another aspect of the drug war that should be ended.

[He loved Big Brother]

31. I'd rather have waffling on this issue than abortion.

n/t

[plurality]

54. abortion is a bs distraction issue

Roe v. Wade will never go away, even Republicans admit as much (see Mary Matlin on MTP 6/29/03) It's just an excuse to get all the fundies riled up to send their money to Republicans and to keep all the fems riled up and sending their money to Democrats. I could give a shit about it as a political issue. It should have been dead and buried as an issue 30 years ago.

[killbotfactory]

62. Totally disagree

The abortion issue goes much further than Roe v. Wade.

[plurality]

74. i know there's more to it than that

But I'm tired of it being treated like it's some vitally important issue because it's not. If there was a chance it could be outlawed then yes it would deserve a spotlight. But as it is, it's over how cheap they are and how easy they are to get, which, I'm sorry to say is not a life or death issue. Life or death issues, are things like war, putting people in prison and ruining their lives for enjoying an herb is a life or death issue, making sure people aren't fired because their job was shipped to India is a life or death issue, and protecting the freedoms our country was founded on is a life or death issue. And I'm tired of people ignoring these issues all so we can make it legal for a 14 year old to get a government paid for abortion without her parents knowing about it.

[genius]

76. Dean's much weaker on abortion than Kucinich

Kucinich will use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test. Dean refuses to do likewise.

[killbotfactory]

32. Kucinich signed a resolution condemning medical marijuana

He was a "recent convert" to the good side.

[plurality]

53. care to show me his previous position

or should I take anonymous innuendo as gospel?

[killbotfactory]

55. Here you go

The former Cleveland mayor, who is campaigning as an antiwar, working-class liberal – he advocates a Cabinet Department of Peace and a government-run universal health care system – is a recent convert to drug-law reform; in 1998, he voted for a House resolution condemning medical-marijuana initiatives. "Dennis didn't come out of the closet until recently," says John Hartman.

link

[plurality]

56. good to know

I'll keep this in mind for future references. I'll take 'recent convert' over 'not gonna happen'.

[genius]

77. Kucinich is solidly for medical marijuana. Dean likes the drug war

Dean's position seems rather heartless for a doctor.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. It sounds as if contributors in the pharmaceutical industry have

reined Dean in on medical use of marijuana.

Read a good article at CounterPunch on this issue. Here's a quote:

"Now, in my twenty years of adult life I've been prescribed tranquilizers, sedatives, amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics and of course steroids by honest, legitimate doctors, the same doctors who encouraged me to smoke pot, but could not prescribe it, because it's illegal. A plant. That grows in the ground. Or in one of those incubator things people keep in their closets or backyards. Sure, I can easily go out and buy a bottle of bourbon which will damage me physically, and combined with the steroids turn me into a truculent, possibly dangerous person. But I can't take a hit of pot to help me sleep."

(He's on prednisone, a steroid which seriously screws up your sleep. Pot helps him sleep.)

http://www.counterpunch.org/engel07042003.html

[Nicholas_J]

11. My owm doctors

advised the same thing over ten years ago, but I dont like pot, so I didnt follow the advise.

[wakfs]

8. This concerns me

Not only because Dean has now "officially" waffled on this issue but because it happens to be one of the issues that is important to me.

Almost makes me reconsider my support for Dean.

[MercutioATC]

58. I think it's a positive

Having a candidate (or President) that is willing to consider opposing views and change his stance if the evidence supports it seems to me to be a strength rather than a weakness. Can you honestly say that you'd want a President thet WOULDN'T change his position if he was presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

(I also don't view Kucinich's shift on the abortion issue to be a negative.)

[Nicholas_J]

87. Dean has backtracked....

All you can do is provide comments that Dean is now making, BUT no evidence regarding his past ACTIONS.

Actions speak louder than words. You cannot prove that Dean will honor his words. His past actions are proof that he will NOT.

But you know what he has done. He fought and opposed such legislations from the day it was placed on the table, until the day he left office. Three years. IN spite of OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND FROM THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IN VERMONT.

Give some evidence that Dean WILL not just talk the talk, but walk the walk.

[MercutioATC]

92. I'll only ask this question once...

Board rules state that once a nominee is chosen, there will be no attacks on him tolerated. If it's Dean, will you go away?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

93. LOL

Mercutio!

:loveya:

[CDY]

9. Mr. Flip-flop

There he goes again. Dean is too much of a flip-flop for me. This is not the only issue that he has changed his tune on. Why do you think he does that? Maybe he has smoked one too many doobies and can't remember what he said a week ago! Who knows. Either way, I appreciate all of your articles on Dean.

Go Edwards!!!!!

[Nicholas_J]

10. You are welcome

Dean is relying on the fact, that most Americans have not heard all of the different stances he has taken, and for the most part, his campaign as been based on attack, rather than letting people know EXACTLY WHAT his platform is.

His promise to provide health care similar to what they did in Vemront is the only one he is likely to keep, as he didnt do anyting for the health care system in Vermont.

[Larkspur]

18. Kerry flip flops on his war stance frequently

which is a lot more costly to this country and our citizens than Dean's stance on legalizing a Marijuana.

[Nicholas_J]

21. Kerry has given

The SAME point of view on the Iraq act in October without ONE change in his statements. you are simply listening to Dean calling Kerry's stance "waffling". When Dean was asked what he meant or to give and example of Kerry's waffling, he shuffled around and didnt answer.

He has said that he insisted on going through the U.N. first. And that Bush's actions, which he did not support, screwed up the U.S. diplomatically. He has not once altered that stance.

Dean however:

What's up with Howard Dean?
Let me start by saying that I would not be criticizing Dean if he had not publicly criticized John Edwards and other Democratic candidates by name. However, given that he's started it, I think we need to drive Dean out of the primaries by showing him that the game goes both way. If you can give it, you can take it.

It seems I'm not the only one who's starting to wonder what Howard Dean is thinking. First he starts right off negative campaigning against the other Democratic candidates, something the rest have tried hard to avoid. Then he keeps shifting his own positions on issues depending on who he's talking to, and at the same time publicly accuses other candidates of doing the same thing, when they are not. He later apologizes for these accusations, admitting he did not actually hear what they said, and was merely speculating what he thought they might say. Then he keeps right on accusing them of the same thing.

From the very beginning, Dean has tried to establish himself as the candidate who represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." First of all, this buzz phrase can have a dual meaning. Is he saying that all the others are actually "Bush lite" Republicans in disguise? Is he saying that he is just more liberal than the rest of the field? I think the phrase is designed to mean different things to different audiences and appeal to both the elite liberal wing and the progressive base at once. Pretending to mean two things at once seems to be a recurring theme in the Dean campaign.

Don't take it from me. Here's what some political journalists have been saying.

From Glen Johnson at the Boston Globe:



In animated conversation on the floor of the US Senate on Wednesday, Kerry placed a hand on Edwards's shoulder and nodded in agreement as the North Carolinian spoke to him with visible passion. Then, pointing at the podium where the Senate's presiding officer sits, Edwards said to Kerry in a voice loud enough for a reporter in the overhead press gallery to hear, ''He got up there and lied.''

Edwards was referring to the speech Dean delivered to California Democrats last weekend, in which he stood at the podium at the party's annual convention in Sacramento and lambasted Edwards and Kerry by name for supporting the war. Dean, who has won a following with his antiwar pronouncements, sought to distinguish himself further by telling the delegates that both of his rivals had refused to stand by their position during their speeches to the crowd. The remark triggered cheers for Dean - even though he would later acknowledge it was wasn't true.

Edwards had been booed an hour earlier for reiterating his support for the war. Kerry, of Massachusetts, also faced catcalls the night before when he made an oblique reference to his position.

Now Dean is facing questions about his rhetoric surrounding the war.

Early last week, after Dean had been in South Carolina, Lee Bandy, a longtime political reporter for The State newspaper of Columbia, wrote that Dean ''will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.'' Bandy quoted Dean as saying, ''It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field.''

The same day, USA Today reported, ''One of the most outspoken Democratic presidential candidates, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, calls it `the wrong war at the wrong time' and says he will continue criticizing Bush's policies.''

On Friday, Dean sought a correction from the Los Angeles Times after it published an interview that quoted Dean as saying he was ''uncomfortable'' offering his usual criticism of the war because it might be misinterpreted abroad now that the fighting has begun. The Times stood by its story.



From Thomas Beaumont of the Des Moines Register:



"Senator Edwards has been clear and consistent about his position on Iraq everywhere he goes," Edwards' Iowa campaign spokeswoman, Kim Rubey, said. "He does think that Governor Dean has mischaracterized his position."

During a speech to the California Democratic convention the weekend before the war started, Dean accused Edwards and Kerry by name of supporting the war but declining to stand by their positions.

However, Edwards, in his speech to the convention, stated his support for the war and was angered by Dean's comments, according to news reports.

Dean admitted the mistake over Edwards' remarks in California and said Monday he had apologized to Edwards. But Dean came back to say Edwards was ambivalent about his position in another speech he had given the night before the convention in Sacramento.

"The night before, he gave a speech that basically was ambivalent, in which I thought he was trying to mitigate his position," Dean said.

"It seems to me that his position has changed. But I think he stood up for his position at the convention, and he deserves credit for it."



Dean's reference to ambivalence the night before is directly contradicted by a first hand account from Lawrence Lessig, an Edwards supporter and chair of the Creative Commons project, who attended one of those events:



Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the “correct” answer is “no”. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go.


I would not normally cite the National Review, as they are definitely not known for fair and balanced reporting, but Jim Geraghty has the most complete list of Dean's recent statements on Iraq, and why some describe him as incoherent:



On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

One Democrat, who is already supporting another candidate, is baffled that Dean is attempting to earn a reputation for principled views, labeling the former governor as "incoherent."

"Here's a guy posing as a McCainiac, but talking out of both sides of his mouth," the Democrat said.



Enough said.

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html


n an interview, Dean said he opposes the congressional resolution and remains unconvinced Hussein is an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations approves the move and backs it with action. "They have to send troops," he said.

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, fired back, "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency."

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/22/Worldandnation/Dean_fires_up_Democra.shtml

"s I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html


Now show me Kerry's FLIP FLOPS on his stance about the war. Change in stance...

[CDY]

22. Ridiculous argument

To compare the war resolution to this issue is ridiculous. I am sick and tired of hearing about Dean opposing this war. It is real easy to sit back and say that you wouldn't have signed the war resolution when you didn't even have the power to do it. Dean has found a ticket to ride with this issue and fools are falling for it.

I have seen Dean change his stance on everything from how to balance the budget(including a statement about cutting Medicare) to prescription drugs. I think he is wishy-washy, and I don't like it.

Frankly, the issue at hand will not change my vote. I have made my decision about Dean because of plenty of other misstatements.

As for all of you Dean lovers, can you give me a reason other than the war resolution as to why you're supporting this guy? It the only thing that he points fingers about, and the only thing that you people can use as a comeback. The people in the Senate voted the way their constituents wanted them to. I didn't support the war, and I voiced my opinion to my Senators about it(including Edwards); but, the majority of the people in this state wanted that stupid war. That's the way it goes. Instead of pointing your hypocritical fingers at everyone who voted for the resolution, why don't you point it at who was responsible for it in the first place. The Bush administration lied to everyone about what this war was about. Why don't you concentrate on that instead of following this flip-floppin', finger-pointing hypocrit all the way to another loss in 2004. They will eat him alive with all of his misstatements if he gets this nomination.

[Nicholas_J]

24. Now

Dean is desparate to get attention OFF of the Iraq Issue, as indicated in his recent speeches about all of the attention drawn to it.

He does not mention that he was the culprit drawing ALL of the attention to it to begin with.

[Nicholas_J]

63. As I say

There is so little that is commendable in Deans's own record, that he cannot run on it, but must attack others, to give those whose support he is trying to get the impression, that he has some other, better, plan, or that his record reflects some other, better, way of doing things.

Oldest trick in the book, when you are a mediocrity yourself, all you can do is point at others and bitch about what you perceive as their performance. It is the genre of the politician who simply stinks.

Every one has had an experieice with the co-worker who is always sitting on their ass doing nothing, or screwing up, but is continuially finger pointing at other employees, to divert attention from themselves...

This is Howard Dean.

[Egnever]

12. more dean bashing from Nic j

Not that it suprise me.

Yes dean is against medical marijuana. Hes said over and over that he would put it to a FDA studdy and abide by the outcome. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!

It is one of his stances I dont agree with.

But certainly not a make or break issue. I live in nevada we just tried to pass an amendment to make medical marijuana legal here on the last ballot. It failed misserably. And continues to fail arround the nation in many states.

The president cant get in office and just make marijuana leagal. But he can make the FDA consider it. If you put your support based on this one issue you are a dreamer. If in fact the fda is forced to look at it honestly it goes a long way to making it leagle no one can deny an FDA report.

You are cute with your flip flop crap but its just untrue.

[wakfs]

14. True...

...The president can't just declare marijuana legal.

But the president CAN remove marijuana from the list of the five most dangerous drugs by executive order. This was signed in the 80s by Reagan (sorry, I forgot the order no.)and is the basis for what drugs you are tested for when you apply for a job. The president CAN pardon all federal prisoners serving time for marijuana possession-related crimes. The president CAN order the Justice Department to NOT pursue and prosecute marijuana users. There is actually a lot the president can do on this issue.

And for a medical doctor to deny what most rational people know in their hearts to be true, that marijuana has beneficial medicinal uses, makes me awfully suspicious. If Dean is not on board on this issue, it makes me very suspicious of him.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Sorry,

this info comes straight off of a Dean Blog, and the article is a response from a group that Dean spoke to a few weeks ago about handling it a totally diferent way. Dean opposed medical marijuana legislation in Vermont for THREE YEARS.

Just another indication of Deans continual changing his story.

What Dean has done is reverse his statement on FASTRACKING the process to make medical marijuana legal, which is a 30-60 day process, and now wants to go through the full process, which takes 3 to 5 years.

Dean said one thing when speaking to a group that supports legaliation of medical marijuana, and then changed his position when speaking to somone else.

He did the same with Methadone treatment.

His reasoning was totally unsound and opposed by EVERY expert in the field.

I keep forgetting. That posting ANY information that revrals what Dean is actually doing, is considered bashing.

Again from New Hampshire NORML:

In a statement posted on his campaign Web site yesterday, presidential
candidate Howard Dean retreated from a previous promise to ask the
Food and Drug Administration to report on the evidence regarding
marijuana's medical safety and efficacy within 60 days of his taking
office.

You may remember when Howard Dean was confronted by Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana on June 13 in Manchester. Dr. Dean, who blocked legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients when he was governor of Vermont, conceded that there are "appropriate uses for medical marijuana ... like for the treatment of HIV/AIDS
patients." Although this was a positive statement, Dean reiterated
that he would defer to the FDA drug-approval process. When further
pressed if that meant that he was in favor of locking up patients in
the intervening years while the FDA drug-approval process runs its
course, Dean unbelievably claimed that the process "doesn't take
years."

The next day, at the state Democratic convention in Wisconsin, local
activist Ben Masel questioned Dean about medical marijuana. Dean
shifted again and announced that "on the day I take office" he would
alter the normal FDA drug-approval process by directing "the FDA to
take a fresh look at the existing studies, and issue a report within
60 days."

http://www.nhorml.org/

Flip-flop, Flip-Flop...Dean should start doing ads for the International House of Pancakes, he turns over so fast.

I have provided a number of SOURCES indicating Deans numerous changes. As usual, Dean supporter respond with their opinion, but do nothing to provide ACTUAL citation that indicate a consistant stance.

If Dean has been consistant, PROOVE it.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhr]

13. One More Reason

That I am uncomfortable with Dean.

He is avowedly a Middle-of-the-Roader.

I fear he will become just another DLCer if he gets the nomination.

[Nicholas_J]

16. Hell

I would prefer a DLC'er like Lieberman, to Dean, who's total record as governor is a laundry list of opposition to progressive and liberal democratic legislation.

[Larkspur]

17. If I could ship Lieberman to you, I would

You can have no charisam, whiny voice anti-populist Lieberman any day of the week.

[Nicholas_J]

20. If I want flip flops

I can go to IHOP any day. Dean has about as much charisma as mashed potatoes. All he can do is attck other candidates, to divert people from looking at his own record of mediocrity as governor.

this is one of my FAVORITE articles about Dean:

Meet Howard Dean

The Man from Vermont is Not Green (He's Not Even a Liberal)

by MICHAEL COLBY

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.

As the son of a wealthy Long Island family (his father was a prominent Wall Street insider), Dean's used to having his golden path well greased. After dutifully attending Yale and then medical school, Dean looked for a state to launch both a private medical practice and a political career. He chose Vermont as much for its beauty as its lenient mood toward carpet bagging politicians, thus joining Brooklynite Bernie Sanders as a born again Vermonter.

Dean became Vermont's accidental governor in 1991 after Governor Richard Snelling died of a heart attack while swimming in his pool. Dean, the lieutenant governor at the time, took the state's political reins and immediately followed through with his promise not to offend the Snelling Republicans who occupied the executive branch. And Dean carried on with his right- leaning centrism for the next eleven, long years.

With his sights now set on the White House, the Dean team has been doing its best over the last year to polish up a mediocre gubernatorial record. They're also trying to position Dean as "the liberal" in the Democratic field so as to grab the much-coveted early primary voters.

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html


Speaking of wealth: Vermont’s Governor Howard Dean, the little rich kid who’s now running a ridiculous campaign for president, just released his personal finances. This doltish public servant is worth a cool $4 million – and that’s before his opulently wealthy mommy in The Hamptons either kicks the bucket or hands him an early inheritance. Dean, ever the spinner, trotted out this silly line when trying to belittle his millions: “I’m no Bill Gates.” True, but he’s still rich bastard.

http://www.wildmatters.org/getfile.php?arch_name=http://www.wildmatters.org/curio/2002-07-19.txt


Ironically, Dean’s boxed himself in and is now managing to alienate both the pro-war and anti-war Democrats. The issue he chose to distinguish himself could be the issue that will be used against him as he hedges his bets and starts to look like the political opportunist he is.

The national media loves to eat up a tasty waffler. And it’s even better with some Vermont syrup on top.

http://www.wildmatters.org/getfile.php?arch_name=http://www.wildmatters.org/curio/2003-02-11.txt

Sure...

Joe is a lot more liberal than Howard.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

19. If medical marijuana is your #1 issue...

...then have it. I don't see this as a make-or-break issue on a national level. As far as what they would do as President, sounds like Dean and Kerry both want a study to determine the appropriate federal policy.

Sounds like Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt also are against it.

If this is your #1 issue, vote for Kucinich.

[Nicholas_J]

23. Not my issue

Just showing Dean has changed EVERY position he held as governor, in which he opposed and threateend to VETO virtually every piece of progressive legislation placed in front of him, now going around HE is the person who is going to being progressiveness back to the DLC.

Even Lieberman has a better record in this regard.

Dean had his nose up the butt of every republican in the Vermont legislature.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

25. Whatever...

you don't like Dean, we know that.

<Can't believe I got sucked in...help...>

[dsc]

37. I want a site of the date and time

He threatened to veto Civil Unions (or isn't that progressive). I want the date and time he threatened to veto Dr. Dynosaur. I want the date and time he threatened to veto the clean elections law. Put up here Nic.

[Nicholas_J]

43. He didnt threaten to Veto Civil Unions

But he didnt like the idea, and the Supremem COurt made the law mandatory, declaring that it was not constitutiona to NOT ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY:

The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867


http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/886/886_dean.asp


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/drdynasaur.html


http://www.populist.com/02.3.jezer.html


http://www.vpirg.org/news/press_releases/pr_20000929_ExcessiveContrib.html

Sure it passed, and Dean used the dirty little loop hole to opt out.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[dsc]

47. I am having system problems

so I can't cut and paste your post. So if I screw up anything of what you said I am sorry.

Several things. In your original post you claimed he had vetoed every single piece of progressive legislation to come down the pike. Now even you have to admit he didn't.

Second as to your advocate interview. To left out quite a bit. I have the hard copy of it and you didn't print anywhere near all of it. You selectively cut.

Three I lived in two states since Clinton's child health insurance passed. One is MS and the other OH and I can tell you that nothing approacahing 96% of the children in those states are insured and nothing like 50k is the cut off for it. In Ohio it is 1.5 times the poverty level which is around 37k and in MS it was the poverty level which is 25k give or take. All figures for family of four. Last I checked those were states. Last I checked they were covered by federal laws. Last I checked that would make them just like VT in that regard. So kindly explain just how Clinton caused 50k to be the cut off in VT but only 25k in MS. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, Dean had something to do with that?

Without cut and paste I can't really go on.

[Nicholas_J]

49. Nope

Under Kid Care, it went up to 225 percent of the poverty level, allowing Dean to do this. Also, Denatook advantage of a subsection 1115 waver in 1996, allowing the states to use money that was not spent in other areas, to be diverted to medicaid programs, allowing even higher levels of coverage, but if you want to see the catastrophe Deans poor planning left in Vermont:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

A. On January 24, 2001, Governor Howard Dean issued an executive order establishing a Special Governor's Bipartisan Commission on Health Care Availability and Affordability...

II. Introduction

A. Our commission is made up of people who have spent years listening to testimony and otherwise studying the problems of health care availability and affordability. We have differences, some of them passionate differences, in our political philosophies, and it should come as no surprise that we differ on some of the directions reform should take. Although we have taken a substantial amount of new testimony during the past nine months, our real task has been to try to find common recommendations, despite our philosophical differences.2

B. Based on what we have learned, we do agree on this: Health care in Vermont is near a state of crisis -- some of us would say it is already in crisis -- and all health care sectors are on edge. We also note that many of these problems are national or even global in scope and that our abilities to solve them at the state level are limited.

C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds).3

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect.

D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:

1. No one is in control.

2. No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

3. No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full.5

4. There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

5. There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

6. There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

7. Although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The cut off in Vermont is NOT the cut off you think. This 50 thousand is ONLY for a familay with 4 children.

Secondly. Since more than 90 percent of Vermonts Children were covered before Dean came into office, which was increased under Kid Care, Dean did not create a program in which EVERY child was covered under Dr Dynasaur.

Dean again, had almost nothing to do with these increases, except for a trade off that occured under the ss1115 waiver, in which the feds picker larger portion of the coverage for children under 185 percent of poverty, if the state picked up those over that percentage, up to 50 thousand. The state of Vermont NEVER exceeded its mandated coverage under medicaid.

Vermont, being a very small state, with very high taxation, utilized the waiver, that larger sttes with lower tax revenues cannot.
Dean had little to do with this. ANd did it so poorly that the system was in ruin by 2002.

ALso, he was found by the federal courts to be usiing the system illegally to provide pharmaceuticals to those on medicare.

[dsc]

57. That is bunk

First I live in Ohio and I know what our cutoff is on this. I spent several months going round and round with my state's agencies trying to get coverage for my mother and for a family with kids. It isn't 225% of the poverty level. Just like when you tried to tell me Voinovich was a liberal you are dead wrong. What Clinton passed was a law which permitted states to do this with Federal help. Dean is one of the damn few whose states did.

The other problems you site, to the extent that they exist, exist in every state. It should be noted that my state, which did nothing on health care, nothing on education and nothing on practicly anything else is raising taxes (BTW if you want to see real regressive taxes try here) and Vermont isn't. Our budget was a gigantic mess and Vermont's wasn't.

Again system problems make it impossible to cut and paste your words.

[Nicholas_J]

61. You have little knowledge

Of how medicaid works.

If a state is willing to put up 40 dollars, the feds give 60

If they put up 40 million, the states give 60 million.

It is up to the state to fund up to the level that they are willing to, and then the feds contribute the rest.

The fact that OHIO, only put up X dollars, does not indicate what they COULD have done under medicaid, but what they were willing to.

A subsection 1115 waivers, allows a state to use FEDERAL funds that it has not spent in other areas, to use it to provide medicaid services to people ABOVE a the Federal Poverty levels up to a certain percentage. IF the STATE will take on the task of providing medicaid services for children iin families between 185 percent and 300 percent of those above poverty level, the FEDS then pick up a higher percentage of those BELOW 185 percent.

96 percent coverage is only a good record if you know that before Dena it was much leower. It was not. Over 90 percent of all individuals were covered in Vermont. This largely was responsible for more than 90 percent of the subset of this group, children, being covered in Vermont before Dean even acted. Medicaid and Dr Dynasaur, and VHAP existen in Vermont several years before Dean was even in office. Adult Coverage incresed from 90.4 to a maximum of 92 recent while Dean was in office, before finally dropping to 91.3 in 2000.

The additions to Dr Dynasaur were provided by funding through medicaid that this federal grant and waiver provided, not by anything Dean legislated in Vermont, allowed through additional state funding of ANY new or innovative state programs. None other small states did as well, or even more than Dean did usiing these waivers and grants, as they were willing to proportionally increase the states expenditures. Hawaii was one of these. THey managed to pass universal health insurance legislation while Dean was threatening to veto the Vermont legislatures version(which did not give big windfalls to large Health Care Provider businesses, which was Deans desired bill)

DEAN didnt do ANYTHING except have the state apply for the waiver.

It was applied for through the HRSA:

This section discusses Dr. Dynasaur:

Buy in to VHAP: Individuals without access to employer
coverage living below 300 percent FPL could be permitted to
purchase coverage under the VHAP program by paying a
premium. Small employers could also be given the option of
purchasing coverage for their employees and dependants
through VHAP. While the premium would be equal to the
full cost of coverage, this would still likely be lower than
purchasing comparable coverage in the private sector.
Incrementally expand VHAP up to 300 percent FPL: This
would affect primarily adults between the current VHAP
eligibility level and 300 percent FPL. Vermont has the option

under section 1931(b) of the federal Medicaid law to increase
the income level for parents under Medicaid to match the
maximum income level at which children are eligible for Dr.
Dynasaur (300 percent FPL);

This is a large section of the rest of the grant proposal:


HRSA State Planning Grantee: Vermont

Project Goals
Vermont’s stated goals for this SPG were to:

1. design and conduct in-depth quantitative and qualitative
research of Vermont’s population at both statewide and local
levels to better understand demographics and characteristics of
the uninsured;

2. design and conduct in-depth qualitative research of
Vermont’s employer, health-insurer, and provider
communities to improve understanding of their perceptions
of public and private health coverage in the state and to gauge
reactions to likely responses to coverage strategies;

3. perform actuarial analyses to assist in pricing coverage options
and for evaluating financing issues;

4. facilitate collaboration across various state agencies and private
organizations participating in the development and/or
regulation of coverage options within Vermont.

Project

Components
Planned components of the project included:
Conduct a general population survey addressing the health insurance
coverage status of Vermont residents, with an oversample of
specific subpopulations;

Convene a series of focus groups and structured one-on-one
interviews with employers and associations to explore perceptions
of the current health care market and delivery system, in terms of
accessibility and affordability;

Convene a Work Group of public- and private-sector representatives to
help identify barriers to coverage from the insurer/health plan
perspective, and to help market-test and refine proposals;

Convene a Work Group of clinical representatives to provide quality,
access, and outcomes perspectives for proposed health coverage
and program design options;

Conduct an actuarial analysis of different strategies to increase
insurance coverage;

Page 5

90
Evaluate alternative coverage options and programs that might be
responsive to the needs of Vermont’s uninsured;
Market-test each coverage option and program design selected by the
Steering Committee through the use of consumer focus groups,
employer interviews, and sessions with insurer/provider/public
health Work Groups;

Prepare an implementation estimate that includes high-level analysis
of expected utilization charges within the delivery system;

estimates of administrative and service delivery costs, premiums,
funding sources; and the anticipated number of participants.

Grant Amount and

Time Frame
$1,288,892; 10/1/00–9/30/01, with an extension through

9/30/02.

Lead Agency
Vermont Agency of Human Services

http://www.dsw.state.vt.us/districts/ovha/ovha22.htm

Project Partners
Office of the Governor; Vermont State Legislature; Department
of Prevention, Assistance, Transition, and Health Access; Office
of Vermont Health Access; Department of Health; Department
of Banking, Insurance, Securities, and Health Care
Administration; Vermont Coalition of Clinics for the Uninsured;
Vermont Medical Society; Vermont Association of Hospitals and
Health Systems; Chamber of Commerce; Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Vermont; Vermont Commission on Health Care Values and
Priorities; Office of State Health Care Ombudsman; Bi-State

Primary Care Association; The Business Roundtable

Brief History of

State Health

Reform
In 1989, Vermont created the Dr. Dynasaur program, which
provided state-funded health assistance to children six years and
younger, as well as pregnant women who did not qualify for
Medicaid up to 200 percent FPL. By 1992, the program had
expanded to cover children up to age 17, up to 225 percent FPL,
and was integrated into the state Medicaid program. This was
later expanded under the CHIP program to cover children up to
300 percent FPL. In 1991, Vermont passed the Act 160
Legislative Initiatives, which required all insurers with small-
employer products (50 or fewer workers) to guarantee-issue
policies at community rates and committed the state to the goal
of universal health insurance coverage. The Vermont Health

Access Program (VHAP) was designed to operate under a

1115 Medicaid waiver. The waiver was granted in 1995 and

Page 6

91
recently extended to ensure that it would remain operational
until at least 2003. VHAP covers custodial parents and caretaker
relatives up to 185 percent FPL, noncustodial parents and other
adults up to 150 percent FPL, aged and disabled through 105
percent FPL, and pregnant women through 200 percent FPL.
The VHAP Pharmacy Program replaced the V-Script

program, initially started in 1989. The programs were initially
designed to provide pharmaceuticals to low-income elderly
citizens. It has been expanded to cover Medicare beneficiaries up
to 175 percent FPL and other individuals with incomes up to 300
percent FPL.

Existing Major

Access Programs
Dr. Dynasaur, VHAP, Medicaid

SPG FINDINGS

Insurance Data
About 51,390 (8.4 percent) of Vermont’s 608,829 citizens
lack health coverage.

The uninsured include people at all income levels; 21.6
percent of the uninsured had incomes below FPL; 29.6
percent had incomes 100–200 percent FPL; 22.3 percent had
incomes 200–300 percent FPL; and 26.3 percent had incomes
greater than 300 percent FPL.

More than three-quarters of the uninsured population were
employed; 66.5 percent of the uninsured were working full
time and 10.5 percent were working 30 hours or less per
week.

Most Vermonters believe that the government and employers
should be responsible for providing health insurance,
although they were wary of a government-only system, such
as a single-payer model.

Tax credits, subsidies, or other incentives to health insurance
elicited concern about “red tape,” complicated applications,
and inflexible eligibility standards. There was also little
support for a low-cost insurance option.


92
Employer Role
In firms with fewer than five employees, 26.6 percent of
workers are offered coverage compared with over 90 percent
of workers in firms with more than 50 employees.
Employers typically offer one plan, and employees typically
pay about 20 percent of the premium.
Employers view insurance as one of the most valuable
benefits they can offer. Reasons for offering insurance include
increasing employee compensation with a tax-free benefit,
keeping employees healthy and productive, and having access
to group health insurance for themselves.

Those who do not offer insurance cite cost—including
premium levels, unpredictability of costs in the future, and
the time required to research and administer plans—as the
primary reason for not doing so.

Employers view reducing costs as the key to expanding
insurance coverage and show interest in employer tax
incentives, more competition in the market, an affordable
plan that is free of state-mandated benefits, and pools to
negotiate lower rates.

State Policy

Recommendations A Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the various interest groups met regularly and participated in planning and advising on the different policy recommendations. Based on the evaluation of the different policy options, their specific

recommendations are the following:

Increase participation among Medicaid/VHAP/Dr.
Dynasaur–eligible people: The state could substantially reduce
the number of uninsured by increasing enrollment in existing
programs. Outreach programs for Dr. Dynasaur in schools
and through employers could be expanded, while the
premiums for children above 225 percent FPL could be
eliminated.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:_ZhH5F8rGPsJ:207.189.207.4/programs/insurance/sacks_20hrsagrants_vt_577.pdf+%22Vermont%22+%22Act+160%22+HRSA&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This is the beginning of the ENTIRE Grant proposal from the atate of Vermont for the ss1115 waiver...

All of the programs in Vermont were offered under changes that were instituted to medicaid under Bill CLinton, and the CHIP program, as well as KidCare, the childrens section of Clinton Care, written by Kerry, Presented first as the Kennedy/Kerry bill, and then when it went bi-partisan, turned into Kennedy/Hatch, with Kerry as promary sponsor(as happens with senate protocol between Senior and Junior Senators)

Dean didnt do 'nary a thing. except apply for programs as soon as they were made available.

[dsc]

75. I can't really respond effectively

due to my severe system problems at this time. But I do want to say one thing.

I fail to understand how you don't give Dean credit for this. And incidently I do believe my post said the very same thing without the document dump. According to your own post Vermont spent 40% and the feds 60%. That makes Dean at least 40% responsible for what was done. In contrast, Voinovich, the oh so liberal pol that you really like, was governor here from 91 to 99. He chose to do nothing and spend nothing.

You make it sound like applying for these waivers and spending this money was common. Well it most certainly wasn't. The only state in my region which did anything like this is PA. And they didn't go as far as Dean. Further as anyone who has tried to solve the insurance problem can tell you the last few percent are by a factor of ten the hardest ones to cover. To go from 90% to 96% is amazing. Especially since at least some, as your post points out, are in the high income bracket and surely are voluntarily uninsured (actually self insured is a better term for them). If you are rich and healthy then health insurance is not a real problem.

Again though bottom line, on what planet doesn't he get the credit for this accomplishment when he ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN POST both spent the necessary money and applied for the necessary waivers. No Dean supporter is saying Clinton didn't help. But Dean did the work here and he deserves the lions share of the credit.

[Nicholas_J]

89. He could not veto

Dr Dynasaur,

AS it was in place, well before he was in office.

He could not VETO. Civil Unions, becasue he wanted that, because the alternative would have been GAY MARRIAGE, which was what the Vermont Supreme Court RULED was the right of gays under the law. He was TOLD by the supreme court that he HAD to allow it..no choice...He didn like it. Until he started to run for president.
Cut and paste or not, Dean NEVER supported any progressive legislation, and threatened to veto almost ALL of it.

YOu cannot cut and paste it, because you wont find it.
HE evn threatened to VETO a universal health care bill that was single payer, becasue he doesnt like single payer plans.


He threatened to veto any bill that rasied taxes on the rich...

The only thing you can provide is yout own belief that Dean is telling the truth. Nothing more. You cannot provide any evidence from his past peformance that he is even being truthful.

[Duder]

26. Libertarian candidate Michael Cloud...

...will be impressed John.

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13171.shtml

http://www.michaelcloud.org/web/kerryletter.html

[AmyStrange]

27. YEEEEEEHaaaa

!!! AND AS ALWAYS DEAN IS FIRST AGAIN !!!

in both positive and negative threads. He is the man defining this Presidential campaign. No doubt about it.

Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
WMD article Index and Archives: http://WMD.seattleactivist.org/

[GeronimoSkull]

28. I guess Mr. straight-shooter

is full of shit

[killbotfactory]

29. From this same group...

Gov. Dean Quietly Signs Compromise Medical Marijuana Bill

...

Also, I don't consider leaving out the 60-day thing in a response to a post in the comments section of his blog backtracking. He's always said he would send it through the FDA, and it wouldn't take very long since he said they would look at EXISTING studies.

[killbotfactory]

33. Also, if the FDA approves it, it will be legal in all 50 states...

Otherwise, it will only be available in the states which approve it.

[AmyStrange]

35. That's the logic that's swept under the rug (n/t)

[Nicholas_J]

36. His compromise bill

Was for researhc, and killed every piece of legislation PASSED by BOTH the senate and house in the Vermont legislature. Ten states had already passed such legislation. Dean was the only governor to KILL such legislation, when the legislatures had passed it, and the public in the state OVERWHELMINGLY supported it.

There are only TWO procedures for FDA approval. Fisrst is regular track, which takes a minimimum of three years EVEN with existing studies, the second is to fast track it which takes 30-60 days. Dean would have NO control over the process.

SO as usual, Dean is full of it.

[dsc]

41. yes he would

Unless the several hundred commentators who said Bush would have had control over RU486's approval were each and all liars. The same body is involved in each case.

[Nicholas_J]

65. The RU 486 debacle

Accepts FDA approval of RU-486 but concerned about overuse
Q: Would you try to overturn the FDA’s approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?

BUSH: I don’t think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I’m worried that that pill will cause more people to have abortions. As to the drug itself, I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.

GORE: Well, the FDA took 12 years. And I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug.

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm


Bush would sign RU-486 restrictions

The Associated Press

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- George W. Bush supports legislation to tighten standards for doctors administering the newly approved abortion pill RU-486, a spokesman said Thursday.

Bush had been prepared to say he would sign such a bill, if elected, but wasn't asked at Tuesday night's presidential debate, said spokesman Scott McClellan.

A Republican-sponsored bill, filed last week in both the House and the Senate, would set up restrictions on how the drug could be dispensed.

It would require the prescribing physician to be legally empowered and trained to perform an abortion, properly trained in the drug's administration and have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Bush "would be inclined to support it. It provides certain reasonable protections for the safety of women," said McClellan.

Abortion rights groups have denounced the bill, saying it would impose restrictions that would hamper the ability of many doctors to prescribe the drug.

The FDA approved RU-486 on Sept. 28, ending a 12-year debate in this country. It gives American women a pharmaceutical abortion method already in wide use in France, Britain, China and 10 other countries.

In the first presidential debate, Bush said he was disappointed in the FDA ruling but didn't think the president could overturn it. Gore said the FDA had concluded the drug was medically safe and he supported its decision.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/101200/gen_1012006297.shtml

Again, the FDA does not perform its own testing on drugs. THey accept applications from companies that want to use a drug for a particular purpose, and base their opinion on studies that either prove or disprove the saftey and claims for the drugs.

Dean's waffling stance is based on the fact that A PHARMACETICAL company must apply for a license to sell marijuana for medical purposes, and provide studies on the safety, teratogenicity, toxicity, adverse effects, and so on of the drug.

Dean is just trying to skirt the issue, by making statements he knows are false.

[dsc]

78. talk about false statements

The FDA also regulates food so it is beyond absurd to claim that only pharmasutical companies can apply to get the right to sell things. Anyone can apply and supply the studies. Also just why wouldn't pharmasutical companies wish to sell this? How many ill people make their own nyquil despite the ease with which one could. On post after post after post after post you claim that there is study after study after study after study on medical marijuana. It is perfectly OK for a person or company applying for FDA to supply independently conducted studies. It is routinely done. You can't have it both ways here. Either these studies exist and Dean is correct on that fact that he can have these submitted for approval or they don't.

I can't recall your precise wording on the RU486 thing but he did and does have the power to prevent the FDA from selling RU486 just like Dean has the power to make the FDA look at marijuana which is my point. Even you seem to admit the first part in your post.

[Nicholas_J]

81. They are NOT approving marijuana as food

But as a medicine, two TOTALLY different procedures. The FDA does not have to do ten years of research to approve canned peas.

But it took 12 years of research to approve RU 486, while Dean is claiming that it does not take years to get FDA approval.

No Bush did not have the power to stop FDA from allowing RU 486 from being used medically. He had to wait for congress to pass a law that restricted its use, but even then, once it was approved, HE COULD NOT BAN it...


He has since said that he does not have the power to overturn the approval of RU-486 on prescription, but that he would like to investigate whether the approval was conducted appropriately. The arrival of an avowedly "pro-life" president in the White House has re-energised anti-abortion conservatives. Although Mr Bush mostly kept quiet about the issue during the campaign, he has already delighted conservatives by reimposing a Reagan-era ban on US international support to organisations offering abortion advice or operations.

http://ramsey.dca.net/limitchoice.htm

Sorry, you should stop using false statements.

AS Dean has no power with the FDA and the medical marijuana issue.

AS indicated by the articles and statements of those organizations wha are experts in the area of marijuana legislation and FDA approval.

[dsc]

82. try again

It doesn't take 10 to 12 years to approve AIDS and cancer drugs anymore. There is a special fast track process for them and they take much, much less time. Given the fact he specificly mentioned those illnesses it is a reasonable assumption that that was the track he intends for FDA approval. Here the studies (assuming you are correct) already exist. The work is already done. The FDA merely has to look at it. Even if no company wanted to do this I bet Soros would. He is the billionaire who funds medical marijuana initiatives around the country. For less than what he spent in California I am pretty sure he would jump at the chance of making FDA approval happen.

[Nicholas_J]

86. And thats what the article indicates.

Dean backtracked on the possibility of FASTRACKING:


Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- In a statement posted on his campaign Web site today, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean retreated from a previous promise to ask the Food and Drug Administration to report on the evidence regarding marijuana's medical safety and efficacy within 60 days after he takes office.

Dean, after conceding on June 13 that medical marijuana has "appropriate uses," including treatment of symptoms related to cancer and AIDS, went even further during a June 14 appearance at the Wisconsin state Democratic convention. Questioned by local activist Ben Masel, Dean said that "on the day I take office" he would "direct the FDA to take a fresh look at the existing studies, and issue a report in 60 days."

But in a statement posted today on the "Official Blog" section of deanforamerica.com, Dean made no mention of such a 60- day review. Instead, he wrote, "I do not think marijuana should have a process different than any other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value." As governor, Dean opposed and eventually killed legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients from arrest under state law.

"We're more puzzled than ever by Dean's position," said Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana Campaign Coordinator Aaron Houston. "If he means what he wrote, the 60-day review he promised in Wisconsin is out the window, since it would be a major departure from standard FDA procedures. The full FDA approval process, from submission of the initial paperwork through the required studies to final approval, takes at least several years.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr070103gsmm.html


A Message from
GRANITE STATERS for MEDICAL MARIJUANA

In a statement posted on his campaign Web site yesterday, presidential
candidate Howard Dean retreated from a previous promise to ask the
Food and Drug Administration to report on the evidence regarding
marijuana's medical safety and efficacy within 60 days of his taking
office.

You may remember when Howard Dean was confronted by Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana on June 13 in Manchester. Dr. Dean, who blocked legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients when he was governor of Vermont, conceded that there are "appropriate uses for medical marijuana ... like for the treatment of HIV/AIDS
patients." Although this was a positive statement, Dean reiterated
that he would defer to the FDA drug-approval process. When further
pressed if that meant that he was in favor of locking up patients in
the intervening years while the FDA drug-approval process runs its
course, Dean unbelievably claimed that the process "doesn't take
years."

The next day, at the state Democratic convention in Wisconsin, local
activist Ben Masel questioned Dean about medical marijuana. Dean
shifted again and announced that "on the day I take office" he would
alter the normal FDA drug-approval process by directing "the FDA to
take a fresh look at the existing studies, and issue a report within
60 days."

But yesterday, on the "Official Blog" section of deanforamerica.com,
Dean wrote: "I do not think marijuana should have a process different
than any other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value."

Through these conflicting statements, the questions are: Where does
Howard Dean stand on medical marijuana? And does he want medical
marijuana patients to go to jail during the FDA drug-approval process
(which does take years, according to the FDA's Web site)?

Visit http://www.GraniteStaters.com/action/office.html to contact
Howard Dean. Send him an e-mail and ask him if he wants sick people to go to jail for using their medicine. Tell Dr. Dean that medical
marijuana patients cannot afford to have another president who refuses
to protect them.

Latest News: Press Releases





July 3, 2003: Sen. Kerry Tells Seriously Ill Patient, "I'm in favor of" Medical Marijuana

July 1, 2003: Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana

June 13, 2003: Dean Acknowledges "Appropriate Uses" of Medical Marijuana But Refuses To Protect Patients From Arrest

June 3, 2003: Medical Marijuana Becomes Presidential Campaign Issue
May 28, 2003: Kucinich Becomes First Democratic Presidential Candidate to Stand Up for Medical Marijuana Patients

http://www.granitestaters.com/news/releases.html

So you mean ALL of these organizations whose purpose is to track acandidates on the issues of importance to them are not paying attention to what Dean has TOLD them directly.

So now YOU can try again. Find support for Deans statements OR position on any PRO Medical marijuana site. YOu keep giving opinion, and NO citations...

I DEMAND A LINK...

As so many Dean supporters demand of Me...

And not to a Dean web site.

[Nicholas_J]

38. Again

MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- Without comment or fanfare, on June 21 Gov. Howard Dean (D) signed legislation setting up a state task force to study how Vermont should go about protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest. While the measure provides no immediate protection to seriously ill Vermonters who need marijuana to relieve their symptoms, the new law sets the wheels in motion for solid patient protection next year.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr062702.html


We received the following press release from the Marijuana Policy Project on March 29. On April 2, ACT UP New York wrote an open letter to Vermont Governor Dean in support of the bill to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, H. 645.

"A bill to legalize use of marijuana for medical purposes -- similar to laws already on the books in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- passed the Vermont House of Representatives March 15. Vermont's Senate will consider the bill in April.

"The biggest obstacle to passage appears to be Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Vermont newspapers have reported that Dean, a physician, opposes the bill and is pressuring his fellow Democrats, who control the Senate, to kill it before it reaches his desk.

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2002/ATN37907.html


But right now all signs are that Gov. Dean is preparing to betray our brothers and sisters with AIDS. It is up to us to change his mind.

On March 15 the Vermont House of Representatives passed H. 645, which would protect seriously ill patients from the possibility of arrest and jail for using medical marijuana with their doctors' recommendation. The 82-59 vote was particularly historic because it marked the first time a Republican-controlled legislative house has passed a medical marijuana law.

This should have been the hardest step, since Vermont's Senate is controlled by the Democrats, who have historically been more open- minded than Republicans about medical marijuana. But Dean is also a Democrat, and a hard-line opponent of any liberalization of marijuana laws, even for medical use. Word around the statehouse is that Dean is leaning on Democratic senators to kill the bill or bottle it up in committee, so that he won't have to veto it.

A veto would be politically inconvenient, since a recent poll showed that three quarters of Vermont voters want to legalize medical marijuana for the seriously ill. But if the bill does pass, a veto by Gov. Dean is considered a strong possibility.

That would be a tragedy for Vermonters with AIDS or other serious illnesses. In our community, we have seen the benefits of medical marijuana again and again. We've seen it help people with wasting syndrome eat enough to stay alive. More recently, marijuana has helped thousands cope with the nausea and lack of appetite that is often caused by the unforgiving anti-HIV drug cocktails they must take to keep their virus in check.


http://www.aegis.com/news/bar/2002/BR020301.html

Medical marijuana clears Senate hurdle, but time is running out

May 2, 2002

By DAVID MACE Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — The Senate Health and Welfare Committee Thursday unanimously endorsed a bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession and use for patients suffering from a variety of illnesses, but prospects for further action on the bill appeared dim.

By a 5-0 vote the committee sent the bill back to the full Senate after making a few changes. But committee Chairwoman Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, made it clear to members that theirs wasn’t the final word.

“This bill must go to the Judiciary Committee because there’s a lot of law enforcement (provisions) in it,” she said. “(Judiciary Committee Chair- man) Sen. (Richard) Sears (D-Bennington) has made it clear that it’s unlikely he’ll have time to take testimony ... and act on it.”

Sen. John Campbell, D-Wind-sor, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he himself had questions he still wanted answered.

“I’m going to vote yes (on the bill) because I think compassion and common sense say you have to,” he said. “My concern is the dispensing of marijuana. The procurement is fraught with problems.”

Campbell said he wished a nonprofit group or state agency could be designated to handle distributing marijuana to qualified patients.

The bill allows seriously ill people to use marijuana to alleviate pain, nausea and other symptoms associated with diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS.

A patient or designated caregiver can possess up to three mature plants, four immature plants and 3 ounces of marijuana, and the bill allows them to grow the plant if they do it in a secure, indoor location.

It would require a doctor’s certification that the patient suffered from one of these conditions and that certification would be sent to the Department of Public Safety. The bill would not permit use in most public places or at work unless an employer consented, and would not protect users from prosecution under federal law.

On Thursday the committee tightened some of the language, dropping Crohn’s disease and glaucoma from the list of conditions that would qualify for using medical marijuana.

But the bill, which passed the Vermont House with bipartisan support, faces two huge obstacles. The first is time; the second is Gov. Howard Dean.

Dean is a staunch opponent of medical marijuana, which he’s has characterized as a backdoor effort to legalize pot, and as the Democratic governor explores a possible presidential run that stance is unlikely to change.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46177.html


Name: Howard Dean

In short: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the only candidate who has actually killed a medical marijuana bill. Because of Dean's actions, Vermonters with AIDS, cancer, and other terrible illnesses still face arrest and jail under state law for using medical marijuana. In recent statements he has attempted to sound reasonable, but his actions have shown that medical marijuana patients can never trust him. The only reason we give Dean an F+ and not a straight F is because the latter grade should be reserved for Bush, who is as cruel and heartless as anyone could possibly be on the medical marijuana issue.

What Dean has done: During 2002, Vermont's legislature considered H. 645, which would have protected seriously ill Vermonters from arrest and jail for using medical marijuana with their doctors' recommendations. Dean was, as the Rutland Herald reported, "a staunch opponent."

H. 645 passed the Republican-controlled Vermont House by 82-59, and there were sufficient votes in the Democratic- controlled Senate to pass it there. But Dean used his influence with Senate leaders -- who acknowledged that they didn't want to pass a bill that Dean would veto -- to make sure it never received a floor vote. The legislature did eventually pass, and Dean signed, a bill creating a task force to study the issue. The task force reported in early 2003 that medical marijuana patients deserve legal protection, but Dean's actions guaranteed that medical marijuana patients would continue to face arrest, leaving it to a future governor to fix this injustice.

What Dean has said: From The Nation, March 31, 2003:
" cannot stand state initiatives that seek to legalize medical marijuana. 'I hate the idea of legislators and politicians practicing medicine,' he says. Should the feds be busting medical marijuana clubs? 'Depends on the circumstances,' he says. 'In general, no.' If he were president, Dean adds, he would force the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate medical marijuana, and he would be prepared to accept its findings."

What Dean's statements mean: Dean has consistently confused the issue by passing the buck to the FDA, which does not have the authority to conduct its own clinical trials for the purpose of approving marijuana as a prescription medicine. Under the best possible circumstances, FDA drug approval takes years. As governor, Dean had the chance to protect seriously ill Vermonters, and instead he acted to ensure that they still face arrest and jail under state law for the simple act of taking their medicine.


http://www.granitestaters.com/guide/dean.html

Dean attempts to continually cloud the issue, using political double talk and mumbo jumbo.

He could have acted in Vermont for trhe well being ofthe terminally ill, but this bastard, clings to his own arrogant and misguided opinions continually, defying the will of the people of Vemront, the bipartisan support of the legislature, and overall medical opinion that marijuana is a very useful adjunct to those with terminal illnesses.

HE did so with methadone treatment as well.

It does not matter WHAT the issue is, except that Dean, in a way far worse than even George W. Bush, is too arrogant to listen to others.

At very worse, George Bush has one virtue that Howard Dean does not. He is a man who knows little, but KNOWS HE KNOWS little. And relies on others who know MORE.

Howard Dean is a small arropgant little tyrant, who KNOWS LESS than he thinks he does. HE IS A KNOW IT ALL, who knows very little.
A petty mediocrity who uses power to force his own archaic ideas onto others who have FAR greater expertise in these areas than he.

This is nothing short monsterous in the human sense, and arrogantly autocratic, dictatorial in the political sense.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

40. Egads

Dean is a "small arrogant little tyrant" "a petty mediocrity" "monsterous"(sic) "dictatorial" "bastard" "in a way far worse than Bush"

Yikes. Tell us what you really think of him, won't you?

So much for an unbiased view of Dean's stance.

<edit: spelling>

[Nazgul35]

30. No offense...

but you have a link to a story that qoutes the blog from the Dean campaign without providing the link so that we can see the entire quote....it is even more interesting that you post the article now...after the web posts for the Dean campaign happen to go back to July 2nd, the day after the quote was on the blog...

If this was such a buring issue for you, i'm sure you would have posted this on the 2nd or 3rd, before five days of info got posted on Dean's blog....judging from you posts about Dean in the past...i'm sure that this is just an oversight on your part...and not any attempt to provide a story without the chance for anyone to follow up on what the full text of the post said...

could you please provide a link that takes us directly to the quote....

[AmyStrange]

34. Welcome to the DU

please stay awhile....

Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
WMD article Index and Archives: http://WMD.seattleactivist.org/

[Nicholas_J]

39. The post was for

Either July first, or June 30th, as the article was dated June 1.

[AmyStrange]

42. One thing I noticed Nicholas_J...

not bashing you or Kerry. I like your boy. I just like Dean better.

The thing I noticed is how in the Dean piece, Dean's quotes are small (very small fragments) in comparison to the Kerry piece. The Kerry piece had the whole statements and paragraphs with almost no inserted editorialization at all.

The Dean quotes are small ten word bits (or less) that are surrounded by highly opinionated rhetoric.

Just wanted to point that out,

Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
WMD article Index and Archives: http://WMD.seattleactivist.org/

[Nicholas_J]

72. How ?

Two articles, about Dean, none edited, but took the first several paragraphs, enough to cover the substantive point of bothe articles.

Next one article about Kerry, giving the first several paragrapsh, enough to cover the substantive points, and salient issues on the problem.

Bottom line is DEAN KILLED legislation that would have made medical marijuana legal in Vermont, as it was in ten states before Vermont, opposed every attempt at passing such legislation for three years.
The last bills passed both in the Senate and House with WIDE bipartisan support were threatened with Voto by Dean. Public polls showed that 69 percent of the state approved of medical marijuana, and the bill being presented.

You cant get around this one. All of the special interest groups are offended by Deans stance on this, almost 7 out of ten Vermonters were offended by his stance.

Again. and over and over again, What Dean did as governor NEVER squares twith the bull he is flinging around while running for president.

He is far more conservative in EVERY area, and on any issue, thanm ANY other candidate, an that includes Joe Liieberman.

The cowardly way he handled the Vermont Supreme Court stance on gay rights to MARRIAGE, is another example. They did not say "CIVIL UNION", they said MARRIAGE. Dean, terrified of loss of his very large Republican base, did NOTHING, and the supreme court came up with the Civil Union Stance. Dean objected to SAME SEX MARRIAGE on the grounds of separation of church and state.

Talk about waffling. His arguments that would be telling the Catholic Church that they must marry gays and violate the separation of church and state was so much crap I do not beleive that ANYONE but a conservative or fundamentalist would accept such garbage, but they do.

Dean's antiquated ideas and morality remind me of those who decided that separate but equal was the way to go with education.

His ideas about Methadone Treatment are another indication.

The issues are not the point, they may be minor issues, and issues to groups with special interests.

But what they indicate about the man us critical.
Dean listens to no one, takes no advice, arrogantly imposes his will on those he serves. Refuses to listen to those who are experts in the area.

Dean as governor, treated the great majority, who wanted medical marijuana, methadone clinics, marriage(not civil unions) for gays, in exactly the same manner as George W.Bush treated the peace protesters this past winter.

He did what he wanted, and didnt not care what ANYONE else thought.

Dean has displayed this sort of behavior more often than Bush.

There is one type of president who would be far worse than George W. Bush. A man who has limits, and knows he has them, so lets other, with more experience, if ideas that serve the best interests of the people, to advise him.

Dean listens to no one. Beleives he know it all. IN this, Dean would make an even worse president than Bush.

The man is a travesty. If nominated it will be one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the American. If elected, one of the greatest tragedies in America's history.

[AmyStrange]

79. You screwed up Nicholas_J...

you put two articles together that prove you are biased and that's why I don't listen to you. People who think for themselves don't listen to you either.

Here's why:

In your original post to this article, Dean is never fully quoted, but instead his partial quotes are surrounded by editorial rhetoric.

The article about Kerry contains full quotes and no editorial rhetoric.

This proves your bias to me (and anyone else who has a brain), because you never post articles that let Dean's words speak for themselves. You only post articles (selectively cut and pasted) where "OTHER" people explain what Dean said.

Think about it. Kerry is not perfect and yet I have never seen you post a negative article (or editorial) about Kerry. Who's the one really living in a fantasy world here. The day you find articles about Kerry that do what your articles do to Dean is the day I will trust your bias.

I have read dozens of articles that do to Kerry exactly what your articles do to Dean. I never post them and insult other people's candidates like you do, because I don't use biased articles to slam other people's candidates.

The post you responded to was very nice and I didn't insult you or Kerry, and yet for some reason you feel the need to slam my guy in your response to me. Why?

The day you quit slamming people and quit using the excuse that everyone slams you and Kerry as your justification for continuing your small minded mission to berate Dean is the day I will really listen to you and your sniveling whiny selectively stupid and biased blatherings.

I have always tried to treat you with respect Nicholas_J, but your bashing reply to my nice and respectful comments is too much.

I have no more use for you, get a brain moran...

[Nicholas_J]

80. THe three articles...

came from the SAME web site comparing candidates stances on Marijuana..


Again, find proof that Dean has not made these statements, as reported separatly by TWO pro marijuana support groups. You opinion is not a valid argument.

As a matter of fact, YOU led me to the sites with your link to the site you posted yesterday to commondreams...I opened it and in the left hand column was the link to the MPP articles, criticising Dean, none criticising Kerry.

So organization that support Medical marijuana are keeping tabs on the candidates, and looking for waffling behavior...

They found it in Dean...

And the TITLES of the articles indicate what the general subject matter is:

Sen. Kerry Tells Seriously Ill Patient, "I'm in favor of" Medical Marijuana


Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana



Dean Acknowledges "Appropriate Uses" of Medical Marijuana But Refuses To Protect Patients From Arrest


ALL HERE:

http://www.mpp.org/releases.html

an I accessed them all form the headlines on Commondreams.

Spin ALL you can. It all that needs to be done is to read the titles, and Deans flip flops are obvious.


Medical Marijuana Patients' Supporters Protest Dean Presidential Fundraiser

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr030403.html


Vermont Gov. Dean Quietly Signs Compromise Medical Marijuana Bill


MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- Without comment or fanfare, on June 21 Gov. Howard Dean (D) signed legislation setting up a state task force to study how Vermont should go about protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest. While the measure provides no immediate protection to seriously ill Vermonters who need marijuana to relieve their symptoms, the new law sets the wheels in motion for solid patient protection next year.

Text of the bill is available here in PDF format (requires Adobe Acrobat).

Download PDF version
The compromise measure was agreed to by a House-Senate conference committee after a strong bill, modeled on the medical marijuana laws now on the books in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, passed the House of Representatives on March 15 and a much weaker bill passed the Senate on May 14. "The General Assembly finds that state law should make a distinction between the medical and non-medical use of marijuana," the conference report declared. The measure, S. 193, establishes a task force "to investigate and assess options for legal protections which will allow seriously ill Vermonters to use medical marijuana without facing criminal prosecution under Vermont law."

This committee, which will include representatives from law enforcement, the medical community, and seriously ill patients, must report its findings to the governor and the General Assembly by Jan. 15, 2003, in time for legislators to take up the matter next year.

"This is a mixed bag," said Billy Rogers, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. "We had hoped that Governor Dean and the Senate leadership would accept the House bill, which would have spared patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis from the possibility of arrest simply for trying to relieve their suffering. They had an opportunity to protect Vermont's most vulnerable citizens, and they failed.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr062702.html



The measure now goes to Gov. Howard Dean for his signature.

"Despite Governor Dean's well-publicized qualms about medical marijuana, it is hard to imagine how he could object to the cautious, careful approach the legislators have chosen," said Billy Rogers, director of state policies for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. "It's frustrating that patients fighting cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis will have to face the possibility of arrest for another year, but we're pleased that the General Assembly agreed that patients should be protected.

"The committee this bill sets up isn't studying whether to protect patients, but how to protect them," Rogers added. "After they review the evidence and look at the success of the eight state laws now on the books, we believe they will conclude that in 2003, Vermont should become the ninth state to protect seriously ill people who need medical marijuana."

The Marijuana Policy Project works to minimize the harm associated with marijuana -- both the consumption of marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use. MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is imprisonment. To this end, MPP focuses on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr060302.html




Gov. Howard Dean (D) has said he is hopeful the bill will not reach his desk, but has not said whether he would veto the legislation. Gov. Dean, who is considering a run for president, has discovered that medical marijuana is a popular issue on the campaign trail. The San Francisco Examiner reported that Gov. Dean was confronted by medical marijuana supporters during a recent trip to California, and a poll last month conducted by the Lucas Organization found that 70 percent of New Hampshire Democrats said they would be "more likely" to cast a ballot for Gov. Dean for president if he signs the Vermont medical marijuana bill.

"If Gov. Dean pulls down his opposition to the medical marijuana bill, it will likely sail through the Vermont Senate," said Billy Rogers, director of state policies for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. "We're hopeful that Gov. Dean will understand that it's a crime to put cancer and AIDS patients in prison for the simple act of taking their medicine."

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr041702.html

Now go ahead...Prove from Deans actions, and ALL of his statements, that he SUPPORTS medical use of marijuana.

How has he handledit in the past. Because THATS all you got to indicate what he will DO. By what he HAS done. Or failed to.

Talk is cheap...Find ONE group that has been fighting to get medical marijuana legalized that supports Deans stance. They have been involved with fighting got legislation , nad the processes that are necessary to get it done. THey have far more experience at it and about it than Dean does. MANY years more.

Spout your opinion, but ifr you cant provide proof of CONSISTANCY, from those who are stakehiolders in the issue, and have been following all of the cndidates, thats all it is, your opinion.

[genius]

44. And Dean's accusing Kerry of being inconsistent

One has to wonder whether Dean why Dean's position on everything keeps shifting.

[Egnever]

45. It is only shifting if

you listen to the ill informed media. Why not go to Deans site and check for yourself where he stands then keep your eye out for the shifting.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/

I mean you can easily see where he stands for himself or you can listen to people like ole nic here with a clear agenda against dean your choice

[Nicholas_J]

48. Going to Dean for American

for information, is like going to Karl Rove, for an objective picture of George Bush.

That is one of the most absurd comments I have heard, and the one most frequently made by Dean supporters.

THey cannot come up with reasonble responses to Deans continual changing statements on issues, as I as asked the person saying that Kerry flip flops, to provide evidence of such...They never respond.

THe actual idea that one will get an objective opinion of Dean form his OWN site is a joke.

Dean has misrepresented his record as governor. He did next to nothing of consequence, and now is presenting himself as the savior of the state.

If ANY source is filled with wrong information, it would be the candidates own campaign site.

The media is etter informed about Deans continual deception, changes in statement, thant his own site, which will make EVERY attempt to cover over such flip flops.

Rely on ANYTHING any liberal media, any focus group, but not the cnadidates own web site.

Those who heard Dean speak directly about his stance on marijuana in Wisconsin, and then saw his reversal on hs own website, know what Dean said.

Relying on Dean for America is relying on the biggest lie, and the most inaccurate sources.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

50. Yes, that would be silly...

I'd rather get my Dean info from snipped and spun excerpts posted by someone who calls Dean "a bastard", "a small arrogant little tyrant" "a petty mediocrity" and "in a way far worse than Bush".

Because that information would be completely unbiased. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

91. LMAO

You can just feel the love flowing out of Nic.

[Nazgul35]

51. wait a minute...

the story you posted above says that this quote came from the Dean webblog...which is on his site....but then you say that we shouldn't trust the Pravda news coming from his campaign!

All i'm asking for is for you to provide a link that gets me directly to the alledged post by the Gov. and not an edited version provided by a web page, which I assume is pure and has no interest of its own...

When the Kerry quote "get over it" came out I was calling for everyone to wait to here the senator's side of it...the amount of gulability on this web site is breathtaking....

Rove says.....

Dean backtracks...

Drudge says...

how's about everyone taking a deep breath and consider that we are being played by repugs who's only goal is to sow dissent...and boy are they being successful...

I for one don't need to support my candidate by tearing other's down...

[Nazgul35]

52. here's the full quote...

gathered from a thread in the general section....seems like your news story left off an important sentence that preceeded the one quoted above...

"Jeremy(from previous thread). I'm impressed that an 18 year old would spend time on a political blog site. Here is a short summary of my drug policy. 1) drug abuse ought to be treated as a public health problem not a judicial problem. I do not favor legalization because we already have enough problems with the two drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. I also believe that if people are dealing heroin to kids or shooting people that jail is more than appropriate. But if your "crime", is being a substance abuser you belong in rehab, not jail. 2)I will order the FDA to study marijuana to see what medicinal effects it may have. I do not think marijuana should have a process different than every other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value. Based on the studies I have read, my guess is that the FDA may find that is useful in patients with HIV/Aids, and various forms of cancer, but not for such things as treating glaucoma, where there are other drugs available, and where the risks outway the benefits. I';m on the way back from New York, so i got to read alot of the blogging that went on today. You folks are terrific!! Thank you for an incredible day, and an incredible quarter. Howard Dean

You posted in your third paragraph:

But in a statement posted today on the "Official Blog" section of deanforamerica.com, Dean made no mention of such a 60-day review. Instead, he wrote, "I do not think marijuana should have a process different than any other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value." As governor, Dean opposed and eventually killed legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients from arrest under state law.

the sentence left out states the governor's intent to have the FDA look into it...this creative editing serves only one purpose...and that is to decive and misrepresent the governor's position...

[sgt_knuckles]

59. Attempting to Deceive.....

More creative editing to deceive potential Dean supporters from Nicholas J.

[killbotfactory]

60. That wasn't Nicholas_J's doing, it was MPP.

http://www.mpp.org/

They took his quote out of context and spun it.

Is it any wonder why so many people find special interest groups annoying?

[Nicholas_J]

67. And...

A Message from
GRANITE STATERS for MEDICAL MARIJUANA

In a statement posted on his campaign Web site yesterday, presidential
candidate Howard Dean retreated from a previous promise to ask the
Food and Drug Administration to report on the evidence regarding
marijuana's medical safety and efficacy within 60 days of his taking
office.

You may remember when Howard Dean was confronted by Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana on June 13 in Manchester. Dr. Dean, who blocked legislation that would have protected medical marijuana patients when he was governor of Vermont, conceded that there are "appropriate uses for medical marijuana ... like for the treatment of HIV/AIDS
patients." Although this was a positive statement, Dean reiterated
that he would defer to the FDA drug-approval process. When further
pressed if that meant that he was in favor of locking up patients in
the intervening years while the FDA drug-approval process runs its
course, Dean unbelievably claimed that the process "doesn't take
years."

The next day, at the state Democratic convention in Wisconsin, local
activist Ben Masel questioned Dean about medical marijuana. Dean
shifted again and announced that "on the day I take office" he would
alter the normal FDA drug-approval process by directing "the FDA to
take a fresh look at the existing studies, and issue a report within
60 days."

But yesterday, on the "Official Blog" section of deanforamerica.com,
Dean wrote: "I do not think marijuana should have a process different
than any other drug to evaluate whether or not it has medical value."

Through these conflicting statements, the questions are: Where does
Howard Dean stand on medical marijuana? And does he want medical
marijuana patients to go to jail during the FDA drug-approval process
(which does take years, according to the FDA's Web site)?

Visit http://www.GraniteStaters.com/action/office.html to contact
Howard Dean. Send him an e-mail and ask him if he wants sick people to go to jail for using their medicine. Tell Dr. Dean that medical
marijuana patients cannot afford to have another president who refuses
to protect them.

http://www.nhorml.org/

Also New Hampshire Reports this change in Deans stance as well...

Special interests groups jhave far better knowledge about this than Dean does...

Or do you believe that the opinions of special interst groups about allowing civil unions for gays is an inappropriate source for information as well.

The very worse source for accuracy on Deans own comments, is Deans own campaign. People who have been fighting to get legislation passed are far better and able to detect CHANGES in position than Deans own supporters are.

And they see the changes in Deans statements as flip flop...
Not spin.

If anything, my observations are far more valid than yours. As you find ANY reason to justify flips in Denas position, or deny that they occured at all. It is Deans supporters who have the most motive to suppress his flips, not Norml.

[Nazgul35]

69. again...

another article that cuts off the sentence that preceeds the sentence that is focused on by both articles...this is either a lame attempt to smear Dean or you dont bother to read the posts of others...

[Nicholas_J]

71. The post of others are irrelevant

If they come from Deans own campiagn...

First, the gouprs best suited to judge a candidates position on issues of special interest to them are those to whom thee interest is SPECIAL.

Theyare best suited to examinie what a candidated sad a month ago, and listen to a comment he made today and see if there has been substantative change, from the point of view of THEIR SPECIAL interest.

No matter what, Dean has made, what groupps who support medical marijuana, a serious turnaround in what he expressed in the past.

MPP called thee article:

Dean Backtracks on Medical Marijuana

It is becaue they go around searching for comments made by Dean, and CAREFULLY compare it to other comments made by Dean.

they also entitled the other article:

Dean Acknowledges "Appropriate Uses" of Medical Marijuana But Refuses To Protect Patients From Arrest

Dean did, has and will comtinue to flip flop on issues. He always does.

[stickdog]

90. BULLSHIT. These guys hate Dean because they are professional pot

activists who thought they'd conquered Vermont on the issue of medical weed when Dean lobbied in favor of commission to study the idea for a year instead.

If you read through their website, you will see the bias loud and clear. Of the Dem candidates, Dean's position on medical pot is second only to Kucinich's.

But Dean gets an F while many other candidates get B's & C's. Why is this if not for their bias?

[Nicholas_J]

64. Shows Dean's ineptitude

Or duplicity, as he cant order the FDA to study ANYTHING.

They cant. They must refer to other studies done by pharmaceutical companies to prove or disprove the safety of drugs they are applying to be allowed to be used for whatever purpose they are applying for them to be used for. The FDA does not sutdy ANYTHING. It approves or disapproves drugs for use. THats it.

AS a Doctor, Dean must be aware of this. But he knows the public is NOT. So he is still trying to foist the issue off.

[killbotfactory]

66. He said they would look at existing studies...

Someone is showing ineptitude, and it ain't Dean.

[Nicholas_J]

68. Which pharmaceutical company is going to apply to do it

As noted in the sources, Dean is foisting onto the FDA, what cannot be foist upon them. Dean is either being devious, or is totally stupid.

Kucinich's stand on medical marijuana may already have had an impact on Dean, who has begun altering his tune and his tone as he campaigns on the West Coast. In a Thursday interview with San Francisco radio station KQED, Dean said he would ask the Food and Drug Administration to look into the issue and make a decision based on its findings. "I wouldn't crusade against it like Ashcroft," he said, "but I wouldn't legalize it."

That's not enough for medical marijuana advocates. "Dean's dog won't hunt," said Gieringer. "He may be liberal on most issues, he may do well with the gay community, but when it comes to marijuana as medicine, he's part of the old school, he wants to let the narcocracy decide."

"Dean isn't showing any signs of real progress here," scoffed ASA's McQuie. "If he thinks the FDA has any power on this issue, he's hopelessly uninformed and naïve."

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/289/kucinich.shtml

AS I said, he is either stupid, or duplicitous. Groups like Norml and MML are FAR more familiar with all of the processes that will be needed to legalize marijuana, for medical OR recreational purposes.

The conservative Dean, who is trying to come off as centrist, or even a little progressive, keeps on trying to decieve the public by baffling them with BULLSHIT.

Those who know, are obligated to inform of his attempt to deceive.
This is what Dean supporters call bashing.

It is what others call freedom of the press, ot even more simply..

TRUTH.

[dsc]

84. Even if none wanted to

Soros, who is a billionaire who has spent millions on this issue already and the guy from Progressive Insurance surely would.

[Nicholas_J]

88. Prove it

YOur statements are opinion...

you provide no evidence that Dean will do ANTYTHING but what he has CONSISTANTLY done in the past...

Bush could not get the FDA to do ANYTHING about RU-486.
They have pre set procedures that they follow, and the president can tell them to be strict or lenient regardin enforcement, but cannot CHANGE the process or the rules. ONLY CONGRESS CAN DO THAT. They write a law, then it is codified and its effects on agencies are then part of the CFR. You arev wronf. Dean is being deceptive.

There must be complete NEW legislation, just as there was in Vermont in order to do what you are proposing that Dean does. Or what Dean is proposing that he is going to do. Just like in Vermont. The governor could not declare, a study on medical marijuana. But legislation was put on the table, passed, and Dean wouuld not pass it.

Throwing around of load of crap becasue you BELIEVE that Dean is being consistant is NO proof.

Dean simply lying out of both sides of his face.

[Nicholas_J]

70. Wasnt my paragraph

It was again, from the article...

I would suppose, that special interest groups. pay SPECIAL attention to what politicians say about things that are of SPECIAL interest to them.

No matter what, those who follow this very closely, as it is of SPECIAL interest to them,are most inclined and capable of detecting ANY shange in the wind in a candidates statements. If THEY preceive backtracking in Dean, Dean IS backtracking.

Try al you want, spin all you want, nuance all you want. If Dean backtracks, he loses the votes of those who support medical marijuana. Ten other states passed medical marijuana legislation before Dean KILLED such legislation in Vermont. THere is NO need for further study. The FDA has litle or even NO influence or authority in this area. Dean is simply trying to skirt the issue, whether it has to do with his anti-drug conservativism, or offends his pharmaeutical company supporters, Deans stance is FLUFF, and has no substance.

AS most of Deans stances are fluff, and no substance.

I repeat, If there was any substancee or value or worth in Howard Dean or his record, his attack campaign would be totally unnecessary.

Dean is a Yugo, running against Maserati's. All he can do to keep people from looking at his shoddy construction, is to point out the odd scratch in the paint of the other candidates.

He is pathetic. It is amazing to think that so many people are so easily decieved as to support him...

But then again, how many millions of people bought et rocks?

[Nazgul35]

85. My God!!!

Dean to lose the medical marijuana vote....give me a break...

On the one hand you say the pres cant make the FDA do anything then you bash the guy for changing his stance...maybe he learned as pres. he couldnt do anything....then reassessed his position...

You're so busy lobbing accusations at Dean, and not making psoitive staements about your candidate...makes one wonder what lacks so much in your candidate that you can only badmouth someone else's choice...

Try this for a day...only make post about kerry that attempt to win people over...instead of trying to trun people off to Dean by constantly spinning "articles" that put him in a bad light...

PS: how many days on goggle did it take you to find those two prominent sources...

[Mairead]

73. There's tons of existing science. His FDA statement is a stall.

The disconnect between the science and the politics has been an international scandal for decades.

Sorry.

[Nicholas_J]

83. Dean has yet

To give ANY cogent,medical or scientific basis for what amounts to his OWN personal opinion.

AS with RU-486, Bush could do NOTHING to overturn the FDA. decision, which was based on requests from pharmaceutical companies tu utilize the drug for this purpose. All Bush could do was try to restrict it in order to see if the FDA, had conducted its investigation of the existant research properly. THet keep reintroducing the bill.

Dean supporters must twist and turn in the wind, try ANY gyration to try to get Deans continually flipping and waffling on almost every issue, from the war, to medical marijuana.

Notice, all they do is provide their own opinions, and some of what Dean has placed on his EDITED campaign site, but can provide no information from those groups who are actively involved with the process who AGREE with Dean...

Like his stance on methadone clinics, DEean is on his own, and abuses his authority, opposes legislation based on his own personal opinions because Dean "KNOWS IT ALL".

Like most of Deans record, Dean has vehemently opposed progressive legislation, and in the end, all those seeking progressive legislation ever got was threats to veto, or extrmemly watered down compromises that resulted in nothing but "FURTHER STUDIES".

There is not an article on the issue that does not speak of Deans vehement opposition while governor. Now as candidate he is saying ANYTHING, but there is absolutely NO evidence that he will follow through.

The most dangerous sort of pretender to the throne.

[stickdog]

94. NJ, can you post that thing you always post about Dean cutting funding

for dying orphans and sick grandmothers to balance the budget?