drug abuse
Drug abuse is a problem in our society. A large number of the population has gone through a period of their life abusing drugs. As I was reading the Washington Post article on Cindy McCain's period of drug abuse I wondered about the relevance to the presidential campaign.
Perhaps you think its relevant. Perhaps you believe a detailed account of her drug use and abuse and the ways and means she used to illegally obtain them is important information that the public needs to know and consider when choosing a president.
If the drug abuse by the wife of a presidential candidate is of such importance that it gets front page coverage in the Washington Post it seems to me the drug abuse of a candidate for president is equally if not more relevant and important.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though."
Frankly I think Obama's drug use was long enough ago to be irrelevant. I also believe Cindy McCain's drug abuse was long enough ago to be irrelevant. But the Washington Post disagrees, at least as far as Cindy's drug use.
Far be it for me to suggest that the Washington Post is in the tank for Obama and has turned its newspaper's front page into the liberal equivalant of faux news. As much as I disagree that a candidate's, or a candidate's wife's, long past drug abuse is news worthy I'm sure they think that they are serving the public's interest.
So what about a detailed front page story about Obama's drug abuse. How often did he smoke marijuana? Everyday, just on the weekends, several times a day? And for how many years? Blow would imply powder cocaine. How often was he able to "afford it?" Or was he also abusing crack cocaine? "No smack" he tells us, but are there any other drugs he didn't mention that he abused? Did he ever use the same drugs Cindy McCain used, vicodan and percocet? What about LSD or qualudes?
The means that drug addics use to illegally optain their drugs are often quite sordid. Again, not a topic I think worth discussing. But the Washington post thinks these details are front page news in the story of Cindy McCain. So how did obama get the illegal dugs he was addicted to? Did he ever sell them as well?
If this is "news" it seems to me its news not just about Cindy McCain, but news about Obama and Palin as well. I look forward to a fair and balanced front page story about them on this subject in the Washington Post.
Perhaps you think its relevant. Perhaps you believe a detailed account of her drug use and abuse and the ways and means she used to illegally obtain them is important information that the public needs to know and consider when choosing a president.
If the drug abuse by the wife of a presidential candidate is of such importance that it gets front page coverage in the Washington Post it seems to me the drug abuse of a candidate for president is equally if not more relevant and important.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though."
Frankly I think Obama's drug use was long enough ago to be irrelevant. I also believe Cindy McCain's drug abuse was long enough ago to be irrelevant. But the Washington Post disagrees, at least as far as Cindy's drug use.
Far be it for me to suggest that the Washington Post is in the tank for Obama and has turned its newspaper's front page into the liberal equivalant of faux news. As much as I disagree that a candidate's, or a candidate's wife's, long past drug abuse is news worthy I'm sure they think that they are serving the public's interest.
So what about a detailed front page story about Obama's drug abuse. How often did he smoke marijuana? Everyday, just on the weekends, several times a day? And for how many years? Blow would imply powder cocaine. How often was he able to "afford it?" Or was he also abusing crack cocaine? "No smack" he tells us, but are there any other drugs he didn't mention that he abused? Did he ever use the same drugs Cindy McCain used, vicodan and percocet? What about LSD or qualudes?
The means that drug addics use to illegally optain their drugs are often quite sordid. Again, not a topic I think worth discussing. But the Washington post thinks these details are front page news in the story of Cindy McCain. So how did obama get the illegal dugs he was addicted to? Did he ever sell them as well?
If this is "news" it seems to me its news not just about Cindy McCain, but news about Obama and Palin as well. I look forward to a fair and balanced front page story about them on this subject in the Washington Post.
Advertisement
Obama smoked pot and occasionally did coke at parties, he didn't deal, and you'd have to stretch to call the way most smokers get their hookup "sordid" (more like ordering pizza, really). He’s been open and honest about his past use, so there isn’t much digging to do.
Nonetheless, I think Cindy’s use is relevant because of McCain’s hypocrisy with regards to drug policy. McCain’s as hawkish as they come on the drug war – one assumes that he wouldn’t have advocated having his wife thrown in the slammer, so what differentiates her from those he’d push legislation on? What, did she pass the rich-and-white threshold that makes her case tragic and her battle honorable, whereas the folks snorting Oxy in the alley ought to get sent up-river thanks to mandatory minimums?
Obama’s much more forgiving to addicts. His Blueprint for Change mentions his health care plan would cover users looking to kick their habits, as well as giving first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence in drug rehabilitation programs instead of the clink. He also has his eye on sentencing disparities, where minority users are given disproportionately harsh penalties. Obama’s also pledged to provide more support for ex-offenders, including job training, counseling, and prison-to-work incentive programs.
To his credit, McCain has in the past come down hard on the tobacco industry. When last I
checked, tobacco regulation was still a part of his policy playbook. However, he only directly addresses addiction as it relates to veterans, and continues to support stricter penalties for non-violent drug crimes, including capitol punishment for drug traffickers. He is also in favor of expanding D.A.R.E., which I think any child of the 80s can tell you was a laughably ineffective program. He also opposes medical marijuana, which is perhaps only tangently related to issues of abuse and rehabilitation, but still relevant to his overall drug policy.
To make it simple: The issue here isn't that Cindy is an imperfect person. It's how they would treat others who made their same mistakes.
September 15, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama smoked pot and occasionally did coke at parties, he didn't deal,
----------------------------------------------------
So he said, I've seen no investigative reporting of the type that went into the story on Cindy McCain. Are you suggesting that it was appropriate for reporters to interview multiple people to get the story on Cindy but reporters should simply take Obama at his word?
It seems to me that if the drug abuse of the wife of a presidential candidate needs to be thoroughly investigated and that investigation needs to be printed on the front page of the Washington post than the drug abuse of a presidential candidate needs to be thoroughly investigated and the results of that investigation needs to be printed on the front page of the Washington Post.
This was a very detailed 5 page article on Cindy McCain's drug abuse. I have seen no investigation at all on obama's drug abuse. All I've seen is his brief 2 or 3 sentence statement.
September 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from policy differences I mentioned above, I wonder if the fact that Obama didn't steal his drugs from a charity had something to do with it?
September 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're also forgetting that his past use was, in fact, dug into during the Dem primary, notably by the NY times (but also covered by others), as well as brought up with the mess involving Bill Shaheen.
September 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly do remember the brouhaha with Shaheen. I thought it was totally inappropriate for him to bring up Obama's drug use that occured years ago when there was no evidence that he had continued.
The difference between you and me is you think its totally appropriate for the Washington Post to do an in depth 5 page investigative report on Cindy McCain's drug use and put it on the front page 2 months before an election.
September 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't wholly think it's appropriate, but I also don't wholly think it's irrelevant. How's that?
Your post also has far more to do with perceived imbalance in press coverage than it does tabloid-style voyeurism, or else the comparisons to coverage of Obama's drug use are totally superfluous. And, as I've tried to show, his use has been covered, for right or wrong, so your umbrage there is unwarranted.
By all means, advocate for discretion in the press -- but don't manufacture your own controversy in order to bolster an otherwise worthy cause.
September 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he didn't forge prescriptions for narcotics, which is a Class 3 felony. Part of the point of the Wapo article was McCain's behavior throughout this ordeal, which IS relevant:
He was away so much and/or so oblivious that he didn't notice that his wife was addicted to drugs
---- Or -----
He denied it to save his political soul, risking her health and life by not intervening. It was her parents who eventually confronted her; who could believe that John just didn't notice?
When he finally did find out, like the time she was admitted to a hospital, he went in and forcibly removed her, taking her to a private family location. So either he was so devoted he wanted to take care of her himself
-----Or ----------
He wanted to protect his brand.
I think we've seen enough of the real McCain to know the answers to these questions.
Comparing a college-age experimentation with drugs to someone who is so rich she could fund her very own international charity and then use it to provide her with forged prescriptions is just ridiulous! A doctor lost his license because of her demands for drugs; her staff, in whose names bogus prescriptions were written, were fired when they objected.
If you want to explore an under-reported drug abuse case, you only have to look at Dubya when his daddy was Prez -- he had all the cocaine he could snort at Camp David and everyone was afraid to do anything about it.
So OceanKat, go meow up a tree that matters; you are being silly
September 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is smoking pot or snorting coke "abusing" a drug? It is simply taking it, just like drinking a martini or three at a party, or having a nightly whisky, is not abusing alcohol if that is take to mean addiction. The word should be avoided as misleading and vague.
For my money, Obama's lack of drug virginity makes him normal.
September 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Washington Post thought she was abusing drugs and decided that abuse was worth a 5 page investigative report on the front page 2 months before an election. Neither Obama's nor Cindy's drug use years ago seems worth discussing imo. The Washington post thought otherwise.
The Washington Post thoroughly investigated Cindy McCain's drug use and printed an old story about it 2 months before an election. Yet that same news organization decided that Obama's drug use wasn't even worth investigating at all.
That's the crux of the issue for me.
September 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post also covered it, although more in general terms and the effect his past drug use might have on the election. It wasn't investigative, but perhaps the difference lies in this quote from the piece:
My guess is, folks have investigated (see: NY times piece) and found that his account of his past use held up.
September 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get real, there's been absolutely no investigation into his drug use and obama's statements have given little information.
By Obama's own account he used cocaine when he could afford it. Yet in the "investigation" printed in the NYT there was not a single person that knew he used cocaine. Their investigation resulted in less information than the candidate himself revealed. And their assesment of what the candidate revealed was, "Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has never quantified his illicit drug use or provided many details."
Again I think this is a non issue. But for some reason Cindy McCain's drug use almost 20 years ago is such a pressing issue now it needed a 5 page front page report.
September 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I say above, it's admirable to take a stand against tabloid-style reporting. But your insistence on bringing Obama into it shows more about you and your prejudice than it does the WaPo.
September 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
(laughs) The idea that the so called investigative reports couldn't even find information about obama's cocaine use which we know happened because Obama himself admitted it proves that the story has been looked into and nothing was found.
I'm always amazed at the lengths Obama supporters will go to to defend obama. That's really why I tossed this post out, to be amused by the responses. There shall be no criticism of the One.
September 15, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congrats on confirming that you're a troll, I guess?
How hard is this to understand: Presidential candidates are vetted. You can tinfoil-hat your way through life if you want, but if you seriously don't think ANY media outlet has been digging and digging, hoping for that huge story to sink Obama, you're delusional.
But no, no -- the oceankat reality says that Obama has ALL the world media swooning. No one would dare attack him (months of publication not withstanding!) because he is THE ONE.
Pull your head out.
September 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny, you actually think I care when you call me names. That tells me all I need to know about you.
Even more funny you think the MSM vets candidates. So when they were unable to get any information about Bush's national guard service and Rather's one attempt to tell the story was destroyed on a technicality and only got him fired that was vetting. And when Gore was portrayed as a serial liar/exaggerator who claimed to have invented the internet, discovered love canal, and that he and tipper were the inspiration for "Love Story" that was vetting too.
Thank god all those problems have been fixed and in this election cycle the vetting is complete and absolutely fair.
September 15, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The use of illegal intoxicating drugs by young people has reached epidemic proportions. The seriousness of the social problems underlying drug usage and the gravity of consequences for individuals and for society as a whole are a challenge to the adult world. Members of the medical profession are in a particularly strategic position to help meet that challenge.
---------------
Stellathomas
Drug Rehabs
October 31, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink