You seem to be forgetting that we have an anti-drug war Republican running for election in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He is absolutely in favor of ending the War On (Some) Drugs. Go to www.ronpaul2008.com and support this man who would return the government to the Constitutional Republic our Founders intended.

My congressman, Maurice Hinchey is a democrat. Unfortunately he isn't running for president. He and Ron Paul have several things in common. Both opposed invading Iraq. Both opposed the Patriot Act and Bush's wanting to read people's mail and email without warrants.

Maurice Hinchey introduced 2 medical marijuana bills. Among those congressmen voting with Hinchey were Ron Paul.

I'm not a Republican, but if Ron Paul either gets the Republican Nomination or runs as a third party candidate, I'll vote for him.

So let me get this straight... Is the following the right message?

Marijuana is so dangerous that is must be kept from everyone, including adults. Yet, young people lose friends every year from a drug which is legal for adults. No one has ever died of an overdose of marijuana, and I have yet to hear about anyone who wrecked their car simply from being intoxicated on cannabis alone.

So the reason we have to keep cannabis illegal, according to Sen. Edwards (and my Senator, Patty Murray), is to send a message which is untrue. They are telling us that millions of us in this country must remain criminals in order to continue the government's anti-drug propaganda. Not because the drug is actually dangerous, but because we have to convince young people that we think it is.

A law based on illogic, or outright lies, is an immoral law. These people are unamerican and evil for believing this and for spewing it on national television.

Even if Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Richardson completely agreed that marijuana should be decriminalized, in this context they would not answer the question affirmatively. If they had, the Washington Post headline about the debate would have been "Candidate supports Pot" instead of "Clinton's Foes Go on the Attack." If any of them had answered affirmatively, they would have demonstrated an appalling inability to stay on message at a critical moment.

A yes to this question would have had the result Surgeon General Elders had at the National Press Club luncheon in December 1993 when she was presenting the Clinton Administration's anti-violence initiative. I asked her whether drug legalization might be a strategy to reduce violence. Her response that she thought we ought to consider studying legalizing drugs totally dominated the news coverage. The point of her National Press Club event was to get attention for her anti-violence initiatives. That never made the news.

Don't be disheartened by those answers at this event!!

Only when a candidate wants to get news about their position on marijuana, other than medical marijuana, would it ever make sense for any of them to say anything about it that is not the pure conventional wisdom.

Eric Sterling
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation

In my book, Mr. Kucinich is the only Democrat that makes any sense. I encourage you to support him. I don't vote Republican, criminal party. The last time I voted Democratic Party for President was when McGovern ran. But, Kucinich I could get behind.

As far as sending messages goes, that is bull. Doesn't do anything. Those sending messages should be locked up.

Actually, we should be locking up Drug Warriors for war crimes. God knows they have done enough damage to his children.

I don't voter republican or democrat, either. People seem to forget that there are politicians that have a good message that people will listen to, no matter what the party affiliation. Heed this warning!! Keep voting for the lesser of the two evils (parties) and you will find yourseslf in a police state, with an evil president!

Most things I read make me think that the two party situation is conterproductive. It means only the rich can buy their way in! Only the "front-runners", the mainstream media identifies, are to be considered in the race! That should be illegal! Probably is, but in this country it is getting to be "who you know" that determines if you get away with it (avoid charges)!

It would appear that there is some of the democratic candidates that support medical cannabis and republican candidates, however, actions DO speak louder than words. For instance: say RON PAUL or Clinton SAY they will stop the raids... but how many time has a candidate who really HAS been elected prez followup on their promises? With the american system as it is, brainwashed and indoctrinated with lies and false information, has had a clear consequence on the dimeanor of a candidate even willing to support cannabis, with giggles and stigma laying heavily on their minds as they "falsely" approve of stopping the raids or supporting the decrim of cannabis. They beleive in their own lies. Coz of the american system of indoctrinating the public with false information on cannabis.. It is SOOOO imbedded in the system that ALL of these candidates I feel will not follow thru with a damn thing they promise.

It's always the children. What about the message to the children? Let me tell you something Mr. $400 hair cut wimpy-boy, the message is out, if you want your kid's to have easy access to drugs, simply continue the prohabition/black market.

I want to personally thank you, and all those other cowards for making my kid's lives more dangerous then they would be otherwise!