Recently the bush administration criticized Canada about loosening pot restrictions. They also refused to sign a worldwide anti-tobacco treaty. (He's a real compassionate conservative!) What's the difference between pot and tobacco? Tobacco is much worse for you but more importantly big tobacco has part ownership of president Bush's soul. Is Bush making decisions or is he just a corporate puppet?

What exactly do you want to debate here? The inconsistancy in policies? The inner workings of the Bush administration? Or was the unsupported cheap shot at Bush enough for you ?

I don't want this to turn into a "I love Bush" vs "I hate Bush" thread so I will close this pending a PM with a more focused debate question. Then I'll reopen this. Thanks.

Ok - here's the debate question:
(Yes, I recognize the option of "good judgment" is not listed above. Obviously, we can bring that in as an aspect of this debate )


My addition -
How does the Bush administrations' stance on tobacco and marijuana help define your argument?



Enjoy the debate!

Sometimes money, other times morality. Just like any politician, most of the time. One 'money' qualifier though. It's not about his own monetary gain.

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that money controls this administration . It seems to have a vision, but that vision is based on the premise that dominating world markets is our best way to go, and this of course has its basis in the money principle.

I don't see morality as a driving principle at all. What are the morals? Can anyone state them clearly?

In the case of tobacco, the only moral is to support an established American industry.

In the case of pot, the only moral is to support an established set of laws--that have no logical basis to exist.

Since moral logic isn't in effect, one must go to the alternative premise: This is all for money and nothing more.

Following this idea a little farther, the administration didn't give a hoot about Iraq before being elected. It wasn't part of the campaign rhetoric. Then came 9/11 and opportunity. Is it moral to take advantage of a situation to leverage a hidden agenda? Not in my cosmology. So why take the huge risks with Iraq? Just cuz we're the good guys?

Nope. Money is in there somewhere, and like a dead rat in the wall, it stinks to high heaven.

Beholden to monied interests, this administration has done a lot of obvious paybacks--such as opening public land to more oil/gas exploration.

In an appeal to the left, it has also done things like support tariffs to protect US labor (which involves you know what--money), suggested that money (not that again) be spent on African AIDS and hydrogen fuel development.

What morals. I don't see any morals. I see a lot of strings being pulled, though, by hooded puppeteers, their pockets bulging with--money.

We are fooling ourselves to think that this administration, or any other, has had morality as its driving principle. Oh, I'll admit that GWB thinks about what is right for the country and possibly the world, but he is thinking as an MBA and business person.

So that thinking has at its root the concept of money and how that symbolizes power.

Had he studied philosophy or religions, then I might think that his administration is coming from a moral basis. But the history and evidence point to the other motivational factor.

Money was the basic reason for this nation to be founded… what would make anyone think that Money would not be the influence of any administration? I for one and glad we have a president who has an MBA. Business is the backbone of our country, it is why we have become the super power. Weather that is good or bad in opinions, I would not want it any differently.

Ask your self, how many decisions a day you make that involve religion, philosophy and money. Then compare the differences, I would make a wager most Americans have money involved more than the other two, so why would anyone think it would be different for the government?

This administration is basically pro-business, but as Showtime points out, that's a Good Thing.

As to whether they're operating from corruption and venal self-interest, yeah, sure they do to an extent, but I don't think more than is standard for politicians, and not more than previous administrations of both parties.

And at the same time, and again like most politicians, they also have the best interests of the country as a whole in mind, at least as they see it. So while they're crooks they're patriotic crooks, again same as typical politicians. The problem is they actually think Big Government is good for us, and on that IMNSHO they're dead wrong.

The big question is: Are they are a better bunch of crooks for the country than the other side's crooks? I think so.

P.S.: Almost missed Jaime's question --

Tobacco and marijuana doesn't affect my position at all. Both parties are in the pocket of the tobacco industry, and only complain about the other party being so for partisan advantage. Both parties are for the War on Drugs, which I totally oppose. There's no salvation on either issue at present without going outside the two party system.

Should bribery be the foundation of our government? A more important American value is democracy. I'd rather make 50,000$ a year in a democracy than 100,000$ in an oligarchy. Governments need to put some controls on business to protect their people. It's embarrassing as an American to have my government run by corporate executives that are just trying to make money. If we let ourselves be governed by a small group's want for personal fortune we are going to crash and burn like Enron.

You're assuming the Bush administration is more corrupt than is usual for American politicians, including of course previous Democrat administrations. I don't believe that to be the case.

Is it bad that politicians are as corrupt as is typically the case? Of course, and if I could wave a magic wand and make them all totally honest I'd do it, but short of that, and short of reducing government's authority to where there's nothing for them to steal and no influence to pedal, I don't know of any solution.

I would have to say "morality" - but only in the context of the J.K. Galbraith quote which can sometimes be found in my signature:

As to Jaime's corollary question, I think the cannabis/tobacco hypocrisy is emblematic of the Bush morality and pretty clearly makes the argument, never mind defining it.

That's a great Galbraith quote, Wertz. Here's one from Joe Sobran to serve as a counterpoint:

I think there has been one President in my lifetime who based much of his policies on morality. He was sent back to his peanut farm. Great guy, lousy President.

The problem with basing your policies on morality is, there are few universal morals, and most of those don't apply in the political arena. When I argue that transfer payments are immoral I am giving my opinion, many disagree.

There is still a certain Puritanical morality that hold marjuana use is wrong and tobacco is simply unhealthy. The opposition to marijuana is primarily based on a some people's moral code being pushed on others. I can't see any other reason for it. If it was all about money, think of the profits corporations could make. I believe certain brand names have already been registered in case marijuana is ever legalized. (That last statement is from a fuzzy memory of an article in a High Times magazine I read a quarter century ago, will check for a link.)

There is a link right here

It appears to me tobacco companies are best situated to profit if marijuana was legalized. Therefore, the different treatment of the two drugs, by our current administration, can only be seen as a twisted morality in action, or a maintenance of national sovereignty.

Breaking news, we now support the anti-tobacco treaty. See here I knew Bush was an overly compassionate moderate.

The World Health Organization (and its member countries, including the US) has approved the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - but it has not been ratified by the UN. The US has made no decision about whether we'll be signing the pact or not. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, the White House is "reviewing the text of the convention". Considering that the Washington originally wanted a provision which would allow the US to opt out of any of the Convention's provisions, I wouldn't look for a ratification any time soon...

As of now I would argue our position on marijuana is based on a puritanical morality. Our position on tobacco, as far as the WHO treaty is concerned, is up in the air. I think if litigation against tobacco companies continue that it will be only a matter of time before tobacco black market sales expands greatly.

Funny... and I thought this nation was colonized by those escaping religious persecution and later fought over for independence from the greed and tyranny that was the British Empire...I suppose this works if we'd all prefer to accept that two wrongs can make a right. If we're going to do this, though, let's make sure we're consistent.

American financial interests aside, would the administration have as many qualms as to the tobacco debate if they weren't a large compaign contributor? I'll look for the article, but from what I remember the prior administration had allocated substantial funds for prosecuting misdeeds in Big Tobacco, only to see those funds slashed dramatically by those presently in office.

Similarly, would we have such issues with Canada relaxing the rules on pot if we were producing some kind of revenue? Marijuana, according to some sources, is estimated to turn a better profit than corn in America. Yet there is a great disparity between those with afflictions related to marijuana and those related to tobacco.

Just as it does in the dictionary, money comes before morality in Washington. Apparently some people are okay with that... I've noticed, however, that some of these people willing to accept such standards are identical to those appalled by a mere blow-job only a few years ago.

Wertz, clarify something for me...

Are you for legalization of pot AND criminalization of tobacco?

Or legalizing both?

As for this treaty, let's examine it a little more closely: Draft framework on FCTC

Past all the Recognizing's, Determined.., and Seriously Concerned... statements, we see..

A lot of provisions already in place in the US (educational provisions, anti-smoking ads, warning labels, etc.)

Some will probably cause a lot of problems:

1. Comprehensive ban on advertising. Check any magazine and see what percentage of ads are for cigarettes. The long time ban on alcohol advertising has been eased in recent years. A ban on all smoking advertisements would put a dent in the overall advertising business. Just a note, not a judgment for or against on my part.

2. Ban on smoking in public places. I think it's funny that people who feel the government is becoming a police state think its ok for the government to ban voluntary activities in certain private arenas.

3. Tax policy. Any attempt to determine local tax policies via an international agreement is faulty on its face.

4. Tobacco "surveillance" programs. National, regional and global. Hmm.

5. Establishment of an international tobacco bureaucracy. Hmm.

6. Sharing of anti-tobacco funds.. HMM HMM. "to assist Parties in meeting their obligations under the Convention, all relevant potential and existing resources, financial, technical or otherwise, both public and private that are available for tobacco control activities, should be mobilized and utilized for the benefit of all Parties, especially developing countries and countries with econonies in transition;"

Other than those sticking points, I don't see much wrong with it.

Well, Bush in his campaign did remind us that "It's the economy, stupid"....er, wait...was that not Clinton's 92 campaign? Don't see much change in attitude when it comes to money.

I hope ConservPat does not basically repeat my sentiments.

I dunno about you guys, but isn't it true that most liberals [not trying to enflame anyone here] were saying it's the economy stupid, well, isn't the economy money? IMO, a president is responsible for three major things: the economy, military and social issues, now in order to take care of the economy, don't you have to care and understand the importance of money?

CP

Aside to amlord: I am for the legalization of both - with some regulation. I would personally oppose signing on to FCTC - and I would oppose any criticism of Canada's decriminalization of cannabis.

That whole post would mean a lot more if you actually explained why these "sticking points" are bad ideas... Or is a simple matter of 'governments/beurocracies are bad?'

I find this interesting: Everyone agrees that money makes the world go round, but then this has to be justified by making it morally correct. Ethical judgement terms like "good" and "foundation of country" have been used.

Or, in more basic philosophical terms, materialism must equated, or at least justified, with spiritualism somehow. The fundamental disparities need to be rationalized.

Another: The seeking of power in the material world must be reconciled with the seeking of . . . what?

Forgiveness? Growth? Salvation? Heaven? Take yer picks.

That this administration is driven by monied interests has not been challenged. It has been pointed out that that's just the way things are.

But what has not been pointed out is that this administration ran for election partially on a moral principled assumption: The candidate was, and I suppose still is, Christian.

But money makes his world go round.

But wait! He doesn't cheat on Laura, and that is what is most important, morally speaking. No, wait! He prays for directions from the on high! That's what is most important. Okay, how about he is divinely inspired!

Yeah, right. Nobody cares about these things when materialism (in the form of consumerism) is threatened, which it obviously is. Most people care about having a job, making a living, and buying stuff. We can ask forgiveness or get saved later on.

So, we can draw the conclusion that this administration works within big contradictions and conflicts.

I think we've seen evidence of this over the first two years and some months. We have a Halliburton whore in the VP slot while the Prez pushes for faith-based social programs, just for one example. Another is the mixed messages about the environment and the war in Iraq.

Then another question comes to light: Would an administration that does not claim any moral high ground be more effective? Put into simple terms, why elect anyone but a forthright materialist to run a forthright materialistic country?

This leads directly into questions about campaign rhetoric and public policy. Rhetoric tinged with moral high ground appeals to emotion may not work any longer when people need jobs. Public policy that takes away safety nets and promotes job loss may become major issues.

So, the wannabees get more things to promote and attack. Defenders of the present administration get all wrapped around the axle in logical contradictions, as in the tobacco versus marijuana disconnect. But that's just one of many disconnects--perhaps the classical guns versus butter problem will be the major basic issue.

In any case, I see where this administration has given the opposition lots of ammunition and maybe even some good promise points.

And so the world will take another turn.

The President should decide based on perserving the country's wealth not his own. It's a conflict of interest for Bush to lead the country since HMO's, oil companies, big tobacco and insurance companies give him money.

I think we already have a campaign reform debate. If government is going to be run based on morality, the question is who's morality? I do not want a government run under the principles of the religious right, or the religious left, or any other interest group.

Sorry about that hugo missed your post ! Great minds think alike .

CP

Absolutely, hugo. That is one of the ironies I always find with people talking about morality in American politics. More often than not (recently anyway), "morality" means "appeasing the religious right". I don't mean to derail the thread, but it seems to me that Christian fundamentalists are among the most intolerant, judgemental people alive - which strikes me as neither very moral nor very Christian. It makes me wonder to what class of morality could Ranciduncle possibly have been referring...


Could you possibly cite an example of this, CP?