Tapes Reveal That George Smoked Pot

Remove all ads!

Here is more evidence that King George used illegal drugs while still a young man. The only reason I even care about this issue is because such a flap was made by conservatives over Bill Clinton's use of pot also. In fact some conservatives ranted about this for years.

Such is politics in America. We have so much to be proud of in our leaders these days.

So now the other shoe has dropped, and no one cares. That should come as no surprise, because no one should have cared in the first place, IMO. When news of tapes came out a few days ago the media barely yawned. For me it is only more proof of how bogus the charges about the "libreal press" really are. What nonsense, especially after all the media has constantly given the current prez a free pass on while the things which Bill was flamed and fried on.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-tapes20.html

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_050213932.html

Now, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe he should go back to smoking pot.

 

Well for my part I believe that the past is the past and no one should dwell in it too much. This for instance has nothing to do with his political competence or background. Everyone makes stupid things in their youth and I think it's stupid to dig those things up or make a big deal out of them.

 

There is also the factor that we have already been there and done that. What is outrage today is accepted as normal tomorrow.

Of course when President Clinton admitted it, it was a campaign issue. Now it isn't, so the reaction is different because of that as well.

Sometimes it works in reverse. The Democrats played Clintons draft dodging off as no big deal, but yet made a huge deal of it, even when they couldn’t prove it true, about President Bush.

Ain’t politics grand!

I wonder how much of it President Bush smoked? It never seemed all that addictive to me, and I never really cared one way or another about it. Most people I know who have tried it believe that the governments witch hunt (the war on drugs) is misplaced, especially when it comes to the hippy lettuce. But then President Bush did have some alcohol issues, so perhaps he has an addictive personality, and that makes him afraid of pot.

Personally, I laughed my ass off when President Clinton (candidate at that time IIRC) admitted that he smoked it, but said he never inhaled. I mean, really? You tasted that nasty smoke, but didn't even get the benefit of getting high? It actually still makes me chuckle!

 

Lawyers...

 

It's amazing that people actually care enough about this to write articles about it. It's not going to have any effect on anything, really. Why waste your time?

 

For the same reason you wasted your time responding.

 

Was it not reported that he used some stronger drugs in the past?

Still I don't think it makes him a better or worse person.

Still he must be vain to think that people will do drugs just because he did!

 

Sigh... if only smoking pot was the worst thing about him. Personal morality in youth years is probably the least important thing for a politician. It's not as if many of the famous people in the last century (and probably before that) were not usually either womanizers, drunk themselves into stupor on a regular basis or smoked as if they had several extra lungs for replacements.
I suppose with Bush it's just kinda annoying as I read that he was elected in 2000 with a promise to restore "honor in the White House."

 

I think that there is too much fuss about Bush's drinking record, or drug use. He has grown up, somewhat - but I imagine it must have a certain charme to confront one Mr. Clean like him with something like that. His alcohole problem still brought him nowhere near russian standards, so that's not much of a problem too, IMO. Substance abuse is really about the least of a problems I have with G.W. Bush.

Today I'm in Frankfurt, and I had to rent an hotel room for the night because the ultra-tight security measures for his visit crippled traffic for approx 2 million people. Facing no train traffic, flight delays and traffic jams of at least some 5 hours I prefer the hotel - even Ibis

Well, G.W. Bush would probably a nice and fun guy to have at a party - even if he allegedly can't hold his liquor - meeting him, I'd probably like him personally. No kidding btw

A pity he's such a terrific politician.

[ February 23, 2005, 15:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That's not the case here. The point of this thread is that no one cares, even the media dogs could care less. But the media went wild over the slightest hint of personal scandal when it involved the Clintons. The crux of my point is that this story is evidence that there is a double standard in the conservative media. And it's really that the media is not even conservative but big business. And any big business has a friend in George.

But Darkwolf has it right: It's Okay if our guy does it, but if the other guys do it...

 

Yeah... Today I saw somewhere that a conservative, anti-gay group had a rally in support of Jeff Gannon's right of privacy.


Anyway, I suppose somewhere it should be stated what a president of the USA is entitled to have done, such as:
- A total of 15 years of heavy legal substance abuse, discontinued if he cannot appear sober on TV/Radio
- A total of 7 years of illegal substance abuse, discontinued
- A total of 1.5 years of hard drugs, discontinued (I am adamant on this one - the discontinued part, that is)
- A total of 10 years of extra-marital sexual relationships, known of by the first lady, discontinued
- A total of 15 years of extra-marital sexual relationships, not known of by the first lady, need not be discontinued as long as he does not appear with lipstick traces on TV and/or does not get carried away into French-kissing any official of a sovereign country of a higher rank than deputy-minister

Of course, in case of a female president substitute as needed... BTW, how would her husband be called? First Man? First Lord?
Anyone has anything they'd rather add? The list seems rather incomplete for now.

 

Yeah, he *is* right indeed. FOX News cried bloody murder about Bill Clinton's joint (the priceless "... but I did not inhale!" episode). Their silence on that part of Bush's past is deafening.

Excellent comment on double standards on drug use and punishment for drug abuse here.

 

Bush has always been forthcoming and willing to discuss his past failures. Clinton sought to minimalize them, and deny them...that's the difference.

Why is this even an issue?

 

I can see that this is an issue because the same people who were morally outraged by anything Clinton did, especially the joint session have no moral problem with their president having been a hardcore alcoholic, known cannabis abuse and strongly suspected cocaine abuse. I heard Billy boy talk about that "didnt inhale" thing once it doesnt sound as silly if you hear what he has to say, he said he didnt inhale not because he didnt want to but because he had never smoked before and was unable to inhale without coughing his face off.

I generally think there is too much focus, especially in the US, on past missteps of politicians and their general private life. Bush trying pot a few times is just not any of ours business. What actually ought to be peoples business is the fact that Bush is a hopefully sober alcoholic and that there is a lot pointing to him not only smoking a little pot and him having snorted quite a bit of coke in his days.

Old addicts are not the most stable of persons.

As for him discussing it openly that is just bull, what couldnt be ignored have been downplayed and trivialized.

Why is it so hard to admit that it is OK for guys on your side to do one thing but it is nice with ammo for attacking the guys on the other side HS? I can, it is not that hard you know.

 

We can let the fool speak for himself on this one.

Quote from the tapes:

He sounds very forthcoming.

You would have been well-served to have read some of the content of the tapes before commenting, HS. I posted a link, and some excerpts.

Your comments reflect exactly why I posted this in the first place.

 

I was bored and perplexed that someone wasted hours of their life on writing a newspaper article. Gosh, they had some strange motivations...

 

Besides the fact that someone actually got paid to write that article (making a paycheck can be a good thing sometimes), let's consider this: There are 12 secret tapes that reveal George's thinking before he ran for, and became the president. Thus, there will be more than a passing interest by a lot of people who are not only interested in contemporary politics, but scholars who are interested in presidential history as well. So, I would respectfully disagree that the uncovering of these tapes is a waste of time.

[ February 26, 2005, 04:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Yes, I see your point in that, and I agree. But I feel that they should be analyzed by historians and used for the important things in them. This focus on all the negative aspects of W's past really befuddles me. Why is it such an important thing that Bush experimented with drugs in his youth? Many, many people have done such things. I think it's fine to get these tapes, analyze them, and all that, but why ONLY focus on drugs? It seems absurd.

 

Well, there is an interesting link posted by Ragusa that makes this point: A lot of young people are going to jail and doing hard prison time for doing drugs. It seems out-of-sorts that one person goes to jail for several years; but another person does drugs and gets to be president. It seems an odd thing that on-the-one-hand, we easily dismiss George's drug use, which may have been minor, maybe not, yet still we are holding others highly accountable for it. Why does he get a free pass, while others don't?

 

Chandos,

I think you will find that the occasional user of drugs who ever gets caught is the exception, and even more of an exception are the occasional users that go to prison or due jail time. Unfortunately, laws are, of necessity, sort of like an audit. The auditor knows that once they leave, things are going to happen that would be findings if they were done in the auditor's presence, so they set the expectation at 10, knowing that when they leave the reality will be 7 or 8. Laws are much the same way. How many times have we all passed by a cop with his radar gun on, doing 2 or 3 mph or kph and have them pull out to ticket us (outside of a school zone)? Around here, on the highways, the police will not even look at you funny until you are 10 mph over. IMO drug enforcement is much the same. I have known lots of people who were smoking a bowel or 2 at a party, have the cops bust the party, and not arrest anyone, even though there was a small amount of pot found. However, auditors have to find some exceptions and make an example of them, and unfortunately, the law works in this same way. I don’t like it, but until we find a better way…

You are correct in your point that it is stupid that Clinton's and Bush's use of drugs has been handled so differently. And I believe that you are correct in your assessment that the big networks are interested first in ratings. IMO they are next interested in political activism, and lastly in providing unbiased news. They won’t compromise their ratings at the expense of either of the other 2, but if they can exploit a situation they will (hence Rather’s fall). The funny thing is that I believe that most journalists become activists because of a true desire to do good and improve the world (on both the right and the left), whereas I believe that most politicians (especially seasoned politicians) pick a position because the believe that position will bring them the most personal reward (power, prestige, or money). And while I see your outrage at the difference in the treatment of two people who have committed the same act (in both Bush/Clinton, and Bush/average Joe), I think that you are overestimating the number of people who go to jail for casual use of drugs. I am not saying that there aren't some, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Another issue I see with this is that if we examined of the demographics of those who do go to jail for relatively minor drug offenses, I believe we would find a trend that indicated them to be poor and/or members of a racial minority. This isn’t right or fair.

That said, life isn't fair. That isn't to say that we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible, but it will never be completely fair

It is funny though, because this argument is one of the reasons I am in favor of the de-criminalization of many illegal drugs, but that is another topic.

Edit: Just read Ragusa's linked story, sorry.

President Bush did not give the man in the story a death sentence, and neither did the judge or the laws, them young man did it to himself. He knew it was a crime, and a serious crime. You realize that he manufactured approximately 1792 8-balls (1/8 oz of meth). That is a crap load of meth! From what I understand that is a weekend supply for a regular user and a months supply for a casual user. I never used meth, so I don't know what is a felony amount, but it is far less than 14 pounds. No one held a gun to this man's head and told him to do this. He wouldn't have starved if he hadn't done this (so the poaching on the king's land arguement doesn't work). If you can't afford to do the time, don't do the crime. Americans have decided that punishment is preferable to re-habilitation, and for it to be effective, it has to be severe enough to discourage the behavior. I don't agree with prison rape, but the American people long ago decided to turn a blind eye to it, so the death sentence was handed down by all of us who do not want to cut other programs or pay higher taxes to protect prisoners. Personally, I am all for elimination of many gov't funded programs and diversion of 50% of those funds to build prisons where prisoners will maintain their dignity and can be given an education and opportunity to leave prison with skills they can use to apply to get a job in the real world, but society and I are on different sides of this issue.

[ February 26, 2005, 04:17: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]