Does Miller-Meeks want to legalize marijuana?

Responding to a question on whether the war on drugs has been effective and is it constitutional to enforce drug laws, here's what Republican candidate for U.S. Congress Mariannette Miller-Meeks had to say at the April 29 congressional forum hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty:  

"We need to have a dialog about for instance, about marijuana, alcohol, the drinking age. Are we trying to protect driving while intoxicated?  As a nation we need to have that dialogue. We have not done that, just impose laws and create a massive infrastructure and bureaucracy to fight drugs"

''I am not comfortable with legalizing the harder drugs, but for other classes of drugs we need to have a serious conversation and dialogue about that."

Comments

[Skip Bimford]

Rathje and his paid campaign staff person Todd Henderson are putting this all over the internet. Per the articles on the debate, Rathje has as state's rights position on that issue. Seems a little hypocritical to slam Miller-Meeks on that when he's advocating legalizing on a state by state basis.

It doesn't appear she supports legalization, just a discussion in terms of how the drug war is eroding our rights and exploding the bureaucracy and how things might be done different to avoid that. That is definitely a discussion liberty minded people need to have.

[seperating wheat from chaff]

Does Miller-Meeks want to legalize marijuana?

That's a legitimate question based on the MMM quotes.

"I am not comfortable with legalizing the harder drugs, but for other classes of drugs we need to have a serious conversation and dialogue about that."

Translation: To my liberal friends I want to sound like I'll push for the legalization of marijuana, to conservatives I want to sound like I'm not.

[Nicholas Pottebaum]

In a year Republicans should sweep the nation we must not screw it up by making illogical headlines that misrepresent our own Republican candidates. Why does the Coralville Courier (inspired in the backroom by the Steve Rathje for Congress Campaign) feel they must misrepresent a congressional campaign by making illogical connections between Dr. Miller-Meeks' quotes and a misleading headline? Does the Coralville Courier not have the common journalistic decency to even get a quote from the campaign being attacked?

As a person who attended the Thursday, April 29 debate among the three Congressional Republican candidates for Iowa’s Second Congressional District in Iowa City I find it appalling that one candidate’s campaign feels they must misrepresent and disrespect another’s campaign on an online blog.

Quotes may speak for themselves, but fact-less, sensational headlines do not. Steve Rathje’s campaign feels that it must use its good old-boy endorsement by the Coralville Courier as a speaking ground to attack Dr. Miller-Meeks. Making up yellow-journalistic headlines that read, “Does Miller-Meeks want to legalize marijuana?” is ridiculous. Sure the headline is just a question, but it is a leading question attempting to mislead people.

The headline was referring to a comment at the debate on Thursday night by Dr. Miller-Meeks when she stated there is a dialogue regarding the potential legalization of marijuana and we should have that dialogue.

This headline is absurd and obviously came right out the Rathje campaign. Attempting to misrepresent and deceive the electorate based upon nothing is a new low for this race. There is no logical connection between the rhetoric at the debate and the headline.

At no time did Dr. Miller-Meeks ever state in the debate that she was in support of the legalization of marijuana nor did she say she would like to see marijuana legalized. She only stated that marijuana was being discussed for the potential legalization in the political realm. Referring indirectly to organizations like Iowa Board of Pharmacy who this past fall and winter discussed the legalization of medical marijuana and made considerable headlines during the 2010 Legislative Session.

This brings up the bigger issue, why would a campaign and its “journalistic” connections misrepresent a candidate?

It is sad that Steve Rathje, who I believe is a good person, put his name next to a online post that attacks Dr. Miller-Meeks on his Facebook Profile page with no facts or logical connection between a headline that misrepresents and contradicts statements by Dr. Miller-Meeks.

Did Dr. Miller-Meeks say we there is currently a conversation and that we should have a conversation about legalizing marijuana? Yes, the state of Iowa has been discussing it for years. However, this does not indicate a person is in support of legalizing marijuana. The Des Moines Register polled some 1,000 Iowans a few months ago that found 64% Iowans wanted to discuss the idea of legalization. I am not sure how discussing legalizing or not legalizing marijuana is a problem. Politicians and candidates discuss plenty of topics that they feel strongly for and against, but this never stops discussion.

Did Dr. Miller-Meeks ever say she supported legalizing medical marijuana, or even marijuana in general? No! Any person would be dumbfounded to make that connection.

I am 19 years old. I met Dr. Miller-Meeks in 2007 and have since been able to understand Dr. Miller-Meeks’ views and the type of person she is. The fact that this headline attempts to gain a political whisper campaign is sickening.

To see misrepresentation and make fact-less attacks on a candidate makes me think what type of candidates we have in this race. Right now, we have only one candidate who can stand up for all Iowans, young and old - that is Dr. Miller-Meeks.

I see attacks like this and wonder why people my age are so apathetic towards politics. I think is due to the fact that they see mud-slinging politics like this and they turn away.

I plan to stand with Dr. Miller-Meeks on June 8 and on November 2, because we need a person in Congress for my generation who can be respectful and stand up for her convictions with integrity. I will not stand with candidates who want to illogically attack others and to play the political game. Political headlines may get some people to talk, but voters are smart enough to see beyond the empty rhetoric.

Vote Dr. Miller-Meeks!

Nicholas Pottebaum and only he wrote opinions expressed in this letter.

If you would like to respectively contact Nicholas Pottebaum please email him at ndpottebuam@gmail.com.

[Civil Unrest]

How is what the Coralville Courier posted mud-slinging?

Those are the words of Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the post, straight from the horses mouth.

They're not taken out of context, it's what she said, in black and white.

The headline question is valid and it's becoming clear that MMM is not a conservative and doesn't seem to think she needs their vote.

Abortion: Says she's pro-life with exceptions. Very grey on defining the exceptions. Not exactly a conservative position.

Legalizing marijuana: She wants to "talk" about it, implying the legalization of marijuana but not harder drugs. Not exactly a conservative position.

Value added tax: Supports it. Not exactly a conservative position.

[Carolyn J. Williams]

64% of Iowans want to discuss the idea of legalization and MMM agreed the disussion would be useful. The headline is misleading and no better than the MSM does in support of the leftist agenda.

VAT - she said it would make some sense if all other taxes were eliminated. Hardly the same thing as unconditional support.

MMM is pro-life. not grey at all - exceptions for the life of the mother and in the case of rape or incest - the option should be available for the mother... those people who think she is not conservative have not spent time with her.

MMM will win in June and again in November.

[Skip Bimford]

Boy, that's rich. Rathje is quoted as saying that "the Federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in legislating drug use and believes the decision should be left to the people and the States. "It is up to each individual States as to how they are going to handle this." in that very same debate. That's state by state legalization. Far beyond just having a dialogue.

On abortion Rathje has been quoted that abortion is between the mother, her doctor, and God. That flat sounds pro-choice to me.

I have never read anything where Miller-Meeks or any of the candidates have supported a VAT tax. I've seen mention of possible support for a value added sales tax, but that's not a traditional VAT, so I'm assuming the reporter didn't have a clue of what they were writing about. Even then Miller-Meeks said either a sales or income tax but not both.

[Jed]

Legalizing marijuana is not a conservative stance and MMM is not a true conservative.

Why support a VAT when you know it won't be used to eliminate any other taxes, but will only be used to add on?

MMM isn't nearly as pro-life as you claim, those people who think she's pro-life and wouldn't go along with Democrat attempts to expand abortion coverage have not spent enough time with her.

MMM isn't doing anything different that she did in 2008, and given that she lost big to Loebsack is a good reason not to vote for her in 2010.

And voting for her just because she's a woman is a lousy reason to.

[Jed]

Imagine that, Rathje advocating state's rights - how CONSTITUTIONAL of him!

MMM talked about the VAT at the Coralville debate and yes did mention that it would be have to be a replacement to the income tax, but that's NOT how it's being proposed by the Democrats so why she's spending time on discussion on VAT without FIRST asking how the current system is to be dismantled is a pointless endeavor. And again, MMM's approach is not conservative. She needs to quit telling people that she is and just admit that she's a moderate.

Why people can't simply admit what they are to the people they're wanting to represent is both eye-opening and frustrating.

[Skip Bimford]

From everything I can ready Miller-Meeks is making that very point:

"Discussing the Value Added Tax (VAT) proposed by Washington incumbents, Miller-Meeks stated that if the VAT was put into effect on top of (that means in addition to for those of you who live in University Heights) the current income tax, it would hurt the country.

"It will cripple our economy and make us more dependent on the federal government." - Coralville Courier

'Candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Ottumwa ophthalmologist who ran against Loebsack in the last election, said the sales tax wouldn't be that bad if it was put in place of the current income tax. Her worry, she said, was that the government would institute this sales tax on top of the current income tax.

"It will cripple our economy and make us more dependent on the federal government," Miller-Meeks said.' - Iowapolitics.com

I see no where that she supports a VAT, or 'value added sales tax' as the reporters call it in addition to an income tax. In fact I dont' see where she supports a VAT at all. There is no such thing as a 'value added sales tax', I'm guessing the reporter means something akin to the FairTax.

And legalizing state-by-state is still legalizing. I don't see where Miller-Meeks is anywhere near that point yet, she's just talking about having a dialogue.

Rathje's abortion language is still pro-choice.

[Jed]

You're missing the point skip,

MMM has trumpeted a conservative horn at times.

Her stances do not reconcile with a true conservative mindset.

A true conservative doesn't even consider the VAT because it doesn't meet the conservative criteria for lowering taxes and less government.

"Candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Ottumwa ophthalmologist who ran against Loebsack in the last election, said the sales tax wouldn't be that bad if it was put in place of the current income tax."

But it's not being proposed as a replacement, so there's no point in discussing it. A true conservative would say, "I do not support the VAT as proposed, further, the VAT is a hidden tax and fails to meet the conservative criteria for lower taxes and smaller government." Her position here is moderate, and she has no business claiming she is a fiscal conservative.

A true conservative doesn't even discuss legalizing marijuana, because legalization compounds the already large problems of substance abuses and intoxication and a true conservative says as much. Again, her position here is moderate to liberal depending on what her *nuances* would be for legalization legislation - again, we don't know what that might be, she won't say. She plays the fence game instead - also, not a conservative thing to do.

Same thing with abortion, she's playing with words trying to please whatever crowed she's speaking to. Not a conservative thing to do.