Barack Obama's Cocaine Use - Double Standard?

[AmericanDreamer]

Is it fair for the military to discharge its servicemen and women for cocaine use, yet allow an admitted user like Obama to possibly be it's Commander in Chief?

FACTS:

Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine
"In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html

Obama gets blunt with N.H. students
"Obama has written about his drug use in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father." Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, Obama wrote, but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/

THE LAW:

It is against against the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for any person in the Armed Forces of the United States to use cocaine. It is clearly stated:
912a. ART. 112a. WRONGFUL USE, POSSESSION, ETC., OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
"(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports form the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a substance described in subsection (b) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm

Alcohol & Drug Disqualifications
"Concerning drugs; "soft drugs" such as marijuana and hashish are usually waiver-able, while "hard drugs" such as cocaine and heroin are usually disqualifying."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Cadet Court-Martialed For Cocaine Use
Air Force News
August 8, 2003
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. -- Cadet 1st Class Seth S. M. Tuatoo was sentenced by general court-martial Aug. 6 to 90 days confinement and dismissal from the Air Force, after pleading guilty to one count of illegal use of cocaine."

"Illegal use of cocaine is in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,usaf4_080803,00.html

Take into consideration that the Cadet that was discharged was a ONE TIME OFFENDER. He did not admit to many counts of cocaine use, as did Barack Obama.

Is it a question of double standards? You decide.

[bobbylien]

So what are you trying to say here?

[AmericanDreamer]

So what are you trying to say here?

Is it a double standard to allow an admitted cocaine user to hold the position of Commamder in Chief of the US Military, when the same US Military does not allow cocaine use with its service personnal?

US President=Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces

[ViolaLee]

Dubya did coke too. He's the Commander in Chief right now. Why isn't this thread about him?

[AmericanDreamer]

Dubya did coke too. He's the Commander in Chief right now. Why isn't this thread about him?

This is about a candidate that admitted to cocaine use. Big difference.

[ViolaLee]

It's about a cocaine user, Commander in Chief. And we have one right now. As well as an alcoholic C in C. George Bush refused to admit his cocaine use. Obama was honest about it. Big difference.

[moses2792796]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?

[ViolaLee]

Exactly moses.

The double standard is that this thread isn't about the current President.

[Drocket]

In terms of 'used at one point' versus 'currently using', no, there's no double standard. A presidential candidate who's *currently using* illegal drugs is rather obviously unqualified as a candidate.

[Elrathin]

If you used cocaine before you join the military that does not disqualify you from joining the military. So why should it disqualify Obama from being President because he once use it?

[Mia]

So what are you trying to say here?

Is it a double standard to allow an admitted cocaine user to hold the position of Commamder in Chief of the US Military, when the same US Military does not allow cocaine use with its service personnal?

US President=Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces


Alcohol & Drug Disqualifications
"Concerning drugs; "soft drugs" such as marijuana and hashish are usually waiver-able, while "hard drugs" such as cocaine and heroin are usually disqualifying."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Conte...g,,00.html

That one word disallows your argument. Usually. If he were to use on the job, that would be a different story. There are much better reasons than this that he shouldn't be President.

[micfranklin]

Dubya did coke too. He's the Commander in Chief right now. Why isn't this thread about him?

This is about a candidate that admitted to cocaine use. Big difference.


No difference. Obama did it when he was in college, whats your point? You think it's okay to mudsling on people for old shit?

[AmericanDreamer]

It's about a cocaine user, Commander in Chief. And we have one right now. As well as an alcoholic C in C. George Bush refused to admit his cocaine use. Obama was honest about it. Big difference.

Simple question. It's about double standards that seem to happen in politics very often. Why do members have a hard time keeping with the post. This is not an attack on him, it's a valid question that deserves a civil response. The question is quite simple, in fact. And there are plenty of links provided to help in that decision. If you don't want to answer, then you don't have to.[hr]
Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?

I didn't try cocaine in high school, or in any school. If you did, I don't really care and is nonresponsive to the question asked. The post is about whether or not it's a double standard.
[hr]


So what are you trying to say here?

Is it a double standard to allow an admitted cocaine user to hold the position of Commamder in Chief of the US Military, when the same US Military does not allow cocaine use with its service personnal?

US President=Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces


Alcohol & Drug Disqualifications
"Concerning drugs; "soft drugs" such as marijuana and hashish are usually waiver-able, while "hard drugs" such as cocaine and heroin are usually disqualifying."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Conte...g,,00.html

That one word disallows your argument. Usually. If he were to use on the job, that would be a different story. There are much better reasons than this that he shouldn't be President.

Ask any recruiter if prior cocaine use is a disqualifyer, and the answer will be YES.


[hr]
If you used cocaine before you join the military that does not disqualify you from joining the military. So why should it disqualify Obama from being President because he once use it?

Call any military recruiter, law enforcement agency, FBI, CIA, DEA, Post Office, any government ageny. They will tell you that you are not eligible due to prior cocaine use. The question here is does a double standard apply.

[hr]


Dubya did coke too. He's the Commander in Chief right now. Why isn't this thread about him?

This is about a candidate that admitted to cocaine use. Big difference.

No difference. Obama did it when he was in college, whats your point? You think it's okay to mudsling on people for old shit?
It is a indication of character. In fact, that is how the military views it. If you look at this as "mud-slinging", then you really didn't read the question, or the post. If you read the post then you would know my point. You don't have to answer, but at least give a valid arguement as to why.

[ViolaLee]

It's about a cocaine user, Commander in Chief. And we have one right now. As well as an alcoholic C in C. George Bush refused to admit his cocaine use. Obama was honest about it. Big difference.

Simple question. It's about double standards that seem to happen in politics very often. Why do members have a hard time keeping with the post. This is not an attack on him, it's a valid question that deserves a civil response. The question is quite simple, in fact. And there are plenty of links provided to help in that decision. If you don't want to answer, then you don't have to.


It is most certainly an attack on him, are you seriously going to pretend it's not? I gave you my answer. You didn't like it so you're making believe I didn't answer you. Now you'll go to another thread and claim I didn't answer you. If you want a civil debate, then you'll have to start out being civil.

[Mia]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?


I had the sense to wait until the summer AFTER high school. :lmao:.

[BoogyMan]

It's about a cocaine user, Commander in Chief. And we have one right now. As well as an alcoholic C in C. George Bush refused to admit his cocaine use. Obama was honest about it. Big difference.


Bush has admitted his past dependence upon alcohol very openly and the cocaine use allegations are unsubstantiated, but don't let that little truth get in your way Viola. Obama has openly admitted he tried cocaine in the past. Both have admitted their past problems, lets get on with discussing issues.

[AmericanDreamer]

In terms of 'used at one point' versus 'currently using', no, there's no double standard. A presidential candidate who's *currently using* illegal drugs is rather obviously unqualified as a candidate.

Assuming that you are allowed to join with prior cocaine use admitted.

[Mia]

Ask any recruiter if prior cocaine use is a disqualifyer, and the answer will be YES.


Doesn't matter, the text you quoted says usually. That leaves room for it not to have to apply to everyone.



It is a indication of character. In fact, that is how the military views it. If you look at this as "mud-slinging", then you really didn't read the question, or the post. If you read the post then you would know my point. You don't have to answer, but at least give a valid arguement as to why.



I disagree - perhaps for obvious reasons given my statement above. Drugs now are as prevalent as cigs and alcohol. The majority of kids do try SOMEthing at least once.

I think it shows character that he is honest about it. I'm impressed very much with that.

More people need to be in general. Part of what kept me from trying it sooner and doing more than just trying was adults being honest with me about drugs. The good side and the bad. If all kids hear is 'it's bad' and what they see is people using it and having fun, they don't know what to believe.

[AmericanDreamer]

Ask any recruiter if prior cocaine use is a disqualifyer, and the answer will be YES.


Doesn't matter, the text you quoted says usually. That leaves room for it not to have to apply to everyone.



It is a indication of character. In fact, that is how the military views it. If you look at this as "mud-slinging", then you really didn't read the question, or the post. If you read the post then you would know my point. You don't have to answer, but at least give a valid arguement as to why.



I disagree - perhaps for obvious reasons given my statement above. Drugs now are as prevalent as cigs and alcohol. The majority of kids do try SOMEthing at least once.

I think it shows character that he is honest about it. I'm impressed very much with that.

More people need to be in general. Part of what kept me from trying it sooner and doing more than just trying was adults being honest with me about drugs. The good side and the bad. If all kids hear is 'it's bad' and what they see is people using it and having fun, they don't know what to believe.

Valid arguement, Mia. My intention was not to mud-sling, just to see if it would be considered a double standard.

[Alonzo]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?


According to this:

http://www.healthieryou.com/nccocaine.html

a 95 study showed only 6% of high school seniors had ever used cocaine. It peaked at 17% in 1985.

[AmericanDreamer]

So what are you trying to say here?

Is it a double standard to allow an admitted cocaine user to hold the position of Commamder in Chief of the US Military, when the same US Military does not allow cocaine use with its service personnal?

US President=Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces


Alcohol & Drug Disqualifications
"Concerning drugs; "soft drugs" such as marijuana and hashish are usually waiver-able, while "hard drugs" such as cocaine and heroin are usually disqualifying."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Conte...g,,00.html

That one word disallows your argument. Usually. If he were to use on the job, that would be a different story. There are much better reasons than this that he shouldn't be President.

Mia, I do admit that the one word "usually" would disallow my arguement. But let's take this one step further:

This is what we know:
"Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, Obama wrote, but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/

There is a pattern of behavior with Obama's drug use, both with marijuana and cocaine. The rule that apply's here is:

Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

This rule would disqualify him from joining the military.

This added information changes the circumstances quite a bit. How could you be allowed to command the military, if the same military wouldn't accept you because of frequent marijuana and cocaine use? Now, this is in fact a true case of being a double standard.

You're right, though. Most people really don't care, and will find ways to spin and skirt the truth. Values seem to be non-existant in this country. That's why debating issues is good for all. "The truth shall set you free".

[Drocket]

In terms of 'used at one point' versus 'currently using', no, there's no double standard. A presidential candidate who's *currently using* illegal drugs is rather obviously unqualified as a candidate.

Assuming that you are allowed to join with prior cocaine use admitted.


True. I don't think having used drugs should be an automatic disqualifier for joining the military (and its not.) I think the question here is one of time - at what point does 'current drug user' become 'former drug user'? I think we can safely say that Obama's drug use is so far in the past that his odds of "falling off the wagon" are pretty slim. When you're dealing with an 18 year old who's coke use was 3 months prior, that's a more difficult call to make.

[Elrathin]

Call any military recruiter, law enforcement agency, FBI, CIA, DEA, Post Office, any government ageny. They will tell you that you are not eligible due to prior cocaine use. The question here is does a double standard apply.


My friend was a recruiter in the Army as well as I had people I knew and worked with while I was in the military that had TS CLEARANCES that admitted prior cocaine use. It isn't an automatic disqualifier for the military. Therefore why should it be one for President?

[ViolaLee]

Values seem to be non-existant in this country.


Maybe your values are different from other people's values. I for one, am one lefty who's sick and tired of the righties trying to inflict their "values" on the rest of us.

[AmericanDreamer]

True. I don't think having used drugs should be an automatic disqualifier for joining the military (and its not.)
Correction. It is a disqualifier only if it is a pattern of behavior.

My friend was a recruiter in the Army as well as I had people I knew and worked with while I was in the military that had TS CLEARANCES that admitted prior cocaine use. It isn't an automatic disqualifier for the military. Therefore why should it be one for President?
One time use is not considered a pattern of behavior.

Maybe your values are different from other people's values. I for one, am one lefty who's sick and tired of the righties trying to inflict their "values" on the rest of us..
Of course, ViolaLee, my values a very different than yours and others. That's what makes this country so great. Just imagine if everyone was the same. Quit making everything a "Lefty" or a "Righties" issue. Stick to the facts, no matter how disappointing. This thread has to do with double standards only.

I think it's time to refresh this thread. Let me rephrase the question:
Do you feel it would be a double standard to have Obama serve as Commander in Chief for our Military, when he himself would not have been allowed to join the military due to a pattern of drug use?

This is the hypothetical question I am asking. No mud-slinging, just a simple question.

My answer would be "YES, it would be considered a double standard". This is my reasoning behind it:

Barack Obama admitted to "Mostly he smoked marijuana and alchohol...but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it." This in itself establishes a pattern of drug and alchohol use behavior, as well as buying cocaine when he could afford it. This is a fact.

Obama would not have been allowed to join the military based on the following:
Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Obama's marijuana smoking (self-administration) and cocaine buying (self-procurement) was a pattern that he freely admitted. This is reason enough for rejecting him from military service.

Now how can a person be elected to a position of Commander in Chief that commands the very same military that he was never fit to serve? So it is a double standard, that is also very ironic. Interesting concept that should be explored.

If you want to spin the question, go right ahead. Now that I've explained the facts and supplied the sources them there shouldn't be any more confusion about it.

[ViolaLee]

My friend was a recruiter in the Army as well as I had people I knew and worked with while I was in the military that had TS CLEARANCES that admitted prior cocaine use. It isn't an automatic disqualifier for the military. Therefore why should it be one for President?

......Now how can a person be elected to a position of Commander in Chief that commands the very same military that he was never fit to serve? So it is a double standard, that is also very ironic. Interesting concept that should be explored.

If you want to spin the question, go right ahead. Now that I've explained the facts and supplied the sources them there shouldn't be any more confusion about it.
You've already been shown that it isn't an automatic disqualifier for the military. You haven't proven that his occasional use was a pattern. And you haven't answered my question about Bush's cocaine use, and he's the current C in C. Is that a double standard? Talked about a spin!

[Elrathin]

One time use is not considered a pattern of behavior.


And you haven't proven that Obama's cocaine use was a pattern. Just as in the military if it is deemed you are no longer using it and have shown that you either had treatment or long term stoppage of the use of it, then you are qualified for military service. He is qualified for C&C and no, it isn't a double standard in the case of Obama.

[AmericanDreamer]

And you haven't proven that Obama's cocaine use was a pattern. Just as in the military if it is deemed you are no longer using it and have shown that you either had treatment or long term stoppage of the use of it, then you are qualified for military service. He is qualified for C&C and no, it isn't a double standard in the case of Obama.

One more time, it is a disqualifier when you establish a pattern of use.

You've already been shown that it isn't an automatic disqualifier for the military. You haven't proven that his occasional use was a pattern. And you haven't answered my question about Bush's cocaine use, and he's the current C in C. Is that a double standard? Talked about a spin!
No spin here, ViolaLee. Obama admitted a pattern of use and behavior in his own statements. His self admission is proof/evidence that he used marijuana and cocaine, and repeatedly. What better proof is there. Now that we have the proof, then we apply the law.
Once more for ViolaLee:

Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Bush has never admitted to cocaine use. There is NO evidence. If you have verifiable proof (not opinion) to the contrary, show me. If not then my point is made, and verified with FACTS.

[ViolaLee]

Bush has never admitted to cocaine use. There is NO evidence. If you have verifiable proof (not opinion) to the contrary, show me. If not then my point is made, and verified with FACTS.
That's right. He's not as honest as Obama, who admitted it.

According to a new book, three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward. (In another new book, reporter Bill Minutaglio, writes that the year of community service was arranged by the Governor's father, ex-president Bush, after he caught Bush Jr. driving drunk.)
That year certainly is out of character with the rest of Bush Jr.'s life. Before and after 1972, he was a rich, hard drinking playboy. Suddenly, and only that one time in his life, he worked for a liberal charity in an inner city ghetto. As soon as the year was over, he resumed his previous pattern and has done no charity work since.

....

Bush Jr.'s Evasive Responses:

Bush has essentially admitted that he used cocaine in his Clintonesque, carefully worded partial denials. He won't deny using cocaine or marijuana, though under persistent questioning he said that he hadn't used cocaine in the last 7 years. Most newspapers report that he denies using cocaine since 1974, but that's not exactly true.

That is the most favorable interpretation of what Bush said, but since Bush and his campaign have already made Clintonesque denials on other issues, we need to look at his words carefully.

What Bush actually said was ""I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

Oct. 18, 1999 A new book by Texas author J.H. Hatfield claims that George W. Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, but had his record expunged with help from his family's political connections.

.....

But Hatfield quotes "a high-ranking advisor to Bush" who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in Houston in 1972, and had the record expunged by a judge who was "a fellow Republican and elected official" who helped Bush get off "with a little community service at a minority youth center instead of having to pick cotton on a Texas prison farm."

Hatfield quotes a former Yale classmate who told him: "George W. was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972, but due to his father's connections, the entire record was expunged by a state judge whom the older Bush helped get elected. It was one of those 'behind closed doors in the judges' chambers' kind of thing between the old man and one of his Texas cronies who owed him a favor ... There's only a handful of us that know the truth."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

From 1999

Since Wednesday, Bush has been peppered with questions about drug use after he was asked in an interview with the Dallas Morning News whether he could pass a background check for federal employees.

That check has a question asking prospective appointees if they have used illegal drugs within the past seven years. Bush said he could pass that exam. On Thursday, he said he could have passed a background check when his father began serving as president in 1989.

Later, an aide clarified the remarks, saying Bush has not used illegal drugs in at least the last 25 years.

"I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes. I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honor to the office," said Bush -- his consistent response to repeated questions about whether he ever used illegal drugs.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/20/president.2000/bush.drug/

Fox News Reporter Kirian Chetry blurted out what she assumed was common knowledge among the media cognoscenti: that George W. Bush had used cocaine in his past and yet had politically survived the exposure of that (criminal) indiscretion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/the-bush-cocaine-chronicl_b_37786.html

[Mia]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?


According to this:

http://www.healthieryou.com/nccocaine.html

a 95 study showed only 6% of high school seniors had ever used cocaine. It peaked at 17% in 1985.


What's the latest stat on how many tried meth?

Or how about any one of all drugs combined?

[AmericanDreamer]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?


According to this:

http://www.healthieryou.com/nccocaine.html

a 95 study showed only 6% of high school seniors had ever used cocaine. It peaked at 17% in 1985.


What's the latest stat on how many tried meth?

Or how about any one of all drugs combined?

I think the stats depend on what part of the country you live. Meth is a nasty drug probably worse than coke or heroine.

It's not that someone is better or worse for trying drugs. It's just when it becomes a pattern is when it becomes an issue.

[ViolaLee]

It's not that someone is better or worse for trying drugs. It's just when it becomes a pattern is when it becomes an issue.


So is it still a pattern if he hasn't done it for 25 years?

[Mia]

Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Bush has never admitted to cocaine use. There is NO evidence. If you have verifiable proof (not opinion) to the contrary, show me. If not then my point is made, and verified with FACTS.


What you described from the book does not rise to this level that I've highlighted in your passage, otherwise I'd have to agree with you. This is saying 'has become a part of the person's regular pattern. Not a pattern as in more than once. An addict, kwim?

I used cocaine exactly three times. Is that a pattern of behavior? No. 20? Maybe. Maybe my pattern is every year on December 31st. (that would be fun, huh?). A pattern, yes, but as you can see there are different types and degrees of patterns.

Yes, I want the US to be more liberal about drugs, I don't see a huge difference between cocaine and the hydrocodone I can legally get from my Dr. Xanax is much more potent and dangerous than pot yet it can easily be obtained by any Dr. for a $50 office fee, hell the state will pay for it if you are on assistance or medicaire/medicaid!

But that has nothing to do with my opinion here.


I do see what you are saying, and it is a valid question, but I think your answer is right there in the wording.

[PatrickHenry]

At least Obama isn't a hypocrite about it.

[ViolaLee]

At least Obama isn't a hypocrite about it.

Exactly. He's an honest man.

[AmericanDreamer]

ViolaLee,
Stop changing the subject to avoid the issue. You can fill pages and pages with information that have nothing to do with what the topic is. In fact, I can quote you paragraphs from books that state, without a doubt, that aliens came down to earth and abducted someone. Get the point? It doesn't mean anything unless it is verifiable with evidence, not third party speculation. Enough with Bush already. Stick to what the thread is all about. If you don't know at this point, then refresh yourself by reading post #25 http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10580&pid=131314#pid131314 .

[Mia]

Oh, I forgot to say I didn't inhale the coke ;-) Of course I didn't!

[AmericanDreamer]

Oh, I forgot to say I didn't inhale the coke ;-) Of course I didn't!

I was about to ask :)

[Mia]

Of course not, silly. I put it on my nose and didn't breathe until I took it off. That's how I 'tried' it. I also thought it was flour. I would not have handled a controlled substance in any manner without the express permission from the American Company of Pharmaceuticals, AND a Dr. for a fee, AND the pharmacy. I check in with government officials or their special interest groups before making any personal decisions, I can assure you. That's why I am over here drinking and smoking - these things are approved by their respective industries and therefore our laws ;-)[hr]
ViolaLee,
Stop changing the subject to avoid the issue. You can fill pages and pages with information that have nothing to do with what the topic is. In fact, I can quote you paragraphs from books that state, without a doubt, that aliens came down to earth and abducted someone. Get the point? It doesn't mean anything unless it is verifiable with evidence, not third party speculation. Enough with Bush already. Stick to what the thread is all about. If you don't know at this point, then refresh yourself by reading post #25 http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10580&pid=131314#pid131314 .


OK, but I didn't avoid the issue, I addressed it directly and I see no response?

[AmericanDreamer]

I do see what you are saying, and it is a valid question, but I think your answer is right there in the wording.

Actually, the answer is in Obama's wording.
- He snorted cocaine whenever he could afford it (self-procurement and self-administration).
-Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol (self-administration).

Another article that Obama admits "wasting alot of time doing drugs". Now, if that's not a pattern of use and behavior, then I don't know what is.

"There were times when I got into drinking, experimenting with drugs. There was a stretch of time where I did not really apply myself," Obama said.

He added that when he left for college he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs. (pattern of behavior)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html

We can interpret what a pattern of behavior is from our own experiences. But it's not us that are the potential presidents, it's Obama. We all make mistakes, but they eventually catch up with us. I appreciate your arguement...you play fair. That's nice. Unless you can change Obama's own statements, then I think I got cha on this one.:)[hr]

ViolaLee,
Stop changing the subject to avoid the issue. You can fill pages and pages with information that have nothing to do with what the topic is. In fact, I can quote you paragraphs from books that state, without a doubt, that aliens came down to earth and abducted someone. Get the point? It doesn't mean anything unless it is verifiable with evidence, not third party speculation. Enough with Bush already. Stick to what the thread is all about. If you don't know at this point, then refresh yourself by reading post #25 http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10580&pid=131314#pid131314 .

OK, but I didn't avoid the issue, I addressed it directly and I see no response?

Mia, I wasn't referring to you about changing the subject. It was meant for ViolaLee. She changed the subject with a barrage of Bush stuff. You stayed on track and I appreciate it:)

[Mia]

I mean the wording of the rule. To me, it reads that the person has made this part of their regular pattern, not speaking to someone who used it in the past. It's open to interpretation, and that's part of my point. When you are dealing with an issue like this, the wording is everything. Legally, he can be allowed to serve if the person making the decision interprets his drug use NOT to have risen to the level described in the rule.

As I said, a good point you raised, but the legalese is not on your side in this case.

Personally, if what you wrote is true, that gives me one more reason not to want him. I get the feeling overall this man had way too easy of a life. Never had to work too hard for anything, had time to take side trips into doing nothing but drugs. Then he gets to the Senate and doesn't even want to work there, just votes 'present'.

[Pookie]

Whoa! Back to the original topic. For one thing, Obama was not in the service when he used drugs. For another thing, in this day and age it is unrealistic to think that some younger ones were squeaky clean. For another, the UCMJ only applies to those in the military, active or reserve service. Obama was not. And another, he is not using drugs now so of course he is fit to be CIC. If Bush and Clinton were, of course Obama is. This is yet another example of mudslinging and foes dragging poo up on candidates. It won't stop here, and the poo just keeps on going.
I have said this all along. So, who's next?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Mia]

Whoa! Back to the original topic. For one thing, Obama was not in the service when he used drugs. For another thing, in this day and age it is unrealistic to think that some younger ones were squeaky clean. For another, the UCMJ only applies to those in the military, active or reserve service. Obama was not. And another, he is not using drugs now so of course he is fit to be CIC. If Bush and Clinton were, of course Obama is. This is yet another example of mudslinging and foes dragging poo up on candidates. It won't stop here, and the poo just keeps on going.
I have said this all along. So, who's next?
Purrs,
Pookie




So the Commander - he isn't subject to the same rules as others who serve :question:

[AmericanDreamer]

I mean the wording of the rule. To me, it reads that the person has made this part of their regular pattern, not speaking to someone who used it in the past. It's open to interpretation, and that's part of my point. When you are dealing with an issue like this, the wording is everything. Legally, he can be allowed to serve if the person making the decision interprets his drug use NOT to have risen to the level described in the rule.

As I said, a good point you raised, but the legalese is not on your side in this case.

Personally, if what you wrote is true, that gives me one more reason not to want him. I get the feeling overall this man had way too easy of a life. Never had to work too hard for anything, had time to take side trips into doing nothing but drugs. Then he gets to the Senate and doesn't even want to work there, just votes 'present'.

Well, it's apparant that he made it a pattern of drug behavior at some time in his life, and the wording in the rules is independent of a specific time frame, which inferes that it applys to any time in his life. That does make sense, because if someone had substance abuse problems (habitual) once in your life, then there is a good chance they may fall back into the same pattern. It's the wierd way that they rate character, I guess. What it does boils down to is, as you said, interpretation by whomever is making the decision. A military recruiter, an employer, the white house, or just you and I.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one. You get some good rep for hanging in there:)

[Mia]

OK, I will agree to disagree. But I'm right, lol! Do I still get my rep? Hee-hee.

[AmericanDreamer]

OK, I will agree to disagree. But I'm right, lol! Do I still get my rep? Hee-hee.

Barack can't qualify to get in the miltary, yet he may be in a position to command the military. It's irony at its best.

And of course you get the rep, even if you say you're right. Curious, though, if you are right then why does your profile state you are unaffiliated like me.:)

[Pookie]

But was he truly a dedicated user? Is he now? Clinton said he didn't inhale. Bush refused to go through fitness checks. Both Clinton and Bush cleaned up and stopped, and if Obama cleaned up and stopped, what is the problem? Obama was never in the military. Both Clinton and Bush, as far as I am concerned were both draft-dodgers in their own way. Neither one went to Viet Nam. I have no patience or tolerance for anyone who shirks their duty. Now you know why I'm an Independent. Obama didn't dodge, he was not picked to go.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Mia]

OK, I will agree to disagree. But I'm right, lol! Do I still get my rep? Hee-hee.

Barack can't qualify to get in the miltary, yet he may be in a position to command the military. It's irony at its best.

And of course you get the rep, even if you say you're right. Curious, though, if you are right then why does your profile state you are unaffiliated like me.:)


Well, it's not established that he wouldn't qualify for the military - that's your interpretation of the rules and what is in his books, it's not known for a fact that whoever would decide that were he a regular Joe signing up for regular service, he'd be rejected, kwim?

One recruiter or ten telling you a hypothetical does not the entire case make.

LOL on the right thing. I'm always right, whether I'm arguing for the left or the right or the middle! :evil:

[underdawg]

No double standard at all. When I joined the military, I told them I had tried pot in the past and that didn't disqualify me.

[Pookie]

Right, UnderDawg! Many who were in admitted that they had tried drugs but stopped, and the military accepted them. As long as they stayed clean while in service, no problem.
Purrs,
Pookie

[AmericanDreamer]

But was he truly a dedicated user? Is he now? Clinton said he didn't inhale. Bush refused to go through fitness checks. Both Clinton and Bush cleaned up and stopped, and if Obama cleaned up and stopped, what is the problem? Obama was never in the military. Both Clinton and Bush, as far as I am concerned were both draft-dodgers in their own way. Neither one went to Viet Nam. I have no patience or tolerance for anyone who shirks their duty. Now you know why I'm an Independent. Obama didn't dodge, he was not picked to go.
Purrs,
Pookie

Go ahead and tell a recruiter that even though you used to be a regular user in the past, that NOW you have changed your ways. It won't get you far.[hr]
No double standard at all. When I joined the military, I told them I had tried pot in the past and that didn't disqualify me.


Not the same circumstance as Obama and his pattern of behavior with drugs.
[hr]
Right, UnderDawg! Many who were in admitted that they had tried drugs but stopped, and the military accepted them. As long as they stayed clean while in service, no problem.
Purrs,
Pookie

Pookie,
Now your stretching things. Read the rules again and see if Obama falls under them. The fact is he had a pattern of behavior with drugs. He said it himself. Nothing can change that, and that it in itself is a disqualifier. They would not accept him, therefore it would actually be a double standard for his to serve as Commander in Chief, as well as very ironic:)

[moses2792796]

Who cares, he tried cocaine in high school, who didn't?


According to this:

http://www.healthieryou.com/nccocaine.html

a 95 study showed only 6% of high school seniors had ever used cocaine. It peaked at 17% in 1985.


Damn! Not in the circles I moved in, and that's 6% admitted to using, big difference.

[Alonzo]

Considering they're not public surveys, not really. Especially not enough to change the meaning of the poll.

[AnnEsthesia]

Actually, AD, they will take you if you no longer use. They are a little desperate for recruits these days. Hell, they will even take you if you have a criminal record. (If I remember the article I read correctly.)

[AmericanDreamer]

Actually, AD, they will take you if you no longer use. They are a little desperate for recruits these days. Hell, they will even take you if you have a criminal record. (If I remember the article I read correctly.)

AnnE, I respect your opinion, but that is just speculation on your part. The rules are clear regarding the "causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction". Please show me the article you think you read.

Read the rule again. It is crystal clear:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior." http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Obama said he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs. His admitting to a this shows pattern of drug use behavior. He bought the drugs and he used the drugs. That is a fact.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html
ALSO
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/

Call a military recruiter and tell them you had drug abuse issues in the past. See where it will get you. So tell me how could Obama, who would have been rejected for military service, serve as Commander in Chief NOT be a double standard.?

[AnnEsthesia]

They will tell you that as long as you test clean, they will accept you.

[ViolaLee]

Call a military recruiter and tell them you had drug abuse issues in the past. See where it will get you. So tell me how could Obama, who would have been rejected for military service, serve as Commander in Chief NOT be a double standard.?
Obama didn't have drug abuse issues. The current Commander in Chief had alcohol abuse issues, DUIs, and drug use that he lies about. So tell me, how is your thread not a double standard?

[BoogyMan]

Call a military recruiter and tell them you had drug abuse issues in the past. See where it will get you. So tell me how could Obama, who would have been rejected for military service, serve as Commander in Chief NOT be a double standard.?
Obama didn't have drug abuse issues. The current Commander in Chief had alcohol abuse issues, DUIs, and drug use that he lies about. So tell me, how is your thread not a double standard?


The current CiC has publicly spoken of his past alcohol abuse and DUI, the other allegations are unprovable hype from the left. Try again Viola.

[ViolaLee]

Call a military recruiter and tell them you had drug abuse issues in the past. See where it will get you. So tell me how could Obama, who would have been rejected for military service, serve as Commander in Chief NOT be a double standard.?
Obama didn't have drug abuse issues. The current Commander in Chief had alcohol abuse issues, DUIs, and drug use that he lies about. So tell me, how is your thread not a double standard?


The current CiC has publicly spoken of his past alcohol abuse and DUI, the other allegations are unprovable hype from the left. Try again Viola.
No one could have proven Obama's party days either, if he wasn't an honest man and admitted it. The only difference is, Bush isn't honest.

[BoogyMan]

No one could have proven Obama's party days either, if he wasn't an honest man and admitted it. The only difference is, Bush isn't honest.

So you are admitting to parroting an accusation of which you have no clue as to the voracity?

[AmericanDreamer]

They will tell you that as long as you test clean, they will accept you.

Recruiters will say anything to get a warm body to fill their quota.

[AmericanDreamer]

Call a military recruiter and tell them you had drug abuse issues in the past. See where it will get you. So tell me how could Obama, who would have been rejected for military service, serve as Commander in Chief NOT be a double standard.?
Obama didn't have drug abuse issues. The current Commander in Chief had alcohol abuse issues, DUIs, and drug use that he lies about. So tell me, how is your thread not a double standard?


The current CiC has publicly spoken of his past alcohol abuse and DUI, the other allegations are unprovable hype from the left. Try again Viola.
No one could have proven Obama's party days either, if he wasn't an honest man and admitted it. The only difference is, Bush isn't honest.

This thread is not about honesty. It is about a double standard. How can a person (Obama in this case) be appointed as Commander in Chief to the very same military that would reject him as a serviceman? Nothing more, nothing less. It is a valid question.

[Deadshot]

This thread is not about honesty. It is about a double standard. How can a person (Obama in this case) be appointed as Commander in Chief to the very same military that would reject him as a serviceman? Nothing more, nothing less. It is a valid question.



I'll answer the question. Obama could be appointed CoC and if someone were to ask your question he could point to FDR, who would not have been accepted into the Military. He could also point to JFK, who at the time of his Presidency because of his bad back and illness, would not have passed a military physical. I think he could also point to the myriad of Presidents who never served a day in uniform.

If this question should arise, and I don't think it will, he has some good role models to compare himself too.

[AmericanDreamer]

It's perfectly obvious to me that this American Dreamer character is intentionally being obtuse in this thread, as in practically every other thread he's posted in since he joined DF.

I'm wondering when the administrators/moderators are going to call him on this stupid and disruptive behavior. And yes, I know that this kind of complaint is supposed to be handled via private messages or the reporting process, but it would seem that some action should have been taken by now.

If this gets moved into FP, where it won't be moderated, I'll assume that everyone else finds AD's style and his stalking of another member acceptable behavior.


Debate is certainly not stalking Buck, why not join the debate and rebut his points if you can?
Is googling another member to find out everywhere they've posted in the past 5 years and then announcing that they will be taking a 4 hour drive to come to where the other member lives, stalking?[hr]
This thread is not about honesty. It is about a double standard. How can a person (Obama in this case) be appointed as Commander in Chief to the very same military that would reject him as a serviceman? Nothing more, nothing less. It is a valid question.
Same exact way Bush and Clinton have been.



I don't think it is fair to ALL the other member in DF for a handful to attempt to derail this thread. This is a topic that many people don't know about, and many will do what they can to silence it. It's not about comparing Bush to Obama. It's about what the thread title states. Please stay on topic and debate the issue. This issue is TOO IMPORTANT to be in a venue like FP. This "Double Standards" theme comes up alot in politics, as well as in life. We shouldn't deal with it by sweeping it under the carpet. Now let's get back on track[hr]

This thread is not about honesty. It is about a double standard. How can a person (Obama in this case) be appointed as Commander in Chief to the very same military that would reject him as a serviceman? Nothing more, nothing less. It is a valid question.



I'll answer the question. Obama could be appointed CoC and if someone were to ask your question he could point to FDR, who would not have been accepted into the Military. He could also point to JFK, who at the time of his Presidency because of his bad back and illness, would not have passed a military physical. I think he could also point to the myriad of Presidents who never served a day in uniform.

If this question should arise, and I don't think it will, he has some good role models to compare himself too.

Except for the fact that medical problems could be waived during enlistment ,this is a question of character (specifically, Obama's character). It is also a question of a rule the military has regarding enlistment that is NOT waivable.

[Deadshot]

Well at one time the United States Military would not accept blacks or women. Currently they don't accept homosexuals. They are still the backbone of this country's defense and deserve our respect, but even their character comes into play now and then (see the Tailhook scandal).

As to the Character of the POTUS. Our current POTUS admitted to a substance abuse (alcohol) problem. The POTUS before him admitted to trying pot. To be honest AD, as long as Obama hasn't been using in the last few years I think he'll be fine. As to the Character issue, to many Americans have had or know someone who's had some type of substance abuse problem. I don't think that disbars someone from holding the highest office in the land.

But go ahead and run with this one if you want. It's kind of fun to watch just how desperate the GOP is getting!:madlaugh:

[AmericanDreamer]

I am not judgeing Obama in this thread. I just would not feel comfortable with having someone someone as Comander in Chief that would not have been eligible for military service to make the decisions involving the miltary, whether it be in peacetime or in time of war.

[Elrathin]

One more time, it is a disqualifier when you establish a pattern of use.


And one more time, you have not proven it was a pattern.

[Deadshot]

I am not judgeing Obama in this thread. I just would not feel comfortable with having someone someone as Comander in Chief that would not have been eligible for military service to make the decisions involving the miltary, whether it be in peacetime or in time of war.


Well AD pick a side. Either it's the character issue, then read the post above. Or it's a "fit to serve" issue, then read my post three above.

Again, run with this all you want but Reagan never served in the Military and was CoC for 8 years! So that destroy's your "fit to serve" argument. Follow that with the destroyer of your Character argument in that our last two POTUS's (Clinton and Bush) have either admitted to using drugs or abusing alcohol.

You have no argument here, hence the humor of someone grasping at straws.:ecstatic:

[Elrathin]

Well, it's apparant that he made it a pattern of drug behavior at some time in his life, and the wording in the rules is independent of a specific time frame, which inferes that it applys to any time in his life.

But it's not clear that he made COCAINE or any other hard drugs a pattern use and that would be the disqualifier. Pot heads, as long as you show you are clean, are not disqualified even though it shows a previsou pattern and you pass a drug test.

You clearly are stating that Cocaine use was a pattern, and you have yet to show that proof.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yep. There have been reported cases of people showing positive for pot in the recruiting drug screenings being told to come back and try again in a few weeks to see if it shows up again. Yea, they are TOUGH on drugs.

[AmericanDreamer]

Well at one time the United States Military would not accept blacks or women. Currently they don't accept homosexuals. They are still the backbone of this country's defense and deserve our respect, but even their character comes into play now and then (see the Tailhook scandal).

As to the Character of the POTUS. Our current POTUS admitted to a substance abuse (alcohol) problem. The POTUS before him admitted to trying pot. To be honest AD, as long as Obama hasn't been using in the last few years I think he'll be fine. As to the Character issue, to many Americans have had or know someone who's had some type of substance abuse problem. I don't think that disbars someone from holding the highest office in the land.

But go ahead and run with this one if you want. It's kind of fun to watch just how desperate the GOP is getting!:madlaugh:

Admitting you had a drinking problem does not fall under the rules for ineligibility. Drugs do. Clinton admitted to use one time (didn't inhale though) and that is not considered a pattern. Whether or not Obama has used in the past few years is irrelevent. And it's not about being the president. It's about the double standard mentioned so many times in this thread.

It doesn't matter what we think. What matters are the rules in play regarding Obama's admitted pattern of behavior concerning drugs. The military rule say he wouldn't be eligible, so how can he be the right choice to command our troops. DOUBLE STANDARD. Ironic, isn't it?

[Deadshot]

The irony is there only for you, AD. I see none.

Obama can serve as CoC, because one does not have to be fit enough to serve nor does one have had to have served in the Military to be CoC. FDR, Reagan and Clinton proved that.

As to Character let's look at the POTUS's who cheated on their wives (FDR & JFK for example), were alcoholics during thier Presidency (Grant, for example) or lied and cheated while in office (Nixon). Character is much more then if you did drugs. It's about a lot of other things.

Also you keep bringing up the Military requirements to enlist, those do not apply to the Military's civilian leader and never have. So to have consistently have brought them up, ad nauseum, for 8 pages of posts just shows how desperate you are to smear Obama. The CoC has NO military requirements. He or She as the POTUS has the civilian authority over the military. There is no military code nor ethical rule that binds the CoC. You may lament that fact, but the fact remains none the less.

Your line of reasoning holds no water :dizzy: because the Civilian leader of the Armed Forces of the United States is not bound by the rules of the Armed Forces of the United States!

[Elrathin]

The military rule say he wouldn't be eligible, so how can he be the right choice to command our troops. DOUBLE STANDARD. Ironic, isn't it?


You have already been shown this as false. He didn't have a pattern of Hard Drug use so that wouldn't disqualify him from the military. The fact you keep running with this is showing your statements are intellectually dishonest.

[Alonzo]

When Bush claimed he didn't use drugs after 1974 I found it odd AD, didn't you? I wouldn't say "I didn't use heroine after 1996" if I didn't use it before that either. And I find it especially odd that someone who never used such drugs would say this:

"A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

So what's the story? He doesn't want little kids trying the drugs he tried but never tried? Those are pretty bizarre statements for a man who never did drugs.

There's also the allegation that he had been arrested in 72 for cocaine and that it was expunged from his record after doing community service.

[PatrickHenry]

The job is President.

Commander is just an adjunct.

A casual use of a common recreational drug many years in the past is not a disqualifier.

A PATTERN OF ABUSE like alcohol addiction, should disqualify, IMO. Because addiction is very difficult to shake.

Was there a consistent pattern of drug abuse in Obama's past? I don't think that is in evidence. Occasional recreational use? He admits it.

Your thesis of a double standard is faulty, American Dreamer. Flawed from any angle.

[AmericanDreamer]

The military rule say he wouldn't be eligible, so how can he be the right choice to command our troops. DOUBLE STANDARD. Ironic, isn't it?


You have already been shown this as false. He didn't have a pattern of Hard Drug use so that wouldn't disqualify him from the military. The fact you keep running with this is showing your statements are intellectually dishonest.

The pattern of drug behavior is in his own words. Obama admitted that "when he left for college he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs." And you don't consider that a pattern? Don't take my word for it, so please read it for yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html

The military makes the rules as far as who is and who is not elegible for enlistment. Under that criteria, Obama would not be eligible for military service. That's the only irony that I see.

[Elrathin]

The pattern of drug behavior lies in his own words. Obama admitted that "when he left for college he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs." And you don't consider that a pattern? Don't take my word for it, so please read it for yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html


Not a pattern for HARD Drugs which is a disqualifier for the military. Do you understand the difference between cocaine and pot?


The military makes the rules as far as who is and who is not elegible for enlistment. Under that criteria, Obama would not be eligible for military service. That's the only irony that I see.


Yes, and that criteria states HARD drugs like Cocaine, not POT. Do you understand that now? You have not proven a pattern for HARD drugs. My god your comments are intellectually dishonest.

[AmericanDreamer]

Your link you referenced is titled "George W. Bush Substance Abuse Controversy". And that just is what it is. A controversy, meaning that it is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversy

That does not make it a FACT, admitted or not.

[Mark L Hamburger]

This is the exact same thing they said about Bush when he was running in 2000:

http://www.sonofbush.com/cocaine.htm

So, why shouldn't we have another druggie in office? I personally don't see a problem with drug use whatsoever, what a person decides to put into their body is not any of my concern. As long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their job, does it matter?

I have little reason to doubt that Bush was convicted in 1972 and the records were expunged, things like that happen all the time, the thing is, does it really matter?

[Elrathin]

I have proven that it was more than recreational use. Obama own statements prove this.
I have proven that there a consistent pattern of drug abuse in Obama's past, proven with his own statements.

You have not proven that he had a pattern for HARD DRUG use which would disqualify him from the military which is your whole beef with him.

Regular use of POT before joining the military is NOT an automatic disqualifier for the military.

[AmericanDreamer]

The pattern of drug behavior lies in his own words. Obama admitted that "when he left for college he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs." And you don't consider that a pattern? Don't take my word for it, so please read it for yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/27/costello.drug.use/index.html


Not a pattern for HARD Drugs which is a disqualifier for the military. Do you understand the difference between cocaine and pot?


The military makes the rules as far as who is and who is not elegible for enlistment. Under that criteria, Obama would not be eligible for military service. That's the only irony that I see.


Yes, and that criteria states HARD drugs like Cocaine, not POT. Do you understand that now? You have not proven a pattern for HARD drugs. My god your comments are intellectually dishonest.

I thought you would take the time to read the links I provided for reference, but I guess not.

Read this:
Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Why do people refuse to read the facts. You are incorrect, not me. Do you understand that now? Marijuana is included in the list of drugs, if you would take the time to read it.

[Elrathin]

with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."

Why do people refuse to read the facts. You are incorrect, not me. Do you understand that now? Marijuana is included in the list of drugs, if you would take the time to read it.


Yes, I did read and now you need to read the bolded part. He never claimed that he had a reliance on the drugs. That makes your statement about him NULL AND VOID.

It is sad that you choose such intellectually dishonest statements.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I thought you would take the time to read the links I provided for reference, but I guess not.

Read this:
Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Why do people refuse to read the facts. You are incorrect, not me. Do you understand that now? Marijuana is included in the list of drugs, if you would take the time to read it.


That implies current drug use, not what someone had used 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Again, why does this matter?[hr]
Regular use of POT before joining the military is NOT an automatic disqualifier for the military.


That's good (or maybe bad...hmmm), because our military would probably be about a half or a quarter of the size it is now.

[Alonzo]

When Bush claimed he didn't use drugs after 1974 I found it odd AD, didn't you? I wouldn't say "I didn't use heroine after 1996" if I didn't use it before that either. And I find it especially odd that someone who never used such drugs would say this:

"A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

So what's the story? He doesn't want little kids trying the drugs he tried but never tried? Those are pretty bizarre statements for a man who never did drugs.

There's also the allegation that he had been arrested in 72 for cocaine and that it was expunged from his record after doing community service.

Your link you referenced is titled "George W. Bush Substance Abuse Controversy". And that just is what it is. A controversy, meaning that it is "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversy

That does not make it a FACT, admitted or not.
[/quote]

Ummmm........ the quote is not a controversy. The quote is something he actually said. Who makes a comment like that when they didn't try those things? Who says, in response to a marijuana question, "I don't want little kids doing what I tried" when, if he tried nothing, he would be lying about trying drugs?

Why would someone who didn't use cocaine make a comment, clarifying, that he did not deny using cocaine?

[AmericanDreamer]

I thought you would take the time to read the links I provided for reference, but I guess not.

Read this:
Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_alcohol_drug,,00.html

Why do people refuse to read the facts. You are incorrect, not me. Do you understand that now? Marijuana is included in the list of drugs, if you would take the time to read it.


That implies current drug use, not what someone had used 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Again, why does this matter?
So let me understand your logic. If I was a regular user of marijuana and cocaine for many years (let's say this was 20 years ago) and I disclosed this to the military, you are telling me that they wouldn't care? The military does not accept former habitual users, whether they are currently recovered or not. Do you think your logic holds water? I don't think so.

The words in the rule are not implied or open for interpretation. It is very specific. It is important because under the criteria set in the rules it would make Obama ineligible for enlistment. And it makes my point that it IS a double standard - - to allow a person to command the very same military that would consider him ineligible for serve. It is ironic.

[Elrathin]

The military does not accept former habitual users, whether they are currently recovered or not.


Please stop repeating this lie, I have seen so called Pot Heads get into the military just fine and they told the truth.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Why would you disclose such to the military? And if you were a habitual user for many years, and 20 years after you stopped using, decided to join the military, you wouldn't be accepted anyhow, you would likely be too old. Unless you started using when you were like 10, that is.

I had a drug conviction when I was in school, and let me tell you, those recruiters really don't give a crap about much. As long as you're not a felon, they'll want you.

So lets apply this logic of who can join the military becoming president. Nearly every single president who has ever been in office would not be qualified to join the military. Be it age, weight, medical, etc, I doubt you could find one that would be accepted.[hr]
Please stop repeating this lie, I have seen so called Pot Heads get into the military just fine and they told the truth.


Like I said, I can nearly guarantee that the majority of soldiers had at least tried pot when they were younger. Then there's all the hippies that got sent to Vietnam, you can't tell me they never did drugs...

[Elrathin]

Why would you disclose such to the military?


If you are going for a position in the military that requires a TS clearance than it is wise to disclose it, because if it is found you are lying you will be denied the clearance and either kicked out of the military or you will be at the "needs of the Army".

Not only that is there are specific waivers that can be done so unlike AD statement it is not absolute.

Given that Obama has never has never admitted to having a reliance on the drugs and given the recruitment policy, at worst he could get in the military with a wavier.

So basically in a nutshell AD accusations are false that Obama couldn't get in the military. It shows how some people know very little about the military and how you get in.

[Buck Laser]

I said earlier that AD is being obtuse and irrational in this thread in his repeated insistence on a point that's been effective reputed by practically everyone else. Perhaps I should have included that last phrase in my original post, because it got FPed for being off-topic. His stalking of Viola may be a separate issue--I'm sorry I dragged it in.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Why would you disclose such to the military?


If you are going for a position in the military that requires a TS clearance than it is wise to disclose it, because if it is found you are lying you will be denied the clearance and either kicked out of the military or you will be at the "needs of the Army".


If you weren't prosecuted for it and your immediate family doesn't know of it, there's really no danger of these things coming up in an SSBI, so I see no reason to disclose such information.

[Keith Hamburger]

OK, I will agree to disagree. But I'm right, lol! Do I still get my rep? Hee-hee.

Barack can't qualify to get in the miltary, yet he may be in a position to command the military. It's irony at its best.


Of course he can't qualify. He's too old.

Keith

[Elrathin]

If you weren't prosecuted for it and your immediate family doesn't know of it, there's really no danger of these things coming up in an SSBI, so I see no reason to disclose such information.


Your forgetting friends etc. that you put on there. The interesting thing is when they talk to friends of your friends. Why take that chance when they aren't going to hold it against you for telling the truth?

I divulged all my drug use in mine and still was granted TS/SCI clearance, so why take the chance?

[AmericanDreamer]

OK, I will agree to disagree. But I'm right, lol! Do I still get my rep? Hee-hee.

Barack can't qualify to get in the miltary, yet he may be in a position to command the military. It's irony at its best.


Of course he can't qualify. He's too old.

Keith

Is this all you have? Come on, keith. Talk about taking something way out of context. A far reach and definately a stretch. This is a debate forum, not a political humor forum. I do appreciate your humor, though.:)[hr]
I divulged all my drug use in mine and still was granted TS/SCI clearance, so why take the chance?

What exactly was the extent of your drug use? Would it be considered a pattern of behavior? Or just once or twice? That is what makes all the difference.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Your forgetting friends etc. that you put on there. The interesting thing is when they talk to friends of your friends. Why take that chance when they aren't going to hold it against you for telling the truth?

I divulged all my drug use in mine and still was granted TS/SCI clearance, so why take the chance?


Good point! My entire point was that it really doesn't matter, and you confirmed the same, thank you. :thumbsup:

[AmericanDreamer]

with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."

Why do people refuse to read the facts. You are incorrect, not me. Do you understand that now? Marijuana is included in the list of drugs, if you would take the time to read it.


Yes, I did read and now you need to read the bolded part. He never claimed that he had a reliance on the drugs. That makes your statement about him NULL AND VOID.

It is sad that you choose such intellectually dishonest statements.

He accepted the use of drugs, being that "he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs." Barack Obama said that, not me. Read the rule again.

[Elrathin]

What exactly was the extent of your drug use? Would it be considered a pattern of behavior? Or just once or twice? That is what makes all the difference.


Me personally? I used for about a year mutliple times per week and then stopped. I had stopped smoking about 4 years before I joined the military. The only thing I had to do was sign a sworn statement stating my drug use and that I wouldn't do it again, take multiple Drug tests and pass them.

As I said, it doesn't make a difference. We have had people in the military that would be considered Pot Heads that smoked multiple times per week and then stopped a few months before joining the military.

Waivers are also available so not all the rules are set in stone. For example to be a linguist you had to score a 90 on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB) Test to learn Spanish. One of my soldiers scored an 88 on it, but was waivered in.

You are wrong on many levels and by even the standards you listed Obama would indeed be qualified for military service.[hr]
He accepted the use of drugs, being that "he realized he wasted a lot of time using drugs." Barack Obama said that, not me. Read the rule again.


That is not a pattern. Some people consider ANY drug use as a "waste of time", so yet again you are proven wrong. I read the rule.

I'm pretty much done with you on this subject as you are fixated on terminology that I have already explained to you. If you want to keep on this line, fine. I have already proven to others reading this thread that Obama would be qualified for military service. Have fun.

[Keith Hamburger]

Of course he can't qualify. He's too old.

Keith

Is this all you have? Come on, keith. Talk about taking something way out of context. A far reach and definately a stretch. This is a debate forum, not a political humor forum. I do appreciate your humor, though.:)

Well, I have a lot more, but I was holding back.

I have to agree with many of the other posters that you have read too much into the regulation and what Obama has admitted to. I also agree that by ignoring the equivelent evidence (admittedly short of a confession but fairly convincing none-the-less) of a double standard being applied to Clinton and Bush you're missing a major point.

I think that if, for example, a candidate were to run on a platform that the regulations themselves were invalid because drug use, in and of itself (meaning not affecting job performance), shouldn't be illegal, they would be fully qualified to be CIC. While I understand this isn't a direct parallel, because Obama appears to be too conservative to oppose those regulations, it may be relevant.

Keith

[AmericanDreamer]

Of course he can't qualify. He's too old.

Keith

Is this all you have? Come on, keith. Talk about taking something way out of context. A far reach and definately a stretch. This is a debate forum, not a political humor forum. I do appreciate your humor, though.:)

Well, I have a lot more, but I was holding back.

I have to agree with many of the other posters that you have read too much into the regulation and what Obama has admitted to. I also agree that by ignoring the equivelent evidence (admittedly short of a confession but fairly convincing none-the-less) of a double standard being applied to Clinton and Bush you're missing a major point.

I think that if, for example, a candidate were to run on a platform that the regulations themselves were invalid because drug use, in and of itself (meaning not affecting job performance), shouldn't be illegal, they would be fully qualified to be CIC. While I understand this isn't a direct parallel, because Obama appears to be too conservative to oppose those regulations, it may be relevant.

Keith

Point is taken, but maybe for a different thread. This thread has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush.

[Keith Hamburger]

Point is taken, but maybe for a different thread. This thread has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush.


That was only one point out of at least three in my response.

Keith

[underdawg]

I don't see the whole point of this. Obama used drugs in the past. He isn't doing them now is he? I would like to have a president who isn't afraid to tell the truth about his past as long as you learn from past mistakes. I don't care if Obama was on every hard drug in the world and had sex with prostitutes. He seems like a decent man today.

Besides that the military doesn't exactly have the fairest way of letting people in the army. Openly gay men are excluded from entering the army for doing nothing wrong except for being gay. The army encourages closeted gay men to lie and hide the fact that they are gay through the don't ask don't tell policy. yet, the army claims to want people to be honest and tell the truth. The army is full of double standards.

When I was a medic, I was given orders to pass officers on their physical training tests. Everyone else was to be judged strictly yet those lazy officers got a go. That double standard used to piss me off. It seems that going after Obama for past drug use is grasping at straws to find fault with the man. I think it bothers me more that Bush ,who sent men to their deaths in Iraq, voluntarily ended his stay in the national Guard, because he got tired of playing army and wanted to help his daddy campain for the presidency.

[AmericanDreamer]

I don't see the whole point of this. Obama used drugs in the past. He isn't doing them now is he? I would like to have a president who isn't afraid to tell the truth about his past as long as you learn from past mistakes. I don't care if Obama was on every hard drug in the world and had sex with prostitutes. He seems like a decent man today.

Besides that the military doesn't exactly have the fairest way of letting people in the army. Openly gay men are excluded from entering the army for doing nothing wrong except for being gay. The army encourages closeted gay men to lie and hide the fact that they are gay through the don't ask don't tell policy. yet, the army claims to want people to be honest and tell the truth. The army is full of double standards.

When I was a medic, I was given orders to pass officers on their physical training tests. Everyone else was to be judged strictly yet those lazy officers got a go. That double standard used to piss me off. It seems that going after Obama for past drug use is grasping at straws to find fault with the man. I think it bothers me more that Bush ,who sent men to their deaths in Iraq, voluntarily ended his stay in the national Guard, because he got tired of playing army and wanted to help his daddy campain for the presidency.


I am glad to hear you say this. It took 99 posts for someone to answer the only question this thread ever asked. Yes, it is a double standard. Sure, if you have the money and influence, you can get past the "requirement" of just about anything, and be "eligible" for things that others would not, given the same circumstances. The military is full of double standards. I agree, since I was in for 6 years back in the days. Games, games, and more games. But if you had any influence, you didn't have to take part in the same games.
The military has rules that they bend all the time. Politics makes sure that those same rules are bent for their own. The majority of these posts were diversions, diverting from the issue in order to avoid the question...smoke screens grown out of defensive responses, and sorry to say the majority of thoses who tried to change the subject in order to avoid the issues were the democrats and liberals. That is what I noticed. Automatic protectors of whomever is another democrat, without even batting an eye to understand what the issue is. Even attacking me directly to get me to react in the same manner. I maintained my position. I was even accused of being a stalker. What a low thing to accuse someone of in order to gain whatever momentum they needed for their cause. A sad cause at that and a learning experience for me.
Thank you for being straight forward, without bias. I agree that Bush lied about his drug use, but that is not what this thread was about. I agree that Obama made mistakes and was honest about them, but that is not what this thread was about. Plain and simple, it was about the double standard that is alive and kicking in Washington. Rules in play for the common citizens, while the influential can walk all over the same rules. Can Obama serve as Commander in Chief? Probably, but we won't know till it happens, if it happens. Anyone else that had the past drug issues that Obama had would not have the opportunities that Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc.. had. And to serve as supreme commander of the Military, forget about it.
Rules are rules, but are they?

This was not meant to be an Obama Bash nor did I ever mudsling. I presented the facts I had, clearly, and supported the facts with arguement. The post went sidways around 30 posts back (split to FP), but that was because some people attacked the very nature of what this thread was about. I expect to get many disagreements with me still, even though I finally agree with you. I guess the change that people want is good, as long as it's their way. Thanks for your input.

Time for this thread to fade...

[underdawg]

You only have two requirements to be president that is spelled out in the constitution.

1. You have to be 35 years old or older

2. You have to be a natural born citizen.

I suppose you can be a complete idiot and still become president if enough people vote for you.

There are definitely more requirements to get into the military, but those rules can always be changed if they wanted to change them.