02 November 2008

The 2008 Khaki Elephant Voter Guide

Hey, Michigan, are you ready for November 4th?

If not, here is the 2008 Khaki Elephant handy and right there on the edge of dandy Voter Guide filled with endorsements, props and tasty recommendations (if need be, a dollop of peanut butter will heighten the appeal). So here are the notes covering some of the candidates and issues on Michigan Ballots this year.


Endorsements:

U.S. President / Vice-President: John McCain / Sarah Palin

U.S. Senator: Jack Hoogendyk Jr. (Carl Levin has done more damage to Michigan than Toyota and Honda combined. Plus, Hoogendyk intends to lower the corporate tax rate, which could lure much needed jobs back to the state).

U.S. Representative (MI District 8): Mike Rogers

U.S. Representative (MI District 9): Joe Knollenberg (who gets my vote and admiration)

U.S. Representative (MI District 11): Thaddeus J McCotter (the name alone scores big)

U.S Representative (MI District 12): No endorsement

University of Michigan Regent: Susan Brown

Michigan State University Trustee: George Scott Romney

Wayne State Governors: Torion J. Bridges & Danialle Karmanos

Oakland County Executive: L. Brooks Patterson

Oakland County Prosecutor: David Law

Oakland County Sheriff: No endorsement

Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court: Cliff Taylor (The only qualified candidate . . . this is a MUST vote -- don't let the negative smear ads make you snooze on this one!)



State Proposals:

Proposal 08-1: A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions.

VOTE: NO

While supporters call this a "compassionate act" to provide a substance that could help patients with illnesses like cancer and multiple sclerosis, the fact is that there are already more effective medications on the market, so why circumvent the rigorous medicine approval process in order to get this less effective substitute on the market? That's just one of the reasons why medical marijuana is rejected by the American Medical Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, American Glaucoma Society, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Ophthalmology, National Eye Institute, National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the FDA. If you want to legalize marijuana to cop a buzz that's one thing, but this proposal won't do that. And prescription pot is not the answer to our health care issues.



Proposal 08-2: A proposal to amend the State Constitution to address human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.

VOTE: NO

I've already written about Proposal 2 on The Khaki Elephant. The fact is that embryonic stem cell research has been fairly ineffective to date. Beyond that, the primary reason for destroying these embryos (the harvesting of pluripotent stem cells) is becoming obsolete with the successful research being done in changing multipotent or any other cell type into pluripotent stem cells. For more information on my take see: Michigan's Prop 2: Is Embryonic Stem-cell Research Science Or Social Agenda.

9 comments :

  1. Anthony Palmer said...

    Do you think your stance on banning medicinal marijuana goes against the "limited government" principle of conservatism?

  2. DB said...

    David Law for prosecutor...that's awesome!!

  3. Khaki Elephant said...

    Not really, Anthony. I do believe that all prescription drugs should go through the same rigorous approval process and and Prop 1 would allow marijuana to skip the process. In addition, pot is less effective than drugs currently on the market, so what's the point?

  4. Khaki Elephant said...

    I just can't wait for Robert Doubletalk to run for congress.

  5. DB said...

    I actually really like your argument for being against medicinal marijuana (though Anthony does bring up a good counter-argument to conservatives). It may surprise you both, but I am firmly against it as well, but have found that I haven't had a strong argument why. I just disagree with it. I am not a "limited government" type guy on many issues so I don't get stuck on that detail too much, but it does bring up interesting arguments for a lot of other things. Limited government conservatives are a dying breed these days.

  6. Khaki Elephant said...

    DB, remember that "limited government" is not the same as "no government"

  7. DB said...

    I understand, but in general use "limited government" is referring to less federal role in decisions that can best be handled by the states (which this issue clearly is). My comment was more referring to things like a "Constitutional Amendment" for things like defining marriage, making English the national language, etc where many conservatives are actually encouraging a federal response on issues that can be handled at the state level. Sorry, I mixed two thoughts lol. Must be all this rain (in Japan) clouding my clarity!

  8. Freadom said...

    Some people tend to forget that conservatives are for limited government, not no government. Great post.

  9. Anthony Palmer said...

    My take on it is that if someone wanted to use medicinal marijuana, but couldn't because the government said it wasn't allowed, that would be an example of government "getting in the way." If it's my body, why can't I decide what I do with it or how I want to take care of it? The government says it's okay for me to ruin my health by smoking cigarettes, but it also says I can't heal myself by using medicinal marijuana? How do you explain that disconnect?

    If medicinal marijuana is going to harm my body, I'd like to be able to take responsibility for my own health and find out on my own and deal with the consequences--just like the failing companies shouldn't be bought up by the government. They should face the consequences of their own poor business decisions.

    Wanting to subject all prescription drugs to rigorous approval is a noble idea with the goal of public safety in mind, but this goal is also what's preventing generics from being widely available. Note the numbers of seniors who have had to go to Canada to buy generics. Who sets these standards for approval? Why are the governments' standards better than my own standards? Or does the government know more about my health than I do?

    That's my inner libertarian speaking. Obviously, there's a difference between limited government, no government, and federalism. If there were no government, there would be anarchy and this medicinal marijuana proposition probably wouldn't even be on the ballot. There's a difference between federalism, libertarianism, and anarchy, so I disagree with your limited government vs. no government claim.

    To me, it sounds like you support government regulation of medicine. There's nothing wrong with that at all. But government regulation seems at odds with the deregulation tendencies of conservatism. Just my opinion.