Obama Admitting to Using Drugs In the Past, and Subsequently Turning his Back On them, to his Favor or Not?

Question

MercurialMe :-), I Would Be Very Surprised that a Person his Age and Worldliness Never Even Tried Marijuana.

Answer 1

To his favor, at least he was honest about it. We can't say on one hand we want honest politicians and then turn against them when they are. Politicians are also human and most of us don't think when we are younger that we will REALLY run for the presidency and be subject to such scrutiny. Most of us couldn't stand such an invasion of privacy and pass any-ones test.

Give the guy a break he wrote that book and told on himself some time ago. He could have done like most and lied and let you find out about it later and tried to defend it. He didn't deflect, he accepted his fault and responsibility for it. He isn't using now and that's what matters. Youth has it's disadvantages and being experimental is one of them.

Vote or don't vote for him because of what he stands for today and in his recent past. His political views, his abilities, because you believe or don't believe he can do the job well, his voting record. Not over something he did 20 years ago.

Answer 2

Wow, MAGMA must have heard something I have not. Admitting that he used a drug does not mean he was an addict.
If my figures are correct, there are 5 or 6 people who use or abuse drugs or alcohol for each person who becomes addicted.
So many people have had an encounter or battle with drugs or alcohol that I believe the revelation will benefit him in the end. People will identify with him. His charisma seems to be his strong point.
I'm not for or against him as a candidate. I'm still weighing the options as an independent, hopefully thinking, person.
Getting caught in a lie is a great legal sin these days - - Barry Bonds' (possible - not yet proven) lie about HGH use, Bill Clinton's lie about having some type of sexual encounter, Dick Nixon's cover up of the Watergate mess.
Whatever !
There are no perfect people.
I think I would be leery of someone who seemed too perfect.
In my years, I've seen that things which seem too good to be true - - are usually not true.
Long winded answer to say - - I don't think it will hurt him and it may help in the long run - - and the run for president is truly a marathon.

Added Note (that will probably get me a bunch of thumbs down): One definition I have heard for addiction (and there are others) is when a person compulsively and repeatedly does something that has life damaging consequences. Using tobacco clearly fits this definition, but do not tell compulsive tobacco users they are addicts. There are few things that I have seen which make people more angry and defensive. I am not calling smokers addicts. I am saying that only those of us who are completely without sin should throw stones - - or run for elected office.

Answer 3

Your question in basic terms shows your lack of understanding of proper information. If somebody tries a drug are they a druggie? Are they not extra helpful than the habitual person? Are you so extra helpful-than-thou which you have no longer have been given something on your previous - no longer something you have ever achieved - it relatively is undesirable or incorrect or which could be construed as such? enable he who's without sin solid the 1st stone. issues including this that have been achieved many, some years in the past are no longer significant now. So what if Bush did some coke 25 years in the past - is he nevertheless snorting? And so what if Obama (and Al Gore until eventually now him), smoked some weed a decade in the past - is he nevertheless stoned? thoroughly beside the point. in reality i could relatively have a president who DID attempt some decadent issues in his previous so he can remark intelligently on them interior the destiny. based upon you fact, eighty% of u.s. is undeserving for any elected submit. Throw the toddlers out with the bathwater.

Answer 4

With the media being able to dig up dirt so easy, anyone running for public office should just come clean with anything that might be an issue of controversy.
If there is a skeleton in the closet someone will find it, so many as way be upfront about it and if its long in the past, then I know I can put it aside.
I appreciate honesty.
So I would say its probably in his favor.

Answer 5

Honesty is the best policy!! He knew that someone, somewhere would remember him from his "drug days" and that some opposing party or candidate would likely flush that person out and pay them to spill the dirt. It looks better on him to admit it himself than to have the information come out in an uncontrolled manner later.

Answer 6

Well, it illustrates how vulnerable he is as a person; that he is also a survivor of his previous addiction.
However, because of his history of addiction, it shows how weak he is as a person. Now, as a commoner, that is fine. We are all imperfect.
But as Commander-in-Chief, we cannot have someone so prone to addictions.
Look at Bush.
This is a guy who was a recovered alcoholic.
Look at what he has done to America.
He chanelled his addiction to the compulsion to destroy Saddam.
Who is to say that Osama does not have this same character weakness that could spell even greater doom for America?

You want Change?
Vote for a Woman.

Answer 7

Well, he might get a mark for honesty, and another for good sense - but it takes more than that to make a great president. But anything has to be better than Bush, surely!

Answer 8

We all have a past so I don't see that its a big deal. I don't care for him and he's not getting my vote, and him putting this out there doesn't change my mind about him at all. I think he lacks the experience to run this country.

Answer 9

Actually a great political strategy. By admitting the use before the media dug it up he killed a potential story.

Answer 10

I'm not in favor of turning your back on drugs... Drugs are good.