Thursday, May 07, 2009

Party Games - Main Feature - Main Feature - Pittsburgh City Paper

Party Games - Main Feature - Main Feature - Pittsburgh City Paper For a town led by 'good old boys,' Pittsburgh seems to have created a surprisingly youthful crop of politicians for the May 19 Democratic primary. In the races profiled on the following pages, you'll find numerous candidates who aren't even in their mid-40s yet. That makes them practically adolescents, in Pittsburgh-politician years.
All three candidates for mayor think marijuana should be illegal. All three are sorta old fashioned in that stodgy belief. The war on drugs is part of the problems and helps to drive many of the killings of the kids on the streets of Homewood and The Hill District.

Santonio has nobody to endorse.

Nor do the older folks who would have great comfort in their final weeks and months of life with the use of medical marijuana. And, medical marijuana's legalization is before the PA House and Senate now.

I'd hope that the City Paper, of all places, would take a 'younger view' at the issues and size up these spring chicks for being so old-school on this front.


Peaks and Gutters said...

"Santonio has nobody to endorse."


But really, I thought it was pretty ridiculous for WPXI to even use that e-mail question about pot in the debate Monday night. Maybe they just didn't have any other questions, but I'm not sure that the candidates' stances on pot is the most relevant issue in this election, considering none of those three will ever have a chance to do anything about it.

I suppose it's an interesting talking point, and the next time I see Carmen Robinson in a bar I'll pull up a stool and shoot the shit with her about legalizing pot. But in the debate there were probably better questions that could have been asked.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Well, asset forfeiture, could be a realm of control with the mayor's office.

Putting those cameras to work on pot smokers too.

The mayor could tell officers to let a little weed slide -- as in S.Holmes case. Rather to have the police worry about crimes with victims.

But, I do agree -- the question was a throw away in that debate.