dean's stance on medical pot sucks the big one

i like howard dean as a democratic candidate for president, but exploring his site, i couldn't find much on his stance on drug policy reform. after a little googling i found out that he vetoed vermont's medical marijuana bill while governor of the state. so i emailed his campaign about it, asking what his stance was, and got no response. then aphid turned this up this morning:

LO: In Vermont, you opposed a bill that would have given terminally ill patients access to medicinal marijuana. What was your rationale? As President, would you direct the FDA to objectively address this issue?

HD: My opposition to medical marijuana is based on science, not based on ideology. More specifically, I don't think we should single out a particular drug for approval through political means when we approve other drugs through scientific means. When I'm President, I will require the FDA to evaluate marijuana with a double blind study with the same kinds of scientific protocols that every other drug goes through. I'm certainly willing to abide by what the FDA says.

in the meantime both nixon and carter had scientific studies conducted under federal authority which both concluded that marijuana should be completely decriminalized. hell, even after seeing a 400% increase in marijuana arrests during his administration, bill clinton told rolling stone he thinks marijuana should be decriminalized, as have dozens of other leglislators in the last few years. how much more money do they need to spend on tests? nowadays the only tests the fda do are ones that will either help push the product of a corporate campaign contributor through or illigitimize the medical use of perfectly safe, natural substances. the bush administration, for example, fires all researchers whose conclusions don't meet the administration's policies. so what's the fucking point?

i now have zero confidence in howard dean.