Saletan bashes the young Senator for refusing to confirm or deny that he ever smoked marijuana:
When you tell a child that it’s bad or unwise to do something, and the child asks you whether you’ve done it, the most important thing isn’t to persuade the child that you’re clean. The most important thing is to tell the truth. … Kids aren’t stupid. When they ask whether you’ve smoked pot, and you evade the question, they don’t conclude that it’s bad to smoke pot. They conclude that you think it’s OK to hide the truth from your kids. What they’re learning from you is deceit.
A reader sounds off:
I’m by no means a fan of Marco Rubio, but I’m not particularly upset that he won’t answer the questions. Politicians make a practice of not answering questions if they can avoid it, and certainly not questions the answers to which could potentially alienate voters. I should say that I think his refusal to answer is kind of stupid, which is par for the course with Rubio. Hardly anyone would refuse to vote for him if they knew he had smoked some pot back in the day and, in fact, his weaselly refusal to answer could lose him some votes.
But the answer that he should have given is: “None of your business”. Whether he had ever smoked pot has absolutely no bearing on his qualifications to be President. And while journalists are certainly entitled to ask him this question, I disagree with you and believe that we aren’t entitled to an answer from him. In my view, this is a purely private matter.
Update from another:
The reader you quoted is wrong. Marijuana prohibition is a matter of public policy. If a politician supports said prohibition, as we must assume Rubio does, then the public has a right to know whether or not he has smoked before. We’re not talking about Rubio’s sex life here, where privacy would be expected – and where no laws prohibit him from doing whatever he chooses in the bedroom.
The Dish 