Chris Dodd in The Huffington Post

On Drugs: Allow medical marijuana; and allow decriminalization too

A: Certainly with medical use of marijuana, it ought to be allowed. And many states allow that today. I’ve strongly advocated that these states not be biased or prejudiced because they allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. And again, on allowing decriminalization, I strongly advocate as well. We’re cluttering up our prisons, frankly, when we draw distinctions.

On Drugs: Decriminalize marijuana but don’t legalize it

On Education: Advocate for free community-college education

A: I’m an advocate of a free community-college education, and I do that by offering a match to any state that will equal 50% of that cost. I’ll match that here. In order to release that initial portal of higher education becomes available. To talk about a free education for everyone, regardless of choice they make between private and public institutions, may be difficult, but certainly expanding Pell Grants here, providing more work-study programs, Americorps, I’ve advocated a million slots, not 150,000 that we have today, where educational benefits become a part of that. I’d provide a sliding scale of incentives, so if you choose careers that are not as lucrative as others are, that your payback of loans would be calibrated to those choices rather than insisting upon everyone paying the same amount back. And college costs are going up all the time. So I’m an advocate for indexing as well.

On Health Care: Universal health mart: shop for best plan to suit your needs

A: Yes, they do, absolutely. A universal plan that drives down costs, spreads out the risk, which is what I’m advocating, a plan that I think I can achieve within four years of my inauguration.

Q: And how would you pay for it?

A: Well, you pay for it by having everyone contribute based on their ability to pay. And that makes it totally universal. No exceptions. Everyone’s involved in this. I’d establish what I call a universal health mart, in a sense, where people could actually shop for the best plans that suit their needs. It’s done under the framework of the federal employees’ health-benefit plan. My plan is designed to do what you can actually get done here. It keeps plans or parts of things that work and gets rid of things that don’t. For instance, I’d ban any discrimination against pre-existing conditions here. It follows you, not your job, in a sense here.

On Health Care: Require at age 55 a physical exam to qualify for Medicare

A: Yes, we do, absolutely. About 75% of the Medicare dollars is caused by chronic illness. I’m looking at a possibility of also requiring at age 55, for instance, a physical exam 10 years before you’d qualify for Medicare so that we could make a determination as to whether or not things like smoking, diet, and so forth are going to contribute to the cost of that chronic illness and the Medicare dollar. Those things need to be done as well. And I’ve done this, by the way. You know, I wrote the Family Leave Act. It took me seven years to get it done. But I brought Republicans and Democrats together about many controversial issues associated with health care. So I think not only talking what you want to do but where you’ve been on these issues ought to be constructive to voters.

On Health Care: Make people pay high price for voluntary choice of smoking

A: Well, prohibition may go a little bit further here, but certainly, to make it very costly for doing it and making people pay a price in a sense for that voluntary choice. Now, it’s hard to quit smoking, and anyone who’s ever smoked knows that. But here, doing everything we can to move people out. 3,000 children start every day smoking in this country. Despite all of our efforts with warnings labels and raising the cost of taxes on cigarettes, it’s still a major problem in the country and a major cause for a variety of illnesses that become chronic illnesses for people. Prohibition would probably go a bit further than I’d want it to, but I’d make it expensive to do it.

On War & Peace: Surge has not made us safer, more secure, or less vulnerable

A: Well, I think too much has been made of the assessment on the surge. Whether you agree with their assessment on the surge, that the violence is down, or you disagree with it, as many studies do, that’s really not the issue. The issue is, of course, fundamentally, are we safer, are we more secure, less vulnerable, today as a country? Is Iraq closer to becoming a nation-state or not? And that’s really the issue at hand here. And I think the conclusion I’ve reached, as well as many others have, is that despite all of these efforts over four and a half years, I think we’re less secure, less safe, more vulnerable today as a result of this policy, and that Iraq seems to be further removed from achieving that reconciliation that this space was supposed to be created by the surge.

On War & Peace: Terminate funding for Iraq; compare Vietnam & persuade GOP

A: I don’t. I think we’ve come to the point where it’s time to call this for what it is. This is a civil war in the country. $10 billion a month, $2 billion every week, not to mention the cost of lives, what it’s cost the Iraqis themselves, the emergence of al-Qaida in the country, developing a sort of incubator for terrorism. In the coming days in the US Senate, I’ll offer that we terminate the funding.

Q: But do you think you can get enough political support among Republicans to make it veto-proof?

A: I doubt it at this point, but I’ll start anyway. I think we should have started it earlier here to build that case. And even many Republicans have serious doubts and reservations. [Bush’s] language is so eerily reminiscent of language I heard 40 years ago about showing more patience, wait a little longer, this may work down the road, that frankly, many of us who went through that are saying today that’s enough.