Nevermind, Barack Obama Wants to Arrest Marijuana Users After All
For one brief glorious moment, we thought Barack Obama supported marijuana decriminalization. He said so in 2004 and his campaign reiterated it yesterday, only to subsequently retreat and pledge support for current marijuana laws.
At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct. Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use."If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers. [Washington Times]
Indeed, as Pete Guither notes, no one is really sure what "decriminalization" actually means, which likely explains the Obama campaign's ultimate unwillingness to be associated with the term.
And that tells you everything you need to know about why meaningful debate of our marijuana laws is continuously excluded from mainstream politics. Since the relevant vocabulary words have no universally accepted definition, candidates attempting to discuss marijuana would be forced to use entire sentences or even paragraphs to express their opinions. This is not something they will do voluntarily.
Note, for example, that everything we know about the major candidates' drug policy positions has emerged as a result of someone explicitly asking them. The tortured evolution of Obama's views on marijuana occurred only because this information was demanded of him. First, Bill Maher forced Chris Dodd to discuss the issue, resulting in Dodd's endorsement of marijuana decrim. Then, Tim Russert asked other democratic contenders whether they disagreed with Dodd. The front-runners sheepishly raised their hands in opposition to even mild marijuana reform. Finally, when the Washington Times forced Obama to clarify his conflicting positions, Obama's campaign briefly endorsed reform before finally concluding that they opposed decrim even though they're still not sure what it is.
The conventional wisdom among my colleagues seems to be that Obama "gets" the drug war issue. Everything he says and does can be attributed to his presidential aspirations, I'm told, and we should be grateful that he at least flirts with criminal justice reform. That's fine as far as it goes, but I continue to question the fundamental political wisdom of refusing to talk about marijuana. It's an issue people care about. It's an issue that gets headlines. And it's an issue that's been handled about as poorly as one could possibly imagine for a long long time.
I believe that marijuana reform, properly and passionately framed by an eloquent and viable candidate, could prove to be far less toxic than the brilliant campaign strategists in Washington D.C. collectively assume. And it is nauseating to consider that this terrible war on marijuana users owes its survival as much to a flawed political calculus as to the actual beliefs and convictions of those who sustain it.
(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
digg
redditYour dead on about Obama's lawyerly duplicity
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:18amKerry did the same thing in 2004. Its no surprise to me that drug warrior John Kerry is supporting and advising Obama. It would surprise me if Obama sincerely articulated a reform position while being supported by John Kerry. It would also surprise me if Obama adopted a reform position with his record of support for crap like the 2005 Combat Meth Act, of which its ballooning effect even the U.S. Justice Department admits has increased the purity, quantity and distribution of meth on American streets. See my essay: Barack Obama: A Stereotype of Conventional Wisdom
Since the war on drugs is, at its core, a Jim Crow policy in America the way that I address these drug warriors is to refer to them as "Jim Crow drug warriors". Including Obama. This threatens their political viability and image. And it gives them incentive to look at alternatives. For that I offer them Ira Glasser's excellent column in The Nation Last year, Drug Busts = Jim Crow. Let Barack Obama and Hillary both justify their Democratic Party support of a policy that is mass disenfranchising core Democratic constituencies, minorities and the poor of America.
"This terrible war on marijuana users"
Comment posted by rita on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 3:22amis being waged against ALL Americans, not just marijuana users. I'm no expert on the history of the prohibition of various drugs, but the so-called "war on drugs" never WAS about protecting the public; it was started by President Nixon to win reelection. That's the reason politicians WON'T debate the issue -- they KNOW they are wrong.
Obama's just another hypocrite willing to sacrifice our lives and the lives of our children to further his own career. They all look the same to me.
Obama? Why
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:45pmWhy would anyone even consider voting for someone who won't answer a direct question? Flip Flop, Sounds like a cheap pair of walmart shoes to me. Cheap, inconsistent, unreliable. Clinton, Obama, Whoever. Vote Ron Paul. Yes he is an out of the box thinker. Look around do you want someone in the box?
Scott:
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:03amThanks for all of the great effort at nailing this Obama issue down. What a job. Obama is a lawyer, a politician and a member of one of the two lying thieving dominance parties and, to me, that gives him three strikes. Add to that the fact that Obama is being supported by one of the most notorious Democratic drug warriors, John Kerry, who in 2004 let his underlings imply moderate pot positions that Kerry never clearly supported.
Your journalistic cynicism is well placed today.
Don't let other well-intentioned reform folks blow a lot of wishful thinking smoke in your face on this. Folks did that with Kerry in '04 and were screwed for it.
"I believe that marijuana reform, properly and passionately framed by an eloquent and viable candidate, could prove to be far less toxic than the brilliant campaign strategists in Washington D.C. collectively assume."
I wholeheartedly agree. I think the same can be said with the entire range of drugs. Defining these issues for all of the candidates running in all elections is what I have tried to focus on rather than the individual political candidates. Working to provide them all with a new lexicon that they can reframe the debate with themselves since it is the politicians, not us, who have to take the issues to the public.
We need to provide the politicians a framework and a self-interest based rationale to consider adopting that framework.
We have the arguments. We need to get those arguments to the politicians in a way that gets them to consider our arguments. the medical pot people in New England did that quite successfully this spring when they confronted the campaigners. LEAP too raised the debate level when their Bradley Jardis confronted McCain in new Hampshire. We need to be everywhere they are. Raise the profile of the issues.
Most important is that no politician does anything without a self-interest. this is why campaign season is so important. In political season that self-interest is their political viability. Threatening a politicians political viability is the fastest way to bring their attention to an issue. I work full time to find ways to make support for the war on drugs a political liability for ALL politicians. then, and only then, will they consider our well crafted, cogent and valid arguments for drug policy reform.
Not entirely right
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 10:41amWhile a majority is needed for direct election success a majority is not needed for policy change in a representative democracy.
What is needed is to get politicians and the media to talk about the issues enough to interest, inform and hopefully incite a vocal number of voters. This leads to the voter majority.
We have large numbers of elected official on our side already and that influences other politicians more than anything. After all look just at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that last summer passed a resolution denouncing the war on drugs as a failure. The Conference is made up of ELECTED local executives who represent the interests of a majority of urban America. That is a huge number of people represented. Any politician ignoring this massive volume of proven electoral support is risking political suicide.
It is incumbent upon US the reform advocates, to get this resolution in front of the presidential and congressional candidates.
Urban gun violence is a major issue in our cities. Especially among minorities and the poor who are most victimized by gun crime. Illegal guns proliferate BECAUSE the high demand by the drug gangsters makes the guns cheap and easy to get. Remove the demand by the gangsters by regulating the drug distribution and the demand for illegal guns is reduced. Reduce the demand for guns and they become less available and more expensive for cheap street hoods who use guns for street crime.
If we can get the candidates and media to confront these issues that is what will inform and persuade the electorate.
Vocal public confrontation of the candidates during the campaign both incites the candidates to consider the issues and induces the media to explore the issues.
Great news
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 11:28amThanks for posting it.
Many Greens are also inciting Ralph Nader to run again. He opened an exploratory committee this week. Run Ralph, Run!!!!
I will get in touch with my local Green delegate and get her more information about all of the issues of drug policy reform.
Informed consent, the ultimate revolution.
peacefull rally
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:28amPeacefull protest at the white house july 4th 2009 reply yes to this to agree
My Fear
Comment posted by M Simon on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 2:05pmMy fear is that if Obama get in he will do a Clinton and re-double drug war efforts.
Surprisingly Bush has ratcheted down Drug Task Force Spending. The opposite of Clinton.
Anon. Is Right
Comment posted by M Simon on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 2:16pmNo Disrespect, But 'Problem = Us' posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:57am is right.
Let me add that it is not enough to get people on our side (we need to do more of that). They have to make decrim (start with med pot) an election issue that matters. Something like 70% to 80% of the people favor med pot and yet it rarely features in elections except as state referendums.
Targeting Bob Barr was good. We need to pick one off every election.
When the gun rights folks did that both parties had a change of heart.
The focus should be on Republicans since they are the furthest out on the issue. (I'm an R voter BTW - but what works works. When the Ds got it in the neck on gun rights it was easy to keep the Rs in line).
Obama, an equal among evils
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:07pmI agree with you 100% on Hillary. My criticism of Bill Clinton's drug war record, mentioning most of your points and highlighting his world record prison population and mass disenfranchisement of minorities, got me censored off of the TalkLeft lawyer blog today. LOL! Democrats are being very sensitive about Bubba Bill's facade of being a liberal.
My problem is that, while your analysis of how the Clintons and the GOP will treat him is dead on, Obama is no better on drug policy. Aside from this latest water muddying effort by him and his people regarding pot decrim he has a congressional and campaign record of supporting the most Draconian and counter-productive policies of the drug war.
Legislatively, his senate web site brags of his co-sponsorship of the 2005 Combat Meth Act. Just two years later the Justice Department's annual National Drug Threat Assessment characterized the outcomes of that policy to be classic ballooning effect. The Meth Act has actually increased the quality and quantity of meth on our streets and it has facilitated the growth into America of highly organized and extremely violent Mexican street gangs. Spreading into places that the old meth biker gangs never moved into.
Here is my blog essay on the issue:
2005 Combat Meth Act
From the Justice Department:
"...marked success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production through law enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions has enabled Mexican DTOs to rapidly expand their control over methamphetamine distribution—even in eastern states—as users and distributors who previously produced the drug have sought new, consistent sources. These Mexican methamphetamine distribution groups (supported by increased methamphetamine production in Mexico) are often more difficult for local law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate, and dismantle because they typically are much more organized and experienced than local independent producers and distributors. Moreover, these Mexican criminal groups typically produce and distribute high purity ice methamphetamine that usually is smoked, potentially resulting in a more rapid onset of addiction to the drug."
Obama is proud that he co-sponsored this national disaster.
From the official web site of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate for president of the United States of America.
"Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act, which provides more money for fighting methamphetamine (meth), tightens controls on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to the children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate and became law in the 109th Congress."
On the campaign trail he visited New Orleans a few months back and responding to people asking for help with crime in poor neighborhoods he promised that, after the election, he would increase the DEA office in the city. If he wants to help New Orleans he can TODAY, offer a bill to increase drug rehab in the city. This would quickly get addicts off the streets who are the source of most street economic crime in any community. A few million in drug rehab money today would do more good than even fifty DEA agents going into the city in Feb. of 2009. He promised five more agents. A spit in the ocean.
Obama is an idiot who does not know what he is doing. Hillary is a Jim Crow monster who knows exactly what she is doing to the electoral viability of poor and minority communities when she promises to return to Bill's world record prison population solutions to crime.
The economics of the drug war is the CAUSE of as much as 70% of the crime on American streets today. Hillary, Barack, McCain, Huck and that Mormon dick-head are all too much a part of the problem to be any part of the solution.
Flip Flop
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:55pmYou don't have to vote for the cleanest dirty sheet any more. Vote for Ron paul. I can't stand these people that say "he doesn't stand a chance so i'll vote for someone else" If everyone who says that votes for him, he will win by a landslide. At least look him up. Do the research. I thought I was damn near a socialist. Than I shut my mouth and did some research. Turns out I don't want these powere abusing beurocrats wasting any more of MY MONEY. When a company falls most of the people lining their pockets for years turn out allright. Let's cut wastfull spending. Do whats right and what is needed.
I have watch
Comment posted by aahpat on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 10:14amthe evolution of the drug war since the day Richard Nixon signed the legislation on TV with a bunch of CIA thugs around him who were being transfered to the new DEA. They were all so tickled that they could finally have a pretext to do domestic political intelligence.
Cynical? ABSOLUTELY!
As soon as you started to refer to the candidates you had to start making empty assumptions and apply wishful thinking to your otherwise sound reasoning and analysis. I make no assumptions about the Democrats. I wish for nothing. I am grounded in reality.
The only reality that these Jim Crow Democrats and Republicans know is to threaten their political viability. As voters, that is our only leverage over them. Cynical cold-hearted political reality.
I wish I could lie that well
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:58pmIf I could lie and steal like a polotician I would be at a whore house everynight. When I gave my wife AIDS I would simply smile and not reply. Too bad I have a soul.
What?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:16amAre you serious? Did you read the article? Is that not what the article is all about?! ...His past statements on decriminalization?! He has, again, like his fellow candidates, flip-flopped! Only one guy sticks to his guns.
And, too many people, that believe what he says, vote against him! Our country is screwed!
No, actually: Decrim v Legalization
Comment posted by aahpat on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:50pm"Indeed, as Pete Guither notes, no one is really sure what "decriminalization" actually means, which likely explains the Obama campaign's ultimate unwillingness to be associated with the term."
The distinction between decrim and legalization is very clear and simple.
Decrim is simply not busting people.
Legalization is building a regulated and licensed marketplace in order to put the gangsters out of business.
Decrim does not remove the billions of dollars in subsidies available today to the black market distributors. Legalization will defund the criminal class that today preys on the drug markets.
The only way
Comment posted by aahpat on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 6:10pmto end the war on drugs is to make it a political liability for the national level politicians who support it.
A vote for any drug warrior is a vote for the drug war.
Campaign Camouflage Strategies
Comment posted by Giordano on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 1:47amObama has it covered either way. Now if someone says Obama is pro-reform, he has plausible deniability. His campaign workers can point one way or the other on decriminalization, the timing of the purported statements being deliberately confused, while retaining the opportunity to press the necessary buttons to get the desired response from the info targeted electorate.
It would be a pleasant surprise to wake up some day and actually know what a presidential candidate stands for prior to their royal posteriors getting elected. Bush Jr. claimed to be pro-medical MJ in his 2000 election campaign, and, as usual, he lied.
However, there are candidates who appear to be sincere this time in their willingness to consider options. Still, I think the future president elect is going to continue need a lot of help changing most public perceptions on the drug issue. Unless it’s overtly unconstitutional, most sane politicians don’t move on an issue until they have a majority of the public on their side. The Democrats will probably deliver on medical MJ, but decriminalization is a separate issue requiring different political strategies.
Giordano