Candidates/Races

Gary Johnson Talks Marijuana Legalization on the Colbert Report

I keep hearing rumors that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is going to run for President. And if his campaign sounds anything like last night's Colbert appearance, the other republican candidates better start practicing their anti-pot propaganda:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Gary Johnson

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Fox News

He should turn this into a campaign ad. If Johnson is able to pick up where Ron Paul left off, while picking up some new folks as well, we could see a heated and potentially consequential drug policy debate happen in the republican primaries. The possibility of a Johnson candidacy is huge for a few reasons:

1. He's a badass who came out for legalization while in office many years ago and has significant comfort and experience debating drug policy.
2. He's extremely popular with libertarians, who can use their massive web presence to fund and promote him.
3. The media's recent fascination with marijuana legalization will bring more attention to his candidacy.
4. There's a general sense that the likely republican candidates all suck horribly, thereby creating more room for Johnson to shine.
5. There won't be an Obama/Clinton war eating up half the press coverage, so the republican primaries will get twice the exposure we saw in '08.

Of course, for a variety of legal and practical reasons, we don't endorse candidates. And he's not even officially running yet. I'm just saying this promises to be an awesome situation that I'm sure we'll be talking about a great deal in the future. The fact that Johnson is already preaching legalization on the Colbert Report -- before even declaring his candidacy -- is a great sign in terms of the kind of press he can get and the kind of things he's likely to say.

(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.)

The Manhattan DAâs Race: The Princess of Darkness vs. Two Former Coke-Snorting Assistant DAs

Former Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder has made her career as a âtough on crimeâ prosecutor and âhang âem highâ judge, reveling in the moniker "The Princess of Darkness." For years on the bench, she routinely sentenced low-level drug offenders to harsh Rockefeller drug law sentences without batting an eye. Now, in a tight race for Manhattan District Attorney against former Assistant DAs and self-admitted former cocaine users (more on that below) Richard Aborn and Cyrus Vance, Jr., in next Tuesdayâs election, Snyder seems to be changing her tune. Citing her âprogressiveâ vision, Snyder says : "For more than 20 years on the bench, I have supported alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent, first-time offenders by promoting programs that provide drug treatment, education, and job training. The most important work I did as a judge was finding young people who were not yet locked into the cycle of incarceration and violent crime, and working with all parties to find effective and appropriate sentencing that avoided incarceration and led to rehabilitation." Some Rockefeller law victims, though, arenât buying what Snyder is peddling. Writing in the Huffington Post, former Rockefeller law prisoner Tony Papa blasted Snyder for sentencing countless low-level drug offenders as "kingpins," including Jose Garcia, who died in a prison cell at age 69, serving a life sentence under the Rockefeller laws. "Nowadays there is a new and improved Leslie Crocker Snyder," wrote Papa. "She is running for New York City District Attorney and, remarkably, now supports Rockefeller Drug Law reform. I almost fell off my chair when I heard this. She sounded nothing like the old "Princess of Darkness." Do I think Snyder really supports drug law reform? No, I don't. She knows that she needs the black and Latino vote. And she knows that public opinion has shifted, as the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of harsh sentences for drug law violations has been brought to light over the past decade. I guess running for a political office has a way of changing a person's thinking." Hereâs another Rockefeller law victim who isnât buying either:

In a debate last week, Snyder admitted smoking pot, but both Aborn and Vance trumped that by admitting they had snorted cocaine as young men. Of course, both men did the mandatory ritual negation of their acts, with Aborn calling his coke-snorting âan errorâ and Vance saying his message to young people was that âdrug use is something to be avoided.â Aborn sounds pretty progressive on drug policy reform: "It's time to stop ruining young people's lives because of a single mistake," he says on his web site. "It's time to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws and replace them with a sensible policy grounded in public health and common sense. Drug kingpins deserve prison. First and second-time non-violent offenders deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives. And the families of offenders unfairly caught up in the draconian Rockefeller laws deserve to be reunited." And so does Cy Vance: "In April, Governor Paterson signed into law significant reforms to New York Stateâs draconian Rockefeller Drug laws,â he says on his web site. âAs a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and member of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform which provided the blueprint for these overdue changes, I welcome the progress that has been made on this important issue. During the more than two decades I have been involved in sentencing issues, I have always been an advocate for moving toward a treatment model that protects public safety through rehabilitation where possible as opposed to a punitive model based on incarcerationâ¦.As District Attorney, I will continue to work with the Governor and State Legislature to ensure that our drug laws include statewide treatment options and re-entry programs that break the cycle of crime by changing behavior and strengthening families." But neither Alford nor Vance will come out and say that people should not be prosecuted for drug use or simple possession, like what they did in their youths. Maybe they donât believe that. Maybe they think they should have been caught and punished for snorting a line or two. Maybe they think they should have been sent to drug treatment. But somehow, I doubt that. I think itâs more likely that just donât think it would be politically expedient to say that absent harm to others, drug use should not be the stateâs business. And thatâs too bad. I donât live in Manhattan, so I donât get to vote on Tuesday. I wouldnât presume to tell New Yorkers how to vote, and Iâm not sure which candidate I would vote for. But I know which one I wouldnât vote for. Got that, Princess? (This article 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.)

In the Future, Opposing Legalization Will be Political Suicide

Check out this sweet attack ad Pete Guither came up with:

It's time for a change from the failed policies of Senator Incumbent. He voted 24 times in favor of drug laws that increase the profits for black-market criminals -- from the gangs that roam the streets of our town to the drug cartels causing death and destruction in Mexico.

Senator Incumbent is actually opposed to setting age limits for drugs like marijuana -- even cocaine or heroin! He actually prefers that criminals decide at what age kids can buy drugs.

Senator Incumbent refuses to even discuss policy options that have been proven to reduce violence. What is he afraid of? Does he have a reason to keep drug profits high?

It's time for a change. Vote Challenger for Senate. For smart drug regulation that reduces violence -- protecting children, families, and our community. [DrugWarRant]

If we haven't already reached a point where this kind of thing could work, I think we'll be there soon. I've pitched some of my better-funded colleagues in drug policy reform on exactly this type of concept and it's something I think we'll be seeing before long.

The key is to drop a drug reform attack ad in the right race at the right time. We'd probably stick to an issue like medical marijuana, where the polling is so strongly in favor of reform. Even if the ad doesnât do the trick by itself, it becomes part of the narrative of how a seemingly invincible incumbent got slaughtered. Visibly injuring a big name politician for opposing reform would be game-changing.

Telemarketers Refuse to Make "Soft on Crime" Attacks Against Obama

Further evidence that "soft on crime" attacks are becoming politically toxic:

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."
...
The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. "It was like at least 40 people," the daughter said. "People thought the script was nasty and they didn't wanna read it." [Talking Points Memo]

TPM reports that the call script was drawn from this robocall used in other states:

Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC, because Democrats are dangerously weak on crime. Barack Obama has voted against tougher penalties for street gangs, drug-related crimes, and protecting children from danger. Barack Obama and his liberal allies have a disturbing history of coddling criminals. so we can't trust their judgment to keep our families safe. This call was paid for by the Republican National Committee and McCain-Palin 2008 at 866 558-5591. Thank you, bye

Of all the ferocious bile that gets strewn about in a presidential election, it strikes me as quite remarkable that it was a crime-themed attack which finally broke the will of these callers. Telemarketing is a notoriously unscrupulous profession (no offense) and one would assume that nothing short of a visceral discomfort with the content would produce this kind of open revolt.

When telemarketers sacrifice pay during an economic crisis rather than read an angry "soft on crime" attack script, it really speaks volumes about the rapid descent of crime-themed political posturing. No one wants to here that crap anymore. The limitations of our criminal justice system have become horribly evident and it's growing more difficult to sell the idea that politicians who advocate reform are somehow detached from the realities of the crime issue. Accusing one's opponent of protecting criminals and endangering children just won't fly. Our politics are changing in subtle, yet significant ways. Some of the greatest obstacles on the path to reform may soon be behind us.

(This article 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.)

Further Evidence That Drug War Politics Are Changing

As public attitudes surrounding the war on drugs continue to evolve, weâll begin to see more of this type of thing:

Containing parts of Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, and points east, the 45th Legislative District is hardly a hotbed of radicalism. But the two candidates for one of the district's two House seats share a position well out of the political mainstream: They both advocate wholesale changes to the War on Drugs.

In his time away from the capital, incumbent State Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland) heads the King County Bar Association's Drug Policy Project, where he works on moving drug policy's focus from crime and punishment to public health. His challenger, Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland), who held the seat from 2002 to 2006 before leaving to run for the state Senate (he lost his bid for an open seat to Eric Oemig), has spoken out in defense of Washington's medical marijuana law and pushed a bill requiring performance audits of drug-enforcement policies. [Seattle Weekly]

So will the candidates start arguing over whoâs going to do more to end the drug war?

Noting that "some have observed that it's unfortunate that we're running against each other," Nixon adds that he's not sure he and Goodman have any disagreements on drug policy reform. But he wishes Goodman had followed his lead and pushed more drug policy reform bills as a legislator.

There you have it folks! The first candidate for public office to ever get called out for not trying hard enough to reform drug policy. This is not a coincidence, this is a sign of the times. It wonât be over tomorrow -- weâd be foolish to think that -- but we are entering a phase where weâll begin to see and hear the drug policy debate in new forums. Once reform enters the mainstream political curriculum, the tone changes, the pot jokes start sounding immature and the things that actually matter can finally be discussed.

(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.)

Obama's Mixed Messages on the Drug War

A couple weeks ago, I noted the contradiction between Obama's call for reduced incarceration of first-time nonviolent drug offenders and his support for the heinous Byrne Grant program that has filled our prisons with petty offenders and subsidized mindblowing episodes of racist drug war excess.

These completing agendas in Obamaâs crime platform deserve more discussion, thus Radley Balko has a piece at Slate that digs into this.

(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.)

How Come "Joe Sixpack" is an American Hero, While "Joe Stoner" Gets Arrested?

Paul Armentano at NORML points to Sarah Palin's glorification of "Joe Sixpack" in the vice presidential debate. Indeed, one could scarcely overstate the naked hypocrisy of portraying daily drinkers as American heroes, while our nation continues to arrest nearly a million Americans each year for using marijuana.

I usually leave the alcohol analogy alone, assuming that it often speaks for itself, and when it doesnât, the guys at SAFER can be counted on to point it out. But there are moments -- like hearing a major party VP candidate canonize alcohol users in a massively public forum â that remind us how truly discriminatory and fundamentally illogical this disparity is. If regulated sale is the best policy for alcohol, then it is the best policy for marijuana. And if people who drink a sixpack after work can be American heroes, so too are those who derive pleasure and relaxation from cannabis.

Obama's Contradictory Position on the Drug War

At a campaign appearance in Jacksonville, FL, Barack Obama proposed federal drug war funding as a solution to the cityâs problems with violent crime:

I will ensure that we fund the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need. And I will make sure our federal law enforcement agencies are equipped to fight terrorism and crime by ensuring that the FBI and DEA are appropriately staffed and that federal-local law enforcement task forces have the support they need. [Florida Times-Union]

He said the same thing in New Orleans, thus itâs becoming increasingly clear that Obama really does believe that aggressive drug enforcement can function as a crime control mechanism. For a quick tutorial on how absurd that is, Iâd refer him to Mexico, where President Calderonâs attempted crackdown has escalated violence throughout the country with no end in sight.

Moreover, Obamaâs praise for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants ignores that programâs role in producing some of the most egregious civil rights catastrophes in modern drug war history. Byrne funding was responsible for the notorious fiascos in Tulia and Hearne, TX, in which large numbers of innocent African-Americans were rounded up and framed for drug crimes. Overwhelming abuse of the program led Texas to ban multi-jurisdictional drug task forces entirely.

Obamaâs remarks yesterday are therefore simply impossible to reconcile with his calls for "shifting the paradigm" in the war on drugs. He has frequently called attention to the over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, yet now pledges to continue the exact tactics that have played such a prominent role in producing our alarming prison population. As Radley Balko explains:

Because most Byrne grants are also tied directly to drug arrests, they encourage local police departments to use their manpower and resources on nonviolent drug offenses instead of more serious crimes like rape, robbery, or murder.

It seems Obama is trying to have it both ways, scoring points for forward-thinking ideas on incarceration at the national level, while simultaneously promising more policing and drug enforcement to audiences that are concerned about crime. Iâd still prefer to think heâs serious about working to reduce our prison population, but he wonât get far without looking at the way our drug laws are enforced. If he plans to dangle federal drug war dollars in front of bloodthirsty local narcotics task forces, you can bet those guys will do what they do best: fill our prisons as fast as they can with anyone they can get their hands on.

Thatâs just how the drug war works. Politicians fund prohibition. Prohibition funds violence. Politicians feel pressured and fund more prohibition. If Obama wants to change the outcome, heâll have to change the process.

Palin Pick Makes Medical Marijuana a Problem Issue For McCain

We know she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska. And we know that she hypocritically claims to oppose legalization. But Sarah Palin is also governor of a state thatâs had a medical marijuana program for ten years. How does she feel about that?

Does Sarah Palin share John McCainâs open hostility towards seriously ill patients who use marijuana on the advice of their doctors?

Frankly, I highly doubt Palin agrees with this. Itâs bad politics for her in Alaska and, for that matter, everywhere else as well. If pressed, sheâll be forced to take the party line, but that wonât go well for her. Palin canât conveniently defend federal supremacy over state medical marijuana laws because sheâs already argued that her own past marijuana use was legal in Alaska. She canât defend medical marijuana raids without labeling herself a criminal.

The point isnât that thereâs anything damaging about her admitted marijuana use or that people who admit trying marijuana become obligated to support medical access. Neither is true. The point, rather, is that Palinâs personal story highlights the absurdity of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. telling people all the way up in Alaska what sorts of petty drug laws they ought to have. She doesnât want to go there. Itâs a terrible jumping-off point for initiating a defense of federal authority to arrest sick people.

Thatâs why the Obama campaign would be smart to apply pressure here. Public support for medical marijuana is overwhelming and the video of McCain literally turning his back on a wheelchair bound patient is compelling. This debate polarizes independent and libertarian voters in Obamaâs favor, while forcing McCain to defend another unpopular Bush policy. Bidenâs obnoxious drug war background also becomes a counterintuitive asset, as he can ably deflect any shrill attacks from the law & order crowd on the right.

As the democrats clamor for opportunities to puncture the narrative of McCain/Palin as a "reform" ticket, there is nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain by directly challenging McCainâs deeply unpopular views on medical marijuana.

(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.)

Biden is a "Moderate" on Crime Issues?

The Chicago Tribune on Biden:

He has proven to be a reliable moderate on crime issues--particularly where narcotics are concerned--and was a principal author of the 1994 crime bill which sought to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets through a federal grant program. That bill also expanded the reach of the federal death penalty.

Um, Biden coined the term "drug czar" and created ONDCP, the propaganda wing of the federal drug war. He tried to one-up the Republican anti-drug plan by calling for larger foreign drug war investments. He authored the RAVE Act to allow federal prosecution of property owners who fail to successfully prevent drug use. He championed research into biological warfare techniques to eradicate South American drug cultivation, even after experts said it was way too dangerous to even consider. He was last seen proposing ridiculous drug war legislation only a month ago. Really, the list just goes on and on.

So no, Joe Biden is not a "moderate" when it comes to crime issues. His hard-line authoritarian record speaks for itself, runs out of breath, and then speaks for itself some more. To call him a "moderate" is just ignorant and wrong, to the point of utterly trivializing the word and conjuring a wretched spectacle of what it would take to earn a more fitting description of his extensive jail-mongering credentials.

I can only assume this profound mischaracterization of Biden's record was arrived at through the tired assumption that democrats are "soft" on crime, republicans are "tough," and therefore "moderates" are democrats who support harsh laws. Joe Biden is exactly the reason such stereotypes should be avoided by responsible journalists.

Subscribe to Candidates/Races