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:
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 Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Gary Johnson | ||||
| ||||
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:
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.
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:
TPM reports that the call script was drawn from this robocall used in other states:
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]
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:
So will the candidates start arguing over whoâs going to do more to end the drug war?
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.)
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.)