Candidates/Races

A crazy woman, Dr. Ada M. Fisher, was authorized to speak to the press on behalf of the McCain campaign at the NAACP convention. She took that opportunity to make some of the most unfortunate and incoherent remarks about drug use in recent memory:

AF: "…Obama in his book about his father talked about his use of drugs. And I think it’s disingenuous of people to vote for somebody for President when you won’t allow a drug user in any secure or nuclear facility. Yet we as a nation, are willing to consider making somebody President of the United States I think that speaks very poorly…Bill Clinton said he smoked but he didn’t inhale…But he didn’t come out and flagrantly say he used drugs…and if that’s going to be our standard God helps us in nuclear facilities and secure facilities who have this kind of history..and this nation must be very careful when it lowers the bar on who and what it will accept.
…

AF: See, if you admit it, it should disqualify you. Otherwise, we’ll have to let all those people who …applied for jobs in these facilities…There is a reason that those rules are there. I was a detox director for 16 counties in North Carolina , so I have a great understanding about what drugs and what they do to people. And I know that in moments of weakness, people tend to revert those things that they’ve used in the past. I don’t think it’s disingenuous, I don’t think its fair. If I ran for President of the U.S. and I had that history, I would expect people to look at that very carefully. We cannot have a nation high on drugs and have the President… as an example. I’m sorry I disagree with that. [Wonkette]

On second thought, I give up. I just cannot compete with this. It never even occurred to me before that if we elect an admitted drug user to be president, we'll have to let druggies work in our nuclear facilities. Drug policy reform was a fun hobby, but I've been outclassed. See ya in hell, hippies.

Note: Pete Guither has more at DrugWarRant, observing among other things that no one seems to have a problem putting recovering alcoholics in the White House.

(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 prevailing wisdom among reformers has been that Obama's good positions on medical marijuana, needle exchange, and sentencing reform would draw fire from the McCain campaign. Bogus "soft-on-crime" attacks against democrats have been a staple of past republican presidential campaigns, and Obama's already been smeared on this issue. But McCain himself has thus far steered clear of that path.

Now, The Washington Post points to some recent McCain comments that suggest a more reasoned approach to the crime issue than many have been anticipating:

PHILADELPHIA -- The question for Sen. John McCain at a town hall meeting here was one of those softballs that Republicans historically use to demonstrate their law-and-order toughness: What are you going to do about teen gangs?
…

But the Republican presidential nominee did not talk the way many Republican candidates do about the need for a crackdown on gangs, or tougher prison sentences or a need to enforce gun laws. (The answer might have been different had former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani been the nominee. The former mayor repeatedly talked about crackdowns on crime.)

Instead, McCain repeated his belief that gang members "need mentors. I think they need role models" and related a story about a program run by a Baptist college in Arkansas. "We've go to have mentors."

"We've also got to give them an opportunity and a path and away out," he added. "Some of these gangs have now become almost international ... incarceration has sometimes made them worse criminals when they get out than they are when they went in."

Given the opportunity to pounce atop the law & order podium, McCain instead sounds more thoughtful, endorsing education and even acknowledging the unintended consequences of massive incarceration. Other than a passing reference to stopping drugs at our border, all of this is pretty easy to swallow.

We've heard disappointing statements from McCain on medical marijuana and the drug war in general, but none of that precludes the senator from recognizing the need for alternatives to incarceration. It's an issue that's generating increased public awareness and could become an asset to Obama if McCain appears indifferent. Needless to say, a bipartisan consensus on reducing incarceration would be a powerful step forward, even if neither candidate is prepared to support the drug policy overhaul that's necessary to achieve it.

Unfortunately, painful experience has taught us not to expect a presidential campaign free of mindless tough-guy crime rhetoric and it's way too soon to take comfort in what we've seen so far. Even if McCain aims to stay out of the fray, we can expect attacks on Obama's pro-reform positions to intensify as the contest heats up. As always, what matters won't be those positions in and of themselves, but whether Obama is prepared to defend them with confidence and vigor.

Update: Tom Angell suggests that it's a mistake to even concede the term "tough-on-crime" to those who think hurling human beings behind bars at alarming rates will make us safer. He's right that bad policies create new crimes, cause more of the old ones, and distract police from what should be their primary public safety priorities. The drug war isn't tough, it's clumsy and barbaric.

(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.)

No drug warrior has played a greater role in the development of my own political identity than Bob Barr. At eighteen, I registered to vote specifically to support Initiative 59 to protect medical marijuana patients in Washington D.C. Despite passing with a massive 69%, Initiative 59 was blocked from implementation by an amendment written by Bob Barr, Congress's most proud drug war champion of the 1990's.

Dreaming of a day when my voice in our democracy would never again be held hostage to callous drug war demagoguery, I became a student of criminal justice and political science, and eventually, a proud soldier in the growing movement for drug policy reform. That, in short, is the path that brought me here today. And it is with that in mind that I read these words from Bob Barr, published yesterday:

…when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.

Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972. [Huffington Post]

Barr's mea culpa is no masterpiece of drug policy reform advocacy. It breaks no new ground. It even rambles tragically about the virtues of employment drug screening, only to end suddenly and disappointingly. But I'll take it.

Once our loudest opponent, Barr is now the presidential nominee of the pro-drug reform Libertarian Party. He has partnered with the Marijuana Policy Project to lobby for medical marijuana and now bravely admits "I was wrong about the war on drugs," publicly and for all to see.

Obviously, the drug war isn't going to end tomorrow just because Bob Barr doesn’t like it anymore. But that's not the point. What all of this serves to illustrate is that no one is immune to the truth. There is no heart so hard, no skull so swollen as to be rendered impermeable to the principles of peace, justice, and compassion. Our opponents don't have invisible forcefields around their brains. They are vulnerable to the truth every moment of every day that they walk the earth.

With that in mind, we would be wise to welcome and embrace those who break free, for whatever reason, from the icy death grip of prohibitionist political posturing. We must set a precedent of acceptance so that others might soon follow Mr. Barr across the threshold.

(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.)

Nowhere is the failure of drug prohibition more obvious than in Mexico, where President Calderon's crackdown has already produced over 4,000 deaths, without making a dent in the drug trade.

Yet Obama now joins John McCain in praising Mexico's brutal and ineffective anti-drug efforts:

Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico’s effort to crack down. [suntimes.com]

I don't know how anyone can look at the dismal state of the Mexican drug war and find anything to be proud of. Still, I agree with Pete Guither who responded to Obama's comments by pointing out that we just can't expect a realistic drug policy platform from the major party candidates. They're not there yet.

Obama's good positions on needle exchange, medical marijuana, and sentencing have drawn interest from reformers, but there's simply no way to paint his praise of Mexico's bloody drug war crusade as anything other than typical prohibitionist "troop surge" rhetoric. It's the opposite of what's needed and it should give us pause before endorsing the popular perception among reformers that Obama "gets" the drug war issue.

When describing his plans to fund drug war activity in Central and South America, Obama says "we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted," demonstrating a fundamental failure to grasp how those activities complement one another. Crime and violence will simply increase if enforcement increases, so any set of benchmarks will ultimately have to ignore one category or the other.

In regards to both Obama and McCain, however, we've got to recognize that ending violence in the international drug trade is the final stage of drug policy reform. It's the very last issue we'll have to confront and the last one about which we're likely to hear interesting or forward-thinking proposals from prominent politicians. There's no middle ground here. When we're ready to end violence and corruption in the drug trade, we'll stop waging the drug war.

(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.)

Last week I discussed what I called The Obama Campaign's Poor Handling of the Marijuana Decriminalization Issue. The post argued that Obama's recent back pedal on the issue of decriminalization was a mistake since marijuana decriminalization enjoys majority support in the polls and because he's getting accused of being pro-marijuana anyway.

A reader, William Aiken, forwarded the post to the Obama Campaign and got the following response:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Obama for America to inquire about the Senator's position on allowing severely ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes.

Many states have laws that condone medical marijuana, but the Bush Administration is using federal drug enforcement agents to raid these facilities and arrest seriously ill people. Focusing scarce law enforcement resources on these patients who pose no threat while many violent and highly dangerous drug traffickers are at large makes no sense. Senator Obama will not continue the Bush policy when he is president.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Obama for America

Hilariously, the campaign staff responded to my criticism of Obama's vague position on marijuana decriminalization by restating the Senator's position on medical marijuana. The fact that they apparently have a form letter prepared addressing medical marijuana, but not marijuana decriminalization, goes directly to my point that Obama has failed to adequately define himself when it comes to decriminalization.

As I explained previously, Obama is widely believed to support marijuana reform, and will be attacked for that regardless of any statements he's made to the contrary. Thus, he is much better off defending whatever reforms he does in fact support, rather than distancing himself from the issue and allowing McCain to have the only clear position. At this point, Obama cannot say he supports "decriminalization" because he's backed away from that term, but he can still support reforming our failed laws, which would offer contrast to McCain's position, and maintain majority support from voters.

Finally, I'd like to thank William Aiken for sending the piece to the Obama Campaign and sharing their response. It's not like my post landed in Obama's lap or anything, but I've seen other examples in which bloggers were able to initiate important dialogues with public officials and/or mainstream media simply because many readers sent the same post to the same place at the same time. I tremendously appreciate this type of participation from readers.

(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.)

I noted last week the tendency of our revered political strategists to find themselves stuck in the 80's, arguing that harsh lock-em-up rhetoric is the only way to discuss drug policy in an election.

Well, along comes Dick Morris to prove me right in The Washington Post with this recommendation for John McCain:

Go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.)

Obviously, the crack/powder disparity is a more nuanced political issue than something like medical marijuana. Still, I have a hard time imagining that voters in 2008 want to hear the candidates promise harsher drug laws.

It's not 1988 anymore. People know those crack laws were racist. People know about our unsustainable, out-of-control prison population. And people know the punishments for cocaine are already plenty harsh. I'm not sure where public opinion breaks on this issue, but I doubt Dick Morris does either.

If I had to guess, I'd say McCain will probably follow the path Morris proposes. The appeal of attacking a candidate who's admitted trying cocaine, and now supports a reduction in crack sentences, will be great. On the other hand, if McCain does this, he'll be standing up for a notoriously racist law in an already racially-charged election.

The candidates should choose their words carefully on this one, as should any political strategist who still thinks proposing longer drug sentences is always a guaranteed winner at the polls.

(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.)

As I'm constantly pointing out, political strategists always have the hardest time coming to terms with widespread public support for reforming marijuana policies. Maybe their hearts are in the wrong place, or they only read each other's books, or, more likely, they're all stuck in 1988 and they think if someone yells "Drugs! Crime!" loud enough, all the voters are gonna jump out of their socks and vote for whoever promises the most ass kickings.

That's why today's frantic press release from the RNC lambasting Obama over medical marijuana is as predictable as it is foolish. Just look at the remarks from Obama that RNC highlights in an attempt to make people afraid of him:

Obama Pledged To Stop DEA Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana:

Obama Pledged To Stop The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana Growers. Willamette Week: “Would you stop the Drug Enforcement Administration’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana grows?” Obama: “I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)

That's what we're supposed to be worried about? Americans overwhelmingly support medical marijuana and will greet all of this with a gigantic yawn, if not a backlash against McCain. But that won't stop the RNC from trying:

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

So conducting violent raids on medical dispensaries, while ignoring the will of voters, the advice of doctors, and the medical needs of sick Americans is one of "the most basic functions of the Executive Branch"?

I wish the RNC the best of luck calling attention to Barack Obama's statements on medical marijuana. I really do, and I will gleefully post every press release they dare to send out about it because their candidate's views on this issue are deeply unpopular with Americans.

Few things I've written have generated more web traffic than this post revealing how John McCain literally turned his back towards a wheelchair bound medical marijuana patient who asked him for help. So if the clever strategists in the republican party want to play hardball over medical marijuana, they'd better put their helmets on.

[Thanks, Bruce Mirken]

 

(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.)

In February, Barack Obama reversed his past statements in favor of marijuana decriminalization. He reiterated his concerns over the incarceration of first-time non-violent offenders, but maintained that people who commit crimes (i.e., marijuana) should be punished. I'm sure his campaign advisors thought it was a smart move to distance the Senator from marijuana reform, but it didn’t work.

This transcript from FOX News' Hannity & Colmes earlier today shows exactly why. The segment begins with a clip of Obama advocating marijuana decriminalization in 2004, followed by this comment from republican strategist Kevin Madden:

MADDEN: …Look, there's — if — for anybody who's wondering why Barack Obama was listed by National Journal as the number one liberal in the Senate, it's votes like this, it's a world view like this when it comes to law enforcement issues like the criminal laws that relate to marijuana.

This crystallizes, for a lot of Americans out there, in middle America exactly who Barack Obama is and what he would do as president.

Clearly, Obama is still being subjected to the same predictable and vindictive partisan attacks that he sought to avoid by dismissing decriminalization. Obama's revised rhetoric simply failed to prevent those accusations. It also ignored the views of the American people, 72% of whom support decriminalization according to the most recent poll, conducted by Time/CNN.

From now through November, Obama will be falsely and repeatedly accused of being pro-marijuana. Yet, because he recently rejected decriminalization, he can’t explain why it's a good idea. He will instinctively point towards his recent backpedal, which just makes him look weak. Rather than standing with 72% of Americans and making strong arguments for marijuana reform that most voters would agree with, Obama is stuck debating the meaning of decriminalization and struggling to define his views on the issue. He could instead be scoring points with voters that will appreciate some long overdue straight talk on this issue.

It is doubly silly when one considers the popularity of marijuana reform with libertarian-minded swing voters. A pro-reform stance could earn independent votes without costing him anything from his base, which cares way too much about the war and the economy to be turned off by a position on marijuana that liberals overwhelmingly support anyway.

Obama's communication skills, combined with broad public support for reforming marijuana laws, can still make this issue an asset for his campaign. But that can only happen if he goes on the offensive and takes a stand for sensible marijuana policies rather than hedging and trying to duck partisan attacks that are going to happen anyway. If Obama doubts his ability to sell Americans on an idea 72% of them already agree with, I'd be happy to help draft some talking points.

(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.)

Karen Brooks at the Dallas Morning News blog badly misses the point in regards to Barack Obama's support for medical marijuana:

Just got a notice from the happy folks over at the Marijuana Policy Project that Sen. Barack Obama "stands with us" on access to medical marijuana.

I'm not sure this helps his campaign, although the growing number of states (a dozen, at least) that have approved the use and prescription of medical marijuana may mean that he'll get support on the issue. Here in Texas, the decriminalization legislation - way stronger stuff than what the Medical Pot People are pushing - comes from both sides of the aisle.

So I guess what I'm saying here is, uhm, who knows if this will help or hurt him.

Well, allow me to relieve you of your uncertainty. Polling consistently shows overwhelming public support for medical marijuana. Do you know what medical marijuana's record is with voters? It's 10-1 at the state level, losing only in South Dakota, which ain't really Obama territory anyway. Supporting medical marijuana is among the safest policy positions one can take in 2008, and there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary. I look forward to a point when it's no longer necessary to illustrate this.

Secondly, Brooks buy into the myth that federal interference somehow makes medical marijuana laws ineffective:

Anyway, these laws and ordinances quickly go up in smoke when the feds - who just can't stand the idea of anyone smoking pot and getting away with it - decide to bust down doors and haul away the cancer patients and their docs anyway.

While I appreciate the implied sympathy for patients and doctors, this hyperbolic assessment of the force of federal law vastly overstates the impact of the DEA's campaign against medical marijuana. Despite federal interference, medical marijuana is more available to patients than ever before. The number of dispensaries that have been raided is dwarfed by the number that are open right now, at this exact moment. The idea that medical marijuana laws have been crippled by federal law enforcement is just as fictitious as can be.

My point here is not to excuse the ongoing raids and other atrocities that do still occur. Rather, it must be understood that the Drug Czar badly wants the public to believe that these laws don’t work because he knows we're going to keep passing them in new states and we're 10-1 so far. The only reason DEA even bothers to keep conducting these ugly and unpopular medical marijuana raids is so that the media will falsely report that these laws just "go up in smoke" as Brooks now suggests. That argument is then used against new medical marijuana initiatives to imply that there's no point in passing them, even though existing laws protecting patients have generally been very effective at preventing sick people from getting arrested.

Both of the above points are common misconceptions, and I don’t fault Brooks for indulging them. Still, it is vital that the discussion of medical marijuana continue on a sound factual basis as we proceed towards a showdown between Obama and McCain on this issue.

So, to recap, I submit the following two propositions:

1. Medical marijuana is overwhelmingly supported by the American public.

2. Federal efforts to shut down medical marijuana distribution in states were it is legal have failed utterly.

(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.)

...Or so says former prosecutor Charles Stimson, who has come completely unhinged in his drug policy debate with Saying Yes author Jacob Sullum in the Los Angeles Times. Here's the question:

The last two presidents and two of the current candidates have either used illegal substances or have had substance abuse problems. Does this show that winners don’t always refuse to use drugs?

Stimson's response begins as follows:

Would you want a president who's under the influence?

Imagine this:

It's 3 a.m., and a phone rings in the vice president's quarters. A Secret Service agent answers the phone, listens, and then rushes into the VP's bedroom with the phone in hand and wakes him up.

Agent (placing his hand over the mouthpiece of the phone): Mr. Vice President, the president of Xyzistan has threatened to launch a nuclear strike in 15 minutes. You must respond.

Vice president: Where is the heck is the president? Why isn't he taking the lead on this issue?

Agent: Sir, he's coming down from his heroin high. We tried to wake him up, sir, but he's out of it.

Vice president: Give me the darn phone.

I seriously have no clue what his point is. Of course no one wants the president nodding out on dope during a nuclear crisis. Where the hell did that come from? Is he saying that if we listen to Jacob Sullum, we'll be risking nuclear war?

Not surprisingly at all, a google search reveals that Charles Stimson has a history of saying crazy shit. He was forced to resign from the Department of Defense last year following controversial remarks about the lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees. He literally got in trouble with the Bush Administration for taking things too far in the national security debate, which is quite an achievement. Fortunately for us, this trainwreck of a drug war debate will continue for two more days if LA Times doesn't invoke the slaughter rule and declare Sullum the winner today.