USA - Hillary and Obama on Drug Reform

[enquirewithin]

Hillary and Obama, Ignore the Sleazy Pollsters Who Want You to Cave on Drug Reform


By Steven Wishnia, AlterNet. Posted February 1, 2008.

The Dem candidates have good positions on medical marijuana, but they need to stand up for comprehensive changes in our drug laws.

"It had taken a couple of years before I saw how fates were beginning to play themselves out, the difference that color and money made after all, in who survived, how soft or hard the landing when you finally fell," Barack Obama wrote in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. "Of course, either way, you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing better to do than to check the trunk of his car." Obama's compassion for the friend he inhaled Hawaiian pakalolo with doesn't extend to sparing other pot smokers from arrest, however. "I'm not interested in legalizing drugs," he said in Nevada in mid-January, after being told that if he'd been arrested when he was a teenager, he never would have been a candidate for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is no better. Her husband's infamous declaration that he "didn't inhale" was likely a legalistic dodge to conceal his onetime fondness for eating hash brownies, and the website CelebStoner.com this week quoted a law-school friend recalling that Hillary too had enjoyed similar pastries. Yet when MSNBC's Tim Russert asked the Democratic candidates last October if they opposed decriminalizing marijuana, Clinton raised her hand, as did the others in the debate except for Christopher Dodd and Dennis Kucinich. (Obama's hand went up somewhat hesitantly; according to the Washington Times, he told students at Northwestern University in 2004 that he supported decriminalization but not legalization.) "Would they have benefited by being arrested?" asks Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance Network. "That raises the hypocrisy of why they continue to support policies that incarcerate people."

Still, this year's Democratic presidential candidates have adopted more nuanced and progressive positions on drug policy than they did in the tough-on-crime era, Piper and other activists say. Both Clinton and Obama say they will end federal raids on medical marijuana users and lift the ban on federal funding of needle-exchange programs. And both have spoken about alternatives to mass incarceration, such as increased drug treatment.

"If you look at past presidential elections, no one's ever talked about the disproportionate representation of African-Americans in the criminal justice system," says Kara Gotsch of the Sentencing Project. "It's encouraging that candidates are talking about it now." A key issue is the federal cocaine laws. Enacted at the height of the late-1980s crack panic, they mandate a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of five grams of crack, which could be worth as little as $200, and the same penalty for 500 grams of powdered cocaine, worth at least $10,000 wholesale. That law is largely responsible for the grossly disproportionate numbers of black people in federal prison for drugs. In 2002, the federal Sentencing Commission found that more than 70 percent of federal cocaine convictions were of bottom-level drug enterprise workers, and street-level crack dealers on average served longer prison terms than did importers and high-level suppliers of cocaine powder.

Clinton, who has been under pressure for years on the issue, in December co-sponsored a bill to make the federal penalties the same for both varieties of cocaine, eliminating the 100-1 disparity. But when the Sentencing Commission reduced mandatory minimums for crack last November, she opposed making the change retroactive for current prisoners. Clinton's top pollster and strategist, Mark Penn, noted that Rudy Giuliani was already attacking Democrats for wanting to release "20,000 convicted drug dealers."

Of the 19,500 people who would have their prison terms shortened if the change were retroactive, 86 percent are African-American, Hilary Shelton of the NAACP told the Sentencing Commission. Previous changes in penalties for marijuana and LSD were made retroactive, she added. Obama supported making the changes retroactive. But he has not signed on to the crack-sentencing bill, says Gotsch. Republican Ron Paul has signed on to a similar measure in the House.

On needle exchange, says Michael Kink, legislative counsel at Housing Works, an AIDS activist group in New York State, there is "a clear contrast between the parties." All the Democratic candidates returned a questionnaire from AIDSVote.org, and none of the Republicans did. But the Democrats have a mixed record, he says.

Clinton came out for ending the federal ban on funding needle-exchange programs during her senatorial campaign in 2000, Kink recalls, the day after he and others were arrested in a sit-in at her campaign office. Bill Clinton repeatedly refused to end the ban while he was president, "even though he was advised that it would save lives and be a front door to treatment," says Kink, because Mark Penn, then his chief pollster, told him it was too risky politically. "It was one of the most pathetic episodes of the Clinton presidency." That dichotomy persists in the Clinton campaign, Kink says. The senator and her staff are very knowledgeable, but "the thing to worry about is the balance between substance and sleazy pollsters."

Obama, Kink says, has a fairly clear understanding of the interaction between prison, drugs, sex and HIV infection, and has spoken out "more forcefully" on the racial disparities in prison sentencing and linked it to the epidemic of HIV infection in prisons.

On medical marijuana, both Clinton and Obama received A grades from Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, a New Hampshire offshoot of the Marijuana Policy Project. In Iowa last November, Obama said he was open to legalizing medical marijuana if scientific evidence showed it was a valid painkiller and it was prescribed under "strict guidelines" like those for morphine. In contrast, Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who all unequivocally oppose medical marijuana, got F's. Ron Paul got an A-plus, as did Democratic dropouts Kucinich and Bill Richardson.

"It's encouraging that all of the Democrats and at least a couple of the Republicans say they'd call off the raids," says MPP spokesperson Bruce Mirken. "That wasn't the case four years ago."

Still, in a nation where most people under 60 have either smoked weed themselves or grew up around people who did, there were 740,000 marijuana-possession arrests in 2006, the fourth year in a row that pot busts hit a record high. And the only presidential candidates in this year's crop to endorse making it legal like liquor have been Kucinich and Paul, both derided as "fringe." "There's a belief out there that this is a fringe issue, and it's not," responds Mirken. "The general public is several steps ahead of the politicians and particularly several steps ahead of their consultants and campaign managers, but the politicians don't know that. They're afraid."

When MPP was lobbying for medical marijuana laws in Vermont and Rhode Island, he says, its polls found that two-thirds of residents in those states supported the idea. Yet when those people were asked if they believed a majority of people in their state would agree, only 25 or 30 percent thought so.

[Paracelsus]

polls found that two-thirds of residents in those states supported the idea. Yet when those people were asked if they believed a majority of people in their state would agree, only 25 or 30 percent thought so.

A saying that I once came across: "public opinion is what people think that people think". Good article BTW.

[Greenport]

I sure hope that this country is going to see some change for the better relating to current drug laws.

I certainly want pot to become legal (am an activist for it), and would be quite happy if mdma and/or lsd were looked at in a better light, too.

However they do need to target the dangerous drugs more. The ones that kill people, or cause them to lead much shorter lives (such as tobacco, heroin, meth). The ones that cause physical dependence (tobacco, heroin, coke, meth). The ones that can tear apart families (heroin, coke, meth). The ones that cause people to not care about life any more (heroin, meth). The ones that cause crime rates to INCREASE (heroin, non methylenedioxy- amphetamine groups used outside of prescription (esp. meth), coke, similar...

Pot does not cause crime to go up other than the crime of physically smoking it. LSD also is not going to cause an increase in crime, because that's not what the drug does to a person. MDMA makes people too euphoric to want to commit a crime.

Those drugs not related to acts of crime and violence, nor related to major health issues should be considered less of a threat to society, and those which are related to crime and health problems should be considered more of a threat. The current laws should reflect this but instead it's damn-near the other way around.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by Greenport

I sure hope that this country is going to see some change for the better relating to current drug laws.

I certainly want pot to become legal (am an activist for it), and would be quite happy if mdma and/or lsd were looked at in a better light, too.

However they do need to target the dangerous drugs more. The ones that kill people, or cause them to lead much shorter lives (such as tobacco, heroin, meth). The ones that cause physical dependence (tobacco, heroin, coke, meth). The ones that can tear apart families (heroin, coke, meth). The ones that cause people to not care about life any more (heroin, meth). The ones that cause crime rates to INCREASE (heroin, non methylenedioxy- amphetamine groups used outside of prescription (esp. meth), coke, similar...

Pot does not cause crime to go up other than the crime of physically smoking it. LSD also is not going to cause an increase in crime, because that's not what the drug does to a person. MDMA makes people too euphoric to want to commit a crime.

Those drugs not related to acts of crime and violence, nor related to major health issues should be considered less of a threat to society, and those which are related to crime and health problems should be considered more of a threat. The current laws should reflect this but instead it's damn-near the other way around.

The problems with legalising some and not others are major. For one thing if we were to base legislation purely on the harm that certain drugs can do then alcohol (which you didn't mention) and tobacco would likely have to be made illegal. This is something that is never going to work (and we have the historical proof in the states).

You can't argue that an individual has a right to put whatever he or she wants into their body so long as it harms nobody else if you then start cherry-picking.

The fact that many drugs are closely related to crime is largely due to their illegality in the first place.

[JaWill88]

Originally Posted by Greenport

I sure hope that this country is going to see some change for the better relating to current drug laws.

I certainly want pot to become legal (am an activist for it), and would be quite happy if mdma and/or lsd were looked at in a better light, too.

However they do need to target the dangerous drugs more. The ones that kill people, or cause them to lead much shorter lives (such as tobacco, heroin, meth). The ones that cause physical dependence (tobacco, heroin, coke, meth). The ones that can tear apart families (heroin, coke, meth). The ones that cause people to not care about life any more (heroin, meth). The ones that cause crime rates to INCREASE (heroin, non methylenedioxy- amphetamine groups used outside of prescription (esp. meth), coke, similar...

Pot does not cause crime to go up other than the crime of physically smoking it. LSD also is not going to cause an increase in crime, because that's not what the drug does to a person. MDMA makes people too euphoric to want to commit a crime.

Those drugs not related to acts of crime and violence, nor related to major health issues should be considered less of a threat to society, and those which are related to crime and health problems should be considered more of a threat. The current laws should reflect this but instead it's damn-near the other way around.

the problem with this is that there wouldn't be much, if any crime involved with drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine/crack cocaine, diacetylmorphine (heroin), and maybe some others, if they became legalized and somewhat affordable, as in decently cheaper than what they pay on the street. then there would be no need to commit crime being that the only reason these addicts commit crime is to support their habbit. either no drugs should be legalized, or all of then should be legalized. but just swims opinion on the issue.

[zera]

Originally Posted by Greenport

However they do need to target the dangerous drugs more. The ones that kill people, or cause them to lead much shorter lives (such as tobacco, heroin, meth). The ones that cause physical dependence (tobacco, heroin, coke, meth). The ones that can tear apart families (heroin, coke, meth). The ones that cause people to not care about life any more (heroin, meth). The ones that cause crime rates to INCREASE (heroin, non methylenedioxy- amphetamine groups used outside of prescription (esp. meth), coke, similar...

Excuse me, but where are your claims coming from? Pharmaceutical grade heroin does not cause people to live shorter lives, the opiates are called "God's own medicine" because of their remarkable ease on the body. If anything smoking marijuana will do more to shorten a person's life expectancy from lung damage than safe, pure injected heroin. As for the claims that these drugs cause physical dependence, the same can be said for simple table sugar. And just because a junky is physically suffering from withdrawal caused by prohibitions' exorbitant prices and spotty supply doesn't mean the drug caused him to give up life anymore than a diabetic's physical dependence on insulin does. And there are plenty of hard-working people with family who use every variety of substances including cocaine, heroin, amphetamines as well as alcohol and marijuana. These drugs only cause crime rates to increase because the demand for them is inelastic and the supply is outside legal jurisdiction. If prohibition was ended there would be no more crime associated with heroin or meth than there is associated with aspirin or coffee.

If I was given the choice between ending the prohibition on heroin or marijuana I would pick the former without question. Marijuana prohibition doesn't cause people to unnecessarily suffer withdrawal and pay ridiculously high prices just to not become physically ill. Nor is the marijuana market highly associated with gang violence and destabilized third world countries. Marijuana prohibition doesn't lead to the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases. Marijuana prohibition doesn't cause overdose due to inconsistent product purity.

Besides for the ruined lives caused by prosecution, LSD's legal status doesn't do any social damage except keep a product that people want out of their hands. Heroin's prohibition causes the same problem to a greater extent (there's probably at least 100 times as many heroin prisoners as LSD prisoners in the US), plus a whole swarth of social ills.

[Nature Boy]

Any effective changes in drug policy will come at a local level, probably for marijuana anyway. It's a real shame it can't be done the other way around, on a federal level, but it doesn't seem to be on the agenda in Washington. Local changes will have to be made and they will have to stick. Only then will the doors be open for a full federal backing of regulated marijuana. And that's just marijuana. It's gonna be a rocky road.

Still though, if you have a Republican candidate like John McCain who supports sanctuary cities (this would have been unheard of decades ago), maybe there's hope yet. In years to come, we will see more varied candidates with differing views, possibly causing major splits within the two major parties.

Reputation Comments on this post:

A major split within parties would be nice :)

[Powder_Reality]

However they do need to target the dangerous drugs more. The ones that kill people, or cause them to lead much shorter lives (such as tobacco, heroin, meth). The ones that cause physical dependence (tobacco, heroin, coke, meth). The ones that can tear apart families (heroin, coke, meth). The ones that cause people to not care about life any more (heroin, meth). The ones that cause crime rates to INCREASE (heroin, non methylenedioxy- amphetamine groups used outside of prescription (esp. meth), coke, similar...

Marijuana is probably the one drug that has more of a chance of being decriminalized/legalized than any other (currently illegal) drug. It is a fairly benign drug and would most likely be the first stepping stone to adapting a drug policy that actually works and makes sense. However, I don't believe that marijuana is the only drug that should ever see the legal light of day again. I'm sure that the majority of people who believe marijuana should be legalized probably don't support the legalization of harder drugs (such as heroin, cocaine, etc.). However, it's really the only sensible way to deal with the world's "drug problem."

Making soft drugs legal and keeping hard drugs illegal makes about as much sense as making alcohol legal and keeping marijuana illegal; however, it's still a good start. Yes, harder drugs can cause more problems for society and in people's lives, but there are many people who use these substances recreationally without any problems whatsoever. And as far as habitual/problem use, people are going to use them anyways, whether they're legal or not (they already do). The only sensible thing to do is to reduce the harm associated with using these drugs.

By the way, the major reason why these drugs cause an increase in crime is not because of the drugs themselves but because of the drug laws. I'm sure if SWIY was addicted to a substance that cost them $100 a day, they would probably resort to crime to pay for it as well. Just imagine how much more crime would be present in the world if cigarettes cost $100 a pack. Legalization/regulation or providing cheap, prescription heroin to hardcore addicts cuts down on the rate of crime because they no longer need to shell out so much money to the black market to get their fix.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good post:)

[juanathan]

i think obama or hillary's vice presidential pick might have some influence over issues like these. bill richardson has supported drug-related reform bills in the past as governor of new mexico and i've heard his name dropped before as a potential vice president. also independent joseph lieberman, who is close to mccain too, comes from a liberal state and may support drug law reform. but nothing will ever come of drug law reform if Faux News and the like manage to get their hands on information like that and finagle it until the general public doesn't even get half the truth.