Don't try this at home, kids; you might end up becoming President

Tim Cavanaugh | February 20, 2005

I've never been big on Bush-drug-use stories, but in his newly surfaced tapes, then-Governor George W. Bush is pretty straightforward in paying tribute to virtue:

Mr. Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr. Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it involved nothing more than "just, you know, wild behavior." He worried, though, that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his opponents for stirring rumors. "If nobody shows up, there's no story," he told Mr. Wead, "and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up." But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

He refused to answer reporters' questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. "Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don't do them," he said.

More here. (Reg. req.)

Far be it from me to give nurturing tips to the Parent-In-Chief, but rather than lying about it, shouldn't he have taken the Rocky Sullivan option, and set a properly chilling example for Jenna and Barr? Any parent who has ever smoked a joint has a moral duty to give up all hope of achieving good things in life, give him- or herself permanent brain damage, and get a career working on an assembly line, wearing a hairnet and stamping packages of irradiated food. Only in this way will kids realize drugs always lead to a bad end.

Comments

|2.20.05 @ 1:04PM|#

I lost count of how many times I experimented with reefer. I guess I won't be President some day. Fuck you too America.

|2.20.05 @ 1:21PM|#

Kids, if you do drugs, you might wind up the subject of a Michael Moore movie!

|2.20.05 @ 1:23PM|#

I prefer the Judd Nelson and Burt Reynolds option. Set a chilling example by showing that kids that if they do enough drugs, they too could end up legally obliged to make hilarious anti-drug movies destined to be played at parties and watched while stoned for generations to come.

|2.20.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Typical conservative response to "The Truth" as regards any moral issue...

"We Don't NEED to explain anything. The fact that WE say it's bad should be good enough for you. And if you do it anyway and something bad happens... don't say we didn't warn you."

So let's not explain to our kids HOW it's bad i.e."I did it and as result made some bad choices." or "I hung out with the wrong types of people." or "I blew my chances for (insert missed life opportunity)" or some other rational explanation that approximates your experience.

(The above assumes BTW, that you don't wish your kids to do drugs and you wish to honestly try to steer them away from them.)

I guess, though, Bush figures since HE got to be PREZ, that approach wouldn't work.

Still, isn't a lie of ommission still a lie? I guess I now know why Conservatives seem to be such experts at pointing out moral relativism in liberals...it takes one to know one.

Since that's the conservative approach to sex education as well, it's only a matter of time before we have yet another generation of drug focused, horny teenagers rebelling against arbitrary adult authority only to grow up to become liberals.

Ahhhh...history repeating itself with Conservative stupidly creating their own enemy.

Tim Cavanaugh|2.20.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Typical conservative response to "The Truth" as regards any moral issue...

Well, it's not like doobie brothers Bill Clinton and Al Gore were falling over themselves in a rush to get down to the prisons and release all the drug offenders.

|2.20.05 @ 2:33PM|#

As I recall, while Clinton was enacting the biggest expansion of the drug war in history, National Review was publishing Szasz and Nadelmann and declaring 'The Drug War is Lost' on its cover.

The idea that the left has been saner on the drug issue than the right is a complete myth.

|2.20.05 @ 2:34PM|#

To quote Penn Jillette about ex-drug-user-turned-drug-warrior politicians: "They learned of the dangers of drugs first hand so they your money and violence in your name to stop others? Are they the only one who should be allowed the freedom to learn for themselves?"

|2.20.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Tim,

So you're saying that two non-conservative politicians who chose to be candid about their drug use but didn't release convicted drug offenders makes pushing for a deliberate lack of openness by conservatives a good thing?

I could now point out that a typical conservative response to criticism of conservatives is to assume that the critic is a supporter of liberals.

Tim, with all due respect, my point is about effectiveness.

I think most folks will agree that there's a tremendous LACK of effectiveness as regards some approaches to educating kids about drugs and sex.

Simply put, if you don't want your kids winding up in rehab or getting pregnant or contracting veneral diseases, just saying "Don't Do It." is probably not very effective.

Yet the conservative base clings to a (most likely) inaccurate assumption that it is.

Not only that, they are the MOST VOCAL CRITICS of any attempt by anyone - liberals OR moderate republicans - to honestly educate kids in a manner that might be effective.

In that, they are every bit as idiotic as the feminists who railed against Summers last month.

They have no facts on their side and they want to crush any attempt to discuss the issue.

ASIDE: Is every question about conservatives going to be greeted with "well Clinton and Gore were just as bad." or "Kerry would have been worse."

I don't know if you're aware, but Bush is president - now and for the past 4 years AND for the next 4.

Bush is shaping policy and Bush is the man with the hands on the purse strings and the veto pen (not that he's been inclined to use it).

And the conservatives - for better or worse - are funsamentally in cotrol of the issues and in framing the debate these days.

Who gives a flying shit at this point what Bill and Al did or didn't do?

|2.20.05 @ 3:05PM|#

"Simply put, if you don't want your kids winding up in rehab or getting pregnant or contracting veneral diseases, just saying "Don't Do It." is probably not very effective."

I'm sure the Right is well aware that "Don't Do It" is, by itself, ineffective. Which is why many conservatives what to make recreational sex and drugs criminal offences.

|2.20.05 @ 3:06PM|#

I can't argue the point that the libs have an equally dismal track record on drug policy.

But at the end of the day...

It's the conservatives who initiated the War On Drugs.

It's the conservatives who pushed for and instituted Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.

It's the conservative who have cowed the left into submission by making them look weak on drugs or crime if they even dare stick their heads out of the anti-drug gopher hole. That the libs are so weak and stupid that they can't figure out how to do anything about it is just blaming the victim.

It's the conservatives who have warped the Patriot Act and national defense into equating drug trafficking with terrorism. What's the difference? One could go away with the stroke of a pen.

It's the conservatives who have pushed ineffective policies to curb drug trafficking at the source.

And it's the conservatives who have supported subsidies that keep prices artificially low and keep OTHER crops from countries who would LIKE to send us something other than cocaine entering the U.S.

Yes libs have either suported them or weakly resisted. But again, how can you keep blaming the democrats when it's the conservative clearly in control of not only them but the more moderate elements of the republican party as regards this issue?

Tim Cavanaugh|2.20.05 @ 3:08PM|#

All right, madpad, don't bite my head off. I don't think American politics is exactly teeming with profiles in courage, particularly where the WOD is concerned. That's my only point.

|2.20.05 @ 3:09PM|#

I'm sure the Right is well aware that "Don't Do It" is, by itself, ineffective. Which is why many conservatives what to make recreational sex and drugs criminal offences.

They must be aware of the stunning success that anti-sodomy laws had in curbing homosexuality, marital infidelity and teen pregnancy.

|2.20.05 @ 3:10PM|#

As I recall, while Clinton was enacting the biggest expansion of the drug war in history, National Review was publishing Szasz and Nadelmann and declaring 'The Drug War is Lost' on its cover.

The idea that the left has been saner on the drug issue than the right is a complete myth.

I haven't exactly seen the Nation or Washington Monthly clamoring for expanding the drug war. At least the left is slightly saner wrt medicinal marijuana. Both sides simply lose it when the word "drugs" is uttered.

As for Bush using mj. Yawn. It ain't newsworthy unless it's opium or harder. I think I would be more surprised if we had a president that didn't do some drug in their youth. And this still isn't within a mile of the lameness of "I didn't inhale."

|2.20.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Tim,

Sorry...didn't mean to come across so...enthusiastic.

|2.20.05 @ 3:15PM|#

"Typical conservative response to "The Truth" as regards any moral issue...

Well, it's not like doobie brothers Bill Clinton and Al Gore were falling over themselves in a rush to get down to the prisons and release all the drug offenders."

The time is not yet ripe, sadly. Symbolic politics are important. Just openly talking about their own drug use without lecturing about how eeeeeevil it was was a major breakthrough, and one that Clinton took huge rations of crap from "traditional values" conservatives for.

Baby steps are frustrating as hell, but pretending there's no difference between baby steps and steps backwards is foolish.

Pavel, the left/right break on this issue is odd. There seems to be a larger, though still tiny, fraction of the mainstream right that's willing to advocate openly agains the WOD compared to the mainstream left, yet far more Democrats are willing to push for baby steps than Republicans.

The Republican Party has a broad base of culture warriors animated mainly by a loathing of dope smoking, overeducated coastal elitists, who are led by...dope smoking, overeducated coastal elitists.

SteveInClearwater|2.20.05 @ 3:18PM|#

Here's the clipping from our archive so you can skip the registration at NY Times

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05.n286.a02.html

|2.20.05 @ 3:25PM|#

The WOD is every bit as much a "progressive" do-gooder crusade as it is a conservative behavior issue.

That's why a few years ago when Ted Koppel put together a debate on the subject the line up was as follows:

Pro drug war-

Charles Rangel (drugs are a white plot to exterminate blacks)
Pat Scroeder (it's foooor thhhe chiiilllldddren)
Charles(?) Von Raab (head of the Customs Service who resigned because Bush I was soft on drugs) (really)
Newt Gincrich (no comment required)

Anti drug war-

William F. Buckley
George Schultz
Ethan Nadelmann
Some Libertarian (he was the only one who actually sugested that drug use was OK, He didn't get to talk much)

It was kind of fun seeing Schroeder clearly uncomfortable with the company she was keeping.

|2.20.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Clinton did say he thought MJ should be legal.

Unfortunately it was in an interview about two weeks before the end of an eight year period during which he had ramped up MJ convictions to unprecedented levels with a magazine that is only read by an audience that would conclude that Clinto was soooo coooooool.

|2.20.05 @ 3:42PM|#

While neither side has accomplished anything praiseworthy on drug reform, joe has an interesting point about the breakdown of drug reform sentiment: The right has a tiny minority that openly advocates legalization. The left has a somewhat larger number of people who advocate baby steps in the right direction.

If the good people on either side could actually accomplish something I'd be inclined to praise them. As it is, the good people on both sides are ineffective.

|2.20.05 @ 3:45PM|#

A couple of years ago, I was talking with an extreme right wing friend of mine.

The discussion rolled around to the war on drugs. When I simply stated that I thought it was wasteful, stupid and ineffective to put simple drug users in prison just for doing drugs, he pounced.

His attack (and what an attack it was) was primarily about "how could I let violent people who rob and steal and harm or worse kill people to get drugs out of prison?"

No amount of explanation on my part was enough to get him to see that...

1. I wasn't saying to release drug offenders who happen to also commit the crimes of theft, burglary, assault or murder out of prison.

2. Not all people who do drugs (let alone people in jail for doing drugs) also commit those crimes.

I've seen the same thing happen on nightly news programs with major conservative leaders and liberal leaders not smart enough to anticipate the dialogue and do anything about it.

My point is that as long as the debate is fraught with such irrational associations, how can you even hope to find a rational, effective solution?

|2.20.05 @ 4:23PM|#

It's the conservatives who initiated the War On Drugs.

Only in the anachronistic sense that practically everyone in the early 20th century was "conservative."

I'd love to explain away Clinton's crimes (biggest ever expansion in federal drug enforcement, spraying the hinterlands of South America, Plan Columbia, etc.) by saying "the conservatives twisted his arm." Equally likely is the notion that he was taking a page out of Kennedy's playbook, declaring "war on amphetamines" while getting himself shot up with more meth than Hitler.

I take it as a matter of personal taste that duplicitous kowtowing and excuse-making is more despicable than overt stupidity. But the statistics don't leave much room for argument. The Democrats have been just as bad on the drug war as the Republicans.

As it stands right now, I agree, joe, that the Dems are doing more. What I refuse to accept is that there's more than some temporary alignment of principles on the Democratic side of things.

|2.20.05 @ 4:27PM|#

It's the conservatives who pushed for and instituted Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. - madpad

Funny, I never thought of Nelson Rockefeller as a conservative. Conservatives in New York even created their own third party to fight him and his ilk.

The founding law of the WoSD, the Harrison Act, is something we can pin on the Progressives. It was adopted during the Wilson Administration. Sure, cons have picked up the anti-drug flag in the name of fighting crime whenever the lefty nanny-staters have faltered, but railing against drugs is a staple of inner city pols, few of whom are in favor of limited gocernment.

Kevin

|2.20.05 @ 5:05PM|#

How great would it be, in the scheme of history, to be the guy who hooked up GWB with the weed? If that guy is still alive, he must revel in pleasure with the private knowledge of being the guy who smoked the kind with the president.

No, he won't be in any history books, but he will be legend in his own mind.

|2.20.05 @ 6:22PM|#

"The founding law of the WoSD, the Harrison Act, is something we can pin on the Progressives. It was adopted during the Wilson Administration."

...by a Republican Congress. The Progressives, seeking to arrest the corruption of society, teamed up with the Conservatives, who were seeking an excuse to harrass Mexicans and Chinese, to create a perfect bipartisan moster.

|2.20.05 @ 6:54PM|#

Funny, I never thought of Nelson Rockefeller as a conservative.

Why is there always someone who wan'ts to find one minor example of an exception as proof of overall inaccuracy.

While Rockerfeller DID push for mandatory sentencing guidelines in New York in the 70s...it was the conservatives who pushed for the federal version in the 80s.

Just 'cause Rockerfeller pushed for them too doesn't negate the fact that the WOD (and the mandatory sentancing guidelines that go with them) has been a Conservative Republican driven activity for 20 years now.

It doesn't matter that Democrats are sloppy and hypocritical because that's ultimately a fool's argument. It's the ConReps driving the bus.

|2.20.05 @ 6:58PM|#

Not so sure about that, madpad. Conservative Dems seem to be just as enthusiastic.

Moderate Reps seem to be "going along for the ride" like their liberal brethren.

|2.20.05 @ 7:21PM|#

The way I see the conservative liberal devide on the war on drugs.

Liberals are soft on crime generally. "He doesn't deserve to spend that much time in prison". "It is because guns and fast food are legal that he raped all those people".

Liberals support the WOD because they think that the government should be in the buisness of protecting people from themselves.

Conservatives don't necessarily believe in the WOD but they believe that people who break the law are evil and only exist because they aren't punished harshely enough. Also they are not ones to question government policies unless it is illustrated to them to be a liberal policy.

|2.20.05 @ 7:34PM|#

I refuse to believe kids who experiment with sex or illegal drugs are abnormal and have no one to blame but themselves when their misbehavior turns them into scum.
In politics, like water, the scum floats to the top, where it has the power to ruin other peoples' lives, rather than its own life.
Maybe the DEA should use asset forfeiture to confiscate Mr. Wead.

|2.20.05 @ 8:03PM|#

Democrats who support any sort of drug legalization only do so because it's another industry they can nationalize so they can take your money and use it to buy drugs for their constituents.

If you think the current drug war is bad, just wait until the government is passing laws to try to protect their narcotics monopoly from Colombian price competition.

|2.20.05 @ 8:28PM|#

joe,

Correct, but then I was responding to someone who had brought a relatively moderate republican up as an example of an exeption.

Focusing on the conservative republicans as the contrasting but prevalent force on the issue seemed called for.

As for kwais assertion that liberals are soft on crime, I'm not so sure it's that simple.

It's a fact that as a rule, liberals can be just as misguided as conservatives. But in the liberal's defense on this one (as relates to drug offenses, anyway) unless the crime also involves related violent acts, what sense does it make to incarcerate people for insane lengths of time for simple drug use? Or for that matter minor drug trafficking.

A small timer with no other priors can get 10 years in federal prison. In some jurisdictions, they have realeased for more violent felons to make room for relatively inoccuous drug offenses.

In many courts, small time drug offenses can get you more time than assault, battery, rape or manslaughter.

It's the conservatives looking to string up anybody who steps over the moral line...not the liberals. And it's the conservative who have refocused the priorities so hotly on drugs that other issues get the short shrift.

|2.20.05 @ 8:34PM|#

The difference between liberals and conservative on the War On Drugs:

Conservatives: Throw them in jail! (And that's when they're being merciful. I've heard many American right-wingers, including my father, yearn for Singapore's policy of hanging drug usuers.)

Liberals: Throw them in rehab!

|2.20.05 @ 8:49PM|#

"A small timer with no other priors can get 10 years in federal prison"

Right, it is wrong to send them to prison for 10 years, and it is wrong to sent them to prison for 1 month.

My assertion is that liberals generally are soft on real crime. They are not so soft idealogical crime.

Conservatives are generally harsher on crime. Real crime, and if they believe drugs to be a crime they believe in being harsh about drug crimes too.

The guys at Natl Review that want to legalize drugs are not moderate conservatives. They are not soft on real crime. They just think that it is wrong to be prosecuting nonviolent drug cases for any amount of prison time.

|2.20.05 @ 8:56PM|#

The time is not yet ripe, sadly. Symbolic politics are important.

I fear that the time will never be right. There are too many people benefitting from the current regime of prohibition, both drug dealers and drug warriors. Police departments give up their wonderful confiscation of drug dealers' property? Drug dealers give up the huge profits that accrue from limited supply? Not to mention that many drug suppliers would have to compete on price/quality/etc., rather than just eliminate the competition. It's a sweet deal for some, built on the backs of many who spend years in prison and have their lives ruined by the drug war. Future generations will look at our prohibition of drugs as we look at slavery. It will be inconceivable to them that we should allow it to happen.

|2.20.05 @ 9:08PM|#

grylliade-

And let's not forget the Drug War's most insidious beneficiaries: Public employees taking bribes from drug dealers.

I think legalization is possible, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen soon. The entrenched forces will only be uprooted if something big happens. I don't know what that big thing would be, and I'm afraid to speculate, but in the current climate I see no momentum.

|2.20.05 @ 9:15PM|#

People were saying that SS couldn't be touched also, and now look.

Ruthless|2.20.05 @ 9:34PM|#

grylliade,
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Shall I compare the WOD to slavery?

Shall the end to the WOD be as "bumpy," shall we say, as was the end of slavery?

After Reconstruction will there be a "Jim Juana" era echoing the Jim Crow era?

|2.20.05 @ 10:37PM|#

I think Jay Leno commented around 1992 that of the millions of people who tried marijuana in the 1960s, the only ones who didn't like it were presidential candidates and Supreme Court nominees...

|2.20.05 @ 11:52PM|#

madpad, et al:

as much as it might pain you to admit it, the WOD will never be over until its abolition is no longer associated with the looney left. It would help ALOT if the left would stop associating the WOD with "the man", i.e. the GOP. Tim is correct - neither party has been innocent on this issue.

I understand that many are Left because they are rebellious in nature and what better way to be a rebel than to support drug legalization.

However, it is simply incorrect to blame one party and it is immature to try to plant the legalization flag in one party over the other. The fact of the matter is, no U.S. politician - liberal or conservative - can win on a platform of drug decriminalization. That is why we have raging hypocrites on both sides of the aisle.

I'm new to this issue and the most basic question i don't see being asked is what demographic is holding us back? The answer to me is terribly obvious - the AARP (made up, btw of liberals AND conservatives). They've been scared into supporting the WOD by the media, the police and their Pastor. However, if anyone should be upset with the DEA interfering with their doctor's treatment, it would be them. I think there is a lot of gold to mine with the AARP, and Mr. Soros should spend his resources turning that key demographic, instead of wasting his money throwing hissy fits over W.

Trust me, if all the nursing homes in each Congressional district started raising hell about the WOD, we would have decriminalization before you can roll your next.... you know.

Gimme Back My Dog|2.20.05 @ 11:59PM|#

joe,

Sorry, I don't see the baby steps. Clinton and Gore only admitted to their past use after eyewitnesses came forward. That is why WJC had to pull the didn't-inhale thing so that he didn't have to admit to lying. Gore still hasn't spoken to the amount of pot he smoked. People who knew him in his post-college days say he made Cheech (and possibly Chong) look like Carry A. Freaking Nation.

|2.21.05 @ 12:23AM|#

The conservative GOPer raises a good point. Less gov't intrusion with pain medication would certainly be welcome, and the AARP could probably deliver it.

But if the elderly are now getting their pain pills for free then I doubt we'll see LESS gov't interference in pain treatment. Does anybody know if the Medicare prescription drug bill covers pain medication? I would assume so, but I don't know for sure.

|2.21.05 @ 12:37AM|#

zzzzzzzzzzzz

|2.21.05 @ 1:18AM|#

Speaking of the war on the war on drugs. We just lost one of earliest and bravest warriors.

Hunter S. Thompson. Shot himself and is dead at age 67.

Bastard. :(

|2.21.05 @ 1:33AM|#

"Hunter S. Thompson. Shot himself and is dead at age 67."

Awwww crap! That's too bad. Was it an accident or a suicide?

Either way it's too bad. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the right-wing radio-goons will use his death to bash liberals, drugs, hippies, etc..

|2.21.05 @ 3:36AM|#

It's clear that Bush really is thinking of the kids--

He realizes that most kids don't have the kind of family connection to fall back on that he had, when he wasted his 20s and 30s.

"Kids without connections, don't be like me! Then you'll definitely have no chance to make a difference! As it is, Ivy League kids do 90% of everything anyway! If you do drugs, we'll take that last 10%!!"

|2.21.05 @ 10:15AM|#

2 points of fact:

Calling Neslon Rockefeller a "reasonably moderate" exception to Conservative Drug War Madness is just silly. Rocky was perceived as a Capital L Liberal back in the day, so much so that his very name became an epithet among conservatives. Pols from NYC Mayor John Lindsay to the likes of Lincoln Chaffee are derided as "Rockefeller Republicans" by cons old enough to remember the term.

I never said that the WoSD was a Democratic Party construct. In the early 20th Century "Progressive" was a political label that crossed and even flouted party. Teddy Roosevelt was a Prog, as was Bob LaFollette, and they were, for most of their careers, nominally Republicans and never Democrats. Wilson's Progressivism isn't a secret to anyone who has studied that period, either. That statists of one sort or another cooperate across party lines to deprive us of our liberties shouldn't surprise anyone.

I find the attitudes of Democratic officeholders, especially those who represent the inner city, schizophrenic. Many of them decry what they see as the injustice of the impact of the sentencing guidelines in packing the prisons with their constituents. At the same time they regularly condemn drugs as the scourge of the community, going so far as to fall for conspiranoid plots of the "CIA spread crack in the ghetto" variety. Very few would dare run on a legalization, decriminalization or harm reduction platform, because while voters in overwhelmingly Democratic districts might be less in favor of the WoSD, the majority of them are still convinced that "the government should do something."

The anti-drug-war supporters on the "liberal" side are more likely to be found among think tankers and activists than actual politicians, same as with the few conservatives such as Buckley who talk sense on the issue.

Kevin

|2.21.05 @ 1:42PM|#

No argument there.

Ironic. I can remember sitting in my dorm room hosting a party some 20+ years ago and smoking a fatty talking about how it will be soooo kyoool when guys our age start getting elected so we can legalize drugs.

How truly naive we were, as it seem we're farther away now than we were then.

|2.21.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Nixon was the creater of the modern War on Drugs and while he many not have been a "conservative" he was definitly associated with the right wing and conservative side of the culture war.

|2.21.05 @ 3:55PM|#

Hysteria about drugs is no respecter of liberal nor conservative.

Here's a baby step for those of you so enabled/inclined:
Whenever you see a story in your local paper talking about "drug-related violence," call them on it. Tell them they meant to say, "war on drugs-related violence."

Finally, notice Dubya also failed to admit to his sorry record of "service" in the Texas National Guard. Isn't it a shame Dan Rather got hounded off this story?