Why Should Opponents of the War on Drugs Vote for Democrats?

This morning Radley Balko noted a Wall Street Journal story about "Democratic strategists" who hope that marijuana legalization initiatives can help draw young, left-leaning voters to the polls. The evidence of such an effect is less than overwhelming, and its impact is apt to be small, though possibly decisive in very close races. That consideration may help explain Jane Hamsher's interest in mobilizing pot-tolerant voters as well as the meager Republican support for her Just Say Now project. But more interesting is a point the Journal virtually ignores: Although Democrats take it for granted that drug policy reformers belong to them (and polls do show that supporters of California's Proposition 19 lean sharply toward Team Donkey), the party's candidates have very little to offer this constituency. The article's penultimate paragraph notes:

Few political candidates support marijuana legalization. In California, the Democratic and Republican candidates for Senate and governor oppose Proposition 19. Mr. Obama opposes legalization and would face political pressure to challenge the law if Proposition 19 passes.

Obama embodies the disappointment that almost always awaits voters who think Democrats will enact more enlightened drug policies because they sound more enlightened before they gain the power they seek. As a senatorial candidate, Obama advocated marijuana decriminalization, a position he renounced when he ran for president. As a presidential candidate, he said he would end the DEA's medical marijuana raids, a promise he broke after he was elected. So far he has waged the war on drugs, which he once called an "utter failure," in pretty much the same manner as his predecessor, only with more money. The one substantial improvement in federal drug policy since Obama took office is crack sentencing reform, which he supported. But that change was in the works for years and had already attracted support from many Republicans. Meanwhile, Obama literally laughs at the voters whom Democrats hope will turn out for them now.

Team Donkey's lesser lights do not even pretend to favor reform. As Josh Harkinson noted in a Mother Jones article that Matt Welch discussed the other day, "top California Democrats—including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown—came out hard and early against Prop 19." In fact, Harkinson argues that criticism of the war on drugs is more conspicuous among Republican politicians, including "the GOP challengers to Reps. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi," former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (a possible presidential candidate), and Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul. Harkinson has this to say about Paul's father:

Nobody, of course, is more outspoken on the issue than Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the 2008 presidential hopeful and tea party patron saint, who recently wrote that "decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level would be a start" to ending "the insanity of the War on Drugs."

Like the strategists quoted by the Journal, I hope measures like Prop. 19 boost turnout by voters who want to end the war on drugs (or at least the war on marijuana). But if they really care about that issue, they should think twice about automatically voting for Democrats.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen Zero||

    Hmmm... get butt-raped by the Left or skull-fucked by the Right. So, when does this Stockholm Syndrome kick in? Cause I'm not feeling it yet.

  • Paul||

    This morning Radley Balko noted a Wall Street Journal story about "Democratic strategists" who hope that marijuana legalization initiatives can help draw young, left-leaning voters to the polls.

    Haven't we been through this already?

    It's like the union vote, or the black vote.

  • prolefeed||

    It's not that blacks or latinos won't vote for Republicans. It's more that Republicans haven't asked them for their vote by speaking about how they would do things different than Democrats -- like, for example, ending the War on People with Somewhat More Beige Skin Than You Drugs.

  • Paul||

    I generally agree with your thesis, but see my post below about why Democrats aren't against the drug war, and why, apropos of this post, Democrats take the pro-pot/legalized drugs vote for granted.

  • ||

    The problem is that Team Red doesn't target scads of money towards ethnic groups, while Team Blue does.

  • Brother Wolf||

  • Paul||

    Good article.

  • ||

    Point 1: Yes, it's highly likely young liberals would be more likely to show up with this on the ballot and make Jerry Brown governor and re-elect Barbara Boxer. Once Obama sues to prevent the state from deciding not to enforce failed federal drug policy, let's see how many will be extra motivated to put down their joints to go support him in 2012.

    Point 2: I'm thinking it's actually to the point where Republicans are likely around the same as Democrats where the WoD is concerned. Most of them will admit it failed, and none will have the willpower to elect politicians to do anything about it. Anecdotally, pretty much my entire family are Republican Catholics who certainly don't do illegal drugs and almost all of them want the drug war to end (although maybe not full legalization). Most of the liberals I know are about at the same place. "The children" are all that stands in the way of both sides translating their inner wisdom to desired reality.

  • Paul||

    let's see how many will be extra motivated to put down their joints to go support him in 2012.

    My guess is all of them.

  • Paul||

    I mean, the liberal editorials titled "Why we should support Obama" practically write themselves.

    When you have a conservative movement that's apoplectic, at some point, some of those conservatives are going to come up with a concrete set of reasons why they're anti-Obama. At which time the liberal blogosphere merely cuts-and-pastes that list and says "this is why we support Obama".

  • ||

    Right Paul, so when some Republicans (even those on NRO) say that "We're against Obama because he wants to assassinate US citizens without a trial and hide behind state secrets," that will totally be a reason for you to vote FOR Obama, right?

    Because if the other team's against it, you're for it, right Paul?

  • Paul||

    What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with Obama's supporters. You get the difference, right?

  • Paul||

    Example, John, who did these guys vote for when the opportunity came up?

    Oh what, they show a little bluster, do some finger wagging, threaten and warn, and then go pull the lever the only choice they'll ever make.

    If you think Obama's loyal supporters are going to swing Republican in 2012, you've got another thing coming.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I wouldn't say that they would swing Republican, but that isn't what's important. What's important is that they don't vote for Obama.

    Staying at home is just as good as voting Republican at this point. In fact, it's likely the best vote there is.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "The children" are all that stands in the way of both sides translating their inner wisdom to desired reality.

    Yes. But the children may as well be Mt. Everest and we a bunch of ants.
  • prolefeed||

    Why Should Opponents of the War on Drugs Vote for Democrats?

    Because when you're stoned, it's harder to parse out that you're being lied to by Team Donkey pols?

  • Wind Rider||

    Actually, when I've got a good buzz on, all the political clowns' buffoonery is . . .amplified. And I'm overwhelmingly disgusted by the entire lot of them.

  • Number 2||

    "Although Democrats take it for granted that drug policy reformers belong to them (and polls do show that supporters of California's Proposition 19 lean sharply toward Team Donkey), the party's candidates have very little to offer this constituency."

    Because whatever "enlightened" rhetoric they espouse as candidates, ("Of course I inhaled. That was the idea."), Team Donkey recognizes a large government spending program, chock-full of grateful contractors, grantees, employees and public sector unions, when they see one. Whether it's a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty, have you ever seen Team Donkey encounter a big government spending program it did not like?

  • ||

    Are you saying the GOP doesn't do this as well regarding the WOD? Are you nuts?

  • Number 2||

    Of course I am not saying the GOP doesn't do the same. But the question on the floor isn't why the GOP disappoints those who support legalization. Geez!

  • Paul||

    John Thacker seems to be suffering the same confusion.

    Point of order: When we point out something a party does, it doesn't mean we support or oppose the other party, we're merely making an observation.

  • ||

    I'll never vote for a candidate who is against cannabis legalization. I recently wrote to Jerry Brown and told him that because he is against Prop 19, I wouldn't vote for him.

    Cannabis users who vote for anti-cannabis politicians are supporting their own oppression.

  • prolefeed||

    "I'll never vote for a candidate who is against cannabis legalization.

    Shortened that for you. OK, every now and then the LP bothers to run someone, but that would ruin the snark.

  • ||

    Face it. Most politicians are such craven cowards that taking a contrary position on anything remotely considered mainstream, no matter how foolish or counterproductive the policy (Drugs are bad, m'kay?) is unthinkable. The road to legal reefer has to go through the iniative process because politicians are too fucking cowardly to read the writing on the wall out loud.

    I refuse to believe that the reps in DC are so stupid they believe the nonsense about the dangers of marijuana propogandized by ONDCP. I easily believe that preserving their seat trumps everything else, including moality and good policy.

    Fuck, I hate politicians more every single day.

  • jtuf||

    It is time for the drug legalizers to break free from the DINOs.

  • Daze||

    Weird that Barney Frank's opponent would raise that issue, since Frank is one of the very few Democrats who openly advocates pot legalization and criticizes the war on drugs.

    Excellent example of Frank espousing libertarian ideas on gambling and drugs (and incurring conservative wrath for doing so):

    http://www.breitbart.tv/barney.....g-and-pot/

  • ||

    It's not all that weird, it's just a case of both politicians in a district reflecting the district.

    As the crack sentencing reform, or the success of gun rights organizations demonstrate, politicians do eventually follow the people.

  • Wind Rider||

    Barney is probably for cannabis legalization because he's deluding himself into thinking that people with a good buzz won't notice how much he contributed to fucking up the economy. He's wrong on that, but whatevs.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Check out the wonderfully enlightened comments there. Anti-gay bigots all for the nanny state.

  • DJK||

    huh?

  • Daze||

    * Not disputing the main point of the post -- the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on drug policy.

  • Wind Rider||

    Almost the entirety of our current political class (incumbents and aspirants) are little more than status quo weanies, more interested in getting the position of power, than actually doing anything beneficial with it. And if that means continuing an internal civil war within the United States, fine by them as long as they get to be on CSPAN.

  • ||

    This is off-topic, but I just got out of a meeting with a guest presenter who was speaking on the issue of immigration (it's diversity month so it was required. She is of Mexican heritage. She said that we in the US will need more workers in the future and the only way to fill that need is with immigrants. All I could think of was that we could also fill that need by releasing all of the people in prison for non-violent crimes.

    She also spoke of the education gap (whites v. non-whites) and the only way to achieve that was by spending a shit-load more money on education.

    What a crock of shit. But I listened politely as the last thing I want at work is to become "the other".

    And what saddens me most is that even though I spent the 70's coaching athletes from all over the world, the 80's traveling the country in a road band where I met people from Palestine to South Africa, the 90's working for a global corporation with offices in 93 countries, and the first half of the 00's working with homeless youth from the Bronx, to Morocco, to Laos, my company sees me as just another ignorant white boy who needs diversity training.

  • ||

    my company sees me as just another ignorant white boy who needs diversity training.

    Well, you are white, aren't you? AREN'T YOU!!!??? Nuff said.

  • ||

    If the GOP had only nominated Tom Campbell, the Democrats wouldn't necessary be as happy... or maybe they would be, since when he ran before it demonstrated that being pro drug legalization isn't enough to get people who claim to support it to switch their votes.

  • ||

    Jerry Brown, democrat candidate for governor of California, has come out against Prop 19. He's also accepted more than $200,000 in campaign contributions from alcohol companies, according to the California Secretary of State Campaign Finance website

    CALIFORNIA BEER & BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS $25,900 5/13/10 1487716-16309

    ALLIED BEVERAGES, INC. $25,900 5/13/10 1487716-16303

    MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SACRAMENTO $25,000 5/18/10 1488493-16496

    HORIZON BEVERAGE COMPANY 20000 5/18/10 1488493-16506

    BAY AREA BEVERAGE COMPANY $20,000 5/13/10 1487716-16310

    CALIFORNIA BEER & BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS $19,900 5/13/10 1487716-16307

    ACE BEVERAGE CO. $17,500 5/17/10 1488493-16448

    MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SAN MARCOS $14,900 5/18/10 1488493-16501

    MARKSTEIN BEVERAGE CO. OF SAN MARCOS $10,100 5/18/10 1488493-16502

    WILLIAM LAZZERINI $10,000 5/13/10 1487716-16306

    PACIFIC BEVERAGE $10,000 5/8/10 1486926-16155

    MISSION BEVERAGE COMPANY $7,500 5/17/10 1488493-16447

    HORIZON BEVERAGE COMPANY $5,000 9/14/10 1518320-33050

    Total: $211,700

  • Paul||

    Jerry Brown: Take Back America.

  • Consumer||

    And get a refund.

  • ||

    Why should opponents of the Drug War vote for Democrats?

    Because ending the Drug War is not their top political priority.

    if they really care about that issue

    But they don't Jacob. They really care about getting free stuff.

  • ||

    +1

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So they can continue to buy pot at massively inflated prices due to prohibition distortion.

    It's all so logical, right?

  • ||

    Because ending the Drug War is not their top political priority.

    Ding, ding, ding.

    There's a huge difference in politics between "something you agree with" and "something that will actually change your vote."

    For instance, opposing farm and energy subsidies and supporting free trade in general falls into the first category. Favoring particular subsidies and tariffs falls into the latter.

  • Robert||

    How come when I write the same thing here, I don't get plaudits like MP?

  • Coeus||

    Because nobody likes a crybaby.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Why Should Opponents of the War on Drugs Vote for Democrats?

    They shouldn't.

    What do you mean, "rhetorical question"?

  • Tim||

  • Tim||

  • ||

    It's an image thing. Democrats are "cool" about this sort of thing, even though they are totally uncool hopeless authoritarians.

    Plus, let's face it, the Republicans made this fuck-up one of their main selling points for, oh, a quarter century at least.

  • Paul||

    You can't be the party of heathcare and be against the drug war.

    You can't rage a war against obesity, and be against the drug war.

    You can't rage a war against smoking, be behind every major smoking ban in the country and be against the war on drugs.

    These positions are incompatible. Period.

    Democrats jettisoned the idea that "what you put in your body is your business" a long time ago. Late 70s maybe? What you put in your body and the externalities (remember, Democrats are the party of externalities) resulting from those actions (hint: it all boils down to 'public health expenditures') is very much the state's business.

    Democrats aren't stupid. They know this, and they play it by the book every day.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Democrats aren't stupid.

    Citation needed.

  • Paul||

    Citation needed.

    I admit I got nothin.

  • ||

    Oh I get it -- that's why I attributed the misconception to image, as opposed to reality. And why I put the word "cool" in quotes. I don't actually believe that Democrats have any interest whatsoever in personal freedoms.

    But my related point is that Republicans have almost forced anti-prohibitionists into the Dem camp by virtue of the sheer GOP fucktardery on the issue. Very similar to folks concerned about gay rights, who also receive nothing at all from Democrats but are forced there by asshat "values" Republicans.

  • Paul||

    But my related point is that Republicans have almost forced anti-prohibitionists into the Dem camp by virtue of the sheer GOP fucktardery on the issue. Very similar to folks concerned about gay rights, who also receive nothing at all from Democrats but are forced there by asshat "values" Republicans.

    I agree with this completely. Which is why Dems can take the pro-pot vote for granted. They make some weak-tea platitudes about drug war failures, local/municipal dems can even go as far as deprioritizing pot arrests and the like, and wham, you've nailed a constituency.

    And as you say, when the Republicans actively exorcise you out of their ranks, where else you gonna go?

    Hint: The answer *might* begins with an 'L' and end in 'ibertarian'.

  • ||

    Like Kodos (or was it Krang?) said: go ahead, throw your vote away!

    (In all seriousness, throwing one's vote away is often the only defensible choice.)

  • Paul||

    I'm not sure I've ever not thrown my vote away... especially during the times when I really thought it mattered. I finally got to the place where my calculus was: If I voted, I threw it away.

  • prolefeed||

    I consider it a personal moral failing to vote for anyone who then wins the election. If 50%+ of the voters want that politician, something has got to be seriously wrong with them.

  • ||

    If the D & R parties each receive 50x more votes than L does, that means my vote is 50x more potent as protest than 'throwing it away' with the crowd.

    Not voting your conscience IS throwing it away.

  • Robert||

    You can't be the party of heathcare and be against the drug war.

    You can't rage a war against obesity, and be against the drug war.

    You can't rage a war against smoking, be behind every major smoking ban in the country and be against the war on drugs.

    These positions are incompatible. Period.


    You don't understand compatibility. For instance, if one's reason for being for liberal laws on narcotics but restrictive ones on tobacco is to stick it to the Man.

  • MJ||

    That is exactly why I find the confusion on the part of pro-drug legalization that the Dems are not more on their side. What is it about the Dems philosophy of government that would make you think they would not be for the drug war?

  • Patriot Mike||

    Let's all use the correct term, shall we? It's re-legalisation we're after. All substances were legal prior to 1914. The history books do not report that the sky fell during America's first 138 years.

  • ||

    This one needs to be part of the Reason drinking game. Guy who points out that legalization is really re-legalization. Happens at least once per Sullum piece.

  • Paul||

    The history books do not report that the sky fell during America's first 138 years.

    Mmmyeah they do.

  • ||

    Ah yes, Paul, once again following your blueprint above of opposing for opposing's sake. So now you have to be in favor of the Drug War, because you hate libertarians and the Founders more than you like any political principle?

  • Paul||

    John, you've completely lost it. I have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Old Mexican||

    "[T]op California Democrats — including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown—came out hard and early against Prop 19."

    Do not fret, since everybody knows the Democratic Party is the party of social liberties and . . . what are you guys laughing about???

  • ||

    The whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" meme needs a clarification that we are not in fact in favor of nanny state social policies like trans fat and smoking bans, and are in favor of free speech for everyone, even corporations - to delineate from the rest of the "social liberals". We needed a similar "fiscal conservative" clarification a few short years ago.

  • Tman||

    As we discussed in an earlier thread, the reality is that any state legalization legislation will be in direct violation of Federal law. In fact, in todays WSJ a bunch of former authoritarian facists DEA administrators wrote an editorial stating that basically, if California passes Prop 19 they will be automatically committing a felony by collecting any tax revenue from the sale of marijuana.

    Here is their article-California Pot Initiative: Don't Forget About Federal Law
    Nobody is going to be paying state taxes on marijuana when doing so would be confession to a federal felony.

    So, if Prop 19 passes we can expect the law to eventually find its way to the SCOTUS. Michigan has a similar medical marijuana law that appears headed for State SCOTUS today, and probably federal in the future.

    Once it comes down to the SCOTUS to decide whether or not the state law is unconstitutional, we pretty much already know their answer from Gonzalez Vs. Raich, which agreed that Congress may ban home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes, and they use the Commerce Clause as justification.

    Clarence Thomas and the other conservatives on the court are the only people who have any chance whatsoever of getting the SCOTUS to reverse the idea that the Commerce Clause is justification for banning cultivation of marijuana, thus justifying the states legislation approving personal use of marijuana.

    A liberal SCOTUS will never pass legalization, and at the end of the day all that matters is what happens there.

  • ||

    This is probably true, but sooner or later elected officials are going to lose the willpower to wage this battle. So even if SCOTUS wouldn't uphold legalization, would the feds have the political capital to fight the thing and sue?

    I say bring on the conflict, and force the feds to defend their weak shit in court. At least it would force Obama into a position instead of his stupid half-assed platitudes. It's public opinion, and not the executive or legislative or judicial branches, that will drive this thing.

  • Tman||

    I say bring on the conflict, and force the feds to defend their weak shit in court. At least it would force Obama into a position instead of his stupid half-assed platitudes.

    Totally in agreement. I want to read another evisceration of the Commerce Clause by Thomas. The effects could trickle down to other issues.

    It's public opinion, and not the executive or legislative or judicial branches, that will drive this thing.

    This is true, but the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of any legislation, so they will have the final say, so to speak.

  • DJK||

    I also agree.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tman,

    As we discussed in an earlier thread, the reality is that any state legalization legislation will be in direct violation of Federal law.

    Article VI of the US Constitution:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof[...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]"

    That means only CONSTITUTIONAL laws are to be the supreme law of the land, not UNconstitutional ones, for instance: Drug Prohibition laws.

  • Tman||

    Well, explain that to SCOTUS- "the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes."

  • ||

    As we discussed in an earlier thread, the reality is that any state legalization legislation will be in direct violation of Federal law.

    No, it won't. There isn't any federal law that requires states to outlaw marijuana. I'm pretty sure any such law would be unconstitutional.

    Now, the feds can pull their usual trick of pulling fed funding from a state that doesn't tow the lion, but that's different.

    But I'm pretty sure that merely declining to outlaw something that is against federal law isn't unconstitutional. Otherwise, every state's statutes would have to include a xeroxed copy of the federal code. Which they don't.

    In fact, the feds are arguing right now that states aren't allowed to outlaw something that is against federal law. Which, IMO, is also wrong.

  • Old Mexican||

    DEA administrators wrote an editorial [in the WSJ] stating that basically, if California passes Prop 19[,] they [California State officials] will be automatically committing a felony by collecting any tax revenue from the sale of marijuana.

    Blah, blah, blah. States have nullified federal laws before without the FedGov attempting to incarcerate whole state legislatures, senates and/or administratirs; this will not be the first time a State nullifies a federal law.

  • ||

    And even so, it would be fun to see the whole Cali government get incarcerated.

  • DJK||

    +25

  • DJK||

    +25

  • ||

    if California passes Prop 19[,] they [California State officials] will be automatically committing a felony by collecting any tax revenue from the sale of marijuana.

    Utter horseshit. Lots of states have marijuana tax acts. People have even bought the stamps for entertainment value. Nobody's gone to jail, and nobody's going to jail.

    I do enjoy watching the feds get all thuggy with the states, though. This confrontation can't come soon enough, or be too ugly, for me.

  • Tman||

    Again, I am in agreement that this confrontation needs to come to a head. But the fact remains that the courts already decided that in terms of constituionality, federal law supercedes state law in regards to Marijuana cultivation under the Commerce clause because it's "interstate commerce". Now I, and the other conservative justices agreed that this is a dangerous precedent in terms of the commerce clause, but this is what the courts decided.

  • Wind Rider||

    One aspect of the whole Interstate Commerce Clause supremacy take on the prosecution of individuals by the SCOTUS I fail to grok is why the defense of innocence until guilt is proven doesn't really work here. Yeah, I completely realize there are some screwy twists of the legal system that seem totally bizarre, but it would seem to me that if you're prosecuting someone and using commerce as the basis for that prosecution (in this case the sale of an illicit substance), then should it not be incumbent upon the state to overcome the hurdle of having to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such commerce actually occurred? Just how fucked up is it that punitive action is taken against people just because at some time, some where, some one sold something for money - even if that hypothetical assumption is completely unrelated or unsupported by the evidence at hand (in a given case, of course).

    Just another facet of the continuing national schizophrenia. And people wonder why I like to alter my perception of such a reality.

  • Robert||

    Only thing is, they can't get thuggy with the state. All they can do is prosecute individuals for violation of the federal statute. Which they'll probably do in some big cases, but don't have the resources to do in small ones.

  • Wind Rider||

    The short answer to the rhetorical question that is the title of this piece is that they shouldn't. For the simple reason that most higher level Democrats are statist control freaks, willing to pander in the most mercenary of ways to get their hands on the levers of power, all the better to exercise control over people's lives. The sole exception, of course, is on the subject of abortion, which even if they feel personally opposed to, they support because it absolutely drives their hated SoCon nemesis absolutely batshit crazy insane.

  • Anon Coward||

    I'm sorry, but when you look directly at Congressional votes and sponsorship of legislation relating to ending cannabis prohibition (or even Truth in Trials), Republicans--beyond Paul--are nowhere to be found.

    The movement will come from voter initiatives (the bottom, not the top), but Reps will be most likely to stand in the way as long as they can.

  • ||

    You guys are a trip. Why should opponents of the WoD vote Democrat? Um...because the Democratic Party has by far the more reasonable stance on, basically, every policy position currently under debate? Because if you're a social liberal and a Republican, you're an idiot? Because Obama actually has relaxed enforcement of anti-medical marijuana laws (sure there've been a few busts, but not as many as before)? Because however bad Democrats are on the WoD, Republicans are worse?

  • ||

    The Sack-on-Ice of Abraham, Pt. 1

    The fact that you consider the Democrats more reasonable about everything in the world is not an answer to the question about drugs, and implicitly all civil liberties. Corporate, mainstream, career politicians in both parties will support the drug war because it serves the monetary interests of those who exude endless pressure on them. But can you name me A) the politician who recently said on Fox Business that cops have better things to do than arresting people for smoking weed; B) The only news syndicate that has recently aired serious rants against the Patriot Act? And can you name C) the President who campaigned so dutifully on drug-law reform/relaxation that the Grateful Dead got back together to tour in support, who upon being elected increased budgets for SWAT-raids of peaceful citizen's homes, expanded the federal government's intrusion into what food may be sold how & by who, pressuring local farmers to stop selling crops or other products independently -- and lest we forget, a President who after 100,000s of people worked tirelessly to get *one* very REASONABLE drug-decriminalization question asked of him at a televised Q & A, he answered a quick condescending "no" and had a great laugh at their expense, along with various rich white corporate people sitting around him.

    A) Sarah Palin
    B) Fox News
    C) Barack Obama

  • ||

    Pt. 2
    Social liberal, que?

    "But there were other things that went on during Woodrow Wilson’s administration. He was not an individual who respected civil liberties. And the Republicans at the time fought him, on the Espionage and Sedition Act. He arrested thousands of people because they showed dissent against the war. Yes, you may have a position on the war, others may have another position. But we all ought to be together that you have a right of dissent and you should never be put in prison for dissenting!

    A famous person was arrested back then. I wouldn’t have agreed with his political beliefs. But...he did speak out against the war, which he had a right to do. It was Eugene Debs. And he was put in prison because he spoke out and Woodrow Wilson didn’t like him and because the Congress passed these laws which the Republicans objected to. But he was put in prison indefinitely and never got a pardon (from Wilson). You know who gave him the pardon? Warren G. Harding. A Republican...

    -- Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

  • ||

    Pt. 3
    "sure there have been a few medical marijuana busts* but not as many as before?"

    Do you even understand what you're saying, man.

    You do realize that YOU are the exact person Burroughs was thinking of when he said that the ultimate argument in favor of corruption is "having a broad, general view of things."

    *forcible arrest & seizure

  • Pandora||

    Check out what these 2 hot girls in a hot tub have to say about Jerry Brown-is Meg Whitman a pillow queen???

    http://www.youtube.com/user/na.....rIIeLusMkA

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement