Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'

Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president (emphasis added):

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood. The 35,000 or so prohibition-related deaths that Mexico has seen since President Felipe Calderon began a crackdown on drugs in 2006 are one consequence of the volatile situation created by the government's arbitrary dictates regarding psychoactive substances. Pace Clinton, the way to "stop" the violent thugs who profit from prohibition is not to mindlessly maintain the policy that enriches them.

[via the Drug War Chronicle]

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.

  • hmm||

    "...but those who are making so much money selling [bullshit], they have to be stopped."

    I think the same thing about lawyers and politicians.

  • slutmonkey||

    that's the part I would have highlighted. To Clinton it's not about drugs or the murder rate it's about "People making so much money"!

    As if economic activity is a bad thing.

  • timbo||

    Another stupid politician who figured out how to be a crook. Is this news?

  • Major Johnson||

    The real reason it's still illegal is that it gives politicians and the government an excuse for spending tens of billions of dollars and enriches police departments, so she's correct, it's the money.

  • ||

    Fucking markets. How do they work?

  • ||

    There's black markets everywhere in this bitch.

  • hmm||

    That's racist!

  • Pi Guy||

    There's black markets everywhere in this bitch.

    They now like to be referred to as African-American markets.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    "Geez she has a big pussy....geez she has a big pussy...geez she has a big pussy..."

  • Billy||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    We're all going to die.

  • Todd||

    I see what you did up there

  • timbo||

    Her ass goes on forever. Hard to tell the difference b/w this cow and nancy grace.

  • ||

    Why did you say that twice?

    I didn't.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    I just spit a mouthful of coffee on my keyboard. It's going to be a good day.

  • Chupacabra||

    They go up, they go down. You can't explain that.

    That's why religion isn't a scam.

  • Bill O'Reilly's Withered Taint||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    I'll have to start calling the War on Drugs a "market failure" just for laughs.

  • Tony Clone||

    Externalities!

  • hmm ||

    Clone wins.

  • Obama Administration||

    Fucking markets. How do they work?

    They don't.

  • hmm as Obama||

    Hell, nothin' works under my administration. Markets, people, foreign policy, the car in the ditch...juss can't get nothin' workin'

  • Typical Progressive ||

    The way we tell them to. Duh!

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    Are we supposed to be thankful Hillary isn't a chief economic advisor? Just a Secretary of State?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Wasn't Hillary supposed to be especially qualified for the 3 am phone call?

    She didn't do so well with Egypt, did she?

  • hmm ||

  • sarcasmic||

    The question was "legalize drug trafficking and consumption", and Clinton answered "decriminalize small amounts while keeping trafficking illegal".

    She did in fact give the correct answer to the question that she answered, but not to the question she was asked.

  • Rich||

    There is just too much money in it

    "It" being, of course, the War On Drugs.

  • Robert||

    That's how I understood her remark. I think what she meant was that the traffickers have so much money in it, they'll stop it from being legalized in Mexico. I think she understands very well.

  • Almanian||

    That's how I interpreted the headline when I read it initially. Derp! silly moi...

  • Spoonman.||

    Wait, so things that you can make lots of money doing must be banned? Fascinating.

  • Brett L||

    The Federal government is in a revenue hole, drugs create revenue... I think I see a solution to their problem.

  • Jerry||

    We can't have freedom in Egypt because there is just too much money in it.

  • X||

    The smartest woman in America.

  • P B||

    +1
    You made coffee come out my nose.

  • ||

    On a related note, I recall John Bolton's response to the legalization question and violence. He asserted that if drugs were legalized, the violence would continue as the cartels would try to maintain their hold over the trade. In other words, legal or illegal, the violence will continue. Which makes no sense, but even if it did, isn't that an argument for legalization ?

  • Brett L||

    Its a standard inertia/status quo argument. It won't get better so why bother changing.

  • ||

    Maybe, but I think his drug warrior mentality leads to a more non-sensical position. He's saying we must keep fighting the WOD, but all the resources we expend are completely irrelevant to how the drug cartels respond. So, we must continue the fight. ...or something..

  • ||

    It's because looking like you're doing something is better than not doing anything. That's the way our entire country is run. i.e. Health care reform, Department of Education, troop surges

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Exactly!

  • ||

    The argument makes sense only if one assumes that the drug gangs are brave enough to target shops like Wallmart selling legalised drugs and expect to get away with it.

  • Californian||

    Or you think that shops like Walmart are even MORE evil than the drug dealers/traffickers.

  • Robert||

    Well, the Mafia has targeted certain businesses in construction and other sectors, and they have operated by intimidation like that. But there's no reason to think they'd single out drugs, and to the extent they do, that takes that much heat off cement, longshoring, pizza dough, etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    There's no reason to think that legalizing drugs would result in a drop in violence, just look at Chicago.

    The alcohol cartels are still going at it despite the end of Prohibition.

  • ||

    Shut up! If my homebrewery gets raided this week I'm blaming you.

  • Almanian||

    See, this is why we need to change the rhetoric of violence in the country! Saint Gabby Gifford would want us to tone it down....NO MORE RAIDS!

  • sarcasmic||

    Session Ale on tap, second Session Ale in secondary, just ground grain for an IPA.
    You?

  • ||

    Just kegged my Dunkel last night and have a Leipziger Gose conditioning. Not sure what's up next, but my keg of Helles is getting low so I'm thinking something sessionable (obviously not a concern of yours at this moment!).

  • sarcasmic||

    "obviously not a concern of yours at this moment!"

    I'm just using up ingredients before attempting pilsner. I've got 13# pale in the sack and some crystal in the drawer, why not use it all up?
    I'd like to have some light lager on tap for the summer. The plan is to get a 55 pounder of lager malt from my lhbs, a pound of hallertau from hopsdirect, and go from there.

  • ||

    My joke was poorly phrased; I just meant that you don't need to be concerned about running out of anything sessionable when you have one session ale on tap and another in the secondary.

    As for your Pilsner, if your local LHBS carries Rahr, I've had good luck with their pilsner malt and it's dirt cheap. If you want to go import, I recommend Best Malz. Their Pilsner and Munich II malts are what I always keep on hand since I do mostly German lagers and ales.

  • sarcasmic||

    I saw 'sessionable' and read 'seasonal'. My bad.

    Over the last year I've been playing with that style and this is what I've come up with as my standard recipe:
    10 # pale
    6 oz crystal
    2 oz EKG for 60
    1 oz for 15
    1 oz for 5

    My mashing at a low temp combined with the meager use of crystal results in a flavorful brew that's not at all heavy.

    Wouldn't sell well though, seems people like the spicy Cascade bite and residual sweetness that this one intentionally lacks.

  • ||

    That's actually fairly close to my light mild/bitter hybrid (though I use a little invert sugar).

  • CatoTheElder||

    Just bottled my framboise that been in secondary fermenter for the past twelve months. Getting a Czech pilsner wort ready now.

  • Poor Substitute||

    How much does temp effect fermentation? If it swings from like 65-80 is that gonna screw it up. Gotta an off batch last time.

  • ||

    I would need to know more to determine if that big a swing was the cause of your off-flavors, but temperature makes a HUGE difference in the results of your beer. In fact, I would put it at #2 after sanitation in terms of biggest factors in making your beer good or bad. You should check out Chris White's and Jamil Zainasheff's new book on yeast. It's thorough without being too technical.

  • sarcasmic||

    In my experience if it gets into the mid to high 70s, especially during initial fermentation, it ends up smelling like a banana.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    You guys are making me cry. I recently concluded that I probably have celiac disease, and cannot tolerate gluten. I don't homebrew, but am a beer snob, and will forever miss Sierra Nevada's Celebration Ale. Tequila, however, does not contain gluten. Neither does ganja.

  • Pi Guy||

    Bummer about the Celebration Ale, Dude.

  • Trig||

    I just bottled an 11 month framboise a few days ago, not bad.

    I've got some boysenberry and blueberry plambics (in 1/2 gallon jugs) that I started at the same time that I will sample/bottle soon. Need to get my hefeweizen going I've had the ingredients for a few months now...

    Lot of home brewers on reason; I guess it makes sense.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Actually, if you look at lots of states, including Illinois, the violence has been transformed into buying politicians for franchises, exclusivity, etc. But alcohol ain't a free market in any of them.

  • ||

    It would be interesting to see the cartels try and battle capitalist giants like Walmart, or the tobacco and alcohol companies that would no doubt produce drugs if they were legalized. I'm betting on the latter.

  • Bradley||

    Hell, porn's legal now, and Walmart won't sell that. I wouldn't hold much hope for a meth rack.

  • ||

    Which is weird, considdering they *do* sell alcohol and tabacco, to name just two hard drugs.

  • ||

    But alcohol and tobacco are sectors where they make no real effort to compete on price.

  • ||

    Maybe she is secretly for legalization and put forward the most easily refuted arguement for continuing the present policy...when the most easily refuted arguement is put forward by the secretary of state maybe this will force people to look at the paucity of logic and fact behind the policy...??? maybe everybody will realize all the money in alcohol when illegal, the crime sysdicates, etcetera....????
    Nah

  • ||

    Even in jest, you give her waaaaay too much credit.

  • hurly buehrle||

    She's vapid like a fox?

  • Pi Guy||

    She might be - the way Obama's been for gay marriage all along.

    They can't say what they really feel - it would hurt them politically. With someone...

  • ||

    The intellectual dishonesty (delusional thinking if you wish to be charitable) of drug warriors never ceases to both amaze and disgust me.

    Since calling Hillary a self serving bitch would be considered sexist in some quarters (though accurate in most), I'm going to go with labeling her a power hungry asshole.

    Hope! Change! More Carnage!

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    That would require the willing suspension of disbelief.

  • Jess Asken||

    Madame Secretary, did you inhale?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Since she's such an uptight, power-hungry, self-righteous establishment elitist, I seriously doubt that Hillary smoked dope in the 60s. Even engineering students smoked dope in the 60s and early 70s, but I doubt that Hillary did.

  • Techmaster||

    She's definitely a square. She probably hasn't even been to any kind of public gathering where you would encounter weed.

  • Spooner||

    There is a lot more money in government. So let's ban that instead.

  • ||

    Wait, wait, wait... You're suggesting the woman who first proposed comprehensive health care reform is economically naïve? I'm shocked.

  • Zeb||

    First?

  • MJ||

    "... but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped."

    That's the progressive position on any successful business model. I don't know why it should be any differenent for recreational drugs.

  • Abdul||

    Hilary would never legalize the drug business. Nationalize it and run it into the ground with cockamanie regulations, maybe, but never legalize it.

  • ||

    Jesus, our government just gets dumber and dumber. Yet there are those in her party that call her an intellectual.

    Even drug warriors usually acknowledge the problems with driving up prices in the black market. They just respond back that legalized drugs would create moral and other problems that make that option untenable. Wrongly, I think, but at least it's vaguely understandable.

  • MJ||

    Her party worships the idea of intellectualism, and by default considers all of it's leadership intellectuals, no matter how ill-informed their thinking is.

  • ||

    What's funny to me about that is that the progressives insist that anybody who disagrees with her just has a problem with strong smart women.

  • sarcasmic||

    Progressives do not have principles.
    They have principals.

    So when they disagree with someone they disagree with the person (principal), not with what the person is saying (principle).

    Therefor if you disagree with what a Progressive is saying, naturally they assume it is because you have a problem with the person (principal), not with what the person says (principle).

  • ||

    An utterly unintentionally honest response.

  • Sal Paradise||

    We just need the right people in charge and this War On Drugs will finally be won.

  • Californian||

    Sadly, I think she's right....look at what happened to Prop 19 in California. I personally know several growers who voted against it, variously because they "didn't want corporations coming in and taking over" and because they worried that they wouldn't be able to earn as much money if big growers were allowed to operate.

    We'll never have legal drugs, because there's already too much money in it.

  • Chupacabra||

    Baptists and bootleggers.

  • Barbara Yawpie||

    My favorite is the new designer drug, WhiteWater. One hit and you get delusions that you can be president.

  • alan||

    A WhiteWater joke? Is Vince Foster played out, already?

  • ||

    Too soon!!!!

  • Gregory Smith||

    How idiotic can you get? There's too much money in it because it's ILLEGAL.

    When was the last time you heard of gangsters selling paprika, salt, chocolate, garbanzos? Make something illegal or tax it too high and then it becomes profitable for the criminals.

  • ||

    Well in Harry Turtledove's universe, ginger is surprisingly profitable.

  • smartass sob||

    ...then it becomes profitable for the criminals.

    And even more profitable for government. Asset forfeiture, fines, law enforcement jobs, government grants to law enforcement agencies, increased budgets, taxes, and government personel. Increased size and scope of power for the government as an institution and for individual personel. It's as big a racket for government as it is for the producers and sellers.

  • Jeremy||

    Yes, that's all true, Gregory, but the Republicans whose asses you kiss are still bigtime drug war supporters, too.

  • ||

    "Oregano, Dave. My client was caught with a dimebag of oregano."

    "He thought it was marijuana."

    "My client's a moron, Dave; that's not against the law."

    "You're stalling on this thing, Caffey. I'm going to have to charge him."

    "With what? Possession of a condiment?"

  • ||

    Of course, the bottom line is, how can people who have made their political careers by demonizing drugs and those who sell and use them ever be expected to say, "Well, apparently we were wrong, and none of this has worked"?

    Won't happen.

  • ||

    Some former drug warriors have looked at what has happened over the last half century and admitted that the societal and economic costs of the War on Drugs Liberty far outweigh the societal and economic costs of drug use.

    Some AGW worriers have admitted that their war on nuclear power was a mistake as well.

    That kind of honesty about one's own fallibility is as refreshing as it is rare.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Our Secretary of State is Yogi Berra!

  • ChrisO||

    If the stuff about the Mena, Arkansas airport during the '80s is true, then the Clintons have a certain amount of firsthand experience in this area.

    We talk about how drug money has corrupted Mexico's government, but I tend to assume the same is true north of the border, too. Lots of interesting people on the payroll, I'm sure.

  • smartass sob||

    How come no one ever hears anything about Bill Clinton's coke-snorting brother anymore? Just askin'.

  • ||

    For some reason the word "cunt" comes to mind. That's civil and on topic isn't it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Can't
    Understand
    Normal
    Thinking

    Yup, that's Hillary alright.

  • Paul||

    And besides, her husband's leading the charge in the War on Obesity.

  • Californian||

    She's married to Huckabee now?!

  • smartass sob||

    I thought BJ liked his women a bit heavy. Monica wasn't exactly a petite little thing, was she?

  • ||

    War on Drugs--To Big To Fail.

    We've all seen how that works out

  • Pi Guy||

    War on Flowers (WoF). Let's call it what it really is.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Why the scare quotes around "risk premium"? That is exactly what it is.

  • hmm ||

    The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler. The nun says use quotes for emphasis and it gets the ruler.

  • Urkobold™||

    THE URKOBOLD KNOWS THIS NUN.

  • ||

    There is too much money in the War on Drugs, for it to be ended.

    As in money obtained from property forfeiture for local cops, money sustaining the DEA, it's staff, it's officers, and it's suppliers, money supporting the prison system, and so on. Too many people make money off the Drug War to end it.

  • ||

    I'm not sure we can afford to end the WoD in trying economic times like these. Cops and other government officials have to eat, too, you know.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Let them eat cake.

  • ||

    Only if they can have it, too.

  • ||

    Think of all the jobs that will be lost in the prison and law enforcement industries. Not to mention the suppliers. People who make tasers have to eat too.

  • Kyle||

    Yes fucktard. Stop those making so much money selling it illegally by making it legal! IF YOU MAKE IT LEGAL WE CAN GROW IT AND SO CAN YOU! THEN THE CARTELS WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS!

    Holy shit use common sense clinton

  • ||

  • ||

    Thats why we cant vote for you any more Mrs. Clinton

  • ||

    I'm not sure she misunderstands. Possibly, the author misunderstands that "a lot of money in it" means a lot of money for government.

  • Edward Rynearson||

    And because drugs are illegal, it adds the element of "danger" and introduces adrenaline into the equation which itself is addictive especially for adolescents.

  • Feed me Seymour||

    Who is really making the money: military industrial complex. They sell guns to both sides and own the prisons the drug runners and drug users go to. Taxpayer money at work!

  • ||

    Gee too much money in it> What would she do if in just a few years the legal taxed income would pay off the national debt

  • kkkkeeeejjj||

    what a dumb bitch

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Confession: Over the past couple of years I've a few times thought to myself "Hillary sure does suck, but she appears to be the only adult in the conversation right now". Thanks for reminding me that she is still a statist, evil moron just like the rest of the statist, evil morons.

  • ||

    What made you think of her as an adult? Was it the sniveling, the lying, or the race-baiting?

    -jcr

  • Bruce Michael Anderson||

    If they made the natural drugs Legal. The Drug companies proped up by the federal and States Tax base to maintain the over paid union run systems would fall apart all most over night! Many of the man made Legal drugs are made from the study of the natural ones to do what the natural ones do are far more harmfull then the natural ones. just think that would put alot of worthless Trial lawyers out of work! That could be a very good thing! in my view its Simple Over demonism of Marijuana, Marijuana has far less side Affects if any for the drug Trial Lawyers to fight over.

    I mean come on Seroquel law suits $520 million in pay outs

    Bernstein Liebhard LLP
    10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
    New York, New York 10016
    Toll Free: (877) 779-1414
    Telephone: (212) 779-1414
    Fax: (212) 779-3218
    www.bernlieb.com

    Historical Note Our Framers Wrote our Foundation down on Hemp Raed your History behind George Washingtons 4,000 Acre's of Hemp, And to think He Like Hymn Solomon Wanted Federal Taxes voluntary! Thats impart why the very bottem of the 1040 reads Taxes are voluntary!Yes the Declaration of independence is written down on hemp, Here is some history about the 1st Taxed Enough Already Party most never hear about George Washington had about 4,000 Acores of Hemp according to the history I understand the cash crop was to have been in either Kentucky Indiana or Ohio and or all three.

    He used it for his free market so to speak for the making of ropes and sails for the ships and so on. It grew wild where cotton had to be worked. They used it over the use of Cotton because cotton did rot a fray in sea water faster than hemp,

    The King of England so wanted to Control the free markets to control many things one being the gun powder for it was the way to secure the people from rising up against the Kings Rule Control the sea port control the people,

    The closest seas port was Louisville Kentucky, so the king of England pushed the Stamp Act or the Hemp tax to control such free market goods now forget not France was after about the same things.

    Mind you Washington wanted Taxes to be voluntary, as it is all taxes are to be so hence forth the reason why the 1040 read the fine print as such because Federal taxes was only force able if a war was being fought on united States Soil so as to pay for the Common Defense or Military. Today’s Police force Etc. To protect the people. To secure the borders! Hint hint

    The States became the only one that could force taxes either way with or without a war being fought, But the bases was still be Completely Voluntary, if you paid no Taxes at the time Mainly Sales taxes you could not ask for Help from the said Common defense.

    And the Obama Style Democrats have really gotten things out of whack, like seeking to pass this crap Publication 557 (06/2008), Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, look it up http://www.irs.gov/.

    It is the paper work to file for a 501 c-3 group. This bill or Dodd’s Frank an H.R. 5175 disclosure Act" (S. 3295) Act is already written in it the tax Codes an it's unconstitutional to write laws to say you have no rights of free speech, or block the right to the redress of a grievance,

    The Black’s Law Dictionary Calls it Congressional direct Constitutional Contempt, Historical Fact Federal Taxes was to be based on the statesmen view voluntary, No war on US Soil No Forced Federal Taxes, read your History behind the terms the stamp act & home stead act & Daws Act of 1887 and Common defense!

  • Bruce Michael Anderson||

    The 1st Taxed Enough Already Party was in part more so over Hemp and Taxes! And Arms Etc, http://gunowners.org/netb.htm HR 2640 Veterans Disarmament Act & S 2084 dereliction of duty to the Oath of office as the leadership of common defense Direct Criminal Constitutional Contempt of Court The Supreme Court ruled such Bans Unconstitutional, fight back with tort claims and Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law United States Title 42 United States Code section 1983 Supreme Court has Upheld this the right of self defense 5-4 Am McDonald v. Chicago,

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....8-1521.pdf

  • ||

    Considering many members of the Reagan Administration founded drug testing and drug war related compnaies in the late 80's...of course there's money in it.

    Whoops...sorry Reason, i let a little bit of reality shine in on those of you who worship Reagan.

  • ||

    I haven't seen even an inkling of Reagan fandom around here, let alone worship. I guess Anti-Obama=Pro-Republican to your way of thinking because TEAM BLUE!!

  • wompy||

    No need to emphasize that she would be an ignorant woman president. I mean, of course it's known to these major political figures that legalization would get us out of debt and be very lucrative, but they're just doing this ridiculous dance around us, playing stupid and not legalizing it. In fact, our current male president was pro-legalization before election and now he's just stringing us all along saying he's going to continue the "drug war" [against us]. They're all very obviously bullshitting us and to emphasize that one of them is a woman puts you in their ranks.

    But yes, I do agree, she did in fact say something that made her sound like a moron.

  • ||

    There is exactly one thing that Obama has done to benefit this country, and that's postponing a Hillary Clinton presidency for at least one term.

    -jcr

  • Marvin Marks||

    Seriously stupid argument from Mrs. Clinton. The fact that so much money is made with illegal drugs is one of the best reasons to legalize it, to take that money out of organized crime (and with taxes allow it to help balance the budget.)

  • matt||

    I think everyone is misinterpreting here. There's too much money in building and operating prisons to hold nonviolent drug offenders. There's too much money flowing to prison guard, police and federal narcotics unions. There's too much opportunity to fund off the grid black ops by seizing and moving narcotics.

    Hillary wasn't being ignorant she was being honest.

  • Apogee||

    Unintentionally, but yes, honest. They can't afford to quit the WOD.

    They're addicted to the cash.

  • ||

    Very true, why do you think we are occupying afganistan? oil? yeah, right, we're there for the tar.

  • James Mover||

    Maybe she was kidding? I wish...

  • ||

    Do you really think she is talking about money that the cartels get ?

  • ||

    Cartels like the Cocaine Import Agency.

  • Eric||

    just legalize weed. there wont be much difference in the money either.

  • herb folks||

    Ms. Clinton has worn out her welcome with the herb folks. Eff the silly fool!
    http://theholyherb.com/index.p.....&Itemid=91

  • Concerned Citizen||

    They can win the W.O.D. tomorrow just by making tobacco illegal. You won't find another pot plant or coca or poppy on this planet.
    Oh, and again, the correct term is "re-legalize."

  • Pi Guy||

    ...the correct term is "re-legalize."

    Yes, it is

  • ||

    Oh Hillary... And here I thought you were one of the good ones (politicians). Just kidding; what she said doesn't surprise me a bit. It is completely typical of the way today's politicans think and act. Do as they say and not as they do... If one of her kids got caught with marijuana, does anyone thing that kid would spend even one day in jail - even for a second or third offense! Me thinks not likely!

  • ||

    And once drugs are legalized, all the murderous drug criminals will magically turn from their life of crime and become law-abiding, productive citizens? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....!!!!!!

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Violence dropped quite a bit when the war on alcohol was repealed.

  • Pi Guy||

    No, they'll just turn to other banned/illegal stuff. I think you're missing the point, John: stop banning stuff that isn't really bad and the criminals have no hold on these markets.

    Sure, criminals will always find a way around the law. It's what they do. The question is, why are we criminalizing the non-murdeous drug criminals - of which, I contend, the vast majority of incarcerated population is comprised.

    Murder is abolutely a victimed crime and should always be illegal. Poppin' a perc or passing a bong around with a couple friends? Not so much.

  • Pi Guy||

  • ||

    No but they should be charged if they commit a true crime, not for having a substance that is an extract straight from a plant that grows out of the ground. They have no business making a natural resource illegal.

  • MB||

    "Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president..."

    I just have to ask, if she and Obama traded positions would you have said "Obama's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of an African-American who would be president..." in your piece? Including the fact that she's a woman is neither relevant nor progressive.

    Just a thought.

  • ||

    never ever gonna happen,just ask Bill,which i do like, but hes down to earth

  • bloody obvious||

    Mena, Arkansas.

    Cocaine Importing Agency.

    Billary works for the cartel. Do you really think that the trade is run by mexicans and columbians? Wise up, the dope money funds the secret government's black budgets.

    Follow the tracks and in the end, all roads inevitably lead to Rome.

    Bonus question: who runs Fordham University (Billary's alma mater) and why have so many american politicos attended Georgetown University (run by the same guys).

  • ||

    Your absolutely right I don't see how Americans can be so naive, the democrats and republicans are out to take people freedoms and rights to privacy. It's time people woke up and voted all libertarians into office, that would be a start.

  • Eric Sterling||

    You can also comment about this at america.gov if you care http://www.america.gov/st/text.....distid=ucs

  • ||

    it has apparently not occurred to a lot of you commenters that politicians can be disingenuous. That is, they say shit that they know isn't true and they don't personally agree with. In other words, they lie.

    I'm no fan, but HC (like any other non-total-nitwit) is smart enough to know that prohibition is what makes drugs expensive. She has to toe the party line - so she cleverly used a totally bogus reason to highlight the absurdity of both the Drug War and US Border policy, while technically staying on-message.

    Or, maybe she is just a nitwit. hmm.

  • ||

    The "money" she is talking about is the "deal" between Corporate-owned "private prisons", and the corrupt Judicial System and Judges...the Judges get "kick-backs" for sentencing "pot smokers" (petty theives, wome who seek abortions in the future?) etc., to fill up the "private prison system" ...the Corporations get paid from Federal and State governments to house these "criminals" and build new prisons... (the Corporations who are not able to outsource EVERY job in America)...and, the Corporation get free "prison labor"...this system was illegal just a few years back ....and you wonder why America has more prisoners than any other country...?

    (this is just one of the many articles written on this new "free market" Corporate American endeavor)
    www.parentsinaction.net/englis.....MERICA.htm

  • ||

    Clinton evidently does not understand

    Five words which may readily be affixed to the beginning of any sentence, without any accompanying fear of having then rendered said sentence ridiculous.

  • ||

    How can government be so ignorant still. The main cause of crime is the drug war, It also causes corruption in our so called justice system. Who basically say lock up as many people as possible whether they are innocent or not. Not to mention all the many stolen from the drug dealers from our so called law enforcement, and not to mention the many corrupt government officials make selling drugs then arresting people who.... HYPOCRITES....

  • ||

    Yeah. Legalization would make a lot of money for legitimate companies, as opposed to gangs and the cartels.

  • Educated on the subject||

    If you've never drank alcohol, you're not qualified to make educated comments on it's impairing affects. If you've never used marijuana, you're not qualified to make educated comments on it's impairing affects. If you have used both, you KNOW which is most dangerous, yet the lesser of the two evils is illegal! Amazing!

  • Pi Guy||

    What's worse is that there are people who do, indeed, have that experience and still have had to toe the company line.

  • Zolax||

    If drugs were legalized it would reduce so much of the crime on those drugs. if nicotine was outlawed there would be plenty of murders just to get it to someone

  • Loche||

    Marijuana should be legal. humans who use Nicotine are much less likely to be put in danger than humans who use Marijuana. Coke and Heroin are bad but if they were legalized the murders and crimes for those drugs would be reduced by a lot

  • Pi Guy||

    All drugs are "bad". Seriously - there is hardly a defense for wanting to use them except for one: I want to.

    You want to see how much less danger people hopped up on nicotine are? Make tobacco illegal. My Dog, the country will fold like a $3 suit.

    (one kilopardon for that awful mixed metaphor in advance)

  • Loche||

    hillary is just like our justice system. Hypocritical and "young." neither of them understand the benefits of drug legalization

  • ||

    We are not discipline for legalization of any drugs.

  • ||

    We as citizens should be concerned with education and why we are only excelling in illegal activity. We lead in all states in illegal activity, it seems to be the right thing for most.

  • Louis Vuitton 1904 Monogram Be||

    http://www.louisvuitton.be/lou.....-p-34.html Thans for nice sharing....As a professional IT certification bibles provider, enjoys a wide rang of reputation among the IT learners and candidates. With the extension of its businessadopted series of innovative movements, some of which are the promotion of Points for gift and the marketing strategy of Affiliate Prsogram of it

  • Will||

    I don't know if you people are being intentionally dense or if you are really this numbskulled. What she said makes perfect sense. You can't legalize minor amounts of possession and consumption and argue that you need to stop big distribution rings and suppliers. There's too much money in it i.e. you can't make watching movies and make indie flicks legal while outlawing big hollywood productions. There is just too much money in it for there to be no giants within the industry.

    She is in essence saying exactly what your arguments are and your boorish intelligence is too low to comprehend that.

    Another excellent article by Reason showing the average brainpower of its audience.

  • JohnLockeUSA||

    See Colorado - the power structure is protecting current dispensaries and controlling any new startups. Again government displays its corrupt alliance with select / favored businesses. Giants in any industry are a manifestation of an unholy alliance between themselves and government. How many giants of the marijuana industry would evolve If it were legal for the entire country to grown their own ? Think about it - how many Tomato cartels do we have now ??

  • ||

    IDIOT NOT ONLY VIOLENT CRIMINALS PROFIT OR ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL DRUG TRADE!!! SINCE THE OPIATE TRADE WARS GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN FIGHTING OVER CONTROL OF DRUG TRADE...AND TODAY IT'S NO DIFFERENT...THE MAJORITY OF DRUGS ARE TRAFFICKED BY GOVERNMENT...DRUGS ARE CONSUMED MORE THAN ANY PRODUCT ON PLANET...IMAGINE BEING ABLE TO SMUGGLE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRIES OIL SUPPLY....DUMMIES DRUGS ARE TRANSPORTED JUST.LIKE OIL STEEL COTTON WOOD TOBACCO ETC...SO WHO ELSE CAN FACILITATE SUCH MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PRODUCT FOR CONSUMPTION...DUH DUH DUH @ DUMMIES

  • dav||

    Legalizing drugs is not the best solutions. It can make big big problem for our teenage if we do that.

  • medicannabis1||

    ever hear of the 'American Slave Trade with For-Profit Prison Industry" in this nation..That is more harmful than any drug..period...

  • Stel||

    There is "too much money in it" BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT MAKE IT SO VALUABLE HILLARY!!

  • Pi Guy||

    Legalizing drugs is not the best solutions. It can make big big problem for our teenage if we do that.

    Because only teenages [sic] are tempted to use drugs? Aside from the [sic]s all over, I can tell that you've not given this matter much thought. Stick around if you want to learn something.

  • medicannabis1||

    I would like to propose that Sec Clinton take the time to have a discussion on medical cannabis programs and the ending of cannabis prohibition. She is being ill advised from those that profit from prohibition..and the progressives will not support ANYONE who supports cannabis prohibition. Please check out our website for our Veterans Program veteransforcompassionatecare.org/1 and then ask why any citizen legislator can support cannabis prohibtion..

    Please speak to those of us who understand the issues and not just playing politics...

  • LibertarianAmazon||

    So what Hillary is really saying is, to legalize it will take away a lot of black budget money away from the CIA flying tons of coke into this country.

  • ||

    I only now noticed the dates of the posts I was responding to. Quick on the draw, I am.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Hillary Clinton is right. Repealing drug prohibition isn't practical from the point of view of the political class because there's too much money in it for the military/law enforcement/prison industrial complex.

  • JohnLockeUSA||

    ...enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be;.....

    That argument for lower prices in reality will never happens as state and local governments replace the risk premium with new taxes... see Colorado - one report I read had prices about the same for black-market versus dispensaries. So users may be asking is there any real difference ??

  • ||

    Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

    Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

    I've read this three times, and I can't make any sense out of it. The question is, should we end the drug war? Her answer is, essentially, "that won't work, because people are making money. They have to be stopped."

    It's like thinks ending the drug war is being proposed as a way to end drug use. It's not. It's being proposed to get rid of the worst aspects of drug use, mainly, the ridiculous, violent, over-priced, black market system you get through so much wonderful, government intervention.

    So her answer is, "We can't stop the drug war. How would we stop people from getting high that way?" A total disconnect from reality. She just keep pretending the state can accomplish any goal it sets out with, never mind the past 40 years of direct evidence to the contrary. How no one calls her out on her bullshit amazes me.

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