Biden Opens His Government Aperture and Says Something Puzzling About Drug Legalization

Visiting Mexico yesterday, Vice President Joseph Biden was asked about drug legalization as a response to prohibition-related violence, which has killed nearly 50,000 people in that country since the end of 2006:

"It's worth discussing, but there is no possibility the Obama/Biden administration will change its policy on [drug] legalization," he said after meeting with President Felipe Calderon....

Biden's trip [to Mexico and Honduras] takes place amid unprecedented pressure from political and business leaders to talk about decriminalizing drugs. The presidents of Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia and Mexico have said in recent weeks they'd like to open up the discussion of legalizing drugs.

"It is a totally legitimate debate and it's worth debating in order to lay to rest some of the myths that are associated with the notion of legalization," Biden said. "The debate always occurs, understandably, in the context of serious violence that occurs with the society, particularly in societies that don't have the institutional framework and the structure to deal with organized, illicit operations."

The vice president said, however, that legalization would be unworkable "unless you are going to not only legalize but you are going to provide a government apertures for the distribution of the drugs."

Really? After alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933, the business was mostly taken over by private enterprise, and the remaining state monopolies seem to be on the way out. Why do the currently illicit intoxicants require "government apertures"? At least Biden did not claim that the drug trade cannot be legalized because there is too much money in it.

[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the tip.]

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.

  • ||

    Is Biden the stupidest VP ever?

  • Wait ||

    ... What about .... hmmm ... never mind, yes, in fact he is.

  • shrike||

    Quayle is, you fucking idiot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why can't they both be stupid, shrike?

    Hell, *I* can see they both are... surely you have enough brain matter to suss that one out.

  • ||

    Quayle always seemed more inexperienced and lost than flat-out stupid. Biden is completely idiotic.

  • shrike||

    How dare you insult Joe Biden, you fucking Christ-fag.

  • shrike||

    Biden could grill a SCOTUS appointee for hours on jurisprudence without notes. He may have been impolitic but few in the Senate could do that.

    Quayle is like Palin - can't name a SCOTUS decision.

  • [Citation needed]||

    "Quayle is like Palin - can't name a SCOTUS decision."

    [Citation needed]

  • ||

  • ||

    Which did he vote against?

  • shrike||

    He took that liberty hating Bork out - he deserves a goddamn Medal of Freedom just for that.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then why didn't he do the same thing when Sotomayor was on the stand applying for her lifetime job?

    Bork's a prick, but she's no better.

  • ||

    The magic Latina is great compared to Kegan. And while he was rejecting Bork he was giving a pass to Suiter and Ginsburg.

    God Shrike is fucking stupid.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I should have asked shrike why Biden didn't do his brilliant due-diligence tapdance with Kagan, too.

    But, yeah, you're right... Biden is partially responsible for putting Souter and Ginsberg on the bench, so he and shrike are equally fucking stupid.

  • shrike||

    You can't spell "Kagan" you fucking buttwipe idiot.

    Biden should have taken Clarence Thomas out - another liberty hater hiding behind this fucking LIE called "Originalism".

  • ||

    Biden didn't did he? If you would get your tongue out of team blue's ass once in a while, you might be able to think straight.

    You are the most pathetic poster on here. I really wish you were a troll Shrike. But you are not. You are real.

  • ||

    You can't punctuate, you reach-around shirker.

  • shrike||

    ...which makes me a nigger-hater, but that's okay... it's for a good cause.

  • Juice||

    Souter and Ginsberg are dopes, but Bork was on a whole other planet.

  • Shrike®||

    This judgment of intelligence brought to you by Shrike®, your tested leader in blog thread trolls.

  • ||

    He's one of the stupidest politicians ever, regardless of slot.

    RAVE Act anyone?

  • Juice||

    Uh, how about the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986? That's what brought us federal asset forfeiture laws. Biden was a big part of that.

  • It is now official||

    Even Pat Robertson is more open minded and sensible than Joe Biden.

  • But||

    At least he's being honest that Obama & Friends are never backing down, instead of laughing it off as Obama has done countless times. People should know where the administration stands.

  • ||

    He is fucking retarded, or evil, and mostly likely both.

  • ||

    Definitely both.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do the currently illicit intoxicants require "government apertures"?

    By giving the government the monopoly the black market (and associated violence) will stay alive, thus confirming that legalization does not work and prohibition is the only option.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "It's worth discussing, but there is no possibility the Obama/Biden administration will change its policy on [drug] legalization," he said after meeting with President Felipe Calderon....

    "A discussion that amounts to pointless exercise, which is why they sent me."

  • ||

    I love that quote. Translated:

    "Talk all you want. I don't care; I won't do a damn thing no matter what you say."

  • ||

    "It's worth discussing, except it's not."

  • ||

    This reminds me of that bit in Foundation, where they ran the text of an Imperial representative's speech through a computer and found it totally devoid of meaning.

  • ||

    "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."

  • ||

    "What this administration is interested in is pointless talk about things we don't care about and total obedience without dissent for things we do care about."

  • Joe M||

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

  • mr simple||

    "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

  • ||

    I was wondering if that statement sounded as stupid in Spanish.

  • ||

    Vale la pena discutir, pero no hay ninguna posibilidad de que el gobierno de Obama/Biden va a cambiar su política de legalización de las drogas.

  • ||

    Is that yes or no?

  • ||

    Si.

  • ||

    Biden was disappointed he couldn't take a train to Mexico.

  • Jose Rodriguez||

    Because Obama and Biden are leaders of a morally degenerate political party that seeks totalitarian control to enforce their vision of "justice". Because their opponents don't have the brains to understand the "war on X" leads to less freedom and the same amount of crime.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not to mention Barry building an enemies' list, the SPLC building an enemies' list, General Dynamics getting taxpayer money to build yet another enemies' list, and that Team Blue could be doing more to rescind the "patriot" Act, among other things...

    ...but they won't. No need to wonder why.

  • New Low Life Insurance Rates||

    Fax this form to 973-415-1269

  • ||

    What form? Hey, almost got me there!

  • Obviously||

    He means fax the words "this form" to the number provided.

  • Low Life Raston Bot||

    I need a rate quote on my skeezy low life bro-in-law.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because their opponents don't have the brains to understand the "war on X" leads to less freedom and the same amount of crime.

    Both political parties view that as a feature, not a bug.

    It means they can take away more and more freedom in the name of reducing crime, and when crime remains the same it's because they didn't do enough.
    Repeat ad nauseum.

  • Barack the Jaunty Future King||

    Let Me be clear, again.

    Like I said in the *gag* "individual liberty" *puke* thread, you tiny-minded herd animals need to stop grousing about freedom. You have far too much of it as it is.

    Oh, and vote for me in November. I'll give you lots of free stuff in return.

  • ||

    'Apetures'? Are they like beer spigots? For weed?

    So many questions when Crazy Joe talks.

  • ||

    Aperture was on his "Word-a-day" toilet paper for his morning Amtrak dump.

  • Joe M||

    "It is a totally legitimate debate and it's worth debating in order to lay to rest some of the myths that are associated with the notion of legalization," Biden said.

    Yeah, like dogs and cats living together, for starters.

  • ||

    Biden's notion that drugs would need to be sold through government "apertures" reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of how Kruschev was surprised during his visit to the US that everyone had good quality shoes because there was no government system to supply them.

  • shrike||

    How dare you speak ill of a great man like Nikita Khrushchev.

  • ||

    i assume this is a spoof. But shrike is such a crazy fuck, you can never tell.

  • shrike||

    If Nikita were alive today, I would soooo suck his cock.

  • Tony||

    Me first, I hate sloppy seconds...

    Just kidding I don't really care.

  • ||

    I wonder how much of shrike is spoof. Every now and then he doesn't come off as a raving lunatic and seems kind of reasonable.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    You have to give him credit for coining the term "Christfag", which still makes me giggle.

  • ||

    Actually, I would think that from Kruschev's point of view everyone had good quality shoes in spite of there being no government system to supply them rather than "because there was no government system to supply them".

    In my observation both the USA and Canada seem to have lots of people who believe that everything comes about because the government decreed it.

  • ||

    No Isaac. The top communists still believed in central planning back then. Kurschev honestly believed the American economy was controlled by a secret headquarters somewhere.

  • ||

    And that right there is why anyone who takes communism seriously is nuts. The whole thing is based on a completely fantastic picture of how the world works.

  • mr simple||

    The causal relationship implied in his statement is between no government system and his surprise, not no government system and everyone having shoes.

  • ||

    In my observation both the USA and Canada seem to have lots of people who believe that everything comes about because the government decreed it.

    Fortunately, the NDP has not held power federally since the defacto Liberal-NDP coalition during the Trudeau minority government 1974 - 1976.

    Unfortunately, they are now the official opposition and could form the next government if Harper really blows it.

  • Bradley||

    They are morons economically, but I would welcome at least some different thinking on civil liberties. Harpo is 100% committed to the drug war and the security state and it's getting hard to take.

  • ||

    "It is a totally legitimate debate and it's worth debating in order to lay to rest some of the myths that are associated with the notion of legalization,"

    "Have I told you recently how little your concerns matter to us?"

  • ||

    "It's worth discussing, but there is no possibility the Obama/Biden administration will change its policy on [drug] legalization," he said...

    If he says "Obama/Biden administration" often enough, he might feel he's important.

  • ||

    I read it as "Obama/Bush administration"

  • ||

    It is the Obama/Bush administration, but that name is classified.

  • The Other Kevin||

    What was that about some president being a cowboy and doing whatever he feels like without regard to other countries?

  • ||

    societies that don't have the institutional framework and the structure to deal with organized, illicit operations

    Like America?

  • ||

    "It's worth discussing, but there is no possibility the Obama/Biden administration will change its policy on [drug] legalization," he said after meeting with President Felipe Calderon....

    So basically he told the President of our neighbor and embattled ally to go fuck himself the prison guard union money means more than the stability of Mexico.

    Now that is smart diplomacy for you.

  • ||

    The vice president said, however, that legalization would be unworkable "unless you are going to not only legalize but you are going to provide a government apertures for the distribution of the drugs."

    Single payer drug use?

  • Tman||

    "Biden opens his-"

    No need to read further.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Biden Dies in Fire" would make a better headline.

  • ||

    Not a chance.

    He'd smother it with empty words.

  • ||

    Really? So that's why "revenuers" were so hated -- because the federal gov't had no say in how alcohol was manufactured or distributed after prohibition.

  • ||

    Oh, and then there's the liquor licenses required in every state, and states like PA and NH that have state liquor stores, and there are dry towns and counties -- but government has no say in how alcohol is manufactured or distributed.

  • ||

    The Constitutional Amendment repealing prohibition allowed the states way too much latitude.

  • mr simple||

    Please point to where he said the government has no say. Or do you not know what aperture means?

  • rather||

  • ||

    That is true. And it is not just true for heroin users. It is true for alcoholics as well. See for example people like Louis Armstrong and Bing Crosby who lived to old age smoking weed every day and people like Richard Burton who were drunks and didn't.

  • Sparky||

    I'm detecting the need for a new start-up company called Aperture Science. Maybe they could find a shower curtain salesman to get things going.

  • Loki||

    I thought the "government aperture" was the hole the government likes to stick it in.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Biden's government aperture?

    I'd say all of his apertures are government.

  • ||

    Biden says, "Yes, by all means there should be a debate. No drug legalization ever, end of debate, shut the fuck up."

  • nimrodr||

    Alas. He's been palling around the socialist administration too long ... agev them time to play the Jedi mind trick on good ol' "say it ain't so" Joe.

  • David||

    What a government orifice.

  • Eiki Martinson||

    Aperture Science:
    We do what we must, because we can.
    For the good of all of us
    except the ones who are dead!

  • NL_||

    Joe Biden, unlike President Obama, is clearly not a fan of season 3 of The Wire.

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