Obama's Drug Habits
Jacob Sullum | January 3, 2007, 12:15pm
Barack Obama is attracting praise for his candid discussion of youthful drug use and even for his adult cigarette habit, both of which are said to humanize him and offer a welcome contrast to the sort of robotic overachiever—cough, Al Gore, cough, John Kerry—who has been planning his presidential campaign since grade school. If authenticity really does help you get elected, of course, more politicians will learn to fake it. But taking Obama at face value, it is indeed refreshing to hear a politician admit that he used illegal drugs and enjoyed them, rather than stonewalling à la Bush or lying like Clinton. Likewise, the senator's willingness to smoke in front of reporters suggests he is not utterly consumed by what other people think of him. Yet Obama's drug habits still follow the conventional narrative of sin and redemption. He calls smoking pot and snorting cocaine "dumb" "mistakes" leading down a road to "the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man" as a "pothead" and "junkie." And he reportedly has given up cigarettes, "except for the occasional lapse." I'm still waiting for the politician who is an unrepentant pot and tobacco smoker.
[Thanks to Gary Larson for the Dallas Morning News link.]
Nordic Ruminant | January 3, 2007, 3:46pm | #
andy:
What is your take on the WoD? Or on legalization issues?
It really does sound, when combining your first post with subsequent ones, that you're giving the equivalent of the "normally I like free speech, but..." argument.
Maybe those whose lives have been, um, enhanced with drugs might need new hobbies. But so what? How do you know? Their lives might be enriched. Just because you don't get enrichment that way doesn't leave anything. Hypothetically, let's say I don't get people who gain enrichment from gaming - besides being the Henry Rollins definition of a decorator, so what?
[humor] Besides your absolutely disgusting anti Hammer (both MC and carpenter's) stance, which makes this Moose worry about "teh chidrens", I do not see how Jacob's post is as you portray it.[/humor]
The first paragraph in your 1:01pm post could very well be true. However, as Jacob points out, that's an expected answer. It's the answer someone, at this point in time, has to give when talking about their experiences with illegal drugs. It may or may not be disingenuous, you're right.
The need to make that sort of statement, however, seems to cloud the discourse around legal/illegal drugs.
Think of it this way: we get into libertarian arguments where some have to put the standard disclaimer. Obama's words seem to be the drug user's disclaimer.
Warren: how about a politician that simply says, "yes I use[d] drugs" sans disclaimer.
But we'd have an atheist in the White House and Harvard will win the Rose Bowl before that. Oh - sorry Michiganders :)
"fight the team across the field..."
VikingMoose | January 3, 2007, 4:20pm | #
Right - and I asked you several times if that was the equivalent of "normally I'm in favor of free speech, but". It appears now as if that isn't the case. Thank you for clarifying that point!
Also agreed: you're entitled to your opinions on the matter. You also realize that James Ard felt that you were making bogus arguments with said opinion. We both agree that he's entitled to his.
You've stated that that's your opinion and experience with some drugs. Others have different opinions and different experiences. We agree that there's room for your and their opinions.
We're also different, I've never tried any illegal drug, so I cannot offer an opinion on the positive or negative experiences you all have had.
One legalization activist I spoke with (anecdote, not anything beyond it - it is a little relevant here) stated one reason behind his knee-jerk black/white reactions to the drug war (I asked him a question that was very similar to your observation about "reflexive defensive posture" - so we've both observed something like that), and it was the "get a life" attitude that others held.
Probably not the best way to go about it, but when insulted, people tend to insult or go defensive back.
You did here - you insulted DanT back, and you noted the school yard deterioration.
They're not hurting you with their choices of recreation (life enhancement??), and you're free to roll your eyes whenever people get overly (IMO) excited with every pot reference in the media, but maybe the eye rolling doesn't help further the discourse on this matter.
On the topic - Maybe Obama's regret for using drugs is real. Maybe not. Maybe it's just the standard line. However, with the current WoD and with the current discourse, we don't know. The words don't have any signal quality: they lost their "price" as it were.
We'll agree to disagree here, but on gentlemen terms - no name calling.
andy | January 3, 2007, 6:41pm | #
"I'd say the same thing about lsd and mdma of course, presuming we meant the same thing by "spiritually" (which we likely do not). i can understand the desire for euphoric evangelism and potential for very strong mindset changes, of course, but a picture of the castle is still a picture of the castle."
By "spiritual growth" I mean
1. Being able to achieve one's potential as a rational and emotional being
2. Being able to connect with and understand better other sentient creatures, particularly humans
3. Being able to connect with and understand better the universe
4. Understand the connection, including the more subtle manifestations of that connection, between all that is in existence and especially between all living beings
Certain drugs (as well as other practices) are conducive to the above goals. Other drugs, like cocaine... are not. Marijuana may seem to be, but any supposedly deep insights made while high are only profound because you're high. If you do have a real insight you'll forget it very shortly anyway. That's why I rag on people who do those drugs. It doesn't mean I won't be their friends, but I sure reserve the right to try to help them see their behavior more clearly. You may think that's pushy or whatever, but who here hasn't tried to convince a loved one to stop smoking? Why do we do that? Because, to us, smoking is not worth the advantages it confers. Likewise, to me, pot and coke are not worth the damage they do, even the small amount done by occasional use.
I've never got anyone to quit using tobacco, and I don't expect to get anyone to stop smoking weed, or shooting up or whatever else they may choose to do. I do factor those things into how much I choose to hang out with a person, and I would never go out with a girl who smoked pot or did coke regularly or who drank heavily for the simple fact that that would put her on a different spiritual plane than me. So it's not a trivial thing, VM, like "collecting stamps" or being a "video game person ( :] )." Again, people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies, but let's not pretend that whatever they do is necessarily on par with crochetting.
