Obama's Attorney General on Drugs
David Weigel | November 19, 2008, 10:21am
President-elect Obama has tapped Eric Holder, Jr for attorney general, and most of the opposition thus far has centered around Holder's role in the
eleventh hour Clinton pardons. I get bored just typing about that. I'm much more worried about
what Holder wanted to do 12 years ago, when he was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.
"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.
Now, people arrested in the District and charged with distributing marijuana, even large quantities, face only misdemeanor charges, a standard that has sparked repeated complaints by police officers.
He also told the Washington Post that "the District could learn from New York's 'zero-tolerance' policy." I wonder what people in the drug policy reform movement, who have so far been (relatively) optimistic about Obama, think of this.
(Hat tip: Ben Masel.)
Famous Mortimer | November 20, 2008, 1:33am | #
"What's sad is that Obama was sold and is perceived by many as something different, when, in fact, he's just a face for the machine and even less independent than Bush or, for that matter, Clinton. The proof of that is confirmed with each hack appointment."
He was not elected to end the war on drugs, or to grant any Libertarian wish for that matter.
We get it, he's not Libertarian. The people who voted for him did not expect him to be Libertarian. In fact, if he was billed as being a Libertarian, then he would not have been elected.
If Libertarianism is the only established standard, then your commentary becomes fairly pointless because every non-Libertarian person will fit this profile.
Sometimes I wonder if many of you understand politics. Your expectations seem woefully naive.
People aren't going to take you seriously if this is how you respond to every single person who enters office. It's wasted energy, and shows a clear lack of maturity.
If you want to change things then get off the computer and become a catalyst. The Libertarian philosophy could not be that important to you, since you clearly don't do anything meaningful to promote it. How could you? You have to spend that time arguing with people who already agree with you.
I doubt many Libertarians vote, but somehow they expect people who do vote to elect someone of their standards. Talk about laziness.
I constantly see all of this talk about the productive vs. the non-productive on here, and I am left to wonder what many of you are doing with your lives? You can't be doing much since you're on here a lot of the time. So, what is it that you're doing that should be considered so productive?
What, you have a job? Most people have jobs. If that's your standard of productivity, then I know batshit crazy leftists who are more productive than you.
Internet Libertarians are nothing more than coddled, middle to upper class wimps too precious to get their hands dirty.
Ivory Keyboards 'n all.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
