The Dumbest Thing Ever Said! (by Hillary Clinton, about the Drug War)

Recently, during an interview with Mexico's Televisa, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the United States can't legalize drugs "because there is just too much money in it."

Apparently, Clinton doesn't understand that there's so much money to be made selling illegal drugs precisely because drugs are illegal.

Reason.tv uses Clinton's love of pant suits and Chardonnay to explain the economics of prohibition to the former presidential candidate.

Approximately 1.45 minutes.

Written and produced by Ted Balaker.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

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.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Oh please please please get the nomination. I want to see the media bend over backwards to defend her Iraq War vote, her support for the Drug War, and her support for the surveillance state.

    Maybe a master bullshit artist like Bill Clinton or Obama could get away with holding such an awful record, but Hillary is utterly uncharismatic charmless. The second she's attacked on her record she'll get even uglier.

  • Sevo||

    Grand Moff Serious Man|1.26.14 @ 1:06PM|#
    "Oh please please please get the nomination."

    Who do you think the GOP will nominate to lose to her?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Either someone crazy or equally charisma challenged. So Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul Ryan.

    She would likely lose to Jersey the Hutt, Rand, or Scott Walker. I say Christie could still beat her because it would be absurd for a Clinton to try to run on character which is what Christie's biggest weakness is.

  • John||

    Rand or Walker or Cruz will get the nomination. Santorum won't even run. He has no constituency, especially since Huckabe is running. I don't know why people on here are so obsessed with him. Fatso is too anti-gun to get the nomination. That leaves Cruz, Paul and Walker as the only ones with an actual shot. It will be one of those three.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I disagree about Cruz. Cruz is too inexperienced and benefited from the support Ron Paul created for him. The grassroots networking that put Cruz in the Senate would choose Rand over him since it originated from Ron Paul's presidential runs.

    Maybe in 2020 or 2024 he'll be more formidable but for now I see a contest between Rand and Scott Walker.

  • John||

    Cruz is beloved by the GOP base in a way that even Paul isn't. Cruz can capture the SOCON vote in a way Paul can't. Cruz is extremely formidable.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Cruz might be popular right now, but winning a primary comes down to money and networking and electability.

    Rand has a huge advantage in Iowa and New Hampshire left over from his dad's 2012 run. He's been busy making in-roads with donors and other GOP politicians.

    If Cruz runs he could tap into the socon vote with his background and credentials but if it's between him and Rand and Walker how is he going to attack Rand? They are pretty much identical on economic issues which means Cruz will have to out-socon both which would be suicidal given how so-con issues are poison for the GOP.

  • MSimon||

    The socon vote is being buried. At the rate of about a million a year. They are has beens heading for dead bins.

  • Pulseguy||

    Duh. She won't be attacked. It will be ignored. If you can ignore the possibility the President wasn't born in the US, and not even look into it, you can certainly ignore a vote from 14 years previously. Get over it...it is Hillary's turn. It is time for a woman. Bill got to be President. Why would you deny a woman?

    The reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln could get the Republican nomination and be made to look like a bad guy by the media. At some point he'll say one sentence somewhere that could be taken out of context and that would be it for him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That has only worked against Romney in recent times and that's because he was so weak.

  • Zeb||

    I will be really surprised if she gets the nomination. She just has too many negatives, even more since she's been secretary of state. She's old, lots of people hate her, she has along record full of scandals. I suppose it will depend a lot on who else runs for the Dems, but I just don't see it happening.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    From what I hear on the radio, Elizabeth Warren is being pushed as the other Dem that can really excite the base.

  • Zeb||

    Ugh. That's not better.

  • ||

    She's been in the Senate for all of what, 5 minutes?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    She's been in the Senate for all of what, 5 minutes?

    Hillary's record of running for President against first-term, low-accomplishment Senators isn't exactly stellar.

  • Mickey Rat||

    " I want to see the media bend over backwards to defend her Iraq War vote, her support for the Drug War, and her support for the surveillance state."

    Her defense for the first is that she is not a Republican, and the MSM rather support the latter two so no defense is required.

  • John Galt||

    Hey! "...utterly uncharismatic charmless..," aren't you forgetting something?

    Creepy, sociopathic, unbalanced, incapable, unqualified, negligent, quite possibly murderous and a great deal more.

    But it's all okay. If Ms Rodham Clinton is seated upon the throne I plan to become ostrich and just bury my head in the mud until she goes away.

  • OldMexican||

    Recently, during an interview with Mexico's Televisa, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the United States can't legalize drugs "because there is just too much money in it."


    But Secretary of State Clinton is being absolutely correct! The war on drugs exists because there's too much money in it, maninly the fabulously lavish budgets bestowed to a powerful enforcement arm of the federal government, and all those grants for ad campaigns and foreign aid to 'help' other countries fight against the cartels.

    Oh, there's quite a load of money, indeed, that would go away if drugs were legalized! She is right in the money.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I didn't see the entire quote but that's what I initially thought she meant. I don't know why I would think she would give so honest an answer.

  • John Galt||

    There were certainly alot of rumors floating around during the Clinton's first presidency concerning their profiteering the drug war from both ends. Stuck in my mind as one of the airports near where I lived at the time was allegedly involved. So people were discussing it.

    Of course nothing came of it. Rumors are just rumors. Without actual evidence, by themselves they are worth very little or nothing.

  • Irish||

    Rand Paul: Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.

    “I think, really, the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this,” Paul said. “He took advantage of a girl that was 20-years-old and an intern in his office.”

    “There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior and … we shouldn’t want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office,” he continued. “This isn’t having an affair … someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office.”
  • John||

    I love that. The only way the Democrats are going to stop with the "war on women" crap is to hold them to the same standards they claim to believe in. Hillary ought to absolutely have Monica shoved in her face. Her husband is everything Dems claim to hate and she stood by him and did everything she could to keep him from facing any responsibility for his behavior.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    More Rand: Women are winning the 'War on Women'

    "The whole thing of the 'war on women,' I sort of laughingly say, 'Yeah, there might have been - but the women are winning it,'" the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union." He said women have made great strides and, as an example, now make up more than half the students at medical and law schools.

    "I think women are doing very well, and I'm proud of how far we've come," the potential 2016 presidential candidate continued.

    "And I think some of the victimology and all of this other stuff is trumped up. We don't get to any good policy by playing some sort of charade that somehow one party doesn't care about women or one party is not in favor of women advancing, or other people advancing."

    As the GOP gears up for the 2014 midterms, some in the party have acknowledged that Republican candidates could do better when it comes to talking about women's issues.

    CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, pressed Paul on whether the issue is a "matter of words and tone."

    "Somewhat," Paul said. "I think also a lot of the debates we have in Washington and in the public, generally, are dumbed down. They're characterized and we get to the point where we're talking about stuff and throwing stuff back and forth, and we are never getting to the truth."
  • Irish||

    "Somewhat," Paul said. "I think also a lot of the debates we have in Washington and in the public, generally, are dumbed down. They're characterized and we get to the point where we're talking about stuff and throwing stuff back and forth, and we are never getting to the truth."

    Far too reasonable to be president.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    LOL at this comment:

    ThinkAgain - Feminism is the radical idea that women are people, too
    What's laughable is Rant's willful ignorance. Here are some facts regarding women's wages vs men's; I don't call this a "win":

    - The median annual earnings for full-time, year-round women workers in 2012 was $37,791 compared to men’s $49,398.

    - In 2012, the median weekly earnings for full-time working women was $691, compared to $854 for men.

    - In 2012, the median weekly earnings for women in full-time management, professional, and related occupations was $951, compared to $1,328 for men.

    - In 2011, full-time working married women with spouses present had median usual weekly earnings of $741, somewhat higher than never married women ($595) or women of other marital status (divorced, separated, or widowed – $662).

    - In 2011, full-time working married men with spouses present had median usual weekly earnings of $955, significantly higher than never married men ($614) or men of other marital status ($804).

    - In 2012, Asian women who were full-time wage and salary workers had higher median weekly earnings than women of all other races/ethnicities as well as African-American and Latino men

    Don't those last two talking points undermine her essential point that there is systemic discrimination against women? Why are Asian women and married persons better off compared to singletons and other races?

  • Irish||

    Notice how these dipshits never compare like to like? They never say 'what is a female doctor with the same credentials at the same hospital making when compared to the men?'

    They make vague statements about women in 'full-time management and professional occupations.' It's pretty obvious that they could still work less overtime than the men and are also probably working in different kinds of professional positions that are just lower paying.

    What they're really arguing is that women should be paid the same as men even if women work easier jobs and fewer hours.

  • Pulseguy||

    I have a lot of wealthy friends. A lot of their wives play/work. They really didn't like being home with the kids, and they wanted to prove they were as valuable as their husbands, most of whom were killing themselves working, so they became realtors, supposedly full-time, but not really. Or, interior designers, because they like to shop. And, so on.

    They get tossed into the mix.

    A friend of mine was a sales manager at a car dealership. His wife was the receptionist. He talked her into trying sales, and in about 3 months she was the top salesperson and making $100gs a year. But, he was making $150,000. She didn't like the pressure and she liked the flexible hours being the receptionist, so she quite being a salesperson and went back to being a part-time receptionist, making $12 an hour. She gets counted in the stats.

  • Mickey Rat||

    True, married women have more practical freedom of choice in whether or not they pursue professional ambitions than single women or men in general. The ones who ambitions are limited to an intellectual pursuit are counted in with those who are trying to succeed at all costs.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Or, interior designers, because they like to shop.

    As a designer can I just say, Fuck You?

  • Virginian||

    As a designer can I just say, Fuck You?

    But you're a real professional. He's talking about the wives of wealthy men who decide they want to start a "business". So they get a real estate license or start decorating or doing event planning or even get a small shop of some kind. But often these businesses are hobbies, not real businesses that the family depends on.

  • TheSpiteHouse||

    Only if you choose the most effective font possible.

  • What's that smell?||

    no

  • MSimon||

    Sure. Where can I meet you?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "What they're really arguing is that women should be paid the same as men even if women work easier jobs and fewer hours."

    You are absolutely correct, but they are not dipshits, they are propagandists. They know that such statistics are not going to be explored in political debate to the depth that you are talking about.

  • John||

    On even numbered days women are oppressed and have no chance in society. The odd numbered days women are out performing men so much that men are now obsolete.

  • Dweebston||

    On days ending in y, pointing out logical disparities means you Just Don't Get It, and on such occasions they Just Can't Deal with explaining how ignorant you are, because it's Not Their Responsibility to educate you.

  • Killaz||

    ThinkAgain is an apt name for someone who got fucked over by their degree in hate studies and thought it was ticket to the HR department of a major corporation. Those spots are strictly set aside through nepotistic agreements of political players and big business that want their favor. The bullshit degree is just cover, not a ticket.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Rand continues to impress me with his preparations and armor-building. He has a very good sense of just what to prep for and how to do it. Positive and proactive not negative and reactionary.

  • Boisfeuras||

    CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, pressed Paul on whether the issue is a "matter of words and tone."

    No, the issue is that the press is an unabashed leftist propaganda machine, with her fat carcass being a living embodiment of that.

  • Pulseguy||

    That kind of comment is over the top. I like Rand, but those sorts of comments make him look stupid. The guy had the most stressful job in the entire world, he was married to a shrew who by all accounts is a lesbian, and he had oral sex with a 20 year old who was dying to have oral sex with him. She still looks back on that day with fondness. He didn't take advantage of her. Plus, cut him some slack, he wasn't getting any at home, he can't date openly, and he needed some stress relief.

    Women know this, too. They won't admit it to guys, but they all know they would have been down on their knees if they had a shot at the President of the US, in a heartbeat.

  • John||

    You don't deal with stress by getting blowjobs from fat 20 something interns in your office. There isn't a corporation in America who wouldn't have fired their CEO for that. And Clinton set himself up to be blackmailed by anyone who happened to figure out what was going on.

    And Clinton had a history of demanding sex from and harassing female subordinates.

  • Zeb||

    Getting blown by Monica was stupid. And lots of evidence supports the idea that Bill is a sexual predator of sorts. But Monica Lewinsky is a bad example to support that idea. She clearly was after exactly what happened.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Your logic seems to be:
    she was there, she wanted it.
    he didn't take advantage.

  • Irish||

    If it had been a Republican they would call him a sexual predator. That isn't even taking into account all of the other indiscretions Clinton was involved in, including accusations of actual sexual harassment.

    I think he does have a history that makes him look like a sexual predator. Regardless, pointing out the Democrats' hypocrisy is perfectly legitimate.

  • Pulseguy||

    Pointing out the hypocrisy is legit, and I agree if it had been George Bush, Leno and Letterman would still be making jokes about it, and it would still magically come up about 30 times a month in NY Times articles.

    But, the guy is not a sexual predator. Ask your wives if they would sleep with him right now, given a chance. Next to Mick Jagger the guy probably has more women hit on him than any other woman.

    This obsession with sex is weird. We all do it. Almost no one is 100% faithful. And, yeah, you do deal with stress by getting blow jobs. I do anyway.

  • Pulseguy||

    ...than any other man...

  • Dweebston||

    I don't think anyone disagrees, but the point of contention is how he handled the aftermath (lying under oath, obfuscating, making a spectacle of himself) and, more importantly, how his party handled it (rallying behind him and thereby contravening all of their ostensibly sacred beliefs regarding young women and men in power).

  • Tony||

    If that's so, why is it that all the Republicans who sleep around get an all-out pardon pretty much immediately? (Unless it's a gay thing.)

  • theTwitchyHuntress||

    yes, women know this. I'm willing to admit that Monica seemed rather eager to give Bill a hummer in the oval orifice, but please do not categorize all women this way. Some of us DO still have a moral compass. I wouldn't get down on my knees if I had a shot with the president, gross, eww. Yes, humans are sexual beings, but even a subpar sexlife at home does not give him the excuse to seek BJs at work, especially when serving his country.

    As for the war on women: I noticed most of the people commenting about it, aren't women at all (and the ones that are, seem to want to make victims out of the rest of us). Not only am I a woman, I am a woman living with a disability (epilepsy). I feel we've made great strides in our country regarding our civil liberties (for females and racial minorities anyway). You can throw out whatever random facts you wish, they may even be accurate. I'd be lying if I said I didn't experience at least a wee bit of discrimination in my experiences in business management. But before you engage in an all out "War on Women", do realize that in the eyes of many professional women (such as myself), we have made great strides in comparison to much more oppressed societies. We're given opportunities in management, entrepreneurial opportunities, we're given many opportunities and choices that a lot of women aren't offered in other cultures, for that I am very thankful. I like being a lady!

  • Irish||

    I agree that women get stereotyped and discriminated against to a degree. It's just that the arguments of the WAR ON WOMYN! folk are absurd and tend to be more about whining about their pathetic lives than advancing reasonable arguments.

    Example: It is not a war on women to argue that women shouldn't get free birth control paid for by somebody else. In that case, I'm anti-theft, not anti-women.

    Also, the majority of the difference in pay between men and women isn't the result of discrimination. It's because women tend to work fewer hours than men and go into different careers that often don't pay as much.

  • theTwitchyHuntress||

    I agree with your last statement...there are many different variables to take into consideration when dealing with statistics. Women do generally work less hours and choose different careers (by choice), which is why I don't fully trust the figures that are being laid out in front of me. In my experiences in management, I came to find out I got paid the exact same amount as my male counterparts. Furthermore, I just think these ridiculous 'wars' we bring to the public in our country are fabricated nonsense. The War on Women, the War on the Poor, the War on Blacks. It's all bologna. Ungrateful shrews like Hilary Clinton wouldn't last a day in a middle eastern country. As if she has any idea what it's like to be poor or oppressed in any sense. She probably created the War on Women in order to fund her Pant Suit obsession. All I'm saying is, I think these made up wars only prevent us from progressing as a society.

  • Dweebston||

    Worse yet is the political proclivity to resolve such Wars by declaring new Wars: the WoD, WoT, WoP. It's like we've learned nothing from Bolshevism or Chinese communism incarnated in their various imposed revolutions.

    I take it back, we did learn something: there's always political currency in declaring enemies and then inciting violence, whether it's actual personal conflict or simply abetting new progressive tax schemes, burdensome restrictions on propertied classes, capital controls, regulatory regimes. It never solves anything, but it delivers votes.

  • Tony||

    Sex is brief. A good story lasts forever.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "They won't admit it to guys, but they all know they would have been down on their knees if they had a shot at the President of the US, in a heartbeat."

    That is some low misogynistic view you have of women. Wait...that argument sounds familiar...is that you, Bill Maher?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Plus, cut him some slack, he wasn't getting any at home, he can't date openly, and he needed some stress relief."

    He signed laws making suits against this kind of behavior easier. It was at a point in time when the Left was saying that sexual harassment and hostile work environments were The Most Important Issue In The World.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Here, I think, is the key. He made it easier for plaintiffs in sex abuse cases, permitting broad discovery into a defendant's sexual history. Yet he seemed to think the law he signed was about other people, not him. He signed a law renewing the Independent Counsel statute, but in his mind he was just making a statement against corruption by other people, not himself. If the only witch-hunts enabled by his actions were against other people, he would not have cared. But let the laws he signed be turned against him, and OMG, how oppressive that I'm under the same laws as the plebes!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The median annual earnings for full-time, year-round women workers in 2012 was $37,791 compared to men’s $49,398.

    Random "factoids" are random.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    These boots were made for licking.

    The TSA also recapped some vignettes of the year it describes as “notable incidents,” including one at Hartford’s Bradley airport, which I personally fly from about almost twice a month, wherein the Advanced Imaging Technology (aka body scan) found a .38 automatic loaded with eight rounds in an ankle holster of one passenger attempting to board. Next time someone complains about these “intrusive” scans I’ll think of that guy, who could have been on my flight.

    -----

    All of this is a reminder that when we stand on those lines and take off our shoes off there is a reason, and if you read the 2013 TSA report, you will see there is a reason pretty much every day, at airports big and small, from Atlanta to Alaska.

    That gun could have jumped off that guy's ankle and hijacked the plane!

  • ||

    Please protect me TSA! From all things scary and terrible, like other people and life itself! Oops, I just wet my pants! Can I go to the bathroom, TSA? Please?

  • John||

    The gun could have hijacked the plan Episiarch. Don't you understand that?

  • ||

    Maybe someday they'll invent something that can detect metal without irradiating you or producing a picture of your body.

    For now, though, you must suffer until such a "metal detector" comes to pass.

  • deepspeed||

    Totally worth the 7 billion dollars and complete invasion of privacy.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I call bullshit. A quick google search turns up a woman arrested in October and a 81 year old man in August 2012 at the Hartford airport. Both had guns found in carryons by TSA and both were charged with circumventing airport security. So why isn't there a news story about this supposed March 2013 incident, other than a TSA sourced article in USA Today and then a follow-on HuffPo story all in July 2013?

    An ankle holster to me sounds like a) a test of TSA screeners or b) a LEO. Those aren't the most comfortable thing in the world and not something you'd forget about like say a carryon. You have to deliberately and consciously put it on, and you did so knowing you're going to the airport? And then there's no news report at the time and no arrest made? Total BS.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It could have gone off and depressurized the plane. He shouldn't have done that.

  • Mark22||

    You don't understand. What she meant is:

    "because there is just too much money in it [for politically powerful supporters of myself and the Democrats]."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That is an incredibly creepy image.

    I dread to consider what else happened.

  • Dweebston||

    Didn't you hear?

    Nothing Else Happened.

  • american socialist||

    Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. Given the choice between her and Rand Paul? Well, ok I'd vote for her. This video sucks. The tone is demeaning and obnoxious. It's no wonder libertarians get 1% of the vote. Who would want the such a swell head in public office?

  • Cytotoxic||

    WAH WAH

  • ||

    This video sucks. The tone is demeaning and obnoxious.

    So Mary, do you have any new videos?

  • american socialist||

  • Mark22||

    Is there a point to this? Do you think this kind of non-issue will convince people not to vote for Paul? For all I care, Paul can read the entire entry on Libertarianism from Wikipedia word for word in his speech.

  • Tony||

    President Hillary will not hold onto any drug war convictions in the face of rapidly changing public attitudes on the matter. She likely doesn't have any such convictions.

  • Jayburd||

    I wish I didn't have any drug convictions.
    What I want to know is,,, if Hillary gets elected, who will screen bimbos for Bill? And who will handle eruptions.

  • Jayburd||

    Oh, wait, the Secret Service has already done the advanced work.

  • RishJoMo||

    Comeon man lets roll that beautiful bean footage!

    www.Anon-VPN.com

  • Paul Pot||

    If she wants to be Prez she is going to have to change the tune she's singing.

  • Malcolm Kyle||

    Fight Prohibition with Jury Nullification!

    Juries, and their authority to nullify bad laws, exist as a last safeguard against tyrannical governments and their oppressive laws—those that are imposed by cowardly and corrupt politicians against the will of the population.

    When called for jury duty on a case concerning a drug violation with no overt act of violence, do not convict! If the offender is non-violent, do not send them to prison! Another person in a federal or state prison for drugs is not going to make society any better or our families any safer, in fact, it WILL do the exact opposite.

    * It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict.

    * You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention, ether before or after taking your seat on a jury.

    * You are also not required to give a reason to your fellow jurors on your position when voting—simply state that you find the accused not guilty.

    * Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. It is of no consequence If the Judge or the other jurors disapprove; there is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.

    "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
    —SAMUEL CHASE, 1804

    "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
    —John Adams, 2nd US President

  • ||

    The Hillary Head Planet is the creepiest sci-fi image I have ever seen! Where is the Genesis Device when you need it?

  • geo1113||

    I was about to say that until I realized that all pictures of Hilary are pretty much that creepy!

  • pob||

    my neighbor recently bought a stunning gold Lexus GS 350 Sedan just by parttime work from a laptop... navigate to this site W­ o­ r­ k­ s­ 7­ 7­ .­ C­ O­ M­

  • pob||

    my best friend's sister makes $66/hour on the laptop. She has been without work for five months but last month her pay was $14280 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can try here W­ o­ r­ k­ s­ 7­ 7­ .­ C­ O­ M­

  • cheap kits||

    “I think, really, the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this,” Paul said. “He took advantage of a girl that was 20-years-old and an intern in his office.” Ha, Mr President

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

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