Drug War

Democrats Attack Republicans for Being Soft on Pot

|

Jacob Sullum blogged about the strange belief on the part of many pundits, Democrats, and alas fans of liberalized pot laws that the Democratic Party is their friend. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because "Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it "green gift of God" on a regular basis to "relax" and is a member of the Free State movement. (Nashua Telegraph, 3/2/2007)  He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love."

Pot legalization would make a sweet way for the GOP in general to make a sternly fiscally responsible case for drug war sanity, and maybe maybe maybe just maybe (but probably not) shear off some young potential Democrat votes. Alas, that's a strategy only a Ron Paul might embrace, for the most part.

NEXT: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving Abuse of 'Material Witness' Statute

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.

  1. It will be interesting to see if it helps the republicans.

    Good Morning Suki

  2. I still maintain that it will be conservative leaning SCOTUS justices that will eventually revoke the Commerce Clause precedence from Gonzalez V Raich in order to let the states regulate controlled substances.

    Prop 19 will be a shot across the bow, but until SCOTUS has to revisit its explanation for why growing a plant in your basement for your own personal use that your own state has declared legal for you to do is somehow affecting “interstate commerce”.

    It’s doubtful that Republicans will ever get their party leaders to embrace ending the drug war, but you live in a fantasy land if you think democrats are really that much different when it comes down to it.

    And none of that matters anyways, until SCOTUS revisits Gonzales V Raich.

    1. I doubt that, my man.

      Of the three that chose repudiating Wickard over punching a hippie, two have retired.

      There’s only one “conservative” on the court left.

      Everybody else on the court is a 1900’s Progressive at their most conservative or, more likely, lefter.

      1. I think libertarians need to understand that republicans are more likely to support fundamental individual liberties and elect judges that will uphold these principles. I agree that social conservatism is a boogey-man, but if you look at it liberals aren’t that much different from a social standpoint. They just want to regulate your social lives in a different way.

        1. Dude, I’m looking at what actually happened.

          Do you think that Alito would have voted with Rehnquist or O’Connor? Roberts? I certainly don’t. They would have signed with Scalia. It would have been an 8-1 decision.

          1. Do you mean with Wickard or Raich? None of the current SCOTUS judges were on the bench for Wickard.

            1. Does my comment make sense if you assume I meant Raich?

              If it does, why would you assume that I might have meant Wickard instead?

              1. I’m not assuming anything, just trying to clarify. So what you’re saying is that they had to chance to repudiate Wickard with the Raich case, and as you said “Of the three that chose repudiating Wickard over punching a hippie, two have retired.”- which I agree.

                Which is why I make the point that conservative justices are more likely to repudiate Raich and Wickard and by extension re-limiting federal powers under the Commerce clause, which is why it’s ridiculous to think that Democrats will ever get behind justices that want to repudiate said precedents.

                1. I agree that conservative justices are more likely to repudiate Raich and Wickard.

                  My point is that the set of “conservative justices on the SCotUS” contains one, and only one, justice.

                  1. If Obama gets to appoint another SCOTUS judge you could almost -actually never mind, that’s just too depressing to think about.

                  2. I believe the preferred conservative term now is refudiate.

  3. “green gift of God” that’s hilarious

    1. Well, everything is a gift from God, including those elephants dancing around my room . . .

  4. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because “Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it “green gift of God” on a regular basis to “relax” and is a member of the Free State movement. (Nashua Telegraph, 3/2/2007) He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love.”

    Kids, how do you spell “political expediency”?

    D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-A-R-T-Y, Miss!

  5. someone get the aqua buddha and meet me at 420 pm to discuss individual liberty and freedom from the federal government intrusion into my life.

  6. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because “Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it “green gift of God” on a regular basis to “relax” and is a member of the Free State movement. He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love.”

    Ok, children, how do you spell “political expediency”?

    D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-A-R-T-Y, teacher!!

  7. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because “Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it “green gift of God” on a regular basis to “relax” and is a member of the Free State movement. He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love.”

    Ok, children, how do you spell “political expediency”?

    D E M O C R A T I C P A R T Y, teacher!!

  8. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because “Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it “green gift of God” on a regular basis to ‘relax’ and is a member of the Free State movement. He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love.”

    Ok, children, how do you spell “political expediency”?

    D E M O C R A T S, teacher!!

  9. A group of New Hampshire Democrats, in a web site dedicated to attacking their statewide Republican opponents, slams a candidate for alderman in Manchester, Phil Greazzo, because “Greazzo uses Marijuana, or as he terms it “green gift of God” on a regular basis to ‘relax’ and is a member of the Free State movement. He is a candidate only Ron Paul could love.”

    Political expediency, anyone?

  10. Why the Dems are swimming against the current on this is mystifying, from a purely tactical perspective.

    Here they’ve got an issue where they can credibly separate themselves from the Repubs, and on the side of the issue that is gaining traction, and instead they want to make damn sure they’re on the wrong side, with their bitter enemies.

    1. Why the Dems are swimming against the current on this is mystifying, from a purely tactical perspective.

      They’re not. They’re swimming with the current– the political current, that is.

      We have this here two party system, and if both parties don’t want to legalize marijuana, then essentially there’s nothing to lose by taking this position.

      I say again, the Democrats can continue to take the pro-pot vote for granted. They can continue to enjoy the pro-pot vote while continuing to fight it because they know the pro-pot vote has nowhere else to go.

      Pro-pot voters are a bit like the libertarians of old: we kept pulling the lever for Republicans because they talked a half-hearted game on size-of-government and fiscal responsibility issues. They took our vote for granted because Democrats never even talked a size-of-government game, except to increase it.

      Until there’s a viable (and I mean viable) alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans, the public can swing any way it wants on marijuana legalization, and the two parties can continue their unified front against it, and marijuana will remain forever illegal.

      1. So, you are saying you were for it before you were against it?

        1. No, the Democrats are saying they’re against it while they’re for it.

          1. I would argue that some, maybe even most, Democrats are against legal pot. I would also argue that the percentage of Republicans who are against pot is just as high, if not higher.

            /hey Beavis, he said “high” huh huh

        2. Now go vote for the Democrat because at least they said they’re for it… at one point… during the conversation… or something.

      2. if both parties don’t want to legalize marijuana, then essentially there’s nothing to lose by taking this position.

        True, but I still say that there is a significant amount to gain by bucking the trend in a sufficiently straightforward manner. The public is ready for this; sooner or later a politician (I’m not sure from which party) is going to latch onto the zeitgeist and reap the benefits.

        It’s sort of like the prisoner’s dilemma. So long as both sides play the game and prop up the lie, both are safe. But sooner or later some subversive motherfucker is going to flip and send everyone else down the river.

        1. True, but I still say that there is a significant amount to gain by bucking the trend in a sufficiently straightforward manner

          If we had a parlimentary system I might agree more. Then politics would become more of a ‘market share’ proposition. Ie, the candidate that stakes out the pro-legalization stand would at least gain ‘x percent’ of the seats in congress. But with the winner-take-all system we have now, real change seems to occur extremely incrementally– taking decades to really see movement on certain issuess (see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell). I think we’d see much more risk-taking if you could still win *something* by taking more anti-establishment positions.

          1. You’re not talking about a feature of a parliamentary system, you’re talking about a feature of either proportional representation or, in Canada, a country with massively different parties and ideas in different regions.

    2. Robert Conquest’s Second Law: The behavior of any organization can best be predicted by assuming it to be run by a cabal of its enemies

      1. I think that’s Conquest’s 3rd Law.

        1. I got it off the internet, so you must be right.

    3. The National Beer Wholesalers Association is the nation’s 5th largest PAC, just after the National Association of Realtors. They donate 56% D and 44% R.

      That might have something to do with it. Then there’s the somewhat smaller Wine and Spirits Wholesalers PAC, 52% D and 47% R.

  11. Not sure if this has made it into another thread, but here ya go. Libertarians practically irrelevant.

    http://libertypundits.net/arti…..rrelevant/

    1. Well, once this fracas is over, I’ll merely reply; what makes you think we were part of the team? Fuck the fusionist team. You conservative bastards can go drop dead.

      1. “You libertarians, you’re just not non-principled enough! Damned the torpedoes, we want to win!”

        The lament of the statist when her favorite statist loses to someone else’s favorite statist who happens not to have enough votes to win the election over her hated statist.

  12. Missed me?

    And so we come to why I hate politics. It’s just about getting elected, and these scoundrels get more attention than they really deserve. It’s about being contrary to your opponent.

  13. Wow, the parties are so far apart on key issues, aren’t they? Why not just merge?

    1. Way back when I was a lad, I read an article talking about how Pepsi and Coke “coordinated” to control the market. Both Pepsi and Coke distributors would sign agreements with local retailers to offer special pricing during a given week so that the retailer could promote big savings to the customer in its weekly advertising binge. The catch was that the retailer could not offer special pricing on any other product during the week.

      So Pepsi would sign a calendar marketing agreement for 26 weeks (every other week) with the retailer. And then Coke would sign a marketing agreement for 26 weeks (the weeks not taken by Pepsi). This means that no other distributer could ever get a dedicated week for them to offer specials.

      Pepsi and Coke wrap there entire business plan around competing with each other. The both want all other competitors locked out of the market. It is to both Pepsi’s and Coke’s advantage that no third supplier (like RC Cola) is ever given an chance compete with the big boys.

      And so it is in politics.

  14. Just to fuck with everything the Republicans should go totally pro-choice. What would the Dems do then?

  15. Ignore this blogpost. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. This comment, on the other hand, is a goldmine of critical thought and deft analysis.

  16. What if there were a party which was fiscally conservative yet socially liberal? Wouldn’t people vote for something like that?

    1. You’re clearly a nutjob. Pay no attention to the crazy person.

    2. Not as many people as would vote for the fiscally liberal yet socially conservative party, alas.

      1. I’m taking it ALL, baby! Hand me that torch, GWB.

  17. I love when the press says : free state movement.
    Morons.
    Free State Project.

    (and at least 12 FSP movers are running for NH House. 4 of them are in office right now)

    1. They should just call them freepers. It rhymes with creeper and makes them easier to marginalize by conflation with pedophiles.

    2. Is there a list somewhere of the folks running?

      1. No because no all of them have been ‘outed’

        Some are running as D.
        Some are running as R.

  18. Why the Dems are swimming against the current on this is mystifying, from a purely tactical perspective.

    It isn’t.

    Democrats (behave as if they) know that “Democrat” is a cultural identity, not a an ideology or set of positions. It doesn’t matter at all what Democrats in government actually do, so long as identifying with them remains a way for voters and commentators to signal?externally and internally?that they’re not crackaz.

    Going explicitly and actually pro-weed would gain them nothing. They get the weed vote already with their current stance(s), because (apparently) potheads are all retards, assholes, and retarded assholes.

    The GOP, also knowing this, won’t bother going libertarian on weed. Individual ideologically motivated party members will, and have, but the party itself won’t. If they did, it would net them zero votes. Democrats and liberaltarians (or whatever) are unavailable to them, period, and they’d lose some bitchy-old-lady votes.
    It’s all perfectly logical.

    1. This is unfortunately pretty much true. An enormous percentage of people vote on the basis of cultural identity, not issues– and this includes all sorts of hipsters, libertarians, the highly educated, and other people who pretend to be above that sort of silliness.

    2. Took the words out of my mouth,

    3. Hard to argue. I’ve starting calling the Tribe Red and Tribe Blue – seems to capture the flavor a little better.

    4. Going explicitly and actually pro-weed would gain them nothing.

      I dunno, I’d be willing to bet that it would make a fair number of Reasonoids vote Dem when they otherwise wouldn’t. I know I’d never vote for a same-old Republican if he were up against a legitimate legalizer Democrat.

      1. The votes would be at least equaled by people moving the other way. Gaining net nothing or less than nothing is the same thing.

        How did Tom Campbell do against DiFi in 2000? Pretty terrible, as she ran all sorts of ads about his willingness to decriminalize pot.

      2. What are Reasonoids, maybe 0.01% of the electorate? And, stoner Reasonoids and anarcho-capitalists don’t vote.

    5. Great depressing post!

  19. I would not say legalization is never going to happen. Two possible factors to consider:

    1) There is nothing politicians hate more than ridicule. It is to them a public shaming to be the butt of jokes. It explains why Obama makes flippant remarks about ‘what are you on’ when asked about legalization. It is a preemptive strike on his part because he long ago sold out to the status quo. Preemptive in the sense that he and his ilk are fighting a rising tide of public support as the ballot initiative in Cali shows, and more than a dozen else where. What Obama fears, and all other slimy asswipe politicians fear is that their position will open them up to ridicule and eventually overwhelming public derision. When that happens, their hands will be forced.

    2) the political clout of women who tend to support every slice of Dateline-ish ‘public health’ ignorance under the sun is drastically reduced which may very well occur if they ironically give us Huckabe as they gave us Bush and McCain in the Republican primaries and Gore, Kerry and Obama in the Democratic ones.

  20. If the feds ever legalize pot, it will be because their hand was forced by massive (but peaceful) public disobedience, similar to that which made them abandon the 55 mph speed limit (and, earlier, alcohol prohibition).

    The best reason to vote yes on Prop 19 is that it may trigger exactly that level of mass disobedience. (But be patient: it took 12 years for alcohol to get re-legalized as a result, and 15 years for fast driving.)

    1. Repealing the 55 mph speed limit is one of the answers to the question “What did the Republican majority in the 90s get us?”

    2. Ed Gruberman, you have much to learn in the ways of Tae Kwon Leep. Boot to the head!

      (Thanks for reminding me of a great comedy routine!)

  21. I am a lifelong Democrat. I’m as lefty liberal as they come. I work for NORML and I support marijuana legalization.

    And the Democrats are two years away from losing me permanently over this issue if pro-legalization Gov. Gary Johnson gets the GOP nomination for president. That neither party can face the impending reality of legalization and the sheer common sense of doing so is as much an indictment of our two-party system as anything else. On what other issue are both parties in lockstep opposition to what the American people want?*

    It’s such low-hanging fruit that eventually, I believe, Republicans will grab it. How better to burnish one’s credentials on states rights, personal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, and killing bloated, ineffective government programs? Especially as your older, religious, hippie-hating base dies off and you need to replenish the party with younger voters and voters of color?

    Mark my words – it will be Republicans who legalize pot, not Democrats.

    *Israel policy. In case you were wondering.

  22. Personally I know a guy is gay when we meet and i feel the need to check my fly~r34gdfgdf

  23. They want to start that name calling, but does anyone take notice that the people made a decision with prop 19?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.