Drug Policy

Was Lawrence O'Donnell High as a Kite When He Said That Obama Would Might Legalize Drugs if Given a Second Term?

|

My colleague and Declaration of Independents co-author Matt Welch likes to point out a sad disparity between tea party Republicanoids and civil liberties Democratoids (?).

He notes that on occasion, Republican voters will actually hold one of their own accountable for their wicked, wicked ways when it comes to spending like there is no tomorrow and bounce them from a primary. This happened a bunch of times in 2010, when big-government conservative such as Robert Bennett in Utah and Mike Castle in Delaware lost their primaries to tea party favorites; Rand Paul was elected against the express wishes of Kentucky Senate poohbah Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski took a primary shellacking too. Matt is bummed that, with the exception of the Ned Lamont anti-war insurgency against Joe Lieberman some years back, you haven't seen the same thing happening to Democratic candidates who suck on issuses such as war, civil liberties, and drug legalization.

Here's MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explaining why that happens. The rageaholic and congenitally misinformed talk show host is so delusional as to think that President Barack Obama, who just revealed a drug control strategy that specifically refuses to consider legalization as an option while pushing the humiliating yet ineffective idea of workplace drug testing, just maybe might make the pot he admitted smoking legal in 2013 or some other year in the future.

Via Mediaite:

O'Donnell identified a growing ideological overlap between members of both the political right and left in America and said that "possibly ending the war on drugs [is] the 204th reason to vote for President Obama on November 6th."…

O'Donnell said he believes that Obama is likely to embrace laxer drug laws in his second term. "Although, president Obama thinks it's entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether our drug laws are doing more harm than good, he has absolutely no intention of having that discussion in the United States until after he is reelected to a second term," said O'Donnell. "With exactly 204 days remaining until the election, makes possibly ending the war on drugs the 204th reason to vote for President Obama on November 6th."

More here.

In case you missed it, here's the ending refrain of the presidents 2012 strategery document: "Legalization of drugs will not be considered in this approach. Making drugs more available and more accessible will not reduce drug use and its adverse consequences for public health and safety. We will continue to educate young people and all Americans about the science on the harmful health effects of marijuana use."

Mediaite's Andrew Kirell wants O'Donnell to be right (don't we all, at least just once?) but points out further:

Earlier this year, the Obama DOJ made its priorities clear, issuing a warning that "the department of Justice has the authority to enforce federal law even when such activities may be permitted under state law. Persons … who operate or facilitate the operation of such dispensaries are subject to criminal prosecution…" The threats have effectively prevented states like Delawarefrom moving forward with licensing dispensaries under newly-passed state laws.

Which is another way of saying that when it comes to Obama's second-term drug policy, Lawrence O'Donnell is either high as a kite, dumber than a box of rocks, or mendacious to a Nixonian degree. Larry, Larry, how can you solve a problem unless you admit that you got one in the first place? When it comes to drug legalization and the president, the problem is the president. Deal with it and hold him accountable by withholding your vote if it's an important issue to you. Then and only them will Democrats who may be in favor of actually legalizing drugs understand that they got to deliver or they kicked out of the van. Nobody rides for free.

NEXT: Does the 'Backlash' Against 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Make Sense?

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. Pimp it, yo! It ain’t gonna pimp itself!

  2. LO’D is the newest face on my “I’d LOVE To Hit That With a Baseball Bat” list.

  3. Good thing the adversary press is going to hold Obama accountable on this, asking him in press conferences: “A prominent supporter of yours, Lawrence O’Donnell, says that one reason to vote for you is that you might end the war on drugs. Is Lawrence right, and if he’s wrong, will you take this opportunity to explicitly repudiate him and ask those who oppose the war on drugs to vote for someone else?”

    1. Or on the off chance the media doesn’t pursue this, Gary Johnson could – it would be one interesting reason to include him in debates.

      If Obama doesn’t want to debate Johnson, the 3rd parties could get together and have their candidates debate with surrogates of the candidates – like Larry O’Dumber.

      “So, Mr. Donner, will you promise to shave your head and take a vow of silence if Obama continues the War on Drugs? Oh, right, you simply said he *might* do it….”

      1. Johnson could also call out Obama for all his 2008 lies on transparency, civil rights, etc., etc. Since the Republicans are actively against those things, they sure as hell won’t.

    2. No press that will ask that question be allowed within a mile of Obama during campaign time. That is the job of press secretary Opie, errr, I mean Jay Carney.

      So who is this alternate press that will ask him this question? Fox News? LMAO! Fox agrees 100% with the fascist WOD.

      And Obama will never debate Gary Johnson or any other Libertarian candidate, and neither will the Romulan RINO.

      When more than 15% of the American population stop watching dancing with the stars and American idol during 99% of their free time, pull their heads out of their arse and start paying attention to the fact that organized criminals are running the country, then maybe this will start to change. I am not holding my breath.

      1. To be fair, Stossel is a Fox News employee, so there goes your “agrees 100%”.

  4. Lawrence O’Donnell is either high as a kite, dumber than a box of rocks, or mendacious to a Nixonian degree.

    These aren’t exclusive options. He’s probably all three.

    The delusional paranoia combined with absolutely dumbfounding levels of hero worship and projection displayed by hardcore TEAM BLUE retards says a lot about their psychological makeup, and nothing it says is good. Remember that every single thing they project onto their enemies, they are usually engaging in to an amazing degree. They’re the TEAM BLUE version of a TEAM RED homophobe; loudly decrying something that they’re doing themselves, just not necessarily publicly.

    1. and yet odonnell has his own show while epi wails n gnashes on a blog.

      1. Epi has a much larger audience.

      2. MSNBC: Now with audience numbers approaching public access TV

        1. streaming aint measured

          1. That’s completely uncalled for, Burgundy. You know those rating systems are flawed. They don’t take in account houses that have, uh, more than two television sets, and other things of that nature.

            1. Larry’s a socialist, and therefore brain-damaged.

              Oh, he’s right on this issue, but… stopped clock, twice a day, et cetera.

      3. Until now I’d never heard of Lawrence O’Donnell. I’ve heard of Episiarch.

        1. do the marbles roll completely around in ur “world”?

      4. Is that some kind of dim-witted argument from authority or just a complete non sequitur?

        1. neither, appeal to emotion.

          swing n a miss

          1. Hi Rectal junior.

            1. Mary’s very agitated today.

      5. HI MISS MARY!!!!! END REGISTRASHUN NOE!!!!!!

  5. If re-elected, Obama will legalize drugs, institute a new limited government and spending program, reduce taxes, expand government, raise taxes, go to war, end all war, kill your enemies, make your religion the state religion, and simultaneously ban and expand abortion rights.

    1. He will also crush your enemies, drive them before you, and you will hear the lamentation of their women.

      1. While winning a second Nobel Peace Prize! He’s the candidate of superposition–simultaneously supporting and opposing all political positions at once.

        1. He’s perfect, if you catch my meaning.

        2. The quantum candidate.

          1. See, we’re the problem. Not him. The uncertainty principal makes it clear that in trying to perceive him, we change him. So when I look to him to, say, not fight undeclared wars, by even looking, I make him fight undeclared wars.

            1. I lol’d.

            2. The uncertainty principal makes it clear that in trying to perceive him, we change him.

              Seeing as he “governs” entirely by press release and campaign stop, all calculated to affect our perceptions of him, I’m not entirely sure this is wrong.

              1. At last, I finally understand this president.

              2. Seeing as he “governs” entirely by press release and campaign stop, all calculated to affect our perceptions of him, I’m not entirely sure this is wrong.

                While this is true, this meme began with Clinton. Not that that changes anything you said.

                I’ll be quiet now.

            3. Oops, uncertainty principle.

              Anyway, it’s all observed-based reality with Obama. Stop trying to perceive him, and all will be as it should be.

              1. Oops, uncertainty principle.

                Our local school districts have been suffering under uncertainty principals lately.

                You never know when they’re going to quit or get fired.

                1. I usually don’t make that mistake. Guess I need to stop perceiving spelling and grammar, too.

        3. This was true when he was running in 2008. Worked for fooling people then.

          I suppose the fact that he actually has a record now (Presidents can’t vote “Present”) could disillusion some people…

      2. and everybody will have a much, much larger penis.
        Heterosexual men: Yea!!!!….wait!!!!!

        1. Everybody? Including Nancy Pelosi?

    2. I will make sure everyone makes the same amount of money, which is to say, the filthy rich will not make any. Which, is what they deserve, the bastards.

    3. This may be the best comment ever.

  6. HA! He can’t even close Guantanamo, which he promised to do and signed off on his first day in office and dummy thinks he going to legalize weed?

    Sadly enough neither candidate will do anything to change the drug war direction. The only advantage from a Romney perspective is that he could possibly select a couple Clarence Thomas-like SCOTUS judges who might strike down government over reach.

    HA! Just kidding.

  7. Cheerleaders always try to excite the base by saying the president, a horrible disaster in his first term, will finally do all the stuff they really want in his second term. Same shit happened with Clinton and Bush, and people bought it then too.

    1. Typically, they do try something bold and in lines with their party’s wishes in their second term.

      For all Bush’s faults, I still commend him for spending a year trying to get substantive SS reform. Of course, being an utter failure of a public speaker probably harmed that prospect more than helping it, but I’m willing to acknowledge that at least he tried to fix on section of the entitlement mess (of course, after the previous year doubling down on the far more looming and damaging other section of the entitlement mess).

      1. Yes, I’ll admit I too was excited about that for a few months.

  8. Hmmmm…
    Obama was gonna shut down Guantamino?
    Obama supported NDAA?
    Obama was gonna end TBTF?

    If there anything that hinders perception of reality and intelligent thinking more than being a fervent dem or repub???

    1. I believe Obama’s position was that the U.S. Constitution and Guantanemo Bay couldn’t co-exist.

      So he chose to scrap the one that would be the path of least resistance.

  9. OT, but related to Team Blue madness:
    http://www.sovereignman.com/ex…..s-picture/
    more about Senate Bill 1813, the 1676 page monstrosity that got some attention about keeping people in

    For starters, in what may be one of the most depraved Big Brother moves on record, section 31406 of the bill makes it mandatory for ‘black box’ event recorders to be installed in every new passenger vehicle starting with model year 2015.

    Section 31504 requires the development of special alarm systems designed to remind drivers that there are other passengers in the vehicle. Duh.

    Then there are provisions for more taxpayer funding to subsidize the massively loss-making Amtrak.. plus calls to develop more national, regional, and state-owned railways across the country.

    Perhaps most important, though, is Title II of the bill- ‘Stop Taxhaven Abuse.’

    Long story short, if the US government decides in its sole discretion that a foreign jurisdiction is impeding tax enforcement, Uncle Sam can shut them out of the US financial system, no questions asked.

    1. Yikes. I’m assuming that filth will crash and burn horribly, but who knows these days.

  10. obama said he favored marijuana decriminalization in the univision interview that o’donnell showed.

    1. Actions > words. He lied.

      1. You lied to me,
        Even though you know I’d die for you,
        You lied to me,
        Yes, I cried, yes, I cried.

        Return of the Mack,
        It is,
        Return of the Mack,
        Come on,
        Return of the Mack,
        Oh, my god,
        You know that I’ll be back
        Here I am.
        Return of the Mack,
        Once again,
        Return of the Mack,
        Top of the world,
        Return of the Mack,
        Watch my flow,
        You know that I’ll be back,
        Here I go.
        So, I’m back up in the game,
        [Running things like half my swing?],
        Lettin’ all the people know,
        That I’m back to run the show,
        ‘Cause what they didn’t know was wrong,
        And all the nasty things you’ve done,
        So, baby, listen carefully,
        While I sing my comeback song.

      2. please inform as to where decriminalization was blocked by DoJ?

        1. Holder was in cali when prop 19 was up for vote saying the feds would ‘vigorously enforce’ against pot dealers, users and growers.

        2. Holder was in cali when prop 19 was up for vote saying the feds would ‘vigorously enforce’ against pot dealers, users and growers.

          1. medical marijuana aint decriminalization einstein. >it triez moar harder

            1. Jeezus, I can’t believe they let you in the armed forces; no wonder we can’t win a fucking war.

              Do you even know what prop 19 was, PFC Dipshit?

              1. oh please share

                * “it” rubs hands together *

              2. You’re right, General; he doesn’t know.

                1. I think orrin has some kind of fucked-up google that gives him news stories from another dimension.

                  His parallel internet links to a place where P19 was for medical weed and Obama is a good president who keeps his promises. Weird.

                  1. I favor legalization & DoJ has no business raiding voter authorized dispenseries. BUTT, medical marijuana is a legal step beyond mere decriminalization. notice the feds are NOT confiscating perscription lists & arresting patients. And the AMA is NOT disclipining doctors for perscribing illegal drugs. >id desert ur army general BEFORE you walked us into dien bien phu

                    1. Keep diggin’ asshole.

                      Seriously, before your next comment, please please please, google ‘prop 19’…please!

                      Fuck it, because I feeling generous, read this.

                    2. He won’t read stuff from that site, General… it’s not from a Team Blue-approved spoonfeeder operation.

    2. And then two days ago:

      https://reason.com/blog/2012/04…..r#comments

      Are you ever not completely full of shit?

  11. he has absolutely no intention of having that discussion in the United States until after he is reelected to a second term

    That’s our President Barry. A man of courage, a man of conviction, unafraid of controversy or political backlash, he plunges directly into the national issues troubling the country.

    Or he will, as soon as he’s safely ensconced in a second term.

    1. Hey man back off! You’re talking about the man once described by a staff member of a nationally recognized San Francisco newspaper as being the following:

      Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

      So he’s got that going for him….which is nice.

      1. Holy shit. That is some vomit inducing drivel right there.

      2. Just goes to show that Obama is not a political campaigner, he’s a tent revival preacher disguised as a politician.

    2. Or to spell it out for everyone, You have to reelect to see what’s in it.

      1. While funny, this is actually a theme amongst Democrats.

        They say that he should serve a second term so we can experience his true legacy.

  12. George Will has actually had a series of columns making some pretty good arguements for drug legalization
    http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20…..lers-sails

    Maybe, just maybe, this represents the start of…..reasoning about things instead of holier than thou law by piety…
    Nah.

    1. Well, National Review has consistently been and still is in favor of ending the Drug War, but that doesn’t buy you anything either.

  13. http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20…..lers-sails

    With even George Will thinking about it, maybe the endless anti drug holier than thou crap can end.
    nah…

  14. Well, I was gonna post a link, but apparently links can you profied as a spammer….
    “I am not a spammer – I am a human being!” (apologies to the elephan man)
    anyway, George will has had a good series of columns on drug legalization, and maybe, just maybe this is the start of…..reasoning about drug laws!!!!
    Nah….

    1. Um, your complaint seems slightly…misplaced in light of what is immediately above it.

  15. Your comment contains a word that is too long.

    Squirrel gave me the above in response to a normal post. What the fuck does this mean?
    How do I get around this?

    1. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
      Even though the sound of it
      Is something quite atrocious
      If you say it loud enough
      You’ll always sound precocious
      Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
      Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
      Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay!

      1. Bastard!

        No, it was just a quote from a news article with regular ol’ Amerkin type words in it. I removed all tags and links but I still get the above message.

        1. INsert random characters.

          Also, copy your comment into the clippy and refresh the page, then paste and submit. Believe it or not this has worked once or twice for me.

  16. ODonnell said he believes that Obama is likely to embrace laxer drug laws in his second term.”

    ODonnell should be the poster child for the Useful Idiots Club.

  17. I am not saying that Team Red voters are not useful idiots also, but Team Blue voters seem to be afflicted with some sort of bizarre zombie like condition wherein they are incapable of remembering anything that their candidates said, or even promised. This condition seems to have progressed to the point that now, even when said candidate in effect tells them right to their face ,I lied to you, fools!, they still blindly refuse to even hear those words.

    1. It’s not just that. Gay leftists actually don’t want Obama to do anything pro-gay, such as signing an executive order to protect LGBT (federal) workers from discrimination or “evolving” to openly support gay marriage, before his re-election. Because re-electing Obama is obviously more important than gay issues.

  18. Matt is bummed that, with the exception of the Ned Lamont anti-war insurgency against Joe Lieberman some years back, you haven’t seen the same thing happening to Democratic candidates who suck on issuses such as war, civil liberties, and drug legalization.

    Arlen Specter says hi.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.