Hillary Clinton

WikiLeaks Shows Hillary Clinton Was Against Pot Legalization In 'All Senses Of the Word'

A longtime drug warrior, Clinton has softened her public positions on marijuana. But does she mean it?

|

Drug warrior or late to the party?
Keith Kissel/Flickr

There isn't much to divine from John Podesta's hacked emails (published earlier this week by WikiLeaks) when it comes to Hillary Clinton's supposed evolution on marijuana legalization.

But in an email circulated among senior Clinton campaign staffers concerned about the content of Clinton's paid corporate speeches and appearances—which includes an 80-page attachment detailing "a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub"—a brief portion of Clinton's Q & A with Xerox CEO Ursula Burns in 2014 shows Clinton's staunch opposition to any form of marijuana legalization:

URSULA BURNS: So long means thumbs up, short means thumbs down; or long means I support, short means I don't. I'm going to start with — I'm going to give you about ten long-shorts.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Even if you could make money on a short, you can't answer short.

URSULA BURNS: You can answer short, but you got to be careful about letting anybody else know that. They will bet against you. So legalization of pot?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Short in all senses of the word. (emphasis added)

That was in March 2014, and even if it's the briefest of exchanges, it says something that the Clinton campaign suspected this message of staunch prohibitionism needed "an extra scrub."

Clinton was on the record opposing medical marijuana in 2007—she supported "research," but not decriminalization—but just three months after saying she opposed marijuana legalization "in all senses of the word," she said on a CNN town hall that "there should be availability (of marijuana) under appropriate circumstances." She also said she would allow Colorado and Washington—which had just fully legalized recreational use of marijuana for adults—to serve as "laboratories of democracy" and reserved the right to offer her opinion on the subject at an unspecified later date.

Also in 2014, she offered the standard "gateway drug" trope as a defense of prohibition in a KPCC radio interview:

I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states, so there can't be a total absence of law enforcement, but what I want to see, and I think we should be much more focused on this, is really doing good research so we know what it is we're approving.

The Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016—who had to "evolve" a number of her long-held policies and supposed principles just to make it through her bruising primary battle with Bernie Sanders—now fully supports both medical marijuana and the removal of the drug from the DEA's Schedule I classification.

The question is, which Hillary Clinton should be believed?

The lifelong drug warrior who as recently as 2011 seemed to misunderstand both prohibition and supply-and-demand when she said drug legalization was an impossibility "because there is just too much money in it"? Or the chastened Democratic presidential nominee hoping to energize the youth vote and perhaps even convince some libertarians she can be trusted in her promises regarding criminal justice reform?

NEXT: For the First Time Ever, Feds Focus on How a College Violated Accused Student's Title IX Rights

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. If she says she’s for it don’t believe it. The same goes for her saying she’s against legalization. Somehow everything she says manages to be a lie including “and” and “the.”

    1. My friend ‘Sarah Bartlett’ makes $95/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours.. Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own work…. http://www.Trends88.Com

      1. Cam bitches be like……

  2. Well, when even her daughter, who’s young enough to know better, is prattling moronic nonsense like “We also have anecdotal evidence now from Colorado where some of the people who were taking marijuana for those purposes, the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking,”, should any of this come as a surprise? And of course she’s going to back track on federalism. Hillary Clinton has never, in her political career, shown a decentralizing bone in her body.

    The truth is even Donald Trump shows better signs on the War on Drugs than Hillary Clinton.

  3. I’m high, all right. But not on false drugs! I’m high on the Real Thing: powerful gasoline, a clean windshield, and a shoe-shine.

  4. How does she think about butt sex and Mexicans?

    1. Hard.

    2. Depends on how close Bill is to them.

    3. Long in all senses of the word.

  5. Hillary and Bill Clinton raped the entire country of Haiti. We have documents that came out this week, non Wiki-leaks documents, even, that show State Department employees directing funds to “friends of Bill.” Reason silence.

    We have mass coordination between various members of different media outlets and the Hillary campaign. Reason silence.

    List can get pretty lengthy. But the two things Reason has saw fit to cover from the emails has been…weed, ass sex, and strangely some talk about the minimum wage costing jobs.

    1. A helpful, though I expect non-exhaustive, list:

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/th…..1476401308

    2. Let’s just be happy they didn’t waste digital ink praising Podesta’s risotto as the most noteworthy thing to come out of this.

      Small victories.

      1. An Italian last name is no assurance that a risotto can be properly made. It’s one of those pure technique dishes, like omelettes, which can only rise out of the ordinary in the hands of someone who knows what ze’s doing.

    3. Unless there was something new that I missed, I believe all of the Clinton’s and Clinton Foundation’s indiscretions in Haiti were well documented in the documentary, “Clinton Cash”.

      1. Yeah, but that was dismissed as an unsubstantiated Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?. Now we have substantiation from Hilldog and her minions.

      2. There was. ABC News used a freedom of information request to get State Department emails showing staffers specifically talking about directing contracts to Clinton Foundation donors/friends of Bill. Non-donors were given lower priority. It’s explicitly stated.

        1. This one, right? How much more evidence do you need for show quid pro quo?

          1. I said the same thing about intent in the email scandal. Outside a note that Hillary hand writes on video camera confessing in detail, I don’t know what would qualify as smoking gun evidence. I think the media would even try to spin Hillary out of a confession.

            1. Obviously the media would accept Hillary’s confession if it were from a secretly recorded, private conversation on a bus 11 years ago.

              1. So, what you’re saying is, Trump is a confession master. Is there anything he can’t do. Better than a woman.

    4. Actually, you don’t have any such documents. If you did, you would have submitted them to a reputable news source.

      For the same reason, you also don’t have any documentation of the “mass coordination.”

      I’ll bet you also have proof that Obama is a Nigerian and Trump doesn’t molest women.

      And YOU criticize Clinton’s ethics? YOU?

  6. Isn’t this exactly what Lincoln did to secure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment?

    1. Getting Hillary elected president would be our nation’s greatest accomplishment since, nay including, abolition!

  7. It doesn’t really matter whether we like where Hillary Clinton stands on any issue.

    She’s going to be the President anyway whether we like it or not, and she’s going to do what she likes while she’s the President regardless of whether we like it.

    Thus, talking about where Hillary stands on the issues is a pointless exercise. Her popularity doesn’t matter to anyone–least of all her.

    When Christians are damned to hell, a lot of them probably keep going to church on Sundays–out of habit and the hope that somehow it will make a difference. Thinking that Hillary’s positions or popularity have any material effect on anything is like that–a forlorn hope.

    Her criminality, her corruption, her taking money from foreign governments while Secretary of State, her lies, none of this makes any difference. Why would where she stands on the issues make a difference?

    1. Your just saying these mean things because she raped you. Which she should be totally excused for, because Patriarchy and it’s time we had a vagina in the Oval Office.

      1. I don’t think anybody supports Hillary Clinton because of any issue.

        Trump’s voters aren’t abandoning him for criticizing the Iraq War, and Hillary’s supporters aren’t flocking to her because she supported it.

        Some immigrant interest groups might oppose Trump over his promise to build a wall on the border, but it isn’t as if Hillary were about to stop deporting illegal aliens.

        It just isn’t about issues.

        I can point to two issues that show why libertarians might vote for Trump. They boil down to: 1) If Hillary wins, she’ll insist on single payer (aka the public option) when ObamaCare implodes, and 2) Where Hillary will pick supreme court justices specifically because they’re hostile to our Second Amendment rights, Trump will pick them for other reasons.

        But I’m under on illusion that anybody is voting for Trump for those reasons–just like they aren’t voting for Hillary because of any issue.

        Talking about where Hillary stands on the issues is like talking about how Tom Brady combs his hair. It just doesn’t have anything to do with their performance. Before we can sway Hillary on the drug war or any other public policy issue, we need to get the voters to care about issues.

        The few who do care about issues are presumably voting for Johnson.

        1. I agree. 99% of the “discussion” I hear is just emotional flailing.

  8. Perhaps discussed this morning, but Obama decries ‘wild west’ media landscape.

    I wonder – when Obama criticizes journalists, admonishes them to cover things the way he wants, launches investigations of media outlets, selectively conducts a campaign against leakers, and talks about “curating” the news…isn’t he just great, unlike that authoritarian Trump who threatens to sue the NYT’s for libel?

    1. You see, what Obama and Clinton have done and are doing is less worse than what Trump may do.

    2. Stalin would make “jokes” like this. The obvious contradictions are part of it. It’s like in Martin Amis’ Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million. Laughter and disbelief is the response they want. Like Putin murdering a dissident with polonium so you’ll know he’s behind it even while effectively denouncing his own actions in public at the same time. They want us to laugh in disbelief. They want us to know there’s nothing we can do.

      And Obama’s version of useful idiots will carry on. And they know they’re full of crap. And we know they’re full of crap. And it doesn’t matter.

      They want their political enemies to know it doesn’t matter what we know or that we oppose them.

      1. Just like Obama’s “joke” about using the IRS to audit his enemies.

        1. It’s meant to instill a feeling of powerlessness.

          1. It’s working.

    3. He only hits them because he loves them and wants them to be their best, perfect selves.

  9. By all means let’s keep riding the deflection train to Trump-town.

  10. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08…..n-website/

    She also has told her supporters that she will once President destroy the Breitbart website. Reason seems deeply concerned about authoritarianism yet hasn’t uttered a peep about this. I guess those creeps over at Breitbart have it coming to them.

    1. Why do you hate women, John?

      1. I am just deplorable. I hate women and think hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. I even own guns.

        1. In to the basket you go!

    2. It would be nice if they provided the full text of the email or a link to it. From the quotes provided, there’s a chilling implication that Reynolds (and by extension, Clinton possibly) may not think Breitbart has a right to exist, but it’s far from a vow to shut down the website that I assumed it would be when I read the Daily Caller headline. It’d be nice to read the full thing in context.

      1. I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist Reynolds’ acknowledgment that the regular conservative media has a “right to exist,” though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which apparently has no such right.

        Breitbart is something different,” she says. “They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They’re a different breed altogether ? not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levers of power in this country.”

        “It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again,” she says.

        If you can come up with a context that paints that in any light other than they have no right to say what they say and we plan to ensure they can’t say it, feel free. I suppose you could give them every possible benefit of the doubt and take that to only mean “we are going to win the election so big no one will listen to them anymore”, but even you have to admit it is pretty hard to find a reason to give them any benefit of the doubt let alone every benefit of the doubt given their history.

        1. Still hoping for the full text, with no commentary.

          The last two paragraphs I don’t see any problem with. “Beat them so that their kind never rises again” to me just sounds like election-hyping and that you’ll win by so much they’ll crawl back to irrelevancy forever. The first paragraph, assuming the DC isn’t quoting it or describing it inaccurately, is definitely worrisome, but it’s far from a vow to shut the website down. All I’m saying is that the Daily Caller could have written a much more unbiased article that accurately portrays what was said, still makes Reynolds and Clinton look bad for implying Breitbart doesn’t have a right to exist, but doesn’t hyperbolically state that there’s a vow to shut the website down. The DC also states at one point that Reynolds says one of their goals is to ensure Breitbart is destroyed, but the ensuing quote (the one about how they’ll never rise again) doesn’t say that. I’m not taking issue with attacking Reynolds and Clinton on it, I’m taking issue with the Daily Caller’s portrayal and not linking or pasting the full text, which should be (if it isn’t) standard practice when you’re writing an article about an email.

          1. That’s the kind of shit that gets said here, especially irt Trump vs SJWs.

    3. Average people should start taking their privacy more seriously.

      I read something suggesting that if you google for “Tails”, it can get you put on an NSA watchlist.

      Robby’s Quad Report and ENB constantly muttering about how hookers should actually be called “sex workers” really doesn’t seem . . .

      I keep thinking it’s a cost cutting move. Maybe we’re getting less from the adults in the room because it’s expensive. Important stuff is routinely ignored by Robby, but I think that’s just because it’s Robby.

      If Robby has any idea what’s important to libertarians or why, he probably doesn’t care.

      1. “Important stuff is routinely ignored by Robby [in PM links, for instance], but I think that’s just because it’s Robby”.

        Fixed!

    4. She’ll spare Reason because of all the anti-Trump pieces.

      1. “Free minds” is right there in the motto–self-incriminating evidence.

        She can’t win in a principles over principals environment.

    5. So Clinton is guilty of something she didn’t say “I want to shut Breitbart down,” while Trump is innocent of things he did say “I will be dating you, 10 year-old, in 10 years. Also I regularly grab women in the vagina.”

      You should be the reason ombudsman John what with your keen eye for bias.

  11. Also want to note yesterday that the NYT’s and People both went out of their way to avoid describing either incident they reported on as sexual assault. Both avoided using the term because they know full well they would have been opening themselves up 100% to liability because what they described was not sexual assault at all. Making an “unwanted advance” isn’t assault. Attempting to kiss a reporter, even if true, isn’t assault.

    The NYT’s and People coordinating their release on the same day is odd enough. But basically both decided to play off the fact that last week, the tape was described as sexual assault. And Anderson Cooper then asked Trump several different questions – all phrased differently – that finally got Trump to say “no.” So now they have him lying, and the ides is planted and it’s an interaction the NYT’s and People can use to slip “sexual assault” into their story without calling the accusations in question sexual assault.

    It’s quite a hit job. For the second time this election cycle, the NYT’s is lying with weasel words. They have a long and storied tradition of lying about Republicans before elections.

    1. Understand it is a hit job that would have been done on any Republican. This is what they do. The only thing that changes is the nature of the lie, which is tailored to fit the candidate. No one would have believed a stiff like Mitt Romney ever had an affair or groped a woman, so they accused him of giving a woman cancer and being an old school patriarch who refused to hire women in his businesses and thought they should remain at home in the kitchen. The Times slandered McCain by accusing him of having an affair with a lobbyist. It doesn’t matter who the Republican is or the truth about their behavior, they are going to be slander as a monster in a coordinated way.

      Reason is eating this shit up because they don’t like Trump. Sadly, they can’t seem to grasp that what they do to Trump they will do to anyone who stands in the way of a Progressive Democrat holding office. It basically puts a hard ceiling on how far Libertarian ideas can go. Even if the LP were to overthrow the GOP as a major party or Libertarians took over the GOP, they wouldn’t be holding the White House if the media has any say about it.

      1. Given the current administration’s demonstrated willingness to go after publications they view as a threat, it’s shocking and disappointing that Reason is all but openly cheering for someone who is even more petty and vindictive than Barry.

        1. Yes, anyone who attacks Donald Trump, or doesn’t instantly and totally disbelieve every negative story about him, is clearly cheering for Hillary.

          1. Yeah, that is totally what we are saying. you nailed it. And Trump is a bad guy. So the media power to coordinate slanders and mass attacks is nothing to worry about. I mean, they will only do it to people who deserve it and would never do it to us.

            1. And petty and vindictive government officials would never ever ever issue subpoenas to libertarian websites demanding the identities of commenters who threatened to, um, have a special place in hell for a judge. Or use the Espionage Act against leakers more times than all other presidents in history put together.

            2. It essentially is. Even if you think Reason is too hard on Trump or whatever, “almost openly cheering for Clinton” is absurd nonsense.

              “So the media power to coordinate slanders and mass attacks is nothing to worry about.”

              Just because the media is criticizing a Republican doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong. And are supposed to not report on these kind of accusations against a major party nominee? The area to critique the media here is the timing of the release of the tape – I find it highly unlikely it conveniently surfaced in October. It could have been released months or even years ago, but that wouldn’t have maximized the benefit to the Democratic Party.

              1. The media dug back 11 years to dig up some old tape, and then found some women to say Trump made passes at them. This is a media creation. This is not the media just reporting the news. And if you don’t see it, you’re a fucking moron.

                1. Trump has groomed and cultivated his vulgarian reputation as a lewd and crass womanizer since forever. No digging was involved, save for those who never listened to Howard Stern or read a supermarket tabloid.

                  When you’re a star, people report about how nasty you are and the outrageous things you say and do.

                  After 30 years of campaigning to people that he’s a piece of shit and reveling in it, Trump has convinced people that he’s a piece of shit.

                  And?

          2. Fuck Donald Trump. I’m talking about the failure to cover the gross abuses of power revealed over the past week in the recent email release, while posting about six dozen articles about “grab her by the pussy,” which is nearly universally recognized as inappropriate.

            1. I don’t know about you, but I was waiting breathlessly for Robby to tell me how I’m supposed to feel about Pussygate.

              1. It’s not okay.

              2. PussyGate? I thought it was PussyLeaks.

            2. “All but openly cheering for Clinton” is absurd nonsense. Someone isn’t in the tank for the candidate you hate the most just because they don’t criticize them as much as you like, or criticize their opponent more than you would. Everyone here laughs at the left-wingers who accuse anyone supporting a third party candidate of essentially voting for Trump, but a bunch of people here display a similar mindset in the opposite direction. Reason’s written a bunch of articles about the emails in the past week alone (including the one you’re replying to). Could/Should they have written more? Probably, but that’s hardly evidence that they’re Clinton cheerleaders.

              1. The shear volume of articles about Pussygate vs. Naked Corruption is what I think many are frustrated by.

        2. even more petty and vindictive than Barry.

          …Trump?

  12. “there should be availability (of marijuana) under appropriate circumstances.”

    circumstances like being above the law.

    1. “If a large donor to the Clinton Foundation wants it, we can make it available. Anyone else, lock’em in a cage.”

  13. THIS is what you choose to cover on the Wikileaks? FFS. I like weed but it’s not even near the top of the list.

    1. More of a mexican ass sex guy?

      1. Weed first, then ass play, then messicans. Combination of the three is ideal.

  14. How many drugs do you think her doctors have her on right now?

    1. A mixture of formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, methanol, and other solvents, or else she starts to smell after a few hours in the open air.

  15. A longtime drug warrior, Clinton has softened her public positions on marijuana. But does she mean it?

    As long as it doesn’t lose her votes, sure.

  16. I don’t think there is anyone out there right now who believes a single word that comes out of Hillary’s mouth, even her most ardent fans…

  17. Hillary is essentially Nixon minus a penis. She pretty much endorses all of the things he stood for including drug prohibition, domestic spying, the death penalty, bombing other countries…

  18. According to Reason, heaven forbid that any politician change their position on anything.

    Apparently, learning means nothing.

    We presume that Mr, Fisher, the author, having learned nothing in the past 20 years, not only continues to hold exactly the same opinions, but resents anyone else changing their opinion on anything.

    But Mr. Fisher, if you have changed your opinion on anything, should we believe you then or believe you now? To paraphrase you, “Which Anthony Fisher should we believe?”

    1. According to Reason, heaven forbid that any politician change their position on anything. Apparently, learning means nothing.

      Hillary isn’t “any politician”, she is someone with (1) a long record of hubris and arrogance, unwilling to listen to experts, and (2) a long record advocating separate private and public positions.

      So, it’s great when some politicians change their position because they have learned something. With Hillary, at this point, the presumption is that anything she says bears no relation to her actual political positions.

      But Mr. Fisher, if you have changed your opinion on anything, should we believe you then or believe you now?

  19. Really, do you still need Google Translate for Hillary-speak?

    Let me help you out here:

    she said on a CNN town hall that “there should be availability (of marijuana) under appropriate circumstances[, the circumstances being that hell freezes over]

    In case you were wondering, in her case, “when hell freezes over” is equivalent to “over my dead body”, given that she’s has enough liquid nitrogen in her bloodstream that she will cause hell to freeze over when she dies and finally goes to that place.

  20. RE: WikiLeaks Shows Hillary Clinton Was Against Pot Legalization In ‘All Senses Of the Word’
    A longtime drug warrior, Clinton has softened her public positions on marijuana. But does she mean it?

    Of course she means it.
    She wouldn’t lie any more than her husband would.

  21. Clinton is against the US Constitution –

    thus she is for the un Constitutional war on drugs, gun control, Obamacare, social security, and most of the federal government.

  22. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  23. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  24. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  25. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool… on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it’s certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  26. Matthew . I can see what your saying… Bobby `s storry is surprising, last saturday I got a brand new Land Rover Defender since I been making $4556 this past 5 weeks and more than ten-grand this past-month . this is definitely my favourite-job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and immediately made more than $71 per-hr . More Info
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  27. Bella . I can see what your saying… Jesus `s blurb is good, on wednesday I bought a new Lotus Elan after making $9196 this last 4 weeks an would you believe 10/k lass month . this is really the nicest work I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and almost straight away brought home minimum $73.. per hour . read
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  28. Anna . I see what you mean… Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  29. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  30. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  31. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  32. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.