Dems, debates, and drug policy

October 31, 2007

Of all the noteworthy exchanges from last night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, this one hasn’t gotten a lot of attention today, and that’s a shame.

RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you went on the Bill Maher show last month and said that you were for decriminalizing marijuana. Is there anyone here who disagrees with Senator Dodd in decriminalization marijuana?

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards? Why?

EDWARDS: Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we’re sending the right signals to young people.

DODD: Can I respond, I mean just why I think it ought to be? We’re locking up too many people in our system here today. We’ve got mandatory minimum sentences that are filling our jails with people who don’t belong there. My idea is to decriminalize this, reduce that problem here. We’ve gone from 800,000 to 2 million people in our penal institutions in this country. We’ve go to get a lot smarter about this issue than we are, and as president, I’d try and achieve that.

Kudos to Dodd for saying what needed to be said, which is to say, highlighting common sense. I realize there’s still a sizable number of people who believe the mere suggestion of decriminalization automatically comes with a soft-on-crime label, but the status quo is not only absurd, it’s unsustainable.

I’m glad this came up last night, because it’d be helpful if more candidates weighed in on this. We’ve heard bits and pieces in recent months.

I haven’t seen too many questions about decriminalization, per se, but there have been some related questions and answers. Barack Obama, for example, was asked in New Hampshire back in August whether he’d send federal law enforcement to override state medical-marijuana laws. He said he wouldn’t, concluding it wouldn’t be a wise use of federal resources.

As for Republicans, not only is there no talk about decriminalization, but they’re also taking hard line against medical use. Mitt Romney had this exchange a few weeks ago:

Following a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire, a member of the audience, Clayton Holton, told Romney he has muscular dystrophy and said five of his doctors say he is “living proof medical marijuana works.”

“I am completely against legalizing it for everyone, but there is medical purposes for it,” Holton told Romney.

Romney pointed out that there is synthetic marijuana as well as other pain medications available. “It makes me sick. I have tried it, and it makes me throw up,” Holton said. “My question for you is will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana.”

“I am not in favor of medical marijuana being legal in the country,” Romney said as he moved on to greet other people.

Holton continued, “Excuse me, will you please answer my question?”

“I think I have. I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana,” the Massachusetts Republican said.

Rudy Giuliani is on the same page.

Maybe this could get fleshed out in future debates?

i really like what dodd has been saying. i wish the media would stop concentrating on the three leading candidates and include some of the others…..

  • Morphine is legal for medical purposes. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep marijuana illegal for medical purposes.

  • I take prescription Marinol. Half the time it doesn’t work, so I’m left to suffer. The only reason I don’t go the smoking route is because hubby is an attorney for the government. Gawds know there are plenty of dealers out there.

    This country’s policy on drugs is absolutely draconian. Legalize them, regulate them, tax them, and penalize underage use, driving while under the influence, etc. Use the tax revenues for treatment programs for those who need and/or want them.

    Take away the incentive for all of the illegal trafficking and dealing.

    THAT’S a sensible drug policy.

  • Legalize it and impeach Bush and Cheney for the hell of it. Nobody ever overdosed on THC.

    The three biggest gateway drugs are legal –caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. And just look at all the psychotropic drugs that the legal drug-pushers advertise daily.

  • I say legalize pot, medicalize the rest (as in probation, treatment, and if necessary, prescription), and let the police focus on more important things.

    I wish this were a sane country where the politicians could talk about reality instead of yammering on about “sending the wrong message”. What the hell kind of a message does the Iraq War send, Mr. Edwards? You voted for that nonsense.

  • Morphine is legal for medical purposes. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep marijuana illegal for medical purposes.

    Sure it does. Just ask the pharmas. How can they charge billions and billions for something that can grow in your backyard? They can’t, so it continues to be illegal and millions spend serious time in jail over it.

    Remember, if you can’t make money off it, it’s not a good thing. Rinse and Repeat, Repeat, Repeat, ad nauseum. It’s the Republican way! Good for big business, fruck the average joe.

  • How many people are killed by “stoned” drivers compared to the number of people killed by being drunk?

    Looks to me that if anything should be banned for the good of the country, it should be alcohol, but that is a big industry, and big industry runs the country.

  • “How many people are killed by “stoned” drivers compared to the number of people killed by being drunk?” should be– by drunk drivers

  • “but that is a big industry, and big industry runs the country.”

    Well, I would think that big industry would jump at the chance to produce marijuana. It would be easy to grow and harvest, take minimal processing once harvested and basically be a high margin product.

    I think if your looking for someone to blame for this, you should look elsewhere.

  • Based on the NYT transcript, Edwards was the only candidate who expressed disagreement with Dodd on this point. (Biden seems to have muttered something inaudible.) This sounds too good to be true. Or were Clinton and Obama just keeping quiet so they wouldn’t have to stick their necks out.

    I like Edwards, but he’s dead wrong here. I’m sick and tired of watching Bush for the past seven years continue to do stupid things because to do otherwise would “Send the wrong message.” Enough with messages. Give us good policy!

  • How can they charge billions and billions for something that can grow in your backyard?

    You’re naive if you think legalization would mean you could grow it unregulated in your yard.

    Even legalized, growing pot will be illegal. That’ll be a condition of getting the pharaceutical industry to not shut the whole thing down. They’ll get a new pharmaceutical that they can grow, process and sell back to us, but it’ll be illegal to grow it yourself. That’ll cut down on the number of people in jail (as Dodd says) without harming profit margins. (And it’ll be sold as a “won’t someone thinks of the children” rationale – to make sure you are of the proper age before you can get ahold of it).

    See also the aftermath of prohibition and the crackdowns on moonshiners even after alcohol was legal again. Even folks who owned their own still and distilled for their own recreational purposes were shut down by the Federales. Hell, we just saw a couple of days ago that Fred Thompson’s biggest cases as a prosecutor were against illegal moonshiners, and that was in the 70s.

  • I would think that big industry would jump at the chance to produce marijuana.

    The alcohol industry wouldn’t like it, to pick an industry at random. Nor, really, does the pharmaceutical industry like the idea (no patents so anyone can sell it, high investment in large swaths of land to manufacture enough to sell themselves for razor thin profits, AND it would be competition for some of their own high-profit patented pain-killing concoctions).

    It would be good for the tobacco industry, though, since they already have the infrastructure in place to reap the benefits. I imagine that they have enough of a negative image in the public eye that they aren’t going to be overtly pushing for legalization, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them take advantage of it.

  • I like Dodd’s perspective on this because it is very true that the punishment for pot possession does not fit the crime. Do I want to see pot everywhere? No, but I think we are messing up more lives by criminalizing small-time possession than the drug itself has chance to do.

    The Republican hard-line position on pot is very similar to their attitudes on sex They want to create a world where people will be so terrified of the punishment for various deeds that they will walk a puritanical straight line. But just a people naturally will seek sex they also seek other ways to make themsleves feel better. We have to face reality that humans are “imperfect” in their desires and we can’t make everything that feels good a crime.

  • petorado, the Republicans understand that people are imperfect in their desires, but if we create a scary enough, sufficiently stigmatizing culture against feeling good, that makes the price of buying “indulgences” from the Church of Capitalism that much higher — and that suits the Repubs just fine. wanna feel as good as an illegal drug would make you feel? no problem: pay us $10 per dose and we’ll sell you an indulgence to feel good. Our indulgence happens to be called OxyContin, or Xanax, or Valium, or Ambien. . .

  • Let’s look at the involved industries:
    Alcohol – against, competition
    Pharma – against, competition
    Chemical – against, competition (hemp)
    Forestry – against, competition (again, hemp)
    Law Enforcment – split (more control vs more sanity)
    Penal – against, no explanation needed there
    Drug Testing – against (the only real thing they can see after 48 hours)
    Fundamental Churches – against
    Organized Crime – against

    That’s a lot of people, and a lot of money.

  • I like Edwards, but he’s dead wrong here.

    I like Edwards too, in general, but he’s dead wrong on a whole lot of things. I suspect that, like Obama, it has more to do with crappy advisors and his own ignorance about many issues. He’s saying that biofuels will be good for poor farmers in Africa and S. America. Wrong! Many reputable organizations (the OECD, for one) have given the lie to this total BS., and showed how harmful the whole “biofuel revolution” is going to be unless we stop it. Nuclear power? Totally off Edwards’ table, yet he ignores safegeneration IV reactors that can eliminate virtually every problem with it. Health care? Okay, but short of single-payer, and why? We all know it works.

    Nice guy, maybe. But he’s got plenty of lame policy positions that fly in the face of good sense. His medical marijuana stance is just one of them.

  • Have the Dutch ever been attacked by terrosist? I dont think so. Have the Dutch ever invaded anyone (for any reason)in the last few hundred years? No.
    Does the Dutch method for soft drug control work. YES.
    I also read the Netherlands have the lowest unemployment rate in the world, sounds pretty positive to me, a model that works.

    • Comments are closed.