It might not be an ideal situation, but I believe there is very little a presidential candidate could do that would be more effective at attracting new voters than to come out for relaxing our marijuana laws. The easiest and most sensible way to do that is to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III or Schedule IV drug. Scientific studies, the American Medical Association, and even Nancy Pelosi have all recommended that the government acknowledge that smoked marijuana can have health benefits and should not be classified as a Schedule I drug.
I don’t want to get into the debate about health benefits or the social consequences; I just want to talk about the politics. I think we’ve gone beyond the tipping point to where it is a political winner to be against our current marijuana laws. There are tons of young voters (including most young people who don’t use it) who cannot comprehend why recreational marijuana use is considered a major crime by the federal government. And they will be motivated to vote for a candidate who is willing to stop treating pot smokers as criminals. I think Ron Paul’s popularity with young voters is mostly explained by his libertarian attitude toward marijuana.
It’s nice to see the Obama administration say that they want to explore the medical uses of marijuana, and I have hope that they’ll go much further in a second term when they don’t have to worry about reelection. But the time to make an announcement is now, when they’ll derive a political benefit from it. In fact, it would even reverse some damage that has resulted from the Justice Department’s aggressive crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries. The crackdown is worthy of its own diary because it’s more complicated than it appears at first sight, but it has disenchanted a lot of potential Obama supporters. That harm can be undone very quickly and easily.
The Obama administration should signal that they are looking seriously at rescheduling marijuana as a Class III or IV drug, and they should do it soon.
Amen!
In general, I think the Democrats would be well served to take on more libertarian positions with regards to most instances of legal paternalism in our federal and state statutes. As you observed, this is a generational shift in attitude that needs to be acknowledged and respected. Younger people believe that government has no business regulating what we do when there is no victim. If the Democrats would move to the left on these issues, it would put the Republicans in a huge, huge bind going forward. But the Dems need to move quickly.
.
Worthwhile to offer Republican subliminal messaging in political ads some thought. h/t The Voice In The Wilderness
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I couldn’t agree more, except it’s late in the game and I wonder how much credibility such an announcement would have now. Would the political gain balance the attacks it would provoke from the GOP? Hard to say. If he’d done this a couple years ago — at least the medical mj part — he’d probably be up a few points in the polls now. And the Pauls probably wouldn’t have the traction they have today.
Of course I’d go much farther than med mj (like abolish the DEA for starters).
Personally I couldn’t agree more, but I think you lose 90% of your voters Silent Generation or older. Not that it’s a strong demographic for Team Obama, but I don’t think they can afford (pardon the expression 😉 that big a hit, especially in Ohio or Florida.
I’m guessing they know the numbers on this and went the other way because young voters are cynical but will vote for them anyway, where the fuddy-duddys would get outraged and vote the other way.
Importantly, for many older Americans this is solidly a race issue, because their association of marijuana is with “those” people. As a result, the optics of a black man making weed easier to get would be beyond disastrous with Americans of a certain generation.
This is one of those issues, like marriage equality, where if the President actually shows courage (something his opponent is incapable of) and takes a stand and says he will not allow opinion polls to dictate his values, people will be forced to choose which side of the issue they’re on and this will actually change the polls (hopefully in the right direction.)
Regardless of whether any given voter agrees with a politician on any given issue, we all instinctively respect leaders who show the courage to take a (sane) position on an issue and stick to it. The “strong, resolute leader” as opposed to the “waffler.”
Good politics is showing the balls to take a firm position and showing the ability to persuade the rest of us to follow. Wishy-washy “undecided” voters are just looking for a “strong leader” – a “winner” to lead the way for the pack. The Republicans know this and the Dems seem to be re-learning it lately.
OT, but Boo, how is your back today? Any relief?
It is considerably better but still painful enough that I just took some more pills to numb it. Lots of stretching and hot and cold exposure has loosened it up, but there’s a lot of muscle trauma left over. I should be better in a couple of days as long as I take it easy.
Yay for improvement. Hope that continues and you’re back to normal soon. If you’re taking ibuprofen for the pain, remember that ibuprofen also acts to reduce inflammation, so you might want to continue to take it for a bit even after the pain lessens to the point that you might normally try to do without the pills.
I think politically this is a loser at the Presidential level. There are only a handful of Congresspeople who even support this and even though more than 50% of Americans support legalization that doesn’t necessarily mean more than 50% of voters do and I don’t see this as a big GOTV vehicle to help close that gap.
How many kids do you know that are in the 18-22 range?
There’s a very strong anti-government attitude in this generation that is driven more than anything else by our drug laws and particularly our marijuana laws.
Twenty-five years ago, when I was in high school, lots of kids smoked marijuana, but it was also treated as a serious crime by local law enforcement. Today, the cops often don’t even bother arresting kids who are obviously dealing. They just call their parents or set them free with a fine. The federal government’s attitude seems totally out of touch because there’s almost de facto decriminalization at the local level (at least, in most places).
Obama is losing these kids more through apathy than open opposition. They’re not that into politics anyway, and if you give them a reason to be ambivalent, they’ll stay home in droves. Yet, they will flock like moths to a candidate like Ron Paul who reflects their values on pot.
I think you’re over estimating Ron Paul’s influence on the issue.
I know plenty of people in that age range, especially since I’m only about 10 years removed. Pot legalization doesn’t move votes, I’ve never heard one person say it my entire life, and I know that’s not proof but I haven’t seen any polls saying that it moves votes either.
I’ve seen polls like I said above that legalization is approved by 50%+ of Americans but I don’t think you gain or lose any young voters on this issue. Plus, especially at the Presidential level, you’re losing the older generation who actually vote more consistently.
I don’t see a President endorsing this when there aren’t even very many Congresspeople who are openly supporting this from safe districts on either side of the aisle.
I don’t see how the crackdown is that complicated.
People began to try and use the med. marijuana exceptions to obtain it for recreational use and Obama freaked out at the potential political damage.
End story.
More accurately, people began to sell it for recreational use in violation of state and federal laws, and they were doing it in school zones.
No, more accurately people began to buy it for recreational use. But even if that WERE a bad thing (and it’s not) Obama is going after all pot outfits indiscriminately rather than just those who sell in school zones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/harborside-health-center-_0_n_1666850.html
Damn, I can’t remember if it was the Atlantic or Daily Beast but there is a great story on there about why Obama became a hypocrite on pot.
no. The problem was still selling. The DOJ isn’t locking up buyers. They are not closing down users houses and apartments.
This dispensaries were not acting in a legal manner even under state law.
I’m visiting my hometown this week, and wound up hanging out with an old buddy who returned from Afghanistan to become a cop. We eneded up talking at length about marijuana. He told me that most cops that he knows would also be in favor of legalization, except for one thing: there is no test that can be used to figure out whether someone is driving under the influence of weed the same way you can tell if someone’s driving drunk.
he was saying once that’s addressed -it’s a public safety issue- then cops by and large would be on board.
that is an interesting point
There’s a legalization initiative on the Nov. ballot here in WA, and an organized effort to defeat it by medical marijuana advocates. The problem is that in an effort to address the DUI concern for mainstream voters when it inevitably comes up in the campaign, they set the blood THC level for DUI so low that any regular user, including most MMJ patients, will exceed it all the time, whether they’re impaired or not. (THC stays in the blood for weeks, far after the time of intoxication.)
Ironically, even though this was done for public safety reasons, most law enforcement groups are opposing the initiative anyway. According to a friend who helped write the initiative, that’s the work of the old guard leadership; most front line cops are in favor of it and in general think draconian pot laws are idiotic.
How impaired to drive is someone on weed? From what I know (note, not personal use never had pot) they tend to drive slower and more cautiously.
There were some alleged studies that claimed pot does not impair driving, or very little. Don’t have time to try and link them right now, and they’d be denied by the prohibitionists anyway. Its just a feeling based on some experience, but it seems to me pot smokers are far more conscious of their mental state than drinkers are. They’ll drive more safely for the same reason they don’t keep getting into barroom brawls.
I’ve seen anecdotal evidence that it makes you drive better:
Also, if anyone wants an argument against this, here it is: there’s substantial evidence that a lot of drinkers will switch to marijuana, and therefore the number of impaired drivers on the road will decrease, thus increasing safety.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Haha, it’s sound ironic, but you may get prisoned smoking just tobacco instead a cannabis or another narcotic there...
That seems kind of silly to me. There’s no test to prove if people are driving under the influence of coke or speed or acid or caffeine or sleeplessness or a blow job or failure to take their meds, or just plain arrogance or stupidity. The cause of bad driving or accidents is really kind of irrelevant to the fact of the violation.
THANK YOU for making this argument, Dave. I was going to make it myself until I saw it. It’s also why I am against DUI’s in general. Charge people for recklessly driving. The reason is irrelevant.
Someone would develop that test if there was a need. I could set up a program to look for one. Certainly if you can smell it on the breath, you can test the level.
Geez, what a totally tone-deaf, politically ignorant column. Obama is already getting shit from the right about him smoking dope 30 years ago in high school. Can you imagine the attack ads?
Downside is WAYYYYY bigger than upside on legalization.
Romney must have chain-smoked three joints to come up with his economic plan.
Somebody else made THAT happen.