Thanks, Rob.

Yeah. Who's to gain. No point talking about issues unless they mean points in the polls. We surely don't want to have our Presidential candidates leading anything. Or educating anyone. Who's to gain from reduced violence? Who's to gain from reduced government bloat? Who's to gain from good foreign policy? Who's to gain from stopping racism? Why bother? The votes aren't there. And that's all that matters.

Just let that guy with the funny name you can't spell bring it up and that should be just fine.
Pete Guither | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 5:19 pm | #

Pete,

Are you serious? You don't think I care about change and educating people on the current, shitty state of things? I need to find a new hobby then. And if that was the case I would drop out of the crowded field of drug reform bloggers and stick to posting amusing videos like the fonz educating kids on kid-touching, and my bestiality jokes. Much easier, not to mention a better outlet for my sociopath tendencies.

I was talking about the politics of the issue, plain and simple. I don't live in a dream world; these power hungry politicians care only about votes. I was looking at it from their viewpoint.

Why aren't they talking about the issue? That was the question I was trying to answer. Obviously I would love for every mainstream presidential candidate to be talking about drug policy reform, but they aren't. Don't you wonder why that is?

I do, and I was trying to get at that.

This is my issue, the one I care about the most, but I'm not insulated and crazy; and I realize that isn't the case for most of the electorate, esp. in an election cycle where you have a war abroad going poorly and a political party poised to seize on the opportunity created from that failure.

I could care less if Hillary or Obama get the votes. But they care. So it might behoove us who want change to ponder what might make them care.

You make moral, correct, and important points. Unfournatley none of them address what I actually wrote. I don't have a dog in this presidential race, I wasn't advising these candidates not to address the issue of drug policy reform. Rather I was attempting to point out why it wasn't in their political interest to do so. Huge difference.
Rob | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 10:02 pm | #

As for the spelling. Please....I mixed up my religious origins of whiskey the other day. Misspelling Kusinich's name is hardly on my top 5 list of concerns.

And I never said he was crazy.

But he does have a hot wife.
Rob | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 10:04 pm | #

Sorry, Rob. You caught me at a bad moment. I know you're on the right side.

And you're right about the practical aspects of the political picture... possibly. But I have gotten so tired of people (mostly on the left, but other places as well) saying that it is politically unwise to even talk about the drug war -- that there are more important issues politically.

Everybody says it so often that I worry that it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The media doesn't bring it up because it's a non-issue in the campaigns. It isn't included in poll questions because it's considered a non-starter. People don't volunteer it because the media and the politicians aren't talking about it. The politicians don't talk about it because all of their advisors tell them it's politically unwise because it's not on the radar of the public.

And I sometimes wonder if we've all been taken in by this. Certainly the Democrats have not been gaining a tremendous amount of political strength by being wimpy about the issues. Given the Republican Party's self-destruction, it's only the appearance that the Democrats haven't really stood for anything that's even allowing the Republicans to stay in the game.

Sure, the drug war may be political suicide, but dammit, I really want to believe that it doesn't have to be, so I react when I feel the meme is getting reinforced.

Apologies.
Pete Guither | Homepage | 04.07.07 - 1:53 am | #

The pure politics of the issue are fascinating.

I went to the very first SSDP organizing conference in DC in (I think) 2000. It was mostly upper-middle class white kids, playing to stereotype. Listening to lecture and learning to organize during the day, taking tokes and bong hits at night. There was nothing wrong with it--no worse than retiring to the bar after a day at the political convention, an American tradition going back centuries.

But the conference also featured some college NAACP chapters. And they perceived the Drug War very differently. To many of them (most if I remember correctly) the problem was not the War on Drugs, per se. Instead, the problem was that the War on Drugs was being misused by racists insistent on perpetuating white supremacy. What we needed, they thought, was a Drug War that was prosecuted with equal justice against White Yuppie and Black Crack Dealer alike. These were some of the most disheartening political conversations I've ever had.

~~~~

How do we end the Drug War? We need to appeal to the vast swathes of White, Middle Class, Suburban Voters. They swing the elections and therefore, they are the crucial voters, the ones with power.

Problem: They don't want to see their kids experimenting with drugs.

Second Problem: They don't see how the War on Drugs costs them anything. They think that this is a common sense function of government, like the War on Murder.

What to do?

(1) Start with marijuana. I'd prefer across-the-board liberalization too, but we need to shoot for the half-a-loaf we can get. Go for heavy taxation/regulation. Promise to concentrate MJ use in places that are strictly off-limits to kids. In essence, re-run the Nevada strategy. And try to imply that soft drugs are a replacement for hard drugs.

2) The creative part. Try to emphasize that their is a Peace Dividend for ending the Drug War. You have to monetize the liberalization process. If people got a rebate check from the thousands of fewer incarcerated users, you could imagine the drug war ending quite quickly. Unfortunately, there are so many taxpayers that the check would have to be quite small. Public choice economics wins again.

But what if you did something like Prop 36 in California (treatment not jail) and sent the savings directly back to the taxpayer? Hard to do, I know (see above). But people have to have tangible evidence that the Drug War is costly. Otherwise they'll always support it, under the brilliant theory Drugs are Bad, Mmmmmkay?
End the Drug War Now | Homepage | 04.07.07 - 10:11 am | #