Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama's Biden Pick Signals 'More of the Same' Stupid Drug Policies

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2008.


Joe Biden authored the laws establishing the White House drug czar and random drug testing of public employees, among others.
Advertisement

Voters who hoped that Barack Obama's call for "change" would include revamping U.S. drug policy are finding themselves with reasons to be skeptical.

First there was Obama's flip-flop-flip-flop on the subject of decriminalizing marijuana. Speaking at Northwestern University in January 2004, Obama called America's so-called "war on drugs" an "utter failure," and recommended, "(W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation's) marijuana laws." (Obama's candid remarks, though out of step politically, echo public sentiment. Nearly 3 out of 4 Americans endorsed the policy in a 2002 CNN/Time Magazine poll, and 12 state legislatures have already enacted versions of pot decriminalization -- replacing criminal penalties with fine-only sanctions.)

Nevertheless, Obama reversed his pro-pot position during a televised November 2007 MSNBC debate, raising his hand to indicate his opposition to the policy. Following the debate, a spokesman for Obama claimed that the candidate had misunderstood the moderator's question and declared that Obama had, in fact, "always" supported decriminalization. Hours later, however, when presented with video footage of Obama's 2004 statements, the campaign reversed course once again, stating to the Washington Times that the Democratic nominee opposed decriminalizing weed.

Since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama has voiced almost no criticism regarding America's punitive drug policies (despite his previous "utter failure" evaluation). As senator, Obama has championed popular anti-drug legislation like the "Combat Meth Act" and has lobbied in favor of increased funding for drug courts and U.S. drug interdiction efforts south of the border.

Nevertheless, many progressives believe -- perhaps rightly -- that Obama's prior admissions of illicit drug use (which the candidate now describes, without further elaboration, as a "mistake"), coupled with his apparent nonideological, holistic approach to public policy, indicates a willingness to move American drug policy away from the moralist, "do drugs, do time" attitudes associated with the Bush administration. If so, then the sudden pairing with Democrat drug war hawk Joe Biden becomes that much more distressing.

During his 35 years in Congress, political observers note that no Democrat has sponsored "more damaging drug war legislation" than Joe Biden. Biden led the charge in the Senate for passage of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which -- among its numerous notorious provisions -- re-established mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes, expanded the use of federal asset forfeiture laws, and established the racially biased 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for the possession of crack versus powder cocaine. (During the mid-'80s, it was hardly unusual for "liberals" such as Biden to endorse punitive drug policies, which at the time enjoyed virtually unanimous support from Congress.) Biden recently offered a mea culpa regarding his former support for the disproportionate sentencing provision, rationalizing, "Our intentions were good, but much of our information was bad."

Biden was also a key architect of the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which enacted mandatory sentences for minor crack cocaine possession (five years in prison for possession of more than 5 grams), redefined low-level drug mules as drug "conspirators" (allowing these defendants to face the same penalties as drug kingpins), instituted random workplace drug testing programs for public employees, and established the multibillion-dollar anti-drug propaganda wing of the White House known as the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the federal agency responsible for creating the television ads that claimed that pot smoking sponsors international terrorism -- or at least makes you pregnant). The executive director of the ONDCP, dubbed by Biden as America's "drug czar," was eventually elevated in 1993 to that of a presidential Cabinet position -- arguably the only U.S. Cabinet position that, by law, is mandated to lie to the American public.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: drug policy, barack obama, election 2008, joe biden

Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama has made a fundamentally political choice
Posted by: Uriahz on Sep 6, 2008 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By withdrawing his support for ending the righteously unjust, anti-american war on some drugs, Obama seeks to avoid criticisms taken out of context, of losing even more of middle america to the hounds of those who appear 'soft on crime'. He seeks to gain the support of so-called 'legitimate' drug companies that profit by the structure of regulation and control that surrounds psychoactive chemicals in this country today. He attempts to take drugs off the table.

With 3/4 Americans supporting medical marijuana and/or decriminalization, he can do whatever he wants when he's elected president. The fact remains that while drug reform is a major issue, a nearly universal issue for his base; among independents, it's a lot more dicey, and represents another potential rallying point for anti-Obama organization, one more substantial than lies about his being a Muslim. We all know the GOP is playing dirty this election, as with the '04 election. He has no need to bring drugs into this election, certainly not with so many other pressing issues to address.

As for Biden, the position of Vice President is largely ceremonial, and his selection as a candidate was based on his longstanding ability to get things accomplished in Washington. Part of the Democratic platform of the 80s and 90s was one of pursuing the drug war, and if he's late to the table in letting go of this witless, criminal endeavor, then at least he'll have less power to continue it as Vice President than as the senior Senator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't be an Apologist Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Don't be an Apologist Posted by: Uriahz
» Circular Reasoning Posted by: pdxjoe
Biden on the money!
Posted by: LionHeart on Sep 6, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""instituted random workplace drug testing programs for public employees,"" -

maybe thats the problem with our public employees and why nothing the government touches works correctly - ..they're all stoned! Random drug testing is a good thing. Drugs reduces productivity not to mention all the other problems associated with drug use.

Try owning you're own business and go to work on drugs..you'll be out of business in no time!

Biden got it right on this one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: butler12
» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: LionHeart
» RE: Biden on the take? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Biden on the take? Posted by: LionHeart
» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: MildGreens
» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: LionHeart
» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: EJLima
» Wrong again Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: Mikmo6
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: LionHeart
» The good old days Posted by: LionHeart
» Which drugs do you mean? Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Which drugs do you mean? Posted by: LionHeart
» You could be wrong..lion! Posted by: donl51
» RE: You could be wrong..lion! Posted by: LionHeart
» RE: Biden on the money! Posted by: EJLima
tough one to call
Posted by: schnoggi on Sep 6, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama would be a fool to campaign on the promise to end the Drug War; the cretins in McCorpse's camp would have a field day with it. He's one of the more savvy political strategists we've seen in a good long while, so I'm hoping that he's just giving easy shiny answers, but once he gets in he'll actually show a brain. Picking Biden though, well, it's not like the VP necessarily gets any political clout, the current asshole-in-chief being the exception to that. But for sneaking in that shitty RAVE Act in some shady overnight deal, after if was repeatedly shot down by less insidious means, Biden needs to have his balls tasered and then crushed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I put a spell on you
Posted by: Lauren on Sep 6, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because you are mine.

As senator, Obama has championed popular anti-drug legislation like the "Combat Meth Act"

Biden also sponsored federal anti-paraphernalia legislation forbidding the interstate sale of glass pipes, bongs and rolling papers. (In 2003, Hollywood actor and comedian Tommy Chong was sentenced to nine months in federal prison for violating the statute.

More recently, Biden authored the so-called RAVE Act (aka the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act) -- clandestinely enacted into law in 2003 as a rider to federal "Amber Alert" legislation -- which permits federal law enforcement to prosecute business owners and event organizers who hold concerts where illicit drug use takes place.

Biden is also a staunch supporter of U.S. anti-drug efforts abroad, such as Plan Columbia and Plan Afghanistan, and has even espoused for the use of mycoherbicides such as Fusarium oxysporum -- a genetically engineered fungal plant killer -- in illicit crop eradication efforts.

In recent months, Biden has called for a nationwide smoking ban, demanded stricter penalties for those who violate "drug free school zone" laws, and spoken out against efforts to lower the national drinking age to 18.


What unites all these pieces of legislation? They are all discriminating against me, my people, for religion. A lot of it is in response to my blogging too, a fact that gives me a considerable load of PTSD type survivors guilt. I consider Biden a personal tormenter.

It was a group effort - like a gang rape. Biden was obviously on the committee reviewing my file, just like Feinstein. I think he is motivated by his religion. Catholics feel very strongly that I should be persecuted and their children must be protected from ever meeting me.

Feinstein ran to Obama to get him roped in on the meth act after I wrote her a letter (and started being hunted by the spying agencies and police).

Oh gee, does it look like a conspiracy to eliminate my civil rights? Only from here. From underneath. From the bottom it looks like a conspiricy to commit horrible crimes.

From the top it looks like protecting your country, waving the flag.

Funny how a difference in perspective, top or bottom, changes things. Funny how life, or rape, is like that, positively droll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I put a spell on you Posted by: EJLima
» While you're at it.. Posted by: donl51
Not so Savvy
Posted by: suckerbeagle on Sep 6, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Nader supporter but I want to say this to Obama supporters who attempt to rationalize his so-called move to the right (I think he was always there, but many might disagree). Publicly taking positions that are opposed to what most Americans want doesn't win elections. You may think this is just politics and Obama has to appeal to the 'middle', but the middle is for repeal of these Draconian drug laws, the middle is for withdrawal from Iraq, and the middle is not interested in supporting the 'right' war in Afganistan. The middle is for single payer health care. I know there's a perception that voting for FISA and ditching single payer for something called 'universal healthcare' that leaves American medical care in the hands of the HMOs is appealing to the 'middle'. But not so. And guess what? How many people are going to be energized to get out there and vote for this stuff that they are not for? So many young people who were galvanized by the early Obama image are having their eyes opened. Many are turning to third party alternatives and many won't bother to vote if the candidate is seen to be moving rapidly away from the things they want so badly. Obama simply doesn't support the things that the majority wants. American liberals were shocked when Kerry lost in 2004. Granted the election may have been stolen, but Obama looked at first like he was the real deal. He doesn't look like that anymore. He should be miles ahead in the polls, and he's not. The Democratic majority elected in 2006 to end the occupation of Iraq and done the opposite. We can't keep blaming the Christian right or third party candidates for the failure of the Democratic Party to respond to the majority of Americans. It shouldn't be a surprise when 'middle' America doesn't rush to the polls to elect another Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the 1930s?
Posted by: Last Chance on Sep 6, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prohibition of acoholic beverages only encouraged massive gangster operations, but when again legalized it was brought under federal control. Why can't they do that with the other drugs? Many thousands of people are killing themselves with illegal narcotics because there is no federal regulation other than prohibition, which didn't work in the 30s and isn't working now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emember the 1930s? Posted by: richholland
» They can do it. Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: emember the 1930s? Posted by: Lauren
Obama used to be for legalizing Cannabis but someone told me he changed his mind on that one.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 6, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And his selection of Joe Biden pretty much erases doubts. What's the matter with Democrats anyway? The least Obama could have done is pick Dennis Kucinich or even pro-working class Senators such as Russ Feingold or Byron Dorgan or better yet reached out to populist governors in red states such as Brian Schweitzer of MT or Dave Freudenthal of WY. But nooooooooo ! Obama had to pick another fucking elitist Washington insider. Unless Nader wins, this country's only gonna see darker days ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And so much for "change" from either Obama or Mccain !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 6, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
26000 industrial uses of hemp including producing fuel and reducing dependence on foreign oil and saving/repairing the environment are pretty much shelved for at least another 4 years unless Ron Paul can get enough members of both parties to approve of the HEMP Farming Act he's trying AGAIN to pass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Melanin does not a liberal make
Posted by: Jim Swanson on Sep 6, 2008 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has never been a liberal, but has been a carefully closeted neocon. When he ran for the US Senate several years ago friends of mine from the Chicago Law School pointed this out to me but I doubted them. I supported him financially and by campaigning in both the primary and the election, but as I listened to his speeches I realized that he really came from North of the Midway--the University of Chicago business and economics departments, home to the "Chicago boys" school of Strauss and Friedman et al. Close readings of his books reaffirmed this and now he has chosen "Lock em up" Joe as his running mate. Obama never officially opposed the illegal war on Iraq and even now calls for an enlarged illegal war on Afghanistan. If he really wants to attack the home and funding of 9/11 it would be Saudi Arabia, but they control our oil and own a large portion of our Treasury bills and 9/11 was really just a lucky break for a small group of religious nutcases--an epiphenomenon. A fluke and nothing more.
Under Obama/Biden we will continue to see hundreds of thousands of people of color and poverty brutalized, oppressed and incarcerated here in the US for non-violent, racist and class based "drug offenses".
We would be better off voting for the incompetent McPalin ticket and let them self destruct while we, the people, work to elect a bulletproof Congress in 2008 and 2010 which will repeal this "war on drugs" which has always been a WAR on the poor and of color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biden is a time-tested weasel.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 6, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition to his "war on drugs", Biden supported the so-called Patriot Act until it became politically expedient not to.

He authored a bill that would make the DOJ an investigative arm for the RmafIAA and his Hollywood executive pals, at taxpayer expense.

He authored a bill that would have required those who use personal encryption methods to provide keys the federal government.

He's a stinker, and he is the embodiment of business as usual in a Washington that is more interested in donations than your civil rights.

Change?

Hardly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paraquat Carter was willing to kill marijuana smokers!
Posted by: war_on_tara on Sep 6, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottom line: No administration since the Carter administration has proactively taken steps to liberalize federal drug penalties...

Paraquat Carter? Really?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain ...NO Biden...NO....Soooooo
Posted by: picket on Sep 6, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This my dilemma...I can not stand either John M or Joe B

When I watched the 60 minute Obama/Biden interview and saw Joe Biden interrupt Obama in the interview take over the conversation, I was not surprised.....BUT...I am very sad that Obama picked a Drug Warrior like Joe B.

I do not live in a battleground state. Obama has a clear win in my State, so I have a way out, vote for neither. Obama has to make a BOLD move to win my vote. I just do not see that happening, BUT McBUSH will*** NEVER ***get my vote.

Joe Biden, Drug Warrior/Fred Gardner..9/6/08 My view exactly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like the mob.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Sep 6, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fortunately for the planet, more rational minds -- at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, of all places -- nixed the idea, deciding that the deliberate spread of such toxic pathogens would be unsafe for the environment.

Using these toxic pathogens would hurt the drug farms of the CIA, too. Then it would be more difficult to get the money needed to run the secret wars of the NSA/corporate owners of the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like the mob. Posted by: Lauren
Obama doesn't care about black people
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Sep 6, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take off your rose colored glasses.

Votes matter.

Obama is as likely to go change FISA once in office as he is to go change the drug laws.

Obama does not care about black people, or other minorities who make up the lionshare of those in prison for non-violent drug offenses.

If he actually cared about those being incarcerated he would take a stand on this issue.

I can think of no issue including reparations or affirmative action that would have such a dramatically positive affect on minority communities than the ending of the drug war.

Going to jail for a non-violent drug offense leaves a person with a criminal record. It destroys families, it is more difficult to get a job with a rapsheet, it takes away a chunk of a human being's life, time when they could have been doing something and instead has them rotting away in a cage. For what? This issue hurts communities of color more than any other. If Obama really cared, he would take a stand and take steps to end the drug war.

He does not care.


Quit voting for Kang and Kodos people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Problem Is...
Posted by: Carol Burns on Sep 6, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that there ARE many drugs on the street that are dangerous: methamphetamine and crack cocaine are the illegal ones; oxycodone, Xanex, and others are the "legal" ones. Meth and crack are devastating both our cities and our rural areas, and it's not hard to find a doctor willing to prescribe the legal but equally devastating ones. But marijuana, the least innocuous of all, including alcohol and nicotine, is also the drug most likely to show up in a drug test. The classification of marijuana as a "dangerous drug" is misguided, especially in view of the fact that marijuana has many medicinal properties, has been legalized for medicinal use in many states, and has recently been endorsed by the American College of Physicians as a pain reliever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Problem Is... Posted by: Jim Swanson
» RE: I have to agree with you both... Posted by: thealltheone
Why Biden?
Posted by: Timberbee on Sep 6, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biden is another Lieberman. Why the HECK is Obama picking this awful person to be his running mate? What is this, an insurance policy for the Republicans?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Biden? Posted by: Lauren
Biden is moot...
Posted by: Red Green on Sep 6, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...like Palin.Unless,of course,Biden be Cheney Even Bob Barr,who was obviously hit by lightening,changed his stripes.Get them in ,then we can have a revolution if they fail to perform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plan Mexico
Posted by: mutualaid on Sep 6, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't this author discussing the most topical example of the 'war on drugs'?

Congress is considering DOUBLING last year huge lethal aid package:

www.witnessforpeace.org/article.php?id=502

Obama wanted to give Bush more $$ for 'war on drugs' in central america. This is a multi-billion $ militarization package that threatens turning fragile emerging democracies into police states.

Already happening in Mexico from last year's funding & encouragement from Bush, Pelosi, Obama etc.

Will bring all the 'success' of Colombia to Mexico and the Caribbean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biden opposes crack laws today
Posted by: HansBennett on Sep 6, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate the essay, as it is always important to criticize liberals, but I think it is important to note that he has recently spoken out against the mandatory minimum crack laws. I am pasting below the essay that Mumia Abu-Jamal recently wrote about it. I agree with your criticism of Biden, so we should do all we can to make sure he doesn't become spineless and reject this opposition to the racist crack laws.

http://prisonradio.org/MumiaCrimeWarMyths.htm

The Costs of Crime War Myths
[col. writ. 2/14/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

I caught a brief snippet of the news a few days ago, of Delaware Senator
Joseph Biden's apology for writing, introducing and sponsoring passage of a
1986 Crime Bill which heightened federal penalties for crack usage and
possession.

Sen. Biden said he recognized now that the bill was based on myth. Much
of it hyped by the daily press, which in turn fed the National phobia about
drugs, and pushed politicians to support more and more draconian methods of
repression.

While Biden should be applauded for his rare political honesty, one
can't help but wonder about the tens of thousands (if not more), who are still
stuck in what are essentially life bits, based on fear and myth.

For crack cocaine, despite its fearsome reputation, differs little from
powder cocaine, except in how the users and possessors of both are treated by
the law.

But fear and myth are the seed corn of American politics, and its prison
system. From the very inception of the American prison, foreigners,
activists and the poor were targeted for imprisonment. As researchers Laura Magnani
and Harmon L. Wray have written in their Beyond Prisons: A New Interfaith
Paradigm For Our Failed Prison System (Minn., MN: Fortress Press, 2006):

In 1797, 70 percent of the prisoners in the Walnut
Street Jail in Philadelphia
were immigrants. The first line of action against the
waves of immigrants
who have come to the United States has always been the
criminal justice system.
Prison was used to make "gentlemen" out of offenders who
were largely
immigrants. In other words, our prison system was used
to acculturate these
people whose behavior was not accepted by the dominant
culture. Immigrants
who were active in the labor movement were specifically
targeted for criminal
charges. [p.108]

Magnani and Wray add that we saw similar usages in the state's repressive
machinery after the close of World War II, and more recently, in the wake of
9/11.

Fear. Myth. Fear of the Other.

Sen. Biden, unfortunately, wasn't alone in the business of making laws
out of myth. Former US President William J. Clinton's Crime bill added some
60 offenses punishable by the death penalty: and his Prison Litigation Reform
act (PLRA), which essentially slammed the doors shut for millions of
prisoners who sought to file suits in Federal courts, was similarly based on myth.

But myths are powerful tools for politicians; the question becomes who
can successfully manipulate these myths to one's political advantage.

And, while a politician may get elected and even re-elected by such
methods, the lives of countless thousands are cheapened and wasted by such myths.

Myths, and press-hyped fear shouldn't be the sources of the law. Reason
should prevail.

But as long as we have the system we have, and the politicians we have,
thousands will suffer from myth and fear.

--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 2/14/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Sep 6, 2008 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More complaint based crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bringing Washington to Heel
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Sep 6, 2008 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe Biden said on September 3 that he and Barack Obama will pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/16917#comment-129791

Contact the Obama/Biden campaign and tell them that unless there is repeated, emphatic commitment on this issue you aren't going to vote for them and you're going to encourage others to refuse to vote for them also.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who will be punished if you do not vote?
Posted by: using on Sep 6, 2008 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not voting ups McCains chances of being elected...will his election be in your best interests?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, Paul (and the rest of you), wake up!
Posted by: jackl2400 on Sep 7, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And stop fighting the tired "culture wars" all over. Most Americans, thankfully have moved on. You don't get it yet....the war on marijuana and drugs is OVER as a political "hot button" issue. Pelosi isn't running against drugs (see her YouTube answering the question), Obama isn't running against drugs, even Biden, despite what he did in the past, has softened his position on crack/powder and is working for change. But at the same time, his presence on the ticket (as has been observed here) innoculates the Dems from the soft on drugs/crime issue. Even the Republican platform doesn't harp on drugs = crime anymore.

So, all we have to do is shut up on our small culture war wedge issue, get Dems elected in 2008 and 2010 and the prohibition problem will get addressed -- first by not sending DEA to California anymore to fight pot and then the rest of the Berlin Wall will quickly fall.

You'll see. There are some people even on Alternet who want to fight current battles and not the past. See the article on "why the culture wars" (of which the War on Drugs is a part) aren't working for the Republicans anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It won't matter
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Sep 7, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It won't matter what Obama/Biden think, because they are going to lose to McCain/Palin. The DemocRATS' move to the right and choice of the despised Biden for VP has alienated a huge number of would-be supporters who will be voting for third party and write in candidates. This will siphon off enough votes so that the RepubliCONS can hack the machines and pull off another close "win." The Dems still just don't get it -- they are somehow afraid to give their supporters a platform that they overwhelmingly want, and so are condemned to lose. One wonders if they actually WANT to lose election after election. Could there be some weird conspiracy going on here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug Worriers still ignore reality
Posted by: DdC on Sep 8, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug Worriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science By Rob Kampia
CN Source: AlterNet September 08, 2008 Washington, D.C

Conservative Addiction Good, Liberal Addiction Bad!

How to Fix It: Lose the Drug War
David Simon Saturday, September 6, 2008 David Simon, writer/creator of "The Wire," joins other writers at Mother Jones to discuss How to Fix a Post Bush Nation - a guide to the next first 100 days

"We are the jailingest motherf*ckers on the planet.

2.2 mil x $35,000/yr. = $77,000,000,000 earned income 15,400,000,000 = taxes back. Any Questions?

More than that, the number of violent offenders in federal prisons has gone down to its lowest level ever in the history of the country--in the single digits, by the Bureau of Prisons' own statistics.

Violent criminals create jobs outside or maintain existing jobs with pay raises. Thuggery leads to investigations, ambulances, ER's, therapy, rehabilitation, on and on, $$$. Un Patriotic stoners don't hurt no one, not a single soul the lazy bastards. Prison guards have it hard enough staying awake herding stoners, Violent criminals might hurt someone and locking them up is just cost prohibitive at this juncture.

And the political party that let this get out of control? It was the Democrats. The drug war has actually destroyed the deterrent in inner cities by teaching whole police departments to chase drug stats when they should be solving crimes. And, of course, because they can't put all those people in prison, it doesn't even work as a draconian policy. Most people are just thrown back onto the street.

Lets pretend Tricky Dickey didn't lie and trash his own Shafer Commission recommending no criminalization. Or Ford pardoning the asshole. Or is it the asshole Ford pardoning the Fascist? Burying the Cancer research or Rayguns lie about brain damage by suffocating poor monkey's. Then Bush! since Anslinger and ole J Edgar Hoover. But I do agree Klintoon was more a Republican than Bush Cheney the way they bloated the size of government and National Debt. The World Banks collecting $300,000,000,000.00 in interest/y like the debt. 4 more wars! Carter recommended decriminalizing, then outside of a few real mavericks, Nada. Lame ass statement actually. There is no Republicans or Democrats. It's not who you vote for it's simply who counts the votes.

A smart politician could cite all these things, and we could stop the madness.

Now there's an oxymoron. If politicians were smart they wouldn't sell every ounce of integrity for a compromise that serves neither side, usually making things worse as a deterrent to not ask them to fix anything else. Fire them, but then who would rubber stamp laws to profit friendly corporations?

But everyone's worried that the little old lady in Terre Haute is going to think you're soft on drugs.

It has nothing to do with it. Its all a fabrication to make money and conquer foreign lands. Her opinion is worth about as much as the homeless deterrents. She is programmed the same as anyone watching cable TV getting their information. So the politicop has to kiss ass to get votes, but its part of the fabrication to make money, nothing more. The same propagandists owning the media, could have been stopped from their near monopoly, but people are basically sheep, led by goats controlled by wolves. Common sense is rare, on purpose. Dumbing down citizens isn't an accident. Clogging the air water and food with brain numbing chemicals isn't either. It's cheaper for a reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When salaries over rule truth
Posted by: DdC on Sep 8, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all the little old ladies in Terre Haute get it.

I wouldn't go that far, but they do seem to get it one on one when I show them my hemp shirt or package of shelled hemp seed or new Hemp chocolate shake. Asking them about burlap or canvas in their own homes. Then they snap out of it and wonder why themselves. The seed is planted, now it is their ego's, their stubborn Missouri show me attitudes that won't take the government BS because they have been shown. But they will forget, so they need to see for themselves, often. See and hear from Canadian and Romanian Hemp farmers and demand a non-psychoactive cash crop to save their farms from bankruptcy or developers. And that's basically the change that is leading to the critical mass and the promised land. 2 steps forward one and a half steps back.

The American people are smarter than politicians give them credit for.

Not really, they are as smart as they are taught to be. Drug Czar/Education Secretary Bill Bennett removed the word hemp from school books as he was feeding $100 bills into slot machines losing $8 mil of his families money, made selling books on virtues. It's only hypocrisy if the agenda is to stop drugs. The agenda is to make money. Lies are simply tools to do this. People taught lies will teach others lies and harass anyone teaching truth. Their education documentation becomes a tool to prove the lies taught are valid because the diploma says so. No laymen could argue against a Harvard Professor taught lies. Clever, these Fascists be.

If McCain came to a Democratic Congress with reforms, I think he'd be a hero to moderates everywhere, because do you know people who believe in the drug war?

Millions, where have you been? Dude it's a planned way of life. its a cold war job market not seen since Russian Hippies and Bonnie Raite marched to the Red Square of Gorby's Moscow, beginning the end of the cold war. It’s 50,000 crude oil products getting competition they don’t have under prohibition. Mexico and Canada was forced by threats of sanctions if they decriminalized and since, thousands have died and each one's blood is on John Pee Walter's hands. The same as in Thailand, continuing Klintoons Rand Beers Colombia or the blood on Bush Cheney for the lies about Iraq and probably Afghanistan. Obama is the lesser evil, still evil but to play along, for argument sake, I think a Democrat coming to a Democrat Congress might have more leeway. Not that the lobbyists would let either of them, or the World Banksters or G8 WTO addicted to the Ganjawar. WoD Junkies!

I don't know if there's a cop in Baltimore who believes in it except as a means of getting overtime pay, hoard pay. I think everybody knows except the government.

I think the government knows more than anybody. At least I hope so, because I don't have nuclear arms, but I do have Ganja and Hemp information. Either the government is comprised of the most stupid people on earth, not having this information, but having nuclear arms. Or they do know. Welcome to Fascism.


It's difficult to get a man to understand something,
when his salary depends on his not understanding.

--Upton St Clair

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more of the same
Posted by: sicntired on Sep 13, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I foolishly hoped that Obama would be less hypocritical than his statements alluded to.His choice of Biden made me puke.We can look forward to more of the same if we're lucky.I don't see how McCain could be any worse than Biden on the drug issue.Biden has proved himself a moralist with no interest in the truth or the science on the drug issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]