Obama Withdraws Support for Marijuana Decriminalization

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:55:16 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

First Barack Obama was for decriminalization of marijuana. Then he was against it. Then he said he was for it, explaining he raised his hand by mistake at a debate.

Now he's clear: he opposes decriminalization of marijuana.

What accounts for this latest switch? His campaign says he didn't understand what decriminalization meant.

A spokesman for Obama’s campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."

More on Obama and his limited progressive crime positions here.

Update: To be clearer, for people that are new to a discussion of this, in a 2004 video,

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.
"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

I think it's a fair question to ask if he's being disingenous now, first about raising his hand by mistake and now saying he was confused about what decriminalization means, or whether in 2004 he was engaging in a campaign ploy to attract the youth vote.

Update: Don't miss the comments to this post, there are some really funny ones.

< Texas Refuses to Double-Check Caucus Signatures | Hillary Promises to Help Puerto Ricans Decide on Statehood or Independence >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Withdraws Support for Marijuana Decriminalization | 112 comments (112 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

For what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:58:33 PM EST

I've been a lawyer for 14 years, and until we recently had a discussion about Obama's position on this blog, I didn't have a clear understanding of what decriminalization meant either.

Well Maybe He Should Have Found (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST

out what it meant before he took a position on it. I think that is the least that should be expected of someone who wants to be president.


But you weren't a legislator (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST

expressing support for it. He used both terms in this 2004 video, saying he supported decriminalization but opposed legalization.

ut as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.
"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

I think it's a fair question to ask if he's being disingenous about this or used it as a campaign ploy in 2004 to attract the youth vote.


A campaign ploy? Nah. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:07:28 PM EST

Couple this with the statement (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:42:04 PM EST

about not raising the drinking limit and...wow, I think someone told him that in order to run for president, you can't "change" that much.

Waffled on pot
Waffled on NAFTA
Waffled on troop withdrawal

We had flip flips with Kerry. Eggos for Obama?


you're clearly neglecting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST

his waffle on single payer health care...

see my comment further down this thread...complete with video link.


: my bad (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:51:08 PM EST

of course, single payer healthcare! How could I forget? Rezko: that individual to someone I knew to we're still friends until I find out he's guilty in a court of law. Wright: crazy old uncle to he retired to I won't get rid of him to he resigned and I renounce the words but not the man.
Man, I wish I could do PhotoShop because I would so paste an Eggo waffle on Obama's head and make a video out of all these things.
Music: The Wanderer

By that statement... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST

...he clearly understood there's a distinct difference between decriminalizing and legalizing.

Again, the problem with an unvetted candidate who 'hasn't been in Washington long enough' to mature his positions.


Do I understand (none / 0) (#14)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:09:30 PM EST

that to decriminalize would be no criminal penalties, and to legalize would mean it would be a taxable product?

If there are no penalties, why not just make it a taxable product?


: Please do not inject logic into an argument. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:12:14 PM EST

It would only confuse our legislators.

: Penalties... (none / 0) (#26)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST

...difference between making it a criminal offense vs. a civil offense or infraction. You can have penalties for both.

So true (none / 0) (#15)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST

One would think if my job involved writing laws, particularly penal laws, I would probably have grasped the distinction.


But, did you go to Harvard? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by oculus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:18:15 PM EST

This is perilously similar to pressing the wrong button whilst voting in the IL Senate.


as a teenager in oregon (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST

in the 1970s, in knew what it meant.


What does it mean? (none / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST

I live in CA. In our community, you aren't bothered if you are carrying an amount defined as personal use. You aren't bothered if you have 1 or 2 plants. You can get a prescription for medical purposes and possess and grow for your medical needs. We have funding for diversion programs instead of jail time. So if these efforts aren't effort at decriminalization, what are?


Decriminalization (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM EST

...means it's no longer a crime. But it could still be an offense or against the law just like running a red light.

Legalization is something totally different. Meaning it's legal - unlike running a red light.

Still, I have a hard time believing a constitutional law professor and a candidate stating his position on an issue doesn't understand this nuance. This is probably one of the simpler issues to wrap your head around as President.


Our jails (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:02 PM EST

would overflow. We would have to set up tent cities. It's a problem just to get the students at a nearby University to not smoke on the town square.


: For the record... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST

...I support decriminalization. At worst it's worthy of a ticket and fine.
By trying to appeal to everyone he'll end up appealing to no-one.

: Another issue... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST

...somewhat related, is that Obama made great hay of supporting retroactive status for the elimination of mandatory minimums for drug crimes.
A nice idea in theory, but more than problematic in principle. Clinton hit the nail on the head when she refused retroactivity on the grounds that it creates some pretty thorny issues within the courts and in creating a not-so-great precedent for future legislative changes.

In CA, state and local law (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:46:46 PM EST

enforcement follow the CA medical marijuana initiative. But federal law enforcement is not constrained by the state law. Marijuana is still a Schedule I drug under federal law.


I missed that dialogue (none / 0) (#7)
by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:04:51 PM EST

What could make him change his mind about it?
I am also of the belief that too many people are filling our prisons with something I find less dangerous than alcohol. Why, then should it not be decriminalized? I am confused. (ask anyone)


where did...... (none / 0) (#24)
by 30yrdem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:17:05 PM EST

you get your law degree? Cracker Jacks?


: Uh (none / 0) (#42)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM EST

I went to a top-5 school. They don't teach you anything practical.
Seriously, what do you think they have you do? Sit there for 3 years and memorize a law dictionary?

??? What ??? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:01:26 PM EST

He does not understand the meaning of decriminalization?

He needs better communications people.

Harvard? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:06:36 PM EST

n/t


: That's a big gap in the training. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:21:55 PM EST

Don't ya think?

Obama seems to not know alot about alot of things (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST

My God what an embarrassment (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Jim J on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:04:50 PM EST

I can't believe I'm going to have to wait another four years for a chance to vote for a decent, qualified presidential candidate.

: WE need to keep... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by 30yrdem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:33:48 PM EST

a big online chart someplace so we can keep up with this guy.

: Embarrassment is right (none / 0) (#83)
by delandjim on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:12:03 PM EST

How can they even say he didn't know what decriminalization meant when he is a lawyer and taught law. Top student, Harvard law review etc.
Why can't we get any of this to break through?

When we say we have (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by hairspray on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:07:48 PM EST

too many people in prison or convicted of these Marijuana drug laws and that it should stop, that is simply blowing smoke if we do not then offer workeable solutions. Talking about problems without offering solutions is just rhetoric.

knew that was going to happen... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by kredwyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:08:39 PM EST

How did you know? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST

What did you know? That he'd change a position or that he is a law professor and legislator who doesn't know what decriminalization means? I am befuddled. Politicians changing positions on drug laws - happens all the time - telling people that they changed their minds because they didn't understand laws happens too, but not normally at this level of politics. At this level, you don't tell people you took a position and just didn't understand the technical terms especially when you're supposedly trained to understand the terms.


Not that he did not know (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by kredwyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST

what the terms meant. I find it odd that a politician and law professor didn't know the difference.

But I expected the shift in positions. Indeed...I expect to see more of those.


I expect many shifts to come. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST

It will be interesting to see the contortions that some of his supporters will do to accomodate his shifts.


From what I hear... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by kredwyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:34:32 PM EST

they've already started...something about a more gradual troop draw down than one previously discussed. Don't have a link on that so don't quote me as fer shure.

BTW...have been having a Teaism itch ;-)


well (5.00 / 10) (#48)
by Turkana on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST

he's just proving that he really is the candidate of change...


: Turkana - you are so funny (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Josey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:01:21 PM EST

That was Power in the UK (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST

on BBC after she was in Scotland ending her career as a high profile campaign policy advisor and perhaps hopes of being a diplomat as well.

A lot of this is coming down to really poor and undisciplined communications management.

Even if it is only a domestic debate people in Pakistan find out when you say you'd consider launching an attack their country without permission; when your policy advisor is being interviewed in the UK people in the US probably will find out what he or she says so keep it in mind; if someone asks you why the candidate changed a position, never ever say that it was because he didn't understand the issue; and no politician has ever successfully been able to keep the "crazy uncle" character in their life out of the public view - so it reall is best to get him out early and move on.

These are pretty basic communications principles and yet they seem to be blowing these fairly easy tests.


It's like they think (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:48:48 PM EST

that foreign countries can't hear what they say here, and that when they are off American soil, Americans won't find out what they have said. Reminds me of my cat hiding in the laundry basket, like I can't see his big fluffy tail sticking up.

Natalie Maines learned this the hard way: what you say anywhere, overseas or over the hills, is heard 'round the world.

(Dixie Chicks, for those of you who don't know good music when you hear it)


: You aren't supposed to notice (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by kredwyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:41:07 PM EST

that fluffy tail.

Check out Jon Swift's latest post. It is a very (none / 0) (#53)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM EST

good indictment on the BO supporters and how they act. Worth a look-see. Really.


Indeed... (none / 0) (#56)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:41:59 PM EST

...his 10 years in public office leading up to his campaign were almost entirely under the radar and, in the middle of a Presidential campaign, he's attempting to redefine his past positions to be more palatable to the masses.

I'm sure his allegiance to Rezko and attendance at TUCC served him well in bolstering his image within his small enclave of Chicago, but it's coming back to bite him big-time.


He didn't know what it meant? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST

And yet he took a position on it? Several different positions actually. And not only that but he wants to be president?

OMG...I can't believe we let him get this far.

Knowing What You Are Doing Is No Longer (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:14:30 PM EST

a requirement for being president.


OMG is right (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:39:43 PM EST

what a dumb*ss. I cannot believe the number of semi-intelligent people falling all over themselves to keep the Obama dream alive.

The republicans are probably passing out toothpicks so they can clean the Obama meat from their teeth after the ge.

Clinton, please take PA by storm. Please keep going. We need you!


think of the money the repubs are (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:49:54 PM EST

saving in the ge. all they have to do is order the rev's tapes and bingo, it's over. plus have a montage of what obama said then and later. that will finish it.


You'd think that would work (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:31:45 AM EST

against McCain too but I bet it doesn't.


: i can see where it should! but the (none / 0) (#106)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:59:20 AM EST

degree of blindness in voters and media is just sad.

I didn't have all those years in law school (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:14:28 PM EST

but even I know what it means. I keep saying he is a follower and watches what other people do. This time they raised their hands.

I would be embarrassed if I was running for the top office of the land and misunderstood this word and admit it. I have an excuse, I am not and don't have to prove myself. I know my limits and that is why I am an accountant. Heh. Otherwise I would have that mike thing behind my back. He needs a new excuse spin doctor.

: Yep, in the debates it was "ditto what (none / 0) (#29)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM EST

Hillary said." He is a dumb post if it is true that he didn't know what it meant.

At what point does he recognize (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Anne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:22:46 PM EST

his obligation to understand the issues on which he's taking positions?

It's getting so that the answer to the question, "What is Obama's position on __?" is "Depends on who he's talking to, if he's ahead or behind in the polls, and what day of the week it is."

Sheesh.

: It's not about the issue... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:28:12 PM EST

...it's about 'poll driven politics of calculation'
oh wait, he's against that.

John Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM EST

is going to teach him how to wind surf this summer

lol....lol......... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by 30yrdem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST

Rolling in the floor.lol


The Harley Wasn't So Bad (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:38:29 PM EST

compared to full space suit mode.


: Closely rivaled by the (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST

hunting scene.

They did not teach decriminalization at Harvard? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by jere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST

Or was he just not paying attention, like he did not pay attention in church?

He was too busy inhaling (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by OxyCon on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:28:20 PM EST

that was the point!


yer killin me (none / 0) (#49)
by zyx on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST

all of you!

Which is nice, because this--guy is making me less happy every day.


: my sides are hurting! (none / 0) (#77)
by Josey on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:04:07 PM EST

don't forget his bait and switch on (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:40:37 PM EST

mandatory minimum sentences. He once advocated abolishing mandatory minimums. (For Obama in 2004 on abolishing mandatory minimums, see this video clip at 1:00 minute in.)

More recently, he has retreated to promising a review of mandatory minimum sentences.

Say what you will about Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:45:53 PM EST

but at least we know where she stands and what she is willing to fight for. She made a huge economic speech today, talked to advisors all over the place, and came up with a brilliant plan. Economists are calling it breathtaking in scope.

Obama made fun of Bush for not taking the crisis seriously enough.

We are in high school again. The smart girl who gets things done is getting nasty notes shoved in her locker while the popular guy rides on a wave of adoration.

PA, NC...we need you!


Not smart enough (none / 0) (#97)
by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM EST

to pass the DC bar exam or get health care passed. But please ignore those and continue your regularly scheduled mocking of Obama.


: I await your swift and accurate rebuttals. (none / 0) (#103)
by Fabian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:08:01 AM EST

Or I could just cruise the Orange and listen to people moan "Hillary is just soooooo mean! (And her supporters, too!)".

Well, then.... (5.00 / 7) (#66)
by 1980Ford on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:48:02 PM EST

If "decriminalization" is that tough, those weird words like "habeas corpus" will likely stupefy him.

Hah! Good one. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:50:04 PM EST

It would be funnier (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:51:40 PM EST

if our current "uniter" president didn't have that very problem already.


: Right. Some people may not understand ... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by cymro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:20:29 PM EST

... that exceeding the legal speed limit means that they are breaking the law. It's not obvious, unless you understand what the terms "exceeding," "legal," and "speed limit" mean.

Obama thought it was a person named Zation (none / 0) (#109)
by ding7777 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:20:13 AM EST

as in Do you support "De criminal Zation"?


There goes (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by facta non verba on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST

Bill Maher's vote!

It amazes me the utter hypocrisy of this man. Stand for something already. You have them captivated, they might actually listen and follow what you every word. I wonder if his next sentence, instead we need to build more prisons.

: You're exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by 1980Ford on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:44 AM EST

The Dems keep "coddeling conservatives" and fail - no refuse! - to take advantage of their opportunity. The Republicans would, and did, do everything in their power to take advantage of their opportunity. Now, the conservatives have nothing - nothing, I tell you! - to stand on. Not "small government," not a balanced budge, not superior morals or family values, not even better defense policy, nothing. Though they still try to hang on the thread of "tough on crime" even that is slipping because so many voters realize their throw-away-the-key policy was not smart on crime.
And yet the Dems keep coddeling them. It's mind boggling.

: Ahh (none / 0) (#78)
by dissenter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST

you beat me to it. Maybe I can stand watching the show again lol.

So he presses the wrong button... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by OxyCon on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST

...and votes "present", raises his hand by mistake and doesn't know the meaning of seven syllable words.
What can go wrong if he's the President?
Besides, it's not like the country is in bad shape.
Good thing all those Lefty blogs are forcing this guy down the Democratic party's throat.
Even if Hillary is married to the best President of our lifetimes, if Obama becomes President, we'll all feel good, and that's all that matters.
The funny thing is, is that if all these far Lefties get their way and force this guy into the White House, they'll probably all be smoking more than reefer when they realize the damage they have done to this country.

Man, I thought this was one issue (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by NJDem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:39:48 PM EST

he got right where HRC was wrong. Although I believe she supports medical marijuana (which many people claim it is used for in the first place, but that's another issue...).

But claiming he didn't understand what it meant! That's worse than Bill's not inhaling line...

He is a lawyer, right?

And not lowering the drinking age--he really is trying to appeal to Republicans isn't he? How anyone can justify that a soldier can die for our country but not get a beer is beyond me...

So When Asked If He Supported Decriminalization (5.00 / 3) (#98)
by BDB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST

Instead of saying yes, a shorter and more accurate answer would've been no.

I'm assuming Jeralyn is a Clinton supporter. (1.00 / 1) (#111)
by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:33:38 AM EST

I really couldn't tell before. Really.

What's the issue now? I think he made his point clear. He's just clearing up semantics. Man you guys take every opportunity to shoot at someone don't ya?

Is he an idjit or what? (none / 0) (#8)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:05:50 PM EST

He didn't know how DC people used (none / 0) (#16)
by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM EST

the word, 'cause he's just a hick from Chicago.

Yeah, and he hasn't been in DC long enough. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Angel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM EST

: Correct, per this bit from (none / 0) (#101)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:35:32 AM EST

NPR:
OBAMA INTERVIEW

But (none / 0) (#19)
by dissenter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:12:55 PM EST

He can figure out Iraq, Afghanistan and Health care. When are people in this country going to wake up! This guy is a empty suit and he is going to get his clock cleaned in November.

It's hardly surprising (none / 0) (#30)
by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:21:27 PM EST

that few of us actually have a handle on what he stands for and whether he believes it or not.

Another reversal of previous statements...shocking I tell you.

Obama clearly states...

I happen to be a proponent of single payer health care

What does he stand for today...who the hell knows?

What in the world is going on (none / 0) (#52)
by Lil on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST

Is there an Obama melt down going on or just my imagination?

maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST

see USA Today/Gallup poll...showing some sliding is happening.

Must be calculated into his 'major speech' on religion tomorrow...worked so well for Mittens.


CNN (none / 0) (#73)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59:13 PM EST

on the other hand has him up 7 nationally (03/14-03/16).


??? I don't see it ??? (none / 0) (#82)
by white n az on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST

where?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/

National Poll...
47% Clinton
43% Obama

not saying it doesn't exist...I just don't see it. I do have a little more faith in USA Today/Gallup but I don't think Wright effects will be fully figured realized until later this week.

Rasmussen Reports is suggesting this is a real problem for Obama


: RCP (none / 0) (#85)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:15:42 PM EST

I was over at RCP. I heard in reported today, so I went and checked. They have added it to their average. Obama up .8%.

: Also (none / 0) (#86)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST

saw the same polls and that his negatives had a five point jump at the same time. I just thought I'd mention it as an indicator that the issues might not have trickled in to the polls yet.

He has seemingly smoked a bit ? (none / 0) (#59)
by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:44:02 PM EST

I work at a Law School/ Medical School and I can smell it every time I walk across campus.

My state and city voted for Hillary. Maybe these college kids are onto something. Our campus poll favored her 4 to 1.

This is a blood red state. I think I need to partake or my head is going to explode.

This is old news (none / 0) (#76)
by Pete Guither on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:01:23 PM EST

You reported on this a while ago as did all of us.

But I never saw that one line (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM EST

before, that's definitely new to me. Also, we have lots of new readers here the past two months who I'm sure don't delve through the archives.

If I remember correctly, you are angry at TalkLeft and removed it from your blogroll not long ago saying I wasn't concentrating enough on these issues. Now you are complaining it's old news.

Of course, you are also an Obama supporter.

You have a terrific website, I encourage all anti-drug warriors to check it out. Drug War Rant. I'm sure after the nomination is decided, I'll be visiting it regularly again.


: Thanks for the nice words (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by Pete Guither on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:41:50 AM EST

I really appreciate it. TalkLeft was one of my first blogging heroes.
Just to clarify, Drug WarRant is not an Obama supporter. I've talked about his hypocrisy in the drug war for years now (since before he became a Senator). The only Presidential candidates that Drug WarRant has recommended are those who have openly supported significant reforms, such as Kucinich and Paul. I did not vote for Obama in the primary.
Neither Clinton or Obama are acceptable on drug policy or criminal justice. Both are better than McCain.
My apologies if my previous comment came off too strong. It appeared to me that the post was not about criminal justice policy as much as it was about Obama-bashing. I may have misread it.
I look forward to good future discussions on criminal justice policy issues.

Actually.... (none / 0) (#79)
by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:05:03 PM EST

this is another set of flip flops on the same subject.


So Obama opposes (none / 0) (#80)
by vj on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:06:51 PM EST

drinking for 18 year olds, and opposes decriminalizing weed.

This dude is really bumming me out man.

Unity (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by dissenter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:09:42 PM EST

He has aliented the seniors, women, the military, white blue collar workers, Latinos and now he is working on the kids.

I feel so unified. How about you


: unified in opposition! (none / 0) (#95)
by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST

Harshing my mellow, dude. (none / 0) (#96)
by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:57:56 PM EST

No Surprise (none / 0) (#89)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:21:31 PM EST

As long as he doesn't promise to veto decriminalization measures passed by congress.

Not his fault (none / 0) (#104)
by LCaution on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:27:07 AM EST

He's obviously gotten briefing papers from different staff who forgot to synchronize their positions for him.

I fear Obama, if he wins the nomination and election, may turn out to be the Democratic version of 43: you know, "summarize the problem and solution for me in 10 mins."

Granted, he does seem to be smarter and can deliver a speech better. Not so good on his feet, but occasionally gets out complete sentences so that also puts him ahead of 43.

Sorry for being snarky here, but I have always had trouble showing the proper degree of respect for saints.

Uh oh (none / 0) (#105)
by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:54:57 AM EST

The effects of drugs in play??

A lawyer does not what decriminalization mean??

A spokesman for Obama's campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."

Harvard Law . . . (none / 0) (#107)
by Doc Rock on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:55:30 AM EST

. . . and he didn't understand "decriminalization of marijuana"? Glad my son is at Columbia Law!

He's heard 'His Master's Voice" (none / 0) (#108)
by SeeEmDee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:19:25 AM EST

And suitably rolled over and wet himself. He's bowing to the Drug Lobby, the one run by Big Pharma, and tied to Law Enforcement through the same channels (and are shielded from well-earned criticism through their support of the astro-turf cat's-paws, the 'concerned parents groups', that lobby for harsher drug law penalties).

I was wondering just how long it would be before the betrayal came. Didn't take very long at all.

Support for cannabis law reform is a support of true civil liberties restoration, as opposed to any faux imitation of restoration of them. Changing the drug laws would perforce endanger all those anti-civil liberties laws that have been enacted, up to and including the PATRIOT Act and the MCA, for they are predicated upon the violations of the Constitution that the Drug War is dependent upon. Which is why the Real Power of this country will not allow it...hence Mr. Obama's volteface.

Clintonesque, as in Bill. (none / 0) (#110)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:44:39 AM EST

Osseo, Wisconsin, August 1992, to Jacki Rickert "When I'm president you'll get your medicine.'

6 months later, he's President, Jacki writes seeking delivery on the promise "If drugs were lwegal, my brother Roger would be dead.'

The difference; Bill waited until he was elected to capitulate to the drugwar lobby.

Thanks for nothing Obama.... (none / 0) (#112)
by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:36:01 AM EST

ya piker.

Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#113)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:02:00 AM EST

Pledges to End Medical Marijuana Raids

Linked text

wonder what he thinks about this

: Another half-arsed position.... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM EST

from a half-arsed politician.
Is there not a soul in DC with the courage to call a spade a spade, and denounce the tyranny of prohibition?

I think this is much ado about nothing. (none / 0) (#116)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:56:39 PM EST

Who cares what their position is on legalizing or decriminalizing drugs or lowering the drinking age?

Neither BO nor HC (nor McCain for that matter) as president would touch either of those issues w/a a 10' pole.

Little to no upside and massive downside.

That he's apparently constantly shifting positions on the issues is certainly relevant though.

Who cares? (none / 0) (#117)
by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST

Potheads and college kids who get their keg parties raided.

iow, the salt of the earth:)


I hear you, (none / 0) (#118)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST

but neither candidate is going to make any changes.

As I wrote that, I started wondering just what a pres actually does have the time/will/cajones to do that affects us, and thus be what we vote for a president on, but for the most part, all I come up with are foreign policy and taxes. Probably health care will be messed with as well.

I must be missing stuff, right?


: I'd add nominating.... (none / 0) (#119)
by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:24:59 PM EST

judges, that has the potential to affect the interpretation of the scope of our rights.
Other than that I come up empty too...congress does more to affect us than the president. That's where they make law...though I guess we could add veto power to the president list as well then.

Silly (none / 0) (#120)
by sinistar on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST

Late, but come on. The problem isn't that Obama is ignorant of the meaning of "decriminalization," it's that he can't be sure how people will take it if he uses the word. Many people think decriminalization and legalization are the same. His clarifying answer is basically the decrim position:

"we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

It's a political action, yes, but the policy is about as Left as you can get while remaining a serious contender. Not like Hillary is doing anything on these issues.