There appears to be a very large break out politically with respect to marijuana since President Obama came out against prohibition. Harry Reid said in the last week that medical marijuana is alright by me. All right!
And then there is Shenna Bellows who says she is a libertarian progressive (WHAT?), who is running for the Senate (Federal) on an End Pot Prohibition platform. Well she probably can’t run on an Obamacare Platform so what else has she got? Jobs? Har.
She is also the most prominent Senate candidate to boast her support for legalizing marijuana during a campaign.
Bellows faces a very tough road. In November polling, her opponent Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) remained among the top five most popular senators in the country, with a 61-percent approval rating.
Senator Collins had better get with the program. And her current position? The Senator is for it and against it. Depending.
A spokesman for Republican Sen. Susan Collins said: “While Senator Collins believes that the president and Congress should be focusing like a laser on jobs and the economy, she would look for guidance from Maine’s law enforcement and medical communities in the unlikely event that legalization legislation is debated by the full Senate.”
Collins’ office did not respond to subsequent questions about whether she would support legalization in Maine.
She may have to take an actual stand before November.
Last year the Maine Legislature failed to pass a marijuana legalization bill.
The Maine State Legislature failed to pass a bill on Thursday that would have legalized, taxed and regulated recreational marijuana for adults.
The Legislative Council, a 10-member group of legislative leaders that screens requests to introduce bills, voted 5-5 on the measure, effectively killing it. The bill will not be considered again until 2015.
The vote ends the third attempt by state Rep. Diane Russell (D-Portland) to legalize the drug in the state. Russell’s home constituency, the city of Portland, overwhelmingly voted to legalize recreational marijuana earlier this month — the first East Coast city to do so.
Well that is interesting.
But it is not he only interesting thing happening on the issue. We have an ex-DEA agent/supervisor becoming an investment advisor for the marijuana business.
And of course the Republicans have Senator Rand Paul. The article linked is from the last day of 2013. It is titled Cory Booker, Rand Paul plan to take on drug war in 2014. Which may explain the President’s sudden outburst on the subject.
Two senators from the opposite ends of the political spectrum are aiming to find some common ground in 2014 over the issue of the so-called drug war.
Cory Booker. Isn’t he from New Jersey? Yes he is. And who else is from New Jersey? Commenter David alerted me to this one. Governor Chris Christie is from New Jersey and he has come out against drug prohibition. And here is what he said in his inauguration speech today (21 January 2014):
“We will end the failed war on drugs that believes that incarceration is the cure of every ill caused by drug abuse. We will make drug treatment available to as many of our non-violent offenders as we can and we will partner with our citizens to create a society that understands this simple truth: every life has value and no life is disposable,” Christie said during his inaugural speech this morning.
I hope he is not proposing a treatment gulag to replace the incarceration gulag. The Soviets were notorious for that sort of kinder and gentler war on their citizens.
In any case all this anti-drug war talk has made it harder for Ted “why aren’t we putting Colorado dopers in jail” Cruz to remain in the running for the Presidential sweepstakes of 2016. Unless the Republicans get really stupid. “Get”? They actually already are. No getting required. Ah. Well. It is still two years to the nomination. It is entirely possible that the Republicans will see the hand writing on the wall and get less stupid by then. But I wouldn’t bet that way.
Update: 1508z 22 January 2014.
The folks at Libertarian Republican seem to think Christie has libertarian leanings.
Comments
25 responses to “Marijuana – The New Political Consensus”
Yes, we have a new political consensus. Pro-marijuana, pro-gay rights, and anti-abortion.
Watch the old mens’ heads explode.
My understanding of Ted Cruz’ position on marijuana is that he doesn’t have a position. Correct me if I’m wrong. He has stated that he is for enforcement of current law and has taken on Obama for picking which laws to enforce.
If I’m wrong and he is a drug enforcement warrior, then screw him.
Cruz on marijuana:
“You can make reasonable arguments on that issue,” he said of marijuana legalization. “The president earlier this past year announced the Department of Justice is going to stop prosecuting certain drug crimes. Didn’t change the law.”
“You could go to Congress, you can get a conversation, you could get Democrats and Republicans who would say, ‘We ought to change our drug policy in some way,’ and you could have a real conversation, you could have hearings, you could look at the problem, you could discuss commonsense changes that maybe should happen or shouldn’t happen,” Cruz continued.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-makes-pot-brownie-joke-before-hitting-obamas-drug-policy/
Neil,
I wouldn’t say pro. I would say – not government’s job. Which is surprisingly enough a libertarian position.
Frank,
Ted wants the Feds to go after individual pot smokers. Something the Feds have never done except incidentally. Nothing prevents the Feds from policing interstate and international commerce. Something they are still doing.
Obama is ignoring Wickard vs Filburn on the issue. And Raich. i.e. following the original understanding of the Constitution. Of course it is hypocritical. I’ll take it.
Ted is an idiot. He doesn’t understand the wider implications of his position. But dope makes people stupid that way. And Republicans are especially prone to the disease.
Neil,
The Republican Party is the Party of Old men. My difficulty is that I’m surprisingly young for my age. I don’t fit in with those old men.
Simon, I didn’t respond to your article “Republican Are Trying For An Own End Goal” of January 11 because on the surface it appeared Cruz was just another conservative appealing to his socon base. Then he wrote the Harvard Law Review article.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ted-cruz-causes-media-uproar-with-scholarly-harvard-law-review-essay
Cruz in attacking executive discretion for a very good reason, because we are witnessing a president who wants to be a dictator. The wording you can make responsible arguments on that issue combined with his lack of argument in favor of prohibition, indicates he is open to repeal.
That he wants to be president and can read pols is why he is positioning himself in the middle. He’s saying, I’ll listen, convince me.
Simon, I’m involved in a local issue that is all about enforcement discretion.
An artist friend who lost her uninsured house due to a wildfire and couldn’t rebuild, has been living in a 5th wheel trailer she bought. It is hooked up to her well and septic system, has PG&E power, and meets all the local health and safety codes. But it is in violation of a county wide code that prohibits people from living in trailers, motorhomes, or campers, on their own property.
A disgruntled neighbor turned her in to Code Enforcement. Ten days before Christmas she got notice to vacate. At the same time, there are hundreds of people living in trailers all over this damn county, many growing pot, and are basically left alone.
If the law isn’t applied equally and justly, then we are living in a system little better than a full blown statist dictatorship. It’s just a matter of degree.
Cruz appears to get this.
Frank,
The Federal Government has never gone after individual pot users as policy. They prefer the higher volume boys. Interstate and international transport of quantity. What Cruz was calling for was a change in policy.
Of course we have discretion in enforcement. Too many laws. Not enough enforcers.
And re: your friend. That sucks – big time. But there is no cure for the human condition. Sadly.
Prosecutorial discretion = government of men not of laws
Simon,
My fundamental point here and elsewhere is that perhaps it is time to put away old grudges against the squares. As Frank points out, the leading conservative politicians are bending with the breeze–perhaps (small-L)ibertarians can do the same.
I know you want revenge. But who is going to pay the price for you?
Neil, I’m planning to hold my nose and vote Democrat down the line this fall for the same reason Simon is, that I see very little difference between the parties, and if the Democrats actually pivot on drug prohibition, that would be a giant gain for liberty. The Drug War is far worse than Prohibition ever was. It is the main excuse for militarizing local police.
Note that establishment Republicans have marginalized Cruz because he led the fight against Obamacare. He is on the outside. I wish him and Rand Paul well, but I believe it is too late. It IS time for revenge.
Neil, one last thought. The country is going to hell no matter which party is in control. Events are out of their hands. Even if the Republicans were in power, I don’t believe they could change the direction of our failing economy. We are living in that time before either a revolution or civil war, or worse, changes our lives forever. A few years ago George Carlin was on Jay Leno’s show and was asked what he thought about the future of the country. He said he knew it was all going down, and he just hoped he would be here to witness and enjoy it all. That is my opinion. I’m stalking up on popcorn and Canadian Club.
Neil,
Grudges against the squares? Fine. OK. Very good.
Now what about people who are dying because they can’t get their medicine? That is a crime against humanity.
Sorry. Not going to put that away.
Frank,
When during alcohol prohibition States stopped prosecuting individuals the Feds did not step in to do it. I don’t believe the Federals have the police power. Or the manpower. Or the jail space.
Cruz is not a Federalist.
I do agree that the country we once knew is gone. And if we can get back this little bit of liberty – I’ll take what I can get. Maybe it will unravel a few other things.
Consider it my revenge on Nixon.
Neil,
I answered your question earlier today.
Here:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/why-i-fight-the-drug-war/
Simon,
If you get your way, there will be millions more dying because they can’t get their medicine. That may be revenge but is that righteous?
Simon,
I don’t believe that Cruz is seriously proposing that the Feds start prosecuting individual users and sellers. He is making a point. His principled, unending opposition to Obamacare tells me he is a man willing to go down fighting. Of course I could be wrong, in which case he is a nut.
The Carlin quote:
We are on a nice downward glide. I call it circling the drain … And the circles get smaller and smaller and faster and faster, if you watch the sink empty… Huish! And we’ll be gone. And that’s fine. I welcome it. I wish I could live 1000 years to watch it happen. From a distance — so I can see it all.
If you get your way, there will be millions more dying because they can’t get their medicine. That may be revenge but is that righteous?
Can you explain that? How will ending prohibition deny people medicine? Oh. I get it. Socialism.
Well the prohibitionists don’t seem to mind having socialism if the alternative is giving up prohibition. If they don’t care why should I?
I don’t intend to live forever.
I’m going to defeat prohibition. And my chances get better every day. The Republicans can remain stupid if they want to. I am not even going to try anymore to wise them up.
If keeping prohibition is more important to them than stopping socialism who am I to change their minds? I have made the opposite value judgment. Stopping prohibition is more important than stopping socialism.
Because the alternative currently is the Medicare Part D Party. When you put it that way……
Frank,
I think the Obama raids on medical (at least 100X as many as Bush) show Obama is serious.
The question is what will he do about recreational shops? Will he crack down on them? That would prove Cruz’ point if he didn’t. But if he is using the lull to collect evidence….
It’s never made sense to me why they went after med dispensaries, as you say 100x more than Bush did. Until I read this:
CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico’s Most Notorious Drug Cartel
An investigation by El Universal has found that between 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an agreement with Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organisation to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs in exchange for information on rival cartels.
Sinaloa, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.
There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered the “world’s most powerful drug trafficker,” coordinates with American authorities.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1
If he is on their payroll then your speculation about a lull to collect evidence seems probable.
But then why the talk by prominent Democrats like Harry Reid backing up Obama’s recent statement comparing pot to alcohol? Is it just a ruse to get millennials to the pols after which comes the recreational raids and betrayal?
I never said you could keep your pot!
Frank,
The country has definitely gone to hell.
Neil,
You will pardon me if I choose the Communists over the Nazis. It is tactical.
Frank,
Note the dateline – Australia.
[…] then commenter Frank brought up this little gem from Business Insider – Australia in light of my comment that […]