The Drug Policy Dance: Ask a Stupid Question...

...which question we collectively nudged to the top was rather irrelevant as they stepped outside of the format and didn't read ANY question.  BO nodded to the issue, paraphrased a question and dismissed it.  It's going to be tough to hold his feet to the fire on this one but we must.   

In this week's New Yorker, Atul Gawande has a relevant article ('Hellhole') on the practice of long-term solitary confinement in American prisons. Not only does it address head-on the elephant in the room, i.e. whether such confinement qualifies as torture, but it also explores why the U.S. has so much prison violence, and alternatives to our way of enforcing prison discipline.

The statistic included above under the 'National Criminal Justice Act of 2009' about the increase in incarcerated drug offenders since 1980 ironicly brings one paragraph in particular to mind:

"Beginning in the nineteen-eighties, [British authorities] gradually adopted a strategy that focused on preventing prison violence rather than on delivering an ever more brutal series of punishments for it. The approach starts with the simple observation that prisoners who are unmanageable in one setting often behave perfectly reasonably in another. This suggested that violence might, to a critical extent, be a function of the conditions of incarceration. The British noticed that problem prisoners were usually people for whom avoiding humiliation and saving face were fundamental and instinctive. When conditions maximized humiliation and confrontation, every interaction escalated into a trial of strength. Violence became a predictable consequence" (43-44).

To some degree, the entire American judicial system is based on enforcing "an ever more brutal series of punishments" in response to infractions of our social codes rather than maximizing compliance with those basic standards. The emphasis is on punishing certain behaviors rather than on changing them. And maybe it's not just the judicial system, but also public opinion; think of the McCain campaign's success in implying that any association with Professor Bill Ayers the education reformer was the same as associating with him back in the 1960s and 70s when he was a radical activist. There's the assumption that once a criminal, always a criminal, and the further implication that rehabilitation is being soft on criminals who will only respect 'hard' treatment.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the Gawande article in full (you can find it online here), and I suspect that, while Sen. Webb's proposed legislation is certainly a big step in the right direction, that it will take some serious organizing on all levels to effect real change in our judicial system. We had the recommendations of the 'Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons' released back in June of 2006, which strongly suggested following Europe's lead in adopting preventive approaches, but I have yet to see any political will mustered towards implimenting those recommendations.

As you point out, the whole reason Obama addressed the question that he did was because it got far more votes than the other, better questions.  I really don't blame the audience (or the president) for chuckling (well, at least Obama tried not to chuckle) at a question that 1) they know full well got 3.5 million votes as the result of typical internet "vote early, vote often" techniques and as such likely doesn't accurately represent American public opinion, and 2) was somewhat silly on its face (legalization per se isn't silly, but expecting it to singlehandedly revive the economy certainly is).

If the people pushing legalization were more like you, people wouldn't just be blowing off legalization's backers (of which I am one) as just a bunch of stoners who want to get high legally and who are hiding that behind a bunch of smokescreening about hemp's many uses.   (Nor would they -- almost universally white folk -- be pissing off black people with facile comparisons to the civil rights movement.)

What I mean by the subject is this -- we know that Obama has done drugs. And when I heard his comment, and how everyone laughed, I wondered how much of this is "policy", and how much is something I caught from his writings on his drug experiences. I can dredge up the quotes, but they're easy enough to find.

In his book, he's somewhat dismissive of his younger self, seeing drugs as a black hole that, I think he implies, he barely escapes from. And it's easy to take that POV into Obama's known interest in something like THE WIRE*, which is nuanced and detailed in how the drug war affected urban populations -- yet still see drugs, themselves, as something to be eliminated, something that in and of themselves drives people and institutions down.

Much like Gay Marriage, which is something Obama has said he was against until he talked to Gay friends of his, I suspect this is not a intentional continuation of ideologically-driven policy, so much as personal experience/prejudice coming into play. It dones't necessarly matter in terms of actual policy of course. Yet it might prove worth considering, when contemplating how to approach changing the situation.





* Caveat -- I've only see a few episodes, but I'm fairly familiar with the story-lines, and Simon's opinions on a number of issues, drugs among them.

Thanks, Al, for continuing to make sense. Nate Silver posted something last month on the political calculus of legalization at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.h...

His closing remark is worth quoting:

"My guess is that we'll need to see a supermajority of Americans in favor of decriminalizing pot before the federal government would dare to take action on it. If the upward trend since 1990 holds (and recall my earlier caution: it might not), then legalization would achieve 60 percent support at some point in 2022 or 2023. About then is when things might get interesting. But I'd guess we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage first."

The question itself didn't get 3.5 million votes, it just got the most votes out of 3.5 million.  (Slaps forehead.)

I do give Obama some credit for even addressing the drug question although I was surprised that his answer was so uncharacteristically snippy and undiplomatic.  Then it occurred to me that he was nervous about it and that his staff hadn't even intended for him to answer that question since they didn't include it.  I wouldn't expect him to take on this issue at this point in his presidency, not with everything else he has to deal with, but it may be something he takes on later.  It seems to me there have been contradictory signs coming from him and from his administration concerning drugs and I agree that prison reform - and the Mexican drug wars - is a better angle for addressing this issue.  There's some reason, he brought the question up though and I don't think it was just to make fun of Internet users.  Even though he did it awkwardly (again uncharacteristic for him), he did put the issue out there and it is being talked about.  Was this his purpose?  I have no idea.  I can't always read him, but I do know he thinks long term, so we'll see.

when a question about legalizing marijuana similarly made it to the top of the pile and more nuanced questions about reforming drug policies filled the top 20 and top 100 questions... he or his staff chose the easiest question to blow off

Did they choose it because it was the easiest such question to blow off, or because it was the highest-rated such question?

Hi Al! I meant to ask you this after reading your article over at Narco News yesterday but I see that this post somewhat answers my question.

The "War on Drugs" and its related issues are not among my pet issues. But even as the daughter of a cop and the relative of drug dealers and users ranging from the casual to the criminal, while I cannot say that I am in favor of legalizing marijuana use at this time, I am not unsympathatic to the efforts of advocates who are in favor. As an intellectual I can understand the rationale and I think that the whole cause needs to be managed better.

Considering, I cringed when President Obama was dismissive of the issue during his virtual town hall yesterday. It was particularly glaring because he generally takes time to explain his position and that was the one issue he did not. I wonder if he "chickened out" and reacted in this way because of the snickering heard by the East Room audience when he raised the question. It gave him that easy out. Perhaps I am projecting but the fact that he raised the question at all in contrast to the questions his staff had selected tells me that he knew it was an important issue to a segment of his constituency. The issue is timely given what is happening in Mexico. However, given that the "drug war" extends to what is happening in Afganistan, I don't think that he wanted to be seen as "weak" on drugs, particularly given his Afgan rollout announcement today. It would send a contradictory message to be in favor of legalization at home but cracking down else where.

As you have stated, this issue is longstanding and will take both time and political courage. Which brings me back to my initial question, what can we reasonably expect from the Obama administration given the political environment? My novice analysis is that he is not fully decided on what to do so he will maintain the status quo. But the proposed appointment of Carlos Pascual, based on your reporting, tells me that things may be shaken up at some point in the future, just not today. I know that is disappointing to some. But given all of the other fires he's been elected to put out, it's only reasonable that priorities have to be set and hope that the others don't blow up in our faces in the meantime.

Thank you for alerting me to Jim Webb's legislation. While it doesn't "win" the "war on drugs" it's a present day political battle that can advance us on this front. Please keep us informed of any others.

MCC - Both can be true, no? The fact is that, in the first and second rounds, they picked many questions that were not as highly rated over others that were. Had they gone down the line in order of ranking, four of the first ten questions would have been on drug policy. They chose to avoid those.

I think we might see better results if the millions of people who voted up this legalization question contacted their Congressmen and urged them to get behind Jim Webb's bill.   We're not going to get sensible drug policies in the U.S. by asking the President, in effect, if he thinks marijuana can save the economy, a proposition every bit as ridiculous as the propaganda in Reefer Madness.   (Yes, of course, we know the question didn't say _exactly_ that.   But this is what people hear when someone tries to link our economic crisis with marijuana legalization.  Focusing attention away from the multi-trillion dollar economic collapse to the perhaps billon dollar economics of pot farming is an error of scale that makes proponents of a sensible drug policy look like...well, a bunch of unemployed stoners who spend too much time on the internet.)

when discussing pot.  Really.  Did they act this way when discussing repealing Prohibition?  Come on.  Alchohol's side effects make people behave differently - often in ways that might be viewed as embarrassing later.  So what? Provided you don't endanger someone else's life we all have found a way to deal with the discussion of the side effects. 

Politicians need to grow the hell up and talk about legalization with the FULL understanding that it makes people behave differently and get over the school kid snickering aspect of this.  As Obama said a few years ago (and seems to have forgotten) that's the whole point of smoking pot. 

Al, thank you for addressing Obama's reaction. Having read the rest of the content on Narco News, I had a good idea where you'd be coming from, but it's refreshing to see nonetheless.

The cognitive dissonance in Obama's response is astounding. On one hand, he recognizes the threat of cartels in Mexico as a security threat. On the other, he laughs off the most effective step he could take to neuter them and the threat they represent. On one hand, alcoholism is a recognized disease with treatment plans that are paid for by health insurance. On the other, use of a drug that is not physically addictive and abuse of which is not classified as a disease is scorned and deemed to be a societal threat that can only be addressed as a criminal matter.

I have not and likely will never be a smoker of any plant - smoke bothers me. However, I see no reason for not supporting the rights of smokers of all kinds of plants to operate in a safe and considerate fashion.

I was tempted - for a moment, at least - to go down the apologist route and say things like "the current political situation is just too messy" or "we have much higher priorities". I seem to remember someone saying a President will have to do more than one thing at a time and agreeing with him.

While I agree that there are many important issues surrounding drug policy (many of which Al has discussed here) it frankly seems implausible to me that questions about this are as popular as they seem from these online forums. I would think that most people have questions about economic issues such as unemployment, housing and foreclosures, and so on. This is what people ask about at the in-person town halls.

This leads me to feel like the online forums are being "spammed" or "freeped" to a certain degree with these drugs questions and I don't entirely blame Obama and his staff if they are a bit annoyed at this. Using these techniques, especially to support questions that are silly-sounding (as this one was), is not in my opinion a good way to advance the cause.

If people would focus on serious, complex policy questions like the one Al highlighted and refrained from "vote early and often" techniques they would be more likely to get a serious and substantive response.

Obama may be willing to take a "make me do it" attitude but I don't think he is going to move forward until advocates up their game.

Al, as a supporter of legalization and part of the "online audience" to which Obama was referring, I have to say that I was not at all offended by Obama's short treatment of the question.  To the contrary, I was pleasantly surprised that he addressed the issue at all; until he addressed it, I had simply assumed that those questions would be treated as the online equivalent to one of Howard Stern's adolescent fanatics calling Larry King in order to scream then hang up.  As for the quip itself, I thought it was cute, and hardly insulting.  It's all too easy to imagine the lecture of empty platitudes that would have ensued had <insert name here> been asked the same question.

If anything, his raising the subject sua sponte shows more respect to the issue and its advocates than it rightfully deserves, politically, since there is absolutely no upside to his advocating for common sense reform at the moment, but plenty of downside.

In the meantime, between the normalization that will result from calling off the wolves on the California clinics (if they've gotten the memo yet) and Webb's bill, we'll probably get more than halfway there, anyway, albeit from a differenct direction.

There was an interesting diary [Lets have an honest talk about marijuana] on dkos yesterday that contributed positively to the challenge.

My life experience suggests most every aspect of society is affected by this elephant under the rug. I'm glad "Justice" is beginning to focus. Acceptance of medical marijuna as a treatment option seems a viable first step. I think there is an aspect of health care to be looked at as it relates drug policy. Recognition that "Just say no" and "The War on Drugs" has not worked is another.

There is a LOT of work to be done in bringing together people with stories to tell to humanize the challenge in a positive light. It is too easy to throw stones and deny that good people [just like you] need compassion, love and acceptance as we work toward a drug policy that will work. And, that introduces education based on fact and science.

Just one more challenge on Obama's plate left by the self-righteous ones.

While I'm disappointed not to see the dead serious aspect of the narco war addressed, I don't think the president's response to the question was mean-spirited. In fact, I take heart that he did not see a need to beat the drum of moralism.

The joke that the president cracked -- what this says about the audience -- is no more mean-spirited than the premises of Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle or Up In Smoke. Which is to say, there's a recurring theme in pot culture about the harmless albeit ridiculous enthusiasm that marijuana inspires in its aficionados. While there are a lot of excellent arguments to be made for revisiting the criminalization of cannabis, the notion that it could play a significant role in rehabilitating the economy lends itself to caricature along these lines.

Previous presidents would not have acknowledged the humor in the situation, or at least would have felt bound to add that "seriously, drugs are no laughing matter." If enthusiasm for decriminalization is seen as silly exuberance, rather than dangerous heresy, we just might be making progress.

Hi Al,

With regard to the DEA raid, have you heard anything new about the reasoning behind it? I'm not trying to be a blind defender of Holder, but it did seem that he would keep his promises. In this case he didn't promise never to raid a marijuana dispensary (although I wish he had) but said that they wouldn't raid a dispensary purely on violation of federal law.

The link to the communitycounts site doesn't seem to work.

I suspect some of his posturing on ths issue is a bit more personal than that, i.e. aimed at his daughters, who will hopefully both be teenagers at the end of his presidency.

How do you convince somebody who is raising, and trying to be a good example to two daughters under a lot of scrutiny, to publically support legalizing weed? I suspect he wants his public position to align with whatever rules he has for his daughters because teenagers (and tabloids) will exploit any hypocrisy. We know he likes to think 3 moves ahead so maybe he's figuratively playing chess while his daughters are literally playing checkers... 

I suspect many of the surrounding issues (incarceraton, etc) will see progress but not without a healthy dose of "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay".

you manage to find the yes/and answer in a world hard-wired for either/or.  While many are either praising Obama's handling of the question or whining about it, you show that we can find fault with Obama's response and propose a smarter strategy to tease out a more impactful statement and actions from him in the future.

Thanks, I learn something from you every time you post.  I need to develop the capacity to be pissed off without losing IQ points.

DEA's offering 2 rationales for the SF raid. one, that the clinic was violating State law, a dubious proposaiotion given that they didn't consult the District Attorney, and that this clinic is licensed by the City. Medical marijuana activists in the area consider it one of the better run  operations.

Second, the US Attorney's office is saying that Holder's announcement at a press conference is not the same thing as an official policy directive.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

leaves something to be desired. NORL's action alert suggested using the search function for marijuana, and voting up the returns. You can't offer direct links to particular, and presusably more artfully phrased questions. The search function list questions in the order of popularity already recorded, so the first asked with a given keyword will continue to rack up the most votes.

The 250 character limit  also inhibits nuanced and documented questions.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Maxine Waters introduced legislation earlier this week to abolish mandatory sentences. HR 1466

Among the cosponsors, Bobby Scott (D. Richmond VA) who's chair of House Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee, so it'll get at least a hearing. While Webb's bill's more comprehensive,  it doesn't actually do anything for quite a while.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Ben - If NORML used such a scattershot approach (I didn't know that when writing this piece, so my critique wasn't originally aimed at that organization) then I'll amend to say that this is also a critique of NORML.

"Go an rec up the marijuana questions" is not a smart tactic, especially given the response from December. An organization of that size and experience really ought to know better.

Everyone - Since we posted this yesterday, our favored "Ask the President" question has risen from the fourth slot to the third. Spread the word and keep it rising.

If you're going to endow a Digg-like Internet issues contest with the dignity of the office of President - and the central public spotlight in the American government - then you have to live by the results of that contest, and honor those who took part.

It was poor politics for the President to mock the very results of his online team's "innovation" - and the very people who took the time to participate in it! So I agree with your criticism. And I'm no fan of these contests, either. There has to be a better way to do grassroots Townhall stuff online without confusing the meaning of the word "vote" - it demeans, in my view, the work of people who fought and died for a vote in our democracy, most recently civil rights workers in the south. They didn't march for a Digg state. (And this from a guy who just wrote a book on online social activism).

Al, a question - I read your Narco piece and found it very thoughtful (I do agree with the 'Prohibition' framing in large part), but I wondered about your reference to Secretary Clinton kneeling and praying at the Basilica of Guadalupe - what was the significance, for those of us not as hip to Mexican politics and symbolism?

I went to the townhall website and in every single category over half the questions I had to vote on were about marijuana. I found it very annoying and I am sympathetic to the cause. In order for me to take the correlation of the Drug War and legalizing pot in the US, I need to see evidence. I lived in CA and Mexico and my understanding is that a lot of pot is grown in CA and cocaine is the main drug being transported to the US. So how exactly would the Drug War be effected if we legalized pot but nothing else? It seems like there would be still be a huge problem in Mexico with drug cartels and crime. I would like to hear a more well-researched rational for how legalizing pot would end violence in Mexico. I also want these pot advocates to stop spamming the WH website.

NORML's alert didn't go out until 12 hours before the poll closed, by then the damage was already done. Less political "stoner' sites were on it first, as well as random Myspace and Facebook loops.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Al,

It's an interesting thing.  I signed up to ask a question and was immediately struck by how many of the questions already posed involved marijuana.  I thought it was kind of unserious (and perhaps disrespectful) when the Town Hall was intended to focus on questions about the economy.   So you might click on  "housing"  as the topic of interest and there would be a question about marijuana.

Then President Obama brought up the issue on his own in the town hall, which I watched.  He sure didn't have to.  Did you expect it??  My wife and I were struck by it.  He brought it up!   We thought:  "Damn, that's something.  That's good."

Of course we thought he would be against it.  It would be way too much fodder for Rush Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity if he suddenly came out in favor of legalizing marijuana.   It would be another of the anti-Christ things they are lining up --- like a world currency.   The end of the world!

So his position was known beforehand.  And immediately serious and respected Senators (Webb, Spector) come forward to address the issue in a way that actually might get something done.

I think the real question to ask is this:   If a bill to begin the process of legalization came before Obama to sign, would he sign it?   I think I know the answer, but I'd be interested to know the opinions of others (and yours, Al).   Meanwhile, the work on legalization or decriminalization sure seems to have to come from somewhere other than the President's office.

Tom W - The Basilica (cathedral) of Guadalupe in Mexico City is something akin to St. Patrick's Cathedral, only more intensely. It's shrine to the matron saint of Mexico, The Virgin of Guadalupe. People from throughout the country hold pilgrimages, often walking long distances, to that spot. Read the link I just gave for more.

Mexico is an overwhelmingly Catholic country and protestants are distrusted. It's very common to hear a conversation between a Catholic and an Evangelical with phrases like "but you don't believe in the Virgin." She's the primary cosmological figure that separates Catholics from Protestants. Secretary Clinton, being of Methodist origins, went there this week and somewhat expressed her belief in the Virgin (the phrase was something like "what a beautiful Virgin you have"). That's smart politics. The Mexican belief in such a powerful female Saint, frankly, along with the typical family structure here rotating around a strong single mother, probably had something to do with then-Senator Clinton's big vote from Mexican Americans in the primaries. So it was a smart move on her part, and if I were to call it cynical, it would be as a compliment to her political instincts.

Lolis - You are correct that merely legalizing marijuana would not end the violence and organized crime of the drug trade which mostly involves cocaine trafficking in this hemisphere. That said, it would have a positive impact in the following ways: If available in a regulated way (like tobacco and alcohol) you would see some switching from more harmful illicit substances (and from harmful prescription sedatives, pain killers and other medicines) to marijuana (each drug is in a market competition with each other) and that would lessen violent crime and addition problems overall. It would also free up prison cells, court dockets and law enforcement personnel to tackle other more serious and violent problems. Finally - and this was part of the question the other day - by legalizing and taxing marijuana, state governments would have a new flow of significant resources for education and other vital priorities that today are underfunded. There would be significant net good from it on many fronts.

GB - Clearly, if Congress agreed to any reform of drug laws, this president would sign it. The vote of Congress would provide the political cover to do so.

Thanks Al - I hope to see it someday.

You see, Marian devotion is pretty strong among New York Irish-Catholics as well! (But you already knew that). Good piece.

Al's home state of New York has essentially abolished the Rockefeller drug laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/nyregion/28rockefeller.html

I think perhaps too many have forgotten that President Obama traveled across this country for 2 years hearing what is important to the American people.  Clearly, legalizing marijuana was not one of them, and so could be a real good reason why he treated the question the way he did. Anyone who thinks this is anywhere near a priority for a majority of the population is living in a whole other world than I do, and I've always considered the criminalization of pot to be ridiculous.  

We have a major fight on our hands to get the budget through and get some meaningful reform in health care, education and stop the hemmoraging of this economy. We have 2 wars and people losing their jobs and homes every minute. I work for the city Building Department, and I'll tell you we are pretty worried about whether we'll still have jobs week to week. I think the President's political base understands the massive problems he is facing and where this ranks with all the rest. 

I think it's fair to say that those who were so outraged by the President's tone in answering the question haven't talked to as many people as the President has. It could be that he has a better take on what's important to people than what some easily freeped on-line question showed.   

Terri - Day in, day out, I defend the President from stupid attacks, so often that it's common that they respond by calling me an apologist for him. But, excuse me, while the substance of what he said was certainly informed by what he's heard in his cross-country journey, the mocking and mean-spirited tone of it is what I take issue with. We didn't see that person on the campaign trail, did we? The one that seeks to ridicule those that are already persecuted and thrown in jail for non-violent "crimes" that hurt no other person? That wasn't a question of priorities. It was something I would have expected from a politician named Bush or Clinton, not from the guy who was on the campaign trail with such dignity on his way to the White House.

Was he really mocking "those who are... thrown in jail" or was he making a joke about those who seek to change policy by freeping online forums? He specifically named "the online audience" as his target, meaning the people who submitted and voted up that particular question.

I'll agree that it probably wasn't one of his best moments. Neither was when he compared his bowling performance to the Special Olympics or called a female reporter "sweetie". But I don't take those incidents to mean that he is genuinely mean-spirited and mocks mentally handicapped people, or that he genuinely thinks women should be treated as sex objects. From the totality of his behavior and his stated views, it is clear that neither of those are the case. He has serious policies to help disabled people, and to advance women's rights. The fact that he may have set back his work on these causes by making an immature off the cuff joke doesn't mean those policies don't exist or that he doesn't care.

I see the joke about online marijuana activists as being the same. It was immature and will likely set back his serious efforts to advance drug policy, but it does not represent the totality of his views on the issue. And I don't think that it means he harbors a genuinely mean-spirited attitude to the issue as a whole or to the many people affected by it and concerned with it.

His drug policies may be bad in themselves, but I don't think the joke should be a lot of weight in judging those, or in planning a course of action to change the policies. More or less, I think we should ignore him shooting off his mouth and consider it an unfortunate personal foible. I do believe that if he is presented with a serious policy question and proposal, he will treat it seriously and that's what I mean by not taking the joke as representative of his views or position on the issue.

I suspect that Bush era holdovers are defying Holder at this point. A lot of the Bush types are churchie/law and order types for who eliminating drugs is a crusade not to be be conceded or abandoned. Until Holder has more of his people in, I suspect they will actively defy the Attorney General on this.

Al, If I recall correctly, the Mafia's powers shrank after Prohibition was ended. Only gambling was close to being as lucrative a source of funds-they built Las Vegas, not a drug haven city. With the end of marijuana criminalization, the gangs will lose the financial glue they need to keep many people in, to buy off law enforcement, and to buy weapons. Everything else that's close to being lucrative has already become legal: gambling, most types of porn, alcohol.

I appreciate your willingness to be upset about an Obama statement and say so. Last week I expressed, in these comments, my extreme distaste for his economic team's trajectory and I take this opportunity to say so again.

We don't actually know what he really meant by the marijuana comments and I would be willing to give him a waiver on that one. {Yes, I smoked, past tense, marijuana, daily, for 30 years}.

But he gets no pass from me on the economic faux pas. Sorry.

I can buy into the rest of the platform, so far, but the money game I understand far too well to be happy about.

Thank you for the non-apology in the pot case, Al. It makes your other pontifications so much more holy.

My perspective on Obama's comments is doubtless influenced by my background - I'm the daughter of two southern conservatives.

During the primary season I watched Hillary Clinton sell herself as tougher than the boys. Her supporters claimed "brass balls" for her. I understood the need for her to do that, both intellectually and on a personal level - I spent over a decade in male-dominated fields of study and work. There's constant pressure to be tougher and better than the boys. Although I felt like a traitor, I thought a president who felt this pressure could be disastrous for the US. We need to recreate ourselves as a nation that does not torture and does not preemptively invade other countries (when did we stop calling it war of aggression?). Perhaps no one could have solved the political riddle of maintaining a tough-as-nails image while criticizing our violation of basic rights and international law. Clinton certainly did not. She was probably correct that she needed to emulate the iron lady to be elected - but we could not afford such a president this time.

I believe Obama faces a similar dilemma where the drug war is concerned. He possesses a superb awareness of the state of racial relations in the US. Just as I had a constant, subliminal need to prove myself in my old male-dominated work group, I would imagine that Obama feels a constant need to reassure non-blacks that he does not fit their stereotypes of inner-city African-Americans. When he laughed at the question I heard him reassuring all the surburbanites out there, hey guys, I'm one of you.

Sadly, if he does feel that pressure, I can't say he's wrong. We don't yet have an active national conversation about the possibility of legalization. No state has legalized marijuana. There's no legislation pending in Congress. It's not debated in meanstream news forums. I think people (Al?) who want Obama to do something other than laugh at this question should recognize they are asking him to take an enormous risk in a fight where his back's not covered - and that he may perceive the risk to be even larger than it is.

Maybe taking the question seriously would not have harmed him, but I know the usually-unspoken assumptions that surround me when I go south. One slipped word would become a gift to his enemies. I believe drug policy is a fight that will be enormously difficult or impossible for him to lead, especially so early in his first term when his campaign agenda is still vulnerable.

I think that the biggest opportunity in the next few years is at the state level. If multiple states legalize marijuana then Washington will be forced to discuss it, and Obama will have a path to support legislation respecting state law. Until that happens, I just don't see where he can discuss drug reform without risking his agenda and image. And if I'm wrong, and it wouldn't hurt him, I would imagine that it would be a difficult and counterintuitive leap for him.

Nate Silver scooped this leaked blueprint from GOP secret meetings:

"until Holder has more of his people in"

What's up with that? They haven't even sacked Mary Beth Buchanan as US Attorney in Pittsburgh, a prosecutor so despicable she's been denounced by Reagan's Attorney General Dick Thornburg.

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Thanks for your comments - you gave me a different perspective on it.  I would agree that Obama has to overcome the propaganda machine of the last 50 years - the one that continues to present marijuana more harmful than alcohol.  And with racial discrimination in arrests and convictions it is now in the minds of the white suburbanites (the ones who are actually smoking most of it) that Obama would be endangering their lives by even entertaining any thought of decriminalization of "that inner city drug". 

@D. Quayle - your comments about his concern for his daughters seems to contribute to the continued myth and propaganda.  Were marijuana to be legal (and they be of legal age), his concern as a parent for them smoking marijuana should be equal to any concern he might have for them enjoying a glass of wine or a Bud Light.

Al, I agree with your positions about the idiocy of U.S. drug policy and the systemic racism and classism it perpetrates. Although Obama is shrugging off the question without a nod to the fundamental evil of the problem, it's not because of his personal history or his daughters (an "E" obsession if ever I saw one).  Instead, he is, as always, doing what works and working towards what needs to be done that can be done.  It's not that the issue's trivial; it's just not what most Obama voters voted for or what the panicked public wants him to spend his capital on right now.

The marijuana legalization movement has chosen the most ineffective strategy possible. If legalization advocates are deeply concerned with racism and the criminal injustice system, why don't they face it head on? A focus on racism, advocacy for justice, and the development of coherent alternatives to the current system would give Obama the much-needed opportunity to move towards reform.  It would be a natural outgrowth of his moral authority on race and justice instead of seeming like a self-serving pander to interests that most Americans have been taught are immoral and antisocial.

Legalizing pot doesn't face any of these things.  It tries to segregate an issue that simply can't be divorced from drug policy.  And to change drug policy we need to change the system, bit by bit.  How does an obsession with pot legalization advance that?

If drug policy is recognized as a social problem and rehabilitation as a necessary social good, both politicians and the public would be freed to make the rational decision to use our tax and health laws to make it safer and to deal with the underlying pressures that lead to the tragedy of death and destruction the illegal drug trade has brought us.  Then there'd be support to pare out pot from addictive and soul-destroying things like prescription drug abuse, meth, heroin or crack.

I too recommend the Gawanda article in the New Yorker, the first MSM writing I've seen on the horrors of imprisonment.  Email it to your friends; its conclusions will shock the conscience of anyone with a shred of humanity.

Finally, this discussion has ignored the corrosive effect of the private prison industry.  It protects is profits but perpetuating the dehumanization of criminality and the belief that rehabilitation is ineffective and undeserved by any criminal. 

Anyhow, thanks, Al, for finally giving me a way into this issue.

Al, I agree with everything you've said, but Obama is not going to take on this political hot potato.  Yes, he could've been less partronizing.  But the idea that the first African American POTUS will legalize marijuana is insane.  I wish white folks could live the life of a black person for one day, then they would see the stereotypes and institutional racism we have to endure.  A black person talking about legalizing ANY type of drug is committing political suicide.

We already have wingnuts like Michelle Bachman calling for an "organized revolution."  Obama would be impeached, if not assasinated,  if he pushed for this legislation. 

I'm all for Sen. Webb pushing for it, and I hope Obama signs the bill if it passes through the House and Senate, but I ain't holding my breath. 

Sorry, Al, I committed the cardinal sin of Field posting: failing to read your whole post before replying with my favorite rant.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html