From Johann Hari:
On January 20th 2009, either the president of the United States will be a man who used to snort coke to ease his blues, or the First Lady will be a former drug addict who stole from charity to get her next fix. In this presidential campaign, there are dozens of issues that have failed to flicker into the debate, but the most striking is the failing, flailing ‘War on Drugs.’ Isn’t it a sign of how unwinnable this ‘war’ is that, if it was actually enforced evenly, either Barack Obama or Cindy McCain would have to skip the inauguration — because they’d be in jail?
At least their time in the slammer would feature some familiar faces: they could share a cell with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and some 46 percent of the US population.
(Has Bush actually admitted to illegal drug use? I thought he “no commented” it.)
Obama was never officially charged — if he had been, he wouldn’t have had a political career. Cindy McCain was caught, but she was also rich, white and well-connected, so she never faced any punishment worse than humiliation. From a 1994 article in the Phoenix New Times:
“If she were charged in state court–and there is an offense that fits her case to a T–she’s looking at Class 3 felonies,” says one defense attorney. “If we assume conservatively that there were six separate counts, her liability in state court is astronomical. She could have been looking at ten to 20 years, with a presumptive sentence of 11.25 years and two-thirds served before she would be eligible for parole.
“If I had a client named José Lopez, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t be looking at that.”
But because it was Cindy McCain, strings were pulled and her case was softballed in Federal courts.
Hari suggests some debate questions: “Before this campaign is out, Obama needs to be asked: do you really think you should be in jail? McCain needs to be asked: do you really think your wife should be in jail?”
I’d love it if the press was willing to press the candidates this way, but it’s unlikely.
Nor would either candidate say what they should — which is no, Cindy and Barry didn’t deserve to go to jail,1 and neither do other non-violent drug offenders. But neither candidate will; even if one or both of them privately realize that the drug war has been a horrible failure, the dynamics of running for President make taking an intelligent position on drug use virtually impossible.
- Ignoring for now Mrs. McCain’s drug-related crimes such as theft and forgery [↩]
Good article, should point out that
1. The charity in question was one that she funded herself (and afaik) did a lot of good things.
2. Rush Limbaugh should be the guy who has to ask the question.
Alas, we’ll probably never see the Onion’s pragmatic, workable approach to drug legalization: it’s fine if you have a job.
Ah, yes – the War On (Some) Drugs.
Users of alcohol and nicotine do far more damage to themselves and others through the direct effects of their drug usage, yet the drugs themselves and their use are legal, though regulated. The Grand Experiment was tried and had to be repealed due to the great violence that it fueled. The current Grand Experiment is fueling violence beyond the ken of the witnesses to the effects of the 19th Amendment, yet it continues. Those who forget (or ignore, in this case) history are condemned to repeat it.
RonF, are you for or against war on drugs? I think you make a great point, and that is that alcohol and nicotine are just as bad a drug and should be stopped as well.
I think he was raising the past history of the prohibition of alcohol and the violent crime and corruption that arose from that action and the relationship between violence and illegal drugs whether they be alcohol which was illegal for a brief time and the drugs which are illegal today. That’s what fuels the war on drugs to a large extent. It’s a winless war, in my opinion especially since this country is fighting on both sides of it. Zero tolerance and maximum minimum laws on drugs yet working with and financing people (or using as informants) who are drug dealers.
“Reverse stings” (when the dealer is the confederate) were controversial here especially when it came out that narcotics detectives were authorizing dealers they worked with to charge more in the stings than the department had authorized so they could keep the extra money for their pockets.
Also his point about the devastation of alcohol and tobacco. A city my size and more dies every year just from lung cancer by smoking and for all the talk about “crack babies” (including the epidemic that never was) and a lot less about fetal alcohol syndrome (which is much closer to being one). Alcohol being connected to violent crime too, drunk driving fatalities and other deaths including suicides.
While I completely agree about the absurdity of the drug war, I would be leery of bringing it up so bluntly and personally in the campaign. Asking Obama publicly about his drug use would (whatever the intent) activate the stereotype of the dangerous young black hoodlum (I recall a minor furor back in December or January when one of Hillary Clinton’s surrogates brought up Obama’s drug use in order to smear him). Whereas the McCains would have an easier time dodging the impact because they’re rich and white, the drugs Cindy used don’t have the same social “loadedness” as the ones Obama did, and because it can be spun as an unfair attack on the candidate’s wife (rather than the candidate himself).
Radfem is right. How is it that people in the ’30’s were horrified by the violence that was committed pursuant to the illegal trade in alcohol but are not willing to do the practical thing in reaction to the violence pursuant to the illegal trade in marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other such drugs today? How many people die while producing or trading in illegal drugs? How many people die though the use of them because they are adulterated or of a higher purity than they knew?
It’s my guess that the violence engendered by the WOSD kills more people than legalizing, regulating and taxing the drugs that are currently banned under it. I’m of the persuasion that this is exactly what we should do. The huge drop in the costs of the drugs to the importers, distributors and consumers (presuming a reasonable tax structure) would suck money away from not only the illegal enterprise itself but also other illegal/criminal enterprises (e.g., the Taliban) that are currently financed/capitalized by drug money.
Yes, there would be an immediate uptick in drug use related deaths. I expect that would peak and then go back down. Information and examples of the consequences of drug use would be seen as more objective and less tied to specific political strategies. Additionally, far fewer people would die from adulterated products or through unintended overdoses.
What have been experiences in other countries that have legalized these drugs?
How is it that people in the ’30’s were horrified by the violence that was committed pursuant to the illegal trade in alcohol but are not willing to do the practical thing in reaction to the violence pursuant to the illegal trade in marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other such drugs today?
On reflection, I can offer an answer to my own question. In the ’30’s, alcohol had long been used by the “respectable” classes, the same ones who elected officials and made money and the laws. Whereas nowhere near as many people use or have used these other drugs and those who do are generally poorer and not as influential (except, perhaps, in the case of marijuana).