On marijuiana decriminalization, that is.
The harsh nature of punishments for marijuana offenses is even more disturbing if one considers the racial bias of the war on drugs. According to data collected by the National Household Survey, on an annual basis the overall difference between drug use by blacks and whites is quite narrow. However, a recent national study found that African-Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the African-American arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. Questions of racial bias affect the integrity of investigations, arrests, and prosecutorial discretion. If we truly aspire to the ideal of “Justice for All,” then these unjust racial disparities are unacceptable outcomes for the American justice system.
You can read the entire thing on Kucinich’s official website.
It depresses me, because Kucinich’s position – which I consider common sense, and which is supported by 40% of Americans, according to a Time/CNN poll – could only be taken by an outsider with no chance of winning the election. For most of the American public, decriminalizing pot is a policy option that reasonable people can disagree on; but for our political system, it’s the equivilent of proposing legislation requiring everyone to constuct and wear tin-foil hats to defend America from the forthcoming invasion from Alpha Centori.
(Said in “stoner” voice:) Our system is soooo fucked up..
And, yet again, who is most responsible for this bullshit? I’d like to blame the religious right–and I think I’d be mostly right–but one cannot discount the effects of the “other elect– er, battles must be won” so-called liberals in mainstream politics.
Holy crap–40% of americans favor legalization? When did that happen?
Ten years ago that figure was less than 20%. I like this trend.
Why do you insist on saying Kucinich has no chance of winning the election? Everyone who talks like this is contributing to the cause of his “un-electability.”
If you like his positions SUPPORT HIM. Stop saying he can’t win. It’s just not true.
I’m with Paul. If you like Kucinich’s positions then support him.
As for the poll, legalization is just 11 points behind. If the past 20 years is any indication that deficit will be wiped out in just a few short years. Imagine – gay marraige, legalized pot…my god, we’re becoming Canada!
*grin*
I read the title of the post, and thought to myself, “Well, of course he is.”
—JRC
a) Legalization and decriminalization are two different things.
b) Public support as measured by polls doesn’t = legislation. The medical pot laws have passed by initiative rather than legislation.
c) Kuc. has other disqualifying characteristics that make him a dark horse – as such, it’s easier to speak truth to power.
d) “only nixon could go to china” – spock. A republican would have a better shot at legalizing pot.
I have to disagree about voting for Kucinich. Vote for the most liberal candidate who can win. If so many people didn’t vote for Nader in 2000, Gore would be our president right now. The Nader voters are responsible for George W. Bush.
Marijuana (cute name!), even accepting what you say about Nader, what does that have to do with Kucinich?
You could argue that a vote for Nader helped Bush because it failed to consolidate the anti-Bush vote in one candidate, leaving Bush to take the most votes in the election.
However, that same argument cannot be applied to the Democratic Party primary, because Bush is not a candidate in the primary and cannot receive any votes. The comparison you make, simply doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Marijuana’s comment only makes sense if you care strongly whether the Democratic nominee is Clark or Dean (or conceivably Edwards). If you believe that makes a huge difference, then it would be more important to vote against one of them by voting for the other than it would be to vote for Kucinich. However, if you believe that Dean and Clark are sufficiently similar, then it is worthwhile to vote Kucinich if you prefer his positions to Dean or Clark. However Ampersand, as a voter in a relatively liberal precinct (although not so liberal as we used to be in) it is actually possible that your vote might help give Kucinich a delegate in the convention. Not only will that greatly amplify his ability to use your vote to send a message to the centrist democrats, it also means that he could (if it turned out that your vote actually mattered in a contested convention) switch his delegates votes over to the candidate that he preferred. So long as you are confident that he will swing his delegates the same way you would, there is no possible downside to voting for Kucinich if you are in a state and district where he can gain delegates.
Actually, this suggests an intriguing possibility for reforming the US presidential elections. If the electoral college were elected by proportional representation, then this would substantially decrease the ability of third party candidates to function as spoilers, while increasing their ability to actually have an influence (unlike IRV, which would merely decrease their spoiler function, but make them irrelevant unless they were able to win the presidency). Electors of a third place candidate would be able to switch over to a first or second place candidate, in exchange for policy or cabinet guarantees by the first or second place candidate.
However, I don’t think that Ampersand is wrong to say that Kucinich will lose. Kucinich will lose, whether Ampersand asmits it or not, and whether Ampersand supports his candidacy or not. In fact, by posting this and other pro-Kucinich posts, Ampersand has been supporting Kucinich’s candidacy in a way that is probably about as effective as if he were going door to door for Kucinich.