Hillary will triangulate the Drug War as she has the Iraq War and the pending Iran War. The promotion of self over principles. The truth is that the War on Drugs is a monument to America's inability to let go of bad ideas. We are culturally insane, repeating the same act over and over expecting different results. The Drug War began with the Harrison Act nearly a century ago and remains a complete failure on its own terms. The empirical evidence is overwhelming: treatment works; the criminal justice approach perpetuates the problem. Our approach is a 19th Century snakepit of sadistic cruelty, treating a disease (addiction) with incarceration. Currently we warehouse about 20% of young African-American men. (Geez, I wonder what that's about?) Hillary is typical of the feckless politicians that will run heroically against non-voters and never let themselves be seen as "soft on crime." I hope that Obama's solidarity with young black men (that have used drugs) will not be forgotten once in office.
Hillary, Bill and Obama on Crack
While Bill Clinton is apologizing for not having done more to reduce the disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine that is in part responsible for putting one in nine young black men in prison, his wife opposes even the most modest attempt to fix the problem.
Hillary Clinton has come out against making retroactive the small change in sentencing guidelines that allows some people convicted under the overly harsh crack laws to have their sentences reviewed by a judge, and if they are found eligible, given early release. Most blacks affected will still serve more than a decade in prison for a nonviolent crime for which whites often escape incarceration entirely-- but nevermind.
Hillary has bought into fears that this means a sudden massive release of an army of Willie Hortons. But over 90% of crack prisoners sentenced under these laws have no record of violent crime-- and 94% were not classified as "kingpins" or even mid-level drug dealers. Further, the judge reviewing the sentences provides a safety net to ensure that those who are a risk to the public are not released early.
As her husband did before her, when it comes time to make a choice between something that can be used as a political tool against her or doing the right thing and explaining the complexity, Hillary chooses expedience.
It's great to hear that Bill regrets sacrificing the lives of IV drug users and their sexual partners and children to his fear of being demagogued on needle exchange and now to learn that he opposes his own policies on drug sentencing.
But it sounds like Hillary will be saying the same things only after she leaves office if she wins it-- when it means absolutely nothing. Obama, meanwhile, supports making the sentencing change retroactive. Even though politically, given his admission about his own drug use, he has far more to lose than she does by doing the right thing.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It appears we will stay the course in the failed counterproductive drug war. For 100 years if necessary. Damn the costs. Damn the consequences. Damn the ruined lives. We can never surrender to the damn dirty hippies. Right wingnuts?
Thanks for this. Unfortunately my optimism has long since faded regarding the belief that the Clintons would be any better after they leave office. Their connections to the Bushes don't stop with back to back presidencies and fishing trips. On the other hand, the following links are reports of standard operating procedure, and I can't say with confidence that it matters who occupies governmental office in this regard:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue49/article2989.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine01252008.html
I see with Hillary the same crazy "war on drugs" mindset identical to Booooosh. I hope she's not the one I have to vote for to unseat the repubes (I would if O is out). I'm afraid she would also bust the California Medical Marijuana suppliers by using the Feds (against voter wishes) just like Booooosh. We need to end all mandatory sentencing for victimless crimes! Slow-down the "war on drugs". Our poor republic is BROKE!
One in 100 Americans is in prison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
More than any other nation. Many because of nonviolent crimes. In practical terms, the country can't afford it. In moral terms, it's pretty obscene. Or are Americans just more criminal than say, people in every other country on earth.
Did she take a poll first?
Yet another practical decision of Clinton's aimed at keeping her a viable candidate. She should instead do what is unpopular, but right, and equalize the law.
Heh. Well, this is a issue that has always been racially charged. And when it comes to racially charged politics, 99% of the time it maks more sense to side with majority than the minority, right? Call Ms. Clinton George Wallice all you want, right to the white house if she can succeed in convinving whites this is an 'Us." versus "Them' election. She's off to a good start.
Rolling stone Magazine endorses Obama and notes that judging from how HRC has run her campaign, her so-called 35 years of erxperience do not amount to much. Here is a brief excerpt:
The reason for the early choice is twofold," the editors explain in the publication's upcoming issue. "Undoing the damage of the disastrous Bush years will take a leader who can unite a deeply divided nation, and politicians with gifts like Obama's are so rare that it's imperative for each of us to do our part."
The magazine has endorsed presidential candidates since 1972, beginning with Democrat George McGovern. Other recent candidates include Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.
"Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles," wrote Jann Wenner, the magazine's editor and publisher.
Wenner called Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a "capable and personable senator," but criticized the way she has run her campaign.
"Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn't count for much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack," Wenner wrote.
Obama appears on the magazine's cover next to the headline, "Barack Obama: A New Hope." In the image, his pose his Superman-like and an aura surrounds his frame. The issue hits newsstands Friday.
Talk about not seeing the forest...The real issue here which also serves as the basis for current sentencing guidelines, is the fact that crack cocaine and the dealers (petty and kingpin both) are the scourge of our inner city neighborhoods. Why is there such a knee-jerk reaction to make drug dealers and for that matter users, into victimes here? The so-called double standard results form the relaitive destructive force on society and there is literally nothing worse for our inner cities than crack. If you're really concerned with the plight of the already disadvantaged in our inner cities the debate would be around whether we demand the life, or the death penalty for these vultures.
Get a clue, Kermugeon. The death penalty for crack users, who are overwhelmingly black and non-violent? Why don't you just espouse genocide and be done with it? Isn't it sufficiently destructive to our society that 1 of every 99 persons is incarcerated, 1 in every 36 Hispanics and 1 of every 15 blacks? And that so many of them are incarcerated for using -- not pushing -- drugs? If we spent a fraction of the money it costs to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world on education and treatment for drug use, we would have enough left over to address some of the root causes addiction. Of course Bush & Co. would not approve of such an enlightened approach because the corporate folks to whom our prison system has been outsourced would lose business.
The question is not whether or not crack is bad for inner city neighborhoods, it is whether or not those handling it should be sentenced more harshly than those handling cocaine, and further, whether or not non-violent abusers should be sentenced on par with the violent ones. As it is, there is no proportion in judgement being exercised. Even judges and law enforcement officials themselves have proven to be largely in favor of changing the drug laws, because they are the ones seeing the evidence that they are having negative impact on the communities they serve.
Moreover, it is a much more serious problem that government officials engage in drug trafficking which results in the massive inflow in the first place. Now I'm not a death penalty advocate, but if one were to start somewhere with the harshest penalties, it should be at the top, where they have the most influence, not at the bottom where they simply exacerbate the problem exponentially.
In anticipation of the need, I give you:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue49/article2989.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine01252008.html
Locking a parent up for 25 years because of a drug problem tears apart the family unit. Unsupervised children are worse for our inner cities than crack. By your logic, we could solve the drug problem by putting all offenders to death. I suppose that would help the inner cities.
now you are confusing me. i thought charlie chaplins..er..er..i mean john mccains wife was on cocaine..or was it crack she stole from the foreign drug shipments?does anybody know what cindy mccain s (alien 4) drug of choice was?"
I think it was pain pills -- oxyconton, etc.
If you think our laws are harsh, In some countries drug users are executed without trial!
Hillary '08
Bill can say he is sorry for not going after the changes. Hillary can tell us she intends to make changes.
Obama can tell what the differences, advantages and disadvatages of each are.
Now that's what we need, coke experts. HA HA HA!
Hillary '08
Thank you! I have been praying that someone would notice the obvious. She won't for the legislation that allows for retroactive release either.
not so fast baracknot. I remember going home and watching "white collared guys" getting out of their car of the year to buy "stuff" off the streets. You can probably catch them yourself if you go to the street corners. Also let's not forget meth the drug of the soccer moms. Also cocaine is the drug of choice for the elites. "Heron" or Heroin is the drug that makes you steal. It is extremely addictive but so are prescription drugs. I'm not defending drug use. But let's keep it real here. Drug addiction is a disease and needs to be treated accordingly. It's not until the drugs begin to hit suburbia that it becomes a epidemic. We know Bill isn't innocent, oh that's right he didn't inhale. At least Barack was open about his past. By doing this he took one dart away from Clinton before she could throw it at him.
Comparing Bill Clinton smoking pot to someone doing cocaine is a BIG leap. Personally, I think Obama should lose the nomination based on his use of cocaine alone. That would really set an example for black youth. "Look son, Obama could have been President of the United States but he threw his chances away by using cocaine." That would be much better than hearing, "Gee, even the President of the United States used cocaine - it can't be that bad." I'm not saying that people who use cocaine don't need help. They obviously have a problem dealing with stress and making good decisions - not traits I want in a president.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making this another "race" issue. You can't really expect people to believe that the Clintons are anti-black can you? Just because Obama admits to using cocaine in high school and college does not make it any less illegal. I say, the higher the penalty the better. Cocaine use is not a victimless crime. How do you think those users pay for their drugs? By working? Ha. They are the very people responsible for auto and home burglaries, credit card theft, forgery, prostitution and robbery. We, the American public, are the victims. Your premise is ridiculous and the fact that Mr. Cocaine himself, Barack Obama, wants the sentences reduced is no surprise to anyone.
It's not necessary to believe the Clintons are racist, only that they will say/do anything to win and that they lack the moral courage to take responsible positions if they think it will costs them votes. What good is it to be the best policy wonk in the world if haven't got the guts to stand on principle?
Drug laws were created because of racism.
This is a fact look it up.
Watch the PBS documentary on DRUGS in AMERICA
Shame on you. I have flagged you, this is disgusting.
And what is the recidivism rate for crack dealers/smokers? Let me tell you, EXTREMELY HIGH. I live in Baltimore, the inner city of Baltimore, and the LAST thing we need is to have more criminals released onto our streets. And just because these poor black men may not have been violent when they were arrested, who's to say they hadn't been in their past and the law was never involved? Who's to say that they wouldn't have become violent if they hadn't been arrested and taken away from crack?
Again, you bleeding heart liberals are so concerned about the numbers that you lose sight of the number of violent/drug related crimes/murders are committed in our cities everyday.
using a drug is not a crime that should be punishable by loosing your freedom.
under what premise can you justify taking someone's freedom?
How can you justify taking someone's ability to walk down the street and look around and be free?
...is it because drugs are bad?
If that's the case so is Mcdonalds. so should a big mac get you a 3 - 5 bid?
The fact is the entire drug laws are based on Racism.
This is a fact look it up and you will find that Cocaine which started off as a medical treatment was made illegal because RACISTS said that it made BLACK MEN rape white women.
This is the ugly truth of our nation.
So what should we do about it? Continue to perpetuate this notion or challenge it?
Why is it so hard to do what is right?
I guess ou are prepared to pay higher taxes for the expansion of you prisons. I presume you are not a fan of wellfare, and yet the idea of paying for teen-to-grave food, housing, and medical care for a large segment of our society is an expense you are ready to shoulder, as long as they are locked up out of sight.
Conversely, cocaine users/dealers contaminate the so called civilized professional community and their habits and trafficking underpin the most violent of violent offenders. The recidivism for cocaine use is high, but isn't tracked the same way, because it not treated in as draconian a fashion. Violent crime should be treated as such. Period. The punishment should match the crime.
Wilson, the research finds little relationship between length of time served and recidivism: in other words, longer sentences don't reduce it but do cost much more. Western Europe has both lower levels of drug use and dramaticlly lower sentences for dealing and use-- prison doesn't solve drug problems.
A bigger cause of crime in the American inner city is fatherlessness/ forced single parenting-- it's hard to parent from prison and when one in nine marriageable black men is incarcerated, it leads to an incredible destruction of the family.
If long sentences actually reduced violence and crack use, I'd be all for them but the data simply does not support this. The best way to deal with the problem is via increased economic opportunity and increased access to high quality treatment. That may sound like liberal blather-- but there's hard data to support it and none to support your point of view.
Great idea Mr. dimwit. Let' punish people for crimes they MIGHT have done and are likely to commit. That's so constitutional.
Republicans are indeed as stupid as my stereotypes of them.
This is entirely in line with her new warmer approach to bigots. She is working hard to transform the democratic party into a whiter cleaner wash. By the time they are done it won't just be Limbaugh and Coulter working for their election but the Klu Klux Klan might even be interested.
This basis of crack sentencing is as lopsided as it gets. Without condoning the actions, the sentencing should parallel the offense. One gram of crack yields what the goverment deems to be 3 to 5 servings of cocaine powder. One gram of cocaine yields 3 to 10 servings. What does this mean? Depending on which "form" you are caught with, you could could receive more time than someone convicted of second degree murder or a few years probation...with the active ingredient being the exact same amount. Under these laws, a small time peddler caught with the equivalent of golf ball sized rock would spend 15 years behind bars while a cocaine kingpin busted with half a kilogram would get probation and a kiss on the cheek. And who says we aren't winning the war on drugs...
Posted March 5, 2008 | 02:54 PM (EST)