Here's Hit & Run
on Holder back in the Clinton days:
Holder wanted "minimum sentences of 18 months for first-time convicted
drug dealers, 36 months for the second time and 72 months for every
conviction thereafter." He also wanted to "make the penalty for
distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana a
felony, punishable with up to a five-year sentence."
I think the worst part of all this is you can bet that not a single Senator is going to question Holder about his views on the drug war. No one fucking cares. This thing is wreaking havoc on communities across the country, and yet it's left to the Mike Gravels and Ron Pauls of the world to tackle. Damn. This is not a good sign. Here's Obama
during the campaign:
"I think it's time we also took a hard look at the wisdom of locking up
some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. Someone once said
that '...long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the
best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease.'
That someone was George W. Bush - six years ago. I don't say this very
often, but I agree with the president. The difference is, he hasn't
done anything about it. When I'm president, I will. We will review
these sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the
blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent offenders. And
we will give first-time, non-violent drug offenders a chance to serve
their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation
programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing
bad behavior. So let's reform this system. Let's do what's smart. Let's
do what's just".
He needs to be real about that. I hope the Holder deal isn't an indication of his thoughts on drug policy. I also hope Holder doesn't still hold on to those neanderthal veiws.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Amen. To me, the most disappointing thing in politics (and this is saying something) is the complete lack of intelligent discussion, and more importantly action, on drug policy. Naively perhaps, I hold out hope that the Wire loving, south side community organizing president elect can do something to move us forward on this issue.
Like Obama would even try to become the "President who made drugs legal for our children!!!!"...
He won't even adress the 'Drug on Wars' until a possible second term, that's my guess.
Sheeeeeeeeeee...
This is the taint of picking Clinton-era veterans. While we were hailing Bill as the first black prez because he was more or less down with black people, Bill was trumpeting welfare reform and policies that put more and more black men in jail. All these Clintonites in the mix troubles me, yet Obama seems to have figured out how to get himself this far so maybe he has a master plan for keeping these fools in check. I hope.
I agree, of course. But there's a huge difference here: Holder pushed harsh penalties for dealers, Obama talked about so-called leniency for users. It'd be interesting to see Holder's history on users and Obama's stance on dealers.
The whole policy area needs a complete overhaul of rational thought, but let's not get prematurely worried based on Holder's stance under a virilently hard-on-drugs administration.
What would be interesting is if there's anyone among the Senators who confirm the selections who might be likely to bring these issues up. Do we know if there is?
Sheldon Whitehouse and Herb Kohl on judiciary might ask questions about drug policy.
It would be interesting to see what Holder's views are now - we have to remember that a lot of people who have moved to the decriminalization camp held similar views to Holder during the '80s and '90s.
And, I'd argue that having held hard-line views in the past is necessary for someone to have the political credibility to do any drug policy reform. I'm not sure if that's what Holder would do, but if anyone could do it, someone with his record could give a strong argument that past methods haven't been effective.
I'd be inclined to cut Holder some slack on this one for now: my (admittedly anecdotal, and damn near evidence-free) sense is that the consensus on current drug policy has shifted a lot more to the failure side in the past dozen years. Holder's views, if this represents them accurately, were unquestionably harsh, but put in context of the times--and allowing for the possibility, at least, that he's seen the light (or is starting to) on this issue, I'm inclined to wait and see.
There also needs to be some sanity about which drugs are dangerous and which are don't worth our time. Putting a pothead in rehab (or worse jail) is a waste of resources while depending on the circumstances, rehab or prison is something that should be used for a heroin user.
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama abandoned this position, it is still a policy that is politically dangerous to change. However, Holder could have been expressing the policy of the Clinton administration and will now be forced to express a different opinion. Afterall, how many democrats would have supported welfare reform if Bush I proposed it instead of Clinton.
totally agree on the substance here, of needing to severely rationalize our drug policies. But I think there are two key points: 1) there is no way Obama would take this on in the first half of his term, or even his first term at all. There are too many other issues he has to tackle and needs a bit of political capital on this one.
2) There is no way cabinet members or advisors will - or even should - agree with the president on all important matters. I think it is a good sign that Obama seems focused on very competent, thoughtful, reasoned appointees who may or may not hew really closely to his views on particular points. I see this with the potential Hillary nom for Sec of State. They obviously have key differences of opinions on foreign policy but HRC is both well-versed and well-respected, and I'm sure this negotiation involves her clearly recognizing who is boss. Did Colin Powell greatly change Bush's foreign policy? The secretaries - or AG - ultimately rep the Administration and there are bound to be areas of disagreements.
Drug dealers≠drug users
Dealers aren't the same as users, although in many cases a "dealer" is just a kid who sells a bit to his friends. But it's more worrisome that Holder (according to the article) expressed support for the weed crackdown in NYC, which definitely did lead to a many-fold increase in simple possession arrests.
If a quarter ounce is enough to make you a dealer, I'm not sure that cracking down on the dealers will look significantly different than cracking down on users.
Thanks for looking into this, dude.
If Obama does something as small as move it to schedule II, he'll have already done more for Civil Liberties than Bush II.
to be fair to Holder, Democrat views around the Drug War have shifted significantly. at the time, Clinton enjoyed tremendous support from the CBC among others. Since then changes have been made in sentencing with relatively broad support. While it is true the Democratic leadership has not made Drug War reform a first rank priority, prominent Democrats such as Jim Webb have addressed this. So i wouldnt say that this fight is left to the Gravels of the world, nor am i especially worried that Holder may fail to be a force for good on this as part of the Obama admin team.
Unfortunately, I think it will be very difficult politically for the first black President and the first black Attorney General to ease up on the drug war. I can imagine how the right wing noise machine would react.
Bad sign. An intelligent person's position on the war on drugs is a pretty good indicator of how much he lets the tyrany of majority opinion flavor his conception of justice. All we can hope is that he shows more restraint than he has in the past.
WORSE than Holder:
1. John Brennan - Guy ran a company that spied on private citizens on behalf of corporations. What his company does should be classified as a major felony (and is in most of Europe). I could not have dreamed up a worse plausible choice. The Senate needs to block this guy's confirmation. Seriously.
2. Hillary Clinton - I know the EU, women's groups and roughly 80% of the Democratic Party establishment are ecstatic about this, but THE critical policy differences between Clinton and Obama are on foreign policy. Obama has been quite right, and Clinton quite wrong. Moreover, those people in this world who need persuading have zero respect for her (the "why" of this is irrelevant). And she's not accustomed to taking orders from anyone, and won't likely start with Obama. We need to move past the Clintons. This was a really dumb move, even if it's as payback for the Clintons' lukewarm support in the final weeks of the general election campaign.
3. Rahm Emanuel - I know his is not a policy position, but if you want to change for the better the way business is done on Capitol Hill, this is the last guy you choose as chief of staff. It's like appointing Radmanovic as your point man for Serb-Croat reconciliation. (For the record, his religious convictions don't bother me at all. He's just an obnoxious asshole.) I almost wonder if Obama appointed him now so he can make a show of firing him later.
4. Penny Pritzker - Why on Earth? Thank God she had the good grace to say "no, thanks".
There is no way cabinet members or advisors will - or even should - agree with the president on all important matters. I think it is a good sign that Obama seems focused on very competent, thoughtful, reasoned appointees who may or may not hew really closely to his views on particular points.
Thank you. Remember when Bush appointed Christie Todd Whitman as chair of the EPA? How long did that last, and how much impact did she have on environmental policy?
Just because we've got (God willing) a President-elect less imperial than the last one doesn't mean he'll roll over and play dead.
You don't even know what Obama's positions really are, since he has changed several times during the campaign (FISA, drilling, campaign finance, GITMO detainees...).
As for being 'hawkish', Obama after getting the nomination moved in line with Hillary on the mainstream issues: ruling out no option against Iran, supporting an "undivided" Isreal, continuing a neverending war in Afghanistan while striking targets in Pakistan etc. How much more hawkish can you get?
The complex issue of drugs will not be a front burner; however, being from a state, which can hardly be unusual in this regard, that has chronic budgetary problems and a large prison population owing to drug laws, I can't help but wonder when sooner or later the economics of drug law enforcement--beginning with marijuana laws--will become an ever more serious society-wide discussion. I mean when money for schools is siphoned off to prisons, one begins to wonder about priorities.
Of course decades ago, it was clear that if pot could be legalized and taxed, the government revenues would be enormous. However, cigarette companies researching the problem could not figure out how to mass produce high quality smoke to compete with ma and pop Humboldt, Maui, or Mendocino County, and so the only people with enough clout to deal with the problem of all those international treaties on the topic did not find it worth their while to do so.
Democrats have continuously had difficulty being rational about drugs, just as they have had to prop all their war cred, so, despite pot's currently wide-spread cross generational use, it may well take still another generational cycle, and the return to a kinder, gentler libertarian version of conservatism, if that's in the cards, before we can get over this preCopernican, so to speak, marijuana legal policy.
One thing is certain a long recession will absolutely lead to more and more individuals getting into the marketing end of the business.
I have a feeling Obama might be the boss here. You can set your own policy as President right?
You don't co-opt the views of those you employ by osmosis?
Seriously, this "X candidate for Y post held Z view, so we can only but impute that that's the direction Obama will be taking" agonising is (a) frustrating in its likely innaccuracy, (b) an endemic problem in the progressive/liberal blogosphere (although not exhaustively - hell, even Sullivan's getting in on this action)and (c) demoralising for anyone trying to be moderately optimistic about what an Obama administration might bring.
I think the attitude to have here is that he seems like the real deal with a clear set of ideas and a mandate to back it up with every indication in his words that he intends. Or failing that, well... he's elected, so not much doing for the next four years on that score.
"This thing is wreaking havoc on communities across the country,"
In so many different ways, and in so many different communities. The Drug War is above anything else a price support mechanism for the drug cartels, without which they could not survive. Rural communities have ben ravaged by the meth thee cartels bring in. The entire Southwest Border is a free fire zone just now as cartels battle to grab for territory vacated as a result of GOM enforcement actions. The whole thing has become a national security threat to Mexico - the enitre border region, from the Gulf to the Pacific, is beyond the control of the Mexican federal government and the rot is spreading to the Army units. And so on. Fixing this would fix so many problems.
Id like to hear what Holder's views are on the drug war right now. I think that we shouldn't give a total pass on what seem like discrepancies between Obama and his adviser's positions. I mean the big argument back when inexperience was the knock on Obama was that would be offset by his tendency to surround himself with folks who had real expertise in areas where he wasn't as strong. So I think his advisers will have significant impact on his policies. It won't be the puppeteering that we saw with Bush, but especially in areas where Obama isn't incrediblly passionate, we might see siginificant influence from his Cabinet on his positions. He hasn't spent a great deal of time talking about the drug war, so I wouldnt be surprised if he weren't a bit malleable on his positions there.
"I agree, of course. But there's a huge difference here: Holder pushed harsh penalties for dealers, Obama talked about so-called leniency for users."
The problem here is that the definition of 'dealer' from a legal point of view isn't in step with what the typical person would mean when they say 'dealer'.
1) Possession of seemingly small amounts is used as proof of intent to distribute (be a dealer).
2) Having some at a party and letting your friends buy some of it is being a 'dealer'.
Um, to me, this whole debate is dishonest. Are the penalties for drug crimes harsh? Yup. Do these penalties disproportionately affect minority communities? You bet. But please, please explain to me why no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room? i.e. Using and selling drugs is illegal. Many times it involves the use of weapons. Even with knowledge of the consequences, people have continued to use and sell drugs, despite the fact that it hurts their communities and will deprive them of their liberty(through violence, or the lack of participation in their families, and the job market). Also, I don't know about others, but I don't want a bunch of weed and/or crack heads handling anything of importance to me...i.e. driving buses, making food, etc. That doesn't give me confidence at all.
Why can't people stand up and say: the law is the law, and the law is there for a reason--a legitimate reason. And instead of wailing against the drug laws, which people have been doing for years now, why don't we teach young people better respect for the law, self-discipline, and the value of hard work. But again, that's just me.
this freaked me the hell out at first, because this issue is at the base of SO MUCH that's wrong with this country. a year in prison costs more than a year at harvard, and yet look at our prisons and look at our schools, etc. etc.
and then i realized that i'm being a total hypocrite.
i’ve been going off on other people who freak out about things we don’t agree with in the pasts of this or that obama appointment. i think that we’re all so used to GWB being such a cipher in terms of shit that he actually believes in—i mean, he NEVER lobbied his father on any policy issue, he ONLY spoke up when the conversation was about political tactics—that we’re used to having to try to glean information about what’s gonna happen from what his advisors/puppet masters believe. he is so ignorant that cheney, rumsfield, whoever could “pour [their] pestilence in his ear” and fill that empty vessel with the rankest, most malignant bullshit. (c.f. torture=a ok!).
obama’s not like that.
he learns about all sides of an issue. he thinks before he speaks. so when he says things like the speech that ta-nehisi quotes below, it is HIS opinion that HE believes, and not just some political carp he’s tossing to his base. sure, he might change his mind. but it’s not gonna be because one of his staffers just goes ahead and pursues a different agenda without telling him. moreover, i don’t see his mind getting changed on this one. the damage is too real, too pervasive, and too important.
now, whether he’s politically able as a black man with a black AG to effectively make change happen on the issue of minimum sentencing? that i don’t know cause there are still a lot of racist fools out there. but i know he’s not gonna take back “And we will give first-time, non-violent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. So let’s reform this system. Let’s do what’s smart. Let’s do what’s just” just cause eric holder says “nah-uh.”
it took me a second to realize that in this case cause this is MY issue that I REALLY CARE ABOUT. hence: total hypocrite. but i’ve simmered down a bit now.
Well if you want to choose professionals that are not too far to the right who else do you choose besides Clintonites. You've got to go all the way back to the Carter Administration.
Bush chose Colin Powell for SoS, who we know did not agree with Bush's policies, but still carried out his orders.
Holder knows how to be effective in the role more so than anyone else. As a professional, he'd carry out Obama's policies.
Using and selling drugs is illegal. Many times it involves the use of weapons.
The reason why weapons are involved is because they are highly illegal. If marijuana was decriminalized then there wouldn't be a violent drug trade surrounding it. The main detrimental public problems are because the drugs are illegal, not due to the drugs themselves.
We then put a bunch of non-violent offenders in prison with a host of truly depraved and violent individuals and expect good things to come of it. It's small wonder that when they get out, they are now hardened criminals. The problem isn't the drugs, it's the drug laws and our enforcement of them. Prohibition was the ultimate experiment in outlawing drugs and it failed miserably. Why do we continue a prohibition of nearly every other drug, despite knowing the consequences of those laws?
but I don't want a bunch of weed and/or crack heads handling anything of importance to me...i.e. driving buses, making food, etc. That doesn't give me confidence at all.
And the current laws accomplish this how? How effective are prohibition laws at reducing habitual drug use? Do a lot of people switch to alcohol instead, because its illegal? I'd be just as nervous of an alcoholic doing any of the above tasks as a pot head or a crack head. How is getting drunk better than getting high?
TRW: When we talk about politics, we're talking about the people & institutions who have the capacity to change the law. So we talk about what laws we want to change. As Malvina Reynolds said, laws are made by people, and people can be wrong.
If the law to you is sacrosanct, and should be simply obeyed and never changed, then that cuts out your interest in at least half of politics (administration of the law being the other half). A person doesn't have to be breaking the law to argue that the law is in error.
And as to teaching young people to have more respect for the law: That task is made much, much easier when the law is consistent, enforced, enforceable, and reasonable. When the law outlaws normal, reasonable behavior, normal, reasonable people change their behavior some, but they also lose a lot of respect for the law.
And another thing: potheads are already driving your busses and making your food. One of the reasons our drug laws really need to be changed is that they are so often unenforceable. See above.
TRW:
You're now having your third president in a row who is an admitted user of drugs (albeit in the past).
And I second the notion that respect for the law should be grounded in the rationality and reasonableness of the law. Obeying the law is another story, but respecting it should always be based on a rational evaluation.
Obama:
Almost all the bad laws are at the state level; the feds don't get involved with corner kids or low level pot dealers and the like. Obama promised to back off from Federal raids in places like California and to respect state law. So that's the best change you can make as far as pot goes.
And if 26 states out there decriminalize pot, I'd bet he'd do so federally as well.
But he's got no cover when it comes to the rest of that stuff.
But he can give more support to treatment and grants for innovative programs that don't involve prison. No way to tell if he will, for now.
bread & roses: Thank you for my comment. But my point is not that all laws are perfect, because they clearly are not, but it seems that we keep having these same arguments about drug policy. People have spent so much time and effort focusing on changing drug laws, which isn't a bad thing, but I don't hear nearly as much discussion about the flip side of that argument.
My perspective on this has changed. My job involves seeing Black men go to federal prison by the dozens for selling drugs. I mean it is obscene. And even though I firmly believe that our drug laws need a long overdue overhaul, I cannot ignore the fact that those young men wouldn't be there if they chose to follow the law, if they took personal responsibility for their actions. Sorry, it is really that simple. Fight to change the law, yes. But until that law is changed, it makes sense to make a strong argument about following the current law. To me, it doesn't make sense for people to continue to ignore the fact that many people blatantly choose to disobey the law, and then rail against how unfair the law is once they see the effects of that violation.
I just don't get that argument. There are a bunch of laws that are imperfect. And I applaud efforts to change, and/or amend them. But just because I disagree with many laws, and doubt there usefulness, doesn't mean that I get to blatantly violate those laws and not expect the consequences for that violation.
That doesn't make sense to me.
And teaching young people to have respect for the law is not difficult either. You had rules in your home that you didn't agree with growing up. Well, I was taught that if you didn't like those rules you could leave, or when you had your own home you could do something different. The legal system is no different. If you don't agree with the laws in this country, leave or, get into politics or reform and change them.
Also, I'm fully aware that potheads are in positions that I might not want them to be, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it, and it doesn't mean that I want that type of behavior encouraged by my government by legalizing the drug.
TRW: I guess I'm confused. If I were talking to a young black man who was trying to sell me weed, besides declining, I might tell him that there are real and terrible consequences to the risks he's running. I would use what leverage I had. (not much, but maybe some). I'm not in that position. Although I don't have Obama's ear, I felt like here we are talking about what leverage we would use, if we could, with Obama. And/or what leverage he and his appointees have.
The evidence is that despite the terrible consequences it has, people continue to use, abuse, and sell drugs. The consequences for those people who run that risk and get caught are devastating for us as taxpayers and citizens, not just to those who are punished. The punishment inflicts a lot of collateral damage, simply because there are so very very many drug crimes committed out there. Those young people who aren't obeying the law- we can't just throw them away. We have been imprisoning them, but I don't think that's a good solution. We need to try something different.
I just don't get what kind of change you would advocate to teach young people differently. DARE does not seem to have made much difference. One person doing something dumb and self destructive is an error and sometimes a tragedy. Milllions of them doing it is sociology. And I can't think of a sociological problem that has ever been solved by exhorting parents to do a better job.
TRW: To me, it doesn't make sense for people to continue to ignore the fact that many people blatantly choose to disobey the law, and then rail against how unfair the law is once they see the effects of that violation.
Drug laws aren't just unfair because of the populations that they disproportionately affect, they're unfair because they outlaw substances that are in some cases safer than several legal substances. I think there are plenty of dangerous, addictive drugs that shouldn't be legalized, but the idea that marijuana is illegal for legitimate reasons is absurd. It's demonstrably safer than alcohol or tobacco, yet it's still illegal. That's unfair and unreasonable, and is the focal point of opposition to the "War on Drugs." It's unreasonable no matter what subgroups are being affected by its illegality.
To me, it doesn't make sense for people to continue to ignore the fact that many people blatantly choose to disobey the law, and then rail against how unfair the law is once they see the effects of that violation.
I want laws that work, and the drug laws aren't working. There are terrible consequences for our society as a whole, and it doesn't seem like the punishment really fits the crime. A DUI is a night in jail, some fines and losing your license. This is incredibly dangerous to anybody else on the road. Possessing and selling small amounts of drugs to adults can land you in prison for 5 years.
Telling people, "it's simple just obey the law "doesn't seem to be working. In an ideal world people would just obey the law, but we don't live in that world. We have to deal with what is happening, not with what we wish would happen.
Nothing will change. The DEA will continue its war on peace loving citizens whose only offense is that they like to indulge in the use of a harmless plant. Our politicians are cowards when it comes to this issue. Look for a lot of 'its for the children' rhetoric to justify their barbaric drug policies.