Julian Sanchez notes how odd it is that it is seen as gauche to mention Barack Obama's youthful indiscretions with drugs.
Now, this is all right with me: I think the laws prohibiting cocaine and marijuana are foolish and wrong, that there's nothing especially shameful about having used them, and that so long as we're talking about use that ended long ago, it's a private matter that shouldn't be used as campaign fodder. What I find surprising—or at any rate, inconsistent—is that so many folks in mainstream politics and media seem to be on board with that third point given how few are prepared to publicly endorse the first two. Because our government does, in fact, send people to prison for using cocaine and marijuana. And it seems a little odd to get the vapors at the prospect of anyone criticizing a candidate for behavior that they concede, at least tacitly, it would have been perfectly legitimate to lock him away for.
As an avid drug legalizer myself, I should like to see someone ask this question:
Senator, you used cocaine and marijuana. Would it have been just and right for you to have been sentenced to multi-year prison terms under today's drug laws?
Has anyone actually said this?
Please do not disturb the cognitive dissonance.
It is quite odd how differently people regard someone who was convicted of using a controlled sustance from someone who used the same substances without any criminal record.
Frankly, this question and all of its permutations thereof (coke, pot, you, your wayward teenage son) should be asked of every WoD supporting politician, i.e. all of them.
What I'd like to see is all the people who made and continue to make a big deal out of W's theoretical cocaine use pre-1974, explain why Obama's is different...
If it serves to impair one's ability to be president, it should fall equally on both.
I'd ask the candidates this at a debate:
"Some of you have admitted using illegal drugs. Civil servants and Federal contractor employees in 'positions of trust' are required to take pre-employment drug tests and random tests as requested. The office of President of the United States is certainly one of trust. How many of you are prepared to provide, right now, a urine sample to be tested for drug use? Medical staff are standing by right now to collect the specimen."
ech wrote: How many of you are prepared to provide, right now, a urine sample to be tested for drug use? Medical staff are standing by right now to collect the specimen."
That would be entertaining in its own right, but given the rigors of the campaign trail, I suspect it would mostly turn up evidences of caffeine and alchohol abuse along with a variety of OTC pain relievers.
Is drug use per se actually illegal? This was of personal interest to me a couple years ago wrt a job background check and when I searched the US Code I could only find prohibitions against possession and distribution, not consumption. Can someone point me to the relevant statutes?
Consumption is considered a form of possesion. The only way to beat it to be able to show that the substance entered your body by someone else's agency, and that is generally pretty hard to show. Generally the presumption is that you control your consumption.
I don't disagree with the general point being made here, but I'm not aware that possession of small amounts of illegal drugs can actually lead to multi-year prison terms. (It's a different story if we're talking about dealing small amounts of illegal drugs, or possession of modestly larger amounts that raise the inference of dealing.)
Jim - that's what I figured. But still, 21USC841(a)(1) reads:
"to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance;"
So even possession isn't criminal unless you intend to dispense or distribute. Both of which require a second party, no? I don't see where consumption fits in.
Even taking Jim's word for it, section 844 provides civil (not criminal) penalties and without any actual stash of dope, there's no way to prove possession of sufficient quantities to warrant anything besides the lowest possible charge. So if use (with implied possession) is the charge, I don't see where multi-year sentences are coming from for mere use.
As Washington-area residents my husband and I grew up with the children of Senators and Representatives. My husband once had the occasion to have a lengthy conversation with a senior Democratic Senator who is the father of a high school classmate, in which the Senator admitted that drug use among members and staffers on Capitol Hill is far more prevalent than one would think, given the almost uniform support of the WoD.
But really this is hardly surprising. People who are smart and competent, especially if they are left-leaning, tend to think that they are specially capable of governing themsleves, while everyone else is a silly fool that needs government care to keep from killing themselves.
Christiana, it's not such the left-leaning ones. I think a hell of a lot of politicians could get behind a drug-liberalization platform if they knew they weren't going to be instantly savaged in the MSM and by any opponent as being a degenerate FDH wanting to Spread The Evil Effects Of Drugs Everywhere. Drugs! Boo! Scary! Then we'll get the "but think about the CHIIILDREN!" which is unfortunately all too prevalent on both right and left. Hell, it isn't even dog-whistle politics--it's a complete thundering goddamn freight train coming down the tracks at them. I can't really accuse politicians of cowardice for refusing to jump in the way.
It's pretty rare for people to go to jail for pot, unless they've got significant quantities. Or are dealing.
The drug-dealing is an interesting issue. A lot of users in the drug culture set up a sort of multi-level marketing scheme, in which they buy some quantity in bulk, use a little, and sell a little to pay for their habit. I wouldn't be shocked if Obama sold a bit, which would put an interesting twist on the traditional "have you used drugs" question.
MattB: Drug laws are mostly enforced by states. California's Penal Code in all its glory is available online at Findlaw. Due to the Commerce Clause (yes, really, even in light of Raich), the feds focus on distribution.
Skullberg:
It wasn't that Bush was using cocaine. It was 2 other things related to it: (1) he lied about it, likely in part because he didn't want to be asked the question Megan asked given the support in his party at the time for drastic sentences in the drug war; and (2) it probably led towards discovery of what actually happened in his National Guard service, which was phenomenally relevant at least in 2004 when his allies were slamming Kerry.
Dilan,
"He lied about it" - I probably agree with you on this, but I've seen nothing more than rumor and innuendo on that topic. Can you point me to proof he did it? I've also never seen him deny pre-1974 drug use.
As for the TANG stuff, it has nothing to do with the Swift Boat guys, as whether Bush completed his TANG responsibilities has nothing to do with people who soldiered with Kerry disliking him for his actions.
And if it was relevant then, why is it still brought up all the time?
Bush didn't lie about cocaine or other illegal drug use, he simply refused to answer. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have hesitated to say he never used cocaine if it was true...