Amidst all the bloviating about obvious points — bringing “foreign policy experience” to the ticket, winning white blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, being an attack dog, etc. etc. — Radley Balko helpfully points out one ridiculously under-discussed aspect of the choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be Obama’s VP nominee … his illustrious career as the most Drug Warringest Democrat around:
Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.
Biden does appear to have eased up a bit in the last couple years, including taking a fairly strong position against federal raids on medical marijuana clinics (though he still opposes making marijuana available for medicinal purposes). But that’s little consolation for all the damage he’s done over the years. [my emphasis]
Paired with Obama’s recent comment — at Rick Warren’s very creepy Jesus-Off, no less — that his greatest moral failing is to have “experimented with drugs,” I have to ask the question: What exactly would drug policy look like under an Obama presidency? On the issue of federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries specifically, I wonder what we should expect: During the primary, Obama played nice with the Granite Stater’s campaign staff (eventually) and promised to end the raids, and it’s great that Biden “appear[s] to have eased up a bit” on his vocal and persistent support for draconian laws and creeping fascism. But …
Basically, it’s a little hard not to be deeply troubled by the guy who gave us a Drug Czar in the first place.
August 25, 2008 at 4:55 am
I wonder what drug policy would look like under an Obama presidency…
Come on Digby.
It just doesn’t make sense…
August 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Is it your position that anything that doesn’t amount to a solemn, insipid vow not to “elect more and Better Democrats” is Digby-esque?
And, “it just doesn’t make sense?” Is that referring to my post or your half-assery? It’s approaching pathology, friend.
August 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Admittedly, I’m not well-studied on the subject of drug policy in general, but my guess is that drug policy under Obama will probably look a lot like current drug policy. I don’t suspect that we’ll see any major changes. As you well know, the Dems are afraid of being called “liberal,” and any relaxing of any of the draconian drug laws would probably open them to the dreaded charge of “liberal.”
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, though.
August 27, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Bob — No, that seems pretty clear-eyed: all the major contours of current policy will almost certainly remain largely (if not entirely) unchanged. And, with all the whiplash moves to the rhetorical “center” and the addition of Joe “up against the wall, pothead, this is a stick-up” Biden to the ticket, Hopey seems more susceptible than most to liberalphobia.
My question here was more about the policy details than the overall picture of drug policy — something I’m still not sure about, Digby-esque or not. I guess time will tell whether even the details change (assuming the Dems don’t fuck it up … never a sure thing).