An honest question. Why isn't Hillary pro-legalization of pot?

[pinebox]

First off, I just witnessed a disgusting display here in GD-P of a Bernie supporter being berated who has serious medical issues and won't support Hillary because she isn't pro-legalization. In fact, it was truly disgusting. Since when is it ok to demean those who have medical issues with things like tumors?

So why isn't she pro-legalization? Honestly, why? I could make the direct correlation how she is the #1 recipient on both sides of the aisle of donations from big pharma but if that isn't it, what is it?

She said we need more research but how much do you honestly need? It's been studied to death and if anything studies have shown us that it does have health benefits (seizures, Glaucoma, pain relief for those who are terminally ill, etc etc) This is an issue Dems should be leading on, they aren't. Instead many are leading with incarcerating millions because they smoked the stuff.

I've never touched it but I do live in Colorado and I voted yes to legalize. In fact most American's now support legalization

http://prospect.org/article/majority-americans-now-support-marijuana-legalization

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/15/most-americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-use-and-support-for-legal-marijuana-continue-to-climb/

So why doesn't Hillary? Honest question.

[VulgarPoet]

1. Donations from big pharma and her private prison sponsors. nt

[pinebox]

2. I think has to be the only thing

because aside from that, what else is there, really?

[Armstead]

12. Votes from the conservative "center" in the GE

[appalachiablue]

19. Needs inmates serving long sentences and working for pennies in private,

for profit prison corporations that make lotsa money $$ off them and donate to political campaigns.

[Merryland]

32. legalized slavery. it has to end.

[appalachiablue]

41. Truthfully the 'New Jim Crow' as Michelle Alexander claimed it. 2.2 million

people incarcerated in the US, the largest number in the world as Bernie often emphasizes. Criminal, corrupt country declining fast unless big changes are made. Oligarchs Don't Rock..

[raging moderate]

88. A prison "industry" with over 2 million in jail is NOT MODERATE!

It is part of the neo-feudalist antebellum Confederate effort to keep certain minorities in the servile position which white supremacists believe is necessary to the continuation of the "glorious" white civilization.

[Shadowflash]

39. Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.


How else are we going to keep the prisons full and the gravy train running to the private prison industry?

[CentralCoaster]

69. Yes, those two things: Opposition to natural remedies, support of prison industrial complex.

She and her ilk can't have what they want unless we maintain a permanent underclass.

It's that simple.

[Sheepshank]

68. Because someone with $23M in the bank is so easily bought off?

baloney.

[tabasco]

82. Riiiigght.

Because having money has always been known to bestow the virtues of honesty and generosity upon a person.

LMFAO.

[RKP5637]

79. Exactly!!! It's all about $$$$$'s, same for Bill Clinton. For the $$$$$$'s not "we the people." And

yet another reason why I quit the democratic party and changed to unaffiliated voter. ... but then the new democratic party doesn't give a F about unaffiliated voters, yet it's the largest segment of voters in the US and growing. Many people are fed up with both R's and D's. and when it comes to $$$$$'s, many see them as both the same!

[pinebox]

92. You are 100% correct

[TheDormouse]

3. because she's proudly moderate, centrist

[pinebox]

4. I'd like to see her state an actual position on why she doesn't but

we won't get that

[TheDormouse]

6. you'll get that when she releases her Wall St speech transcripts

[pinebox]

10. I was thinking the same thing

[AgerolanAmerican]

56. when did it become "moderate"

to have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?

Wasn't this supposed to be a "free" country?

[ieoeja]

5. There are people who honestly believe that "Reefer Madness" bullshit.

Hillary has always struck me as such a person.

[pinebox]

8. Agreed

[TheDormouse]

7. She's married to a guy who tried marijuana but never inhaled

[pinebox]

9. LOL I forgot about that!

[auntpurl]

11. For me (and bear in mind, I'm Gen X)

marijuana legalisation still feels like quite a lefty issue. Hillary is a moderate (as am I) about many things.

It's only my opinion, but I think a lot of moderates might be turned off by a pro-pot candidate.

[TheDormouse]

14. Are you like 80?

[auntpurl]

24. No, I'm in my 40s.

I think the states have been handling this pretty well. I see no need for a presidential candidate to be openly pro-pot when it's likely to turn off many moderates.

[votesparks]

38. So let people continue to be jailed and oppressed

in favor of not "turning off" people.

[pinebox]

16. That sounds like the same argument that was made against SSM

[TheDormouse]

20. the argument against same-sex marriage was based on The Bible

which is one of Hillary's favorite books

[pinebox]

31. Ehhhh

yay and nay

[auntpurl]

25. Of course it isn't. Gay rights issues are HUMAN rights issues.

Marijuana legalisation is not a human rights issue.

[pinebox]

33. I would disagree

based on what POV you're coming from. Go re-read my opening paragraph in my OP because that is a human rights issue.
Add in that along with how it's incarcerated millions.

[auntpurl]

43. Listen, I completely agree that mandatory minimum sentencing and jail terms for small amounts

should be abolished. But again, these are states/judicial areas, not executive branch.

[pinebox]

57. However drug laws are federal :)

[auntpurl]

59. Then how is it some states have legalised marijuana and others haven't?

[pinebox]

65. Because states are going against the feds

In my state of Colorado we basically did a giant FU to Washington and put it on the ballot for voters to decide. People showed up in droves to vote for it.



http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2

[auntpurl]

67. Interesting.

I'll be the first to admit marijuana legalisation isn't tops on my list of stuff I know a lot about, lol. I don't even drink, much less use other substances. But thanks for the info. I was only giving my opinion on my feeling about why Hillary doesn't come out in favour, as a moderate over a certain age. I bet I'm not alone. This is one issue I'm happy to admit I'm not very informed on.

[pinebox]

74. You're welcome

In many parts of the country this is a very hot issue and one of the reason why Hillary lost Colorado

[potone]

71. But the problem is a federal law.

Listing cannabis as a Schedule I drug means that the government has deemed it to have no medical benefits, and won't fund any research on it. It clearly does have medicinal uses and there needs to be much more research done on it.

I live in a state where it is legal and it has been an unmitigated good. It is just plain cruel to deny people who need it to have access to it. There are even cases where it has actually killed tumors. So as far as I am concerned, it is a human rights issue, if we include in human rights the belief that people should not be denied legitimate medical treatments.

The fact of the matter is that it was a political decision, not a scientific one, by the Nixon administration to list cannabis as a Schedule I drug. It is long past time to take it off the list of controlled substances and make it available to everyone who needs it for medical purposes, and to every other adult who wants to use it. It is FAR less dangerous than alcohol and is a very effective painkiller. At a time when we have a problem with opiate addiction, it makes no sense to ban an effective and non-addictive alternative for pain management.

As for Hillary, I won't assume the worst of her motives; it may just be that she hasn't really studied the issue and doesn't realize its benefits.

[auntpurl]

73. Good information, thank you for posting.

As I said above, I'm the first to admit I don't know that much about the issue. It's not really on my radar, but I do think medical marijuana should be available to whoever needs it.

[potone]

80. You are welcome!

Many people don't know enough about this issue because of its "hippy" image. That stereotype is part of the problem, but fortunately, that is changing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. When people are imprisoned for violating a patently unjust law...

...then I'd call that a human rights issue.

[TheDormouse]

17. Personally, I don't use marijuana but opposition to its legalization

in a society where alcohol flows freely, and tobacco is also legal, is absurd.

[auntpurl]

27. As long as there's a big enough groundswell, it will happen naturally.

I see no reason for a presidential candidate to take a pro-pot stance that will hurt her votes with moderates, at least in 2016.

[TheDormouse]

34. So you're arguing against transparency? The reason to tell voters your position is that they

want to know. It's a very legitimate concern for a potential voter.

[auntpurl]

47. For how many potential voters?

Again bearing in mind that I'm old, I don't know anyone who has marijuana legalisation in their top 5 or even 10 list of most important issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. You understand that four States have legalized cannabis at the ballot box, by majority?

It's a huge issue, you must be way back East or maybe even in the UK to be so out of touch. Thus far Hillary has lost all the legalized States by huge margins. Alaska, Colorado and Washington. Oregon is still coming up. We have a cannabis industry providing needed jobs and safe recreational and medicinal marijuana to those who need or wish to use it. My city has more pot shops than it has Starbucks.

So basically when four States have already done something you see as very lefty and not supported by anyone it is time to reassess your point of view. It took massive movements to get those laws changed, millions of voters who were hugely committed. You don't know any Democrats on the West Coast, nor in Colorado? CA is going to go legal any moment now. They were first with Medical Marijuana of course....they are next for recreational legality.

[auntpurl]

76. I am probably very out of touch on this issue, lol.

I live in the UK, I'm from PA, and I don't even drink, much less use other substances. AND I'm over 40. I am probably not the target demographic for this issue.

But I appreciate the info and I will look into it further. I've got lots of good info on this thread. Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. I was not trying to be rude just factual. I have friends back East and in the UK who favor

legalization who simply can't seem to process the fact that millions of Americans have already organized, passed legislation at the ballot box and implemented full legalization.
Four States change major laws at the ballot box. Obviously that means a majority of voters in those States wanted to legalize and did so. So 'it's all the crazy kids and drinkers' is very clearly not the case. Your point of view defies logic and denies facts.

[pinebox]

35. Remember, the majority of America is pro-legalization

[auntpurl]

44. It's almost exactly at 50%

and obviously massive variance due to age. We still do need old Democrats to vote for our presidential candidate. There are loads of them!

[TheDormouse]

51. Uh, no it isn't

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx

And especially not for those under 50.

[auntpurl]

61. My apologies, you're right.

Thanks for the link.

[TheDormouse]

36. Would you say that a candidate shouldn't state their position on abortion, on similar grounds?

[auntpurl]

46. Abortion is a women's rights issue.

Which is a human rights issue. Marijuana legalisation is not a human rights issue.

However, as I said above, mandatory minimum sentencing and jail time for small amounts SHOULD be abolished.

[TheDormouse]

48. Define "human rights issue" so we can all be on the same page, please

[auntpurl]

54. In the context of marijuana legalisation...

and in MY OPINION (because I'm not a legislator or God, more's the pity), things like mandatory minimum sentencing and jail time for small amounts of possession should be abolished because they DO violate human rights. But legalising a recreational substance is NOT a human rights issue.

I am in favour of freely available medical marijuana, by the way. As far as I'm concerned, if you've got cancer, you can have any drug you want.

[TheDormouse]

60. you'll forgive me, but I get the feeling you are defining "human rights issue" as

whatever you feel candidates should have to state their position on and reasons for that position while "not a human rights issue" is whatever you feel candidates should be able to avoid stating their position on.

[auntpurl]

63. Not at all.

It is not a human right to get high because you want to! It is a human right to not incarcerate people for nonviolent possession of a fairly harmless substance. I think that's clear, and I'm honestly not trying to obfuscate.

[raging moderate]

81. It won't hurt her chances with THIS moderate!

And, like many on this board, I do not use marijuana, but I DO think it is ridiculous to have it listed as an illegal drug (and ESPECIALLY as one of the most dangerous drugs) when alcohol and tobacco are legal. And this is especially ridiculous in our Federal laws!

[Armstead]

26. It is a social justice and criminal justice issue

I have't indulged in 40 years. But it should be legalized.

Illegality has been a major fuel for crime and excessive punishment.

1)It allows the black market to thrive...which includes the brutal drug gangs from Mexico and elsewhere. Legalizing it would shift it to a legal market without the accompanying crime lords.

2)It has "criminalized" many otherwise law-abiding US citizens and subjects them to imprisonment far beyond the reason....both white and disproportionately AAs.

3)It's similar to the issue of women's choice -- an activity that should be left to the individual to decide.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. I'm Gen X, and your words feel very alien to me.

I personally don't want more people arrested because they like to smoke pot.

[auntpurl]

77. No, I don't either.

Personally, I think all drugs should be legalised that don't carry heavy physical health penalties (meth, heroin, etc). I was only commenting in response to the OP as to why Hillary might not come out in favour of legalisation. But I've got a lot of good info on this thread and I'm willing to admit I am not very informed on this issue!

[TheDormouse]

13. here ya go: it's a "gateway drug"

[VulgarPoet]

15. Christ on a pogo-sticking cross, it's like the Reagans are alive again. nt

[DookDook]

18. If Big Pharma or Big Tobacco were set up for it, it would be a done deal.

If the pharmaceutical companies could make synthetic THC without killing people or find a way of isolating the beneficial aspects of cannabis, then they'd, the third way Democrats and the Republicans would be all for Medical Marijuana. But unfortunately for them, cannabis is more complicated and they can't find a way to isolate the medicinal aspects of the plant from the parts that make you feel good. And for some reason, that seems to be the big argument of why we can't just treat cannabis like we treat alcohol, it seems that a lot of people in this country are concerned with people enjoying getting high. I have my own tin-foil hat type of conspiracy theories for this as well, but that's another post.

I think that if they could figure out a way to make it illegal for individuals to grow their own and make it so that there are so many hoops that you need to jump through to be a licensed grower of cannabis, then you'll see Phillip-Morris and the other tobacco companies get their operations set up to deal with growing, harvesting, and rolling cannabis cigarettes, that's when you'll see the 3rd Wayers and some of the Republicans suddenly OK with it or willing to let it be sold as long as they can put up some type of resistance to keep those people that still believe the reefer madness lies that came from Hearst and Anslinger.

[Separation]

90. But isnt that why it kind of failed in Ohio?

As far as I know, that is why it failed to pass in Ohio. Something along the lines of major companies wanting to move in and shut out the small business owners. The people of Ohio did not want that to happen and it was voted down?

Im not down %100 on why it failed in Ohio, but that is the way it was presented to me.

[DookDook]

91. You're right about why it failed in Ohio

The voters, "were clearly turned off by the oligopoly provision." There was a provision, Issue 3, that would limit the number of sites that would be allowed to grow and dispense cannabis. That's why the voters didn't want it. From what I remember I think it was group of venture capitalists that wanted to be on the ground floor of the cannabis market and at the same time keep it a monopoly that only they controlled.

https://www.thefix.com/why-did-marijuana-legalization-fail-ohio

Like I said, once the right or the 3rd way see how they can make money off of it, they'll be shouting from the rooftops how good cannabis is for you. They'll take all those people who are taking SSRI's for depression and all those people who suffer from chronic pain and they'll be giving them medical marijuana cards, but until they find a way to make profit they'll just tell you how sorry they are that SSRI's tend to make people commit suicide and that now that heroin is sweeping through white neighborhoods we really need to stop just locking people up for doing hard drugs and deal with them as if they need medical help to deal with their addiction.

I mean if they just let people grow the plant in their homes the next thing they'd be doing is lighting up those jazz cigarettes and running over old people in the streets!

[Orsino]

21. Because she is Establishment.

Also because as a woman, she has had to be ten times as careful not to appear soft.

Unfortunately, we know who pays the price.

[TheDormouse]

42. Witness Debbie Wasserman Schultz--also opposed to decriminalization of marijuana

[TheKentuckian]

22. Because she is conservative in general, moderate at best even on social issues, supports the

security and dragnet surveillance state, and loves her some prison industrial complex.

[Armstead]

28. Haven't seen you in a while...

[TheKentuckian]

84. I had to take an anti nilisim/don't give in to hate/focus on my baby girl break.

So far so good. I've yet to have to restrain myself from letting the dark side flow even if I'm still fit to be tied.

Hope you and yours have been well!

[Armstead]

85. yeah I'm familiar with those...(except for the baby girl part)

Once this primary is over I'll probably take a similar break.

(If the baby girl part is a new arrival, congratulations)

[TheKentuckian]

87. Thanks. She is 9 months and growing like a weed. That old soul of her's needs more room, I guess.

[Amimnoch]

23. From what I know, her stance isn't much different than Bernie's?

First.. I haven't seen the thread you are referring to, but as a Hillary supporter, I do not agree.. at all.. with anyone berating someone who is basing their choice on that issue, especially when their support is for very valid medical reasons.

http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/01/clinton-its-appropriate-for-states-to-legalize-marijuana/

is an earlier article, and may be outdated now on what the candidates have said since then, but it doesn't look like there is a huge difference between the 2 on this issue?

I don't see either of our candidates getting actual federal level reform passed by congress. (the 115th congress just doesn't have the numbers that I'd see at all passing a bill). But, I do see both of our candidates continuing the President Obama precedent to not actively pursue prosecution or justice department enforcement in states that have legalized. On this particular issue, I don't know how a Trump presidency would likewise behave, i'm pretty certain that a Cruz presidency would see a reverse of the Obama precedent.

[TheDormouse]

40. Bernie is 100% for decriminalizing marijuana federally

Hillary is only for allowing medical research federally, and possibly allowing widerspread medical use.

[pinebox]

53. Here you go

Thanks for saying that above, that was incredibly disgusting what was said and sad. I have medical issues myself and to see someone berated over it infuriated me.

As far as Bernie and Hillary go, here you go.
Bernie is pro legalization across the board.
Hillary is not.

[think]

29. Great question.

[Trajan]

30. Because she is a conservative

Bottom line

[djean111]

37. Money from Big Pharma and the prison industry.

Hillary has no principles, she just has big pockets.

[Trust Buster]

45. It's foolish to point to Big Pharma. They plan to get into that market in a big way.

I think Hillary is not against marijuana legalization, be it medicinal or recreational. This is purely a political posture IMO. She needs to protect her flank with the older demographic knowing all along that the impetus to legalize at the state level is taking care of itself. It's the smart political play at this time.

[TheDormouse]

52. lol, true--like how the anti-Castro Cubans will be at the front of the line getting new business

deals in Cuba once the embargo ends.

[Trust Buster]

58. Didn't understand your post at all.

[TheDormouse]

64. Anti-Castro Cuban-Americans are vehemently opposed to lifting the Cuban embargo &

promoting greater commercial exchanges between the US and Cuba.

But watch how fast they will start pursuing business deals in Cuba once they realize that they have lost the battle and the embargo will, in all practical terms, be ended.

[Trust Buster]

66. We were talking about Hillary's position on marijuana legalization.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. No money in it for her...and cannabis users trend young.

No benefit for her...and I trust no one actually believes she'd do something just because it's right.

[reddread]

55. how are cartels supposed to make a living if its legal?

legalization will destroy one of the largest untaxed and unregulated money making games in the world.

its as simple as that.

[pinebox]

62. People may think you're nuts for saying that but cartels have already infiltrated Gov't

here in the United States.

Welcome to the Rio Grand Valley in Texas.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/americas-dirtiest-cops-cash-cocaine-texas-hidalgo-county-20150105

And that is but one instance. There are many upon many.

[reddread]

83. anyone who cant follow that logical reasoning is nuts

our cops are constantly being busted for drug dealing, running, connecting, protecting.
there is nothing to debate about the easy way that politicians and officials can be cheaply bought.

legalization threatens the possibly trillion dollar black market for marijuana in a way that no other
drug supply would be threatened.

it is all about money.
everything is to bloodsucking traitors.

[MisterP]

93. and of course the cartel kingpin she set up in Honduras 09 ...

[Sheepshank]

72. Judging by your follow up responses, this was not an honest question, it was baiting,

your history of such tactics isn't new,

[randr]

78. Are any Hill folk answering this post?

Have any Hillary supporters asked her this question and what is her answer.
Curious people want to know.

[pdsimdars]

89. There is no informed, intelligent reason not to legalize it

Therefore, it must mean that her decision is influenced by all that pharma money. She is a very intelligent woman, she knows there is nothing wrong with it, but her position is "informed" by big pharma (and all the cash-ola they throw at her).
But no, she isn't influenced by the lobbyists who donate to her.