Should the Democratic Party include marijuana legalization on its platform?

[High Plains]

DU seems to be full of pot-friendly people. How representative of the party is DU on this issue? Is it time for the Democrats to include legalization of marijuana in the party platform? Would it help or hurt the party? Is it the right thing to do?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Sure.

The repukes would never notice and never, ever use it like a bludgeon. Really. No, really.

Not that I disagree with the premise, mind you, it's just that tactically and strategically, it would prove a nightmare.

[zanne]

6. Yup. Let's leave it to the Libertarians.

The "liberal" Libertarians, that is. That way they can confront the "conservative" libertarians and implode.

[endarkenment]

11. same thing was said about civil rights about gay rights

about women's rights. Oh no! Can't do that! Yes we can. And if we stopped being afraid of speaking the truth we would start to regain the respect of common working men and women.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. No.

They should simply legalize it once they get into the WH.

[Redstone]

3. Uh, no. The rightwingers would crucify them, even though RWs smoke dope, too.

Redstone

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. If RWs smoke dope, it doesn't help them any.

:rofl: It apparently makes them paranoid assholes!

[Redstone]

16. Uh, isn't paranoia part of the Maryjane Experience? And they got the asshole part down pat already,

so it works out nicely, doesn't it?

Redstone

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. For some it is and apparently for them, it is exclusively. I know people who smoke pot

mellow out and never are paranoid while :smoke: Since I don't know any RWs, I might be talking out my butt with regard to their paranoia and pot smoking. :evilgrin:

[Redstone]

25. Nah, you're not "talking out of your butt." RWs do have a base of paranoia to start with,

and a couple of doobies does reinforce it.

But, just like all the virulently anti-gay rightwingers who end up getting caught enjoying a little bit of futtbucking themselves, they'll go apeshit on any Democratic candidate who wants to legalize dope, even as they toke away themselves.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke the stuff myself, but I believe that it should be legalized. Not "decriminalized," LEGALIZED.

Redstone

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. I think it should be legalized but I understand why it won't be.

Cheap Prison labor, among other reasons. Hemp should be planted, acres and acres of it. Good for the environment and so many uses, that not planting it makes no sense. Again, I understand why that isn't an option either. Greed, pure GREED!

[nebenaube]

30. how can it be paranioa from the weed...

I mean people ARE out there hunting you down, intent on destroying your life...

[ThomCat]

4. It's long, long past time for the Democratic Party

to include serious, rational drug policy as a major plank in the party platform.

Even as someone who only takes prescription drugs, as proscribed, I'm outraged at the effects of our drug laws. I'm continually amazed that more people aren't demanding changes.
x(

[Oldenuff]

35. I agree...the Drug War is a bust,

But it seems that Kucinich (and maybe Gravel) is one of the only Dems that has the cojones to speak the truth...I'm really disappointed that in this day and age,people are still going to jail for a plant.

The anti-legalization folks must hold some serious sway.

[stirlingsliver]

5. I've Got The Munchies

Dude, I've got the munchies right now.

What's the question again?

[endarkenment]

7. Yes.

We need to be the party that talks plain sense. End the war on drugs. Universal single payer healthcare. Real action to address the global climate catastrophe and peak oil. Comprehensive election finance reform. No more bullshit.

[devilgrrl]

9. No but I'd like Hemp to be brought up...

btw, yo can't get high off of it but it makes get fabric and paper. It's something that needs to be discussed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. No, Because On A List Of Priorities It's Way Down There.

And if all of those above it can't be in the forefront, then it doesn't deserve to be either.

Fact is that during campaigning you can only have so many items in the forefront of the platform. Too many and your message gets lost and voters tune out. Since there are probably hundreds of items that technically could be priority over the legalization of marijuana, then it would be silly to think that the latter would have room for focus. We've got to stick with the top issues.

[tabasco]

14. Civil rights and rational drug laws should be a top priority.

People are imprisoned every day for nothing more than marijuana.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Say It All You Want, But To The Overwhelming Majority Of Americans That Doesn't Break The Top 100.

I would consider it to be beyond surreal for someone to claim otherwise.

[tabasco]

38. You think the "war" on drugs and the impact on civil liberties is not in the top 100 issues?

Your statement is absurd.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tabasco]

42. Another insubstantial post from you that fails to respond.

Those icons really put me in my place!

You seem to be very immature.

Buh-bye.

[dave_p]

12. Not this time

No, there are more pressing priorities. It'd hurt because there isn't time to build the case, and it'd be a distraction from the core issue where Democrats need to drive a forceful case home.

There's plenty governing Democrats will be able to do to end the nightmare of the "war on drugs" without rushing for outright legalization. Much of Europe's all but decriminalized it without lifting the ban. It's a fudge, but it kinda works.

[slackmaster]

13. Morally right but politically unwise

Most of the country still thinks Tell Your Children is a serious documentary.

[zanne]

32. If I was 25, I'd urge Dems to take it up as an issue.

But I'm 55 and I've learned a few things. We have to be pragmatic about dope.

[slackmaster]

34. People should use it discretely if they must

No need to be a political martyr if you find it beneficial for your personal consumption, IMO.

[JVS]

17. yes

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Way too much at stake this time around,

to take a chance like that. Too many really critical issues that need our time more than that.

[High Plains]

19. Hmmm, interesting replies so far....

Very little discussion of whether it is proper to arrest people for marijuana use or sales, but lots of discussion of whether it would be tactically damaging to the party.

This sort of parallels the discussion on other issues, such as gay rights or civil rights. It may be the right thing, but it's the wrong time. We need to wait, the argument goes.

Yeah, what's another 800,000 people arrested this year on pot charges?

[Bluebear]

36. 'This sort of parallels the discussion on other issues, such as gay rights or civil rights.'

!

[Fresh_Start]

21. no, just don't fund the war on drugs

due to other priorities for the budget

[Ignacio Upton]

22. The GOP would bludgeon us with it

Because they would work their asses off to scare soccer moms into screaming "please think of the children", even though many of THEM also smoke (go to FR...they have a number of pro-legalization posters.)

[porphyrian]

23. Absolutely. We can't call the "war on terror" a farce, yet support...

...the "war on drugs." It's chickenshit to keep avoiding it.

[Madspirit]

24. From the One

I just posted the "Marijuana Truths" getting over 68 recommends...<g>...and I smoke pot every day and I think personal liberties are very important. ...BUT I think NOT having a Republican in the White House next time, is even more important...hungry kids, uninsured, the war, etc... So, no, unfortunately, now is not the time. Maybe after elected, they could start some decriminalizing on the road to legality but they should leave it out of the election. Sadly.
Lee

[Error]

26. separate issues

no point for either to try to bind them together.

[skids]

27. Here's your answer, from a cold political perspective:

Democrats should overturn DEA policy for medical marijuana:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3392

They should legalize industrial hemp, though polls on that are less numerous.

Whether Democratic congresspeople do so is entirely a matter of how much they are influenced by big pharma and any other special interests with an anti-cannabis/anti-hemp stake. They should at the very least survey for a veto-proof majority on these two issues. If they decide to try to wait for a friendly presidential administration, they should not just do so because they assume it will be necessary. The votes may already be there, since there's a surprising level of support for these two issues among conservatives.

They should wait on federal drug legalization/decrim:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/410/gallup.shtml

But in the meantime certain states should decriminalize, which despite all the moaning and groaning about conflicts with the feds, has been done for other issues -- the law just says that the state's police won't spend resources on arrests and the courts won't prosecute. In a way that's harsher because offenders end up in the federal system, but the feds really aren't equipped to go it alone and will not be for several years, so the total number of cases would moist definitely drop, and the states that do so will enjoy quite the relief on their court budgets/dockets.

[High Plains]

29. 54% of liberals support legalization, according to the poll cited above

Support is near 50% on the West Coast, less in other regions.

People who tend not to support legalization also tend not to vote Democratic. Conservatives, church goers, and older people are not so supportive. But are these folks going to vote for Democrats anyway? I'm suggesting that we may not actually lose many votes because of this issue.

The one demographic where adopting legalization as a platform plank could hurt is among young parents, ie soccer moms, who would generally vote Democratic, but are scared that their kids will, well, do the same things they did.

[Telly Savalas]

39. The fact that only 54% of liberals support legalization affirms the notion

that the nation isn't with it yet. It states that 43% of liberals are against legalization. (Presumably the remaining 3% were too baked to formulate a proper response to the poll.) This means that even among pretty clear-thinking people, nearly half have been suckered by the anti-pot propaganda.

But remember that the percentage of people who are self-identified liberals isn't that high. The Democratic Party relies a lot on self-identified moderates to tip elections in their favor. Among this demographic, 60% are against legalization.

There's no question that legalization is sound public policy, but it's a no-win issue politically. The right-wing noise machine would turn CNN into the Reefer Madness channel, and the hysterics would both undermine Democratic support and provide a huge distraction from pressing issues like Iraq, Global warming, and Health care. Given how the deck is stacked against reason, can you actually conceive of us winning this particular battle of ideas between now and November 2008? I'm afraid to say I can't.

Unfortunately we gotta choose our battles.

[WilliamPitt]

31. That'd be nice, but

it's #365,998,212,222,420 on The List Of Neccesary Shit.

[WindRavenX]

33. Why not decriminalized it first?

Although I would love to have it legal now, the first step is to decriminalize it, which is what's happening on a local level in many states. Why not on the federal level?

[jsamuel]

37. Medical, yes. Recreational, no.

This statement expires in December 2008.

[bleedingheart]

41. I am conflicted on the issue...

On one hand I don't think it should be illegal to have it...

but on the other hand I know that a lot of older folks (whose voting bloc always votes...) don't like it because they have fallen for the stereotypes of what "pot smokers" are like...