Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
March 2012
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Authors

The discussion is out in the open

It doesn’t matter what Biden says. He obediently trotted over to Latin America because they demanded a discussion about legalization. And he had no choice – if he didn’t do it now, Obama would have to face the discussion himself when he visits. Nothing can now change the fact that the Vice President of the United States has flown to Mexico and Central America to discuss legalization of drugs.

In Mexico, Biden shoots down talk of drug legalization

Despite Biden’s emphatic rejection of moves toward legalization, analysts of counter-drug policy say policymakers in Washington may no longer be able to halt demand for broader discussions.

“What’s clear is that for the U.S. to continue to say, ‘There is no debate and discussion to be had. It’s a settled matter’ — that won’t fly anymore,” said John Walsh, drug policy program coordinator at the Washington Office on Latin America, a social justice and human rights advocacy group.

Demands to address failures in U.S.-designed counter-drug policies have been stimulated, ironically, by the posture of Washington’s closest ally in the region — President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, who said last fall that he would welcome discussion about legalization but would be “crucified” if he led the charge.

So, yes, while Biden shot down legalization, he added legitimacy to it.

Biden, on a two-day swing to Mexico and Central America, said a sour mood over violence from powerful narcotics mafias has led to a desire in some corners of Latin America to debate legalization.

“It warrants a discussion. It’s totally legitimate for this to be raised,” Biden said, adding that he’d spent “thousands of hours” at Senate hearings over the issue.

Wait. What?

He’s spent thousands of hours at Senate hearings over legalization? Right. I’d be willing to bet he’s spent thousands of hours at Senate hearing figuring out more ways to incarcerate people for drug crimes, but probably the only discussions related to legalization involved asking if there’s a way to jail people who advocate legalization.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

20 comments to The discussion is out in the open

  • heh…

    “It warrants a discussion. It’s totally legitimate for this to be raised,” Biden said, adding that he’d spent “thousands of hours” at Senate hearings over the issue.

    Right up there with “hundreds of thousands of homes” with mold from indoor pot farms…

    Let’s see… “clutching at straws.” “we’re out of ammo!” “shit in, shit out,” “same shit, different day,” “I told you they wouldn’t fall for it,” “why me?”, “cat’s out of the bag”…

    I was remote viewing Biden…

  • Jeff Trigg

    Thank you X 3! Exactly!. Biden has spent thousands of hours at Senate hearings in discussions over how to lock more people in more cages for cannabis, Tommy Chong’s bongs, etc. RAVE Act? And now this? Keep fighting everybody, its working.

    Obama led the charge to outlaw the ephedra plant and has now signed off on outlawing certain flavored tobaccos. Marlboro is still able to use almond extracts, and menthols are allowed, but not cherry or blackcherry or anything else. And raising taxes from $2 something per pound to $26 per pound was another attack on the freedom of our mouths (that not so coincidentally also benefited big tobacco).

    Any chance we can get liberals and Democrats to respect ALL of our mouths as much as they “respect” young women’s vaginas? (If 80% were against abortion, the so-called Democratic Party would be against it too like they were for slavery, women voting/rights, etc.)

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      The really fucked up thing about the flavored tobacco restrictions is that the only reason that menthol wasn’t included is because the authorities didn’t want to be accused of racism.

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      I’d have to be awfully hungry with little prospect of finding other food before dying of starvation to eat a squirrel. Take a very close look at one. Imagine yourself with a razor, and shave it’s tail. What have you got now? A rat.

      But it’s interesting that you bring up the squirrels. In my last update here I said that they had figured out the live traps, but I was wrong. Now that it’s warmed up a bit outside they’re getting caught again. My working theory is that when the bait freezes that it doesn’t generate as much of an odor and they just weren’t smelling it. I never did use any death traps; I guess I must have some Buddhist DNA.

  • cabdriver

    Possibly related news- this item I found over at http://prorev.com/ :

    Great moments in transparency
    “At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press.” – Announcement from the Vice President’s office

    http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/great-moments-in-transparency.html

  • kaptinemo

    Yes, the wall’s finally been breached…and if the Central and South American leaders keep up the pressure for having a real discussion on ending prohibition, that breach will get a lot bigger, and Biden will have to do a lot more (equally pointless and expensive) traveling on our dime.

    The prohib Achille’s Heel has finally been realized by the CA and SA leaders. One sure way to zing it to Uncle and make him look foolish for not wanting to just talk. And, unless I am mistaken, if Biden is asked again during sworn testimony on this subject just when he discussed ending prohibition, he’ll commit perjury the moment he opens his mouth. I and a lot of other reformers are constantly on alert for such legislation or committees, and there sure haven’t been any advertising themselves as such. Biden’s proved himself a liar.

  • ezrydn

    I watched ol’ Joe BLOW deplane last night on a LA news channel. Those folks didn’t carry Happy Meal faces. I’m sure they couldn’t wait for him to scoot on home. Was that Philippe he was dragging along behind him on a short leash?

  • darkcycle

    Here. This is typical. The first quote from Biden in that article “..there is no possibility…” The second quote? “It warrants a discussion.”
    Sounds like my Dad. Whenever he had a “discussion” with me over a point where we disagreed, it went something like that. He discussed, I sat there and nodded. If I tried to open my mouth, I’d be backhanded into next week.

  • primus

    As soon as Joe Blow was named as the Veep, I knew the fix was in, and BA would toe the party line, nothing would change etc.

  • Matthew Meyer

    The NY Times includes this delicious followup quote to the “totally legitimate discussion” bit:

    “I think it warrants a discussion. It is totally legitimate,” he said. “And the reason it warrants a discussion is, on examination you realize there are more problems with legalization than with nonlegalization.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/americas/us-remains-against-drug-legalization-in-mexico-biden-says.html?_r=2&ref=world

    Right. We should indeed look at the possibility of legalizing drugs. And that’s because (and only because) when we do look at it, we see it’s a bad idea. Much worse than “nonlegalization,” an infelicitous term if I ever saw one.

    The article also suggests that Guatemalan President Molina may just be trying to get more drug money from the US, and the removal of weapons trading restrictions.

    • claygooding

      It is all about the money,,reductions in the new budget of up too 60% in drug war funding to the very countries that are calling for reform.

      However,,these countries cannot afford to fight the cartels on their present budgets and up their own taxes to replace the funding lost by the budget cuts in the US.

      These politicians don’t have the same monies supporting prohibition that the US does and now the flow of tax dollars from the US is ending.

      The vested interests keeping our congress locked into the drug war will have too also influence these governments some other way than using a few million dollars to American politicians that provided for that flow of cash that kept all the local politicians with new motorhomes.

      • kaptinemo

        “May you live in interesting times” goes the old Chinese curse. We haven’t yet seen how ‘interesting’ things can be…but we may find out soon enough.

        Uncle continues to be in denial about his true economic straits; the printing presses at Treasury have to stop sometime, or the money supply will be so inflated it will lose all value, and then our foreign creditors pull the plug. What happens next will make the Great Depression look like kindergarten.

        But Uncle keeps showering ‘grants’ (of increasingly inflated ‘money’) to LE groups under the false rubric of ‘fighting drugs’ to maintain the fiction that everything’s A-OK. While more and more of police equipment bought under that premise seems to resemble the kind purchased by totalitarian countries to be used on their own citizens rather than some foreign threat. For example, those ‘grants’ are being used by the Feds in CA to attack dispensaries and in New York to spy on and attack the Occupy people. Maybe all this is in anticipation of the inevitable ‘market correction’ that will leave this country totally bankrupt and seething with anger at what the 1% have done that actually prompts this trend.

        Suffice to say, it will be a toss-up as to what happens when the realization sets in that we can no longer conduct ‘business as usual’ in this country. But whether it dies slowly or quickly, drug prohibition is doomed to an ignominious death, and few will mourn it, save those who were once fat from it.

  • Matthew, I hope that is not true about President Molina. Right now that guy is my hero and I have more respect for him than for any leader here…except Ron Paul.

  • ezrydn

    Law Enforcement will be the death of the USA. They’re locked on “perpetual SUCK” even though everyone else understands the tank’s practically dry.

  • Any other stance on this issue by the Obama administration would be in conflict of their doctrine of absolute control over not just the lives of US citizens, but the lives of everyone in the Americas. Indeed the drug war is a proxy for the institution of facist control…..the militarization of american law enforcemnet can be perceived in no other way. The leaders of central & south America MUST realize and defend against this invasion…to do otherwise is to invite disaster

  • Ed Dunkle

    Joe Biden should be dropped from the ticket. But the oh-so-careful Obama will never do that. That leaves 2016 wide open, assuming Obama staggers home to a victory this year.

    If Obama wins I predict he will do nothing in the next four years to mitigate prohibition.

    Our only hope is courageous action from Latin Americans leaders. Canada and the UK are hopeless.

  • Wow, what a video it is! Truly good feature video, the lesson given in this video is actually informative.

    http://unitedhealthcareproviders2.hpage.com/ – United Healthcare Providers