Political candidate finds it politically necessary to be drug policy reformer

Here’s a nice little turn. A primary race for Attorney General where it becomes important to show your drug policy reform bona fides.

The presumed Democratic frontrunner for attorney general is facing questions from critics who accuse her of flip-flopping on a progressive touchstone: Rockefeller-era drug law reform. […]

[Kathleen] Rice, Nassau County’s district attorney, insisted at a recent candidates forum in Brooklyn she has always supported efforts to roll back parts of the ultraharsh 1973-era laws.

That claim startled reform advocates, who quickly noted she was a board member of the state District Attorneys Association when it lobbied against the most recent reforms enacted last year. […]

Rice spokesman Eric Phillips insisted Rice “disagreed with the [DA] association’s overall opposition to the reforms” – but he admitted she didn’t “publicly rebuke” its anti-reform efforts.

Phillips said Rice would have voted “yes” to the 2009 reforms if she had been in the Legislature. He said she has “always” supported alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders and started a successful community-based diversion program in 2008.

“We look forward to working with the [Drug Policy] Alliance on these issues in the future,” Phillips said. “It is my hope that they will take a moment to look at her record, which I believe they will find incredibly innovative and progressive on the issues they care most about.”

I like this. I have no opinion of Rice, but I love the idea of politicians feeling the political heat to be known as drug policy reformers and to want to please drug policy reform organizations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Political candidate finds it politically necessary to be drug policy reformer

  1. primus says:

    An interesting change, but like most political statements, full of spin and posturing. Those in the know will dissect her past performance, as her spokesperson suggests. If she is, indeed a reformer, it is to be hoped that she wins the election. If not, she should be barbecued in the blogs and vilified as a liar in all the media. Should be interesting to see where this leads.

  2. Pete says:

    Of course it’s spin and posturing. They’re politicians. We’re still going to have to sift through the lies and deceptions of each candidate, but it’s nice to think that now they are starting to have to prove that they’re FOR reform, when in the past pretty much every candidate felt they had to prove they were against it.

  3. denmark says:

    We chip away at them until the rock of Prohibition crumbles. We take risks and voice our now credible opinions.
    I’m trying to get a state Senator here to see the error of her ways by passing mandatory, random drug trusting on all state construction projects. Her quote: “The problem of drug use in our society and in the workplace poses a threat to us all.” My response: Prohibition is the problem. (and no that’s not all I said).

  4. claygooding says:

    Here is some more politicians jumping on the wagon:
    KY: Tuesday primaries may be first expressions of voters’ wrath
    LATimes
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-primary-20100517,0,7252753.story

  5. Cliff says:

    I’m trying to get a state Senator here to see the error of her ways by passing mandatory, random drug trusting on all state construction projects. Her quote: “The problem of drug use in our society and in the workplace poses a threat to us all.”

    The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was probably the most drug tested location on the planet (next to drug rehabilitation centers). How did all of that drug testing make anything safer?

    The largest oil disaster in the world was caused by people who were drug tested regularly and repeatedly. Now we have a volcano of oil ruining the Gulf of Mexico which is going to take generations to clean up, caused by people who passed drug tests every time.

    My responsible use of cannabis has never caused anyone to lose thier life or destroyed the environment.

  6. Paul says:

    I like this. Good news!

Comments are closed.