Leading from the rear

Hillary Clinton Evolves on Another Issue – National Journal

On Tuesday, she was more amenable to change. On medical marijuana, Clinton called for more research into its benefits, without doubting they exist, but she stopped short of endorsing the widespread adoption of medical laws. “I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I don’t think we’ve done enough research yet,” she said.

On recreational use, she was perhaps even more open to reform. “States are the laboratory of democracy,” she said, noting that Colorado and Washington had legalized the drug via referenda in 2012. “I want to wait and see what the evidence is” from the two states, she said.

This is someone being dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that the public supports reform more than the government, and some amount of shifting will be necessary to win votes.

Best response I saw on Facebook to this: “More research on mmj? That’s the opposite of leadership. Wish she had called for more research before voting to invade Iraq.”

Tom Angell gets it:

“Her openness to letting states proceed with implementing outright marijuana legalization shows just how far the politics of this issue have shifted since the 90’s, when her husband’s administration tried to punish doctors just for discussing the medical use of marijuana with their patients,” Angell said.

That’s exactly right. We have moved the discussion so far that we’re forcing politicians to follow.

Kevin Sabet, on the other hand, misses the point completely simply vomits words.

Kevin Sabet, however, the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization, downplayed Clinton’s evolution. “I don’t think we should read too much into these comments. If anything, she stopped short of embracing legalization, and I have a feeling that once she learns more about Colorado’s negative experiences, and the profit-seeking motives of today’s Big Marijuana industry, she’ll disappoint a lot of legalization advocates,” he said in an email.

I have not heard a single legalization advocate believe that Clinton would be a leader in reform, so that’s just nonsense.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Leading from the rear

  1. Frank W. says:

    Clinton is the ultimate Evil Corporation Mouthpiece, like the robot Pat Harrington in “The President’s Analyst”. She and Dianne Feinstein can go…sorry, gotta take my cranky meds.

  2. claygooding says:

    Fuck the Dimwits and the Republicunts,,if Gary Johnson runs we may get our first Libertarian President.

  3. claygooding says:

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news but witches can’t fly their broomsticks any higher than 150 meters off the ground in Swaziland,,so much for that vacation trip with the EX.


  4. Russell Olausen says:

    Laws were crafted by bankers and industrialists to bring discipline to the slaves. Circle pot laws under that prime directive. The profit from those laws are way down, so H. C. chokes back her tears and asks the question, how far down did you say those profits were?

  5. Daniel Williams says:

    Maybe a Monica-style blunt is necessary.

    • kaptinemo says:

      Now that would be fitting revenge.

      Hillary is beholden to the banksters (just google June 6 2008 Chantilly Virginia and you’ll get a glimpse from behind the curtain) which is why she made her Freudian-slip remark about there being ‘too much money in it’ (prohibition)…for her dirty-money laundering masters to give up without a fight.

      But the time has come ’round at last, and the country is with us. No matter how powerful her masters are, there’s only maybe a few thousand of them…and maybe over 200 million of us (if not more). She, and they, can either bend to Reality, or be broken by it.

      And my money is on Reality.

  6. Servetus says:

    It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.“—Voltaire.

    Anything Hillary Clinton says from now until she’s probably elected president will represent little more than fence sitting—the quality of the fence varying from rickety split-rails constructed in the 19th century to remnants of Hadrian’s wall (c. 122-8 CE). She should understand it was her fence-sitting on critical social issues that gave the 2008 Democrat primary victory to Obama.

    Today’s politicians avoid marijuana discussions because the last 77 years of the herb’s prohibition has been a failure and a major human rights crime of epic proportions. A failure of one’s own government is an uncomfortable topic for any politician. This is true whether it’s a 1930s French pol discussing the Dreyfus affair, or a contemporary Catholic American politician who avoids recalling the horrors of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

    Since marijuana scares some politicians, it becomes an effective weapon to be used against them. For instance, any governor or state legislature who fails to act efficiently and appropriately on voter referendum mandates for medical or recreational marijuana distributions should be deemed incompetent and sacked by the voters. We can always insist on our own zero tolerance for crimes of government.

  7. B. Snow says:

    I totally agree, The take-away here is that:
    “We have moved the discussion so far that we’re forcing politicians to follow.”

    ‘In the grand scheme of things’ – this IS ABSOLUTELY the single most important thing we’ve managed to get done & IMO = it’s the only thing that can (and will) actually have an impact on congress – and deliver true legislative reform.

  8. N.T. Greene says:

    I wonder if other people are starting to notice that Kevin Sabet is who they always call upon to give these opposing views. Not anyone at the DEA even! We won’t even bother trying to call anyone who’s an actual policymaker here — no no, let’s call Sabet.

    It’s like everyone else is hedging their bets and he’s the only one who hasn’t gotten the “abandon ship” message. And they all know when the time comes for recompense, they can just point their finger at Sabet and he’ll take the bulk of the flak for it.

    It’s like the establishment is the mob and Sabet is the fall guy. I bet if we dug deep enough into the investment portfolios of congressmen, we’d find some stems and seeds (if you know what I mean).

    • claygooding says:

      Somewhere in the DOJ/DEA/ONDCP is a contract labor contract with kev-kev’s name on it,,,figuring out how to get hold of a copy is the trick.

      • allan says:

        yeah, I’m not sure who our Daniel Ellsberg will be but the time is ripe for a journalist to get in there and start turning over rocks.

        They (the prohibs) are truly a criminal syndicate. They are the real drug cartel. And politicians hanging on drug wr coattails otter be loosing their grips, running (not walking) away and performing major disassociations.

        I can’t think of a worse line for Hillary to be uttering than “we need more studies.” To quote Calvin, “gack!”

        or to quote that grating American, Don Rumsfield:

        “Reports that say something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

        US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, February 12th, 2002

  9. DdC says:

    Leading From the Front: The Legacy of Jim Greig (1951-2014) http://huff.to/1lDtuuA #mmj #safeaccess #peace4patients

    Jim Greig Requiescat In Pace

  10. Foot dragging caution is a sign of a politician being molded by events beyond their control. A mover and shaker for legalization she is not.

    At least she doesn’t appear to have vested interests in prohibition like Chris Christie http://tinyurl.com/q5kakje
    FDL nails it.

  11. kaptinemo says:

    The distilled Sabet:

    “I don’t think…”

    When I was much younger, I was admonished not to begin a sentence with that phrase, as people might take you at your word and consider you a fool.

    Thank you for the warning, Kevvie. But, you’ve only just confirmed what a lot of us already had surmised.

  12. ezrydn says:

    Creepy old “What Does It Matter” Billary is NOT our friend! Like she stated, if you don’t matter to her, you just don’t matter. I can’t believe people think the old hen deserves anything. Bill should have dropped her when he left office. Four years of phat-ass pantsuits I doubt I can take. It’s so nice to live down here.

  13. claygooding says:

    We gaotta quit giving kev all these ideas since we have already established he has nothing of his own.

    Group urges wariness amid marijuana push: ‘We need to stop this train’


    Usual big marijuana fears and peer reviewed and dismissed science,,

    • I can see how he got the “former senior drug policy adviser to the White House” title. He sure can BS like a politician.

    • Crut says:

      The first comment on that by “reverend jim” is the most incredible example of the “monsters in the closet” mentality I have ever seen.

      they [Liberals] believe legalizing guns leads to more killing yet legalizing pot will lead to responsible use even though 3rd graders will now be smoking pot and peer pressure will engulf their curious classmates to try it and the epidemic will spread like cancer until the problem becomes so big liberals will turn their heads to the fact they caused it and blame someone or something else..and so on and so on…imagine 10 years from now..the huge amount of kids on drugs like heroin..wow

      Wow is right. It’s apparent that parents will be unable to control not only themselves, but the 8 year olds living under their roof will fall into the 7th level of hell no matter what you do!

    • kaptinemo says:

      Kevvie also seems to forgotten he was the one who made the ‘300 MPH freight train’ analogy…and now says that the ‘train’ has not left the station, and can be prevented from doing so.

      This, in spite of every poll taken since 2012 that legalization is socially popular, and thus politically viable. That train left years ago, and Kevvie is still standing by the ticket counter, arguing with the clerk about its departure schedule…because it wasn’t supposed to leave without his say-so. Clueless.

      The article only reinforces the idea that to be a prohibitionist, one must, perforce, be delusional. Nowhere in history, not even under the Draconian laws of both pre- and post-revolution China, with guaranteed execution for opiate addicts, has there ever been a nation able to create the prohib version of paradise.

      But these sick frakkers just keep trying…while the their victims just keep dying.

      • allan says:

        it was Kev’s bud and partner in crime (not a metaphor) Pat Kennedy that gave us the 300mph freight train… but that they can so disjointedly misuse their own metaphors comes as no surprise to this old fartnik.

        • kaptinemo says:

          Then I stand corrected as to the source. But the claim that their vaunted ‘train’ could be stopped from departing after it’s already moving at speed seems like there’s some disagreement as to ‘Party Line’.

          And given their predilection for authoritarianism, propaganda and deceit, the Commie-like analogy is apt.

        • allan says:

          ya made me laugh… of course it’s not a 300 mph train sitting still… silly prohibs! Dumb ass Kev-kev.

    • B. Snow says:

      The bit that nearly made me ‘lose it completely’ was the reference to (some guy) from = the “Connecticut Association of Prevention Practitioners”…

      I’m afraid to even ask how much of a vested interest this dude/(or “group” – hell, its Conn. = It might just be the one guy) has in the continued Prohibition of cannabis.

      “Prevention Practitioners” – That’s almost better than “Prohibitionist Parasites”, at least in its transparency – depending on the context of course – it sounds pretty much equivalent!

  14. Jean Valjean says:

    Ha Ha Hillary! This is the same person who yesterday told the NYT that the bible has had the most influence on her of any book….if true that makes her a sadomoralist when it comes to her decades long support of cannabis prohibition… remember her “there’s too much money in it to stop?”

    But I doubt it is true, so that just makes her a politician getting ready to run and looking to pick up conservative votes… either way this is desperate stuff, evocative of a presidential candidate who knows she blew her best chance in 2008. Time to leave the scene with what remains of her dignity.

  15. Jeff Trigg says:

    Big Marijuana industry? Sabet never stops being an idiot, does he? Here’s how the progressive Democrats in Illinois are setting up an industry to profit off of people using it medicinally.


    My additions are in ( ).

    In a sign Illinois’ new medical marijuana law could be a gold mine for investors, a politically connected Glenview attorney is hoarding pot-related company names in hopes of cashing in if the business takes off.

    Sam Borek, a former college roommate of the lawmaker (Lou Lang) who sponsored the state’s new law, says he reserved the company names to either sell them to others, or to start his own companies.

    Take David Rosen of Chicago, for example. He helped get Gov. Pat Quinn elected in 2010, serving as the Democrat’s chief fundraiser. Rosen’s also raised campaign cash for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

    In April, Rosen filed paperwork to open a medical marijuana establishment in Nevada. In a sign he wants to be a player here too, the company name — Waveseer — also has been registered in Illinois.

    (Other “investors”)

    • River Forest attorney Kevin Conway, who has contributed more than $7,300 to Quinn in the past year;

    • Marcia Rayman of Big Rock, who gave Quinn $5,000 in September. Her husband, businessman Steven Rayman, has given Quinn $40,000 over the past five years;

    • A trust controlled by retired businessman Howard Gottlieb of Evanston, who gave Quinn $40,000 during the 2010 election cycle; and

    • Francesca Cooper, the wife of wealthy Edwardsville attorney Jeff Cooper, who helped bankroll a cancer treatment center at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield.

    Under the rules being written to regulate medical marijuana, companies applying to grow and sell it must meet a lengthy list of guidelines, including showing they have the capital ($2 million) to support one of the enterprises.

    The applications will then be scored, with the highest score being awarded a franchise. There will be 22 marijuana growing centers and 60 pot dispensaries in the state. (Quinn and Madigan’s Democrats will do the scoring to decide who gets to profit.)

    Some firms have hired lobbyists to help them move forward in becoming one of the limited number of growing facilities and dispensaries. Jack Lavin, who was Quinn’s chief of staff, is lobbying on behalf of a medical marijuana business owned by Effingham attorney Matt Hortenstine and Springfield lobbyist Christopher Stone.

    Salveo Health & Wellness, a company pursuing a growing operation in Warren County, has enlisted Mark Boozell, former Gov. Jim Edgar’s chief of staff, as its lobbyist.


    In Illinois, there are your players in the Big Marijuana industry Sabet is complaining about. Not big tobacco companies, or big pharma, or Monsanto, or Microsoft, or anyone like that, they are all politically connected operatives, mostly Democrats, who want to profit off sick people using cannabis for what ails them.

    As for Hillary Clinton, she was and still is evil concerning the drug war and Hillary and all her supporters deserve to be demonized for their support of evil policies.

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      Not to defend them, but in response to above comments its not banksters and industrialists behind medical cannabis laws and regulations being put in place in Illinois. Its almost all progressive Democrats and their political operatives who stand to profit from Lou Lang’s folly.

      • darkcycle says:

        Funny. You think it’s partisan politics, when it’s non-partisan money.
        You are an odd guy.

        • Jeff Trigg says:

          Where do you get the idea that it is non-partisan money in Illinois? Bi-partisan, both Republicans and Democrats, would be slightly defensible, but non-partisan? 95% Democrat and 5% Republican, is absolutely partisan politics, with Democrats stinking worse than Republicans in IL. Is that money going to real non-partisan anti-prohibition groups? Nope.

          I may be odd, but I’m not a blind idiot. I know the definition of non-partisan, and what common sense partisan politics looks like. Try another insult, because being an apologist for prohibition-lite partisans won’t work.

        • darkcycle says:

          Jeff, money is it’s own side, fool. You are so misguided.

        • Jeff Trigg says:

          Again, instead of using neanderthal level insults, where do you get the idea that it is non-partisan money in Illinois benefiting from medical cannabis? I’m a misguided fool? You can’t even admit to yourself when you are wrong about the definition of non-partisan. Misguided fool? Anyone on earth with a dictionary can see that that insult obviously describes you more accurately.

        • Jeff Trigg says:

          I apologize. I was being a neanderthal, knee-jerk response douche. Good discussion, thank you for challenging me, although I do respond to insults in kind, which is typically a flaw.

  16. primus says:

    This is indeed good news. When pols and their supporters figure out how to personally benefit from legalisation, they are much more likely to ‘evolve’ to supporting it. I care not that they will get rich, I just care that pot is legalised sooner.

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      Politicians should not play favorites or pick the winners and losers of who will get rich from legalization. I get that you might not care about people getting rich – I don’t either – but I still think we should all have a level playing field without regulations and scoring systems that allow the politically connected to benefit while regular people are not given the same opportunity.

      I guess I also see a distinction between profiting from legalization from the general population, and from profiting from sick people who meet specific medical qualifications and are lucky enough to afford the state medical cards.

      Any ban on growing cannabis for personal use is not legalized marijuana, its just prohibition-lite.

    • I agree with you primus, but I think the mom and pop shops, not political friends, will bring this mess into the daylight and out of the black market. Money back to the community- not the fat cats with friends in high places. Doesn’t seem right at all.

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      “When pols and their supporters figure out how to personally benefit from legalisation, they are much more likely to ‘evolve’ to supporting it.”

      This is true, and its a good point that I didn’t address. You are right, that is good news in that its better than the status quo for some people. The ball is slowly moving in the right direction if someone can finally profit off government regulation of medical cannabis.

      What pisses me off, is that its not the anti-prohibition activists, like Pete and many of the commenters here, who will profit from a medical cannabis system like in Illinois. The political insiders and campaign donors who haven’t given a penny to NORML or MPP or any org. associated with truly ending the drug war will be the people who profit. They haven’t led the charge against prohibition, they are just taking advantage of their political connections now that all of our activist hard work has paid off.

      The rich people in IL I see profiting from medical cannabis are trial lawyers, medical industry tycoons, former government Chiefs-of-staff/administrators, campaign fundraising directors, and investment companies that have govt contracts to invest government employee pension funds. Not a one of them has been involved in ending the drug war. Until now, when they can make themselves even more rich from their political connections.

      But yeah, its better someone can profit from medical cannabis. Its just too bad that in exchange for a few patients being able to use cannabis, the rest of the population faces more harsh penalties.

  17. Poca says:

    I think i saw the article over at cannabis culture about how the office of the Secretary of State presides over a 2 billion dollar drug war budget at the Dept. of State. Hillary got to administer all that. I’ll try to find the article w/ the exact figure… I think the article came out in aught eight
    There’s no way she’d give that power up

  18. Jeff Trigg says:

    The devil is in the details. As the tide slowly turns in our direction, the details of ending the drug war and cannabis legalization are vital. I pay very close attention to the details in Illinois. We can often look to how alcohol and tobacco are regulated for how politicians/government will deal with cannabis once the prohibition is lifted.

    In Chicago, they are offering $100 rewards for smokers who turn in the shops where they buy their manufactured smokes that don’t have all the proper tobacco tax stamps on the packs. Chicago taxes on cigarettes, on top of federal and state taxes, take the tax per pack in Chicago to $8 per pack. They sell for $12/pack in Chicago, which figuring in the Clinton MSA the manufacturers pay, leaves a dime profit for Big Tobacco. $100 rewards in order to protect tax revenues that are the definition of price gouging.

    Chicago Offers Citizens $100 to Tattle on Cigarette Tax Cheats. For the Children!


    And they are still going after “drug paraphernalia” shops in my old neighborhood of Chicago. Some parts of Belmont and Broadway I miss, Tom Tunney is not one of them.

    Chicago Tribune

    Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, said there are about 10 stores selling “tobacco accessories” in the vicinity of Belmont Avenue and Clark Street. Tunney defined those items as including rolling papers, rolling machines and pipes, items that are sometimes used for smoking marijuana in addition to tobacco.

    Tunney has proposed an ordinance that would prohibit the city from issuing or renewing a license to sell tobacco to anyone who sells tobacco accessories who has a felony conviction in the past 5 years for selling drug paraphernalia. An earlier version of the ordinance would have barred anyone with a similar conviction dating back 10 years from holding a tobacco sales license.

    Asked whether he wants to use the ordinance to close some of the tobacco shops in the traditionally edgy but increasingly gentrified shopping area near the center of his ward south of Wrigleyville, Tunney said “I hope so.”

    The ordinance would also require shops selling tobacco accessories to report to the city how much shelf space they devote to the products, and the percentage of their total sales that come from the accessories. Tunney said those new reporting requirements will help the city get a handle on what goes on in the stores.


    Me again. The last paragraph is especially telling. Even more so when you know that the medical marijuana laws in Illinois require growers and sellers to have comprehensive video cameras that are piped directly into the state police district offices.

    Progressives and Democrats favor government nanny tactics to control our individual behavior and monitor our activity, whether it be tobacco or cannabis or ….

    • darkcycle says:

      Jeff, having read your commentary, I’m left confused. I agree that the people should have a level playing field in terms of profiting from legalization’s potential. But we don’t live in fairy tale justice world. I’m left sitting on the bench here in Washington, not having access to the $500,000 dollars (and rising) that I would have needed to get a legal growing business off the ground. And the delays keep coming, and that investment deficit keeps rising. No legal outlets, no selly no weed, mon.
      I’m concerned with the possession arrests. Petty possession is what threatens kids in the hood. Petty possession could destroy my children’s futures.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        I’m confused too, by many things, including the cannabis policy that you are experiencing. I lived in Snohomish County, WA for a few years. Think about the time it took between the medical cannabis referendum passing there and “store front” medical cannabis dispensaries opening out in public for patients. It took years. Brave people paved that path on the west Coast, and you are lucky.

        But that was just the beginning of cannabis freedom for your state. Now in Washington you have to deal with meeting the politician driven regulations designed to favor rich people and invested political interests in order to make an honest living legally selling niche, small batch, connoisseur, killer weed. Welcome to the difference between progressives and libertarians.

        Libertarians might have you submit random samples to an independent lab for testing on mold, rat poisons, or other adulterants that might not be safe before you sold your niche cannabis (a few dollars per pound), while progressives will put in ten regulation steps designed to protect multiple layers of both business and labor interests (Money) on production, wholesale, transportation, and retail cannabis sales to the public. (See alcohol/tobacco laws and regulations for indisputable proof.)

        Arrests almost all depend on locally elected officials. Andy Griffith style. The Mayor appoints the Police Chief or the County elects the Sheriff. We’ve barely scratched at the surface toward ending cannabis prohibition and the drug war.

    • B. Snow says:

      I have a quibble or two here:

      Progressives and Democrats favor government nanny tactics to control our individual behavior and monitor our activity, whether it be tobacco or cannabis or ….

      Bullshit, that’s a common & broad generalization, and while it might be considered a ‘good bet’ or ‘good guess’ = but it’s far from universal. Or even a Truism – that’s just not so.
      There are a bunch of people that aren’t down with Nanny-ist policy in any number of subject and political arenas – so to speak.
      My views don’t fit well in any political Party or political ideology, and I know I’m not alone. I’d seriously recommend you not assume that Democrats & Progressives all hold these views = it not a given by any means – Even if the views you’re talking about are held by the some of the most outspoken people in those demographics, or political ideologies. It’s foolish to think we all agree with the assholes yelling the loudest.

      There are extremists on either end of the ‘wings’ & people in the middle that are often fairly blasé (aka ‘meh’) about some things or livid that the wings won’t compromise on = anything lately, often due to nothing but spite!
      I’m happy Hillary is “Evolving” on shit, I could care if its based on her strong/personal feelings or purely political – as long as she actually DOES the “Evolving”!

      I’m not reading her freakin’ diary I just want ‘socially liberal’ changes/reforms in the respective laws related to modern policies related to Civil Liberties. I don’t give a fuck how she feels about the issues = I’m fine with her changing her policy stances – for purely political reasons.
      I don’t care how she (or most politicians) feel about same sex marriage. I just want to stop the bitching about it & that they let everyone do what makes them happy. Strawmen included = I don’t care if it makes militant-evangelicals scared that *someday* we might see that 3 dudes, 4 chicks, a 2 horses, a pair of dolphins a parrot -all want a giant group polyamorist marriage.
      IMO, The parrot probably should learn to say either “I do” or “we do” speaking on behalf of the other animals… but beyond that IDGAF!

      We’ve had plenty of years of partisan ‘purist’ ideological politicians – they can lie about their feelings all they want.

      I want them to actually do their jobs, and making things happen address things pragmatically not via their religious views or legislating morality & I could do without the Pat Buchanan-style racism = Oh no, by *whatever year* America is no longer going to be a majority white nation, and/or a ‘Christian Conservative’ country… or whatever.
      Listening to the morning news = Sounds like the Pope got tired of being popular even among non-Catholics. He’s “Anti-Pot” although that was a brief snippet read by a (R) Conservative…
      I’ve also heard from multiple sources about Hillary and her “evolving on marijuana” (or not) = they’ve been drawing at least three or four different conclusions about her position on the issue. I don’t think she cares much, except for what the polls say & the % of the majority public opinion = Its what career politicians live and breathe.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        If you don’t like the freedom grabbing, government control policies that the vast majority of progressives support, then perhaps you should stop considering yourself a progressive. For the most part, they just have their fingers in the wind and keep voting for Democrats, even with NY and Illinois style “medical cannabis” and Washington style “legalization” where you still get locked in a cage for growing your own.

  19. StarFleet says:

    URGENT DISPATCH woop woop
    Re: ESCAPE
    Stardate 1982-2
    Missing Klingon Female may have Boarded Earthbound Cargo Vessel.

  20. Duncan20903 says:

    If Mrs. Clinton has evolved, doesn’t that mean that she used to be an ape?

    • Jeff Trigg says:

      That’s racist, or sexist, or something. MSNBC would tell us the politically correct, progressive answer, I’m sure.

  21. DdC says:

    Hillary Clinton Open to State Experiments with Marijuana Legalization – But Not To Her Own Past? http://www.cannabisculture.com/node/46367

    Clinton Quiet About Own Radical Ties

Comments are closed.