RSS 2.0 FeedObama’s Drug Use
by Brad WarbianyThis is a bit old… January, to be exact. But for all of you out there who think the mainstream media treats lefties with kid gloves, one would wonder why this hasn’t played out in the media in the past three months.
Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine in a Memoir Written 11 Years Ago
“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.”
…
It was not so long ago that such blunt admissions would have led to a candidate’s undoing, and there is uneasiness in Democratic circles that “Dreams From My Father” will provide a blueprint for negative attacks.
Two decades ago, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was forced to withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that he had used marijuana while he was a law professor. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton thought marijuana use could be enough of a liability in 1992 that he felt compelled to say he had not inhaled. And President Bush has managed to deflect endless gossip about his past by acknowledging that he had an “irresponsible” youth but offering no details.
Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.
Personally, hearing that doesn’t bother me so much. What he did in high school and college is his business. But I guarantee it’s enough to sink his candidacy. This just won’t play well with the “values voters”. It makes you wonder why it hasn’t even been a talking point of the talk radio crowd, the same guys who can’t get enough of pointing out his middle name?
I hope it does sink his candidacy.
Comment by uhm — April 6, 2007 @ 9:50 amWhile I don’t like the guy, it would be a shame if recreational drug use in his youth was viewed as a disqualification, as opposed to his bad economic and political policies.
On the other hand this is quite heartening. I consider the drug war to be a legal aberration: the harms of drug usage are generally the product or worsened by legal prohibition. The medical risks are generally due to poor quality control on the part of manufacturers and distributors, the expense is due to prohibition, the unwillingness of addicts and sick people to seek medical help is due to prohibition etc.
Eventually, people tend to drift away from poor policies. In colonial Massachusetts you could be hung for murder, or for committing withcraft. Today, murder is retained as a serious offense, while withcraft is no longer prosecuted. Essentially, the penalties for witchraft have been better aligned with the “harm” it actually causes*.
I think that a similar thing will happend with the drug war. My spotty research into the origins of the drug war have convinced me that it is a poorly conceived arbitrary policy that had more to do with satisfying the rent-seeking and/or irrational, xenophobic fears of various special interest groups. More and more people will increasingly conclude that recreational drug use is not that big of a deal, and the bizarre laws will begin to fall away.
Comment by tarran — April 6, 2007 @ 11:15 amtarran,
I completely agree. I’ve got plenty of reasons for opposing Obama; this isn’t one of them.
As a wider issue on drugs, I think we’re near a turning point. In 2000, I think that Bush actually coming out and admitting cocaine usage (which seems to be more than just a rumor) would have put the final nail in his coffin. Obama MIGHT be able to overcome it, but my honest belief is that we’re looking at another 10-15 years before a candidate could get away with it.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 6, 2007 @ 1:49 pmHis middle name’s going to be “Snow Blind.”
More distressing than a candidates substance use decades ago, is, as Brad notes, the obvious favortism displayed by the MSM.
Comment by trav.is — April 6, 2007 @ 3:16 pm