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?

His 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.

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.

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.