Obama Used to Favor Decriminalization of Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

During the October 30, 2007 presidential debate, Barack Obama raised his hand to say said he opposed decriminalizing marijuna.

In 2004, he supported it. Video here.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana.

So, which is it?

When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.

He flip-flopped the wrong way.

< Obama Reaffirms Support for Drivers' Licenses for the Undocumented | Obama's Senate Record on Nuclear Leaks >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Obama Used to Favor Decriminalization of Marijuana | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This is not new (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by ajain on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:54:29 PM EST

Its a pattern with this guy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-2414012588_x.htm

: Yep, he likes change. He changes a LOT. (none / 0) (#11)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:19:03 PM EST

Google for
"Obama's Changing Views"
"December 22, 2007
By The Associated Press
(AP) - A comparison of some of Barack Obama's views over the years, based on candidate questionnaires in 1996 and 2004, interviews, presidential debates and other comments. . . ."
It lists and dates votes and quotes that flipflopped on gun control, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, health care coverage, gay marriage, Cuba, abortion. . . .
I just don't trust him.

Great!! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:08:00 PM EST

Now I can get my son to vote for Hillary. (smile)

probably (none / 0) (#14)
by Nasarius on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:34:32 PM EST

I don't know if Hillary has a stated position on this, but the status quo here in New York is decriminalized possession. IIRC, it's a fine of a few hundred dollars for possession of up to an ounce. Making criminals out of small-time users is, if nothing else, a massive waste of resources. From my perspective, it's a very conservative position to take.


oops (none / 0) (#15)
by Nasarius on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:39:53 PM EST

Nah, she raised her hand in that debate video. Makes me wonder if she's even aware of the current law in New York.


: Here Is My Take On It (none / 0) (#18)
by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST

Pure speculation, not fact. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding among regular folks about the difference between decriminalizing and legalizing something. You only have to look at some of the comments here to see the confusion.
The people up on stage during the debate are first and foremost politicians. The debates are shown on national TV and viewed by millions of people who would probably not understand the distinction. Rather than have people believe that they were for legalizing marijuana, which could be a political nightmare, they raised their hands in opposition to the decriminalization question even if it might be contradictory to their real stance.

You want a litmus test? (5.00 / 0) (#57)
by SeeEmDee on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:51:10 AM EST

Okay, look at it this way: The majority of drug arrests in this country are for 'marijuana' (aka cannabis). The majority of those arrested and incarcerated are African- and Hispanic-Americans. Who then often lose the right to vote, thanks to a conviction. Who, when they do vote, tend to vote Democratic. Obama is all in favor of continuing that. He continues to favor a policy that Repubs happily chortle over; it's like taking a pistol from the Repub's hands and shooting yourself in the foot with it. How very accommodating of him...

As far as this decrim/legalization issue is concerned, to continue a pointless policy by just watering it down with decrim and maintaining the cash cow for cops and politicians, when we could not only save billions but produce billions with taxes from legit sales (how many would actually go to all the expense of growing it when they could buy it at a store?) is also a litmus test that should be applied to all pols seeking or holding office. Alcohol Prohibition was ended as much or more because it was a drain on the Federal budget at a time when the nation was suffering from severe economic stress (i.e. the Great Depression) as it was because it was incompatible with a free society.

It is slowly dawning on many pols that we can no longer afford the prison/industrial complex we built to house all the 'druggies' we sought to marginalize and remove from society. The bottom has dropped out of the well. This idiocy has gone on for far too long...

Huh. Dumb. (none / 0) (#1)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST

I was for it before I was against it (none / 0) (#2)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST

memories of Kerry....:-)


: Agrees with Bill Clinton now (none / 0) (#3)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST

I guess.
What does Hillary say?

Clearly (none / 0) (#4)
by rilkefan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:53:32 PM EST

He obviously has the right private opinion on the issue, but he's running for president and has to espouse some of the idiotic drug policy of this country. Pretty much the best combo - correct opinion + can get elected.

I'm confused... (none / 0) (#6)
by OrangeFur on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:01:56 PM EST

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

I certainly agree that our drug laws are too harsh, but I can't figure out what Obama means here. What's the difference between decriminalization and legalization?

Decriminalization means still not legal, but (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:09:30 PM EST

reducing sentences down to reasonable -- rather than having users (not dealers) found with an ounce sent away to prison longer than rapists or murderers.


Basically That Is How It Was Clarified In The End (none / 0) (#9)
by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:15:37 PM EST

But first there was another round of "What Obama really meant."

At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct.

Then after the video was posted on the Times website, Obama's statement was clarified.

"If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Mr. Vietor said.

Where does that still happen? (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:17:10 PM EST

Not in CA or IL I know.


Wisconsin, for one (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST

Whatever Illinois does, we take as the wrong way to go. :-)


Guess there must be more to Wisconsin (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST

than Madison. Who knew?


Local option in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#40)
by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:26:40 AM EST

After we adopted a municipal decrim ordinancre in Madison in the 70s, the legislature accedpted it with a Statute allowing local non-criminal prosecution, while retaining the State misdemeanor as an option for the DA. Otherf college towns quickly follolwed suit.

Late '90s, the Legies added a County decrim option.

Even the conservative counties have been going decrim this year, in part because they get to keep fines, while they're forked over to the State in criminal prosecutions.

The Ordinance option also lets the defendant avoid loss of drivers license and student loans.


I knew Ben, our state expert, could clarify (none / 0) (#44)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:29:15 AM EST

but in Waukesha County, between Milwaukee and Madison -- and the fourth-most Republican county in the country in the 2004 election -- and a couple of others, it's still essentially a crapshoot as to what can happen if caught with even less than an ounce.


Waukesha County was the latest to decrim (none / 0) (#48)
by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST

Hefty civil fine, $1,000, but no criminal record or collateral punishments.


: We'll see . . . as having lived there (none / 0) (#53)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM EST

for a long time, having been a victim of its court system, I do not trust that. Just talked to one of the leading Latino lawyers out there, just last night, and he doesn't, either.

Much more. Madison is not really (none / 0) (#45)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:46:01 AM EST

OF Wisconsin, it's just IN Wisconsin. For too much of the rest of the state, Wisconsin is one of the most backward states in the country by many measures -- especially for women in Wisconsin, below the national norms in education and thus in income.

And we get an F on every "report card" -- NARAL, etc. -- on the status of women here, especially in reproductive rights. Remember, this is the land of Sensenbrenner, the border-fence builder, the man who made it illegal to even drive pregnant girls across our state border to get even advice on what to do.

Wisconsin had at least 16 abortion clinics in the early 1990s, before Milwaukee's Catholic DA made it essentially an open invitation for the Missionaries for the Preborn and the like to attack clinics here. It was a horror for those of us trying to defend the clinics against attacks by thousands, seriously, thousands of anti-abortionists for months in Milwaukee, and it ended up in a Supreme Court case still on appeal.

Bottom line: the state had at least 16 clinics in the early '90s. Now it's down to 6 or even fewer (another closed recently in Milwaukee, so I'm losing track of keeping count) in the state -- and those left are only in the southeastern corner of the state, mainly in Madison and one or two in Milwaukee.

Wisconsin never has been a progressive state for women -- or for minorities, but that's another post.


: Recent study showed birth rate is up in U.S. (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:11:10 AM EST

and number of abortions has declined. Possible reasons for the latter: less physicians offering to perform abortions; Mississippi now has only one such clinic.

Rockefeller drug laws (none / 0) (#13)
by stillife on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:26:05 PM EST

in New York.


Decriminalization means (none / 0) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST

eliminating criminal penalties. It would not be a crime.

Legalization would allow the government to tax and regulate it, like liquor.

I'm more in favor of decriminalization, we have enough laws.


I will still vote for him, but (none / 0) (#17)
by halstoon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:53:16 PM EST

this is discouraging. You could see in the video that he didn't really want to raise his hand, and seemed unsure as to what he was doing. I believe he supports a relaxation of the law, which right now is the best we can hope for. In GA, possession of less than an ounce is a year probation and a fine, but more than an ounce is a felony that can get you five years.

Someday, maybe when the next generation (after Obama's) takes over, they'll finally get away from this ridiculous war on drugs, specifically marijuana...

Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#19)
by Ramo on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST

I don't know why you're criticizing Obama here. So he was explicitly for decriminalization before he started his bid. He may or may not have pulled back a bit (not surprisingly, the Times piece is pretty shoddy), but advocates moving towards decriminalization.

I don't know why you're bothering to play Pumpkinhead (worrying about relatively trivial inconsistencies) here, when the real significance of this topic is that it appears that Clinton has the worse position, past and present.

Because he doesn't seem (none / 0) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:18:54 PM EST

to have the courage of his convictions. He worries about spending his political capital on revising drug laws. I want to know what he'll do as President, not what he personally believes. His beliefs are immaterial if he won't act on them.

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.


it's not that he does it (none / 0) (#43)
by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:41:09 AM EST

but that he criticizes clinton for doing the same thing. it takes the argument that he is different away from him. frankly, his refusing to stand up to the media distortion of clinton's jesse jackson comments proved it for me.


: Every candidate.. (none / 0) (#54)
by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST

accuses every other candidate of flip-flopping. Every candidate flip flops. Obama is not unique in any respect.

Political capital. (none / 0) (#55)
by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST

I agree, it seems unlikely that Obama would use significant political capital to move towards decriminalization. But Obama clearly wants to go there. I can't say the same for Clinton.

So I'll take equivocation/tepid support for something good over resolute support for something bad.


the press falling down (none / 0) (#20)
by sef on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:53:29 PM EST

This is an issue he should be asked directly. Campaigns have a nasty way of changing a candidates unpopular positions to one that the operatives view to be more palatable. In one of the debates he should have been confronted on his position on marijuana. As Gov. Ahnold states, it is a weed not a drug.

What's Clinton's opinion on marijuana? (none / 0) (#24)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST

We still have a couple of days until the primary.

: She Has Said (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:09:53 PM EST

That she would stop federal raids on states that allow Medical MJ.

Decriminalization means reducing the fine (none / 0) (#26)
by JSN on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:41:50 PM EST

from $1000 to $250 and cite & release instead of arresting and booking into jail. In my county the jail releases them immediately on cash bond. Some cops already cite & release and other throw the pot away and tell the clueless kid to use their head.

It is not legalization. If marijuana were made a prescription drug people would still be arrested and convicted for possession without a prescription or for trafficking in marijuana. I doubt the you would be allowed to grow marijuana for your own use if it were a prescription drug because it would be too easy to divert the crop to a non medical use.

Clueless kid? (none / 0) (#27)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:54:45 PM EST

Care to elaborate on that? Surely you're not suggesting that only clueless kids are subject to the unneeded arrest for small amount of marijuana?

Some states, Colorado amoung them, do indeed let MM patients grow their own plants. There is a limit to the number of plants you can cultivate under the MM laws here.

Out of 268 serious misdemeanor drug arrests (none / 0) (#30)
by JSN on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:27:56 PM EST

(in most cases is for possession of marijuana) 66% were between 16 and 24 and 2.5% were between 50 & 60. Most persons brains are fully developed by age 25.


So... (none / 0) (#31)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST

...even overlooking the small sample size and the fact that your statistical analysis is unsourced--that means almost 1/3 those arrests were people between 25 and 49.

Again, I fail to see you point.


The data is from my county jail (none / 0) (#49)
by JSN on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST

and jail booking data is hard to obtain so you use what you can
get.

There were 3226 booking in about six month.
389 (12.1%) were drug charges.
268 (8.3%) were most likely for possession of marijuana.
840 (26.0%) were for public intoxication.

If the probability of arrest is taken relative to age 30
18, 19 and 20 year olds are 10 times as likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana and public intoxication. A 25 year old is twice as likely, a 45 year old 1/2 as likely and a 60 year 1/4 as likely to be arrested as a 30 year old.

Blacks seem to learn a lot faster than Whites how to avoid arrest for possession.


: data (none / 0) (#56)
by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:55:40 PM EST

how many women were jailed because they were holding for their boyfriends, who told them that the courts go easier on women than men?
No one ever really tracks that disparity.

: In my experience..... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM EST

smoking reefer recreationally for 15 years, the difference between who gets pinched and who doesn't often boils down to dumb luck.
Wrong place, wrong time type of thing....

speaking of flip flopping (none / 0) (#29)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:27:30 PM EST

this link is interesting about Obama and his flip flops...things are now starting to come to light..Hope it isnt too late...

you did not seriously just post a Moonie Times (none / 0) (#33)
by sef on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:47:39 PM EST

article on TL did you? Have you no shame? j/k

No but seriously, you actually read the Washington Times? & here I was thinking I had a lot of respect for you.


If the information (none / 0) (#34)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:55:17 PM EST

was against Clinton you would be shouting it from the rafters....Give me a break with your outrage...Geezzzzzzzzzzzzz....How silly....


you are no doubt familiar with the j/k (none / 0) (#35)
by sef on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:56:55 PM EST

you do know what the j/k used in the prior comment is right?


athyrio, (none / 0) (#37)
by ding7777 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:30:15 PM EST

fyi - The Washington Times just hired a new editor - John Solomon.

He used to be an AP reporter and basically he printed Republican oppo research against Democrats.

He then moved to WaPo for a few months and did a hit on Edwards - it was so bad that even the ombudsman said it was bad.


: I just thought the (none / 0) (#38)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:32:39 PM EST

opposing videos spoke for themselves...

and yet another conflicting statement (none / 0) (#32)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST

there are getting to be quite a few of these

Changing opinions (none / 0) (#36)
by Natal on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:11:44 PM EST

Isn't anyone allowed to occasionally change his/her opinions over time? Rigidity is more dangerous. Those that have never "flip-flopped" please cast the first stone. You aren't evolving.

Natal (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM EST

So, that means Hillary's change on the war vote is peachy with you?


Huh? (none / 0) (#50)
by Natal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST

Is that what I said?


uh (none / 0) (#51)
by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST

yeah, ya did - if you were sincere.


: Disagree with HRC (none / 0) (#52)
by Natal on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM EST

Just changed my opinion. I disagree with Hillary.

Obama voted for an agricultural hemp bill (none / 0) (#41)
by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:30:08 AM EST

Illinois Senate in 2000. Passed with a huge bipartisan majority, but vetod by Gov. Ryan, and an ovedride vote was never held.

Bill Clinton lied to Jacki Rickert (none / 0) (#42)
by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:33:34 AM EST

On his Mississippi River bus trip along the Mississippi, just after the '92 convention, Jacki caught up with Bill in Osseo, Wisconsin. She'd been approved for, but not yet admitted to, the Federal Government's Investigative New Drug Medical Marijuana program when Bush I closed admissions. After spending 8 minutes hearing of her efforts to be admitted, Bill promised her "When I'm President, you'll get your medicine."

His promise to Jacki was featured in High Times Magazine's endorsement of the Clinton/Gore ticket.

Writing and calling upon his taking office, Jacki repeatedly received a form letter, "If drugs were legal, my brother Roger would be dead."

The medical marijuana bill currently pending in the Wisconsin legislature is titled The Jacki Rickert Medical Marijuana Act.

Perhaps Bill will want to make a stop on his apology tour.

Thanks for the reminder... (none / 0) (#59)
by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:45:02 AM EST

that there is no Dem candidate in this race who does not support this brand of tyranny.