2016 and pot

[Likely Voter]

It's 4/20 and the politics of pot is no longer just for stoners. Rand Paul has cosponsored a bill (CARERS Act) with Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker that would make MJ a schedule 2 narcotic allowing medical research, and it would also allow banks to work with legit pot businesses in the states with legal weed and allow marijuana prescriptions in the VA. Obama has indicated he is open to signing it (but needs to see details).

Medical marijuana is legal in 21 states and DC and recreational pot is legal in 2, and there are 9 states with pending legislation and some swing states will have pot ballot initiatives in 2016. A majority of Americans think recreational pot should be legal and huge majorities support medical pot, and it is clearly a generational issue with youngs the most favorable

This is likely going to be one of those issues where the 2016 GOPers differ. Paul is obviously on one side, Christie has taken a rather hard line (just last week he said as president he would crack down on legal medical marijuana). It will be interesting to see how the rest of the field come down. Notably Marco Rubio has been hardline on this which goes against his 'new generation' campaign image.

As for Hillary, in the past she has taken an overly cautious position, saying she supports letting states deal with it but she has also called pot a "gateway drug" and has said the evidence is not in yet to enact new national policy. I bet she comes out in favor of the CARERs Act. She has been moving left on issues since her announcement (notably SSM and drivers licenses for undocumented), this is another issue where she has to shed her DLC wishy washy 90s-style middle ground. Dems want legal weed and she cant let O'Malley (who signed law for medical MJ recently) have another issue to needle her on, in fact she can get to his left on this (O'Malley opposed recreational pot in MD).

[Thunderbird is the word]

I'd be pleasantly surprised if she came out in favor of legalization but I also worry that she just has too much of a paternalist streak that it would be hard to shed.

[136or142]

Wow, if worlds collided and Christie won the nomination, the Democrats would probably carry Alaska for the first time since ?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Wow, if worlds collided and Christie won the nomination, the Democrats would probably carry Alaska for the first time since ?

Alaska has gone democratic for president only once since it became a state in 1959 - 1964, during the Johnson landslide.

[136or142]

Thanks.

[Mr. Illini]

It amazes me how in 2016, candidates will still show a lack of support for marijuana.

The conservative stance has always been the safest on drugs, going all the way back to the candidates of the 1970's an 80's. Carter, Dukakis, McGovern were crucified for their perceived liberalism on "family matters" issues.

[SWE]

Wow, if worlds collided and Christie won the nomination, the Democrats would probably carry Alaska for the first time since ?

Alaska has gone democratic for president only once since it became a state in 1959 - 1964, during the Johnson landslide.

Alaska looked like it could've been winnable for Obama in 2008 before McCain chose Palin

[© tweed]

the best we can hope for from Hillary is a tolerance of the federalist position on both medicinal and recreational marijuana.  more likely than not her answers will not articulate any discernible policy position -- all prez candidates try to avoid that on all issues, as presidential elections are referendums on personality.

you will get particular positions on 'wedge issues': LGBT, abortion, etc.

[Likely Voter]

It amazes me how in 2016, candidates will still show a lack of support for marijuana.

The conservative stance has always been the safest on drugs, going all the way back to the candidates of the 1970's an 80's. Carter, Dukakis, McGovern were crucified for their perceived liberalism on "family matters" issues.

yes but polls show that things have really changed with pot. Americans see it as less harmful than alcohol and one poll even showed they thought sugar was more harmful. The era of being hit over the head for being 'soft on crime' over relaxing pot laws is over.

the best we can hope for from Hillary is a tolerance of the federalist position on both medicinal and recreational marijuana.  more likely than not her answers will not articulate any discernible policy position

Well the CARERs Act is a specific piece of legislation in the current congress, so she will either have to be for it or against it and I just dont see her going against Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand. She could even win some bipartisan points for noting how she agrees with Rand Paul on the issue (much to his chagrin).

But this can actually be a winning issue for her. Pot could be on the ballot in Ohio and Florida. Her campaign can make this an issue that helps drive young voters to the polls in the same way that the Bush campaign used anti-SSM initiatives in 2004.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can a Republican who promises a crackdown on weed win Colorado? Interesting take on states' rights, there.

[© tweed]

the best we can hope for from Hillary is a tolerance of the federalist position on both medicinal and recreational marijuana.  more likely than not her answers will not articulate any discernible policy position

Well the CARERs Act is a specific piece of legislation in the current congress, so she will either have to be for it or against it and I just dont see her going against Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand.

"I'd be happy to work with Congress on rescheduling marijuana".  that's Obama's answer, that'll be Hillary's answer.  knowing well a) no such bill would make it out of a GOP-controlled committee, and b) if he actually gave a sh**t, he could reschedule marijuana himself.  the executive schedules substances all of the time without Congressional approval.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no, not the same.  SSM does not alter the way political economy works in any meaningful way. it was a perfect wedge issue for the ruling class because of that, and it's still an issue now a decade strong.  the more presidential politics is about gay marriage and the less it is about wealth distribution, the people who own the society win.

unlike gay marriage drug criminalization is an important part of political economy.  it's intertwined into many different industries and elements in the society. many important players have a stake in the continued criminalization of drugs.  you will NOT see Hillary get behind any grassroots initiatives; you will see her take money from police unions, correctional officers, front groups for the treatment centers (ie the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, which despite its pretentious name, is NOT a government agency).

and, guess what!  you won't have any alternative, because Jeb certainly won't take a progressive position on pot.

--

you're operating under the illusion that presidential politics is about appealing to voters based on issues.  it's not.  it's about securing money from powerful players, whispering in their ear that they'll get what they want, and then having a series of carefully rehearsed, focus-grouped, scripted, public appearances where you're making sure you're telling your target x, y, and z demographics what they want to hear.

the only way Hillary gets behind a progressive pot policy is, after she's elected, the big pharma and big tobacco companies find a way to monopolize the production and sale of marijuana.  it's difficult to do that because marijuana is easy to grow, but it might be possible on the pharmaceutical end, and least for x period of years.

[© tweed]

Can a Republican who promises a crackdown on weed win Colorado? Interesting take on states' rights, there.

no.

the only Republican who could win a general election vs Hillary (among the current players) is Jeb.  and he will be nominated, and will likely take the same Kafka-esque contradictory-federalist nonsense position Obama has taken, while getting a few mega-corporations together (after he's elected, presuming he is elected) to figure out how to make some profit off of this thing.