Excerpt: President Clinton, who tried to avoid the stigma of smoking marijuana by saying he never ''inhaled,'' tells Rolling Stone magazine that people should not be jailed for using or selling small amounts of the drug.

Do you think that people should go to jail for possessing, using or even selling small amounts of marijuana? Is that appropriate?

I think, first of all - We're not publishing this until after the election.

I understand that. I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be.

We really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment. Some people deliberately hurt other people, and they ought to be in jail because they can't be trusted to be on the streets. Some people do things that are so serious they have to be put in jail to discourage other people from doing similar things.

But a lot of people are in prison today because they have drug problems or alcohol problems. And too many of them are getting out - particularly out of state systems -without treatment, without education, without skills, without serious efforts at job placement. There are tons of people in prison who are nonviolent offenders - who have drug-related charges that are directly related to their own drug problems.

Should we be putting nonviolent drug offenders in jail at all? Or should we put them in treatment programs that are more fitting?

I think it depends on what they did. You know, I have some experience with this. My brother - whom I love and am immensely proud of - kicked a big cocaine habit. His habit got up to four grams a day. He was lucky to live through that - and if he hadn't had the constitution of an ox, he might not have.

I think if he hadn't gone to prison - and actually been put away, forcibly, somewhere - it is doubtful that he would have come to grips with it. He was still denying that he was addicted, right up until the time he was sentenced. So I'm not so sure that incarceration is all bad, even for drug offenders, depending on the facts. I think there are some -

Well, right now, what I'm trying to get at -

Let me finish. I think the sentences in many cases are too long for nonviolent offenders, and the facilities are not structured to maximize success when the people get out. Keep in mind - ninety percent of the people that are in the penitentiary are going to get out. So society's real interest is to see that we maximize the chance that when they get out, they can go back to being productive citizens. That they'll get jobs, they'll pay taxes, they'll be good fathers and mothers, and they'll do good things. And I think this whole thing needs to be re-examined. Even in the federal system - these sentencing guidelines

Would you do away with mandatory minimum sentences?

Most judges think we should. I certainly think they should be re-examined. And the disparities are unconscionable between crack and powdered cocaine. I tried to change that. The Republican Congress was willing to narrow but not eliminate them, the theory being that people who used crack were more violent than people who used cocaine.

What they really meant was: People that used crack were more likely to be poor - and, coincidentally, black or brown. And therefore not have money. Those people that used cocaine were more likely to be rich, pay for it and therefore be peaceful.

We need a serious re-examination with the view toward what would make us a more peaceful, more productive society. Our imprisonment policies are counterproductive. And now you have a lot of places where, before the economy picked up, prison building was the main source of economic activity and prison employment was one of the big areas of job growth.

Do you think people should lose access to college loans because they've been convicted of smoking pot? Which is now a law.

No.

Do you think that we need a major rethink of what these drug-sentencing laws are?

Not just drugs. I think we need to look at: Who's in prison? What are the facts?

I don't believe, by and large, in permanent lifetime penalties. There's a bill in Congress today that has bipartisan support - that I was hoping would pass before I left office, but which I feel confident will pass in the next year or two - that would restore voting rights to former prisoners after their full sentences have been discharged. And they wouldn't have to apply for a federal pardon to get it.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080131/NATION/269196852/1001

Who's your pick for President?

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

Barack Obama

Ron Paul

Mitt Romney

Other

http://www.summitdaily.com/

But we need the new president to call off the DOJ and DEA from raiding and prosecuting in California. Clinton and Janet Reno ordered them to stand down (although they did try to gag the CA doctors), it was Bush and Ashcroft that began the actual raids in California.

The bottom line is that campaign-speak and reality are often totally different worlds! Let's not forget that Bush promised to leave the states alone on medical mJ while he was campaigning. Clinton joked about smoking herb and then MJ arrests nearly tripled under his reign.

Tuesday is going to be MOST interesting. Clinton is still leading in most polls, and many think Romney may end up winning.

I still wouldn't formally support any candidate besides Ron Paul and Kucinich, but I'm definitely rooting for Obama out of the 4 candidates remaining.

They were talking about Obama on Bill Maher's show and saying what a great statement it would be to the world if he gets elected - it would be saying that there is still hope for us, we are not the racist, arrogant imperialist monster that everyone thinks we are after 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

I am very afraid that Hilary is going to defeat Obama though. These primaries are mostly Democratic insiders voting, I fear their loyalty to the Clintons. She's done very well so far. We'll know everything by Tuesday night.