Clinton: Pot Smoking Should Not Be Prison Offense

Clinton: Pot Smoking Should Not Be Prison Offense
Posted by FoM on December 06, 2000 at 19:59:40 PT
Breaking News
Source: Reuters Online
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. In an interview with the rock magazine released on Wednesday, Clinton was asked if he thought that ``people should go to jail for using or even selling small amounts of marijuana?'' 
Clinton, who raised eyebrows in the 1992 presidential primary campaign when he admitted trying the drug but adding he didn't inhale, told the magazine, ``I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be.'' He added, ``We really need a reexamination 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 that that they have to be put in jail to discourage other people from doing similar things. ``But a lot of people are in prison 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.'' The interview, to be published on Friday, only weeks before Clinton leaves office, was conducted during the presidential campaign and Clinton made a prediction that has not come true and may not come true -- that Vice President Al Gore would carry Florida. ``Gore will win Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. I always thought Gore would win Florida. We worked like crazy there for eight years. And we've done a lot for Florida and a lot with Florida -- and Joe Lieberman has helped a lot in Florida. So I think Gore will win.'' That matter is still in the courts even though Florida has certified Republican George W. Bush the winner. In the interview, Clinton also blamed his impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal on the work of a right-wing Congress and said special prosecutor Kenneth Starr ``did what he was paid to.'' He added, ``The right wing was in control of the Congress and ... they thought they had a free shot to put a hit on me, and so they did. I don't think it's complicated.'' Note: 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.Source: ReutersPublished: Wednesday, December 06, 2000Copyright © 2000 Reuters LimitedCannabisNews Clinton Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #44 posted by observer on January 17, 2001 at 08:39:21 PT
Nalepka's correct url!
(Har! Got me!)this is REALLY her url:http://www.americacares.orgThough, this url may be more appropos: remember: we love you, Joyce!)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #43 posted by observer on January 17, 2001 at 08:33:19 PT
BTW, ''Mary Friend'' = Joyce Nalepka ... (links)
see: etc.note Nalepka's "americares" aol email address: amercares website:[background] Here's an excerpt from (prohibitionist propagandist) Peggy Mann's 1984 alarmist pro-jail manual, "Marijuana Alert!" concerning Joyce Nalepka: 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by observer on January 16, 2001 at 12:36:15 PT
Nalepka poem
Old Nalepka had an axe;she gave our rights forty whacks.When she saw what she had done:struck them all to "save" freedom.Yes Ol' Nalepka with her axe,hit Liberty with low attacks.Yet seeing some rights still there:pluck'd our Constitution bare.On top of Lady Liberty,rude Nalepka did take a p.!Nalepka, seeing Liberty cry,screamed: "in prison you shall surely die!"Shall we let Nalepka win?Let her convert plants to sin?No! I say it's time to act:fight to get our freedom back!
htcgi search: nalepka
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #41 posted by dddd on January 15, 2001 at 22:41:45 PT
Ms. Friend.It seems to me,that this "Observer"person,has most eloquently responded to your comments.I am anxious to hear your response.I hope you are open to a coherent and polite discussion of this marijuana and drug topic.Sincerely......dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #40 posted by observer on January 15, 2001 at 21:54:30 PT
Amerika Cares to Jail your Kids
 It's very unfortunate the former President has stated he thinks marijuana laws should be reduced. Nalepka, and other jailing little euphemizers, need to make clear they are arguing in favor of imprisoning people: punishing them more harshly than for murder in many cases, for the heinous "crime" of using marijuana.Jail, Joyce, that's the issue. Our children do not deserve jail if they are caught using marijuana. Americans didn't deserve jail for using cannabis before 1937, and nothing changed about people, the Bible, morality or cannabis itself in 1937 that made it "wrong" to use before or after that time. We spend $780 million a year to run the National Institutes on Drug Abuse telling kids not to smoke. So what? (Nice to see you admit that NIDA is basically a propaganda-mill, though. 'Course, "we" knew that already.) We know that young people smoke in direct relationship to their belief that it will/or will not harm them. Please note, Nalepka (et al.), "we" don't jail adults for using tobacco.Your educational nature of law theme ("message to the kids" etc.) is straight out of Nazi Germany.``The second principle of Nazi legal authority was the educational nature of law. Under this principle, the courts were to use the law to teach the people a lesson. One Nazi theorist announced the rule: No crime without punishment.(21) '' -- a review of Nazi Justiz, It is also a fact that young people interpret legalization/decriminalization to mean "Drug Use Is OK. The government says so." Even if that were true (it's not, but lets say it is true for the sake of argument), that is no reason to jail adults, to jail adults for using marijuana because some children might misunderstand. Children misunderstand lots of things, especially about things that adults may do, but children can't do. That's life, Nalepka. Shame on the President. Yeah, shame on him for not making that his policy all along. Shame on him (and shame on the "concerned parents" -- like Joyce Nalepka -- who were "oh so concerned" they jailed millions of adults). Yeah, shame on him and the totalitarian Joyce Nalepkas of this world, who trash the traditional freedoms of adults mouthing slogans like, "For The Children." America's Drug War is confused because he and others have directed the Drug War toward protecting pot head adults How can the Joyce Nalepka (and other drug-war camp followers) be so ignorantly and completely wrong, so very often? Under Clinton, the arrest and jailing of adults who's only "crime" was the "crime" of possessing cannabis has risen to record levels, more then 700,000 adults arrested for cannabis possession last year alone. as they dull their brains (I.e. adults who responsibly use cannabis outperform non-users) CLAIM #11: MARIJUANA PRODUCES AN AMOTIVATIONAL SYNDROMEMarijuana is said to have a deliterious effect on society by making users passive, apathetic, unproductive, and unable (or unwilling) to fulfill their responsibilities.THE FACTSThe concept of an amotivational syndrome first appeared in the late 1960s, as marijuana use was increasing among American youth. In the years since, despite the absence of an agreed-upon definition of the concept, numerous researchers have attempted to verify its occurrence.Large-scale studies of high school students have generally found no difference in grade-point averages between marijuana users and non-users. One study found lower grades among students reported to be daily users of marijuana, but the authors failed to identify a causal relationship and concluded that both phenomena were part of a complex of inter-related social and emotional problems.In one longitudinal study of college students, after controlling for other factors, marijuana users were found to have higher grades than non-users and to be equally as likely to successfully complete their educations. Another study found that marijuana users in college scored higher than non-users on standardized "achievement values" scales.Field studies conducted in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece also found no evidence of an amotivational syndrome among marijuana-using populations.In these samples of working-class males, the educational and employment records of marijuana users were, for the most part, similar to those of non-users. In fact, in Jamaica, marijuana was often smoked during working hours as an aid to productivity. The results of laboratory studies have been nearly as consistent.In one study lasting 94 days, marijuana had no significant impact on learning, performance or motivation.In another 31-day study, subjects given marijuana worked more hours than controls and turned in an equal number of tokens for cash at the study's completion.However, in a Canadian study that required subjects in the marijuana group to consume unusually high doses, some reduction in work efficency was noted in the days following intoxication.Undoubtedly, when marijuana is used in a way that produces near-constant intoxication, other activities and responsibilities are likely to be neglected.However, the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is nothing in the pharmacological properties of cannabis to alter people's attitudes, values, or abilities regarding work.[Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College, John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School et al.] Again, even if cannabis did all the things that it were accused of by rabid idealogues like Joyce Nalepka and others, it would still be no reason to throw adults into prison for using it. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by observer on January 15, 2001 at 21:53:25 PT
Amerika Cares to Jail Your Kids (2)
 instead of adopting a zero tolerance policy to protect all children. "Protecting the children" is a noble and lofty goal. Who could be against that? But euphemizers like Joyce Nalepka and other little jailing cheerleaders use such nice sounding words -- "Care" for "America's Children" (etc.) -- to hide their lust to imprison adults who use marijuana, and to steal ("seize", I mean) their property. Truly, prohibitionist propagandists like Joyce Nalepka and America "cares" are wolves in sheeps clothing: mouthing great swelling words of care for The Children, as they steal, kill and destroy adults.Of course, shrill little demagogues, the goose-stepping little Nalepkas of the world like to avoid mentioning the "jail" part for adults, when they wax teary-eyed about "The Children", don't they? Both Clintons say they want to protect children--well, being soft on drugs, including marijuana, (Yeah: "soft on drugs" to Young Pioneers like Joyce Nalepka and her outfit mean "not lining up against the wall (those we accuse), and shooting them", is what it sounds like. Clinton has increased the jailing of adults who use cannabis several times: 700,000 people in the US are arrested each ear for marijuana possession. That's more than doubled over the past 8 years. And totalitarians like Nalepka scream for yet more blood?) is exactly the wrong message to young people. The "message" to "young people" that the Comrade Nalepkas of the world give is that "your government lies". And "Obey without question, or we have jail cell waiting for you." Pretty much the same "message" as any totalitarian society seeks to impart. Young people don't want a "friend." They want a leader. The kind of "leader" that the Joyce Nalepkas of the world have in mind looks like another sieg-heiling Führer. No thanks. America's young people are going to grow up, and when they do, they'll curse the name of Joyce Nalepka, America "Cares" and others who were and are responsible for stealing their traditional freedoms over their very bodies, and throwing them in jail for the "crime" of using the cannabis plant. There are those who, in all sincerity, argue that the transfer of cannabis to Schedule II will "send a signal" that marijuana is "OK" generally for recreational use. This argument is specious. It presents no valid reason for refraining from taking an action required by law in light of the evidence. If cannabis should be placed in Schedule II, in obedience to the law, than that is where cannabis should be placed, regardless of misinterpretation of the placement by some. The reasons for the placement can, and should, be clearly explained at the time the action is taken. The fear of sending such a signal cannot be permitted to override the legitimate need, amply demonstrated in this record, of countless suffers for the relief cannabis can provide when prescribed by a physician in a legitimate case.The evidence in this record clearly shows that cannabis has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress from great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude that the cannabis plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge recommends that the Admin-istrator transfer cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II.[ U.S. Federal Court Decision in the Case of Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, et al., vs. US Drug Enforcement Administration (IRS): In the Matter of MARIJUANA MEDICAL RESCHEDULING PETITION, September 6, 1988. Docket No. 86-22. Francis L. Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge 
Do Jailers like Amerika Cares Cause Prison Rape?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by Mary Friend on January 15, 2001 at 20:14:41 PT:
Marijuana decriminalization
It's very unfortunate the former President has stated he thinks marijuana laws should be reduced.We spend $780 million a year to run the National Institutes on Drug Abuse telling kids not to smoke. We know that young people smoke in direct relationship to their belief that it will/or will not harm them. It is also a fact that young people interpret legalization/decriminalization to mean "Drug Use Is OK. The government says so."Shame on the President. America's Drug War is confused because he and others have directed the Drug War toward protecting pot head adults as they dull their brains instead of adopting a zero tolerance policy to protect all children. Both Clintons say they want to protect children--well, being soft on drugs, including marijuana, is exactly the wrong message to young people. Young people don't want a "friend." They want a leader.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by freedom fighter on December 09, 2000 at 12:35:23 PT
DoFW, I shall fight my utmost best!
Becuz it is an honor to be at your side.I shall fight a good fight! I shall fight with respect and honor. For it is the people like you that makes the difference!And it is just right thing to do!Be we, the ragtag writers, using the pen(the keystrokes) as a sword(electronic sword), we are the finest, living, breathing human beings on this earth(Net)!With Respect and Honor\/FF
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by freedom fighter on December 09, 2000 at 11:25:39 PT
Yes Sir Kapt!
I checked the site for a lawyer or two. Called them up yesterday and will meet one this monday.I may be deaf but I hear you loud and clear. I will make sure that my lawyer understand this. There are so many things wrong with this case.I am telling becuz someone else should know about this too. Yes, Virginia, it can happen in United States of America.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by defenderoffreeworld on December 09, 2000 at 11:04:00 PT:
Freedom fighter:
i feel the same way you described. at some instances in life, i feel like i am alone, surrounded by indifference, ignorance, and misunderstanding. the fact that we all exchange our thoughts and ideas through this website on an almost daily basis should give us hope, for there ARE people outhere just like us, regardless of age, gender, or sex. so like i said before, i hope all is well for you, i am sorry that this has to happen to people that do not in any way disrespect others, but are constantly intimidated and disrespected themselves. just be strong, hang in there, better times are to come. and don't forget, there are people out there just like you, with similar troubles and inconveniences. what we must do is stick together and pursue change, for eventually, we will prevail. good luck to you, fredom fighter, your fight is our fight as well!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by kaptinemo on December 08, 2000 at 19:15:19 PT:
Yes, I was shouting, in incredulity.FF, you may just have them by the short hairs; deaf or not, they *have* to 'read' you your rights! And they have to prove in court that you *understood* them when they read them. Is your lawyer aware of this fact?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by freedom fighter on December 08, 2000 at 15:27:44 PT
You guys/gals are the greatest!
Thanks for the comments..It was just ironic that I had to get this registered mail and Billy had to say something like that.Really, I just felt strange, a bit scared. I did get mad for what the law were trying to do with my son. That was an attempted murder of my son becuz they did not have anything on my son and tried to turn him into a snitch becuz his dad is sitting in a jail.I just did not know that it could happen in Amerika, a man can be arrest and not be told why he is being arrested. No Mirinda Rights were given. It is possible that a man would be fingerprinted and picture taken without not knowing what the charges are. No paperworks were given. It is possible that they would release a man without ever telling him what the charges are.Anyway, you guys/gals are greatest! I could not make it through when it happened and you did took the time to help me out. I am okay and I know I am okay because I know there are such people like you!I am going to keep on fighting for the freedom.Peace be with youWith love and kindness,freedom fighter
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by defenderoffreeworld on December 08, 2000 at 11:31:30 PT:
to freedom fighter
i'm sorry about all the crap you're going through, i wasn't aware of it, but i didn't mean it that way. all i was trying to say was that it is good that clinton at least spoke in favor of decriminalization, for it helps our cause. you are not the only one that has problems for his love towards cannabis. in my particular case, due to the higher education act of 1998, saw myself on the verge of being denied a college education, and being sent back home a disgrace to my family, my friends, and myself. again, i'm sorry for all the troubles you're going through. i feel it for you. may all your journey's go well, good luck. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by Morgan on December 08, 2000 at 08:23:52 PT
I too, see Bubba's comment as a small step towards progress towards eventual legalization. If we look at it in the context of the big picture.Back in the seventies, President Carter made a similar comment, and the general mood was that it would soon become legal. Then came Reagan and the Religious Right, and the implemetation of the 'Just say No' era, and all the fear and loathing that came along with this Holy War against all drugs and 'druggies'. A moral crusade to make America 'drug free'. (LOL) This was, in actuality, Big Businesses' attempt to squash (with the 'moral majority' as their shock troops) what they saw as an eventual loss of control over this plant, that they have had since the thirties. A plant, that if legalized, would (and will) put a major hurt on their collective profits. A major move away from synthetics (their product) and towards the natural.Now, we again have a Democratic President expressing his belief that people shouldn't be locked up for a little pot, and another Repuplican President waiting in the wings waiting to take over, with the religious right as his supporters. But, the religious right is not as strong and influentual as they once were. And another wave of 'moral outrage' against drugs isn't going to go very far. We've had about thirty years of the prohibitionist's having their way and slowly taking apart the Constitution and trampling on the people's rights, all in the name of 'the children'. The American people are slowly waking up to this (largely with the help of the Internet), and starting to ask questions. So, what are they going to do now? Repeat the same old lies, hoping to fool a whole new generation with groundless fears? The cat's out of the bag, and he's pissed.It seems to me that they have implemented their last major assault, and it is starting to break apart on the hard shores of truth. They've shot their major wad, and have nothing left, as far as I can tell. Unless, of course, they resort to marshall law. Which would destroy the very country they need in order to survive.So, in effect, they have already lost. They just don't know it yet.*****************************
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Sverdie on December 08, 2000 at 02:50:03 PT:
On the plus side...
Hi all!Well what can I say? He's a fucking hypocrite, we all knowthat. But let's see the plus side here: At least he issaying it. He is saying something that would have beenimpossible to say just a few years ago. This is actuallyprogress, even if it's damn slow.Imagine that you live in a country where there are deathsqauds patrolling the streets, murdering druggies, poor andand homeless people. U want this to stop. But of course youcan't. But if you can make the responsible party saysomething like "We'll stop killing children." or "We willtry to cut down on the torture.", then this too, is actuallyprogress.We all know the evils of the drug war.But most people don't. We have to take this step by step.Now, this is no escuse for stalling, but anyway.I am from Sweden, and we just got a new minister of justice,who had actually spoken out against the criminalisation of*drug use*. (Yes, you can go to jail in Sweden for beinghigh) This would also had been sci-fi just a few years ago.The entire Europe is going towards harm reduction and awayfrom drug war. (Which the US exported to the world via theUN, by the antichrist himself, Henry Anslinger)When the world sees that our policies are working, and thatyou guys are going to make the GULAG:s look likekindergarten, the US will eventually be shamed intoabandoning the worlds most destructive sicial policy todate, the DRUG WAR.All commennts welcome!// Sverdie
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by FoM on December 07, 2000 at 22:30:40 PT:
Really Great Thread
Hi Folks,I want to say how impressed I am with all these comments. I am glad that people can show their frustration and hope. We've come a long way in a relatively short time. Not but a few years ago there were only fragmented directions in the drug war but they are all falling together to make this very clear picture and that is great. It sure isn't over but I still am in a slight state of disbelief with what Clinton said. Thanks Everyone!dddd, Thank You for answering the questions as they pop up in the recent comment section. I really do appreciate it alot. I'm not good at answering questions and I'm glad you and others are and I'll just go find the news.Peace, FoM!PS: I've been working on the Killing Pablo Series using what I posted here and then I switched to the political board at I have MapInc. as of tonights postings too. Thought some of you might find it interesting.
Killing Pablo Series
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by MikeEEEEE on December 07, 2000 at 20:26:31 PT
Klinton always went the way of the polls, I'm surprised he's telling the truth, if only he was brave and spoke when he had the chance.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by dddd on December 07, 2000 at 20:20:58 PT
mad? sad?
FreedomFighter...I think you could easily be really mad,and justifiably so....You probably are already pretty mad about all this,,if you were not mad at all,something would be wrong with you. I'd say that getting mad wont help much,and it would probably end up making you sad.If you are like me,and you can sortof choose how to react,I would recommend trying to remain positive and keep on keepin' on hoping that things will get better.Getting mad,or sad is not that good for your health.I guess sometimes getting mad is a good thing,and sometimes we cant help being sad,but it's usually better to try and be glad. Keep up the fight for freedon FreedomFighter.....I wish you luck,and better times to come................dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by FoM on December 07, 2000 at 19:36:19 PT
Good Luck Freedom fighter!
Freedom fighter I really hope everything works out for you. I understand why you are upset. I wish marijuana was legal and this wouldn't happen anymore. It is a plant. A God given plant in my opinion and I can't justify this war on this plant not one little bit.Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by freedom fighter on December 07, 2000 at 17:56:39 PT
I be mad or sad or what?Got a registered mail today,The charge is growing the evil weed. (I grew one plant)and for having pipes/bongs!Should I be angry at billy? Nah, he must been so high when he said that,"I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be."Hey Defenderoffreeworld, should I get really pissed? I just grew a plant and am being charged with it due to fact that I did not want my son to be a snitch. No felony charges against my son and they wanted him to snitch. Det. Barrera actually said, "No charges if your son snitch!"It is so hard to try to fathom what I am feeling. I am just a deaf freedom fighter who loves to grow cannabis. Should I be angry?Or Should I but be postive about this?It was just a (pls repeat this, Ahhh) plant.(Defenderoffreeworld, you look good in RED!)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Lehder on December 07, 2000 at 15:14:44 PT
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Robbie on December 07, 2000 at 12:02:48 PT:
Certainly many issues here and many emotions. Let me just say a couple of things. Number 1: Bill Clinton is not responsible for the drug war. There are a lot of things to hate this man for, but we could question all of the presidents since FDR for their support of their drug policies. Remember, FDR presided over the dissolution of alcohol prohibition and signed marijuana prohibition into law. Number 2: Bill "K"linton IS responsible for the posting of Barry R.(r for reprehensible) McCaffrey...for that Clinton should get a jail term. He canned his own appointment of Surgeon General because she said marijuana use should not be prosecutable. I wrote Billy boy a letter in August saying that he should decriminalize all drugs after he got his party boy elected (what a waste of time that was, eh?) I never figured he would, but Number 3: I do think it is significant that ANY president that would advocate that marijuana use be decriminalized IS an important step. Clinton might not be even listened to on this subject by the right-leaning side of the electorate, but now we can press the Dems, whose presidential choice smoked pot and former president (de facto) smoked pot, we can press them into action using these examples as leverage. Yes, Billy is/was a bad president on many levels, at least he's making a weak attempt at common sense.
Long winded? Well...yeah.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by Dan Hillman on December 07, 2000 at 11:19:10 PT
Clinton paved the way.
For all the two-faced democrat politicians who talked progressive *before* the election and turned fascist *after* the election. Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but we've got such a politician right here in Oakland, California. His name is Jerry Brown. For years JB ran a radio show in which he waxed progressive on any issue you'd care to name, including the drug war. Since he was elected in a landslide of hopeful progressive votes, what has JB accomplished?  Well, he cast the tie-breaking vote allowing the city streets of Oakland to be used as a "live-action" example for training Marines to put down large scale riots. His latest action, announced today, is installation of a *military school* in Oakland, because Jerry just loves spit-shine, it turns out!  A major police scandal a few weeks ago involving rampant, violent police abuses in the low-income West-Oakland are got nary a peep from our progressive mayor.  One of the officers is charged with planting drugs on a suspect, this in a city where your car can be seized *on suspicion* of your attempting to purchase drugs.  Jerry fully supports this law, by the way.I wasn't fooled by Jerry's radio show, and I didn't vote for him.  Plenty of other "progressives" were.Are you among those who still vote democrat because you believe that republicans will somehow be worse? Remember, Bill Clinton paved the way.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by FoM on December 07, 2000 at 11:04:06 PT
One More Thing!
What I really want out of this is that Clinton before he is no longer president reschedule marijuana. That's what I now expect him to do. He better!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on December 07, 2000 at 10:53:17 PT
My Opinion
The news is very slow all but this story which is very important. My personal disposition is to think about the impact of what was said rather then what Clinton should have done. I don't like Clinton one little bit but I don't think Gore or Bush will be any better from my observations. At least Clinton had a way with words even if they weren't always the truth. They all lie and they all are controlled by big money. That is what is so bad about politics. It seems when you get into politics your lose your direction and people tell you what to believe and because of campaign contributions you follow what the money says and that is the ultimate corruption in all this.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Phaedrus on December 07, 2000 at 10:44:55 PT:
At Least it Was Something
First, let me say I'm very pro legalization. I say that because I'm about to partially disagree with a majority of the comments posted on this one. Someone mentioned "political suicide", and I agree. That's been the way of things for lots of years now. I think it's becoming less so through the comments of politicians like Gov. Johnson and Gov. Ventura. But Johnson is a lame duck the same as Clinton. And Jesse Ventura has never given a flip about what anyone thinks about him. He probably won't be re-elected (mostly due to his comments about Christianity), and that's a shame. All that said, doens't anyone see the tide changing, ever so slowly? Maybe Clinton making these comments several weeks before he leaves office will open the door for other politicians to speak out at earlier junctures in their political careers. This almost certainly won't apply to GW Bush; he'll do what he's told by his handlers. But it's something, it's a start. Is it hypocritical on Clinton's part? Probably so, yes. But is it better than not having said anything at all? Yes, I think so. I think we're all going to have to work through legislative and judicial channels to accomplish our common goal. I don't believe that a militant stance is going to do the trick. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm having a hard time envisioning a "stoner militia" taking our rights by force. Someday, somehow, the political powers that exist will come to realize that a guy sitting on the couch, lighting one up, eating too many Little Debbie snack cakes, and watching Hardball doesn't rise to the level of an imprisonable offense. So I think it's a good step. It's not much, but it's a start.Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on December 07, 2000 at 10:21:20 PT:
Mad? Hell yes, I'm mad!
When I see Klinton smile, I think of all those who have suffered needlessly and died because of his support of the DrugWar jihad. When I hear him talk about 'feeling your pain', I think of the 79 year old lady I cared for, crippled from the agony in her joints reacting to the Taxol they pumped her full of, barfing her guts out from the same chemo agent, and all for want of an effective and cheap medicine. To add insult to injury, she was forced to pay $50 US a pill for something that didn't work. I think of Peter McWilliams, who died choking on his own gorp. I think of Will Foster, in jail for 93 years while murderers, wife-beaters, pervs, and various other forms of subhumans walk free to continue their predations against society after only a few years incarceration. Teenagers like Esequiel Hernandez will never go to Prom Night because they were shot dead by US Marines on drug interdiction patrols. Families like Ismael Mena's will be forced to struggle even harder, because their father was gunned down in botched "oops!-wrong-house!-sorry!" drug raids by barely literate cops who got the address wrong. Children winding up in mercenary foster care homes because a parent was caught with a joint. Jobs lost, careers in tatters, families torn asunder, massive numbers of minority members of the population diesnfranchised through felony convictions. Yes, Klinton has quite a legacy, indeed.(And remember something, people: when you have *no* stake in society, don't expect those so situated to give a damn what happens to it. After all, a homeless man couldn't care less what happens when *your* house catches fire. The Klinton Administration's active support of the DrugWar has resulted in the disenfranchising of huge numbers of African-American voters for drug infractions; it may well have cost the Dems the election. This is what comes of trying to play one-upmanship with the antis in trying to seem 'tough on drugs.' If Bush becomes the winner, as I suspect he will ultimately be declared, then the Dems have only themselves to blame. A bitter pill to swallow, indeed. And were I an african-american voter, I'd want some answers from my leadership as to why their continued support was vouchsafed to the Dems, when so many of my 'brothers' are in prison for doing something Klinton himself has done...and smirked about.) Mad? You betcha. And I'm not the only one. We've all got damn good reason. Klinton's statement reminds me of something that Eichmann said after the Mossad caught him: something to the effect that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to murder all those Jews, after all.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 07, 2000 at 08:52:23 PT
  Maybe he's thinking of his legacy, and wants to leave office with something other than Monica's dress as his permanent record.   Of course, the previous thing Clinton tried to use to fix his legacy was peace in the middle east. But it was a rush job and it didn't work - worse, it's escalated into some of the worst anti-semitic violence in the 20th century. (The rate of synagogue vandalism hasn't been this high since 1938!)  So you'll pardon me if I find his attention to our cause troubling, hypocritical, and potentially dangerous. Thank goodness for Jesse Ventura, and other politicians (the rare ones) who don't need to be leaving office to speak their mind - and who vote their beliefs while in office!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by defenderoffreeworld on December 07, 2000 at 08:26:03 PT:
why is everbody so mad?
the guy could have kept his mouth shut and not said a single word about it. all this does is support our cause, and allow us to depict the hypocrisy that surrounds politics, for 8 years the guy went against his own mind. clinton could have said soemthing at the beginning of the second term, for he wasn't going to get reelected a third time anyway, but at least he admitted it. this is definitely a breakthrough statement, the damn president of country is somewhat supporting decriminalization. would you guys rather have him not say anything at all? no one forced him to do so. so be happy about it, there's no use in being so mad. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on December 07, 2000 at 08:19:13 PT:
The modern day Janus
The ancient Roman god Janus was supposed to have two faces. Well, in mythology, gods could get away with anything, because they're gods, right? But it was an impossibility for us mere mortals.Well, sadly, Bill Clinton has shown that it's indeed possible to live with two faces. If only mentally. I remember very clearly a statement made in a 1993 issue of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedlic Studies. A reform spokesman had sat down with the *then* DrugCzar named Brown and came away with this observation that "They like to sound like liberals, but their policy is nothing but the same old one we've had under the Bush people". Needless to say, that prediction has been borne out by the millions of people who've had their lives ruined by this incredibly hypocritical policy. The antis will say, as the King of Antis in this interview said, that the penalties for possession and use are almost negligible. Yet a prison sentence for simply holding a joint in your hand (as Klinton admits to having done; he can't split hairs about the legality of it by claiming he used his toes. Possession is possession. Period. He broke the law. Admitted doing so.) cannot under any possible stretch of the imagination be construed as 'negligible'.And little little did that MAPS spokesperson know how bloody *worse* it was going to get. Yet Billy-Boy hopes to diddy-bop of into the sunset, with a smile on his face, dreaming happy thoughts of his beautiful 'legacy' and how history will remember him.Whe I was in school, we used to laugh about how much energy was expended by the ruling classes of differing societies in the past, arguing about their various dogmas and customs and other such speed bumps towards progress and enlightenment. But this inevitably caused us to look at some of the preposterous things that *our* society does, supposedly out of moral conviction, but the effects were just the same. If Billy were truly concerned about his place in the history books, he would have taken the political bull by the horns long ago, and done the right thing. But being the professional pol that he is, I'll sooner see icicles forming on the roof of Hell.Good riddence to bad, preternaturally two-faced rubbish. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Frank S. World on December 07, 2000 at 07:58:22 PT
Too much blood on Clinton's hands
Way too little, Way too late. Peter McWilliams was one of Klinton's victims, among many.But Klinton just stood by and let the brutality happen. This is like Hitler saying he should have gone a little easier on the Jews.So much promise wasted, so many people hurt...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on December 07, 2000 at 07:42:46 PT
I agree with fivepounder
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU LEAVE OFFICE. Otherwise its just air.This is how I feel too!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by fivepounder on December 07, 2000 at 07:31:44 PT
Billy Boy
Just think how many lives have been ruined since this asshole took office. Better late then never? I guess. How pissed would you be if you are in jail for a non violent drug crime and you read this? Talk is cheap. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU LEAVE OFFICE. Otherwise its just air.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Peter Rosenfeld on December 07, 2000 at 07:29:31 PT
What Courage -NOT!
As a fellow Arkansan, I sent Clinton a letter after he first won presidential office, asking that during his tenure he reexamine the Federal drug policies to see if we could possibly develop a harm mitagation approach. I got back a standard letter saying that the US policy was working and would continue to work with "our support".While he was in office, we have the biggest increase of incarcerations for drugs in US history. Clinton says nothing.Now that he's about to leave office and can have no real impact, he says we should modify our drug policies. I'm sorry, it just makes me sick.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by TroutMask on December 07, 2000 at 07:16:16 PT
On the brighter side...
Well, I guess I could harp on about what a bad man Clinton is for saying this NOW, but I prefer to look at it in a more positive way: At least he's saying it! Although it could have been much much much better had this happened years ago, it could have been worse in two ways: saying nothing, ever; or spouting more "get tough on drugs" BS. The fact that we have an acting US president espousing MJ decriminalization is amazing in itself. Of course, we've still got a lot of work to do, but I personally believe that this is a very huge victory.And it's not like the question/answer is going to go away now. The media and public can't possibly ignore this. Clinton will be drilled on this subject even (especially?) after he is out of office. We need MORE public dialog and debate; the more people talk, the further marijuana prohibition goes down the tubes. Having your president come out in favor of MJ decrim whether 8 years ago or 8 years from now is a GREAT thing. IMHO!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Lehder on December 07, 2000 at 06:09:00 PT
 Captain Kirk for President
Here is one guy who could rightly be executed by George Bush without loss to society. Clinton could make a huge difference here - if he had the vaguest notion of leadership. At this point it doesn't even take courage. I believe he knows the truth about the drug wars and has all along. He should follow up on his statement by getting on the tube, pounding his fist and telling the truth while he still has the power to be heard. He has nothing to lose. He could pardon thousands of nonviolent federal prisoners. Think about it, Clinton: Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.But will he do any more? My opinion is NO. After eight years of directing a national holocaust, he has chosen to whisper the truth, and we won't likely hear it again. Clinton's presidency serves only one cause: Clinton. In the future we will hear of Clinton only occasionally when some crapulous hillbilly kicks his ass in an Arkansas whorehouse.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 07, 2000 at 01:45:52 PT
  Clinton's just saying this now because he has nothing to lose. What's going to happen, his secret service protection is going to be voted away? Not going to happen. He's got the rest of his life secure in front of him without having to bend over to the tobacco, liquor, and prison lobbyists.   The good news is, the supreme court is in the same boat. Hopefully, they'll listen to him.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by duck420 on December 07, 2000 at 01:05:17 PT
proves politics is just to be elected
The reason this lying asshole didn't say a thing the past 8 years is not only because he's had his head so far up his ass he forgot where he put his cigar, but because it would be political suicide. He has nothing to lose now, so he has the true freedom to say how he really feels. How ironic: a president telling the truth after he leaves office instead of before. America is in a sad state of politics right now and we really need to speak up and stop expecting the other guy to do it. Individually, we're nothing, but if each person on the board spoke together, we'd be a very poweful body.Blaze on!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by dddd on December 06, 2000 at 22:41:20 PT
our buddy Bill
Dr. Russo said it well;"Where has he been the last 8 years if he feels this way?" But it's really very clintonesqe,and not unexpected.I've always kinda had the feeling that Bill has been a politician who,like most,has just been advised to say what he says,and do what he does in a balancing act;Keeping the right palms greased,and sticking with the recommended policies.I find this almost unforgiveable........But i'm sure that all along,in his precarious 8 years,he had to know how many innocents were being thrown behind bars,,and how many absurd laws,and Constitutional abominations were happening. This is almost like him flippin' us the bird,and saying "ha-ha,,,,F%#k You",as he waves good by.No longer his problem,so it's the perfect time to play stupid,and soften his image with the readers of Rolling Stone. I hope nobody thinks that he's gone through some kind of Ebenezer Scrooge/Grinch transformation,and now realizes that things may have been a bit harsh and out of hand.As if he never really noticed people lining up to fill dozens of prisons,and filling them up before the paint is dry. I think our buddy Bill is right up there with barry.Both have been ruthless,selfserving,greedy,brutal,hypocrital,and ice cold in their lack of compassion and understanding.They are just two of many war criminals that occupy the halls of our dilapidated,and crooked government.........Where two parties make the rules,  and most of them are fools,,  Where nothing gets done for days  And they can vote themselves a raise Where you go to jail if they find your stash,,,  But you might not have to go,if you got a bunch of cash. How many families are these guys responsible for destroying?How many peoples lives have been ruined,,,and we now have Bill saying,he mighta been a little wrong......   I hope someone out there will join me in being STUNNED,by this line;  ``I think that most small amounts of marijuana havebeen decriminalized in some places, and should be.'' ....He thinks,it's been decriminalized in some places?????..As if he was not too familiar with the topic,,,,As if there were issues that were way more important,,,As if he just never really noticed the amazingly fast formation of the american gulag...dozens of new prisons,and maybe two or three new schools.....Inexcusable and unexplained egregious items like sneaking NAFTA by the public,and removing the human right thing so we could brutalize Colombia........ It's hard to believe the way our government has turned into the group of 90% greedy scoundrels that it is today. Shame on you Bill Clinton....Gettin' blown in the oval office is nothin',compared to the polite,world class way you've stood by,and assisted in the reaming of the working majority,while embellishing the rich,,and being a whore for global corporations......Shame on you
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by mota20 on December 06, 2000 at 22:23:05 PT
just another bunch of crap from the king of crap
This man will say anything, if he believed what he said then why have the incarceration rate increased and more and more pot users get busted under bill clinton then under anyother pres. I am not a GOP member but this guy is nothing but lies and bull . peace mota20
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 06, 2000 at 21:27:48 PT:
Bill Clinton: The Rolling Stone Interview
 Bill Clinton: The Rolling Stone InterviewSource: Rolling Stone (US) Author: Jann S. WennerPublished: December 6, 2000Fax: (212) 767-8214 Copyright: 2000 Straight Arrow Publishers Company, L.P. Contact: letters Address: 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104-0298 Website: Forum: This is the third full-length Rolling Stone interview with Bill Clinton. We first met in 1992 at Doe's Eat Place, a steak joint in Little Rock, Arkansas, when he was fresh from winning his party's presidential nomination. A year and a half later, we sat around a table in a private dining room off the Oval Office while the energetic young president discoursed at length on the challenges of occupying the most powerful office in the world. This final interview - the longest of the three - began in the family quarters in the White House on a beautiful fall day in October and concluded just four days before Election Day, aboard Air Force One, en route to a last-minute campaign appearance in California. We had been promised a quick third session for a postelection wrap-up, but with the Florida vote still up in the air, the president chose not to comment. As we went to press, we still did not know who would succeed him, but we preserved his predictions in this interview, for the record. The president we encountered this time seemed more humble but also more confident and expansive. No longer just the brightest and most energetic guy in the room, Bill Clinton gracefully exudes the dignity and command of the presidency. On the first day we met, we were sandwiched into his typically furious schedule. In the morning, he had received the leader of the North Korean army - the first presidential contact with an official from that country in fifty years; later, the president would preside over a bipartisan ceremony on the South Lawn to sign the bill normalizing trade relations with China. The president has also been spending late nights dealing with the violence that has broken out in the Middle East in the wake of the collapsed Camp David talks. Journalists rarely enter the family quarters of the White House. We were invited to conduct the first part of the interview in the solarium, the glassed-in oval room on the third floor that has traditionally been the president's family room, with its inspiring view of the Washington Monument. On one table sits a large collection of Russian dolls painted as Hillary, Bill or Chelsea. A Peter Max lithograph hangs on one wall, as does a beautiful painting of a leopard, a gift from South African President Nelson Mandela. There is also a collection of Beanie Babies for the Clintons' nephews. A passageway leading into the room has been decorated with photographs depicting the Clintons' thirty years in public life. Just down the hall, the president has set up a small music room, where he keeps his saxophones. Naturally, there is a portrait of Elvis on the wall. When the president enters, he sits down at the small glass-topped dining table, picks up a cigar and cuts off the end but does not light it. Listen To The Interview:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 06, 2000 at 20:43:17 PT
I Just Heard It on CNN!!!!
This is just too good to be true but I heard it on CNN!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on December 06, 2000 at 20:40:17 PT:
This is hard to imagine. Do we live in the same country? Why are thousands of Americans in prison for mere possession? Where has he been the last 8 years if he feels this way? Will Barry disown him? Is there any good he can do in the next 6 weeks before his presidency is a done deal? There are too many questions here, and not a lot of sensible answers.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by aocp on December 06, 2000 at 20:30:55 PT:
Peers through the smokey haze and reads this:
>Clinton, who raised eyebrows in the 1992 presidential primary campaign when he admitted trying the drug but adding he didn't inhale, told the magazine, ``I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be.''What the hell is this? Wonder what ole granpappy barry is gonna have to say? I better check the calendar ... nope ... not Apr 1 yet. Where did *this* idea come from, anyway? Reminds me of the aliens zapping Steve Dallas' brain in Bloom County. Spooky.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: