"I'm sure it will work."

Whatever that's supposed to mean. I didn't ask you to do or try anything, but I will say that your friend sounds less liberal all the time. She's apparently immune to logic and favors prohibiting adults from using THC legally because her daughter chose to use it illegally (along with committing various other illegal acts). Since her underage daughter is also an alcoholic, is mom in favor of alcohol prohibition too? I'm going to guess no. She sounds like the flip side of conservative homophobes who see the light when their kids turn out to be gay.

It's still illegal for under 18 in CO.
But it's now regulated in a manner that actually reduces access for kids by limiting the black market.

The gateway drug myth you perpetuate and then try to downplay by claiming it was "only a factor" is the kind of propaganda the drug warriors have been disseminating for decades.

The harm from criminalization has been enormous, and if Hillary is basing her position on anecdotal claims rather than the evidence, she is not showing her supposed experience.

Likewise, risking more votes than she retains is the math problem... it is not as you present it.
You're sweeping it under the rug.

A

Your friend does not sound like a guaranteed vote if that's all it would take to un-guarantee it. The reality is that pot was available to her daughter regardless of its legal status. That it's legal only means that there's one less "crime" for her daughter to be charged with. She should be legalization's biggest fan.

The polling for initiatives is fairly unreliable, and does not break down party lines. It makes complete political sense for a presidential candidate to avoid a contentious issue, especially when it is an issue that the pro-camp may support with less passion than the anti-camp.

I have a friend in Colorado who is very liberal on all social issues. Her oldest daughter started drinking and smoking weed at high school, then progressed on to other drugs and is only just coming out the other side, albeit with VD, no high school diploma, a daily struggle against alcoholism and a criminal record. She is not 21 yet.

Needless to say, my friend is not a fan of Colorado's legalization. There are many people who would be glad to have their kids survive this at all, so she thinks she is lucky in many respects.

My friend knows that weed was not the reason her daughter ended up where she did, but she sees it as a contributing factor.

Why would Clinton lose a guaranteed vote in Colorado because she wants to lead on marijuana legalization?

"Do you think she did the math on a cocktail napkin?"

No, I think Clinton knows more stories like my friend's than I do. Maybe more than you do to?

A simple political calculation that ignores an unenthused electorate, swing state ballot measures, polling, and third parties currently pulling in a combined 15%?
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Do you think she did the math on a cocktail napkin?

Did you compare the list of those funding the opposition to legalization to Hillary's donor list?

Are you aware that her "evolution" on rescheduling keeps it a federal crime on par with cocaine?

A

Yup. Fine with torture and war crimes... xenophobia, sexism, ignorance OR lying...

...but xenophobic, sexist, ignorant liars... no way.

A principled stand.

American democracy of all ideological stripes.

A

I don't think it is Clinton's donors in this case, but the simple political calculation that she isn't going to get more votes by leading on this issue when Trump isn't making it an issue. Don't get me wrong, Clinton is swayed by money like any other politician when it is convenient.

Ouch.

A

For only the third time in its history, The Atlantic has endorsed a candidate for president.

1860 Lincoln (anti-slavery)
1964 Johnson due to Goldwater's anti-Civil Rights stance
2016 Clinton due to Trump's unsuitability

"I don't think it is love of internal 'wars' but fear of offending anybody just before an election that is driving the cautious policies"

You're probably right. It's the people profiting from the wars who love them. The politicians just follow their orders and, lucky for them, there's always an election on the horizon, so they can use that as an excuse to continue their war on Americans. "We're not corrupt. We're spineless." makes a great sales pitch and it doesn't even sound like a lie.

Speaking of the war on drugs...
If you want to climb out of the comfortable bubble so many enjoy, check out the 4 part series-

"Code of Silence Part 1
In the Chicago Police Department, If the Bosses Say It Didn’t Happen, It Didn’t Happen"

by Jamie Kalven

It's a rather disturbing reality about the nature of state and federal "law enforcement" with a prominent role for Hillary's buddy Rahm "fuck the left" Emmanuel.

Spoiler alert- the establishment bad guys win.
But if any of you are wondering why Chicago has paid out $640,000,000 in settlements, the series lays out many of the facts in a gripping true story.

A

"I don't think it is love of internal 'wars' but fear of offending anybody just before an election that is driving the cautious policies of particularly Hillary"

I take it by "anybody" you mean her donors... because the polling is clear that the majority of the country... and particularly Dems and Indies where polling numbers are much higher... would be supportive and motivated, not offended.

Throw in the fact that 3 of the recreational/medical ballot initiatives are taking place in crucial swing states, and that her inaction will depress voter turnout and even cost her votes due to support for them by both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, and you'd have to conclude that catering to the minority of voters and clinging to the status quo is actually the politically risky path.

Voters may regret assuming Hillary is just being "cautious" when the evidence suggests she is actually a combatant on the wrong side in the war on weed.

A

I don't think it is love of internal 'wars' but fear of offending anybody just before an election that is driving the cautious policies of particularly Hillary. Trump is an odd beast, he is against drugs of all types for personal reasons (his older brother died of alcoholism and that is said to have deeply affected him).

Bernie was the 'tell it like it is' candidate, and he lost pretty convincingly in the primary to 'safe Hillary'.

What a concept.

Brilliant column CW.

Thanks.

Hillary has received large sums of money from all the corporate interests who profit from the war on weed and from the interests who view weed as a competitor or threat to their profits.

If five more states go recreational, maybe combined they'll have enough money to buy her off for the 2020 election?
Of course, that's assuming that corporate interests who will funnel the money to Repubs don't take over the industry by buying off politicians to regulate away competition... or haven't you noticed the Big Money investors elbowing their way in already?

Or, maybe Dems will stop voting against their interests and Hillary will face a challenger in the primaries who isn't a Wall Street coddling corporatist warmonger and war on drugs proponent?

Of course, by then she will have loaded up the Supreme Court with neoliberal corporatists who will undermine almost everything Dems claim to stand for... but, hey, at least they'll probably keep abortion legal and available in blue states and a smattering of big cities.

A