Thursday, September 16, 2010

Is Christine O'Donnell against the War on Drugs?

From Eric Dondero:

Information is now surfacing from various sources, that Republican nominee for US Senate from Delaware Christine O'Donnell holds a moderately libertarian stance on the War on Drugs.

O'Donnell was a guest speaker at a monthly meeting of the pro-legalization Kent County Libertarian Party in Dover back in June.

From the Kent County Libertarian Party press release, June 20:
The turnout at the Kent County Libertarian Party meeting for June grew from our May total of around 20 people to more than 30... Much of the meeting's agenda was booked up with Guest Speakers...

Christine O'Donnell, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the US Senate was also present and offered her views on the current state of our country and the steps she believes are necessary to remedy them. While she was eager to appeal to those in attendance currently registered in the Republican Party, she was also respectful of the Libertarian Party's candidate for US Senate, Jim Rash.
According to Will McVay, Chairman of the Kent County Libertarian Party, O'Donnell was asked specifically during Q&A about issue of drug legalization. She said:
"Drug policy should be decided at the state level, not the federal level."
McVay also stated that she "did not shy away from the libertarian label."

Reached for a comment by Libertarian Republican, Mike Meno, Communications Director for the Marijuana Policy Project, was pleasantly surprised to learn that O'Donnell had spoken to the Libertarians and advocated drug war reform:
"Millions of Americans across the political spectrum -- from the progressive left to the libertarian right -- know that federal marijuana prohibition has been an absolutely disastrous policy failure, and that a change is needed. Because it involves matters regarding civil liberties, states rights and personal choice, this issue seems particularly appealing to those who identify as libertarians. Under the Obama administration, most Democrats have been reluctant to embrace this issue -- and this has created a window of opportunity for any Republicans with the courage to do so."
Libertarian Republican has since learned from another source, that O'Donnell went on record in firm oppositition to the war on drugs with at least one other well-known libertarian organization.

Story Developing... More details soon to be released...


Chuck said...

"Drug policy should be decided at the state level, not the federal level."

Amen to that. Sensible drug policy would be right around the corner if the Federal Government weren't involved in drug warring.

dale said...

As a Republican, I feel that Pot is certainly a stumbling block for getting young voters. Republican Policy on Pot can change, without changing policy on drugs. Perception is,Pot is a plant,not a refined chemical and certainly not a drug. Obama's administration is probably going to beat you to that conclusion, capturing the young voters and gaining a second term.

Chuck said...

Except for the reality that hardly anyone of any age smokes pot as a matter of habit. The myth that dope is something most "youngsters" are inclined to enjoy is bullshit.

If legal dope equaled any sort of electoral mandate, it would have been legalized a long time ago. Dope is illegal because the people who participate in electoral politics want it to be illegal. Therefore, dope remains illegal.

It's called the will of the people. If you don't like it, you don't like representative government. If you don't like representative government, you are probably a self absorbed asshole who thinks they know better than everyone else around them.


M. Simon said...


Look at the stats. Pot use peaks in the 16 to 24 age range and declines after that. Similarly for tobacco.

In that age range the current pot use rate is around 50%. Since the 70s it has varied from 40% to 60%.

So why haven't the laws changed? They will as more of the "Reefer Madness" cohort dies off.

California (Prop 19) is only the start.

M. Simon said...

And another point - supposedly in a Republican form of government some things are not subject to the will of the people.

What you eat, what you smoke, what you drink.

Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment. Where is the pot amendment?

Chuck said...

I find it odd that you would type those numbers as a means of proving your argument when in reality all you did was bolster mine.

Legal dope is an electoral loser. That's why no one runs on it. You and I can argue the morality of it all day long (I don't believe there is a net right or wrong on that issue, by the way, but reality is what it is.

I'm a federalist on this issue. It would work itself out if given the chance.