Will She or Won't She?

---

---

I grew up in Arkansas. I lived there during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as governor.

And I feel as qualified to say this as anyone who lived in Arkansas when I did: Hillary Clinton has always been a perplexing person. (Well, at least as an adult. I can't say what she was like as a child.)

During her time in Arkansas' governor's mansion, she often took stands or made statements that cut against the grain with average Arkansans. She was a traditional feminist in most of her views, and she was unapologetic for it — which produced kind of a strange dichotomy. I knew people who frequently disagreed with her yet still admired her determination to stand up for what she believed.

Would those same people have voted for her for anything? I doubt it. To my knowledge, most never supported her husband when he ran for governor.

But they admired her integrity — and, like all first spouses, she had no legal authority in that role. She was part of the deal if they voted for Bill — even if they would not vote for her.

Two for the price of one, as Bill liked to say during the '92 presidential campaign. That seemed to upset some folks, but I barely noticed it. I had heard it before.

And I have heard what she has been saying lately before, too.

She had a conversation with PBS' Charlie Rose the other day, and she was asked about 2016.

"I'm about to have my first grandchild, which I'm thrilled about," she replied. "I can't wait. I want to see what that feels like. I'm not going to skip over it. I want to really be present, as I meet this ... new person in our family."

Can't blame her for that. I know several people who have become grandparents, and they all speak of how rewarding that relationship between grandparent and grandchild is.

I have also known many people who did not live to become grandparents. It is a privilege to live that long, and it certainly should not be taken lightly.

So Hillary's desire to be with her family is completely understandable. It is an excuse I have heard before, though.

John Mitchell served as Richard Nixon's attorney general and, for a time, as Nixon's re–election campaign manager, but he left when the Watergate investigation got too uncomfortable for him.

He gave as his reason for stepping down a desire to be with his family. That was hard for some people to swallow, given that it meant being with his wife, Martha, who had made several phone calls to reporters about the emerging scandal and alleged that political pressure was being applied to her husband and others in the administration.

That was sure to be uncomfortable to say the least, I heard many people say.

I don't think it would be that way for Hillary — except, perhaps, for those times she might have to spend alone with Bill. But Hillary would have the benefit of knowing what it feels like to be a grandmother — and sharing a new relationship with her daughter.

Well, that's a pretty good reason for not seeking the job. But Hillary didn't stop there. She spoke about the negative side as well.

Speaking as one who observed the presidency from close range as both the first spouse and the secretary of state, Hillary told Rose that the job has "gotten tougher."

Well, it always has been a big job — but I can see how it could quickly become overwhelming for anyone. A president has to be better than competent in many different areas.

The economy is still sluggish, just not quite as sluggish as it was five years ago.

Her husband's presidency was relatively peaceful, but, with terrorists and Russians on the march, who knows what kind of foreign environment she would inherit?

And then there are all those social issues that divide Americans' loyalties — guns, contraception and abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, the list goes on and on. I don't think anyone will ever be able to bring Americans together on those issues, but a president is obligated to at least try. Good presidents will try to fashion some kind of compromise that, in the end, pleases no one. Not–so–good presidents won't try to do that. But the issues will still demand a lot of their time and attention.

Seems to me it would be a lot more relaxing — and a lot more fun — to play with her grandchild(ren). She and Bill have that nice big place in New York with that nice big yard that they bought back when they left the White House dead broke. Sounds like a great place to be a grandparent and play with the grandchild(ren).

Plus, if Hillary does not run, she will be able to preserve her integrity.

Just about five years ago, when NBC's Ann Curry interviewed Hillary, she asked her about 2016.

It was a direct question. "Will you run for president again? Yes or no?"

And it got a direct answer. "No."

Curry asked again and received the same response.

For someone who has always argued — albeit in a different context — that no means no, this is a good time to drive home the point.

Of course, the problem is that, when someone prominent rules out a run for the presidency, he/she experiences a spike in his/her favorability ratings.

And the whole thing begins all over again.

Doobie or Not Doobie?

---

---

It may be an issue whose time has come. And, if that is the case, there may be no more appropriate place for it than California.

Voters in that state will decide in November whether to legalize and regulate marijuana use, an issue that has come before voters in other states in other election years but has always failed.

In 2010, however, there is an unusual confluence of issues, like two mighty rivers that meet and create an even greater force, that might make this vote different from the rest. Even if the eventual result is the same, the margin may be closer than it has ever been — and it may be a sign that the tide is turning.

First, there is the recession, which has produced — thus far — a 13.2% unemployment rate in California and a shortfall of the state budget that has forced Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to call for "draconian" spending cuts while warning that there is surely more/worse to come.

The folks in Washington seem to have lost sight of the fact (assuming — and that is a huge assumption — that they ever fully realized it in the first place) that this recession — and the unemployment it has spawned — is different from the others with which they have dealt. And they appear determined to fight it the same way they initially chose to fight Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis — on the cheap.

On the cheap didn't work in Iraq, and it won't work against the recession.

Policy analyst Samuel Sherraden, in an article for CNN.com, says the new jobs bill, in which the president and the members of his party seem to place so much faith, is doomed to fail because it focuses on inadequate tax credits instead of promoting infrastructure.

Of course, it is understandable — to a point — why infrastructure is not emphasized. Infrastructure costs money, lots of money, but revenue is down because fewer people are working and paying taxes — so there isn't as much money available as there once was.

"The House of Representatives passed a relatively strong bill in December, which included $48 billion in infrastructure spending," Sherraden writes. "Now the House and the Senate have adopted a bill that consists primarily of a payroll tax deduction for employers who make new hires and keep them on for a year. The original House jobs bill was $154 billion. The new bill is one–tenth the size."

I'm not an economist, but I don't think you have to be to see that Sherraden is right. The money simply isn't there, and the jobs bill doesn't provide the sources for the kind of revenue that is needed to repair the infrastructure and put millions of unemployed Americans back to work.

Legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana has the potential to produce the kind of revenue — I've heard it estimated that legalizing marijuana in California alone can produce $1 billion annually in tax revenue for the state — that will address the infrastructure issue. And it will keep doing so beyond 2010, unlike the tax credits the Democrats have proposed.

As Sherraden observes, "It is unwise to pass a temporary hiring incentive that will expire during a year when the unemployment rate is forecast by the Congressional Budget Office to average 9.5 percent."

Yet, in addition to providing the kind of revenue that could be used to make meaningful improvements in the nation's infrastructure, legalizing marijuana could create, virtually overnight, the demand for all kinds of jobs. Those people in occupations that would be adversely affected by legalizing marijuana — for example, lab workers who perform drug tests and law enforcement officials who have been waging a losing war against marijuana for decades — would simply be reassigned to more productive pursuits. It is doubtful that their jobs would be eliminated, only the functions of the jobs. If marijuana is legalized, attention can shift to testing for the use of demonstrably deadly drugs and the enforcement of laws against violent behavior.

Then there is health care reform, an issue that has dominated the thinking of Barack Obama (who seems to have devoted more attention to his NCAA Tournament predictions in the last couple of years than he has to unemployment) and the Democrats in Congress for more than a year. With the passage of health care reform legislation, the thoughts of many have turned to the subject of easing the pain of those afflicted with AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. And that is where the issue of medical marijuana comes in.

Marijuana has been proven — repeatedly — to be effective at fighting the nausea that is a by–product of some treatments (most notably, chemotherapy). It has also been shown to stimulate appetite, which is helpful for those whose medical treatments have robbed them of the desire for food. For glaucoma patients, it eases intraocular pressure that robs people of their vision.

However, fear mongers continue to spread inaccuracies (I prefer that word to lies even though this is one of those times when the latter is more appropriate) about marijuana. I can only assume that, because medical science has established a connection between tobacco consumption and life–threatening illnesses like lung cancer, opponents of legalization have jumped to the conclusion that smoking anything will cause lung cancer, too. I am aware of no medical studies that have shown that marijuana causes cancer. In fact, the Journal of Clinical Investigation, which makes its research articles from the last 86 years freely available online, has demonstrated precisely the opposite. JCI's research shows that marijuana kills cancer cells, which is one more therapeutic benefit.

Of course, it is unlikely that most of the people who consume marijuana do so as a preventive measure — although there may be some who smoke it because they are concerned about the prevalence of cancer in their families.

But it is ironic, I believe, that this issue comes up now — not just because of the passage of health care reform but because it was one year ago that, during his celebrated online town hall meeting, Obama ridiculed the 3½ million people who submitted questions about the legalization of marijuana.

This comes at a time when officials have observed a reversal in marijuana use among the young. For many years, propaganda campaigns succeeded, to an extent, in discouraging marijuana consumption, but recent surveys have noted a shift in the behavior of the young.

Such a shift has been increasingly hard to ignore — or write off as the behavior of those who are unmotivated and untalented. Just a few days ago, Don Banks reported for SI.com that folks in the NFL "are concerned about the increased number of prospects who have a history of marijuana use in their background."

Banks' article goes on to observe that eliminating players — given the success that some marijuana users have had in the NFL in recent years — because they failed drug tests doesn't make sense if the NFL's personnel people are interested in winning — and keeping their own jobs. Some, no doubt, cling to the long–disproved allegations that have been used to justify keeping marijuana illegal — that it causes death, that it leads to madness and violent criminal behavior, that it serves as a "gateway" to other drugs.

Well, Pete Guither debunks a lot of the myths. As he clearly demonstrates, prohibition was on the wrong side of history in the 1930s.

And it's on the wrong side now.

Split Decision

In the light of day, it appears that voters in Maine repealed the same–sex marriage law.

The law was receiving a narrow endorsement last night, but late returns ultimately went against it.

Not so the vote on the medical marijuana law. More than 58% of Maine's voters supported easier access to the substance.

Maine's vote on same–sex marriage seems to be the only thing that changed overnight.

The outcome in Virginia is unchanged from last night. Republican Bob McDonnell was declared the winner of the governor's race early in the evening, continuing a trend that has been constant for more than 30 years.

And, in what may be the biggest election surprise of 2009, New Jersey still has a Republican governor–elect this morning, in spite of the fact that the president and several other high–profile Democrats came to the state to campaign for the Democratic governor.

So now we move on to 2010.

Perhaps Democrats have learned — once again — that they are not imbued with the divine right of kings because they won a majority in Congress in 2006 and 2008 and won the presidency in 2008. I had hoped they had learned that lesson in the 1990s, but it appears they will need more than one lesson.

And my guess is they will get more than one lesson.

The Votes Are In

Turnout for today's elections was light, as it usually is in odd–numbered years. And I know that polls close at different times in each state. But the results seem to be coming in at a frustratingly slow pace.

• I've been watching the election returns, and I've heard a lot of theories about what has happened in Virginia. There will be theories about New Jersey and New York, too, I'm sure, but, at this point, Virginia is the only place where today's election results are known.
  
  Some people have spoken of the Democrats' inability to bring young and minority voters to the polls without Barack Obama on the ballot, and I think that may be a factor, but I think it is more likely to be a problem next year.
  
  Most people seem to agree that this election is not a referendum on Obama's presidency. Nevertheless, I have heard some saying the results represent an anti–incumbent mood. That's a tougher case to make, as far as I am concerned, at least in Virginia. State law bars the incumbent from seeking a second consecutive term, and he seems to be personally popular, but his popularity doesn't seem to be transferring easily to the Democratic standard bearer.
  
  The Republican's triumph doesn't seem to be connected to any sort of anti–incumbent mood in Virginia.
  
  My suspicion is that it has much more to do with what I believe to be the real historical trend. The party that has won the White House has lost the governor's office the next year ever since the Carter presidency, as I wrote in May.


• But an anti–incumbent mood may well have played a role in New Jersey; if the projection that was just made a few minutes ago by CNN holds up, the Republicans are going to win the governor's office there. And the Democratic incumbent is on the ballot — so it is plausible to conclude that this is a referendum on his performance in office.
  
  For that matter, the outcome in New Jersey could be seen as, if not a referendum on Obama, certainly an early temperature reading. And there may be some findings Obama would do well to heed.


• But the White House says Obama isn't watching the election returns. It will say that he is "watching the game." It won't positively confirm which game. Football? Can't be the NFL, unless he's watching a recording of the Falcons–Saints game from last night. ESPN2 is showing a college game, but do you suppose Obama is really more interested in the Bowling Green–Buffalo game than the outcome of the New Jersey election? He was campaigning in New Jersey last week. He had some interest in it then.
  
  Baseball? Can't be. Today is a travel day in the World Series.
  
  I suppose he could be watching the NBA, as some of his aides speculate, but that season is just getting started, and the NBA will still be playing in April. Over the next three years, Obama will have to work with the New Jersey governor, in one way or another, because of the economic difficulties with which the state is being forced to contend.
  
  So I find it hard to accept that he is paying no attention to the election returns tonight or that an NBA game has his attention instead.


• I think 2010 probably will be the real backlash election. The hurdles facing the president and his party seem clear. Obama won't be on the ballot. And he risks alienating some supporters by actively trying to transfer some of his star power to incumbents who may be in trouble, like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid. But he is the leader of the party, and his personal appeal was responsible for attracting many voters who belong to demographic groups that are not normally electorally active. It will be a challenge to get them to return to the polls. Many are ignorant about the way things work and somehow got the idea that a single election could be eternally binding, whereas the folks from the opposition party already are motivated — as they usually are.
  
  Nothing gets a politician's attention like election returns — normally, unless one happens to be the president and thinks that, in some way, he is above such things. But I doubt there is any truth to that tale about his election night activities. And one can sense something of a sea change already occurring within the ranks. Democrats already are making noises about delaying action on health care reform until next year — if not sometime after the midterm elections.
  
  The window of opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to get some things done in the first half of his term seems to be slamming shut.
  
  Perhaps some of the Democrats who were on Capitol Hill in the first years of the Clinton presidency now remember the beating the party took when it emphasized health care reform over job creation and, perhaps belatedly, want to take steps that can avoid a repeat of that experience.
  
  Based on what I'm seeing tonight, I think the battle next year will be won and lost with independent voters. Since independents seem to favor a progressive social agenda, that might be a good place to start in the campaign for their allegiance. On the surface, it looks like more of a reach for Republicans than it is for Democrats.


• A couple of social issues were on the ballot in Maine, though, and supporters of both are leading with just under 30% of the vote counted. About 51% of the voters are endorsing the law that was approved by the legislators and signed by the governor allowing same–sex marriage. And more than three–fifths of voters support expanding the list of conditions that could be treated with medical marijuana.
  
  Once a reliably Republican state in presidential elections, Maine has shifted toward Democrats in recent decades, but it is represented in the Senate by what may be the last Republican moderates — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither will face the voters in 2010 so it does retain some of its political roots. But the Republican Party that is admired in Maine has more in common with Abe Lincoln than Newt Gingrich.
  
  For many years, though, Maine had a reputation for recognizing emerging social issues. "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," the saying went. The saying originally referred to Maine's tendency to be on the winning side in presidential contests, but it also has been a political barometer for social issues. The present political climate may be giving it the opportunity to reclaim that role.
  
  But there, as elsewhere, the returns tonight seem to be driven by independent voters.
  
  Neither party is in the position of claiming a majority among self–identified voters in most states. The ones who call themselves independents typically hold the key to electoral success. To ignore what their votes can tell you is to court disaster.
  
  That may hold some cues for Obama, who has not been an advocate of either cause but may want to revise his position to curry favor with independent voters, many of whom supported him last year but seem to be abandoning his party in New Jersey and Virginia this year — and might abandon it in other places next year.

Well, that's just a thought. But the numbers in Virginia and New Jersey, compared to what we saw a year ago when Obama carried both states, are startling.

The battle of the 2010 midterms began in earnest tonight.

As Long As We're Talking About Health Care ...

With health care reform the hot topic of discussion these days — that is, when the president isn't sitting down for a beer and a "teachable moment" on race relations — it's a good idea to revisit something that has caused a great deal of preventable suffering and death in America and the world — tobacco.

Tony Newman of the Drug Policy Alliance Network did precisely that last week in a commentary written for CNN.com.

"Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking," Newman writes. "When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst."

A lot of things have changed over the years — in particular, attitudes about smoking.

I started smoking the way most people do, as a teenager. I remember once, when we were visiting my grandmother, I stepped outside to sneak a smoke. I didn't think anyone saw me or knew what I was up to, but after I returned to the house, my grandmother came up to me and let me know, without saying so, that she knew what I had done. "Most men smoke," she said to me.

That was probably true of the men of her generation. But, as we have learned more about the harmful effects of smoking, attitudes have changed. In 1965, the year after the surgeon general first connected the dots between disease and tobacco consumption, the smoking rate in the United States exceeded 40%. By 2006, it had been cut in half.

I quit smoking more than two years ago. It wasn't easy. It was pretty damn hard, actually. And, as I have said before, it is still difficult for me. I expect it to remain difficult for a long time to come. I've heard stories about people who still experience cravings 20 years after their last cigarette.

Knowing what I know now, I'm glad I gave up smoking, although I still can't really bring myself to refer to myself as a "former smoker." I refer to myself as a "recovering smoker" because I know that, like a recovering alcoholic, I'm just one slip away from being back where I started.

I have told my friends who still smoke — and, in part because of what I have accomplished, there are fewer of them today than there were two years ago — that I have definite opinions about tobacco use, but I'm not the kind of person who will crusade against something I once did. My best friend since high school recently gave up smoking on doctor's orders — he had suffered a heart attack. His daughter (my goddaughter) also gave up smoking.

I'm glad they did, but I didn't tell either one of them to quit. I believe adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Tobacco — especially in the nicotine–manipulated form that was peddled by the tobacco companies for years — is extremely hazardous, but it is legal. I was astonished to read in Newman's commentary that many people think it should be illegal.

---

"The Drug Policy Alliance sponsored a Zogby Poll in 2006, and we were shocked to find that 45 percent of those polled supported making cigarettes illegal within the next 10 years. Among 18– to 29–year–olds, it's more than 50 percent."

Tony Newman

---

Newman's response to that finding made a lot of sense to me.

"[W]ith all of the good intentions in the world, outlawing cigarettes would be just as disastrous as the prohibition on other drugs," he writes. "After all, people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine. But now, in addition to the harm of smoking, we would find a whole range of 'collateral consequences' that come along with prohibition. A huge number of people who smoke would continue to do so, but now they would be considered criminals."

I am glad, as I have written, that Congress voted to give the FDA authority over the tobacco industry. But I don't think the answer is to create a new group of criminals, as Newman points out.

I'm not a lawyer so those who are lawyers might disagree with this. But it seems to me that — with the exception of laws that prohibit violent behavior — laws don't exist to define and enforce morality. And it was on the basis of morality that alcohol was outlawed in this country during the era of Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed under considerable pressure from the temperance movement, and it took another amendment to the Constitution to repeal it.

In contrast, the prohibition of marijuana has been in effect, essentially, for more than 70 years. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, was the anniversary of the passage of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, which began the process that made marijuana and its byproducts illegal. No constitutional amendment was passed making it illegal. And morality — or the alleged consequences to public health — had nothing to do with it. It was, as Pete Guthier writes, the result of racism, fear, corporate protectionism, "ignorant, incompetent and/or corrupt legislators" and "personal career advancement and greed."

Public health and morality were never factors.

Actually, Guthier wrote a piece yesterday that pretty convincingly states that "harmlessness" is irrelevant.

Nothing, he writes, is completely harmless, even those things that seem harmless.

"[Y]ou may think that water is harmless, and it is, if you're drinking a glass," he writes. "However, it is clearly possible to fatally overdose on water, and floods kill people all the time."

Since my mother died in a flash flood, this observation, as you might guess, holds particular significance for me.

To further establish his point, Guthier provides a whole list of things that are legal but potentially harmful:

---

"Easy ones ...

• Tobacco


• Alcohol

... but there's lots more:

• Eggs


• Milk


• Construction Work


• Taking a vacation


• Bridges


• Stairs

Contractor: So, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, I see here that you're asking us to put stairs in between the first and second floor in your new house. Well, we can do that, of course, but I do feel obligated to warn you that stairs aren't harmless.

• Buckets


• Electric Blankets


• Fishing


• Crossing the Street


• A cookie."

---

In his piece, Guthier provides links to articles showing how all these things (with the exception of tobacco and alcohol, which need no elaboration) have the potential to be harmful.

Then he concludes with this: "When prohibitionists play the 'harmless' game, they're trying to distract people from the real argument — the harmfulness of prohibition."

And marijuana prohibition has already led to plenty of harm — a thriving black market, criminal records for otherwise law–abiding citizens, the loss of billions of dollars in annual tax revenue.

Actually, what we need to do is replace current drug policy with the common–sense approach that has been working with tobacco.

"[O]ur public health campaign around cigarettes has been a model of success compared with our results with other prohibited drugs," Newman writes. "Although we should celebrate our success and continue to encourage people to cut back or give up smoking, let's not get carried away and think that prohibition would eliminate smoking.

"We need to realize that drugs, from cigarettes to marijuana to alcohol, will always be consumed, whether they are legal or illegal. Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal — and keeping them illegal — will only bring additional death and suffering."

Amen.

Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

The recent announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's intention to retire has presented Barack Obama with his first opportunity to make an impression on the courts and the interpretation of the law that will last beyond the life of his presidency.

Realistically, of course, the number of vacancies that Obama may be called upon to fill, even if his presidency is only one four–year term, could be unlimited. William Howard Taft nominated six Supreme Court justices in his single term, and the ages of the current justices imply the possibility of retirement or death for more than one before the next presidential election.

More than half of the justices are 70 or older. John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford, is 89 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Clinton, is 76 and has had bouts with cancer in the last decade. Antonin Scalia, who is 73, and Anthony Kennedy, who is 72, were appointed by President Reagan. And Stephen Breyer, who is 70, was appointed by President Clinton.

Thus, while he is compiling his list of prospects from which will come his choice to replace Souter, Obama would be wise to keep an eye to the future.

Last night, while I was watching CNN, political analyst Bill Schneider was discussing survey results that indicated that less than half of respondents felt that it was important for the next member of the Supreme Court to be female, Hispanic or black. I think that is good because it indicates a de–emphasis on the symbolic and superficial aspects of the appointment.

Would it be a good thing to have another woman or another black — or the first Hispanic — on the Court? Certainly. But, as George W. Bush learned to his chagrin, gender (or ethnicity) cannot be the sole benchmark for choosing a nominee.

That was reaffirmed by the results of the survey. As Schneider told the viewing audience, nearly 90% of the respondents felt it was important for the next justice to have judicial experience. That indicates that the public places a premium on practical considerations.

The Constitution established no qualifications for serving on the Supreme Court, which gave the president the authority to nominate anyone. But the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, which means a majority of senators must find the nominee suitable for the post.

Administration officials have told CNN.com that Obama may name his nominee late this month or early next month, before he leaves for Egypt. If that is true, chances are that he has already whittled his list down to a handful of names.

Considering the low approval ratings that Congress has received from the public in recent years, the Senate would be wise to apply the confirmation yardstick that is regarded as most important by most Americans. If Obama happens to select a woman or a black or an Hispanic, that's fine. But if that person doesn't have judicial experience, that nominee may be destined for the Harriet Miers Expressway.

David Strauss, one of Obama's law school colleagues, told James Warren of The Atlantic that he doesn't see Obama as having a "Supreme Court–centered agenda. He's not trying to move the Court in a dramatic new direction or to get the Court to make important changes in society."

There are still those, however, who hope to see a nominee who will promote a progressive agenda by upholding Roe v. Wade and supporting gay rights and affirmative action while opposing efforts to implement school prayer.

And, clearly, there is a growing movement favoring the reform of marijuana laws.

There is also a movement against judges legislating from the bench, but Obama could send a powerful message by appointing someone whose judicial decisions support progressive positions.

I was reading an intriguing article today written by Matt Welch for Reason.com. It contains a cautionary tale for Obama as he makes this important decision.

"When the generation of Americans under the age of 30 gets around to realizing that this handsome young president might not be nearly as cool as they'd hoped," he writes, "it won't be hard to affix a date on when the milk began to sour. It was March 26, 2009, when Barack Obama conducted a live town hall press conference featuring questions submitted online."

During the online town hall, Obama referred to the fact that 3½ million people submitted questions to be asked, and one of the most popular questions had to do with legalizing marijuana.

The question was posed as a way of improving the economy and creating jobs, both of which are high priorities for the Obama administration. But, in spite of ample evidence that billions in tax revenue from marijuana sales could be generated and millions of jobs could be created, Obama declined to address the question.

Of course, a discussion about legalization also could have put more attention on the other benefits that could be derived, such as re–focusing the billions that currently are being spent on the "war on drugs" — which in effect criminalizes millions of hard–working and otherwise law–abiding citizens — in more productive ways — for example, using that money to pursue violent criminals.

Obama's response (or lack of one) didn't go over well with many of the younger, more socially enlightened voters who turned out to vote for him in November. He didn't seem to realize that many of those who voted for him did not do so simply because (a) he wasn't a Republican and (b) his last name wasn't Bush or Clinton. They did so because they sought a more enlightened leader than they had had in the previous eight years.

"There's little doubt about the broad mores of Generation Obama," writes Welch, "pro–choice, pro–gay, and pro–legalization. Obama's got the first one covered, but his youngest supporters are finding out quickly that on the latter two the president is not offering substantive 'change' from the last few administrations."

Nominating a judge who has been lenient about gay rights and medical marijuana and favors a more progressive federal stance on marijuana use in general would go a long way toward reassuring increasingly disenchanted Obama supporters.

Scare Tactics Revisited

CNN.com posted an interesting article yesterday. Frankly, I find it baffling.

The article, written by Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers, reports that "[t]he average potency of marijuana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time."

Sounds scary. But what exactly does that mean? Meserve and Ahlers quote "officials" as telling them that "[t]he stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations."

These "officials" tell Meserve and Ahlers that "[i]ncreasing potency is leading to higher admissions to emergency rooms and drug treatment programs." To bolster the fear factor, words like "risk" are tossed around, almost casually. But risk of what?

The dots aren't connected for the reader, but a paragraph implies that the "opposite effect" means that users may suffer from "dysphoria, paranoia, irritability and other negative effects."

Let's examine these, one at a time, shall we?

• "Dysphoria" — Raise your hand if you were familiar with this term before. I wasn't. I had to look it up.
  
  I gather that it is supposed to sound sinister, a condition that no one wants because it will make you do all sorts of antisocial things.
  
  But my dictionary — the Random House Dictionary — defines dysphoria as "a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting." Basically, it is the opposite of euphoria, which is the state of mind that is said to be appealing to marijuana users.
  
  Hmmm. It seems to me that, based on that definition, smoking cessation can cause dysphoria. So can giving up coffee. I have friends who have done both, and they were cranky, fidgety, irritable, restless. They didn't feel satisfied. They certainly weren't euphoric. That didn't mean they were going to commit horrific crimes. And it didn't mean they were schizophrenic.
  
  As for anxiety, well, people are anxious for a lot of reasons. People are anxious before surgery. Speaking of which, I have a close friend who lives about 600 miles away from me. He will have triple bypass surgery on Monday. I expect to be anxious until I hear from someone that everything went well. That's the only thing that will relieve my anxiety on that day.
  
  Dysphoria also has been linked with hypoglycemia, which occurs when a person's blood sugar level is below where it should be. Do you suppose that's why someone who smokes pot gets the "munchies" and may be prone to eat cookies and cupcakes? Is it a subconscious attempt to get his/her blood sugar level back in balance?
  
  Is that similar to the "Twinkie defense" that was used to persuade a jury to convict former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White of manslaughter instead of murder for killing George Moscone and Harvey Milk? I don't recall White's lawyer claiming his client had been smoking pot prior to killing those two men, prompting him to consume sugary junk food — but that was in San Francisco, after all.
• "Paranoia" — the Random House Dictionary defines paranoia as
  1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self–defense or as a mission.
  2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
  In other words, "madness." Ooooh, another scary term. Sort of reminds you of "Reefer Madness," the campy 1936 film that presented a fictional tale about high school students who tried marijuana and immediately went on to commit murder, rape, suicide, etc. I guess "Reefer Paranoia" wasn't a marketable name. I went to high school in the 1970s, when marijuana use was commonplace. It was understood that paranoia was, at times, a side effect of marijuana use, but not in all instances. And marijuana certainly isn't the only cause of paranoia. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon was often described as paranoid, even by some of his supporters and staffers. No one ever suggested that he'd been smoking dope. As far as I could tell, he was paranoid on his own.
• "Irritability" certainly isn't pleasant — but neither is it a life–threatening condition or necessarily the cause of criminal behavior.
  
  People can be irritable when they are tired. They can be irritable when they are hungry or constipated. They can be irritable when they are under stress — and, these days, that means that millions of unemployed people are at risk for irritability. I've known women who became irritable when they were having their monthly periods.
  
  People can be irritable for all sorts of reasons. I've known people who were irritable when they wore clothes made from certain fibers. I've known people who became irritable because of atmospheric conditions or because they ate foods that didn't agree with them.
  
  And, yes, substances can cause irritability — especially when one is going through the withdrawal associated with the cessation of substance intake. People who are giving up smoking can be irritable. So can alcoholics who are trying to go on the wagon.
  
  Irritability is not the exclusive domain of marijuana.

But it seems to me that, if the "officials" are really concerned about the potency of marijuana, they should legalize it and regulate it, labeling the potency for consumers. That's what they did with alcohol when they ended Prohibition. When organized crime was the source for alcohol, consumers didn't know what the potency level was. After Prohibition was repealed, alcohol potency was clearly labeled. Of course, once alcohol was legalized, crusaders needed something else — not unlike the right–wingers who needed someone to fear when the Soviet Union collapsed. As if on cue, along came "Reefer Madness," and the anti–marijuana hysteria began. Now, studies are showing that marijuana can be beneficial for people suffering from cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, all sorts of conditions. And I've written about a study that shows that marijuana can kill cancer cells. Combine that with polls showing that more Americans support legalization, and the zealots apparently feel the need for new ammunition in their war on drugs. The egg–in–the–frying–pan "this is your brain on drugs" tactic doesn't cut it anymore. The Reality–Based Community reports "the drug war is over." One can only hope.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

---

"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a–changin'."

Bob Dylan

---

If you follow current events, it's virtually impossible not to be aware of how the times are changing. But, in many respects, the changes that are occurring — or seem to be occurring — may be more in terms of attitudes than in actual policies.

Thus far, anyway.

One such change is making its presence felt in journalism. Daily newspapers, by and large, failed to anticipate the growing influence the internet would have and thus were unprepared when the recessionary times cut deeply into their advertising revenue.

Advertisers, understandably, want to invest in media where their appeals will be seen. When I was in journalism school, we were told, over and over, that we were writing with the intention of being read so we needed to tailor our writing in such a way that would grab the readers' attention and hold it. We were competing for the readers' time, we were told.

Well, there's also competition for advertising dollars, and a savvy advertiser will look for ways to get more bang for the buck. As a trained journalist, I have serious doubts that the internet can ever do the job of covering the news as efficiently as print journalists, but newspaper readership has been declining, and, from a business perspective, I don't blame advertisers for turning to the internet. To borrow a phrase from Willie Sutton, that's where the money is.

If newspapers are going to survive, they have to re–think their attitudes about the internet. They may be able to co–exist with the internet, but they will have to find a way to do so within an online culture that has grown accustomed to not having to pay for many services.

Striding confidently into the future cannot be done if one foot remains planted in the past.

Meanwhile, social policies are changing. In four states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont — same–sex marriages are legally recognized, giving same–sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

Well, actually, the law in Iowa will be effective in about three weeks, and the law in Vermont will be effective in September. And, at the moment, such a law in California is in flux. Same–sex marriage is being debated in Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.

And civil unions, which lack some of the legal benefits of marriage, are being considered in Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

---

---

Many religious groups are reacting negatively to this, but it's a wave that seems unstoppable and, in many ways, opposition to it seems legally unsupportable.

As it always seems to be, when the facts can't be used to bolster an argument, an appeal to fear is made.

For example, a parallel often has been drawn between same–sex marriage and interracial marriage. Opposing the former, it is said, is the same as opposing the latter a few decades ago. But opponents of same–sex marriage have claimed that the two are not the same, that interracial marriage still involves partners of opposite sexes and, thus, can promote procreation.

It's odd, to me, that procreation should be used in this way. Procreation was used for many years to resist interracial marriage. Racists waged blistering campaigns against unions that could result in the births of "mongrel" children. Now, hypothetical children are being used as weapons again. But it seems, to me, that opponents of same–sex marriage will be as unsuccessful as the foes of interracial marriage were.

By the way, out–of–wedlock births account for two–fifths of all births, according to the latest data.

And, in a society that frets more and more about promiscuity in adult relationships, how can anyone argue against people who want the legal right to make a public commitment?

Finally, there is the subject of marijuana legalization.

It's getting harder for critics of marijuana to use facts to support their case. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, a top biomedical journal that makes its research articles going back to 1924 freely available online, punctures holes in the notion that cannabis can cause cancer. In fact, according to JCI, it kills cancer cells.

Along with the studies showing that marijuana is beneficial to people with serious diseases, there is a growing chorus of commentators who argue that legalizing marijuana makes sense. Legalization would save billions in enforcement costs while providing billions in tax revenue. Casual users would no longer be ostracized, abusers would be treated, not jailed, and millions of jobs would be created.

And the black market that is the cause of the marijuana–related deaths would vanish.

The president resists the tide, however, perhaps insisting on clinging to the "Reefer Madness" myth — now more than seven decades old — as a way to connect with right–wing voters who oppose him on other issues.

But the times, they are a–changin', Mr. President. And if your time to you is worth savin', then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone.

For the times they are a–changin'.

A 'Modest Proposal'

Russ Smith writes, in SpliceToday.com, that the case for legalizing marijuana makes more sense today than ever.

With the recession getting worse by the day, it's a legitimate point to raise.

As Smith points out, the government, if it legalized marijuana, could "regulate the potency and purity," prohibit sales to anyone under 21, insist that "requisite health warnings would be prominently placed on each unit sold" and realize a significant windfall from the taxes on sales of the substance.

In the process, the black market would be virtually wiped out, and law enforcement could be much more efficient, focusing more of its attention on investigating and pursuing suspects in violent crimes. Last year, observes Smith, nearly 900,000 people were arrested for marijuana violations. Nearly 90% of them were "nabbed for 'personal use.'"

How many murderers or rapists slipped through law enforcement's fingers because the officers were too busy, as Smith puts it, needlessly disrupting lives?

"Violent crime ebbs and flows, often depending on locale, but someone please explain to me why people who favor smoking pot, which is arguably much less dangerous than excessive consumption of alcohol, are the prey of police officers across the country?" Smith writes.

"Maybe it’s a matter of low-hanging fruit, but the waste of time in arresting offenders, court appearances and in many instances, incarceration, is a crime in and of itself."

Even so, Smith acknowledges that legalization is unlikely.

"[T]he political bureaucracy ... would take years to implement such a dramatic change," he writes. "[A]ny economic windfall is in the future. Which is a shame, since given today’s perilous financial climate, a new infusion of cash, every single day, would help shorten a recession.

"Then again, if legislators acted now the benefits could be realized in time for the next, and inevitable, economic downturn."

Of course, there is an historical precedent for this. In the 1930s, less than a year after Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as president, the United States ended Prohibition. Organized crime lost its black market profits on alcohol while society gained jobs and tax revenue.

Smith says the legalization proposal is worth considering.

"[C]orrecting the travesty of arresting harmless and nonviolent citizens, plus the monetary gain, is extraordinarily compelling," he writes. "All that’s needed is a group of politicians with vision and guts to bring the issue to the forefront of debate in the United States."

Ginger or Mary Jane, er, Mary Ann?

Dawn Wells, the actress who played Mary Ann on the TV show Gilligan's Island (back when she was in her late 20s), got busted last October -- on her 69th birthday, as a matter of fact.

Wells, who now lives in Idaho, was pulled over by a Teton County sheriff's deputy, who reported finding unfinished joints in her vehicle and said in his report that he could "smell a strong odor of burning marijuana."

The case came to court recently, and Wells was sentenced to five days in jail, fined $410.50 and placed on probation -- after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.

Some members of the press (some of them are old enough that the old "Ginger or Mary Ann?" question is considered revealing of the preferences of men in their age range) are finding it difficult to believe that Wells could be guilty. She claims she isn't. She says the marijuana was left there by some hitchhikers she picked up.

Well, whatever the truth is, this isn't the first time Wells has been connected to something like this. Gilligan (Bob Denver) was arrested 10 years ago for having a parcel of marijuana delivered to his home. He originally said it came from Wells, but later refused to name her in court, blaming instead "some crazy fan." He pleaded no contest and received six months probation.

It would be nice if we could ask Denver a few questions, but we can't. He died in September 2005. Mary Ann, Ginger (Tina Louise) and the Professor (Russell Johnson) are the only surviving cast members.

Actually, it would be nice to know what the TV viewers who made Gilligan's Island a hit were smoking. It might exonerate Wells.

In the mid-1960s, America was beginning to get bogged down in Vietnam, yet, with all the men, materiel and money the government was committing to southeast Asia, there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of viewers who wasted money and time calling "the authorities" to demand that the military be dispatched to the uncharted desert island to rescue those seven American castaways.

And this was with the knowledge (apparently) that one of the seven was a professor who could make a radio out of a coconut but couldn't patch a hole on a boat.