Hillary Clinton has proved to be a deft politician when it comes to addressing the issues without really addressing them – doling out plenty of catchphrases for party loyalists but leaving the more rational among us wondering what she really thinks.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a particularly interesting one for Clinton, who said she was for it before she was against it. The TPP is a huge gift to the Wall St. corporations inhabiting her megadonor list, but very unpopular among a large swath of Democratic voters.
Clinton’s position on ending cannabis prohibition is also ambiguous, as she has publicly hinted that states should be allowed to legalize it, but told Wall St. corporations in her paid speeches that she is against pot legalization “in all senses of the word.”
Now, Marijuana.com has found another troubling facet to the campaign of deception being foisted upon Americans in this deplorable election cycle.
In the Podesta emails, a “briefing book” advises Clinton on how to answer potential debate questions about cannabis and criminal justice reform. Staffers instruct Clinton to ignore the fact that pot users make up a large percentage of the prison population, even though they are aware that this has needlessly wrecked the lives of so many.
The briefing states:
“While YOU should avoid saying marijuana accounts for a signification portion of the U.S. correctional population, or a significant portion of those behind bars for drug offenses, it IS correct that there are hundreds of thousands of arrests for marijuana crimes, and that there are thousands of people serving (some) time for marijuana crimes – many of whom would likely be better off in their communities.”
The cruelty of the War on Drugs, and especially cannabis prohibition, has become increasingly exposed over the last few years. The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous tragically absurd cases where the State targets innocent pot users, and the fact that someone is arrested for cannabis every 49 seconds in the U.S.
As we know, the drug war is largely responsible for the American problem of mass incarceration, which gained much attention in 2016 but is now lost in the vapidity of election year politics. The U.S. prison population has increased almost 790 percent since 1980, with the rate of arrests for drug possession almost tripling.
Why would Clinton’s team want to ignore the glaring significance of cannabis prohibition in mass incarceration – even though voters care about this issue and overwhelmingly want to end prohibition?
Recommended for You
Perhaps the fact that her husband, Bill Clinton, presided over a tremendous increase in federal and state prison populations has something to do with her uneasiness.
To be sure, prison populations began shooting up in the 1970s as the War on Drugs was revving up, and Ronald Reagan surely did his part in perpetuating that trend. However, the 1994 Crime Bill signed by Bill Clinton continued the injustice.
The infamous “three strikes” law was born, meaning that having two prior drug convictions could land someone in jail for life if they were convicted of a third violent felony. It also provided billions in funding for “drug courts” as well as tens of thousands of cops to enforce the drug war – which itself turned into an extortion racket known as “policing for profit.”
The 42nd U.S. President even acknowledged his mistake, saying “I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton said. “And I want to admit it.”
One of the worst offenses of this election campaign, and elections in general, is that substantive issues like “criminal justice reform” – or putting less people in cages for nonviolent, victimless behavior – are ignored in the cacophony of divisive, fear-based rhetoric and manufactured rage.
Some credit must be given, however, for another part of the leaked emails that shows Clinton actually supporting a critical issue in cannabis freedom – access to banking services by legitimate businesses.
“If pressed: what about marijuana banking restrictions – should we let marijuana businesses access banking services.
I do think these businesses – if they are operating in according with state law, and with federal guidelines – should be able to access banking services. I know that the Obama Administration has taken steps in this direction, and I think those steps are smart.
Not having access to banking services can force legal and licensed businesses to deal in cash, making their stores a target for theft. Cash-only operations also are more difficult to audit. I will continue to evaluate the steps the Administration had taken, to determine if we should go further.”
Although it’s heartening to see politicians are actually aware of the absurd banking prohibitions levied against cannabusinesses, why isn’t this issue actively spoken about? The campaign only frets about being “pressed” on the issue.
Billions of dollars in state-sanctioned business transactions are forced to be hauled around in cash form – creating needless danger and preventing free market opportunities – and there’s hardly a peep about it from politicians or mainstream media.
If Hillary Clinton really wanted to score some points with young voters, these are the kinds of things she would talk about. But the Rothschilds have far more sway in what makes it into the narrative.