If you can call it that.
I assume that Radley Balko was being sarcastic when he wrote this:
I was so very excited about all that sensible drug policy we were going to get out of President Obama in his second term. I mean sure, Obama had spent a good deal of his first term waging more raids on medical marijuana clinics in four years than Bush had waged in eight. And his administration defended DEA agents who point guns at the heads of children during drug raids. And his appointees continued to defend the carnage in Mexico as merely the consequence of good, sensible drug policy.
Sure. There was all of that. But there were also all of these progressive pundits who kept telling drug war reformers that they should go ahead and vote for Obama anyway . . . because they just knew, or at least they were pretty sure, or at least they had heard rumors, that maybe, possibly, Obama would turn the corner and show some leadership.
Actually, yeah, Radley’s being sarcastic. I just wonder if he’s as openly contemptuous as I am at any voter who decided that pot policy was a wizzo reason to vote for Obama over Romney. Let me tell you a secret, folks: if Romney had been elected, he would have thrown up his hands at CO & WA’s pot laws and said I have other things to worry about. Which he would have had. Admittedly, so does Barack Obama: but since fixing the economy is clearly far beyond the current President’s competence level he’s going to make sure that Obama will stay involved in things that he can do. Such as, hassle pot smokers.
Welcome to the War On Some Drugs. And remember: if you voted for Barack Obama, this is what you were voting for – and you have no excuse for being surprised. We were not shy about pointing this particular bit of hypocrisy out before the election.