Hillary Clinton recently chimed in on the issue of marijuana legalization, likely in response to Bernie Sanders’ stated position that he’d remove marijuana entirely from the federal government’s list of banned drugs. Hillary indicated that she’d favor reclassifying pot from its current status as a Schedule I narcotic to Schedule II. Understanding what this means involves either a bit of knowledge or a bit of research, and I’ll go over that in a moment. What’s more interesting to me is the political aspect and implication of this pronouncement from a voter’s perspective.
Lets say you’re listening to the radio on the way to work and heard this sound bite. Lets say you lean towards legalization, but don’t have a substantial body of knowledge as to the classification of narcotics at the federal level. What does Hillary’s statement imply to you? Perhaps, you might say:
“Schedule II doesn’t sound as ominous as Schedule I, so it would be a step in the right direction. I can support that.”
Or, lets say, you oppose legalization, and are uncomfortable with both the state-level legalization movements and Bernie Sanders’ position. What does Hillary’s statement imply to you? Perhaps, you might say:
“Hillary’s resisting the legalization push. I’m not thrilled that she’s thinking about changing, but this sounds like a compromise. I can support that.”
Hillary’s statement can thus play differently to different parties, parties who want to support her but who also have their own ideas about what policy should be. Consider a Mr. Potatohead doll. It is a hunk of plastic, in the shape of a potato, with a number of slots into which can be inserted a variety of different eyes, noses, mouths, ears and so forth. Those who play with it can customize it to their liking. So it goes with soft, triangulating policy pronouncements. A candidate who wants to chase votes does well by laying a framework upon which voters can project their own desires all the while avoiding making a bold and overt declaration of policy. This sort of triangulation also allows the press to spin a statement more easily. Consider the Huffington Post article wherein Hillary’s statement is reported, versus the Reason article that says her proposal falls short.
Back to Schedule I vs Schedule II.
Reason correctly (to the best of my quick research) notes that Schedule I and Schedule II drugs are considered to have the same potential for abuse and dependency, but Schedule II drugs are also considered to have medicinal uses, where as Schedule I are considered not to. HuffPo, on the other hand, incorrectly claims that the reclassification would indicate that marijuana is considered less dangerous. While the reclassification would permit, at the federal level, that which is permitted by some states, there are details that would make the move mostly trivial with regard to legalization.
Hillary’s triangulation allows sympathetic but undecided and wavering voters to attach their own conclusions to the plastic potato substrate, without providing much in the way of ammunition for those who would challenge her from the Left. Of course, the drug warriors on the Right can play with it as well, perhaps by declaring “Hillary says pot is as dangerous as meth and cocaine.” The latter two are Schedule II drugs. But, the drug warriors on the Right aren’t exactly votes “in play” for Hillary.
The Ms. Potatohead approach is great for someone whose primary desires are to win and then be free to act as she desires, but not so great for those of us who want representatives rather than overlords. We can only hope that enough voters figure the game out in order for demands that candidates actually take strong positions to be heeded.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters