Also worth pointing out that the last three US Presidents have admitted to recreational drug use. And all three have - with some variations - continued to enforce prohibition and dedicated vast resources to prosecuting drug offenses.
Which raises the question, do presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama ever sit there thinking, “Well, my life turned out reasonably well. I have a great family. Wonderful children. I’ve made a lot of money. I am/was President of the United States. For better or worse, I’ll be in a lot of history books. But you know what would have made my life waaaay better? A youthful drug arrest and conviction! Think of the awesome things I could have done if only the criminal justice system had set me on the right track when I was still an impressionable youngster…”
David Boaz has asked the same question less snarkily: “Do they think that they would have been better off if they had been arrested and incarcerated for their youthful drug use? Do they think the country would have been better off if they had been arrested and incarcerated? If not, how do they justify punishing others?”
From “the times they are a changin’” files …
Given all the recent controversial claims hurled at or fantasized about Barack Obama—that he’s a socialist, or wasn’t born in the US, or that he wants the federal government to kill your grandmother—it is perhaps worth a moment’s notice that neither his self-admitted youthful marijuana or cocaine use has been controversial in the least.
I’m not saying they should be. I’m just saying that it’s interesting that they haven’t been.
