How Harris Has Evolved on Marijuana
Photograph Source: California National Guard – CC BY 2.0
Like most Americans, Vice President Kamala Harris has evolved on marijuana.
In 2010, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris urged voters to reject a proposed ballot initiative to legalize the adult-use marijuana market. At the time, Harris’ position aligned with that of most California voters, 54 percent of whom ultimately decided against the measure.
But not long after, Harris — and most Americans — changed their stance.
In 2016, Californians reversed course and passed Proposition 64 legalizing marijuana statewide. And in 2019, Harris — then California’s junior U.S. senator — sponsored legislation to end the federal prohibition of cannabis. That same year, Gallup pollsters reported that some two-thirds of Americans believed that “the use of marijuana should be legal” — up from 46 percent in 2010.
Today, public support for legalization stands at 70 percent.
As vice president, Harris has repeatedly stated that Americans should not be incarcerated for marijuana use. She’s championed the Biden administration’s efforts to pardon low-level marijuana offenders and to loosen certain federal cannabis restrictions.
And as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, she’s the first major party candidate to have ever called for the plant’s legalization and regulation.
Harris’ trajectory from marijuana legalization skeptic to proponent mirrors that of many Americans. Like most voters, her views on cannabis softened following the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. As district attorney of San Francisco, Harris pledged not to prosecute people who either used or sold medical cannabis.
“In my own life, I have had loved ones and close friends who relied on medical marijuana to relieve their suffering and even prolong their lives,” she acknowledged. Many Americans had similar experiences — which is why nearly 20 states approved medical cannabis access between 1996 and 2011, almost all by voter initiative.
But it wasn’t until 2012 that voters gave the green light to outright legalization. That year, voters in Colorado and Washington became the first to approve measures regulating the adult-use cannabis market. By 2016, the total number of legal states had risen to nine.
Today, 24 states — home to more than half of the U.S. population — have legalized marijuana.
How has America reacted to this real-world experiment? For Harris, living in a legal state likely influenced her transition from a one-time critic into a staunch advocate. That’s been the case for many others too. In states like California and Colorado, a greater percentage of voters back legalization now than they did when the laws were initially enacted.
Further, no state has ever repealed its marijuana legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.
State-level legalization has led to a drastic reduction in low-level marijuana arrests and prosecutions. It’s significantly disruptedthe illicit marketplace, and it’s led to the creation of over 400,000 full-time jobs. Taxes from regulated cannabis sales have generated over $20 billion in state revenue. And contrary to some critics’ fears, marijuana legalization and regulation has not led to any increase in cannabis use by young people.
But while Americans’ attitudes have shifted over the years, federal marijuana policies have largely remained static.
In Congress, far too many politicians remain wed to the sort of “Reefer Madness” view that most voters have long since abandoned. Like Harris did, they also need to evolve their views on cannabis to more closely align with current scientific and public consensus. Those who refuse to adapt do so at their own political peril
Can Kamala Harris be a Truly Transformed Candidate and President?
The invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress for the fourth time is an irremovable stain on the United States as is the Biden/Bibi relationship. No matter what pressure his biggest benefactor puts on him, the Israeli Prime Minister will not change. The question today is whether or not Kamala Harris will change now that she has become the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer. Will Kamala Harris transform to be truly presidential?
All new presidents are transformed. The question is the depth of the transformation. Democrats are hoping for a transformation of Kamala Harris from an undistinguished, privileged California politician and Vice-President into a successful presidential candidate and distinguished Democratic president.
The coronation of Harris has been seamless. Whatever doubts Democratic leaders might have had about the process of choosing a candidate or Harris’s qualifications have disappeared. Even Barack and Michelle Obama, who originally held out in the interest of neutrality and an open convention, have come on board. In a twinkling of an eye, Harris has become the Chosen One, in a most miraculous manner with no obvious individual or divine interference.
The question about Harris is whether or not she will be transformed from a high-society West Coast favorite (much like the bicoastal Obama) into a presidential figure for all Americans. Given that she is opposing Donald Trump, the bar is not very high. But still, can someone with no particular outstanding political accomplishments or senatorial successes and a history of a most uninspiring run for president suddenly become presidential?
(A former San Francisco public defender when Harris was District Attorney said people who worked with her had the impression, uniformly that she was very ambitious, but likable. Nothing more. Nothing less. No one is surprised by her political ascension, he said.)
An historical, radical transformation might be helpful to answer the question about Harris’ potential. Biden’s withdrawal and Harris’ sudden star-like quality some four months before the election is not similar to Truman’s becoming president immediately on Roosevelt’s death. But the story of Harry S. Truman’s transformation, majestically told by David McCullough in Truman, is nonetheless informative.
In the best-selling biography, McCullough recounts how a “flat-eyeballs” boy raised in a small, segregated country town in Missouri, who considered himself “kind of a sissy,” unexpectedly became President Truman during a world war and helped decide the geographic borders of Europe. Whereas Truman has many detractors because of his ordering the use of nuclear weapons and his rapid recognition of Israel, the focus here is on his transformation.
An obvious comparison between Truman and Harris is how Truman made his senatorial reputation on the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program where he led revelations about military corruption and overruns and Harris’ work as attorney general prosecuting fossil fuel companies and banks. McCullough quotes columnist Drew Pearson on Truman’s role in the Senate: “Slightly built, bespectacled, a lover of Chopin and a shunner of the limelight, Truman is one of the last men in Congress who would be considered a hard-boiled prober.”
What about their roles as Vice-President? “The Vice-President simply presides over the Senate and sits around waiting for a funeral,” Truman is reported to have told a friend. Historians recount how Truman was not interested in being on the ticket with Roosevelt, and the byzantine goings on at the 1944 Democratic convention before Roosevelt finally chose Truman. When learning he was chosen, Truman’s first words were “Oh, shit!” On the convention floor, the junior senator from Missouri was nominated after several contentious convention votes. Unlike Biden’s choice of Harris, Truman didn’t check all the right boxes.
As for Vice-President Harris, conservative columnist Ross Douthat called her “a liberal answer to Dan Quayle.” Her vice-presidency has had no distinguished moments. Biden’s appointment of her as “border czar” was D.O.A. – dead on arrival Her spoken affirmation for abortion rights and healthcare-for-all led to no concrete results.
Unlike Harris’s consistent backing of Biden, Truman did differ with Roosevelt on certain issues. At the time Truman was more sensitive than Roosevelt to the plight of the Jews in Europe; “Merely talking about the Four Freedoms is not enough,” he told a packed Chicago Stadium on April 14, 1943. “This is the time for action. No one can any longer doubt the horrible intentions of the Nazi beasts…. This is not a Jewish problem, it is an American problem…” Despite varying opinions from his advisors, Truman was the first world leader to officially recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish state on May 14, 1948, only eleven minutes after its creation.
Harris’ husband is Jewish, but her comments to Netanyahu at their recent meeting – “I will not be silent” on Gaza suffering – also distances her from the president.
Both Truman and Harris dealt with presidents who were not well. Truman had to function with Roosevelt’s deteriorating health. Harris also dealt with a fading president, but she gave no indication of any concern. Truman and Harris remained fiercely loyal to the men who had selected them.
Truman was Vice-President for only 82 days, much less time than Harris who has been Vice-President since January 20, 2021. Truman met individually with the president only twice. He had inklings of a secret weapon being developed, but had no more specific information. He was purposely kept in the dark. The Vice-President did not accompany the seriously ailing Roosevelt to Yalta to discuss how to end the war.
What happened to Truman when Roosevelt died at on April 12, 1945, at 5:25 PM? Was there a transformation? Quickly, Truman went from the “flat-eyeballs,” “kind of a sissy” to be the President of the United States who would sit at Potsdam deciding on the borders of Europe with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. With little previous foreign affairs knowledge, he became the Cold Warrior of the Truman Doctrine – he sat on the stage when Churchill gave his March 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech in Missouri – and approved the dropping of two atomic bombs. Truman went from a rather lackluster politician to a statesperson involved in many of the 20th century’s major events including ending World War II and racially integrating the U.S. army.
Is Harris better prepared than Truman? She has had more time than Truman to see how the presidency works. Truman didn’t know Churchill or Stalin and had only a passing conviviality with the then Secretary of State. Harris has more experience, but her initial presidential run and comments about her managerial style are not convincing of presidential stature. However, she has been chosen; Kamalamania is similar to Obamamania. The threat of another Trump presidency and Biden’s weaknesses have energized millions. Donation money is pouring in.
General Patton wrote on Truman’s becoming president: “It seems very unfortunate that in order to secure political preference, people are made Vice-President who are never intended, neither by Party nor by the Lord to be Presidents.”
Transformations can happen, but miraculous transformations are outside political realities. Truman may have been hoping for miracles when he kissed the Bible after being sworn in as president. And in his first speech to Congress, Truman said: “I ask only to be a good and faithful servant of my Lord and my people.” After the speech, McCullough writes; “The applause, sudden and spontaneous, was such as few had ever heard in the chamber. Senators, members of Congress, old friends wanted him to succeed in a way they had never felt before.”
Now it’s time for Kamala Harris to step up in a very different context than Truman’s. But like with Truman, “Senators, members of Congress, old friends wanted him [her] to succeed in a way they had never felt before.” What her success will mean is still to be determined. But the buck now stops with her. She must transform herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment