Strangeglove

I get that your party is built on Democratic defectors, but can you not actively harm liberal politics in America by pretending the Democrats are anywhere near as bad as the Republicans, or Hillary is anything close to as bad as Trump?

Hillary's senate record was more liberal than Obama's by DW-Nominate. Trump has advocated for Nuclear Proliferation. Hillary promised anti-Citizens United Judges more than a year ago. Trump has brought discrimination of immigrants on the basis of religion back into the mainstream, refused to reject the KKK for fear of upsetting his base, and repeatedly indulged in coded language to talk down to black people and women. Hillary has a 100% rating from NARAL, and the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. Trump just promised to appoint anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Clinton supports paid family leave, and is the strongest anti-NRA candidate left in the race. Trump has thrived on inciting violence and fear. He's also promised massive budget cuts for such conservative programs as the EPA and the Department of Education. His tax plans amount to an unheard of transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. He's only been able to thrive due to the media's refusal to rightly label him a racist demagogue.

Please don't indulge this xenaphobic sexist's double talk about the minimum wage and a more progressive tax system. If you're really interested in promoting liberal policy, please stop indulging in right wing attacks and false equivalencies.

How often do women (Or men, I suppose) profess to recognize you in public? Female porn stars have commented before that men recognized them with frequency.

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. It means a lot to myself, and I’m positive it means a lot to everyone on this site.

David Simon, creator of The Wire, has, despite his prominent opposition to the War on Drugs, repeatedly argued against the legalization of Marijuana. In his words,

When Simon brought that heresy to London last week… he was inevitably asked about what reformers celebrate as recent “successes” – votes in Colorado and Washington to legalise marijuana. “I’m against it,” Simon told his stunned audience at the Royal Institution on Thursday night. “The last thing I want to do is rationalise the easiest, the most benign end of this. The whole concept needs to be changed, the debate reframed. “I want the thing to fall as one complete edifice. If they manage to let a few white middle-class people off the hook, that’s very dangerous. If they can find a way for white kids in middle-class suburbia to get high without them going to jail,” he continued, “and getting them to think that what they do is a million miles away from black kids taking crack, that is what politicians would do.” If marijuana were exempted from the war on drugs, he insisted, “it’d be another 10 or 40 years of assigning people of colour to this dystopia.” - Link

Simon has compared legalizing pot to the end of the draft, in that both allow the privileged upper class to escape the costs of the destructive policies which they enact.

Was consideration given to a larger rejection of prohibition, and the broader system that empowers cartels, devastates the American black community, along with American cities and American law enforcement?

If Simon is correct, that legalizing marijuana will set back the cause of full legalization by 10 to 40 years, is it still worth it? Do you agree with his assessment?

Thank you again for taking the time to answer our questions, and my question in particular.

That ratio, three times more often, that holds true for every element of the War on Drugs, not just Marijuana. Racial biases are inherent in every facet of drug enforcement, especially in regards to mandatory minimums, and convictions after arrest. Why stop at Marijuana? Did the Editorial Board consider a wider endorsement of the legalization/decriminalization of all drugs, and if not, why?