Obama Vs. Bush On Cocaine Past: John Kerry Explains

But despite significant media attention this week, the only government official to touch upon the disconnect between the drug use of political leaders and the punitive drug policies that they often espouse was Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

On Monday, Kerry was asked by reporters to explain why he thought that questions surrounding George Bush regarding whether or not he had used cocaine were more substantively relevant than Gore's use of marijuana. Kerry, noting that Al Gore had already admitted his use of marijuana, said:

"(H)e (Gore) said 'I used it.' So that's not an issue... And I don't think Al Gore intends, you know, to make prior use an issue of other people, except to the degree that it affects public policy."

Pressed later on the question of the Bush cocaine rumors, Kerry laid out his thinking on why Bush's drug use, if substantiated, is indeed an important issue for voters to consider:

"The issue about George Bush is not the fact that he may have used it, said Kerry. "The issue about George Bush is, how can you, if you have (used cocaine), have a position that is so at odds in terms of being a governor where you send a lot of other people who may have done the same thing you do to jail. That's the issue. It's not a question of whether he used it or when he used it, it's a question of what his policy is today and whether that's hypocritical and dangerous."

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/123/gorequestions.shtml

On "Fox News Sunday," John Kerry claimed Gore was better than Bush because he admitted use, and better than Clinton because he didn't claim he only used it once and didn't inhale. Then he turned around and said Bush's rumored drug use should be the only issue since he supported tough drug laws.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2000/col20000203.asp

You have talked in the past of smoking pot when you returned from Vietnam. What do you think of the way the pot laws are prosecuted today?

We have never had a legitimate War on Drugs in the United States, ever, and we won't until we have treatment on demand for addiction and until you have full drug education in our schools. The mandatory-minimum-sentencing structure of our country is funneling people into jail who have no business being there.

And every year, the number of people arrested for marijuana offenses goes up.

I've met plenty of people in my lifetime who've used marijuana and who I would not qualify as serious addicts -- who use about the same amount as some people drink beer or wine or have a cocktail. I don't get too excited by any of that.

Would you favor decriminalization?

No, not quite. What we did in the prosecutor's office was have a sort of unspoken approach to marijuana that was almost effectively decriminalization. We just didn't bother with small-time use. It doesn't rise to the level of nuisance, even. And what we were after was people dealing with heroin and destroying lives, and people who were killing people. That's where you need to focus.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939886/john_kerrys_desperate_hours/

Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Coffee shops (allowed to sell soft drugs openly) are also illegal according to the statutes.

However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands