He’s not good, but he’s better.
There’s a difference. Not as large a difference as I would like to see — I’d like to vote for a candidate who says flat-out that the embargo is both a crime and a blunder — but it’s in the expected (by me) direction. Obama wants to do some of the right things, and Clinton says that shows how naive he is. Neither is speaking openly about the legal and ethical issues raised by the entanglement of important Miami Cuban politicians and pressure groups (notably CANF) with international and domestic terrorism, but HRC hews firmly to the line preferred by the terrorists while Obama deviates from it.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman