Slog
News & ArtsMonday, December 12, 2011
2012 / Drugs Former Marijuana User Newt Gingrich Proposed the Death Penalty for Trafficking Marijuana in 1996
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Slog tipper Goldy yelled this tip across the office just now: Apparently, in 1996, Newt Gingrich proposed the death penalty for people importing drugs into the United States:
As Speaker of the House, Gingrich introduced the “Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.”...It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border. Defendants would have had a window of 18 months to file their one and only appeal...[Gingrich said,] “I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”
But that's not the kicker. The kicker is that Newt Gingrich has admitted to smoking marijuana in college. How does he justify cracking down on modern-day pot users when he was a big old pot smoker back in the day? His answer is about as hypocritical as you can get:
“See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral,” Gingrich reportedly told Wall Street Journal reporter Hilary Stout in 1996. “Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”
I would love to see Gingrich reinvestigate this issue, now that he's the frontrunning presidential candidate of his party. Hopefully some patriotic Iowan will launch the question at Gingrich at one of his rallies. I wonder whether this murderous stance on marijuana affects Gary Busey's emphatic Gingrich endorsement?
2
jesus paul. put it down for a while. maybe condense it to one gingrich post / day. he's an assbag. its like you make one stinky fart and ok, haha gross, but doing it over and over is too much.
3
Hahaha. What the hell. What a bold reversal of the standard argument that morality of x and y stays the same while the legality alone changes.
6
What's Obama's excuse for supporting the imprisonment of marijuana users? Oops, forgot, it doesn't matter. He's Obama.
7
@4 and 5--regarding both pot and adultery, the standard is the same:
It is moral when Newt does it, and immoral when he decides to no longer do it.
Newt is our savior. Our guiding light. Our moral compass. We can do whatever Newt does, when he does it, so long as we stop doing it the moment he stops!
Won't life be simple when we all have this one simple rule to follow!
It is moral when Newt does it, and immoral when he decides to no longer do it.
Newt is our savior. Our guiding light. Our moral compass. We can do whatever Newt does, when he does it, so long as we stop doing it the moment he stops!
Won't life be simple when we all have this one simple rule to follow!
9
Gingrich is above all an absolutist. Health care doesn't need to be reformed; it needs to be "fundamentally remade". The Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't complicated by Hamas missiles; the Palestinians "aren't people". We shouldn't negotiate with Iran, we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. It only makes sense that if you possess a small amount of pot you should be executed and lose your right of habeas corpus. Everything that's bad is BAD ALL THE WAY.
There's a reason the word he uses more than any other is "fundamentally".
There's a reason the word he uses more than any other is "fundamentally".
10
@6 nailed it. Everyone who harps about hypocrisy on this issue should consider whether they like voting for hypocrites, or whether they voted for one in 2008 and are planning to do so again.
In case that was too subtle: OBAMA SMOKED POT TOO. POT IS STILL ILLEGAL. PROBLEM, SLOG?
In case that was too subtle: OBAMA SMOKED POT TOO. POT IS STILL ILLEGAL. PROBLEM, SLOG?
11
Paul,
My preference would be for you to pile up a huge collection of posts like this one, and start doling them out twice a day _after_ Newt has sewn up the nomination. Right now, I worry the only effect promoting revelations like this will have is to tilt the nomination away from Newt, towards the less colorful and more electable Willard.
But I realize that compiling a collection of posts like that doesn't help pay your bills today...
My preference would be for you to pile up a huge collection of posts like this one, and start doling them out twice a day _after_ Newt has sewn up the nomination. Right now, I worry the only effect promoting revelations like this will have is to tilt the nomination away from Newt, towards the less colorful and more electable Willard.
But I realize that compiling a collection of posts like that doesn't help pay your bills today...
12
@6: well, his position isn't DEATH for trafficking weed. i don't like it, but his postion is upholding federal law, which is his job. if he doesn't enforce federal law against a schedule 1 narcotic, do you think that would be a campaign issue the GOP might use? change takes 2 terms over 8 years, and you're not going to get everything you want.
repeat: the perfect is the enemy of the good, the perfect is the enemy of the good, etc....
repeat: the perfect is the enemy of the good, the perfect is the enemy of the good, etc....
13
@10: please chart out your ideal path to legalization, and explain how Obama could have made that happen at any point in the last 2.75 years.
14
@12, suggesting that people who oppose Obama's actions on a variety of issues want a "perfect" candidate is as disingenuous as it is objectively false. There is a difference between desiring a "perfect" president and a president who isn't a lying hypocrite who is willing to destroy the lives of innocent people to score political points.
The "upholding federal law" is ridiculous on its face as he's been more than happy to violate the War Powers Act and make an about face on DOMA. There's nothing preventing him from saying, "I don't think a person should be imprisoned for using marijuana." Especially now that over half the U.S. supports that idea. Then again, well over half the U.S. wants us out of Afghanistan, as well.
And what is "good" about imprisoning people who use pot? Because it's better than killing people who smuggle pot? If the government imprisons one of your family members for doing something harmless like smoking pot, would your reaction be that it's a "good" thing because they're aren't executing that person? It makes no sense, outside of the nonsense that is politics.
And to suggest that a man who is willing to imprison and assassinate people without trials, a man who is prosecuting whistleblowers at unprecedented rates, a man who thinks that the regular, predictable killing of innocent, impoverished people overseas is good foreign policy, a man who opposes gay marriage and medical marijuana; to suggest that this man just needs 8 years, instead of two, to bring about positive change, is as reality-based as the idea that the world will end in one year.
The "upholding federal law" is ridiculous on its face as he's been more than happy to violate the War Powers Act and make an about face on DOMA. There's nothing preventing him from saying, "I don't think a person should be imprisoned for using marijuana." Especially now that over half the U.S. supports that idea. Then again, well over half the U.S. wants us out of Afghanistan, as well.
And what is "good" about imprisoning people who use pot? Because it's better than killing people who smuggle pot? If the government imprisons one of your family members for doing something harmless like smoking pot, would your reaction be that it's a "good" thing because they're aren't executing that person? It makes no sense, outside of the nonsense that is politics.
And to suggest that a man who is willing to imprison and assassinate people without trials, a man who is prosecuting whistleblowers at unprecedented rates, a man who thinks that the regular, predictable killing of innocent, impoverished people overseas is good foreign policy, a man who opposes gay marriage and medical marijuana; to suggest that this man just needs 8 years, instead of two, to bring about positive change, is as reality-based as the idea that the world will end in one year.
15
@13, no one is suggesting that Obama could have made marijuana legal since his election. We're simply pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning one person for thinking people should be executed for smuggling a relatively harmless plant while supporting a person who thinks people should be imprisoned for using a relatively harmless plant.
16
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting again, LJM.
I didn't expect Obama to legalize pot in the first three years of his administration (that's what the next four years are for, I hope), but complaining about hypocrisy in Republicans on the pot issue is disingenuous and frustrating, because the pressure to end this disastrous and idiotic policy should be there regardless of who is in the White House.
It would be one thing if Obama were a "good" president on this, but he's just as bad as all the previous ones and it's compounded by - yes - his hypocrisy.
I didn't expect Obama to legalize pot in the first three years of his administration (that's what the next four years are for, I hope), but complaining about hypocrisy in Republicans on the pot issue is disingenuous and frustrating, because the pressure to end this disastrous and idiotic policy should be there regardless of who is in the White House.
It would be one thing if Obama were a "good" president on this, but he's just as bad as all the previous ones and it's compounded by - yes - his hypocrisy.
17
it doesn't matter what party they are, all politicians are pro-drug war & anti-people. it is a requirement to even be considered a viable candidate by either party.
18
All politicians except some brave local politicians who are supporting legalization. Get out there and support those people if you want to help change things.
19
@17 All politicians except RON PAUL, here is someone who comes around once a century... if we're lucky. Do your homework on him... I think you'll like what you find.
20
Yew! For a picture of hipster Newt Gingrich around the age he'd have been using marijuana, Google the words below:
Jermaine Gingrich vanity fair separated at birth
Jermaine Gingrich vanity fair separated at birth
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS