[robertpaulsen]

No, it's not evident at all. It could have been the "unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics".

Without that "unusual infusion", you have a valid point.

[tacticalogic]

A bunch of Democrats voted against an anti-abortion candidate, but only because of Soros' money, and only because of the drug laws. Yep, that figures out right.

[William Terrell]

No, it's not evident at all. It could have been the "unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics". Without that "unusual infusion", you have a valid point.

But, all money could do is get a message farther and wider than ordinary, unless it be used to buy voters, which is hardly the case in this application.

Twenty years ago, not only would you not have seen politicians, judges, LEO's and well known conservatives speak about against the drug war in general, and the cannabis prohibition in particular, but you wouldn't have seen any anti drug war articles in papers, seen anti drug war comments on broadcast news or serious discussions against the drug war in any type of public forum.

Now, you have all of the above, and escalating. You are being sidelined by the vector, which vector is driven by the "people" whose supposed imprimatur on the drug war you use to justify that war.

Will you still justify the drug war when the actual majority turns against it?