Staff Reports
Kamala Harris has a reputation that would make a weather vane blush. Her ability to shift positions on issues faster than a caffeinated squirrel dodging traffic has become a hallmark of her political career. Not even the charming consistency of Bill Clinton, with his finger-in-the-air approach, can compete with Harris’s dizzying leaps of logic. While Clinton managed a few bipartisan wins, including a welfare reform bill, Harris seems intent on making every issue a personal adventure with no clear destination.
Back during her 2019 run for the presidency, Harris proposed what could only be described as a head-scratching plan: legalizing marijuana while simultaneously suggesting that former drug dealers serve as the new ambassadors of the cannabis industry. She dared to pitch this idea to Stephen Colbert as if it were the most rational plan ever presented in a political debate. Perhaps she was counting on a sense of irony to keep her afloat, but America isn’t in the habit of handing over the keys to the henhouse to the very fox that once preyed on it.
Fox, Meet Henhouse: Kamala Wants to Legalize Weed, Put Convicted Dealers in Charge of Weed Shops https://t.co/Ca7l8AXLrX
— Carol RN *Miss Rush & the Gipper* 👩⚕️🇺🇸 🇮🇱🦈 (@pasqueflower19) September 24, 2024
In a revealing episode from her past, Harris faced scrutiny for exploiting prisoners as cheap labor while advocating for favorable conditions for weed dealers. During her tenure as the Attorney General of California, she had the gall to keep incarcerated non-violent offenders behind bars partially to maintain a workforce that the state could pay pennies on the dollar. In a twist worthy of a plot from a poorly conceived soap opera, this convenience conflicted with her grandstanding calls for compassion toward marijuana offenses. It seems the only thing more slippery than her stances is the Democratic Party’s sense of accountability.
When the L.A. Times reported the dismal wages that incarcerated individuals earned—between eight and thirty-seven cents an hour—it became painfully clear that Harris’s priorities didn’t align with her lofty rhetoric. While she touted reforms, her office fought to keep drug offenders under lock and key. It’s almost as if opportunity knocked, and Harris decided to usher it back out the door, opting instead for the comfort of a compliant and cheap labor force.
The hypocrisy reached new heights when she found herself under fire for her past statements about marijuana use. Critics had no problem pointing out the double standard: a political figure who once prosecuted thousands of marijuana-related cases now claiming she simply enjoyed a bit of weed in her youth. This led many to brand her disingenuous, and rightly so; her stances are so far apart that it’s a wonder she doesn’t pull a muscle while doing the political cha-cha.
This isn’t merely about the merits of marijuana—it’s about the glaring inconsistency in Harris’s political playbook. One minute, she’s advocating for dealers turned business owners, and the next, she’s justifying locking up individuals for the same offenses she now finds palatable. Her so-called “evolution” on the issue reeks of opportunism instead of genuine change. It’s yet another iteration in a long line of politicians more interested in adding to their political capital than adhering to any moral compass. Harris’s antics are a reminder that in the world of politics, philosophy often takes a backseat to personal gain, and voters have had their fill of that brand of leadership.
