If Jenna Bush is a pothead, is it news?

[mc mark]

The media has been silent about the National Enquirer's recent allegation that the first daughter is a marijuana user. Is the press giving the drug war's commander in chief a break?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James Pinkerton

March 23, 2001 | Should Jenna Bush, the 19-year-old daughter of the president, be in jail? Or at least be arrested? That's a conclusion to be drawn from a recent report in the National Enquirer that asserts she smokes marijuana. After all, some 600,000 Americans are arrested every year for marijuana possession -- including about 13,000 teenage girls. Some would say, of course, that Jenna Bush shouldn't be hassled for allegedly smoking pot, but then maybe nobody else should either.

The charge that Jenna smokes marijuana is found in the Enquirer's March 20 issue; the tabloid quotes two unidentified fellow students, one of whom says, "Jenna came over one night and we all did some doobies together. I wouldn't say she's a major pothead but she likes to toke up when it's around." Can unnamed sources be trusted?
The answer to that question usually depends on the reputation of the publication.

Starting from a low base, the Enquirer's rep has been rising in recent years. It had so many scoops on the O.J. Simpson case that even the New York Times had to acknowledge its journalism; in the Ennis Cosby murder, the reward it offered broke the case. And just in the past few weeks, it scooped the establishment media on Jesse Jackson's "love child" and Hugh Rodham's receipt of $400,000 to influence his brother-in-law on presidential pardons.

One reason the Enquirer gets scoops like these is that it hunts for them, while other publications are leery of "scandal-mongering." But as media critic William Powers observed recently in the distinctly unsensationalistic National Journal, sometimes the real news is scandal: "Despite their well-known flaws, the tabs are now serious players because they know that great journalism isn't just about bloodless policy and issue debates. It's about ethical foibles and hypocrisies of the powerful."

Speaking of the powerful, George W. Bush, who refused to answer questions about his own drug use during the campaign, now finds himself as commander in chief of the worldwide drug war, being fought all over the Third World as well as on Mean Streets, USA. But if the Enquirer's pot-puffing allegation is to be believed, Bush's own daughter is nevertheless safe and sound, actively protected by the U.S. Secret Service -- this in the Lone Star State, where conviction on possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana leads to a jail sentence of up to 180 days.

The White House dismisses the Enquirer report as not being worthy of comment. Noelia Rodriguez, press secretary to the first lady, said only this much on the record: "Our position on the daughters is that they're private citizens."

Fair enough, although that position doesn't shield others from being hassled over their activities as private citizens. As the drug war escalates, Uncle Sam's reach extends further. In 1998, Congress amended the Higher Education Act in an effort to exclude students with past drug convictions from receiving financial aid. According to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, some 8,600 college kids have lost some or all of their benefits during the current school year after revealing a drug conviction on their application form. Another 278,000 refused to answer the question; Congress is poised to tighten restrictions further to de-fund those students, too.

In other words, between drug busts and aid cuts, young people and pot is a big story. So why has there been utter silence -- a database search finds not a single reference to the Enquirer story in the two weeks since its publication -- on the Jenna Bush allegation?

Three explanations present themselves. First, reporters have found no evidence to corroborate the Enquirer's allegation. Fred Zipp, managing editor of the Austin American-Statesman, said in an interview, "From time to time we have pursued tips about the behavior of the Bush daughters" -- that is, Jenna and her twin sister, Barbara -- "but we didn't find anything newsworthy."

A second possibility, of course, is that the major media aren't much interested in marijuana-crime stories. Why not? Maybe because reporters, who may have had countercultural-pharmaceutical-type experiences in their own pasts, tend to empathize with marijuana dabbling. And so journos might not think that dope smoking is a crime worth getting revved up about. According to a Pew Center poll released this week, 38 percent of Americans admit they've experimented with marijuana.
Extrapolated to the entire U.S. population, that's over 100 million experimenters. So maybe the media deserve credit for realizing that marijuana use is no big deal -- even when, allegedly, the "criminal" in question is a president's daughter.

A third possibility is that the non-tabloid pressies are simply afraid to follow the truth if they think it will lead them into trouble. Jane Hall, professor of journalism at the American University in Washington, observed in an interview, "It's not going to win reporters any points with the public to go after this story." But what about the law, which goes after plenty of pot users? Hall answered by noting the current split between popular culture and the legal culture: "The American public is forgiving; the penal system is not forgiving."

Needless to say, President Bush and the entire White House apparat would probably not feel forgiving toward the media entity that pursued a story about drug use in his family. That means no state dinner invitations for Enquirer editor Steve Coz. But it also might leave people wondering what revelations are being squelched by the reporters and editors who do show up at presidential fetes.

Who could blame Bush for feeling unforgiving and unfriendly toward those who would violate his family's privacy? But who could blame any other father for feeling similarly -- but perhaps unavailingly -- protective toward his own children as they are drug-busted?

This much is certain: The law is not nearly as forgiving to the nonwhite and the non-protected. According to the Sentencing Project, African-Americans account for 13 percent of the drug-using population, but a disproportionate 55 percent of those convicted of drug offenses.

Jenna Bush, of course, has been convicted of nothing. But the legal system her father now oversees looks increasingly guilty of discrimination against the weak and hypocrisy in favor of the strong.

And that should be a big story.

http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[Space Ghost]

Originally posted by mc mark: [i]The media has been silent about the National Enquirer's recent allegation that the first daughter is a marijuana user. Is the press giving the drug war's commander in chief a break?

Uhhh ... exactly when have the press listen to the National Enquirer? Or anyone else for that matter.

Now I wouldn't doubt that she uses Marijuana, but who is running the country? She is over 18 and she's an adult so she can pretty much do anything she wants w/out pappas Bush's permission, so I don't think this really involves him.
I guess she should be arrested just as much as everyone of you who has used Marijuana.



------------------
Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!

[Surfguy]

I figure most college students experiment with pot at one time or other. Considering what her father did, I would say this is not news. The stupid Enquirer has got nothing better to write on. If GW is your Dad, you would probably toke on a few, too.

Surf

------------------

[mc mark]

Let me just say right here that I was not making a comment one way or the other. I was just posting an article I found amusing.

Thats all, not trying to start another flame war.


------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[JuanValdez]

We should definitely have that pothead arrested and sent up the river. The National Enquirer has two unnamed sources who swear that she smoked pot with them! I suppose we'll need to give them immunity so they can testify without being afraid they'd get the chair.


Oh yeah, to answer your question: no, it's not news. I'd assume any and all Bush children use pot; same for Gore and Clinton and the rest of the decadent fat-cats.
------------------
RealGM
Gafford Art
Artisan Cakes

[This message has been edited by JuanValdez (edited April 03, 2001).]

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Surfguy: If GW is your Dad, you would probably toke on a few, too.

If GW was my Dad, I'd probably be mainlining the white powder by now to medicate my embarassment!



------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Achebe]

'mainlining'? Is that an 80s term Rocketman Tex?

------------------
(===)

[Rocket River]

Originally posted by Space Ghost: Uhhh ... exactly when have the press listen to the National Enquirer? Or anyone else for that matter. Now I wouldn't doubt that she uses Marijuana, but who is running the country? She is over 18 and she's an adult so she can pretty much do anything she wants w/out pappas Bush's permission, so I don't think this really involves him. I guess she should be arrested just as much as everyone of you who has used Marijuana.

It is only news to expose hypocracy
If her dad becomese mr ZERO TOLERANCE on drugs
and MJ smokers should be under jail
IF
he is also COVERING for her. . then it would
show a level of lack of integrity on his part

until G-Dub starts spouting such a HARDCORE
stance on the thing. . . .I don't see how
it would be relevent.

Rocket River


------------------

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Achebe: 'mainlining'? Is that an 80s term Rocketman Tex?

I believe it's a little older than that, whippersnapper!

------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Clutch]

So did she inhale?

------------------
NOTHING BUT .NET
CLUTCHCITY.NET

[mrpaige]

The problem is the hypocracy of the parent in question. How can a leader support such a tough, unforgiving law against those who smoke while knowing that his daughter may or may not have done it.

It's only hypocracy if President Bush wouldn't support the same punishment for his daughter should she be caught be the police as he would for any other person charged with the same crime. Since Jenna has yet to be caught by any law enforcement agency (as far as we know), we don't know whether the President would be against his daughter receiving the same punishment as anyone else convicted of the same offense.

------------------
Houston Sports Board

[Hydra]

How is a drug law unconstitutional?

------------------
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.

[Major]

I'd have to agree with mrpaige here. Unless there's an arrest (or a lack of an arrest because she is Bush's daughter), I don't think it's a story.

For example, rumors of Austin's favority bongboy sitting naked in his living room smoking is not a story -- his arrest, however, is.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Achebe]

mrpaige, where's this distinction between 'doing the crime' and 'getting caught for the crime' in the philosophy of the drug war?

Is the act wrong? Does the act merit a legal sentence?

If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot, and he honestly thinks that it is a crime that merits a sentence... then as the President of the United States... the Chief Executive Officer he has an obligation to have her arrested.

Since it is of course absurd for a father to have his daughter arrested (not rely on his daughter's arbitrary luck or discretion), then President Bush shouldn't be so hard on drug users. That is hypocritical.

BTW, if one of his new bills boosts the 'youthful indiscretion' limit to over 30, I take this all back.

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited April 03, 2001).]

[Major]

If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot

We don't know if this is the case, though.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[Band Geek Mobster]

Originally posted by Achebe: If President Bush knows that his daughter smokes pot, and he honestly thinks that it is a crime that merits a sentence... then as the President of the United States... the Chief Executive Officer he has an obligation to have her arrested.

I'm glad he doesn't do that. Imagine how scary that would be if he went around arresting people that he knew smoked pot.

So long Snoop Dogg.

------------------
Peter: Lawrence what would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'd tell you what I'd do man...2 chicks at the same time man.
Peter: That's it? If you had a million dollars you'd do 2 chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight, I always wanted to do that man.

[Turbo]

Amen, Brother SpaceCity!
Speak the truth!

-Turbo

[mrpaige]

Of course, you are assuming that he knows his daughter smokes pot. There's no evidence to support that contention. (There's no hard evidence to support the contention that she even does partake in the smoking of the weed).

Secondly, you're assuming that the President supports the idea of parents turning their children over to the police for drug violations. I've not heard the President make such a statement. If anything, I would venture to bet that the President would support the idea of intervention and counseling prior to an arrest. There's no way for us to know whether the President has done that or not.

You apparently want the President to tell the DEA (or FBI or local police) to set up surveillance on his daughter in order to catch her in possession of drugs. (Simply reporting to the police that his daughter may take drugs outside of his presence is not sufficient to warrant an arrest of the President's daughter or anyone else), and unless the President makes such an order, he's a hypocrite.

So because the President is unwilling to order the DEA, FBI or local police to stake out his daughter in order to catch her using drugs or in possession of drugs so she can be arrested, the country should then go easier on all the drug users who are arrested and convicted.

Or do you want the President to ignore the law and simply have his daughter arrested without any evidence at all? Personally, I would think that we'd all be against the President having people arrested and put on trial when there is absolutely no evidence. And I don't recall the President ever suggesting that people should be arrested and put on trial for drug crimes based solely on whether someone else thinks that person has done drugs at some point. I can't recall a single case ever where a person was arrested without any evidence at all.

So, President Bush is a hypocrite because his daughter gets the same treatment that everyone else does regarding drug crimes?

------------------
Houston Sports Board

[Achebe]

Sorry I went from the hypothetical "if" to the conclusory "therefore". I've been postponing the trip down to the coffee garden, sorry.

BTW, he's a hypocrite b/c he enforces a law that he didn't obey himself. He's also the Chief Executive Officer, and he hasn't executed anyone since he left Texas.

I still don't see where you're making the distinction between the intent of the law and the actual execution of the law. Are you privy to a legal intuition that I merely do not see here? It seems to me that if an act is against the law, someone has done a wrong whether or not they were caught by the police. I'm not too caught up into the other elements (parental disclosure, etc.) of your post. I merely think that it's silly that as a 28 year old the government wants to hold my hand when it comes to pot.

So because the President is unwilling to order the DEA, FBI or local police to stake out his daughter in order to catch her using drugs or in possession of drugs so she can be arrested, the country should then go easier on all the drug users who are arrested and convicted.

Kind of. The President should recognize that if his little Jenna is smoking pot then perhaps it's not that big of a deal. Through extending our moral umbrella we recognize that there are people that we care about that do things that aren't that big of a deal. In the legal sense, they're huge deals... and that dichotomy can only be bridged by the people in charge. If the people in charge don't extend the umbrella, then what are they suggesting is the single difference between the people that they care about and the other less fortunate people? Luck? Is our entire penal system based on luck? That's not too cool. Is it based on race? That's certainly worse. So again, if Bush supports a law to imprison drug users... and if his very own daughter is using, he should reexamine his stance. He's either a schmuck that would actually support the arrest of an 18 year old girl for smoking pot, or he would support favoritism, or he would want to disband the law (btw, the President just revoiced approval for the federal laws against marijuana just a few days ago).

------------------
(===)

[Major]

So again, if Bush supports a law to imprison drug users... and if his very own daughter is using, he should reexamine his stance.

You're again assuming that Bush would think his daughter should get a lighter penalty for it. What if he thinks Jenna should get the same punishment as everyone else?

If Jenna commits murder or arson or fraud, does Bush need to re-think his views on murder, arson, or fraud too?



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.