[capitalcity]

I would argue an admission of drug use and/or the exposure of past drug use in 2005 is not the same sensational story it was a decade ago.

Remember how vile and disturbing the "drug epedemic" was in the mid-late 1980's. Illicit drugs were such a menance to our youth that we actually declared war on them. Scruff McGruff, D.A.R.E., Punky Brewster, etc. we all got the point. Drugs are bad, especially the gateway (to pringles) drugs like pot.

However 20 years later many politicians consider the US drug policy, especially in the case of marijuana, unsustainable, and in most cases not justifiable. We now have the push towards decriminalization, which is bolstered by numerous states instituting their own medical mary jane laws. Only the most ignorant public figures (John Ashcroft) are still lining up to demonize weed.

No matter how much money is spent, the propaganda machine is, more or less, ineffective. More people every day are realizing Marijuana is not a drug to be outlawed, but a substance to be subscribed.

Therefore in the year 2005...

Regardless of party affiliation, the Bush pot story is not as newsworthy as the Clinton pot story was. Not only because Clinton tried to spin his "drug use" with a pretty transparent rebuttle, but because the climate of drug awarness in American households was considerably different in 1992.