Obama is not in favor of legalization, but in these tough economic times, Presidents have to bite the bullet and pass legisilation to the left-hand side, for our children.

12/17/2008 11:43:59 AM

Quote :

"Besides, I don't recall there being great outrage over the Bush administration supporting the drug war"

President Bush is a social conservative--everybody knew he'd support the War On Drugs and had no expectation that he might govern otherwise.

12/18/2008 8:53:37 AM

^

12/18/2008 9:06:51 AM

I think all the reasoning behind this thread is jumping the gun. Obama isn't even in office yet.

However I did find this funny:

Quote :

"The fact he even has a website for people to question him is a 9000 degree change from the Bush years already"

9000/360 = 25. So you're saying he's exactly the same



(funny nerd moment)

12/18/2008 9:39:16 AM

....maybe he meant radians:

9000/2π = 1432.3944878270580219199538703526



[Edited on December 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM. Reason : π = pi]

12/18/2008 10:00:22 AM

This thread smells suspiciously like the rest of the threads that stink all over from hurt feelings following Barack Obama's election win.

The agony is fun to watch, and they'll try to salve the sting of the election in trying to belittle and magnifying the select (sheepish) Obama supporters that just fall in line instead of questioning his policy decisions. Before even taking office...

Honestly I didn't even know he had a position on Marijuana....nor did I care. But your zeal is amusing...you'd be better off having an honest discussion instead of turning the thread into some big trojan horse to spill out your bitterness and elitism. We have enough of those here already for god's sake.

12/18/2008 1:13:22 PM

obama has no plans, as far as i know, to make a stance on legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana .. im all for it, and would agree with him 100%


but its going to take a lot more than him, and a democratic congress to do this , it will be gradual ,, in most states, it is political suicide to stand up for decriminalizing marijuana

12/18/2008 1:23:04 PM

Quote :

"But your zeal is amusing...you'd be better off having an honest discussion instead of turning the thread into some big trojan horse to spill out your bitterness and elitism. We have enough of those here already for god's sake."

We're all stocked up on self-important bloviating, too, but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.

I, for one, simply find several things interesting.

1) That Obama can't even spare more than one sentence in reply - the issue is shot down quite bluntly, without even leaving wiggle room to say, "but we'll take a look at the larger issue in context. Nobody's expecting the guy to make a wholesale declaration to the end of the War on Drugs, but flatly refusing even to discuss the matter is telling. This issue, of course, is naturally ignored by Obama partisans, leading to...

2) That suddenly, issues like civil liberties and the War on Drugs, issues normally important to the demographic of people who comprise Obama's core supporters, are suddenly totally irrelevant.

3) As I had already pointed out, Obama largely dances around the civil liberties issue. While it may be easier to marginalize the reform of drug laws, civil liberties tends to be a more "mainstream" concern. One which ostensibly a Democratic candidate promising "change" would be willing to address.

But of course, the fault lies in he who points this inconvenient fact out, rather than say, the rabid hyper-partisans who can't fill the void left by Bush supporters fast enough.

12/18/2008 1:35:43 PM

I don't really think this matters that much. I can easily and safely obtain this substance without compromising my security or the security of those around me. The drug is safer than alcohol or tobacco, and the gateway drug theory behind the D.A.R.E. program has proven to be fundamentally incorrect. I, for one, have never tried any other illegal substance outside Marijuana. If Obama cannot push this legislation to decriminalize or legalize Marijuana, that has to do with his political will and the direction he is trying to take the country. The administration has much bigger fish to fry and this issue will resolve itself through social progression. I seriously doubt the core supporters of the Obama campaign care that much about pot legalization to be disenchanted with his vision, because the drug is fairly easy to obtain safely and only smugglers suffer the most severe types of punishment. The majority of Obama supporters care about healthcare, our international reputation, the war, the enviroment, and the future that our children will have in America. This is a gigantic side-note, which amounts to very little more than a social conservative talking point.

[Edited on December 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : -]

12/18/2008 2:21:31 PM

Quote :

"the gateway drug theory behind the D.A.R.E. program has proven to be fundamentally incorrect"

link? im curious.

12/18/2008 2:23:07 PM

Quote :

"I don't really think this matters that much. I can easily and safely obtain this substance without compromising my security or the security of those around me."

And people could buy alcohol safely [during Prohibition] without jeopardizing their own security or the security of those around them - in theory. Except for the whole part in both scenarios where the profits were funneled into criminal enterprises. Which, again, is due solely to a legal regime which criminalizes an activity which threatens no one.

Quote :

"The administration has much bigger fish to fry and this issue will resolve itself through social progression."

By how, exactly? Osmosis? Hope and Change doesn't seem to be terribly interested in pushing the issue - I seriously ask how you expect the problem to resolve itself otherwise.

Oh, right. It's just not that important. Squandering police resources and throwing folks in jail just doesn't really matter. I mean, given that we've solved all those other problems like violent crime, terrorism, and the like. And that we're currently in a time of boundless resources.

Quote :

"The majority of Obama supporters care about healthcare, our international reputation, the war, the enviroment, and the future that our children will have in America."

I notice "civil liberties" doesn't make your list, either. How telling that the people who hem and haw about these issues suddenly find them to be so low on the list of priorities once their preferred candidate is in office.

Quote :

"This is a gigantic side-note, which amounts to very little more than a social conservative talking point."

A gigantic side note with hefty social and economic costs. But hey, who's counting?

And social conservative talking point? Are you kidding me? Honestly.

[Edited on December 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM. Reason : Prohibition]

12/18/2008 2:33:50 PM

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html

Quote :

"Study say marijuana no gateway drug Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study. Moreover, the study’s findings call into question the long-held belief that has shaped prevention efforts and governmental policy for six decades and caused many a parent to panic upon discovering a bag of pot in their child’s bedroom. The Pitt researchers tracked 214 boys beginning at ages 10-12, all of whom eventually used either legal or illegal drugs. When the boys reached age 22, they were categorized into three groups: those who used only alcohol or tobacco, those who started with alcohol and tobacco and then used marijuana (gateway sequence) and those who used marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco (reverse sequence). Nearly a quarter of the study population who used both legal and illegal drugs at some point – 28 boys – exhibited the reverse pattern of using marijuana prior to alcohol or tobacco, and those individuals were no more likely to develop a substance use disorder than those who followed the traditional succession of alcohol and tobacco before illegal drugs, according to the study, which appears in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry. “The gateway progression may be the most common pattern, but it’s certainly not the only order of drug use,” said Ralph E. Tarter, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and lead author of the study. “In fact, the reverse pattern is just as accurate for predicting who might be at risk for developing a drug dependence disorder.” In addition to determining whether the gateway hypothesis was a better predictor of substance abuse than competing theories, the investigators sought to identify characteristics that distinguished users in the gateway sequence from those who took the reverse path. Out of the 35 variables they examined, only three emerged to be differentiating factors: Reverse pattern users were more likely to have lived in poor physical neighborhood environments, had more exposure to drugs in their neighborhoods and had less parental involvement as young children. Most importantly, a general inclination for deviance from sanctioned behaviors, which can become evident early in childhood, was strongly associated with all illicit drug use, whether it came in the gateway sequence, or the reverse. While the gateway theory posits that each type of drug is associated with certain specific risk factors that cause the use of subsequent drugs, such as cigarettes or alcohol leading to marijuana, this study’s findings indicate that environmental aspects have stronger influence on which type of substance is used. That is, if it’s easier for a teen to get his hands on marijuana than beer, then he’ll be more likely to smoke pot. This evidence supports what’s known as the common liability model, an emerging theory that states the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug but instead by the user’s individual tendencies and environmental circumstances. “The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs,” Dr. Tarter said. “To become more effective in our efforts to fight drug abuse, we should devote more attention to interventions that address these issues, particularly to parenting skills that shape the child’s behavior as well as peer and neighborhood environments.” Indeed, according to the study, interventions focusing on behavior modification may be more effective prevention tactics than current anti-drug initiatives. For example, providing guidance to parents – particularly those in high-risk neighborhoods – on how to boost their caregiving skills and foster bonding with their children, could have a measurable effect on a child’s likelihood to smoke marijuana. Also, early identification of children who exhibit antisocial tendencies could allow for interventions before drug use even begins. Although this research has significant implications for drug abuse prevention approaches, Dr. Tarter notes that the study has some limitations. First, as only male behaviors were studied, further investigation should explore if the results apply to women as well. Also, the examination of behaviors in phases beyond alcohol and marijuana consumption in the gateway series will be necessary. From University of Pittsburgh Medical Center "

Follow-up question asked of the scientific panel: "Is marijuana a "gateway" or "stepping stone" drug?"

Quote :

"Joycelyn Elders, MD, former US Surgeon General, stated in a Dec. 14, 2002 editorial published in The Globe and Mail: "Much of their [US drug-policy leaders] rhetoric about marijuana being a 'gateway drug' is simply wrong. After decades of looking, scientists still have no evidence that marijuana causes people to use harder drugs. If there is any true 'gateway drug,' it's tobacco.""

Quote :

"Pierre Claude Nolin, LLC, Senator and Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs in Canada, was quoted in the Edmonton Sun on Dec. 12, 2002: "It [marijuana] is not a gateway drug. There's nothing in the substance that leads to other drugs. The gateway is not the substance. It's the black market." "

Quote :

"Andrew Morral, PhD, Director of the Safety and Justice Program in Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment at the RAND Corporation, stated in a Dec. 2, 2002 press release discussing his study with the RAND Corporation published in the British journal Addiction in 2002: "We've shown that the marijuana gateway effect is not the best explanation for the link between marijuana use and the use of harder drugs. An alternative, simpler and more compelling explanation accounts for the pattern of drug use you see in this country, without resort to any gateway effects. While the gateway theory has enjoyed popular acceptance, scientists have always had their doubts. Our study shows that these doubts are justified... The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs. Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available." "

Quote :

"The Institute of Medicine published in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base": "In fact, most drug users do not begin their drug use with marijuana--they begin with alcohol and nicotine, usually when they are too young to do so legally... There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect.""

Quote :

"Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York, stated in his 1997 book Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts: "In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs. A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter. Nor will increases in marijuana use lead automatically to increases in the use of cocaine or heroin." "

Science often leans in the direction of progressive thinking and reason. Conservatives on the other hand, tend to lean heavily in the exact opposite direction.

I'd respond to some of your comments Steve, but I doubt it would do any good. Nothing can remedy your bitterness and contempt for my team, except maybe, a little Pot.

[Edited on December 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM. Reason : -]

12/18/2008 2:39:59 PM

thanks

12/18/2008 2:53:47 PM

Quote :

"I'd respond to some of your comments Steve, but I doubt it would do any good. Nothing can remedy your bitterness and contempt for my team, except maybe, a little Pot. "

Too bad it's going to stay illegal, huh?

12/18/2008 2:55:31 PM

I don't know. However, from a scientific standpoint, if Pot is to remain illegal... logically, Alcohol and Tobacco should follow suit immediately. Then again, our drug laws are not known for their inherent logic or scientific foundations. I believe that our society will accept the substance as a medicine, once they see the longitudal effects of the FDA drugs, which were barely tested in retrospect, begin to rear their ugly heads with massive death tolls. Regardless, I find this entire thread, a real good laugh. I appreciate it.

[Edited on December 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : -]

12/18/2008 3:06:34 PM

Quote :

"im all for it, and would agree with him 100% but its going to take a lot more than him, and a democratic congress to do this"

12/18/2008 3:17:46 PM

Hey Dipshit. yeah, you, "Dr. Steve"

Barack Obama has -- from Day 1 -- indicated that he is decidedly NOT in favor of Legalizing marijuana or any other controlled substance.

Barack Obama, throughout the primary and the campaign, stated that he will not support legalizing drugs. this information was featured on his campaign website with EVERY OTHER POLICY POSITION of his.

so you're coming on here bitching about this after the fact, just makes you look like a little bitch.

nobody cares if you smoke dope. more and more jurisdicitions are downgrading simple marijuana possession as being the least-important priority for local law enforcement to pursue.

its just not going to be legalized at the federal level. If this is your most fundamentally important issue, then i hope to fuck you voted for Nader, which you probably did, you goddamned stinking hippy communist faggot you.

12/18/2008 10:02:54 PM

Quote :

"its just not going to be legalized at the federal level. If this is your most fundamentally important issue, then i hope to fuck you voted for Nader, which you probably did, you goddamned stinking hippy communist faggot you."

Well now, isn't the pot calling the kettle black?

Isn't it past your bedtime, old man? Nobody cares about the derelict ravings of a burnt-out wanna-be whose chief means of argument is name-calling. That position has already been filled by hooksaw.

12/18/2008 10:57:24 PM

i see you're going to fixate on that, because you've got no capacity to respond to the substance of my argument which preceded the obligatory character attack

12/18/2008 11:02:03 PM

What substance? Was this before or after the rant? Or just the fact that you've ignored the whole argument the entire time - that certain issues like those in the original post matter until Team Blue takes charge.

Why don't you go cry about it a little more, has-been. Call me a few more names. Maybe it'll make up for what aging hipster douchebag everyone around here thinks you are.

And... go for it!

12/18/2008 11:03:34 PM

lol. whats your trip with age, dude? you're like fucking 30 years old your damn self.

is the fact that i'm a couple years older than you somehow legitimizing you as being the guy who is the old-guy-who-is-old-but-not-as-old-as-that-other-guy, guy?

i mean really. it seems like you've got an inferiority complex or something.

12/18/2008 11:07:14 PM

Haha, did I strike a nerve? Apparently you're a sensitive little bitch when someone turns your own methods on you, aren't you?

12/18/2008 11:09:27 PM

*puts butter on popcorn*

12/18/2008 11:11:20 PM

12/18/2008 11:25:23 PM

he smokin' a spliff?

12/18/2008 11:39:36 PM

Political capital is a scarce good that is subject to supply and demand like anything else.

Surely you aren't too childish to understand what that means???

12/19/2008 12:17:04 AM

Sure. Which is why we get not even an explanation on the position - just a slammed door.

And a dance around the civil liberties issue.

Because, as we see in this thread, issues like this are important... until Team Blue gets to power.

12/19/2008 12:21:27 AM

sorry, mate. nobody -- and I mean nobody of any credibility -- was talking about legalizing drugs. except, of course, when Obama said he was "against it" ... you know.... like, all along.

so i'm still wondering why you're crying about this of all issues. because smoking dope, or snorting coke or whatever, is not a "civil liberty"

you lose. you win nothing. good day sir.

12/19/2008 12:33:50 AM

nations will be at war and shit

and this guy still will be talking about legalizing dope

12/19/2008 12:34:00 AM

Quote :

"so i'm still wondering why you're crying about this of all issues. because smoking dope, or snorting coke or whatever, is not a "civil liberty""

Jesus tap-dancing christ. It's like basic reading comprehension escapes you.

When I mention shit like warrantless wiretapping, FISA, PATRIOT, etc. it's like it's not even there to you. Instead you draw the same idiotic conclusions like the above.

And again, this will be a fun thread to pull from the memory hole anytime one of you hypocrites decides to bitch about the War on Drugs ever again. Or civil liberties, for that matter.

Just. not. important.

12/19/2008 12:38:49 AM

Quote :

"it's like it's not even there to you"

i think he finally gets it

12/19/2008 12:40:06 AM

Dude, why the hell do you even post in here? It's not like you contribute, or anything.

12/19/2008 12:43:33 AM

apparently some door-to-door Obama canvasser came to Dr. Steve's house. Here's an unofficial transcript.

Quote :

" Obama Canvasser: Hi. Will you vote for Obama? Dr. Steve: I don't know. what's his position on weed? Obama Canvasser: ummm.... he likes it? Dr. Steve: Okay, sure I'll vote for him then. Obama Canvasser: Great! Will you contribute ten bucks? Dr. Steve: Only if I get a button. Obama Canvasser: I'm out of buttons. How about a bumper sticker? Dr. Steve: Okay. Obama Canvasser: Here's two. Dr. Steve: Thanks Man! .... [* six months pass *] ... Internet Dude : Hey, Obama, will you legalize marijuana? It will solve all our problems. Obama : [NO] Dr. Steve: "

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM. Reason : ]

12/19/2008 12:47:28 AM

Quote :

"It's like basic reading comprehension escapes you."

12/19/2008 12:49:49 AM

hes one of the 5% of americans that gives a shit about FISA

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : that guy if you will]

12/19/2008 12:52:00 AM

actually, I give a shit about FISA.

which, of course, has zero to do with legalizing marijuana.

12/19/2008 12:53:34 AM

I guess the last eight years were somewhat of a charade, then? Like I said - civil liberties and other assorted issues only matter when it's the other guys in power.

Quote :

"which, of course, has zero to do with legalizing marijuana."

I know, that conjunctive "and" is so difficult to master. Like, for instance, when civil liberties dodging was mentioned as an "AND" in the original post.

Gosh!

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : "When did they change the meaning of for to from?"]

12/19/2008 12:53:46 AM

Quote :

"because smoking dope, or snorting coke or whatever, is not a "civil liberty""

How is the prohibition of drug use not an infringement of civil liberties?

12/19/2008 12:59:22 AM

you know, if you want to talk about FISA or Patriot Act, ive got some issues with Obama regarding that.

but this thread is full of you whining like a little bitch about legalizing drugs.

sorry if nobody takes this thread very seriously.

12/19/2008 1:00:38 AM

Back to the same old sideshow when you don't have a point to make, aren't you?

Your act is old hat. Kind of like you.

12/19/2008 1:02:25 AM

naw, i didnt develop it at birth. so I'd say it's only about 30. like you.

12/19/2008 1:04:26 AM

Who knows, joe? Maybe one of these days the girls by the high school won't think you're just another creepy old man.

Keep hope alive!

12/19/2008 1:06:12 AM

hah.

see, if you even knew what the fuck you were talking about, you'd know i only hang out by the middle schools.

dumbass.

12/19/2008 1:12:00 AM

12/19/2008 1:12:38 AM

apparently joe is married or some shit...saw it in another thread and was kinda surprised

12/19/2008 1:15:34 AM

Quote :

"because smoking dope, or snorting coke or whatever, is not a "civil liberty""

joe_schmoe: Just what exactly do you think civil liberties are?
Do you think that governments get to decide what is and isn't a civil liberty?

Also, and feel free to ignore this, but.... Why are you such a douche? Is TWW the place where you release your "asshole energy"? You know, like some people do when waiting tables? Is your real life so bad that you have to post on here to annoy people, start arguments, and sling insults? Or do you think your bitter attacks and "sideshows" actually help anything? Perhaps you should make a new year's resolution to be nicer.

12/19/2008 7:41:59 AM

Quote :

"The second one? I'm disappointed, but not really surprised. What annoys me most is that it acts like the Bush administration is the only presidency to have tried curtailing civil liberties. Fucking partisan bullshit right there."

Abraham Lincoln
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Quote :

"Obama is not in favor of legalization, but in these tough economic times, Presidents have to bite the bullet and pass legisilation to the left-hand side, for our children."

keep dreaming

Quote :

"But researchers warn that even if THC lessens the effects of these cancer-causing ingredients, cannabis smoke remains carcinogenic."

better than tobacco yes, good for you, no.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/4/416

Quote :

"Cannabis, Inhibitory Neurons, and the Progressive Course of Schizophrenia"

personally, I don't care if they legalize it or not really. If they manage to keep it firmly controlled and turn a massive profit then sure, go for it, at least on a trial basis.

But to even think for a second that Obama will alter the status-quo on the substance is nothing more than a ludicrous fantasy

12/19/2008 9:43:41 AM

^

Quote :

"Obama is not in favor of legalization, but in these tough economic times, Presidents have to bite the bullet and pass legisilation to the left-hand side, for our children."

See the following link for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

12/19/2008 11:52:35 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps you should make a new year's resolution to be nicer."

aha. fuck you.

no, seriously. thanks for caring





[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2008 12:54:03 PM

My resolution will be to drop my socially accepted polite nature and bring the brutal pain of my yesteryear whenever I deem it necessary.

That, and I'm giving up diet soda.

12/19/2008 12:59:23 PM