It is in the politicians handbook.

It's a better tactic, to me, that to take a positive stance, only to turn your back, like Bush did with Rumsfeld, Browny, the Valerie Plame thing, and the Iraq war.

3/27/2009 12:37:09 PM

Quote :

"As we discussed last time this issue came up, it benefits the Obama admin to not be affirmative EITHER WAY on this issue. It almost indicates they DO in fact intend to address it more seriously when the time is right. If Obama gave a bunch of serious issues NOW, when this comes up again later, people are going to say "so what's changed now, huh? nothing! see, Obama just loves criminals!!""

I think you're really reaching on this one. For one, this is not the first time he has been asked - again, this was discussed at great length before. Obama gave a one-line response on change.gov; what amounted to a blanket dismissal.

I fail to see why denigrating proponents and giving blanket dismissals gives him any more strategic ambiguity than a well-reasoned response. I further fail to see any evidence presented that, given a more "politically opportune time" (which, suffice to say, is also "strategically undefined") why we should believe he would in any way change his position.

In other words, I don't see how one can jump to to the conclusion that he's simply avoiding painting himself into a corner when there's little to no evidence out there that he would ever advocate a different policy.

Instead, we don't even get treated to a serious discussion. Again, even the most bullshit Republican policies get better airing and discussion than this.

3/27/2009 12:48:27 PM

Seriously, are you guys high? Obama would be opening himself up to attacks the likes of which we haven't seen since the Lewinsky scandal if even suggested that decriminalization would be a good idea. Neither he, nor the country needs that kind of distraction right now. I'm sure he'll speak about it eventually, but now is just not the right time.

3/27/2009 1:25:23 PM

Just my 2 cents but I thought the Obama answer was complete bullshit.

I don't smoke pot or anything but the way he laughed it off, even given that some of the questions were silly, really said alot about his unwillingness to take on bold political territory like that simply because he knows that messing with it in 4 years will come back to haunt him.

It's politics, pure and simple....even if I think he houses the logic to understand the benefits of decriminalizing the shit to sweep our prisons or maybe even hemp as an agricultural resource.

3/27/2009 1:34:19 PM

Obama is on an international hot seat right now, and his political alignment is very sensitive to scrutiny. If you had a chance to catch the 60 minutes interview with Obama, you would have noticed that he laughed and smiled when the journalist questioned him on very serious matters:

Quote :

"President Barack Obama's interview on 60 Minutes last night was characterized by the president's bizarre behavior while discussing the trials and travails of the U.S. economy. The president routinely interrupted himself with chuckling and outright laughter while discussing the current state of the economy and the effects that the downturn have had on Wall Street. The president's demeanor in discussing the economy was so noticeably inappropriate that interviewer Steve Kroft confronted him about it, asking if Obama was, "punch drunk." (13:34) Obama explained his jokes at the economy's troubles as, "a little gallows humor to get you through the day." According to the transcript, there were laughs and chuckles from Obama on subjects ranging from whether or not Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner should resign, to an additional bailout for the U.S. auto industry, to the idea of fixing the banking system without taxpayer money. In all, CBS notes that the president laughed or chuckled thirteen different times during the interview. Some were innocent, such as when the president joked about the size of the swing set his daughters have on the White House grounds. But the others may be viewed as evidence of an inappropriately cavalier attitude in the midst of what President Obama calls, "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." "

I, for one, think you are over-analyzing this response to suit and justify your own personal beliefs. This gallows humor is a common practice for Obama right now and he has been criticized for it heavy.

3/27/2009 1:47:23 PM

Quote :

"Obama would be opening himself up to attacks the likes of which we haven't seen since the Lewinsky scandal if even suggested that decriminalization would be a good idea"

All of which I'm sure he's perfectly capable of cogently refuting. It's time people heard the truth.

Quote :

"It's politics, pure and simple...."

Yup. Same old thing. I thought Obama was going change that, though. I guess we can still have hope....

3/27/2009 1:47:54 PM

He's changed it in some regards, but you can't expect a land shift or close.

I was never 'duped' or somehow misled that he was going to change all this stuff about politics, give me a break. You can't be a politician without surviving on politics as they are. Little things over time can be accomplished with that though, I think we'll see that in areas with Obama.

But not with this pot issue, that's for fuckin sure.

3/27/2009 2:09:42 PM

I thought Obama's approach to the question was exactly what resonates with the average American. A more liberal or wordy approach would have been alienating to a lot of (dumb) people. He's gotta be stingy with his political capital right now.

3/27/2009 4:08:05 PM

I love it. Obama says "give me questions" and then ignores the questions given because he doesn't like them. CHANGE we can BELIEVE IN!

3/28/2009 3:16:27 PM

They bailed out the banks

Now bail out the common man

legalize

3/29/2009 6:36:09 PM

Think of all the jobs that would be created. Growers, Merchandisers, Sellers, Distributes, Advertisers, Researchers and Manufactures. Not to mention the pot paraphernalia business would get a nice bump too.

I realize that all these jobs already exist in the underground business currently, but if legalized it would grow to at least the size of Tobacco or Alcohol industries.

3/29/2009 10:01:58 PM

Quote :

" but if legalized it would grow to at least the size of Tobacco or Alcohol industries. "

Because that's exactly what the country needs.

3/30/2009 1:10:23 AM

decriminalizing is a necessity, but ^ that's exactly my argument against legalizing.

3/30/2009 2:47:55 PM

^
^^
Why would that necessarily be bad?

3/30/2009 3:16:44 PM

You'll have to start to monitor and regulate underage possession, and driving laws. As of now, there's no field device to test for marijuana intoxication for people who can't drive while high (and there ARE people out there like that). We still don't know what negative health effects, if any, could result from smoking marijuana, because no comprehensive studies have been done. I'd be very surprised if there isn't SOMETHING that would cause issues for health care policy regarding marijuana.

But, from what i've read, the mechanism of stimulation of the chemical pathways is worth studying, and this is research that's prohibited under current laws.

In any case, there's almost certainly going to be an instant "mothers against pot smoking" group, and there's going to be new studies about the dangers of second-hand pot smoke, particularly to kids. And there's going to be issues with how exactly to treat intoxicated drivers without a way to "prove" they're intoxicated (yet).

3/30/2009 3:27:44 PM

Quote :

"You'll have to start to monitor and regulate underage possession, and driving laws."

As opposed to the current resources devoted to prosecuting users and producers currently? As has been said many times, none of these changes comes in a vacuum.

Quote :

"As of now, there's no field device to test for marijuana intoxication for people who can't drive while high (and there ARE people out there like that)."

Field sobriety tests even for alcohol tests are notoriously subjective. BAC is the only "objective" measure, and even then, breathalyzers are, shall we say, less than a gold standard of accuracy. So the bar you're comparing to isn't all that high.

There are ways to test THC content of a person immediately - a blood draw. The same kind they can do if they haul you down to the station for drinking and driving.

3/30/2009 4:49:35 PM

Why would anyone want to get taxed even more?

3/30/2009 6:35:24 PM

people who dont want to use marijuana wouldnt be paying a tax for it

people who do would rather pay a tax than go to prison


[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2009 7:12:01 PM

^^^ I wasn't talking about a field sobriety test, i was talking about a HW device like a BAC meter.

Blood tests for marijuana have to be sent a lab don't they?

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2009 7:24:16 PM

Quote :

"Why would anyone want to get taxed even more?"

Really, with no black market overhead, it might be cheaper legal and taxed than illegal and not taxed.

Quote :

"Amsterdam Marijuana Prices: average price per gram, broadcasted by National Dutch VARA Radio by Koos Zwart updated 22/6/06 Edelweiss (Dutch) 10$ (8 euro) Punto Rojo (USA) 9.5$ (7.5 euro) Golden Acapulco 9.5$ (7.5 euro) Skunk (Dutch) 9$ (7 euro) Purple Haze (Dutch) 8$ (6 euro) "

http://www.webehigh.com/city/detail.php?CITYID=9

Illegal in the US - what, $10-$20 per gram depending on quality and location?

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2009 7:53:53 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't talking about a field sobriety test, i was talking about a HW device like a BAC meter."

Like I said, BAC meters - breathalyzers - are notorious for issues of calibration, etc. They may be enough for a cop to bring you into the station for a blood test, but the fact is, they are far from perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Test_assumptions

Quote :

"Blood alcohol tests assume the individual being tested is average in various ways. For example, on average the ratio of BAC to breath alcohol content (the partition ratio) is 2100 to 1. In other words, there are 2100 parts of alcohol in the blood for every part in the breath. However, the actual ratio in any given individual can vary from 1300:1 to 3100:1, or even more widely. This ratio varies not only from person to person, but within one person from moment to moment. Thus a person with a true blood alcohol level of .08 but a partition ratio of 1700:1 at the time of testing would have a .10 reading on a Breathalyzer calibrated for the average 2100:1 ratio."

In other words, given the very wide range of possible partition ratios, a BAC test can easily deliver a false positive.

Quote :

"Blood tests for marijuana have to be sent a lab don't they?"

Yes, but I doubt it's much more complex than the type of test they currently administer for alcohol upon a blood draw. Hospitals perform this kind of test all the time.

Meanwhile, blood tests are the de facto standard for a post-incident drug test in the workplace as it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tox_screen

Quote :

"It should be noted that in most areas, blood testing is the only legally defensible means for detecting drug use after an incident, although saliva testing is gaining acceptance. The sample should follow chain of custody requirements and should always be sent to a lab after collection. Positive on-site tests that may affect an employee's position or situation should always be followed up with a laboratory test before any action is taken against the employee. Laboratory tests (urine or blood) are the only legally recognized tests in most states as well as in most non-U.S. countries."

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 8:30 PM. Reason : BAC]

3/30/2009 8:27:21 PM

I just can't get over the fact the OP couldn't spell Obama properly.

3/31/2009 3:25:58 PM

Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html

4/3/2009 4:33:06 PM

^^ What's stranger is that it took 2 pages for someone to notice/say something.

^ Pretty good article. haha at the picture.

4/3/2009 10:02:30 PM