http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090326/pl_politico/20526;_ylt=AlTeK6oJ1eX_sylofv5KY0Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpY2k2NjI5BHBvcwMyNgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDcG90LXJlbGF0ZWRx

Thing is, hes probably gonna have to have a stance on this sooner or later.

3/26/2009 7:22:38 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=562089&page=1#12764184

Quote :

"Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), said in response: "Despite the president's flippant comments today, the grievous harms of marijuana prohibition are no laughing matter. Certainly, the 800,000 people arrested last year on marijuana charges find nothing funny about it, nor do the millions of Americans struggling in this sluggish economy. It would be an enormous economic stimulus if we stopped wasting so much money arresting and locking people up for nonviolent drug offenses and instead brought in new tax revenue from legal sales, just as we did when ended alcohol prohibition 75 years ago during the Great Depression.""

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 7:33:00 PM

I wonder if people legitimately voted up the pot question, or if some group organized a vote rocking.

3/26/2009 7:48:44 PM

This is not the first time marijuana-related questions have topped those being asked of Obama; the same was true when Obama first took office and had a Q&A, where pot-related questions were consistently up-rated.

/message_topic.aspx?topic=552430

Obama's response, if you recall, was a flat one-liner there as well. He will not even begin to take the issue seriously.

Awfully ironic, considering that I doubt Obama would consider his own life improved jail time for actions he openly admits to. Audacity of exceptionalism, anyone?

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : link]

3/26/2009 7:53:38 PM

It's WAY too early for Obama to be addressing Potheads, politically.

3/26/2009 7:59:10 PM

Quote :

"or if some group organized a vote rocking."

NORML did, I suspect others will follow. I certainly think the issue isn't going anywhere, and Obama better fucking realize it.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 7:59:54 PM

Quote :

"It's WAY too early for Obama to be addressing Potheads, politically."

So, what, having a coherent debate over policy with significant consequences for the legal system is simply beneath him now?

Or how about he simply explains to us why his life would have been so much richer getting thrown off student aid (and possibly in prison), the way he flippantly believes anyone so unlucky to actually get caught certainly does.

But, you're right. Forget about decent policy - it's just stupid stoners talking about legalization. Not former law enforcement officers, not former presidents (granted, of those peasant-ish South American countries, so they obviously don't count), not presidential panels, not Nobel prize-winning economists.

Nope, all a bunch of fucking potheads.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 8:05:54 PM

^

3/26/2009 8:10:40 PM

Quote :

"it's just stupid stoners talking about legalization"

3/26/2009 8:24:58 PM

^
Is that in or out of context?

3/26/2009 8:27:36 PM

Stoner extraordinaire.

And then we have, not dnl, moron extraordinaire.

Call me when you win a Nobel or something, dickhead.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM. Reason : Really.]

3/26/2009 8:31:08 PM

^ Did Friedman seriously get stoned? That'd be cool.

3/26/2009 8:34:21 PM

No, he was just an advocate of legalization far before it became fashionable. It was meant to point out the idiocy of the notion that everyone who advocates said policy must be some kind of pothead.

3/26/2009 8:35:10 PM

Yah, i knew he was advocate that's why I thought it was possibly true. Its too bad he never did get high. For some reason he would just seem 10x more hip to me.

3/26/2009 8:40:42 PM

I was thinking Obama would be a lot more open to discussion about pot.

I guess neither major party wants anything to do with that.

3/26/2009 10:35:50 PM

^ I think people were hoping for that, but to be fair to him, he has never given any indication that is something he wants to pursue.

especially not now. If and when he makes it to a 2nd term and the economy is under control, healthcare is improving, etc, then maybe it can be debated more seriously

3/26/2009 10:38:50 PM

dont you knuckleheads realize pot legalization is political suicide? if you want the liberal utopia to continue past 2010, you better hope Obama doesnt come out for it.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM. Reason : just to be clear I am not talking about legalization for medicinal purposes]

3/26/2009 10:50:43 PM

William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman. Utopian liberals both, obviously. And far better Republicans than ^.

3/26/2009 10:53:30 PM

just sayin. you dont think mary jane is a polarizing topic?

I hope he does. Id love to see the gaps in the majorities close/disappear.

3/26/2009 11:09:19 PM

^ right.
Obama wouldn't be doing himself any favors by taking up this issue now

3/26/2009 11:12:01 PM

^^ I don't think it's nearly as polarizing as it might have been 15 or 25 years ago, to say the least.

Look, do I think Obama is going to do anything about it? Hell no, namely because he's a craven political opportunist, and he's got an army of sycophants like agentlion to provide covering fire by telling us why this shouldn't be treated as politically "serious" at the moment. You know, despite a massive budget deficit and misappropriated law enforcement resources.

Hm, I wonder when the last time we encountered a situation like this was...

http://tinyurl.com/2eovoa

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason : link.]

3/26/2009 11:13:30 PM

I'm not too surprised he blew the issue off - like has been said, it's political suicide. But the chuckling and straight up "no" answer from such a supposedly smart guy was pretty annoying. Why did they think that a goofy "no" with no details was better than ignoring the issue?

3/27/2009 9:14:33 AM

Obama is still trying to solidify his economic validity with the nation and the world. Giving credibility to this idea would be the equivalent of throwing himself under the GOP bus. He cannot condone this right now. That does not mean that he will not seek Federal Decriminalization after the economy vindicates him as a responsible economic leader. Wrong place at the wrong time.

3/27/2009 10:33:38 AM

Quote :

"In this moment of national economic crisis, the top four questions under the heading of “Financial security” concerned marijuana; on the budget, people voted up questions about marijuana to positions 1-4; marijuana was in the first and third positions under “jobs”; people boosted a plug for legalizing marijuana to No. 2 under “health care reform.” And questions about decriminalizing pot occupied spots 1 and 2 under “green jobs and energy.” "

3/27/2009 10:42:52 AM

^ what's your point?

What do I take out of that? That people submitting and voting on these questions are more concerned about being able to buy pot at a corner store than tackling the major problems in the economy and country right now.
you're fooling yourself if you think those questions were voted up out of a sense of duty to help law enforcement or to save federal money fighting the "war on drugs". They were voted up because people want to smoke pot. And that's fine - i think they should be able to. But trying to spin this into a "we're really just trying to help the economy" light is disingenuous and bullshit.

3/27/2009 10:47:20 AM

Quote :

"But trying to spin this into a "we're really just trying to help the economy" light is disingenuous and bullshit."

While flacking for Obama under the guise of, "He can't treat this seriously right now!" and justifying a complete dismissal of the issue from mainstream public debate, despite the massive costs incurred, are of course signs of serious integrity.

Right.

3/27/2009 10:58:18 AM

Quote :

"That does not mean that he will not seek Federal Decriminalization after if the economy vindicates him as a responsible economic leader."

3/27/2009 11:05:17 AM

Quote :

"That does not mean that he will not seek Federal Decriminalization"

Let's be honest, yes?

3/27/2009 11:06:49 AM

Quote :

"Nope, all a bunch of fucking potheads."

That is the general perception, for various reasons, and Obama can't overcome that. It can't start with Obama.

The potheads that do dumb things are very visible while the successful potheads hide in the shadows.

Some other organization with some authority needs to address the issue first, then the president can address it without looking foolish.

The new thing about the feds laying off states with marijuana laws kind of paves the way for this somewhat, because it means someone in those states could take a serious attempt at research and not worry about federal agents smacking them down. Once there is some credible research out there on the issue (because there really isn't any now), then politicians can talk about it.

Quote :

"Why did they think that a goofy "no" with no details was better than ignoring the issue?"

Because if they don't say much now and brush it off, it gives them an opportunity at a later date to talk about it seriously without seeming like they were lying.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

3/27/2009 11:09:16 AM

Quote :

"what's your point?"

That marijuana legalization is not just about allowing pot heads to legally smoke, but rather a very serious issue affecting the economy, jobs, the environment, health care, and more. You sir, are a fucking idiot to assert that this is merely coming from a bunch of stoners. Get a fucking clue.

Quote :

"What do I take out of that?"

As I said, that marijuana legalization is not just about allowing pot heads to legally smoke, but rather a very serious issue affecting the economy, jobs, the environment, health care and more. And that anyone, such as yourself are fucking idiots to assert that this is merely coming from a bunch of stoners.

Quote :

"That people submitting and voting on these questions are more concerned about being able to buy pot at a corner store than tackling the major problems in the economy and country right now."

Good fucking god you are stupid. No. Legalization would, without a doubt, improve the economy. Right now, americans who buy weed are generally forced to funnel billions of dollars into the hands of violence mafia-like criminal gangs. Even the mexico situation would be improved by legalization. The prohibition of pot is a major problem in the economy and country. It is causing entire generations of people to lose respect for law and law enforcement. You and everyone else who thinks like you about this issue are total fucking idiots.

Quote :

"you're fooling yourself if you think those questions were voted up out of a sense of duty to help law enforcement or to save federal money fighting the "war on drugs"."

Absolutely not. You -- You are fooling yourself that this movement is just a bunch of stoners that want to get high. You have got to be trolling -- are you seriously this dumb?

Quote :

"They were voted up because people want to smoke pot. And that's fine - i think they should be able to."

No.
People merely wanting to smoke pot is a very small fraction of the reason behind the votes. In case you didn't know, the internet has a huge libertarian as well as socially liberal population. These questions and the votes clearly show that this issue is serious, and should not be laughed at dismissively.

Quote :

"But trying to spin this into a "we're really just trying to help the economy" light is disingenuous and bullshit"

No.
Everything, however, in your last post is disingenuous and bullshit. Seriously. STFU and get a clue.
(This is where you call me a pothead to "help" your case.... )

3/27/2009 11:09:19 AM

It IS bullshit to spin this as something to help the economy. That would be a minimal effect at best, and the other effects are unclear. You're naive if you think anyone knows the exact effects of decriminalizing marijuana.

3/27/2009 11:13:24 AM

Granted, nobody knows the exact effects, but that's the same with virtually any new law/regulation.

and there have been several economists recently saying that it would be beneficial from an economic standpoint.

3/27/2009 11:20:55 AM

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : epic double post ]

3/27/2009 11:20:55 AM

Quote :

"Let's be honest, yes?"

What is your point? Obama either will, or will not attempt to get Marijuana Decriminalized on the Federal level. Time will tell. I believe, based on his past assertions and the state of California, that there is a strong chance that this will occur during his Administration.

3/27/2009 11:25:36 AM

^ Look, the guy treats even a serious answer to the matter as something beneath contempt - proponents are to be laughed at and dismissed, not even seriously addressed and rebutted.

And anyone is to believe this guy is going to do anything significant on the matter, much less put his neck on the line?

Okay - got a bridge to sell you in the meantime.

3/27/2009 11:29:05 AM

Quote :

"and there have been several economists recently saying that it would be beneficial from an economic standpoint."

From an economic standpoint, I don't see how it could hurt.

I'd be more concerned from a social and criminal aspect.

3/27/2009 11:33:42 AM

Quote :

"I'd be more concerned from a social and criminal aspect."

I'm not really sure how one gets a net negative out of this, particularly the latter aspect. You undercut a very large, and at times, violent black market. Fairly big positive. You also divert law enforcement resources - and court resources - away to more pressing criminal matters. Still seems like a big win.

On the "social" balance, the only potential negative is more widespread use. Which, for argument's sake, we'll chalk it up as a negative, although the significance of the actual harm remains to be debated.

Meanwhile, you have eliminated by the corrosive social effects caused by the black market, as well as damaging and ruining lives through the enforcement of these laws - jail time, student loans, etc.

Again, I fail to see how this produces a net negative.

Meanwhile, this is the same exact debate that went on during Prohibition's repeal. And guess what? We found that the social, economic, and legal consequences of Prohibition far outweighed the costs of alcohol. I don't hear too many people calling for a return of alcohol Prohibition, given its stunning success.

3/27/2009 11:39:43 AM

Quote :

"^ Look, the guy treats even a serious answer to the matter as something beneath contempt - proponents are to be laughed at and dismissed, not even seriously addressed and rebutted. And anyone is to believe this guy is going to do anything significant on the matter, much less put his neck on the line? Okay - got a bridge to sell you in the meantime."

I don't think you fully understand the clusterfuck the United States is about to enter. This issue is incredibily insignificant in the grande scheme of things. The President often uses gallows humor when discussing today's gloomy issues. This issue is not even remotely urgent or very important right now, which is why he reacted in the way that he did. I don't blame him on several levels, but that does not mean he lacks conviction in regards to this issue or that it will not be addressed later during his Administration's tenure. Read up on Obama's personal opinions in regards to Decriminalization and you will understand why I believe he may decriminalize marijuana, but not when he has the entire planet's problems sitting on a hot plate.

3/27/2009 11:42:45 AM

^ Where has Obama discussed his views on marijuana?

3/27/2009 11:46:05 AM

Quote :

"I don't think you fully understand the clusterfuck the United States is about to enter. This issue is incredibily insignificant in the grande scheme of things."

Funny story about that - I seem to recall this other time where we faced grave economic peril, and we had another set of, widely abused laws on the books. Hell, some chucklenuts named FDR got elected on a full-throated endorsement of the repeal of those silly laws - in part due to the fact that it was a waste of scarce resources in a time of grave economic hardship.

But, I guess FDR isn't considered a "serious" president by you folks, now is he?

3/27/2009 11:54:20 AM

jesus, you act like marijuana has been legal forever and it was just repealed a couple years ago

3/27/2009 11:56:01 AM

No, actually I act like you people will makes any excuse necessary for your man in charge; principles be damned. Which is a fairly accurate assessment.

3/27/2009 11:57:05 AM

it also doesn't have anywhere near the appeal of alcohol.

^ considering pretty much everyone in this thread supports decriminalizing marijuana, that statement makes no sense.

What YOU don't seem to understand is that politics is a process, and we're not at the right stage in the game for marijuana yet.

It makes absolutely no sense for Obama to put himself on the line on principle for a drug. It's a very easy concept to grasp.

It's like someone who goes in to a job interview wearing dreadlocks. Sure, on principle, you shouldn't have to compromise your sense of individuality, but then don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. If you want to get a job, cut your hair, then once you get the job and have proven yourself, do whatever you want.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2009 11:57:17 AM

Quote :

"considering pretty much everyone in this thread supports decriminalizing marijuana, that statement makes no sense."

It makes perfect sense to a person with an iota of reading comprehension skills.

The principle - support of repealing such laws - takes a back set to supporting a politician who laughs the issue off as unworthy of serious discussion.

Yes, stunningly difficult to understand.

Quote :

"What YOU don't seem to understand is that politics is a process, and we're not at the right stage in the game for marijuana yet. It makes absolutely no sense for Obama to put himself on the line on principle for a drug. It's a very easy concept to grasp."

Look, it's one thing for Obama to come out swinging in favor of such a proposal - and you will notice, should you actually say, read my comments, that I show no false belief as far as that goes.

What I don't seem to understand is why such policies don't even warrant serious discussion - that is, even a serious rebuttal of why we shouldn't. You don't support repealing these laws? Fine - then come out and say it, and discuss why in a serious fashion without ridiculing proponents.

No, seriously, agonizing over AIG executive bonuses is clearly more "serious" than laws that put thousands in jail and contribute to both violence and the corrosion of the legal system. Hyuk, yuk. Those silly potheads.

3/27/2009 12:07:52 PM

Quote :

"What I don't seem to understand is why such policies don't even warrant serious discussion - that is, even a serious rebuttal of why we shouldn't. You don't support repealing these laws? Fine - then come out and say it, and discuss why in a serious fashion without ridiculing proponents."

No one is saying they don't warrant serious discussion.

It doesn't warrant serious discussion, by the president, at this time.

It's not compromising of principles to acknowledge this.

3/27/2009 12:11:22 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't warrant serious discussion, by the president, at this time."

But agonizing over other petty minutae does, as long as it sells on the populist outrage front.

Get the hell out of here.

3/27/2009 12:13:53 PM

If you were the president now, with all your other goals in mind, would you risk your credibility by bringing up marijuana?

No, you wouldn't, because you are not an idiot.

If you are going to be pissed off on principle, you should be attacking Obama for talking about cutting spending, without actually discussing HOW he's going to cut spending. That is a bigger issue than the principle of standing up for pot smokers.

3/27/2009 12:18:24 PM

Quote :

"If you were the president now, with all your other goals in mind, would you risk your credibility by bringing up marijuana? No, you wouldn't, because you are not an idiot."

Once again; I maintain zero illusions about Obama coming out wildly in favor of any move toward legalization. Ever.

Which would indicate my irritation is not over this fact (although I find highly amusing just how much spin his supporters will put on the issue), but over the fact that if he's going to say "no" to the question, he can't even do with with a serious, reasoned answer. I don't know how many times I need to say this. If you're going to say "No, I don't think we should be doing this right now," then give a well-reasoned response instead of deriding those who advocate said policy as worthless.

Hell, even the most retarded Republican policies got a better airing than that.

And again, since I don't seem to be making this point clear enough - I'm not saying he has to come out advocating changing the law. What I am saying is that if he's going to address the issue, stop putting down proponents as unserious and pony up a serious rebuttal as to why we should not change the law.

Quote :

"If you are going to be pissed off on principle, you should be attacking Obama for talking about cutting spending, without actually discussing HOW he's going to cut spending. That is a bigger issue than the principle of standing up for pot smokers."

I really don't think you get it, actually. The fact that I already do criticize Obama on the first point notwithstanding, I'm not of some unreasonable belief that the man is suddenly going to pony up to his own hypocrisy and advocate legalization. This is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the way he treats the issue as completely beneath serious discussion (despite it being serious enough for folks a lot brighter than him), erstwhile being completely devoted to agonizing over what amounts to petty bullshit which happens to sell on the populist outrage front.

In other words, a serious discussion - an explanation of why his administration believes continuing the status quo is in order - is all that is being asked for right here. In other words, giving the question a serious hearing, even in the negative; a substantial reply as to why we should not do this, instead of simply marginalizing proponents.

Yes, I know, serious intellectual discussion is too much to ask for when there's petty bullshit out there to be outraged about.

3/27/2009 12:26:52 PM

^

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!!"

3/27/2009 12:31:58 PM

Quote :

"it benefits the Obama admin to not be affirmative EITHER WAY on this issue."

seems like that's how they treat every issue nowadays

3/27/2009 12:33:32 PM