Obama ignores marijuana question at YouTube event

[babsbunny]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/30/obama-ignores-marijuana-question-at-youtube-event/

By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 30, 2012 19:08 EST

President Barack Obama ignored a question about marijuana legalization during his “Your Interview With the President” event Monday, despite the fact that it was the most popular video question.

As part of the White House’s ongoing social media engagement initiatives, Americans were given the chance to submit questions to the president, which others could vote on. Obama answered some of the most popular questions during a virtual interview from the West Wing of the White House, but declined to respond to the most popular video.

That video was submitted by Stephen Downing, a board member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

[Enrique]

1. he made fun of the issue at a previous one

not so easy to make fun of this:

&feature=player_embedded

[EFerrari]

2. After Obama mocked the topic last time,

I have to wonder about both his advisors who keep setting up these fake town halls that only make him look bad and also about anyone who thought it would be different this time.

[JTFrog]

30. How does not answering one question = "setting up fake town halls"

That sounds like some CT talk to me.

[EOTE]

67. Town halls are about democracy, addressing the most important issues of a populace.

Time and time again, this has been one of the, if not the most important issue that these town halls have raised. "Fake" is the only word I can think of to apply when this administration is intentionally ignoring one of the most important issues simply for political expediency.

[11 Bravo]

95. If you think weed is the "most important issue" facing the country, well ...

smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[EOTE]

96. I never said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

But if you don't think that having the highest rate of incarceration of ANY modern country isn't one of the most important issues we're facing right now (and a huge number of those are for the completely victimless crime of possessing a bit of bud), then I want to smoke what you're smoking. It's a huge issue and Obama is being a fucking coward for ignoring it.

[TheWraith]

3. Would you rather get the blunt answer?

That there's no chance in hell of passing marijuana decriminalization through the current Congress, so you can stop pestering him about it?

[TheKentuckian]

7. The Executive Branch can reschedule but they aren't doing that either and the busts go on.

Punting only does so much good.

[TheWraith]

13. The President cannot rewrite federal law by executive fiat. nt

[RainDog]

21. Congress set up the DEA and the FDA to handle the drug schedules

Congress is not required to reschedule any drug.

[EFerrari]

8. That's not good enough.

Not to mention, pretending to invite people to raise their issues when you know you will not address them is not the fast track to increasing your popularity.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. 850,000 arrested in 2010 on marijuana charges, he needs to be 'pestered' on this.

[limpyhobbler]

12. "Stop pestering him about it?" That seems elitist and anti-democratic to me.

Anyways, you say why bother him, it would not get through Congress.

First of all, that is not a reason for people to remain silent on an issue.
Second, that is not a reason for the Prez. to remain silent on an issue.

And the truth is Prsident Obama does not support legal marijuana.

"The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," the president said. His answer prompted applause from the audience.

(White House press secretary Robert Gibbs later clarified Mr. Obama's position: "The president opposes the legalization of marijuana…he does not think that's the right plan for America." Pressed by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, Gibbs declined to discuss the president's position on medical marijuana.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4894639-503544.html

[TheWraith]

15. Beating him up on issues he can't change isn't "democratic," it's silly.

Harping on something that's not possible with the current Congress, and doesn't start with the POTUS anyway, is not a good way to get taken seriously.

[limpyhobbler]

18. What is "silly" is asking people to remain silent on this important issue.

Why does the president want marijuana to be illegal?

Nobody is bashing the president.

If he wants to take questions from the public, then he will hear about marijuana because it is one of the most important issues facing our nation.

If he chooses to ignore the question, that's his choice.

[Kurmudgeon]

60. What's silly is ignoring that with this hostile congresss NOTHING is going to happen on this.

But keep bashing the President and doing the GOP's work for them, Go on, that's really your whole point, right?
Re-elect Mr. Obama, give him a liberal Congress instead of the TeaBagger express that we got in 2010 and then complain if you don't see progress. All you're doing is playing right into Boehner and the GOP boys hands by bashing the President.

[limpyhobbler]

61. The Prez. has moral authority and the power to persuade. He should speak out for what is right.

But keep bashing the President and doing the GOP's work for them, Go on, that's really your whole point, right?

Why are you are accusing me of secretly trying to help republicans?
Why take my legitimate criticisms of President Obama and call it "Bashing"?

All you're doing is playing right into Boehner and the GOP boys hands by bashing the President.

You are playing right into the hands of the right wing by supporting their policies. Go on, that's really your whole point, right? Why do you and John Boehner keep attacking the poor with your failed useless war on marijuana? Why do you want to make criminals out of millions of innocent Americans?

[Kurmudgeon]

102. Just how much do you think the President can persuade Boehner, Cantor, and the GOP gang?

Oh please, I've NEVER supported right wing policies, but I can see that you are confused now, which explains your post.
I've also been pro-legalization all my voting life. But I at least know enough about government that blaming the president for a hostile congress that won't work with him is futile.
The president can't sign a bill that isn't presented to him. Get out and vote this fall, boot the GOP out of congress or at least reduce their numbers enough to make some actual progress, then see what happens.

[limpyhobbler]

103. The president himself does not support marijuana legalization. He agrees with Boehner. nt.

[EFerrari]

62. The invitation was not to discuss "things we can do with this Congress".

Take it up with the administration that set itself and its audience to fail.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. Everyone knows what you are...you can drop the pretense now

[JTFrog]

27. Don't be coy. What exactly are you saying? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

35. So, three out of six jurors think this was an OK statement to make.

I think it was an accusation and a personal insult, and not consistent with rules.

I'll be impressed if you get an answer.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Seems as though I don't need to answer anything.

It sounds like everything has been wrapped up nicely. I'll work hard to gain your jury vote next time around.

[JTFrog]

41. Why not just own your words and be explicit?

Or do you feel like you got away with something and are afraid to push your luck?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. Mostly because I'm not as stupid as you'd like for me to be

Sorry, but the finger-in-chest taunt-to-start-a-fight stuff didn't work on me in junior high, and it won't work now. Have a nice, weed-free day.

[JTFrog]

45. Interesting that you make baseless unwarranted accusations against a DUer and when you get

called on it you accuse someone else of being the bully.

Oh the irony.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. Enough with the harassment

Enough of the fucking drama. Do you even remember what it's like, out there in the non Internet forum world? Hint: it's not nearly so melodramatic. Look, I know you and the other guy are pissed that my post wasn't pulled by a jury I didn't know existed until your pal complained about its verdict. But that was hours ago, and life goes on, or at least it should. The whole business is tangential to the OP in any case. Not sure what you're talking about with me accusing someone of being a bully. I don't accuse bullies. I stomp on them.

[Bonobo]

56. Ha ha. Well done. nt

[JTFrog]

63. Once again, your projection is hilarious.

If the jury fails, it's on the rest of the community to take it to task. Next time I wouldn't expect the same results. Glad you know it's out there now.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

69. what the fuck, dude? issues?

This was already really old last night. You belabored the point after a jury apparently looked at what I said and thought it was ok. What I said was to someone else, who is perfectly capable of answering on his own. Still, you opted to answer for him. Then a jury I didn't know was convened to talk about the situation, and they said things were ok. But YOU JUST WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT IT NOW. Now the JURY HAS FAILED, according to you. Stop squirming so damned much. It's not that important, and you're starting to seem like some sort of stalker who is serially incapable of admitting being wrong, even for something so minor as this. Good fucking christ, have you started an unfairness thread in the meta forum? Do you think everything's going to be ok in the end? Is there something we can do to drop this now, or do you intend to go on and on and on about something you can't let go of?

[JTFrog]

74. If you keep replying, I'll probably keep answering.

It is a message board after all.

Of course this conversation would never have begun if you hadn't thrown out baseless accusations against other DUers. I don't know why folks expect others to just take it and SHUT THE FUCK UP. I don't think I will.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. haha. As my kids would say, derp.

I know you wanted very badly for me to be locked out of this thread. It didn't work out for you. You should have known that you'd run into more mellowness than you could handle when you come into a thread as an anti marijuana crusader. Relax, shruggy. It's going to be ok.

[JTFrog]

84. Whatever.

More baseless accusations. You don't have a clue about the people you keep putting down here.

[EOTE]

70. Is that the way it works in real life?

Mob justice? A jury didn't convict someone, let's round up the posse and git some rope! Christ, what you're doing is borderline stalking and really creepy.

[JTFrog]

73. Feel free to hit the alert button.

[EOTE]

79. No thanks, I'm not afraid of text like you are.

I also don't go all vigilante on people when I think their posts are out of line. I prefer rational discussion. But hey, that's just me.

[ellisonz]

88. +1000

[Wind Dancer]

90. Agreed!

[RainDog]

25. This is absolutely an issue that can be addressed outside of Congress

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Drug Schedules are part of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, that defines federal drug policy. There are five schedules, or classifications for drugs, to determine federal policy on those substances. Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I substance.

Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Other schedules and substances designated for various schedules are available here:

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

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/811b.html

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute provides this information about the way in which a rescheduling may be put in motion, in this case, by the Attorney General:

...Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General

(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.

...if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled , the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

[morningfog]

32. Beating him up?

Harping?

How would you suggest to get the POTUS to take it serious?

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Oh, bullshit.

Actually, there are plenty of people all over the spectrum who realize that the drug war is idiotic.

[Logical]

47. Beating him up? Asking him a question? LOL. Wow, sensitive!

[rapmanej]

55. He could at least show leadership

It's not about him changing the law, its about him showing leadership and taking charge on an issue, where the majority of the people already back him.

No one is pretending that the President can wave a magic wand to legalize marijuana, but Obama could at least state publicly that the drug war has been a failure.

[girl gone mad]

59. Leave Britney alone!!1!

[EOTE]

71. LOL. That's exactly what I'm hearing.

Some people have a huge issue that people are pissed with Obama for legitimate reasons. Telling us to shut up about it is about as stupid as one could get.

[ellisonz]

89. I've been trying to tell them that...

...they just don't want to listen. They think the way to win this election is to poke the hornets nest that is the Democratic base with a stick and then run like hell. The problem is that hornets are catching up to them and when they get stung they don't like it. My advice to them is to stop poking the hornets nest with a stick!

I say that as a huge Obama supporter. The way some people crap on people here is something I would never do in real life if I was trying to get them to vote Obama, it just doesn't work.

[EOTE]

91. Yeah "Your issues don't matter!" doesn't seem like the greatest campaign slogan.

And I'm tired of being told that the president is completely helpless to do something about it. When I hear that, I wonder what's the point of even voting if the president is so incapable. I know that he's not, it's just insulting to hear that.

I'll most likely be voting Obama come November, but mostly because the alternatives are so unthinkable. He might actually get some enthusiasm from me and people like me if he at least addressed these issues rather than ignoring them.

[ellisonz]

92. That's what I'm hearing from a lot of people...

...I think the President needs to really listen to average people rather than just his political advisers. People don't want to be bullshitted.

People like you are crucial to his re-election effort. If he loses 2 people like you for every 1 new voter he picks up, his margin is going to be a lot tighter than 2008. We should be looking at a landslide, and instead we're looking at eeking out a 2000 type victory. FDR was elected to 4 terms, 1964 was a landslide, Reagan cleaned our clocks in 1984. That's the type of victory we should be looking at, but it's not happening because the President is afraid to gamble on a couple issues. At the very least, we should be looking at Federal backing of medical marijuana right now. That would go a long way with many people. His political team is mismanaging this re-election campaign. If he loses, it ought to be Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and co. that are held to account. Enough with the DLC types.

[Bonobo]

14. That's not blunt. You want blunt? Here it is.

Obama does not have the courage to follow his convictions on issues that are not political winners.

He feels that politically (or is it financially front he standpoint of political donations?) there are more downsides than upsides to standing up for an issue that he believes in.

It has nothing to do with the Congress and everything to do with political cowardice.

[RZM]

53. Probably so

But that describes a lot of professional politicians. Probably an overwhelming number of them.

It's always a tricky balancing act. Obama pulls it off fairly well, but sometimes falls flat, i.e., that his position on gay marriage is 'evolving,' which is doublespeak for 'I'd favor it if there weren't any negative consequences, but there are, so I won't. In the meantime here's this vague statement.'

I wish he'd stand up for his principles more, but I wish that about many of the rest of them too.

[Bonobo]

54. I expected more from him AND from Clinton. You are SUPPOSED to hold your side

to a higher standard than you hold the other side.

Clinton and Obama both smoked weed. Especially, I think, Obama did. Along with coke. In fact, he probably smoked PLENTY of weed.

And yet, they are throwing more people in prison that the Repubs did.

THAT is beyond disappointing. It is, in fact, hypocritical and treacherous.

He is destroying hundreds of thousands of people's lives for political expediency.

I won't forgive that from MY side.

[ellisonz]

57. This Obama supporter says you're right.

I'm done apologizing for him where he's wrong. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Obama. I'm anti-chickenshit. Be bold Mr. President, your advisers are wrong

[CrispyQ]

86. ~lol

"That doesn't mean I'm anti-Obama. I'm anti-chickenshit."

That is both &

I'm going to remember it & use it if you don't mind.

[ellisonz]

87. Go right ahead.

Something has got to change at DU, because denying there aren't legitimate reasons for being upset with some of the decisions made or statements not made by the Obama administration at this point isn't doing anyone any favors. It's just breeding resentment...

[Logical]

46. Only you would think ignoring it is better.

[RZM]

52. Was that an unintentional pun?

Because I love those

[Romulox]

75. Congress has delegated the decision to the DEA already. The DEA reports to Obama.

Congress' action is not needed. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[limpyhobbler]

5. this is an outrage. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

6. There's nothing right about perpetuating the insane drug war, especially the war against marijuana.

As far as I'm concerned, not a single person should be in a US jail because of a marijuana conviction. What a tremendous waste of money and resources at a time when federal, state and local budget are under strain.

Obama should know better.

Madness.

[joshcryer]

10. Hey, it's Campaign 2008 Obama!

[T S Justly]

11. Thanks for the great response, Barack. Get use to being called Barack, again ...

You have provided the 51% of adult Americans, who support cannabis, a reason not to re-elect you.

[SunsetDreams]

39. oh yeah everyone is a single issue voter

"Give me marijuana right now or you lose my vote dammit"

[RainDog]

40. I'm so tired of these ignorant remarks regarding this issue

why don't you take the time to learn about the racism behind this issue? or the waste of money, or the prison industry that profits from putting people behind bars for nothing worse than drinking a glass of wine?

or, how about people who can SURVIVE cancer treatment b/c of medical cannabis but are denied the same in the state where they live?

or, how about the way the war on cannabis has murdered people b/c politicians are too scared of criticism to do the right thing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117065

[SunsetDreams]

43. Well...

I was responding to this..

"Thanks for the great response, Barack. Get use to being called Barack, again ...

You have provided the 51% of adult Americans, who support cannabis, a reason not to re-elect you."

I'm all for legalizing cannabis, I know full well the history behind it. I know that it would help with surviving the effects of Cancer treatment. My mom had Ovarian Cancer and my father had Colon Cancer. I know all too well the devastating effects of Chemo and the pain associated with Cancer. I also have seen the devastating effects with my patients, being a Nurse. What I will not do is take away my vote for President Obama because he hasn't been able to legalize it. There have been more two term Presidents and they didn't legalize cannabis either. To imply that he won't be re-elected because of it, is rather silly. To vote/not vote for someone because of a single issue is ludicrous. I don't like single issue voters.

[RainDog]

44. I don't think people who are for rational laws will refuse to vote for him

however, I do think that Obama could take steps to stop this worthless policy - and send a message - and that would be to get rid of Michele Leonhart at the DEA.

I recognize that Obama never said he supported legalization - but simply putting someone in place who will hold hearings to reschedule who also is not an idiot about this issue would send a good message.

I would like him to appoint a Republican who is in favor of ending the WoD to this position. Nixon to China and all that. Let the DEA handle the issue after someone is in charge who hasn't spent his or her life lying to her or himself about cannabis.

[SomethingFishy]

16. Not only are they not going to "discuss" legalization

if you read the NDAA you'd see that the "War On Drugs" is about to be ramped up. There were provisions in the NDAA for more cooperation between law enforcement agencies, DEA, COPS, FBI. For more involvement in the military in the WOD and, if you read the parts about combatting illegal drug imports from overseas, the new NDAA, with it's vague wording, pretty much gives the US carte blanche to do "whatever is needed" to combat the flow of Drugs into the US.

[RainDog]

22. do you have any links for this?

this would make a great post for the drug policy group.

[SomethingFishy]

49. It's in the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

That's the full bill, you'll have to scroll... a lot!

Start in Title 10 Subtitle B sections 1011-1015: "Counter Drug Activities"

Then Title 14 subtitle B section 1405: Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide

Title 15 Subtitle A Section 1508: Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities Overseas..


Theres more if you go through the table of contents but this will get you started..

[zappaman]

17. As one of the many millions who favors some kinds of legalization/decriminalization...

I will still vote for Obama.

[bluestate10]

20. There are bigger fish to be fried than legalization on weed.

Economic fairness is more important, reducing military spending and directing that money to the rebuilding of american is more important, renewable energy research is more important, solving the nation's immigration problems fairly is more important.

[young but wise]

24. +1

[RainDog]

26. all of those issues relate to this one

money that is wasted in the WoD could be used in other ways. Hemp as a biomass is important - it's the fastest growing biomass available and hemp seed has the best nutritional profile for efas, etc - it's a great food source for poor people and nations. End the WoD and end the violence in Mexico related to the same.

Economic fairness - well, putting people in jail - arresting more than 700,000 people a year - wasting time and money that could be spent on real criminals, like, oh, I dunno, on Wall Street, or just plain old murderers would be a better use of law enforcement.

this issue is not simply about prohibition in the way that alcohol was prohibited. However, ending prohibition was a HUGE boon to the economy when FDR launched the end of prohibition in the first weeks of his term in office. All sorts of people were put to work in a newly available economic niche.

I really don't believe that Obama is unable to do more than one thing at a time. This is just an issue that politicians, for the most part, don't want to address b/c politicians, for the most part, are reactionaries rather than leaders.

[slay]

29. Why is alcohol allowed to remain legal and kills millions every year - and weed kills nobody

if Obama can't get legalizing marijuana on his agenda - something many sick people NEED - and something everyone knows is a real injustice - then he should not run for president.

[demosincebirth]

33. Yep, that's just what he should get on his agenda during this election year. Why not add

gun control. too. Guns even kill people.

[RainDog]

36. Since medical mj has polled at 70% support for more than a decade

it's not exactly controversial to expect the Federal Govt. to stop lying about the medical value of cannabis since this has been demonstrated repeatedly.

[ellisonz]

58. Political cowardice has its price.

People stop believing that you're listening when you ignore them entirely instead of answering honestly, and the former can be just as dangerous as the latter. I've long been a big Obama supporter, but he needs to throw some bones to the base.

Obama blew a big chance to take some leadership on the gun control issue. The NRA is assembling a war-chest to attack him on the issue anyway. He has nothing to lose, and for the record, President Obama has taken a clear stance in favor of more gun control and Congress has ignored him and he has repeated his case:

President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1l1k8KNUL

You want to walk that one back?

[slay]

97. He doesn't really want my vote anyways

or anyone who supports marijuana legalization i guess then huh? whatever - anyone who can't see the hypocrisy is full of it - Obama included.

[SomethingFishy]

37. That is a narrow view.

The impact of legalization cannot be understated. The uses for hemp are astounding. You can see here:

http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm

Now that aside, there will be savings in law enforcement, prisons, courts, parole and probation. Then add the newly created jobs, new crops to farm, and an entire industry created to convert hemp to household uses.

Then there's TAXES. Pot is a 500 billion dollar a year industry. You do the math.

Legalization is not just about getting stoned. It's about 100-200 BILLION in new revenue every single year.

[Romulox]

76. That's not how "democracy" works. nt

[FarLeftFist]

23. I support marijuana legalization AND will still vote for Obama.

[slay]

28. Obama doesn't care about us or what we want - he cares about getting re-elected

that is all. back in 2004 he declared the drug war a failure - but now he just tows the line just like every single other person in power. we won't find change with him - especially if he's going to INVITE us to submit questions - and then IGNORE the most popular ones. what a joke - a bad joke - on us.

#OccupyWallStreet #OWS

[demosincebirth]

31. He should have asked him if he wanted to ban hand guns. :sarcasm:

[hootinholler]

48. IMHO He's taking the wrong tack

He should turn it around and say give me a congress that will pass it and I'll sign it. Work for reps who will do the right thing because I know if they will do the right thing on this issue, they will do the right thing on other issues like investing in infrastructure, making the wealthy pay their share...

But, hey, who am I to play 3 dimensional chess?

[Bluenorthwest]

64. The thing is Congress is not necessary.

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

[hootinholler]

66. I seem to remember hearing that assertion before

I understand much can be done administratively. My point is that ignoring the issue is the wrong response. The issue can be leveraged into some serious coat-tails that will allow us to move the country into a more humane position.

That aside, once the FDA is done with it, there is still an unprinted tax stamp required IIRC.

[Rex]

50. Why not ignore something that you cannot bullshit your way out of?

He was smart ignoring something he can't defend.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. If you can not answer all questoin, you should not pretend that you are taking all

questions, again and again and again. He says 'we are taking questions' then the People ask this question and he hems, haws, and says nothing. Stop with the 'town halls' if you can not manage to speak to the town.

[Rex]

78. Did not say I agreed with it, but it was a smart move

and can be played off now as just more 'liberals' compaining about their 'pet' issues and not the 'important' things like unemployment. I for one wish he would address the issue with the youth online...to not do so encourages them to want to smoke dope imo.

[randome]

68. Without a cooperative Congress, it's pointless to discuss this.

The very MOMENT that the DEA would reschedule marijuana, Congress would vote on a law to force it to be scheduled the way they want.

[EOTE]

81. That's not the way it works.

It would take an awful lot to take scheduling away from the DEA. If the president wanted action on this, there would be action on this. As the president is a coward and doesn't do anything without political cover, he pretends the issue doesn't exist.

[Upton]

72. Obama in 2004 called the drug war an "utter failure"..

and called for the decriminalization of marijuana..

&NR=1

Now, he's prosecuting the WoD and pot users at a rate that would make any Republican proud. Obama is just one more politician..he'll say and do virtually anything to get elected...and once in, he ignores those that helped put him there. What I can't figure out, is why I fell for his BS the first time. I guess you live and learn.

[Romulox]

77. In 2009, he began persecuting Medical Marijuana patients/caregivers to a degree unheard of

under his predecessor.

[Arkana]

82. Middle East going to hell, an economy that's on shaky ground, Republicans baying for his blood

at every turn, and a reelection campaign coming where he will be called every nasty name in the book.

What do we want him to focus on? Weed.

[nebenaube]

83. How long would it take him to dictate the executive order to reschedule?

Ten minutes?

[Better Believe It]

85. Excuses, excuses, excuses for President Obama's policies. They never stop.

I think we need to hear more campaign talking points on DU!

[Arkana]

101. How does it feel to rage against the machine

so hard that you blow every blood vessel in your body?

And you may not have noticed in your rush to hammer on someone who doesn't think Obama is human garbage, but I didn't excuse shit.

[EOTE]

93. No, we want him to STOP focusing on weed.

As in do as he promised and hold off his attack dogs who are going after legal dispensaries in California and elsewhere. How about he do as he fucking promised? Is that so much to ask? Or do you think with the Middle East going to hell and an economy on shaky ground that Obama should be wasting billions of dollars incarcerating people who have harmed no one and simply want to help sick people?

[theaocp]

100. Well, it is hard to not do something.

Just ask the Bush tax cuts.

[RainDog]

94. hemp can be used for every petrol product currently produced

plastic bags, car bodies (as Ford did), fuel...

so, you know, if you really want to make it less tempting for the U.S. to keep roiling things in the Middle East in order to control oil, you should support legalizing a plant that can help ease our oil dependency.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/140739/help_save_the_earth,_time_to_subsitute_hemp_for_oil/

When it comes to hemp, environmental gains are inexorably intertwined with economic ones. The auto industry, hardly synonymous with being green but which has had the research dollars to apply new technology, can vouch for Goggin. For years European car makers have been using hemp-fiber-reinforced composite materials to replace fiberglass and in other components, such as door panels or dashboards. And now their American counterparts have joined in.

Blending hemp with plastics is not only cheaper for producers, but natural-fiber composites are roughly 30 percent lighter, which in turn leads to greater fuel efficiency for customers. And when they finally hit the junkyard, those parts partially biodegrade. Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Honda all use this technology.

Now, where there are cars, there's fuel, or these days biofuel, which has become a contentious issue as America fights for energy independence while attempting to combat climate change.

Biofuels -- fuels derived from plants -- actually are nothing new. Rudolph Diesel, who invented the diesel engine, designed his machine to run on peanut oil, and his contemporary, Henry Ford, intended his Model-T to run on ethanol, of which hemp provided the major feedstock until the 1930s. Even Thomas Edison championed bio-based fuels, suspicious of the growing dominance of the petroleum industry, which boomed after America began taxing alcohol -- as both a beverage and a fuel -- to help pay for the Civil War.

[Utopian Leftist]

98. Obama is always saying that he wants us to hold his feet to the fire.

I don't see what more we can do along those lines than what is being done. What does he want already, blood? What is it he expects of us when our community is already sacrificing 850,000 people PER YEAR to his draconian cause? Many of whom have legitimate medical reasons for using pot but even if they didn't, really, what more can we do to convince him that this issue is important to the majority of Americans. SO important that it continues to rank as the number One issue on his own website.

How much further does he need his feet to the fire? Will it take one of us setting ourselves ablaze, like the protesting monks?

If I sound like I'm being dramatic, consider this: in the past couple months, a DEMOCRATIC administration has closed almost every single dispensary in my city of San Diego, California. I am assuming it is the same throughout most if not all of the state. They have been forced to go to all delivery, which has drastically raised prices--so high that I can no longer afford my medication. And I do need it. I've made an appointment with my doctor so that I can get a prescription medication to take the place of the weed (which was working better for me than any other medication ever did). I do that reluctantly because this particular medication has side effects that I don't even want to ponder.

[RainDog]

99. too many people here don't want to know about legitimate problems

they want to continue to perpetuate outdated stereotypes.

iow, they are part of the problem, not the solution.