Obama Drug Plan Firmly Opposes Legalization As California Vote Looms

[Flaneur]

Source: The Hill

The Obama administration said Tuesday that it "firmly opposes" the legalization of any illicit drugs as California voters head to the polls to consider legalizing marijuana this fall.

The president and his drug czar re-emphasized their opposition to legalizing drugs in the first release of its National Drug Control Strategy this morning.

"Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them," the document, prepared by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, says. "That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug."

President Barack Obama has repeatedly expressed opposition to legalizing illicit drugs, though California voters could buck the federal government when it comes to legalize pot.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/97101-obama-drug-plan-firmly-opposes-legalization-as-california-vote-looms

---

56% of Californians supported legalizing marijuana in the latest polls.

Obama, get with the people!

[mike_c]

1. I think it's going to be an EPIC election year in CA this November....

:smoke:

[FiveGoodMen]

2. "Obama, get with the people!"

By now we know: He never was and never will be with the people.

Next!

[truedelphi]

11. The CorpoRATe Owned members of the Political Class don't even know

That there are any "people!"

We will see if this works out well for them this November. Let their CorpoRATe friends vote 'em in.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Do the majority of people think pot should be legalized?

[Flaneur]

107. We're not quite there yet nationally. It polls in the 40s typically, but...

...it polls 56% in California, and probably similarly in Oregon and Washington.

In those latter two states, initiative signature-gathering campaigns are well underway. Legalization could be on the ballot in three states this year, and probably Colorado and Nevada in 2012.

[Zhade]

125. WRONG WRONG WRONG! How many times will this lie be repeated?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html

"A majority of Americans, in a poll released Wednesday, say it "makes sense to tax and regulate" marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report, surveyed 3,937 voters and found 52 percent in favor of legalization. Only 37 percent opposed."

[Flaneur]

134. That poll is a high side outlier. The other polls are in the 40s.

Much as I wish it were so, we are not there yet. Teetering on the edge, perhaps, but not quite there.

The West Coast is a different story.

Public Opinion: Battle of the Marijuana Polls
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/629/marijuana_legalization_poll_AP_CNBC_CBS_News

Public Opinion: Poll Finds Support for Marijuana Legalization Still Rising, Medical Marijuana Overwhelming
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/626/pew_poll_medical_marijuana_legalization

Public Opinion: Washington Post/ABC News Poll Shows Four out of Five Support Medical Marijuana, Nearly Half Support Legalization
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/617/abc_news_washington_post_poll_marijuana_medical

[Zhade]

126. YES. See below.

NT!

[Tesha]

105. There aren't (yet) any marijuana-distributing corporations to tell him to approve of it. (NT)

[FiveGoodMen]

135. *palm slaps forehead*

That's it!

[ShortnFiery]

3. If not legalization, at least consider decriminalization? Our jails can't handle many more.

It's damn ridiculous to incarcerate "users" instead of getting them treatment and/or a "very light" fine.

I can say with conviction, that if I lived in abject poverty, I MIGHT use illicit drugs to escape from my horrible life once and awhile.

Please recall the old adage: Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.

[defendandprotect]

50. This began in part as a race war by Nixon . . . on AAs impoverished . . .

look at the huge numbers of AAs locked up -- !!

We have to release something like 475,000 prisoners every year!!

Imagine releasing them after they have spent all this time in jail!!

This is insane --

and the only people profiting from this are imperialists using the drug war

to co-opt other sovereign nations, and corrupt elites/government officials

who are letting this all happen!!

America -- please wake up!!

[Chicago dyke]

78. never mind the "judging."

our fine preznit has admitted openly in his own books that he's done drugs. but oh, other people shouldn't? now that he's lucky enough to have avoided getting busted and having his political career ruined as a result?

i hate hypocrisy. this is classic, textbook bullshit of that kind.

i'm very proud to live in MI, where %63 of the voters approved medical mj. we'll take it the next step soon, and help out our impoverished state via regulation, taxation, and reduction of the prison population. common frakking sense that the administration seems to lack.

[madmax]

106. +1

[reggie the dog]

114. many states already have decrim

and in alaska you are allowed to have a quarter pound legally if you are 18 or older

[Fridays Child]

4. The master of Third Way politics, the Big Dog himself...

...has acknowledged that compromising with the hard right was an error.

[No Elephants]

123. Gee, what a huge risk admitting things 20 years later must be. He might not get re-elected.

Mr. co-founder of the DLC can shove his belated admissions, as far as I am concerned.

He knew he was wrong when he did it, IMO. But he was ambitious for himself, and then for Hillary. Now that neither of them has anything to lose, he admits he was wrong about gays, about triangulating and about repealing Glass Steagall. Meanwhile, we're still stuckk with the consequences of all those things.

I rarely say this about anyone, but fuck him--and fuck him even more for his belated admissions--trying to have it both ways.

[totodeinhere]

5. What a bunch pf nonsense. If marijuana is an illicit drug then so is alcohol.

This policy reeks of hypocrisy and it certainly is not change I can believe in.

[saracat]

6. Whatever would have led you to expect otherwise?

Did you think the fact he admitted he inhaled would make him sympathetic to others who inhaled?

[pokercat999]

7. Obama has turned out to be a huge disappointment. This is

just one more. If I was George HW Bush I'd be talking to Babs about her youngest son! (not Jeb, the younger one with the permanent deep tan)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

8. He's wrong on this issue.

[Oregone]

9. Foolish fools and their foolish wars

[defendandprotect]

51. It's not about their "foolishness" . . . it's about control of the population . . .

[Occulus]

10. I just love how they say "drugs" instead of "marijuana".

Local news does this too. The goal is to equate marijuana, in the minds of the public, with all other drugs, and to homogenize the effects of marijuana with much harder, actually addictive drugs such as meth, cocaine, etc.

It's a deliberate and subtle deception, but it works on those who don't actually think about the issue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. Notice how people say Marijuana instead of Cannabis

Marijuana is a drug war term.

[Lorien]

18. I noticed that too. Oxycontin is far more dangerous than marijuana

more addictive and less effective as a pain killer.

[Zhade]

131. Please reconsider your phrasing -- this implies cannabis is dangerous.

It is most emphatically not.

[Lorien]

145. My father is a physician and (occational) cannabis user

testing done by some of his colleague proves that regular marijuana use does cause blood vessel contraction in the brain which does impair it's function over time with continued use. Is that "dangerous"? Maybe, maybe not.Guess that depends on what you consider a danger. Too much of any mind altering substance is NEVER a GOOD thing, like it or not.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. What's the point in electing a Democratic presiden?

There are only minor differences from G. W. Bush on many important topics.

[SPedigrees]

26. Sotomayor and Kagan vs two RWer justices are a major difference.

That's but one of many major fundamental differences. (Personally I'll go with the one who knows how to pronounce "nuclear.")

[Lorien]

30. Got any more?

And I'm far from sold on Kagan. x(

[SPedigrees]

42. You would prefer Scalia and Alito clones? Because

that is precisely what Bush would have installed in the high court. Then you could kiss Roe v Wade and any other constitutional freedoms goodbye.

[defendandprotect]

52. Roe vs Wade and most of our Constitutional freedoms are already gone . . .

it's no longer about protecting them -- it's about restoring them!

Alito and Roberts, IMO, are fascists -- and agree, we don't need any more of

them on the SC.

In fact, we should be impeaching them, IMO!

And the pervert, Clarence Thomas, as well!!

[SPedigrees]

122. Roe v Wade is alive and well, albeit hanging by a single critical vote.

Clearly you're too young to know anyone who had an abortion on a kitchen table. I'm not. Personally I had a safe legal abortion in the 1970s. World of difference.

[liberation]

82. He substituted a moderate justice with another one...

and now he is going to propose a moderate conservative lawyer to replace a moderate conservative Justice.

I hope that keeping the supreme court with the exact ideological make up as when he entered his presidency, is most definitively not the "change" being peddled by those who were selling supreme justice nomination as one of the few remaining value propositions for voting democrats.

So Obama can pronounce common English words correctly. Is that it? That is what it has come down to as justification in this era of ever diminishing expectations?

If that is the case, fine. But some people should stop trying to pass mediocrity as being the pinnacle of excellence.

[glitch]

99. Thank you! And for God's sake they should quit trying to pass this shit off as Progressive.

Or even Centrist. (a Centrist would have taken no position at all) :fucking livid:

[Zhade]

127. HEAR HEAR! Maintaining the status quo IS NOT CHANGE.

Thank you for pointing out how logically bankrupt that final bit of excuse-making for the liar-in-chief really is.

[Oregone]

13. "Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability"

Yeah, being that a child can buy unlimited quantities of heroin from blood sucking pushers, to redistribute to their hearts delight, letting the black market run things most certainly produces the best of all possible worlds

[defendandprotect]

56. -- also keeps the price up and the profits up -- !!

[SocialistLez]

88. It also keeps police officers employed and the prisons full. NT

[slackmaster]

15. cue Nelson

[foxfeet]

16. What a crock. The "War on Drugs" is a colossal waste of time, money and lives.

[bluestateguy]

17. I'll settle for decriminalization as a compromise in lieu of legalization

To treat drug use as a health problem rather than a criminal offense.

[Zhade]

128. Why? That just propagates the lie that cannabis is harmful...

...when in fact it's been medically proven to have a range of beneficial effects. I'm tired of the medicine that keeps me from going blind from glaucoma being demonized!

[fascisthunter]

19. Obama could care less about what regular people want

it's all about representing big business and anything that is seen as a danger to their profits is attacked. Everyday I come here and am more and more convinced.

[Lorien]

28. Yep. Big Pharma doesn't want any threats to their profit$$$$

and that's what marijuana legalization represents to them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. The thing to do is give marijuana production over to the tobacco industry

and let Big Tobacco and Big Pharma fight it out.

Hell, half of the snack food industry is already owned by Big Tobacco, so they'd see huge benefit from legalization on that score alone.

[glitch]

96. Hell no -- first thing they'd do is add a bunch of cancer-causing chemicals to it.

God I am so sick of reading about the ludicrous BACKWARD opinions of this President and his administration. :puke:

They aren't even mediocre triangulations, which was the best we could hope for.

[Lorien]

143. They'd have Monsanto genetically engineer it and patent it

so that it is no longer effective as a drug for cancer patients, etc. They can find a way to suck the good from damn near anything.

[defendandprotect]

57. Think you're right there . . . anything natural is a threat to their chem labs!!

Slash and burn medicine -- yeah!!

[martymar64]

95. Same with the Big Distilleries and Breweries

Heaven Forbid people would get a buzz in some other way.

[Bluestar]

20. I have faith that Californians are going to shove it in Obama's face

After all, he didn't want to audit the Fed either (covering up for members of his administration I think) and he didn't get his way. I think California is in the mood to challenge him and pass this law anyway. We need to get people out of jail and tax the hell out of maryjane in order to get out of our financial mess.

[Zhade]

129. I can't fucking WAIT. It will be an epic fuck-you to lying drug warrior assholes everywhere.

NT!

[Freedom420]

140. here in CA

the debate grows louder and louder.. even amongst growers! both sides have entertaining and valid points.

oh, looks like our head hauncho is sticking to his guns/values, even to this day. check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDKarCeC_Ic

[librechik]

21. Did not vote for that, but am I surprised?

NO--not anymore. I realize i was snookered. No issue is so important that Obama will willingly sacrifice a popularity point for it. Nor will he back overwhelmingly popular issues which displease Goldman Sachs and the Right. So, no legalizing drugs, god damn it. It's FAR easier to kick the base in the teeth than it is to fight for progress. He won't need them til 2012, then he can crank up the oh, it would save lives and money to legalize, let's try it (maybe) campaign promises again. Cept I won't believe him then.

[Lorien]

33. He won't run in 2012

he's dropped plenty of hints to that effect, so he has no reason to serve the people who worked and voted for him in 2008. His seat awaits at the Carlyle group.

[ima_sinnic]

55. that's because he knows too many will have seen through him by then

he'll get done what he's been paid to get done and will fade into the woodwork to enjoy all the bennies of serving the ruling class.

[defendandprotect]

60. Hmmm..... do you think PTB would prefer Biden . . . who might succeed otherwise?

I'm not sure about that -- but always feared Biden . . .

because of Clarence Thomas treachery.

And, he's well hooked into corporate in Delaware . . . right?

Pelosi?

Can't see that it will be Palin?

:)

:hi:

[liberation]

86. He will run in 2012, and will most likely be re-elected

given the meltdown the GOP is experiencing, Emmanuel and the rest of the DLCers think this is their chance to get what they always wanted: change the Dem base from those pesky "retards" in the center-left (me being one of those retards), and substitute it with their true ideological brethren: the center-right. Which up to know where the base of the GOP, and which are now having doubts about their party affiliation.

If you analyze Obama's triangulations since he entered office, it is rather clear Obama is courting the center-right for his re-election bid.


Obama has never been a liberal, however liberals were desperate in 08 and ignored that fact... and simply projected their ideology on a self professed "pragmatist" (which in politics it means someone who stands for nothing) .

Siding with liberals would a) endanger a lot of Obama's acquaintances at the high levels, and b) severely affect his earning potential after he leaves the white house. So Obama simply did what any astute politician in that predicament would have done: use liberals to get elected initially, and then carry the moderate conservative vote for re-election. Obama in 08 simply could not use the moderate conservative vote, since the GOP had not fully melted down by then.

Any objective assessment of Obama would have portrayed him as a center-right fellow, at least looking at his political stances/policies. Liberals should stop pretending to be "surprised" about Obama's policies and stands.


I am an unapologetic liberal, but I have no problem seeing the reality of things. By 2012, I am willing to guarantee that the Dems will be a firmly center-right political platform. With some liberals sprinkled around, just because they got some electoral traction in the past and the Dems are not that stupid as to lose those votes. But I firmly think the DLC et al will get what they always wanted: turn the Dems into the GOP, but without the ruined GOP brand.

[ima_sinnic]

89. well, I know a LOT of people who won't be voting for him again, no matter who the repukes run

being "disappointed" is one thing.
being actively dissed and taken for granted is another ball of wax altogether.

I said he was a "tool in the making" way back about when the primaries started--should have listened to my own misgivings and not wasted my vote in the general.

[liberation]

93. I think it is clear by now that Emmanuel et al have triangulated that they don't need libs in 2012

I wish we prove them wrong. But honestly, given that Obama will be the slightly less craptastic alternative to whatever insane buffoon the GOP peddles in 2012... he will most probably have no significant difficulty winning re-election.

If you think his first term was pro-corporate, I can't wait to see the wonders of 2012-16 when he no longer even has to pretend to owe anything to liberals.

It sucks but that is where we're at right now.

[ima_sinnic]

94. he may or may not win, but frankly I don't really care

I'll either sit it out or write in Howard Dean.

Watch him go for the Holy Grail of privatized Social Security.

[glitch]

102. I missed the part where he pretended to owe anything to liberals.

Seriously, help me out, it would cheer me up to see an example. And don't try to pawn some centrist garbage off as liberal either. :hi:

[Zhade]

130. I'm one of them. Independent liberal, and he will NEVER get my vote again.

Very few Dems will, ever again. No repubs will, ever.

[ima_sinnic]

136. I went and reregistered as an Independent when I figured out how he shafted us during the

"health care" debate, making it seem as though "everyone would have a seat at the table" while knowing full well he wouldn't fight for a public option (let alone single payer) and that the insurance co's would get whatever they wanted. then he acted all "helpless," like he "couldn't get the votes," while Rahm went out and twisted arms to make sure everybody dissed Dennis Kucinich and fell into line behind making it about a health insurance giveaway. he's a master at pretending to side with the "little people" while kissing the butts of the rich elite.

feh. they don't need our votes. I'll write in Howard Dean, probably, or just sit it out.

D, R--heads, tails, either way, we lose.

[Lorien]

144. By 2012? The Democratic Party has already completely abandoned the Left

it's been center-right since Clinton's time. Now it's pushing to be solidly Right Wing, just as the DLC always planned.

[glitch]

100. He is really acting like a lame duck angling for his next corporate gig, isn't he? nt

[whereaminow]

101. That's right.. he did his bit for the machine

2012 will be Ms Hillary's turn. Her timing couldn't be worse...

[proudohioan]

22. Yes, let's make sure that Big Pharma continues to be our #1 pusherman. n/t

[democraticinsurgent]

23. Being careful is what he is doing

Can you imagine the outcry if Obama were to overtly support legalization? It would obscure absolutely every other issue.

The MSM/Tea Party/Repubs paint him to be a socialist crazy man while he's running a very mainstream administration. He can't hand them this issue.

I know lots of us are unhappy with some of what has, or hasn't happened, so far with Obama. But on this particular issue, he has no place to be but on the side of current law. Once CA legalizes it, the floodgates open. Obama will be a bystander at that point, exactly where most any Dem president has to be.

[arcane1]

25. They're going to paint him crazy no matter what he does

Look at how HCR was handled, they still call him a socialist commie America-hater.

If they are going to attack NO MATTER WHAT, then why not do what's right, instead of what the Right wants? :shrug:

[dflprincess]

29. +1

[democraticinsurgent]

45. Sorry, i don't buy that.

It's one thing to call him a socialist when he's operating as a capitalist, but if he were to come out for legalization (which by the way I am for!) this would be the only thing on the news for the next six months.

All the lies that are being told about Obama get muted because they're lies. If he steps out in favor of something like legalization, they will shout about it and it will be nothing but a big distraction for the rest of the agenda.

[ima_sinnic]

53. but he could use his talent for eloquence as he did with Rev Wright to set them straight

and he could have done the same with single-payer universal health care and any other goddam thing he wanted. He also showed how he could implement a ready-response team during the election.
If the case for legalization is explained clearly, with all bases covered, and with the support it already has, the nay-sayers would be neutered. As they would have with health care for all, The People would be solidly behind him, pressuring Congress to make marijuana legal.

He uses his gift of eloquence for all the wrong causes--certainly not for much that benefits those who voted for him.

[Chicago dyke]

79. no, it wouldn't be "the only thing in the news for six months"

for the simple reason that that isn't how effective propaganda works. idiot viewers of faux snooze need a "new scandal" every week, or they lose interest. programming and propaganda are a double edged sword. they wouldn't be able to keep their viewers attention for that long. and one of many reasons that the "obama favors pot" message would flop, is because plenty of welfare-gettin, beer drinking, medicaid receiving shut ins who make up the majority of the Fox audience also smoke pot when the brother in law brings it by.

like others have said: he, or any democrat, will be vilified by the press, constantly and falsely, for as long as we don't have a modern version of the Fairness Doctrine or break up the corporate media conglomerates. why not do the right thing for a change? the man used drugs and lived on the south side of chicago for a time and is a law scholar. no one has less of an excuse for not knowing the truth about the evils of the "drug war."

[liberation]

87. So Obama has to do exactly what the GOP et al expect him to do

or else the mass media would call him crazy, and we could not have that.

Maybe then next time, we should save the overhead of the middleman and vote GOP already.

Defining policy entirely in order to cater to the opposition which is now in the minority, it is a poor approach to leadership. Especially if it is indeed done with the goal of minimizing the attacks from the GOP regardless of how that may negatively affect parts of the Dem base.

[ima_sinnic]

92. really--might as well make it official and put the GOP in charge

instead of being a "leader," I guess Obama just meekly follows the GOP's agenda.

[Robb]

27. "Stingy" might be a better word.

He's not going to spend any political capital on this, that's for sure.

I'd like to see the shopping spree he's saving up for happen in my lifetime, however.

[defendandprotect]

62. Always that record playing . . . fear of the right wing nuts . . .!!

Are we saying that American presidents can only live in fear of the rw?

What's the answer to this?

Sneak up on them? Softly, softly - ?

[glitch]

103. Sick to death of coward appeasers afraid of bullies. nt

[Zhade]

132. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Do you actually believe that nonsense?

[Bluenorthwest]

24. The least important opinion in America

Obama's opinion, because no one trusts it, those who agree with him will not vote for him, because they are Republicans.
I'm tired of hearing his uninformed blather. Rhetoric is so 2008.

[ima_sinnic]

61. +++1 what you said

he's getting so predictable.
what would be the smartest, best, most innovative solution to anything? He will reject it and go with the most regressive and stupidest answer.

[Iowa]

66. +1

[glitch]

104. ++ Mediocrity is the Hallmark of the Triangulator.

the best possible outcome, predetermined.

[Iowa]

65. Well said. I agree.

[truthisfreedom]

31. If it's true that keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use

them, then the Obama administration is in favor of less commerce rather than more.

C'mon, Obama... we all know you're not against this law. We should have both state and federal taxes on pot.

[PinkFloyd]

32. On a positive note....

If Obama would make a public statement against California's plan that might be enough to inspire some teabaggers to actually support the idea. They seem to automatically hate everything he does and jump to the opposite immediately.

Regardless, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens IF legalization happens. People in DC will be mad about it but I don't see the federal gov. policing CA, especially if they have to pick up 100% of the tab to enforce it federally.

[defendandprotect]

63. A lot of elites would lose a lot of money . . . and power . . .

but I hope that Californians are also propelled by the information they got a long

while back about CIA's involvement in running drugs into AA neighborhoods in California!!

As far as I can see, rw has been targeting liberal California and if they don't respond

soon, they'll not be anything worth saving -- broken up into two states?

I don't think anyone can deny that right wing has been out to destroy California???!!

Liberal California -- enemy state of rw --

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them

and, as a side benefit, keeps the market in the hands of professional criminals who are not averse to using violence to protect their turf and deal with dealers who compete with them - making a harmless euphoric (not a narcotic) into a very dangerous drug which over 50% of the population has tried and which 20% use regularly.

Nothing bad can happen from driving people to deal with professional criminals.

[defendandprotect]

64. Nice summation . . .

fingers crossed on California succeeding in legalization --

[ixion]

35. "reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them"

BS on both counts.

It does nothing other than cause misery and fund cartels.

[villager]

36. "Uh, guys, by 'change' we didn't actually mean... 'change!'"

"How could be so naive as to imagined it would actually be allowed?"

[Ticonderoga]

37. If they legalize it,

it wouldn't be illicit now would it Obama? I'm beginning to dislike this guy almost as bad as the last guy.

[Tsiyu]

39. Then Obama is just not as bright as I hoped

if he cannot see the damage done to our citizens and our budgets - and if he refuses to acknowledge the unsustainable cost to our court systems, prisons and people = by the War on Drugs, he is, quite frankly, ignorant.

Did he hear about the family dog shot in front of the 7-year-old over a bowl or two of weed?

For fuck's sake, Obama, wake the hell up and stop acting like some Baptist preacher's wife on this issue!

I'm ashamed to live in 2010 being led by politicians who act like it's 1929.

I hate to say it, but I am sick of the suffering of my fellow Americans in the name of the administrations endless and unwinnable war. With that suffering in mind, I have this to say:

Fuck You White House, FUCK YOU

[reggie the dog]

115. cannabis was legal in 1929

[Tsiyu]

117. Yeah, you're right I am a dumbass

and haven't studied my pharmacological history so well lol

But he's acting like a ninny, a coward and a sellout.

Americans should be able to decide for themselves how to ease their own suffering.

And cannabis helps many, many people.

It is cruel and criminal to punish people for easing their own pain.

[ultracase24]

40. Wow , more conservative talking points

Did we elect John McCain?

Lets fill up more prisons and jails. That's a progressive and liberal concept. :eyes:

[callous taoboy]

41. Everclear is widely available, and if I ingested that stuff I'd stand a chance of poisoning / death.

Tired of the hypocritical stance. Tired of it. I have never had bad times with anything except alcohol.

[mitchtv]

43. Oh shut up, mr President

please try to remain the blank sheet that got you elected.

[Oregone]

54. lol

[TacticalPeek]

44. Revolting.

Novembers will come, stupid jerks.

[defendandprotect]

46. Obama strikes again -- what nonsense ... this fake Drug War is enriching

our criminal politicians -- and destroying the country.

Shall we end up like Mexico with open drug warfare on our streets?

Obama is with the corporates/elites --

but hope the PEOPLE make it!!

[LakeSamish706]

47. It's gotta make one ask the question, are we still in Afghanistan because of the Opium? n/t

[Vincardog]

67. No we are in Afghanistan because of the because of Dicks PIPELINE the opium is just a BCF sideline

[Wizard777]

48. Kerlokowske is the problem. Obama needs to fire him.

"Kerlikowske has refused to speculate on how the administration would respond if marijuana were legalized in the state, putting it in conflict with federal prohibitions on the drug."

I know this much. If the bill passes. Their response better not contain the word "War" in ANY capacity. When Reagan declared "War" on drugs. They said it wasn't Treason because "Them" in Article III Section 3 referred to the states. Not the people. Well okay lets just assume that is true. Once this bill passes and further use of the words war or war on drugs will constitute treason. The STATE of california will be drawn into the front line of the "war" or "war on drugs." So we will have to hold treason trial and start hanging the people that are convicted.

The last time I heard from Kerlikowske he was saying a study that revealed 50% of America's prison population has used drugs and that proves a link between drug use and crime. Ooookay.

:banghead:

So the other 50% in jail that haven't used drugs prove a link between NOT using drugs and crime. So how do we tell who should be using drugs to prevent them from committing crimes and who shouldn't be using drugs to prevent them from committing crimes? Wouldn't it just be easier to say Kerlikowske is an idiot and fire him? If only to demonstrate that commitment to scientific integrity Obama promised. Maybe we should wait until Kerlikowske tries to tell Obama that 62% of blacks under the age of 18 being in prison proves a link between being young & black and crime. :wow: Moron!

[maxsolomon]

70. Kerlikowske knows better, believe me

he was the top cop in Seattle prior to being elevated to Drug Czar. he knows that weed is not the biggest drug problem we have - it's heroin, crack, meth. he's seen harm reduction, drug courts, needle exchanges, and "lowest enforcement priority" for weed up close and personal.

Drug Czar's a thankless job, and to tell the truth on the issue is to hand the GOP a platform from which to grandstand and attack. he's like Jocelyn Elders, but knows better than to say jerking off isn't a sin.

both he and Obama have no choice but to officially oppose the CA initiative. once it's approved, they'll have no choice but to respect California's wishes. Obama can't make weed legal, congress has to do that. if Obama endorses legalization prior to november 2012, the entire campaign will be pearl clutching hysterics asking 'what about the children?'

[Wizard777]

77. You better rethink that. Here in Maryland our Medical Marijuana laws are Republican Issues.

They are gaining favor on that platform. Guess who's in charge of the GOP now. The guy that was maryland's Lt. Governor when we passed our first medical marijuana law. Mike Steele. So I don't think the Republicans will clean the floor with us. Maryland is America in miniature and we're pretty much ready to legalize it all. We just need our sissy what will everyone think politicians (Dems) to grow a pair or a back bone as usual. We're sick to death of the whole war on drugs mentality and we're ready to try something new like Full Scale Harm Reduction. Any politician that don't get on board will be left behind. I really think the dems should be riding the new wave and leading the way on legalization.

[maxsolomon]

98. well, good i suppose - but the GOP will use any tool at hand to bludgeon you

but Obama is playing for 2012. he'll be happy to bow to the will of the people but advocating for this initiative is a bridge too far. this one's up to the grass (ha!) roots.

there are plenty of hysterics left in america, and a lot of them are too-afraid-to-look-at-the-facts "independents" who are:

1. too old to have smoked weed
2. too uptight to have smoked weed
3. do-as-i-say-not-as-i-did parents who are former tokers

there's definitely enough of those to swing an election.

[Wizard777]

110. How old is too old to have smoked weed? Maybe 78?

I don't think so. Because I'm 78. I have and still do smoke weed. I've been smoking weed for 69 years now. I love it when a 20 something tries to tell me about weed. LMAO! I tell them I was smoking weed before your PARENTS were born. There isn't anything you can tell me about it I don't already know. So you might want to rethink that too old to have smoked weed thing too. Many of those people are probably from the generations that smoked weed and lie about it. LOL

[maxsolomon]

119. you're 6 years older than my dad

i'll stand by "too old to have smoked weed". it wasn't readily available to lots of americans in 1941 (per your numbers). you didn't grow up in squaresville, i'd wager.

maybe what i mean is 'too SCARED to have smoked weed'.

[Wizard777]

138. It was readily available. Back then it grew everywhere. I grew up in Baltimore, Maryland.

Even though I grew up in the city. We had lil patches of woods, rivers and streams. It wasn't too hard to find if you knew what to look for. The best part is it was free. Attitudes about it were casual to racist. The Marijuana Tax Stamp Act had been passed and it was technically illegal. But localities did very little in the way of enforcement. If they did do anything enforcement wise. It was against Blacks. Back then Addiction wasn't really known about. It was just commonly believed that certain ethnic groups had certain problems with certain substances. Like the chinese had problems with opium. So Opium was outlawed. But only for the chinese. Marijuana was a problem for blacks and hispanics. Alcohol was a problem for Native Americans. Etc. Etc. But Granted some people did buy into Refer Madness. They were mainly people in the north and big cities. The people down in the rural south were more familiar with Marijuana as a cash crop. They weren't buying the refer madness crap. They knew better. They didn't have an ignorance about marijuana for the government to fill that void with fear and exploit. The war on drugs absolutely began with a terrorism campaign against Americans. They used fear to create political change. We now call that terrorism.

[nebenaube]

49. Kiss those new voters goodbye...

How can the man can expect us to force him? Who can afford to advocate for sanity? I meet with the state leader of OFA today and told him tough shit. They bring out some glimmer of hope on this issue when they want elected and then they punt the ball instead of scoring.

[droidamus2]

58. Ridiculous

The statement "Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them" is such a bunch of crap I find it hard to believe this Czar could say it without laughing. It also shows that he has no idea how pervasive drugs are in this society. If you want get em you can get em. If you choose to use em you will use em.

I would guess most the people that say they don't do drugs because 'they are illegal' wouldn't do them even if they were legal. For me and most the people I've known that have 'experimented' with drugs the fact that they were illegal wasn't really part of the equation. When you become involved in the drug scene you quickly realize that the odds of getting caught (especially when just buying for personal use) are extremely small. Hell, when I first started smoking pot it was a felony in California but it sure didn't stop me. So the claim that 'keeping it illegal lessens willingness to use' is just false on its face. If somebody wants to use they will and legality has nothing to do with it.

As far as 'keeping it illegal reducing availability' give me a break. If it was anymore available they would be selling it on the street corners. Oh... wait.. they do that in some places don't they. I guess you could say it would make it slightly easier to acquire. For example if your good connection decides to get out of the business it might take a while to get another one. So with legalization you just go to the next store so it would be a little more 'available' but not really. I haven't done drugs in years but if you came to me and said you wanted pot, coke, speed whatever I bet I could find some in less than 24 hours and actually probably a lot less than that. That's pretty damn available if you ask me.

[ima_sinnic]

59. yes, Prohibition worked sooo well---at least people actually had a clue back then

his duplicity is getting so obvious.

Well, he's got only about 2-1/2 more years to privatize Social Security, which is probably one of the major goals of his administration--kind of the Holy Grail. It will happen near the end of his first term, and that's why he isn't going to run for a 2nd.

[unpossibles]

68. "Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them"

Tell that to the MILLIONS of people who have no trouble finding pot (or whatever they apparently want).

The only thing prohibition does is create more crime and violence by creating a black market. How fucking stupid can we get?

[on point]

69. We know criminalization works - check the 1930"s and the mafia

Again and again the myths dominate the science and the facts. Stop drinking the cool aid and pay attention to the science, the history, the practicalities. Again Obama and the ruling elite are absolutely clueless when it comes to good policy. They are AFRAID of the delusional wingnuts. Get a clue and some backbone.

[grandpamike1]

71. How Can They Be So

Stupid. One of the most ridiculous statements I have ever Heard "Keeping Drugs Illegal reduces their availability". What world are these people living in. There are more drugs now than ever, and they use this as an argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. In Obama's book he says they snorted as much coke as

they could afford, plain and simple. Never a word about difficulty obtaining it, simply affording it. And they snorted as much as they could buy, the law did not seem to limit access or desire or consumption.
So to hear this crap is just laughable. Such hypocrisy.

[stray cat]

72. Bummer - I would love to add the revenue from pot smokers to the budget!

like selling lottery tickets without having to pay anyone off and probably better revenue than taxing the wealthy! A new type of government bonds!

[IndianaGreen]

74. Obama spewing Bill Bennett's talking points, and going against the people

It is not the first time, and it won't be the last time!

[rpannier]

75. That is rather bizarre

"Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them," the document, prepared by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, says.

What planet is he living on
Most countries have made drugs illegal and it hasn't lessened the willingness to use them
and it certainly hasn't reduced their availability

[texastoast]

76. oh do let's keep reef on the black market

How dumbass.

[hobbit709]

80. "Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability"

Since fucking when?

[liberation]

90. Since prohibition, no?

I mean, we're a dry and sober society now... right?

(sarcasm of course).

If the government does not feel like paying for my health care, fine. If the government tells me I am on my own, OK that suck but fine I guess. However, that same government can go an suck an egg if it feels entitled to tell me what I can or can't do with my fucking body. If they don't want to pay up for the upkeep of our bodies, they don't get to tell us what to do with them.

Simple as that.

[abelenkpe]

81. Too bad.

CA is going to vote to legalize it.

[bluedigger]

83. It's just politics.

The President can't be an advocate for legalization. It would risk losing far more votes, especially electoral votes, than it would potentially gain. Not every thing has to happen at the Federal level. Sometimes the States have to lead, and this is one of those issues. Once a clear majority of the country favors legalization the Congress can act. We're probably still a decade away, but then, I never thought we'd get as far as we have in my lifetime. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy listening to Teabaggers explain why this isn't a good example of the Principle of State Sovereignty!

[callous taoboy]

112. It's also more lives lost along the border. Pragmatism is so eons ago.

[bluedigger]

142. I never said I support the President's position on this issue.

I just understand it. It sucks.

[Zhade]

133. How can it be politically dangerous when A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS FINALLY SUPPORT LEGALIZATION?

Look upthread for the evidence of that fact.

He's just being his usual lying, disappointing self. Fuck him.

[bluedigger]

141. I thought I made that clear but I'll try again.

It's called electoral politics.

[debunkthelies]

85. Some People are Wise and......

Some People are Otherwise, I'm afraid Obama came down on the Other side on this issue.:think:

[theaocp]

91. Obama unwilling to take up the fight and do the right thing?

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Go have a beer and a smoke, Barry! I'm so depressed, I'm going to hit my vaporizer with some of my kind nuggets. :smoke:

[whereaminow]

97. 56% is a win and all that

but such a thin margin is tough to hold amidst all the looming propaganda to be coming out. I hope the lesson was learned from the Prop. 8 disaster, but I have my doubts. Let's hope to get it above 70%. Make it robust and unbeatable. The time has long past for the end of prohibition.

[reggie the dog]

116. an ounce gets you a 100 dollar fine in Califronia

just a ticket, so legalization is not a huge step for them, they have had decriminilization since the mid 70's

[Shining Jack]

108. K&R

The more it changes...:banghead:

[Qutzupalotl]

109. It's as if he has to uphold existing law or something.

I'm all for legalization, but this kind of thing has to come from congress (or a ballot measure).

[girl gone mad]

111. This government is rapidly losing all credibility.

What a joke.

[w4rma]

113. End the damn war on pot and let cops fight real criminals. (nt)

[pipoman]

120. Actually

do you want all those drug cops looking for something to do? I don't. We need to end the war on drugs and fire about 20% of leos and prison guards. Then apply that money to addiction treatment for anyone who wants it.

[meow mix]

118. as a liberal this is my #1 issue... what am i to think?

major strike

[harry_pothead]

121. Obama is entitled to his opinion

Just like I'm entitled to the use of my money and potential volunteer time.

[Zhade]

124. Fuck him. Seriously, just fuck him to hell.

"Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them" -- I thought this guy was supposed to be intelligent?

We WILL pass it, and the feds can fuck right off.

[cyr330]

137. Give me a fucking break

How often do you hear about people getting high on weed and beating their wives & kids? That's right--NEVER!!!

And we all know that Mr. Obama has had a few tokes in his life. . . . He needs to get off his high horse (no pun intended!).

[Mojeoux]

139. Med Marijuana was voted in by landslides in all states that have gone Medical

Voting turn-out was phenomenal in all these states as well.

People that hadn't voted in decades got registered just so they could vote for Marijuana!

Obama, these numbers are what politicians dream about.

If you are pro-weed, and you are on a ballot with a marijuana vote, your GOLDEN!