splicetoday.com— The "I inhaled frequently" President sounded like a relic at Thursday's town hall, and the country can't afford this attitude anymore.
Mar 27, 2009View in Crawl 4
I realize that Digg may disagree but Marijuana isn't the top priority for most Americans. Yes I think you decriminalize it (and Obama seems to be going in the right direction on this), but selling the stuff isn't going to take the place of the top three automakers going down and dragging everybody with them into a depression that could last for years. Also if anyone bothered to read Obama's book you'd know full well that he doesn't think much of recreational drugs ? in fact his book showcases that as something he was happy to escape. What so many people don't get about Obama is that he's a classic conservative ? not a Goldwater reactionary, but a true conservative ala Ike. He's a family guy with two kids, a wife and a dog any minute now (no divorces, etc.). Obama was the child of a hippy, but that doesn't make him a hippy ? just the opposite.
Good points. And yes, I agree if marijuana were legal there would be people who'd grow their own. However, how many pot patches do you find in big cities? And how many people who do smoke pot will want to go to the trouble of growing it? So, I think the revenue--and there's NONE now--will be significant, not to mention the savings from releasing non-violent, non bulk dealers from prisons. There's really no downside, and though perhaps the issue is unpopular with some segments of the population, the descendants, perhaps, of the Temperance League and all those who rallied to pass the incredibly stupid Prohibition at the end of World War I, there are a lot more people who don't care either way. Think of it this way: tobacco is considered by a majority of people as a vile and unhealthy product, but there's absolutely no groundswell to prohibit it. Why? Because no state would ever give up the tax revenue.
First, let me say that I'd rather the federal gov't get out of the drug regulation business entirely and leave regulation of all recreational drugs to the states, but, then, I believe in the Constitution. And I personally think it is foolish for any State to try to ban the sale of a drug that's as ubiquitous and harmless as alcohol or tobacco. Moreover, your line of thought is a red herring. Many people I'm sure would draw the line at marijuana for a multitude of reasons. Put simply, if you really think of marijuana in the same category as heroin (ie, opium) and cocaine, you should probably study up on their effects. They are both quite addictive, especially heroin. Even LSD and `shrooms, although not addictive, have much stronger psychotropic effects than mj, and also deserve separate consideration. That being said, I can understand a community wanting to protect itself from heroin addicts and speed-freaks. I can understand wanting to keep people who are under the influence of mind-altering drugs from operating cars or heavy machinery. However, I cannot understand why it is so important to prevent people from enjoying a bowl with friends in the privacy of their own home, or to prevent the responsible use of psychedelics (knowing that irresponsible behavior is covered under DUI and public intoxication laws). Ultimately, I cannot understand a blanket federal law that tries to impose a one-size-fits-300M on a nation of subjects who are led to believe that they need to spend billions of dollars to "protect" them from themselves.
I support legalization for the sake of personal freedom, but the reason Obama laughed is because it was a ridiculous question. I'm surprised he even took it.Legalizing marijuana isn't really going to do that much towards improving the economy or towards job creation. Yes, if sales are just half of last year's beer sales, that's around $20 billion in revenue split up between federal, state, and local governments. <a class="user" href="http://www.beerservesamerica.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.beerservesamerica.org/</a>So what? $20 billion, which I think would still be a high estimate, is not enough to save the economy, and it's not going to create that many jobs either. That was the question...using it to boost the economy, not legalizing for any other reason.Had he seriously entertained the question, THAT would have been a staggering political miscalculation. Even many people who support legalization can see that it has little to do with saving the economy.
Author Lingan asks: "Have you forgotten who helped get you elected in the first place?"And they say there are no stupid questions.Of course he hasn't. Like Lenin, he knows useful idiots when he sees them. And he knows once they have been exploited, they become useless eaters.
michaelpintoMar 27, 2009
I realize that Digg may disagree but Marijuana isn't the top priority for most Americans. Yes I think you decriminalize it (and Obama seems to be going in the right direction on this), but selling the stuff isn't going to take the place of the top three automakers going down and dragging everybody with them into a depression that could last for years. Also if anyone bothered to read Obama's book you'd know full well that he doesn't think much of recreational drugs ? in fact his book showcases that as something he was happy to escape. What so many people don't get about Obama is that he's a classic conservative ? not a Goldwater reactionary, but a true conservative ala Ike. He's a family guy with two kids, a wife and a dog any minute now (no divorces, etc.). Obama was the child of a hippy, but that doesn't make him a hippy ? just the opposite.
blinker1315Mar 27, 2009Submitter
Good points. And yes, I agree if marijuana were legal there would be people who'd grow their own. However, how many pot patches do you find in big cities? And how many people who do smoke pot will want to go to the trouble of growing it? So, I think the revenue--and there's NONE now--will be significant, not to mention the savings from releasing non-violent, non bulk dealers from prisons. There's really no downside, and though perhaps the issue is unpopular with some segments of the population, the descendants, perhaps, of the Temperance League and all those who rallied to pass the incredibly stupid Prohibition at the end of World War I, there are a lot more people who don't care either way. Think of it this way: tobacco is considered by a majority of people as a vile and unhealthy product, but there's absolutely no groundswell to prohibit it. Why? Because no state would ever give up the tax revenue.
sqldiggerMar 28, 2009
First, let me say that I'd rather the federal gov't get out of the drug regulation business entirely and leave regulation of all recreational drugs to the states, but, then, I believe in the Constitution. And I personally think it is foolish for any State to try to ban the sale of a drug that's as ubiquitous and harmless as alcohol or tobacco. Moreover, your line of thought is a red herring. Many people I'm sure would draw the line at marijuana for a multitude of reasons. Put simply, if you really think of marijuana in the same category as heroin (ie, opium) and cocaine, you should probably study up on their effects. They are both quite addictive, especially heroin. Even LSD and `shrooms, although not addictive, have much stronger psychotropic effects than mj, and also deserve separate consideration. That being said, I can understand a community wanting to protect itself from heroin addicts and speed-freaks. I can understand wanting to keep people who are under the influence of mind-altering drugs from operating cars or heavy machinery. However, I cannot understand why it is so important to prevent people from enjoying a bowl with friends in the privacy of their own home, or to prevent the responsible use of psychedelics (knowing that irresponsible behavior is covered under DUI and public intoxication laws). Ultimately, I cannot understand a blanket federal law that tries to impose a one-size-fits-300M on a nation of subjects who are led to believe that they need to spend billions of dollars to "protect" them from themselves.
learMar 28, 2009
play it cool prez
vaultMar 28, 2009
I support legalization for the sake of personal freedom, but the reason Obama laughed is because it was a ridiculous question. I'm surprised he even took it.Legalizing marijuana isn't really going to do that much towards improving the economy or towards job creation. Yes, if sales are just half of last year's beer sales, that's around $20 billion in revenue split up between federal, state, and local governments. <a class="user" href="http://www.beerservesamerica.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.beerservesamerica.org/</a>So what? $20 billion, which I think would still be a high estimate, is not enough to save the economy, and it's not going to create that many jobs either. That was the question...using it to boost the economy, not legalizing for any other reason.Had he seriously entertained the question, THAT would have been a staggering political miscalculation. Even many people who support legalization can see that it has little to do with saving the economy.
dcodreaMar 28, 2009
Author Lingan asks: "Have you forgotten who helped get you elected in the first place?"And they say there are no stupid questions.Of course he hasn't. Like Lenin, he knows useful idiots when he sees them. And he knows once they have been exploited, they become useless eaters.
homerrMar 28, 2009
Decriminalizing pot is fine, but we have enough addicts in this country already and don't need more.
blinker1315Mar 28, 2009Submitter
So I'm assuming you don't drink or smoke or take prescription drugs. Correct?
Closed AccountMar 28, 2009
I think he was high at the time.