Obama and the Marijuana Question
Andrew Sullivan deems Barack Obama’s dismissive answer to a question about marijuana legalization “pathetic”.
I think it’s worth putting this into context. The administration has set up a number of mechanisms by which the public can get questions asked by the White House. This is a good idea, and will help break the hold that Beltway trivia has on the public conversation. This question—about whether legalizing and taxing pot wouldn’t be a good way to deal with the economic crisis—arose through one such process, as a result of an organized campaign by marijuana-legalizers to push it to the top of the agenda. The easy thing to do under the circumstances would have been to just ignore the question. Nobody made the administration do it. But they’re committed to the process, so given the organizers’ success in getting a lot of people to push this, they made it part of the town hall. That’s all a very good thing in my view.
But I do think the question deserved a more serious answer. Even something as simple as “I think the public health costs of legalizing marijuana would exceed any economic benefits” would be a real answer. Marijuana prohibition is popular, and pro-pot interests are not influential. So I don’t expect the president to come out in favor of reform. But it would be nice to see him discuss the issue seriously.
89 Responses to “Obama and the Marijuana Question”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Every now and then Matt posts something that seems deliberately naive. This is one of ‘em.
He acknowledges in the last ¶ that this is a question where the correct answer would be a political non-starter. But then he insists that the question deserved a serious answer.
If you drew a Venn diagram of this issue “intelligent discussion” and “discussion that is viable and politically productive at the Federal level” would be two circles without much of an intersection. Matt is asking the president to generate discussion to fill an empty set.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
But if there is no serious negative answer, if Obama cannot honestly say he believes the public health costs of legalization outweigh the benefits then Obama loses that option.
He can be honest and say “this would be unpopular politically and I choose to use any political capital I have on things I consider more important” which would go against an image he has, in his own mind and presented outwardly, that he is above politics.
Or he can be dismissive.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I thought he handled it well by taking the question and just saying no. Since I don’t think there are serious public health costs, or at least serious enough to require criminalization, I wouldn’t find your answer better.
I also think that the economic benefits would be minimal to nil, given a good likely to be only marginally in circulation and requiring the cost of regulation. The very suggestion is just an intellectually dishonest backdoor way of arguing for the perfectly reasonable, but politically untenable and not in the least urgent, idea of legalization
The honest answer would be, come on, guys, there has to be a better argument for this. But he can’t say that, as it derides the questioner and suggests a stance that would get him derided as “soft.” And that he probably doesn’t hold himself.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Marijuana prohibition is popular
But as you yourself have noted, legalization is popular too, pulling 40% in some polls. National politicians take stances with less than 40% support all the time.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The process that BHO used to select the questions is a sham; even MSM hacks realize how much of a sham it was in that it allowed pot questions to take over the whole effort. And, the current sham follows a series of other shams going back over a year and a half to the first Youtube effort.
These shams let weak questions rise to the top, which is just the way that politicians like it.
For more, including a list of past efforts and a brief description of a much better way to do things, see this.
P.S. Yesterday I sent an open letter to CAP, but Jennifer Palmieri is out of the office until Monday. Is there someone at CAP who could let me know whether they’ll be pushing my plan before she gets back?
March 27th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Actually, it depends on how the question is worded.
Many polls do find a majority want to keep it generally illegal, but a majority are also okay with legalizing medical use. So it’s kinda strange topic that shows a bit of bi-polar responses.
I do, however, bet that prohibition will end in my lifetime. It’s fucking stupid to have made it illegal in the first place (not to mention the racism surrounding the initial campaign to do so), and it really does cost more to stop than it would to legalize (even with health concerns taken into account).
At least that’s my dream …
March 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Come on. In recent polls show up to 40% of Americans, and 60% of Americans in the west, favor some form of decriminalization or legalization. Is it really too much to ask that the question be answered in more than a sentence?
March 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I saw a recent poll on CBS saying that 56% of Americans favor keeping it illegal, so presumably legalization is up to 44%?
March 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
(1) The context was a public forum where the President asked people to vote on which questions he was asked. Pretty simple.
(2) I disagree with your assertion that the “easy” path would have been to ignore the question. Isn’t it a bit easier to make a joke out of the politically-marginalized (or “not influential,” if you prefer) group posing it?
(3) Marijuana prohibition is somewhat popular right now, but that popularity has been on the decline for several decades and is nearing a tipping point. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html
(4)“I think the public health costs of legalizing marijuana would exceed any economic benefits” ; if the President had actually said this, would you agree?
I’m glad you ultimately come down on Sullivan’s side of this question, but your response seems to betray your lack of sympathy for the anti-prohibitionists.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I thought the answer was well-tuned. The president is being generally criticized for keeping his sense of humor regarding the many serious challenges we’re facing, so why not keep it in a genuinely humorous situation? The humor being the obviousness of exactly what Matt describes: there’s literally nothing he can actually say substantively without making major headlines. Everyone knows this so rather than coming off like a tool, he chose to lighten the atmosphere around the topic. I don’t know how activists reacted, but if I were one, i think I’d be glad that my effort to get my issue on the agenda succeeded, and cheered at Obama’s relaxed attitude and the fact that he felt free not to give the stock hard-ass answer on the question.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Is it really too much to ask that the question be answered in more than a sentence?
It’s worth pointing out that under my plan (first link in #5), a non-stoned academic or other expert would be able to submit a very good question content in the knowledge that other non-stoned people would be able to vote it up. In that case, it would probably have resulted in a bit more than one sentence.
Instead, in the current effort, the questions were submitted by the stoned and then voted on by the stoned, and a weak question was the obvious outcome.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Considering that, just this week, Obama’s DEA was spending taxpayer money busting state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries in California, I am not surprised by Obama’s lame response.
Personally, I could care less about legalized pot, but standing behind demonstratively bad drug policy because doing so is politically expedient is cowardly.
I spent a lot of time and money getting Obama elected, but every day he looks more and more like a one-term loser.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Mike, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Imagine if, instead of marijuana, the prohibition being questioned was same-sex marriage. Do you think proponents would be encouraged by the President’s dismissive and contemptuous answer? Obviously not. When the most important decision maker in the land makes light of a very serious problem, those persons most affected by the problem do not celebrate because he managed to display a “relaxed attitude.”
March 27th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Yes, it is an important issue. But providing a more substantive answer would be far too distracting to other issues that are far more important.
Somebody explain to Sully that everything can’t be treated as a priority.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I think he’s got enough on his plate right now. I hope to see substantial changes in marijuana policy in the future. And hemp.
It’s the only medication that works for me for my disorder and I am far more productive with pot. I’m seriously sick of the “stoner” cliche. My ears have been ringing for a year from protracted benzodiazapene withdrawal. I simply cannot afford the risk and stress that comes with criminalization, nor can I afford to take pharmaceutical drugs.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Sully loves his weed. Obama touched a nerve there.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
17 = Obama.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Nobody wants marijuana legalization to be a “priority” over, for example, “saving the economy” (which Obama probably can’t even do compared to actually decriminalizing pot).
Way to set up a straw man.
What people want is for Obama to have a reasonably rational opinion.
As I’ve said before: suckers.
Obama is all talk, no plan.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The question should have been about HEMP not marijuana. Currently industrial hemp (not a drug) has to be imported from outside of the United States, when it could easily be grown here. Regardless, Obama’s reply was cowardly & insincere and it really shows that he’s just another two-faced politician. I’m voting Green Party next election.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
But if there is no serious negative answer, if Obama cannot honestly say he believes the public health costs of legalization outweigh the benefits then Obama loses that option.
I can think of serious answers other than the one Matt proposed, but that answer is the one I would give.
Drug legalizers might get more respect if their own “arguments” weren’t so often some version of “Prohibition doesn’t work, dammit! Just look at the failed Drug War!”
March 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Regardless, Obama’s reply was cowardly & insincere and it really shows that he’s just another two-faced politician. I’m voting Green Party next election.
The GOP thanks you for your unwitting support.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Chill, guys. It’s all good.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@24AheadDotCom: Why can only non-stoned academics submit questions in your scheme? Wouldn’t the fact that they were academics suggest that getting stoned isn’t completely impeding their intellect?
March 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
A few years ago, the CBC (Canada’s BBC) put together a “Greatest Canadian” show where, over the course of a few weeks, people could submit names of past and present Canadians and have them put to a vote. One previously unknown (at least on a national level) radio host thought it would be funny to get his listeners to vote for him. He ended up in the top fifty, right next to historic Canadian prime ministers, scientists, and literary figures. True to form, the CBC included him, and even did a short bio of him on their show.
Oh, and who was number 1? Tommy Douglas, the man credited with introducing universal health care to Canada.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I think Obama was wise to give a wishy-washy lame answer. It’s tough to support legalization or even decriminalization in today’s politics. Look, I live in Boulder, and our politicians are loathe to even mention legalization. And we already have decriminalization. A parking ticket will usually cost you more money than possession of less than an ounce. And neither would rise to the level of a misdemeanor. And let’s be clear, they plead to possession of less than an ounce when you have a quarter pound or less. If a cop catches you smoking a joint in a public place, he might ask you to put it out, but probably not. I’ve had the cops come on noise complaints (I have Von Schweikert VR-3 speakers and a sweet 250W/channel amp- I can make some noise), and they didn’t care at all about the pot I had. They didn’t even flush it down the toilet. But I had to go to court about the noise complaints. I now have a strict rule that all windows must be closed when we go beyond -32dB attenuation. That seems to work. But I’ll still smoke pot in front of cops because they really don’t care. That’s how decriminalization should work. And if Mr Sullivan wants to get his panties in a bunch, he can move to a place that doesn’t care about pot. Or he can recognize that where he lives doesn’t really care too much about it, either. I think his problem is that he hasn’t dealt with cops enough. After a while, it’s just second nature and you deal with these things in a polite manner. In his defense, he hasn’t really experienced reality on a really real basis. After you’ve been in jail a few times and have had a few guns pointed to your head, you tend to be a little more relaxed about such stressful situations. Mr Sullivan would be wise to experience a little of the dark side of reality.
For a guy with AIDS, he has a really strange fear. And don’t get me wrong, I really like Sullivan’s writings, I just think he’s a pussy. And it’s because of his wimpishness, not because he’s gay. Trust me, I lived in Austin, so I know what a butch gay cowboy is. They’re the kind of people who want to kick the crap out of you for calling them ‘gay.’ They prefer “flaming faggot,” thank you very much. A breeder like me making that mistake can result in a hospital stay if you don’t explain yourself quickly. I, of course, find this very ironic given that I’m a breeder that’s usually mistaken for being gay. I’ve had the shit kicked out of me because someone thought I was gay, and I’m not. So I’ve faced dangerous situations from both gay and straight people. I’ve apparently achieved that perfect nexus where I’m unacceptable to both communities. But I guess if you’re pissing everyone off, you must be doing something right.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I think that dismissing the question quickly was simply a necessary political move. Obama has . . . and SHOULD . . . steer very clear of any discussions on topics that aren’t at the top of his agenda.
If he had given it ANY serious consideration during the town hall, there would be all sorts of goofy MSM stories out there on how Obama’s “soft on drugs” or some other such nonsense.
It’s the same reason Obama won’t talk about DOMA or civil unions. If he mentioned ANY of them, they will distract from the economy, Afghanistan, health care, etc. Remember all the brouhaha over taking an hour to fill out his March Madness brackets? We’d get weeks of pundits mulling Obama’s response.
There are some things the President just shouldn’t talk about until it’s time to talk about them. And, personally, I believe legalization should originate in the legislature, rather than being broached first by the White House.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
#25: that also happened in 1998 with someone else.
Under my system, only those with some sort of public profile relating to the issue (in this case, historians) would be allowed to vote. Those historians would assess their political leanings, and if the average was too far to one side more from the other side would be added to obtain balance. And, all their selections would be public. So, if someone voted for Avril they’d risk their credibility. Thus, they’d be sure to make the best choices.
In the case of asking BHO questions, those eligible to vote would be *any* blogger, pundit, etc. who’d been stating opinions publicly for more than six months. They’d also indicate whether they’re right/left or whatever, and balance would be achieved.
That way, if MattY voted up an Obamagirl video and voted down a very difficult Heritage question about transportation, his votes would be public and he’d help discredit himself. (Yes, that doesn’t mean much, but for others it would).
Under my idea, anyone can submit questions, although there might have to be a limit of some kind if there are too many questions.
But, under my idea, the most vexing pot question would have risen to the top.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Nobody wants marijuana legalization to be a “priority” over, for example, “saving the economy” (which Obama probably can’t even do compared to actually decriminalizing pot).
Way to set up a straw man.
I’m not sure anyone is even making that argument. We’re saying that the issue of legalization was DOA and Obama would just be wasting political capital taking it on. I mean, maybe you think he’s not going to fix the economy. I’m doubtful myself. But his proposals do have a decent chance of making their way though congress and actually being implemented. Legalization, on the other hand, has absolutely no chance of getting through congress; furthermore, taking a stand on this issue would in all likelihood reduce his ability to push any legislation through congress.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Now that my dudgeon is back on low, I guess I’m just glad that the question was acknowledged at all. The level of public and media attention to drug war issues is picking up remarkably, which can only be good since prohibition is a rotten edifice. Oops… dudgeon back on high.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Note also that I originally came up with my plan in July 2007 for the Youtube effort; there’s a longer description of the plan here.
Remember the snowman? That’s why I came up with that plan. This is one of the videos I submitted.
Instead, CNN selected incredibly bad questions. Not only that, but they deleted my videos pointing out how bad those questions were from the list of replies:
youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM
youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M
Selecting questions in the way I’ve described would avoid all these problems, including weak questions rising to the top and corrupt gatekeepers like CNN.
The only problem is that if I started an effort like this I don’t have the network necessary to get the questions asked. Those who do have such a network (such as the latest Nation effort) obviously have no interest in real questions being asked.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
No time to read thru the thread at the moment, but the reality is despite the huge problems narcotics prohibition causes (and the most serious problems now likely involve foreign affairs — I’m thinking particularly of Mexico and Afghanistan), the simple reality is Obama is not about to waste political capital. And right now, I really sense momentum shifting on cannabis, at least, so, the most feasible path right now is for Washington to simply allow the states to experiment. Which seems to be happening. No need for Obama to get on a soap box about it.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“So I don’t expect the president to come out in favor of reform. But it would be nice to see him discuss the issue seriously.”
Obama SHOULDN’T discuss the issue seriously. It’s not going to happen. He’s not going to try and make it happen. If he did try and make it happen, it would politically cripple him at the very time when his leadership on much more important issues is absolutely essential.
If Obama had given a serious answer, even if it were pro-prohibition, the potheads would be having orgasms over how their issue has been “legitimized” in the public discourse and pronouncing that NOW IS THE TIME to push even harder for legalization.
Frankly, the whining over Obama’s response indicates that the biggest hurdle to legalization/decriminalization is going to be the zealous fanaticism of the potheads.
Mike
March 27th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@33:
Let’s replay that with some substitution:
“If Obama had given a serious answer, even if it were anti-gay marriage, the gays would be having orgasms over how their issue has been “legitimized” in the public discourse and pronouncing that NOW IS THE TIME to push even harder for legalization.
Frankly, the whining over Obama’s response indicates that the biggest hurdle to legalization/domestic partnership is going to be the zealous fanaticism of the gays.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“Under my system, only those with some sort of public profile relating to the issue (in this case, historians) would be allowed to vote.”
That’s a recipe for oligarchy. Except that it would be a modified form where every interest group has their own realm of dictatorship. Consider my field, the FDA is my regulator, and the big companies already control them. It’s already bad enough with regular people demanding health care against the wishes of the FDA and the medical community. If you take regular people out of the medical experience, you will only have medical companies forcing people into experimentation out of financial need. That’s the Indian way, and we don’t want it. We’re talking teenagers being slaughtered for their organs. And with regulations being only slightly removed, those experiments will still get pretty damn creepy. And if you think our experiments aren’t already creepy, then you don’t work in medicine.
There is a real need for public ethics to supercede medical technology. And it would be really helpful if such discussions were based on everyone’s opinions, not just those of doctors who want to do the research. Sadly, those opinions need to be based on rational thought, and that’s not possible in humanity. Humanity’s fear of creepiness will always supersede rational thought.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
White Widow, people were saying that very thing just three months ago, over the Rick Warren pick. “Your issue is just your pet issue, and your fanaticism over it is hurting your cause. Plus it distracts from my issue, which is the most vital problem that has faced the world these fifty years.”
March 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
If in the future Obama or some other democrat decide he/she wants to legalize Marijuana, the nonserious answer will better serve their interests. Likewise with Dems opposing gay marriage.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Sesli sohbet te lider site zurbik.net
March 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
@Tomemos: Sure, people were saying that about Rick Warren three months ago. Last I checked, gay rights have expanded prodigiously in the last forty years. Not so much cannabis rights, so a little insistence (fanaticism being rather too strong an adjective) is called for.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Actually, states allowing medical marijuana, and cities having referendums to make possession the lowest priority for law enforcement is pretty big. Much better research is being done also.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Matt,
Your use of the term “marijuana-legalizers” is a bit offensive to me. After a hearing on the Hill, Barry McCafferty once dismissed me with the comment, “Oh, you are just a Legalizer.” Perhaps if you could use a term such as “marijuana reform activists,” the hair on the back of my neck would lay back down.
Thank you for addressing the issue though, I have faith that with more research in to the topic of marijuana prohibition funding the drug cartels rather than generating tax revenue you will come to support marijuana law reform.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Last I checked, gay rights have expanded prodigiously in the last forty years. Not so much cannabis rights, so a little insistence (fanaticism being rather too strong an adjective) is called for.
The fact that gay rights has been so successful and cannabis rights so unsuccessful should tell you something about the relative merits of the two causes.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Hey, Barney Frank along with 5 other sponsors had a bill to legalize pot, but it didn’t pass. Check the gov. org. site under this Congress. Why not get the grass roots involved as the statics show it would save at least 60 billion just in police enforcement. Tax revenue would be approx 40 billion. I am older so I don’t have the energy to get this started, but will participate with any of you who get organized.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Hasn’t pot decrim ballot questions passed almost everywhere they have been on the ballot?
With this issue, it will truly have to be a grassroots movement (heh) state by state, until one day we wake up and realize pot posssession is virtually legal everywhere.
Obama would be a moron to have anything other than a dismissive answer–the dude’s got bigger problems than validating our (correct) views on the subject.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The fact that gay rights has been so successful and cannabis rights so unsuccessful should tell you something about the relative merits of the two causes.
Wow – that’s comically misguided. Is there an entire industry that makes billions in surveillance, armaments, and litigation in the prosecution of gay people? Is there a set of products that would lose billions of dollars of business if gays could marry? It’s ridiculous to think the pressures in Washington to restrict each issue are even remotely comparable.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
A lot of people seem to think that the only alternative to a “dismissive” answer on the pot question would have been a hugely divisive one. Actually, this case is a lot easier, because from the pro-reform perspective, he was asked the wrong question.
Obama would have been perfectly reasonable to state that the costs of establishing the regulatory infrastructure necessary to legalize and tax the pot industry, and managing the massive legal overhaul such a move, would far outweigh the fiscal benefits of a cannabis tax over the next few years. He wouldn’t have to mention what could be better done with the massive amounts of money wasted on enforcing the cannabis prohibition when partial decriminalization is widely favored and generally successful. He could’ve better qualified his stance that legalizing weed won’t fix the economy (which is true) without alienating the growing numbers of people who believe that the current drug laws are outdated, wasteful, unrealistic, and badly in need of reform.
Would anyone care to quantify the alleged “public health costs” of decriminalization? Cannabis-related injuries, hospital stays, and chronic illnesses are rare, and deaths extraordinarily so. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating one minor offendor under many contested antidrug laws is greater than that of treating dozens of patients who have been unlucky with weed. The “public health cost” argument would be much better used against tobacco, alcohol, cars, and fast food, which is why it’s best avoided.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
@hatsoff: The success of gay rights tells me a few things, none of which support your point.
Policing private, consentual sexual behavior is a very different thing than policing the manufacture, sale, and possession of cannabis. There was never a widespread effort to use law enforcement to police gay sex that occurred behind closed doors, whereas enforcing and maintaining the drug prohibition regime is worth billions of dollars to a great many people.
Also, people may dabble with or cycle in and out of cannabis use, but homosexuality is much more of a fixed characteristic. The constituency for the latter was naturally more durable and vocal. However, we are now at a point that many who are not personally concerned with having legal access to cannabis are fed up with the massive waste of human and actual capital that prohibition represents.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“But as you yourself have noted, legalization is popular too, pulling 40% in some polls. National politicians take stances with less than 40% support all the time.”
Not when a relatively minor political issue would immediately turn into a character issue. Obama’s drug use is far in the past, and it’s not disussed much, for good reason. But all sorts of people would start acting like it’s fair game. So here’s the real reason drug decriminalization is not on the horizon: because people like, say Mitt Romney, who haven’t done drugs are either conservative or paranoid about their conservative bona fides, and most of the more sensible politicians on this issue have done illegal drugs. Time to recruit Mormon liberals to the cause.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
a1,
It’s ridiculous to think the pressures in Washington to restrict each issue are even remotely comparable.
If you don’t think the gay rights cause has been more successful than the cannabis rights cause because the former has more merit than the latter, to what do you atttribute the greater success of gay rights?
March 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Policing private, consentual sexual behavior is a very different thing than policing the manufacture, sale, and possession of cannabis. There was never a widespread effort to use law enforcement to police gay sex that occurred behind closed doors, whereas enforcing and maintaining the drug prohibition regime is worth billions of dollars to a great many people.
What people would those be? And how exactly is maintaining the drug prohibition regime worth billions of dollars to them?
Also, people may dabble with or cycle in and out of cannabis use, but homosexuality is much more of a fixed characteristic. The constituency for the latter was naturally more durable and vocal.
You’re making my point for me. Gay rights is matter of the fundamental dignity and equality of the person. Smoking pot is a recreational activity. Hence, the gay rights cause has far more merit than the cannabis rights cause, and has been far more successful for that reason.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
fostert:
1. I don’t support organ stealing in order to ask questions, if that’s what you’re getting at.
2. In the example of FDA-related issues, those who could vote on questions would be those who are actually familiar with the issues involved, and that would include doctors close the the drug companies, watchdog groups, pro-and-anti-bloggers, etc. They would just have to be publicly known, very broadly defined. Such as having had a blog for six months. That’s a pretty low bar.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Obama deliberately walked into a situation where Cannabis was discussed in a light-hearted and non-serious manner. To all those unhappy that the issues surrounding Cannabis were not discussed seriously (all who are bitching) please consider this. Obama addressed Pot in his first 90 days.
I am wondering if the fact that Eric Holder declared that the feds were no longer interested in prosecuting marijuana offenders that broke no state laws (i.e. medical marijuana participants), halting judges mid-sentencing (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medpot24-2009mar24,0,1972907.story)
and that representatives are calling for legalization (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/03/05/legalize_marijuana_and_tax_it_rep_robert), I am wondering if all this somehow means that shit is being stirred up.
Come on, did he really dash all your dreams?
March 28th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Out of control Mexican drug cartels, US jails and prisons full to bursting with drug offenders, and billions in potential tax revenues if pot were legal are not trivial reasons to address this systemic question.
The war on drugs is hardly any better than a war on terrorism. Some major changes and rethinking are in order. I don’t expect this administration to take this on early in the term — could be the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell fiasco all over again.
But it should be a year 1 of second term issue.
And I say this as someone happily in AA who voluntarily gave up pot 5 years before booze: Legalize it, regulate it, treat the unlucky addicts and let those who are not genetically disposed to addiction have their choice of pot or booze.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Two quick clarifications:
1) I meant to type non-trivial reasons…
2) The war on terror is failing because terror is a tactic, not a specified enemy. Drugs come from dispersed sources, work through clandestine networks, etc.
May be over-explaining. Long day at work today. Limited options to kick back and relax.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Stop trolling, “hatsoff”.
Let’s take everything in this thread as read, and if you can’t come up with anything new to say, you’re just trying to pick another tiresome argument.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:39 am
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Mixnerspotter’.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:51 am
I like the “White Widow” moniker. For those who don’t know, that’s a really nice strain of marijuana. One of my favorites, actually. Whoever came up with that strain deserves my praise.
March 28th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Marijuana prohibition is popular, and pro-pot interests are not influential
Let me correct that for you…..
Marijuana prohibition is profitable, and pro-pot interests are marginalized by straw man and false arguments propagated by the media
March 28th, 2009 at 6:03 am
And the real focus re economic prospects….is the prohibition on HEMP
It is the single most useful plant on the planet and it is absolutely impossible to get stoned on it.
No one’s talking about the prohibition on hemp. NO ONE
March 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I guess the reason you bring up hemp is because we are talking about Cannabis, and hemp is a term used to describe the fiber material extracted from the stems. Like a lot of terms, it can get fuzzy, and be used to mean the whole plant, so people can say “Thomas Jefferson was a hemp farmer”. It’s really not a different plant- it’s the same plant. People smoke the flowers and can make rope out of the trunk. Oil can be extracted from the flowerheads, seeds for food etc. I’m familiar with the myriad of industrial and other uses of this plant.
If you mean you can’t smoke rope and get high- you are right sir! Nor would I advise smoking the seeds, or the roots for that matter…
It is also true that Cannabis, like tomatoes, can be genetically selected for strains. It can be bred for desired flower-head qualities, or for rope-making qualities, and the best of both are not likely to be found in the same strain. So if you take a strain that is bred for industrial hemp and smoke the flowers, you might get a headache, like the ditchweed my room-mate brought back from Kansas when we were in college. It wasn’t worth it to smoke it. A lot of people won’t smoke the leaves for the same reason, but some will. My guess is that industrial hemp flowers could be processed for recreational consumption somehow, but why go through that? A- It’s illegal, and B- Better strains are available for that purpose.
So, Xboxershorts, what did I miss? I talked about hemp without capitalizing every letter.
Come on, let’s get the word out!
March 28th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Obama is better than what went before. That’s not saying much.
Every major commission, over more than a century, has found that the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits. At a time when schools and health care are gasping for funding, how do you justify spending the money on prohibition?
It’s like a form of rot. Now people have treatment programs for a non-existent “marijuana addiction”. The Feds audited one of these treatment programs in 2007 and found that one in ten hadn’t used pot in the previous year, and more than one in three hadn’t used it in the previous month. Naturally, the treatment people are always warning us of the terrible dangers if pot is legalized.
As for whether big business makes a bundle on pot prohibition, the ‘third rail’ nature of the issue should tell you they do. You might think beer and tobacco companies would hurt the worst, but actually big drug companies are making the most. A months supply of Dromolol for a cancer patient costs over $600. Anti-spasmodics, pain relievers, anti-depressants, anti-emetics- add it up and you’re talking money that makes brewery revenues look like “small beer”.
Drug prohibition is what you call a multi-dimensional problem. It provides funding for gangs and terrorists. Some of the money is used to bribe policemen, prosecutors, and legislators. It prevents the use of cheap and effective medications. It expands the presence of the police and has made Swiss cheese of our Bill of Rights. It costs a lot of money which, like bad DNA, replicates expenses, turning ordinary people into hardened criminals condemned to “treatment” for an addiction they don’t have.
And those were the “successes” of prohibition. On the negative side we have the destruction of the family by long prison terms- seeding an entire generation of sub-par performance, poverty, and in all likelihood, abuse of legal substances.
The cost over the past 30 years- over a trillion dollars- would have been sufficient to build solar and wind power for the entire US- even with the less efficient technology of the past. If we had done this, the world would be coming to us to buy, and we would be lending them money, instead of the sadly reverse situation in which we find ourselves.
Maybe the California prison guards have the most realistic take on the matter- presidents come and presidents go, but as long as pot is illegal, the prison guards will have a veto on the California governor. And that’s something they’re ready to fight for.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
@hatsoff: I know I shouldn’t feed a troll, but you’re just so cute. The people to whom drug prohibition are worth billions are the police agencies (both through direct funding and asset forfeiture), intelligence agencies, owners of private prisons, prison guard unions, drug testing companies, and prohibition advocacy groups. Insofar as politicians have used grandstanding about drugs to their electoral benefit, prohibition has also been worth money to them.
“You’re making my point for me. Gay rights is matter of the fundamental dignity and equality of the person. Smoking pot is a recreational activity. Hence, the gay rights cause has far more merit than the cannabis rights cause, and has been far more successful for that reason.”
Well I’d maintain that having sovereignty over one’s state of mind IS a matter of fundamental dignity. Moreover, a regime that mandates urination on demand and authorizes strip searches for drugs (even advil, it seems) has fundamentally violated dignity.
@Fostert: Thanks, I’m glad someone got it.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
What public health costs?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Well, I’m all in favor of legaization, but I can’t really complain about how Obama answered–it was strange to try to tie legalization to the economy. I doubt very much that legalizing marijuana would solve the country’s economic crisis, although it might make us feel happier while the crisis is in progress.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:29 am
And if Mr Sullivan wants to get his panties in a bunch, he can move to a place that doesn’t care about pot.
Fostert, do you not understand that this often is an option for the communities most targeted by drug violence and enforcement (they go hand in hand)?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Haha woops, I meant ISN’T an option
March 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
yes, get the word out Millie. But try not to be too condescending as you do so.
PLEASE?
March 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
of course “I believe that the health costs of increased marijuana use would outweigh the benefits of legalization” would not, in fact, be a real answer. it would just be a “feeling” not at all based on facts. the “public health ‘costs’” would be negative.
not much money, in a medical sense, is spent on treating anything related to pot. a few people a year have panic attacks and go to the emergency room (which there is no actual need for someone having a panic attack to do), and that is literally IT. there are NO other ‘costs’!
base arguments on facts, not feelings and anecdotes.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
also, can people stop spreading the laughable falsehood that this question asked whether legalizing pot would fix the economic crisis?
the question asked whether legalization would make sense since it would help the economy while the current policy costs a ton of money, provides no real benefits to anyone, and does active harm.
that was the question, and it was the #1 question asked. an honest answer from Obama could have been “I recognize that there is truth to the legalization argument. I do not feel able to focus on this issue at this time, but some time in the future we can have a real conversation about reforming our drug policies. Thank you.”
what would have been wrong with that answer? would have made everyone happy. instead Obama blew it off, acted condescending and really, kinda like a jerk about it, and went for a cheap laugh. it was very disappointing, not the ‘adult’, uber-serious and thoughtful Obama we usually get.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
sorry Millie, but not – they are STILL conducting those raids. it was, so far, a lot of empty talk from Holder and Obama on the issue.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I’ve smoked pot for over 30 years, although these days much less frequently. I certainly believe it should be decriminalized. Ideally it should be made legal, and a sizeable tax put on it which would be used to fund drug treatment and healthcare programs. That said, I’m not too concerned about Obama’s handling of the pot question. Coming out for decriminalization would only have caused a big firestorm to damage his credibility with lots of the public right now. It would be a good way to waste some of his political capital right now when he needs to conserve it for healthcare, energy legislation, etc. If he wants to come out in favor of changes to the drug laws, he’ll have to do it in concert with other major political leaders somewhere down the road.
March 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
onceler- Sorry to hear that the raids continue. Knocks that back from baby-steps to mosquito steps.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Hasn’t Obama instructed the Feds to back off drug busts that confilict with state laws?
March 28th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Marijuana will never be decriminalized or legal, nor should it. Get over it. Stop getting high and go get a life.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Seeing as Matt brought up the topic of health care costs associated with marijuana, it should be made clear- there are none.
Kaiser-Permanente did a 20-year longitudinal study with thousands of patients. They found there was no difference in the health of people who smoked pot daily compared with abstainers.
If you go to the hospital, they may ask you if you use drugs, and you, assuming they need this information to protect your health, might tell them you smoke pot. DON’T. There is no possible use for this information- marijuana does not interact with other drugs, slow your heartbeat, depress your respiration, and there is no treatment or medication administered to someone who has smoked pot, mainly because smoking pot does not cause any health problems. However, if you answer ‘yes’, you will be marked as a drug user and regarded with suspicion by every health care employee you meet for the rest of your life. Choose wisely.
In fact, marijuana could save us quite a bit of money in health care. We are learning it is a powerful aid for some M.S. sufferers, quads and paras have reported for years it’s an effective anti-spasmodic, and the clear implication is that it may be very useful in treating other movement disorders of neuro-muscular origin.
To put it simply, withholding marijuana from sick people and the disabled is nothing less than a crime.
But you could probably guess that just by looking at the people who made it illegal.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Look, I agree with Bill Hicks — the war on drugs is a bit of cocksuck, isn’t it?
But the idea that you can equate the cause of gay marriage with the cause of pot legalization is just as much of a cocksuck. Pursuit of right to toke equals pursuit of right to protect and affirm your core adult relationship? Really? No wonder y’all have always come off as fuckin’ goons, and no wonder Obama reacted dismissively toward you.
That said, I know Andrew himself is out in front on both issues. But the notion that legalization for revenue purposes (the thrust of this question) is “deadly serious” is also, well, a bit of a cocksuck. This question wasn’t about jails or resources or medical uses. It was about taxes. And Obama treated that like something low, low down on the “fix the deficit” list. Because it is.
PS. Most people who have a steady supply of pot don’t particularly want it legalized for tax purposes. Shit, maybe Obama was laughing at the thought of having to pay taxes on his stash. Didn’t think of that, did you?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
serial catowner,
Kaiser-Permanente did a 20-year longitudinal study with thousands of patients. They found there was no difference in the health of people who smoked pot daily compared with abstainers.
What Kaiser-Permanente study would that be? This study of patients at Kaiser-Permanente patients found that:
March 29th, 2009 at 12:46 am
widow,
I know I shouldn’t feed a troll, but you’re just so cute.
I know I shouldn’t engage a fool, but you’re just too precious to pass up.
The people to whom drug prohibition are worth billions are the police agencies (both through direct funding and asset forfeiture), intelligence agencies, owners of private prisons, prison guard unions, drug testing companies, and prohibition advocacy groups.
You’re joking, right? Police and prisons get a “benefit,” in the form of more jobs, more facilities, more government spending, etc. from the criminalization of ANYTHING. So how is this “benefit” to police and prisons supposed to explain the persistence of drugs laws specifically? If police and prisons and prohibition advocacy groups are so powerful that they can prevent the repeal of what you claim to be grossly unjust laws, why aren’t alcohol and gay sex and fornication and interracial marriage and blasphemy and all sorts of other activities still against the law? Your claim isn’t simply implausible, it is preposterous.
Well I’d maintain that having sovereignty over one’s state of mind IS a matter of fundamental dignity.
You’re hilarious. The issue isn’t “sovereignty over one’s mind,” it is the possession, sale, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana and other drugs. How, exactly, are these activities a matter of “fundamental dignity?”
March 29th, 2009 at 2:36 am
If the administration gets a second term marijuana (and hemp) will be legalized and taxed. They seem to be pragmatic folks who will adhere to the First Law of Pragmatism: be pragmatic.
The real question is: do we go further and unleash the beasts, coke and heroin. Its seems crazy to even consider it.
Yet as a bartender you can’t help but make comparisons of the relative power of drugs vs alcohol. Over the years it has become clear, to me, that coke is maybe at the level of 100 proof alcohols in its potential destructive power on society. Certainly not more, and probably much less.
If my Drug-Alcohol Theory of Relativity has some merit, hypocrisy issues regarding coke could be delicately raised.
Crack and meth I would scale out at 200 proof jet fuel, fit only for hard drinking Russian pilots stuck on a Siberian airbase.
As for heroin, the only reason I would consider legalization is it might help win the war in Central Asia. If we open our vast markets to poppy farmers in the Hindu Kush and provide Afghanistan with a legal, game changing industry, Ben-Laden and the Taliban won’t stand a chance in the struggle for hearts and minds.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Sorry, ‘hatsoff’, I don’t open pdfs. Nor do I normally feed trolls, but for the benefit of other readers I will explain- the trick here appears to be the use of “an elevated risk of health care use for various health problems”.
‘Hatsoff’ is trying to create the illusion of elevated health problems from a quote that says pot smokers are more likely to go to the doctor when they feel sick. People with money or health care insurance are also more likely to go to the doctor when they feel sick. Big duh.
Which leaves another question- why does somebody even bother trolling a marijuana thread? It seems obvious that ‘hatsoff’ is paid by somebody- you would have to be incredibly pathetic to actually spend your life reading NIH pdfs searching for a misleading paragraph you could use in a marijuana thread.
Strange. Very strange.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OK, hatsoff, I will again take the bait.
The people to whom drug prohibition are worth billions are the police agencies (both through direct funding and asset forfeiture), intelligence agencies, owners of private prisons, prison guard unions, drug testing companies, and prohibition advocacy groups.
You’re joking, right? Police and prisons get a “benefit,” in the form of more jobs, more facilities, more government spending, etc. from the criminalization of ANYTHING. So how is this “benefit” to police and prisons supposed to explain the persistence of drugs laws specifically? If police and prisons and prohibition advocacy groups are so powerful that they can prevent the repeal of what you claim to be grossly unjust laws, why aren’t alcohol and gay sex and fornication and interracial marriage and blasphemy and all sorts of other activities still against the law? Your claim isn’t simply implausible, it is preposterous.
Well, perhaps law enforcement opposed legalization of alcohol, gay sex, and blasphemy and lost. I have no idea and doubt you do either. Apart from alcohol policing during Prohibition, though, it would seem that the former crimes you mentioned never involved anything close to the resources dedicated to drug law enforcement. Law enforcement resistance to losing some of its turf and funding is not of course the sole reason that some drugs remain illegal, but it’s certainly a factor.
You’re hilarious. The issue isn’t “sovereignty over one’s mind,” it is the possession, sale, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana and other drugs. How, exactly, are these activities a matter of “fundamental dignity?”
Oh, I guess that being able to have a grow house is not a matter of fundamental dignity, but it’s the activity that allows individuals who wish to alter their consciousness with cannabis to do so. Presumably you accept that being able to choose one’s own religion is a matter of fundamental dignity. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to use select drugs in the religious context. So, it’s not entirely unheard of to accept the sovereignty argument.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
widow,
Well, perhaps law enforcement opposed legalization of alcohol, gay sex, and blasphemy and lost. I have no idea and doubt you do either.
Well, did they or didn’t they? And for that matter, how do you know “law enforcement” supports our current drug laws? Andif “law enforcement” lost on alcohol, gay sex, fornication, blasphemy, etc., why haven’t they also lost on drug laws?
Apart from alcohol policing during Prohibition, though, it would seem that the former crimes you mentioned never involved anything close to the resources dedicated to drug law enforcement. Law enforcement resistance to losing some of its turf and funding is not of course the sole reason that some drugs remain illegal, but it’s certainly a factor.
You haven’t produced a shred of evidence that it’s a factor at all, let alone that it explains why drug laws have not been repealed. As I said, given all the other activities that used to be banned by law but are now legal, your claim that drug laws persist because of the “benefits” they provide to law enforcement and “prohibition advocacy groups” isn’t just implausible, it is absurd. But this is the kind of delusional fantasy that people like you dream up to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth about the social and economic effects of drugs.
Oh, I guess that being able to have a grow house is not a matter of fundamental dignity, but it’s the activity that allows individuals who wish to alter their consciousness with cannabis to do so.
Again, so what? Why is “altering consciousness with cannabis,” or any other drug, a matter of “fundamental dignity?”
Presumably you accept that being able to choose one’s own religion is a matter of fundamental dignity. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to use select drugs in the religious context. So, it’s not entirely unheard of to accept the sovereignty argument.
The Supreme Court has recognized a limited right to use certain otherwise-prohibited drugs in religious ceremonies. The fundamental right in question is freedom of religion, not freedom to use drugs.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
serial catowner,
‘Hatsoff’ is trying to create the illusion of elevated health problems from a quote that says pot smokers are more likely to go to the doctor when they feel sick.
No, the study did not find that pot smokers are more likely to go to the doctor when they feel sick. It found that pot smokers have an increased risk of health problems, including respiratory illnesses and injuries.
I ask again: what Kaiser-Permanente study are you referring to in your post #75?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Hatsoff,
Glad to know that minor religions that use extremely unpopular drugs are granted the right to alter their consciousness in recognition of religous freedom. Do you have a rational reason why this freedom should not apply to rastafarians and ganja?
Hey Matthew- another pot thread please- this is fun.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
widow,
Glad to know that minor religions that use extremely unpopular drugs are granted the right to alter their consciousness in recognition of religous freedom. Do you have a rational reason why this freedom should not apply to rastafarians and ganja?
If you think the use of ganja by Rastafarians should be lawful on the same basis that the use of peyote in bona fide religious activities is lawful, then it’s up to you to make that argument.
Still waiting for you to explain why the recreational use of drugs should be considered a matter of “fundamental dignity.” Potheads and heroin addicts don’t give a flying fuck about “dignity.” They just want to get high.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I can’t speak for the entirety of cannabis users, but in my experience using cannabis and in socializing with cannabis users, many find that it enhances their creativity and their enjoyment of mundane experience. You can check out Lester Grinspoon’s blog for some firsthand accounts, which you will no doubt dismiss.
I am not sure why you felt the need to bring heroin users into this discussion, other than to tar cannabis by association.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I respect Obama he is a talented politician, President Obama seems to posse’s insightful, reasonable judgment on many issues, although in the case of marijuana prohibition laws I find Obama’s choice to answer with mocking humor to be lacking. Smoking marijuana is an easy thing to laugh about, it seems there is something about being stoned that brings a smile to people’s faces, however marijuana prohibition is not a joke. We should not be making jokes as millions of Americans are arrested for being caught on the wrong side of moral politicking, we should not laugh as we spend over 30 billion dollars a year going after Americans for smoking weed, we should not giggle and poke fun as we watch billions of dollars in tax revenue slip through our fingers each year, and should we not be jolly as thousands of people are murdered by cartels profiting from America’s moral hypocrisy. I believe there are profound latent consequences in prohibition that are not even factored in to our assessments of the effects of illegality, such as how we view the rule of law and the role of law enforcement in the community, the divisiveness between users and non users, the stigma of mental shock of incarceration. I say pot prohibition is no joke it has real costs paid for in real lives. Freedom is achieved in a country by placing responsibility in the hands of the citizen and not by the state legally enforcing morality.
SunflowerPipes.com
April 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
If you ever want to see a reader’s feedback
, I rate this article for 4/5. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn yahoo to find the missed parts. Thanks, anyway!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Give please. My pessimism extends to the point of even suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I am from Peru and also now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Shopping for plane tickets? Start from here.”
Best regards
, Doane.