Esquire: Will Obama legalize it?
posted at 9:00 pm on December 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
I’m guessing no. But as with gay marriage, he’s sent enough mixed signals on the subject that his disciples can plausibly tell themselves that he secretly agrees with them and is prepared to act on it when the time is right, but has to lie low for just a bit longer until he’s in a better position politically.
Some of Obama’s biggest financial donors are friends of the legalization movement, St. Pierre notes. “Frankly, George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling — this triumvirate of billionaires — if those three men, who put up $50 to $60 million to get Democrats and Obama elected, can’t pick up the phone and actually get a one-to-one meeting on where this drug policy is going, then maybe it’s true that when you give money, you don’t expect favors.”…
“I’m hoping that what the administration will do,” [Obama bundler Marsha Rosenbaum] says, “is something this country hasn’t done since 1971, which is to undertake a presidential commission to look at drug policy, convene a group of blue-ribbon experts to look at the issue, and make recommendations.”
But ultimately, Rosenbaum remains confident that those recommendations would call for an end to the drug war. “Once everything settles down in the second term, we have a shot at seeing some real reform.”
I hope it happens, mainly because if Obama’s feeling confident enough to risk this sort of culture war in his second term, it would mean he’d have been so fantastically successful in fixing the economy and detoxifying Pakistan and Iran, among other things, that he had political capital to burn. He had no appetite for the issue during the campaign: When the Washington Times uncovered video in January of him telling an audience in 2004 that he wanted to decriminalize pot, his spokesman turned on a dime and said he wouldn’t support eliminating penalties (but might reconsider jail for first-time offenders). In fact, NORML looked at the odds of an administration rethink on weed just a few weeks ago and found it unlikely given that The One’s surrounded by drug warriors, Biden and Rahm Emanuel most prominently among them. The only way I can imagine them doing it is if Obama moved so far to the center or center-right — perhaps due to foreign-policy exigencies — that he simply had to give the left something to get them off his back. Although that raises the question of under what circumstances he’d ever have to worry about placating the left. They’re not going to hand the White House back to the GOP in 2012, and with all the spending he’ll be doing, they’ll have plenty to keep them happy. Then again, never underestimate the pecular priorities of Obama cultists.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
I’m pretty sure that when prohibition ended, after an initial surge, consumption of alcohol leveled off to about what it was during prohibition.
I don’t feel like searching for the info, so you’ll have to decide whether to trust my memory or not. But if I’m right, what is the point of NOT legalizing these drugs? It will take away the element of danger of getting arrested (which is fun, though I can’t explain or even understand why). People who smoke the stuff will no longer hide it, so kids can see that the seediest people they know are actually drug users, thereby decreasing the likelihood that they’ll become drug users themselves. The penal system will be dramatically freed up to incarcerate only people who hurt other people…
The positives are so dramatic. I can’t believe everyone is not for this idea.
Kevin M on December 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM
“I don’t feel like searching for the info” – KevinM
Hah. Maybe I’m a latent stoner!
Kevin M on December 24, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Silly weed, illegal is for criminals!
I say legalize “The Weed” (love that phrase from Friday the 13th)!
Wait, I have an idea. Let’s take ALL the narcotics, pharmaceuticals, etc. (I am leaving weed out of this hypothetical) that have been confiscated by law enforcement and put it all in psyche wards, and then have an open call for all hard drug users to have at it! The ones who walk out of there of their own volition (after a two week rehab/detox session) have decided that it’s not what they want, and probably would want nothing to do with any of it ever again. Which is ok, because if they ever want to get narcotics again, all they have to do is go back in to the psyche ward.
Easy solution… no? Psyche ward would be monitored for safety, adults who want to get “frisky” on drugs could then book a room, all those people whose greatest wish is to commit suicide by overdose would have a nice safe place to do so.
Probably the wrong approach, but how do we know it’s not the answer?
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Milton Friedman – former member of the socialist/Marxist movement…
The Dean on December 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM
My God, I can’t believe you guys were still crawling all over my comments. At the risk of being ridiculed for posting after I said I have enough of HA, I am reading your comments and am just so compelled to ask one final set of questions. If one of you want to take a serious shot at changing my mind about the subject without making fun of my typing skillz, lets just try it one more time.
From the beginning on this thread all I was ever asserting is that it’ll never stop at people being satisfied with legalizing pot. There are people who will still want to do harder drugs. Am I wrong?
If the people who want to do harder drugs want them to be legal, would you feel compelled oppose them? If you oppose them, then you’re no different from me in your opinion that government has some responsibility in protecting people from themselves. Further, if you oppose the legalization of pot but not others, you have not ended the war on drugs. Law Enforcement will still be combating what is illegal.
If you oppose no restrictions on drug usage then I’d concede that you have absolutely ended the war on drugs but have created a national environment and possibly an atmosphere where people may do drugs unabated and you should prepare for a society where that exists.
I actually joined in with a group of folks off line from but made up of HA commenters who are Conservative Republicans, Independents and Libertarians who are trying to build common ground on our beliefs. We said early on that this and abortion are probably the two toughest. After this thread I would have at least a little doubt about really strong coalitions between us because of this particular issue.
But I’d like to hang till this thread runs out of stream or until you make me understand.
Just pot?
All drugs?
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Okay, I guess you can tease that mistake right off the bat. Got to be perfect.
If you support no restrictions on drug usage then I’d concede that you have absolutely ended the war on drugs but have created a national environment and possibly an atmosphere where people may do drugs unabated and you should prepare for a society where that exists.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 5:08 PM
What about my idea? Its pretty tough getting in and out of psyche wards!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 5:18 PM
What idea?
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 5:20 PM
A technique.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I hope I didn’t offend with my post. My stance is legalize all drugs. You should be able to do what you want to yourself without hurting anyone else. Plus if it was more out in the open, it would look less appealing to a child if they see real life cases in front of their eyes. The bottom line, though, is that it;s nobody’s business if someone gets stoned in their basement.
The Dean on December 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM
So does this mean we can tell Jew jokes, or black jokes? Or is it just Southern Baptists that get the butt end?
We don’t need the govt taxing pot, we just need the feds out of local issues. As far as drugs hurt no one, as long as I have to help pay for degenerates getting emergency room treatment, it hurts me.
Spartacus on December 24, 2008 at 5:33 PM
The same could be said for Alcohol, Tobacco (which has a Massive body count), McDonalds and other fatty garbage, high fructose corn syrup (which is addictive) risky physical activity like say Bull-riding or skydiving, etc. Should we criminalize all risky activity?
The Dean on December 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I think drug usage can be available in an institution, don’t you? I don’t count weed. Mostly because, of all the pot smokers I know, none have committed any crimes, overdoses or even been angry for any amount of time. I know all potsmokers are pretty sedentary, and their biggest overdose usually happens with munchies!
But narcotics and pharmaceuticals (why are they different again?) are another matter, and if it’s free and available in a psyche ward, why not let those people do what they will in a safe environment?
If you want to get drunk, you go to a bar.
If you want to ice skate, you go to a skating rink.
If you want to see a movie, you go to the theater.
If you want to do drugs, why can’t you go to a psyche (or psychadelic) ward?
Any takers?
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM
The federal government has enough money. Over 3 trillion a year. That’s more than enough to run a world class army, justice department and post office!
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM
As a drug and Alcohol counselor working with troubled youth, I can say that legalizing Marijuana, the drug that affects our youth the most, will create more Marijuana dependent adolescents.
I guess that would be job security for me.
But why should we give them more reasons to get high?
God help America.
riggword on December 24, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Define drugs. Because I’d like to drink coffe in my own house.
Are you talking about Marijuana? You have no idea what it does. That’s obvious.
lodge on December 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Enough money…Check the money that goes into the DEA.
What are you talking about?
I’m all for taking the money out of gov’ts hands. I’d rather the money go to my local shelter than the govt. But, they’re taking it..to arrest people that smoke pot now and then. It’s absurd.
Enough money? Please tell that to my local tax collector and then we’ll talk.
what ???~!
bridgetown on December 24, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I thought I did define drugs… Narcotics and pharmaceuticals (again, not sure what the difference is) but I specifically left pot off the list. You can bet caffeine never made that list either…
And I have a prescription for marijuana, so when I want some, I have to go to the pharmacy, and I pay sales tax on it. So I am confident “I know what it does” and I still have a job, and I pay my bills. What more could you ask?
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 6:11 PM
By linking to Freidman? Heck no! The comments about petulant child and intellectual dishonestly were what I hoped to avoid this last go around.
Well, you were at least realistic about the effect. I’m pretty sure your approach would be the only one where you’d actually benefit by alleviating the burden to law enforcement. Like I said, most of the folks here were on my butt for saying that I was using extreme examples and that they only would legalize pot.
People would still use the harder “illegal” drugs. There would be calls for those to be legalized one by one I would imagine. It would be a long and painful process until we ended up exactly where you’re advocating we should start. I’ll admit, that’s also the extreme I thought would send me packing. But it’s the only way if your point is the Libertarian idea of unfettered rights. Further, it would be the only way to avoid a slow constant battle between fellow Americans when you’d have bigger fish to fry considering current events.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 6:11 PM
I’m not sure you’d be able to talk folks who believe what they’re doing is recreational, to do it “psyche (or psychadelic) ward?”
You got a chuckle out of SWMBO though.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Well, you can test for the presence of marijuana in someone’s urine or blood, but the results don’t tell you when they partook. Someone could have last used a month ago and still come up dirty on the test. If marijuana were legalized, our legal system would effectively be sanctioning its use. How can we give someone a DUI based on a drug test if the test doesn’t prove they were under the influence when they were driving? If I drink a 12-pack tonight I can’t be penalized for it if I get pulled over next week.
Sure, there are ways to make a judgment call and guess that a person has been using pot. They could smell of it, their eyes could be red, their behavior may be that of someone who is high – but none of that is concrete evidence and any of that could be something else misinterpreted as proof. The best traffic cops can do to tell whether or not someone may have been under the influence of marijuana is to find it in the driver’s possession. But if possession is legal, how can this be used against someone?
Sign of the Dollar on December 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM
As for recreational narcotics and pharmaceutical users, if their options are:
1) check in, do any drugs your heart desires (for free), within the confines of the “ward”,
2) or get caught with the drugs and immediately go to the “ward”, with a mandatory stay until rehab/detox/death;
I think most recreational users would check themselves in, believing that they “can handle it.” I also feel that it’s the best way to sort through those who want to “try” drugs, and those who are hell-bent on killing themselves with it.
PS: Who is SWMBO?
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Don’t you think that with technology advancing so rapidly that eventually there WILL be a test for it? They can’t even study marijuana because of federal laws, so without studies and tests of marijuana, how can they come up with a detection test? And I would rather ride with someone who just smoked pot than someone who just drank or just ingested/inhaled narcotics/pharmaceuticals.
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 6:50 PM
You’re right. The stop and subsequent evaluation to determine if they were driving impaired would be subjective with grass; unless there is some other test that I’m not aware of that is as accurate as a breathalyzer.
I’m not sure that would ever stand up in court.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 6:53 PM
PS: Who is SWMBO?
She who must be obeyed. My girlfriend. She read your comment and got a chuckle.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Well, actually, I’d rather ride with a SOBER person in the first place, but potsmoker would be the only other person I would feel a modicum of safety with.
I’ve seen people on all sorts of drugs, and I’ve seen all kinds of drivers. Not all sober people are good drivers, and not all potheads are bad ones. But, I guess that’s just me, drawing my line in the sand…
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Awesome! Did she have to go to some kinda special training seminars to get you to think like that? Perhaps a book she read?? Just kidding, I love it, and please tell her thank you!
I lay out these plans here on HA, because I hope to be president someday, even though I’m a naturalized citizen, not a natural-born one!! LOL!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 6:58 PM
And as I just checked here, there were 420 comments so far. Could not let that happen without posting about it! :)
firepilot on December 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM
lol, no that’s actually a term Neal Boortz uses.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM
From where?
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:12 PM
It depends on the someone, really. I’ve come across some people who absolutely freak out from a little pot (I don’t handle it particularly well myself) and would certainly not be safe behind the wheel. At the same time, I’ve seen people use supposedly “harder” narcotics and function just fine. This isn’t something you can take on a case-by-case basis. There has to be an objective standard. Personally, I can drive perfectly fine well above the legal limit of alcohol consumption, but because I understand that many more people can’t and the law doesn’t make room for a higher tolerance, I don’t drive after a few drinks.
To be clear, I am in favor of partial or full legalization of most narcotics, but I’m just trying to work out the reasoning of why anyone thinks marijuana should remain illegal despite alcohol being legal.
Sign of the Dollar on December 24, 2008 at 7:17 PM
I’ll try to answer your question from my point of view, but can I ask you one first? Why only “most” narcotics?
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:20 PM
West Hollywood in the house!!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 7:32 PM
+1
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 7:33 PM
We were wondering what country you came from. Did you say you were a naturalized citizen?
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:39 PM
yeppers, product of the Vietnam war… born in Thailand. I figure if Barry can be POTUS, I’m a shoe-in!! Cuz my ideas are much btter!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 7:42 PM
You should hear my ideas on teenage and senior driving!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I was hoping to discuss this a little more before I left. I hate to leave the site on bad terms. But being Christmas Eve I understand.
Been fun everyone. Blog nice!
No hard feeling given, none taken.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:50 PM
And nice to have met you califemme.
hawkdriver on December 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Thank you sir, and may you and SWMBO have a safe, healthy and HAPPY holidays!!
Califemme on December 24, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Ok, can we all agree on at least one thing? Let’s criminalize tofu. I hate that stuff.
Kevin M on December 24, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Because some, by their very nature (PCP, for example), are likely to be harmful not only to the individual who chooses to use them, but to his fellow citizens who do not. Unfortunately, these substances must be regulated.
Sign of the Dollar on December 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM
My son got caught using MJ twice at SDSU in the dorms — the first time was dealt with via an abatement program (the liberal dream) — and the second time was arrest by the San Diego (city) police and jail for about 24 hours (until we got bail and sprung him). He was charged with possession with intent to deal (due to the amount he had on him when arrested). He used his one phone call from jail to tell us that if we got him out he would never use the stuff again. He was crying and you could hear the tension in his voice. When we got him out, he said that his cell mate was a heroin user going cold turkey and the guy was screaming all the time. There were meth users and heroin users and drunks and they were all in various stages of the “DT’s” as they dealt with their issues while in the cells. My son witnessed one guy just pulp another for no apparent reason, with the sheriffs trying desperately to tear the aggressor off. And, amazingly, my son kept his promise — which we intrusively monitored with drug tests, where we provided the sample container and personally watched it get filled.
It was the jail that did it — it scared him straight, because he knew that if he couldn’t handle 24 hours of jail, he sure couldn’t handle several years of prison. First time offenders need to visit the jail, not be diverted into out-patient programs. My son laughed at the way he fooled everyone in the diversion program, and has no respect for the people who ran it. He does have respect for us, because we didn’t believe him for one second that his promises amounted to even a small hill of beans. We didn’t give up (even though at some times one or the other of us wanted to), and he understands and respects that too.
As for this behavior having no victims, every person around the abuser is a victim. If they are a kid, they steal from their parents to support their small habit, and steal or deal with others when the habit is larger. They are anti-social with anyone (be it siblings, teachers, or parents) who question why they are no longer achieving at the level they used to. They no longer care about achievement, because achievement means nothing compared to the next high.
All the libertarians here ought to think about who will support the continued abusers after they are finally shunned by their families, and they need to think about it without the blinders which prevent them from seeing all the liberals who will expect the state to feed, clothe, and doctor these people who can no longer take care of themselves. The liberals may not win everything they want, but they will win enough to make these addicts’ freedom come out of your wallet — even the freedom to be free of addiction will come out of your wallet.
Which is why I want first time offenders to be “scared straight” by a bit of time in jail.
unclesmrgol on December 24, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Thomasaur fuck you
Denniscat on December 24, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Going to a psyche ward would mean having to drive to get there, which appears to be one of the main arguments by some who don’t want to be on the road with us stoners as we’ve now been labeled regardless of our reasons for using.
Sorry, but when I’m under attack from my occular migraines or need to take the pressure down due to the glaucoma, I prefer the comfort of my living room, in private.
Besides, I’m rarely able to drive anymore.
Knucklehead on December 25, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I’m with knucklehead. Let’s keep stoners off the road. Sorry to hear about your occular migranes, stoner :(.
Kevin M on December 25, 2008 at 1:00 AM
unclesmrgol, you are the smartest person in this…thread, or whatever it’s called.
MBP1982 on December 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM
unclesmrgol on December 24, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Excellent post. You are exactly right. There are consequences for actions. As I stated earlier, I lost friends because of the way they changed after frequent pot use. Don’t tell me it is a harmless drug.
Denniscat on December 24, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Very articulate, Skippy. And a Merry Christmas to you, too.
kingsjester on December 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I think legalized pot would make the cultist Obama-stoners less of a threat to society:
1) They would not have as much money from dealing drugs to wire to Obama fundraising web sites,
2) They would be less able to focus on promoting Obama, and
3) Marijuana will help them cope with the many failed & ignored promises from the campaign.
/sarc
Right_of_Attila on December 25, 2008 at 1:55 PM
if it grows out of the earth then no one has a right to criminalize it. next thing you know corn will be illegal so only the energy companies can grow it..
DarianCounts on December 25, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Toss the stoners and the dopeheads in jail where they belong.
Those like
son who are scared straight will become productive members of our society. Those that do not will be where they belong.
If you wish to smoke or shoot or snort the c#$p then go to the Netherlands.
I hear that even the Dutch are getting sick and tired of the stoners; they are closing more than half of those “coffee shops” in Amsterdam. Hey, Vancouver BC is closer! Although I would not dare venture into east Vancouver alone. Funny how drugs just ruin a place….
Bubba Redneck on December 25, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I hope your son realizes just how much his Mom and Dad love him and what a great set of parents he has!!!!!!!!
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!
Bubba Redneck on December 25, 2008 at 2:35 PM
He already thinks that he’s going to do such a great job to be in the position to risk this issue damaging him?
And he’s not even in office yet?
Wow. I mean . . . insanely HUEG ego.
Ryan Gandy on December 25, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Gays and marriage! Label it something else, it sounds like male pregnancies. No such thing. Talk about it think about it visualize it but it won’t happen. No pregnant men. No male marriage. What could be more simple but name it something else.
mixplix on December 25, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Hopefully not everyone would smoke that crap. Someone needs to have enough brains left to run things.
johnnyU on December 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I’m glad he was in that particular jail with those particular people to get that result, not to say I’m glad he had to go to jail to begin with mind you. I bet he isn’t hanging with the same people he used to either. People go back to the same useage habits becuase they go right back with the same crowd. I see it all the time in my little town here.
johnnyU on December 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Since I dislike boozers more than stoners, I wish they make alcohol illegal again too. Seems fair, right, that users of all intoxicating substances be treated the same?
It’d be great thing to have all of the drunks in jail alongside the potheads. Such useless people are drains on society, and not much else…
Bizarro No. 1 on December 26, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I have to say, as a right-wing lunatic, I support legalization of marijuana.
And hawkdriver, consider this argument: if you legalize the harder drugs (I’m thinking mainly of cocaine), it’d probably help too. Instead of concentrating it and shipping it to avoid detection, other, less potent forms would be made available. South American workers chew coca leaves all day every day for most of their lives. The crack and coke might just go away for, say, coca gum or drink.
misterpeasea on December 26, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Alcohol should never have been made illegal. Like the vast majority of drinkers, I have been drinking since I legally could and have never been drunk. Alcohol is nice that way. One cannot say that about weed or any other illegal substance; one puff or snort or whatever one does and your stoned. I do agree with you about public drunks and driving while drunk, though. Throw their sorry bodies in jail with the stoners.
All intoxicating substances leaves very little wiggle room; lavender growers will now be fugitives!
Bubba Redneck on December 26, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Ah, time for a pint………………..
Bubba Redneck on December 26, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Califemme, there are no psych wards. Gov. Reagan got rid of them all.
B26354 on December 26, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Your arguments about about alcohol vs. marijuana are hollow.
Marijuana usage doesn’t always lead to getting high. Drinking might not always lead to to drunkeness, but it can, and since you find drunkenness per se to be perfectly acceptable from a legal standpoint, your point about the difference between alcohol and varying degrees of intoxication in regards to it, and marijuana, is moot.
Look how dangerous of a substance alcohol actually is vs. how dangerous you fear marijuana to be. Do you have any idea how many deaths in this country involve alcohol? Shall I go pull out some statistics for you about the % of criminal activity that involves alcohol? If marijuana were made legal, do you have any evidence whatsoever that it would do anywhere near as much damage to society that alcohol currently does? Saying that marijuana should be kept illegal because of its potential harm ignores the white elephant in the room, doesn’t it?
The simple fact is, marijuana is illegal in the US while alcohol isn’t because of a double-standard-alcohol is just more socially accepted i.e. it’s more popular. That is not a good reason. People on the Right are supposed to know better than to make their judgments based on emotion instead of logic. However, in the case of drugs, especially marijuana, prohibitionists are on the side of the controlling, irrational, nanny-state Left, not the free, rational, libertarian Right.
Who ultimately should have more authority about what individual adults ingest into their own bodies, you and the other people who believe you have the right to tell other people what to do with themselves because they cannot/should not be trusted to control themselves, or the individual adults themselves? If you say you and the people who operate like you, I’d like to hear how you define freedom, and explain what ‘pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right’ means to you.
Bizarro No. 1 on December 27, 2008 at 5:30 AM
If you want to smoke marijuana, go ahead! But puleeze! Stop with the “it’s harmless” crap! The drug that produces the high in pot is deposited directly in the brain. It is not water soluble and thereby builds up over time. The “stoner” response is real for those that do the drug over a long period as the brain’s ability to function is diminished.
Talk to professionals at places like Hazeldon before you spout off about how harmless marijuana is! It isn’t but if you want to pump this crap into your brain, fine! We who choose not to shall be three steps ahead of you in life but you won’t care because you won’t know the difference!
sabbott on December 27, 2008 at 8:32 AM
case closed…
sabbott on December 27, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5