Obama’s “evolutions” may include marijuana legalization

posted at 1:22 pm on June 15, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

In the last few days, the theory that President Obama will “evolve” on marijuana legalization has made its way into the national media. One Atlantic piece, for example, compares the issue to what gay marriage was for Bush in 2004, and looks at several states where marijuana legalization could bring dividends for the President.

In 2009 Obama sent guidelines to federal prosecutors regarding marijuana enforcement, essentially telling them to only get involved if people were breaking relevant state laws. I wrote in favor of the President’s position at the time, since state rights on marijuana should be a conservative principle, though I favor states allowing small amounts of marijuana in homes and treating the substance like alcohol. No selling in the streets, etc. but citizens should be able to do what they want in their own homes without fear of invasion. Unfortunately, the President’s guidelines appear to have been mere PR, as he never really followed through on this loosening of marijuana prosecution.

Marijuana policy often brings out a major schism in the conservative movement between libertarian-leaning conservatives and social conservatives. I count myself as a member of both camps, and believe marijuana legalization should be considered an all-around conservative idea. Consider:

1. We have over three million citizens in various jails and prisons, and many of them are arrested or jailed for non-violent marijuana use. Prohibition did not work for alcohol— why do we expect it to work with marijuana laws? It seems like an inefficient use of tax dollars to deny individual liberty by punishing responsible users of marijuana who use marijuana in the same way the rest of us use alcohol: infrequently and responsibly.

In other words, rather than shrink the economic pie and increase the cost of government by throwing responsible marijuana users in jail, marijuana legalization would respect individual liberty and keep good, hard-working people employed while preventing them from sucking taxpayer money out of the system.

2. While estimates on the government’s War on Drugs spending vary, saving a couple tens of billions in law enforcement and the like would be mighty helpful. As Jack Cafferty of CNN noted in a column in March of 2009:

“What do you suppose the total price tag is for this failed war on drugs? One senior Harvard economist estimates we spend $44 billion a year fighting the war on drugs. He says if they were legal, governments would realize about $33 billion a year in tax revenue. Net swing of $77 billion.”

While Cafferty’s number obviously looks at the entirety of the War on Drugs, and I’m not a fan of even more taxation, marijuana legalization would save a substantial number of taxpayer dollars. This is a good thing both in tough economic times and anytime.

3. According to a speaker at a Catholic Theology on Tap event I attended in 2011, 60% of future inmates are the children of current inmates. Two simple philosophical changes in marijuana policy (respecting state rights and allowing people more personal freedom) would have fantastic long-term impacts on the family bonds that are often broken when parents go to jail. Want to keep families intact and have more people gainfully employed? Support marijuana legalization.

Obama may or may not “evolve” on marijuana as the economy continues to suffer and he gets increasingly desperate for votes, but regardless of what he does I hope the conservative movement is able to “evolve” its stated principles of individual liberty and state rights to at least include state rights on marijuana, if not the full legalization of marijuana.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

I don’t see how the teenage and college druggie can stand against legal marijuana. It’s just nonsensical, considering that in his forties in [Communist] Dreams of My Father he glorified his previous druggie behavior, but now thinks that those like himself should be put in prison?
Truth is, that’s the only thing — the only thing — back in 2008 that I thought I could agree on with the coming O administration. If we are going to have a virtual communist radical as preezy, at least let him leave pot laws to the states, but instead he even goes after medical marijuana. What transparent hypocrisy!
Yes, we knew how he feels about gays, being probably bi himself. We knew how he feels about illegal immigration: his dream would be to open the borders completely, dispense with border guards and passports altogether, and then his dream of a full communist takeover of the United States would be realized. We know how he feels about drugs too. So, yes, this a completely predictable “evolution.”
Unfortunately, this would be a bridge too far for O. Even if you are for legalizing pot, the feeling would be that this imposter O is just too much of a radical leftist in every conceivable way to continue to be the president of this country.

anotherJoe on June 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Its a privilege to talk to methusela’s dad…..

libfreeordie on June 15, 2012 at 3:39 PM

That’s dumber than your last attempt to deflect.

cozmo on June 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Its a privilege to talk to methusela’s dad…..

libfreeordie on June 15, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You mean Methusela’s mom?

Buttercup on June 15, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Choooooom Spleef!

kirkill on June 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Virtually no one spends any appreciable amount of time in jail, more than a few hours or overnight, solely for drug possession anymore. It’s a misnomer. How may of those 750K pot arrests are in conjunction with some other crime?

Cost savings? If pot is legalized police will spend as much time and money on preventing tax avoidance on the now legal pot by home growers as they do now. Probably more as the Democrats would fully support going after tax dodgers. You can’t get your 33 Billion in taxes unless you prevent people from growing pot themselves. Good luck with that.

Finally, keeping families intact? The only families being broke up now are those of pot dealers. Are we supposed to believe these drug dealers will suddenly go straight? Or will they simply move onto another illegal drug?

There is only 1 reason to legalize marijuana. Because people are entitled to it under their rights. But The idea that legal pot will end up being beneficial to society is pure fantasy.

Rocks on June 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Rocks on June 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Exactly! And you know the government will tax the crap out of it like they do cigarettes that the dealers will just continue to grow it and sell it black market. There will still be a “war on marijuana.” This is still happening in California where there are raids on growers who grow over a certain amount, so that myth that the law enforcement issue would stop is just that -a myth.

melle1228 on June 15, 2012 at 4:05 PM

The Federal Government is irrelevent. This merely requires a State to legalize it. It’s a simple argument to make; and would convey the Commerce Clause’s TRUE limitations.

The bigger problem here is the reliance on Congress for all governance, disregarding local and state bodies. Ask yourself, why is the Presidency the single most talked about election and public office. Complacency….

John Kettlewell on June 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Rocks on June 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

“Virtually no one spends any appreciable amount of time in jail..” Not true. I ask you provide a reference for that assertion. In addition to scores of millions spending years in horrible prison for a victimless possession “crime,” while violent criminals that attack us are released because of overcrowding, millions more spends up to 20 years, even life, in prions for selling drugs. Arguably, tobacco is more damaging. Then put tobacco executives away for the same amount of time.
Also, even if you don’t spend much time in prison, your life is seriously disrupted, as you have been cuffed and roughed by the police (psychological cost), and you may have continuing court costs and legal issues that last years. Insane.
Further, the cost of police state style disruptions of our freedom, even if it is not you that is personally assaulted by it, you see it all the time as you pass by in the police rummaging through peoples’ cars and standing people up against the wall, in an embarrassing public pillory. Sad, this police state for a victim less crime. People can choose to drink soda, smoke cigarettes, or smoke pot. Prohibition doesn’t work, we learned that nearly 80 years ago with alcohol, at which point the drug laws superseded the alcohol prohibition as the alcohol enforcers needed something to do.

anotherJoe on June 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I welcome these evolutions. History will judge this man to be a pandering clown, not a leader.

NickelAndDime on June 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM

If you work at a nuke plant you are randomly tested for drugs and some are tested twice a day and why do you think this is? If you eat a poppy seed bagel every morning for breakfast you will test positive for heroin. The tests are that sensitive and if you enter a room while there are people token up on some weed and you don’t you will test positive. Weed stays in your blood for thirty days. Would you like to have the lab at the hospital full of personnel that are high doing your blood work? How about a pharmacist filling your prescription? Let see did I give that person the correct dose? Or maybe that was for the other guy or, or oh well. Next time someone says what’s wrong with getting high, think about this post when you pick up your next prescription or a nurse gives you your meds.

mixplix on June 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

If you work at a nuke plant you are randomly tested for [ dur blur mcgurrrrrff hurf hurf hurf hurffffff ]

mixplix on June 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Thank you for that artful display of fearmongering histrionics. Too bad alcohol isnt illegal – businesses cant terminate people for showing up for work intoxicated because alcohol is totally lawful! So, natch, the same concept would apply to maryjane…

Jeddite on June 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Then the government will outlaw everything but sinsemilla so that no one but they can grow it.

Just say no to Obama!

profitsbeard on June 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM

History will judge this man to be a pandering clown, not a leader.

NickelAndDime on June 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Correct. This man has no principles. He is just doing these things for political reasons. Although there might be some one-issue neanderthals that fall for this kind of thing, most people see it as disingenuous and cynical. I think Obama’s campaign is self-destructing because of these stunts.

Corporal Tunnel on June 15, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Next time someone says what’s wrong with getting high, think about this post when you pick up your next prescription or a nurse gives you your meds. mixplix on June 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Or maybe a drunk pharmacist or pharmacist? Nah, couldn’t happen.

Hey, we oughta ban marriage because some guy beat his wife.

We oughta ban alcohol because some drunk driver killed a kid on a bike.

We oughta ban guns because criminals use them.

Akzed on June 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

More people have died from alcohol use than marijuana. If anyone can prove otherwise I’d like to see the stats. If the purpose of making pot illegal is to protect private citizens from harming themselves we need to check our priorities. Alcohol is nothing more than a liquid barbituate.
Don’t get me wrong… I’m not preachin’ and I enjoy my share of tater squeezins.
Just being honest.

iceman1960 on June 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Legalize pot – and all other husseinallucinogenics!

Many people are still confused about the massive support for “You Lie” choom hussein from the young. Hey, dude, it’s simple – we want somebody that appreciates drugs as much as we do! hussein is the MOST LIKELY to legalize the weed, he is the MOST LIKELY to de-emphasize prosecution of drug use, he is the MOST LIKELY to allow “medical” use of marijuana, he is the MOST LIKELY to soften sentences for coke (his favorite refreshment) and he is the MOST LIKELY to abolish the DEA. He’ll even set-up San Francisco-style “pot clubs” in every federal office throughout America. He’s our kind of toker!

A VOTE FOR HUSSEIN IS A VOTE FOR DRUGS!

And as for those massive tax increases he’ll enact – h*ll, as slugs and slackers we don’t pay no taxes and we’ll definitively get some of those massive welfare handouts he’ll provide so we can buy even more drugs and booze. Dude, we can’t lose with this guy!

TeaPartyNation on June 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

a fool speak’s!!!

svs22422 on June 16, 2012 at 1:57 AM

If the purpose of making pot illegal is to protect private citizens from harming themselves we need to check our priorities.

iceman1960 on June 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

That was never the purpose of making it illegal (although that was part of the argument used). Like most legislation, the purpose was to eliminated competition in the marketplace. Hemp was a threat to newspaper magnate William Hearst’s financial holdings in paper mills. He waged a campaign against it in his papers using the foreign-sounding “marijuana,” among other things, in order to drum up public fear and opposition to it.

Dante on June 16, 2012 at 7:46 AM

a fool speak’s!!!

svs22422 on June 16, 2012 at 1:57 AM

So we can see, from the fact that you can’t even spell “speaks” in a three-word sentence. Next time try waiting longer between puffing and posting.

MelonCollie on June 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

If possession of marijuana was legalized, would driving while under the influence of marijuana still be illegal? Could employers still fire people who came to work high on marijuana, or would that constitute discrimination? Do we really want to open this can of worms?

Steve Z on June 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM

That’s my concern too. If someone is driving or working drunk, you can tell that with a Breathalyzer or blood test. The employer is protected from BS worker’s comp claims and lawsuits when a drunken person hurts himself on the job, and the public is protected from drunk drivers because the state has adequate evidence to prosecute him for driving under the influence.

If someone blazes up during his lunch break and hurts himself in the afternoon, what protection does the employer have? Sure, he’ll come up positive in the drug test but all the guy needs to say is that he smoked it at his house on Saturday night. Same for driving.

I don’t care if people want to impair themselves on their own time but until we have more accurate drug testing, I’m not in favor of legalization.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So we can see, from the fact that you can’t even spell “speaks” in a three-word sentence. Next time try waiting longer between puffing and posting.

MelonCollie on June 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

what amazing spell checking abilities you have.

do you have some proof that i puffed and smoked before i wrote that flawed sentence or is that just your snobby way of being a snob??

svs22422 on June 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I don’t care if people want to impair themselves on their own time but until we have more accurate drug testing, I’m not in favor of legalization.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

they already have drug impairment test. this is not about being intoxicated at work. the government is forbidden to control peoples private lives. this was a scam to get around the constitution, and fight the ”drug war ” using a scare tactics ”lose job, dont get to keep up with the jone’s”. the piss,blood and hair test is about controling peoples private life’s using work as the stick. fascism is the collabration of goverment and business. drug testing is social regimention. social regimention is fascism. social regimentaion is controling what a certain group does. the numbers that they use for drug testing is flawed. they count numbers for whats in your system not that actually high at that moment. the ”war on drug’s” is really just a war on marijuana,since most drug use is marijuana,and marijuana stay’s in your system long after the intoxicating effects are gone.

MelonCollie on June 16, 2012

please be a good snob and spell check this for me,could you please??

could you also tell me if i’am right or wrong about drug testing and the ” war on drugs”, or just sitting here blowing off steam while smoking a blunt??

svs22422 on June 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

they already have drug impairment test.
svs22422 on June 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM

There is a test which can determine – within an hour or so – when you’ve smoked weed? Meaning it can tell the difference between the Saturday night bong and the Monday lunch blunt. I haven’t heard of this, please provide a link.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I completely agree with you. When workers would come to work drunk we could usually tell it and send them home. Marijuana is much tougher. We had a three man third shift castering crew who blew up their station three times. We had to get a private detective to figure out what was going on. They were smoking dope on the job and the memory impairment caused them to fail to complete steps in the casting procedure. Those who want to legalize drugs should also legalize random drug testing of workers without and not allow that right to be bargained away in union contracts.

Cafferty’s position that legalizing all drugs is cost free is absurd. How many more crack babies will we have? How many more neglected children of addicts? It is not just jail that wrecks addicts lives, it is the drugs itself. Check out Meth amphetamine addicts. How many more lives will ruined by the drugs with his formula? If he supports free health care, how much more will that cost because drug use leads to other health issues?

Pulling the cork out of the addictive drug genie’s bottle will result in more addictions despite the proponents claims that it will not.

KW64 on June 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

should be “without need to prove cause”

KW64 on June 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

KW64 on June 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM
If – and I can’t see how this is going to happen, legally – an employer would have the right to say regardless of whether weed is legal, if you test positive for drugs you can’t work here and you don’t have any sort of EEOC claim for me refusing to hire you or to fire you for this… AND if we have a sensitive enough drug test to be able to prosecute people who drive impaired, then I would still be in favor of legalizing in spite of the human cost, which I agree with you is substantial. I would rather have more freedom, even the freedom to be a complete jackass, than more government control. I just don’t want someone’s freedom to be a jackass to infringe on the rights of other people. (And as far as I’m concerned, using while pregnant is infringing on the right of the baby.)

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM

It would be awesome to have stoned road crews, DMV workers, pizza delivery guys, dental technicians, leos , insurance adjusters, death panelists…

tom daschle concerned on June 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I wasn’t going to comment on this thread because of all the misinformation being disseminated by the “Reefer Madness” crowd, but this is too much:

If you eat a poppy seed bagel every morning for breakfast you will test positive for heroin.

mixplix on June 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

That’s a blatant lie.
Only a miniscule percentage of people might test positive for opiates after eating a handful of poppy seeds. The numbers are so few, it’s non-recordable.
This is the same dodge used by convicts that prompted correctional facilities to outright ban the consumption of poppy seeds. Convicts tried the same BS in the 80s re: Advil testing positive for THC.
It’s a canard, an inmate’s wet dream, yet some people still believe that garbage.
For those still stuck in the 1930s, take a peek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

The introductory graphic suggests that Mr. Obama evolved from a monkey. Racist!

Mason on June 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Mason on June 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

IMHO,the introductory graphic is backwards once you legalize pot. Devolution.

Christian Conservative on June 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Conservatives are making a drastic error if we think being against marijuana is a winner politically or the right thing to do. I should not have to give a history lesson on what hemp in general has meant to America nor should I have to sit here an persuade conservatives that people should be allowed to enjoy the bounty of what God has given us. I am a conservative that has used marijuana for over 20 years and I compare it to wine. Of course it should be regulated and there should be penalties against driving under the influence same as alcohol. But whether you agree with me or not the facts are that most Americans either use marijuana or know people who do and they are not afraid of it. In fact one of the greatest disservices we do our kids is to tell them the “horrors” of marijuana and then expect them to believe us when we tell them about real dangerous drugs like cocaine and pain medicine abuse. Soon the older generation that lives in fear of marijuana will be gone and conservatives will be stuck with a real loser of an issue if they side with the government to keep marijuana illegal and to continue the insane governmental abuses that the war on marijuana manifests…..

Redstone357 on June 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Of course it should be regulated and there should be penalties against driving under the influence same as alcohol.
Redstone357 on June 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

And how can that be accomplished with the current state of drug testing? Are you willing to wait for legalization until there is a test similar to a blood alcohol test? Or are you going to put the public, in the case of driving while impaired, and employers, in the case of on the job accidents, workers comp claims and expensive lawsuits, on the spot so that you can have a buzz? Should your “freedom” to get high overtake their right to run a safe workplace and be free of the threat of company-destroying lawsuits?

Also, in what way is conservatism compatible with law-breaking? Because, like it or not, it is currently against the law.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM
tom daschle concerned on June 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM a

omg really?

im just sitting here shaking my head as i cant quite understand people sometimes.
I smoke pot. its the only method of pain relief i have as loritab and other drugs are quite expensive when you dont have insurance and frankly are no longer strong enough to manage the pain i am in 24 hrs a day 7 days a week. the only
“legal” drug that works for me any more is morphine or stronger …. and you people really want to take away my right to be free of pain because a few idiots might go to work stoned. i seriously hope one day you get a dose of your own . the fact that you condemn people like me to a torturous existence with such ease says alot about your lack of empathy towards others and frankly makes me sick. most pot smokers DONT smoke and drive nor do they toke up at work . most view it and treat it the same way they would alcohol …but hey your prejudices should be the norm right… people like me should be in pain forever because it makes YOU feel safer. i hope karma catches up to you.

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Katee, yes, that’s exactly it. I don’t have any legitimate concerns about this at all – I just hate YOU. You caught me out!

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Rats, my comment with links is in the moderation queue. If it shows up later, Katee, you’ll see 3 news articles detailing why my and other people’s concerns are legitimate and not an artifact of our desire to “condemn people like [you] to a torturous existence.” Although I’m sure we all really do feel that way about you, specifically. It’s so obvious…

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Here’s a better link that the one that’s in moderation re: weed and worker’s comp claims. In this case, the system worked and the employer was protected from consequences of the employee’s drug use. If weed is legalized, the outcome could have been much different.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Laura….Your position is rooted in hysteria and governmental propaganda. Quite frankly to most conservatives under 70 it is embarrassing. Neither the Federal government nor you are the arbiter of morality and the fact that they deem it illegal no more makes me believe it is wrong than I believe abortion to be ethical because the government says it is right. Tell William F Buckley he wasn’t a conservative because he argued for legalization his entire career. It would create tens of thousands of good jobs, decimalize the millions of Americans who are users, and best of all starve the leviathan governmental agency that abuses or liberties, incarcerates good and decent people, steals their property and generally abuses the constitution all in the name of a policy that does not work at all….God bless the states for taking back the power the feds usurped from them in the first place. Big government republicans are the only ones left who are fighting for this insidious policy. The left does not want to give up the power they have accumulated by this nanny-statism and that is the only saving grace we have had so far from being on the wrong side of this freedom issue. The good news is that conservatives in general are friendly to the issue and evidence by Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, and many others who are not afraid to buck the establishment republicans. Within twenty years marijuana will be legal, the only question is whether we are on the right side or the wrong side of the issue

Redstone357 on June 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Can you provide a survey or study of most conservatives under 70 who are embarrassed by my views on legalization?

Are you going to address the legitimate safety and legal issues that I and several others have brought up? What kind of protection will employers have against BS workers comp claims, lawsuits, and higher worker’s comp premiums? Will we be able to prosecute drivers who are stoned the say way we can currently prosecute drivers who are drunk?

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

*same way, not say way. Doh!

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Well Laura police may have to do what they did for decades before breathalyzers and make a decision as to whether they think the person is too impaired to drive. As to your concerns about workers comp, I agree that business should be able to drug test and hire whomever they want to. There are employers who no longer want to hire people who smoke cigarettes, that is their right in my opinion. Here in Nashville in my industry there are not problems with this. And lastly of course I cannot provide any surveys that prove my assertion about your antiquated opinion, that is just my own opinion and those of almost every conservative I know. just an observation based on a lot of conversations and election returns. So I responded to your issues. now you respond to mine? justify this governmental intrusion and prohibition that incarcerates so many and wastes so much and infringes freedom etc, etc….these are real issues, not subterfuge to assuage your personal anxiety, like those you bring up.

Redstone357 on June 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Well Laura police may have to do what they did for decades before breathalyzers and make a decision as to whether they think the person is too impaired to drive

You expect that to stand up in court? No way is that happening. If that’s the only solution you have, it’s no solution at all.

My concerns are not subterfuge, they are legitimate questions, and 5 minutes of Googling can easily establish that. One US News article noted that 20% of teenagers surveyed admitted to driving while stoned. It’s also quite easy to find news articles about worker’s comp claims that have been disputed due to the employee’s positive marijuana test.

I’m glad that you’re willing to give employers the right to have strict drug policies regarding hiring and continued employment.

As I mentioned upthread, I don’t care if it’s legalized as long as other people’s rights are not limited by granting you the right to blaze away at will. Personally, I think people who impair themselves, whether by alcohol or drugs, are idiots, but I’m in favor – as I said earlier – of people’s right to be a jackass.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

BS you obviously are a morally repugnant witch Miss Laura since you seem to think your opinion is worth rmore than anyone else’s and that your opinion justifies my haveing to live in agony. dont even try your pathetic excuse of an attempt to make me a bad person for expressing my opinion in my previous post. YOU proved my point with your snarky response to me, after all if your arguement held any water at all you WOULD NOT have responded the way you did to me by attempting to make me look bad in the opinions of others , and frankly my dear i really dont give a flyin horses petooty about what you or anyone esle thinks of me. being handicapped taught me long ago to ignore the snipes and jibes from people who arent so secure in themselves that they feel a need to belittle others. as i stated earlier i can only hope Karma catches up to folks like you. yes YOU
my first comment was intended as a sarcastic bit to make you stop for just a second to think about the other side of the coin so to speak instead you decided to be a nasty piece of work and spew your filth towards me. so please by all means continue and i hope your road to perdition is by means of a gilded cage with purple cushions.

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM

hmmm i guess i should add a sarc tag for that last line otherwise my little playmate may not understand what it is … so here goes…..so please by all means continue and i hope your road to perdition is by means of a gilded cage with purple cushions. /s

better dear?

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 8:26 PM

LOL, okay, Katee. I guess it’s beyond you that your over-emotional and fact-free accusation of how I’m condemning you to a “torturous existence” could possibly have had something to do with my sarcastic response.

For future reference, though, if you had calmly laid out your reasons for being in favor of marijuana for medical purposes (or for that matter, just because you felt like getting stoned), we could have had a discussion about that where you actually stood a chance of influencing my opinion.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 8:32 PM

oh and by the way its obvious you have never been a pot smoker or around anyone who is because if you had you would know that it is actually easy to tell when someone is high from weed . it shows in the eyes and in the way a person acts. weed tends to make people calm and a little paranoid and not in a bad way. when folks get high they KNOW its not like alcohol where you dont realize just how much you drank. its an entirely different feeling. it does NOT cause a person to lose inhibitions it actually causes a mild paranoia . it makes you stop before you do things and actually think about them because there is no way for the amoker avoid the knowledge that they are under an influence. which is why the only people i know of who have ever smoked and drove or gone to work high are TEENAGERS or PARTY adults. most pot smokers are way more responsible than you think. and personally i find it reprehensible that you anyone else for that matter feel qualified to sit in judgement when you dont know the first darn thing about what the drug actually DOES.

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

LOL, okay, Katee. I guess it’s beyond you that your over-emotional and fact-free accusation of how I’m condemning you to a “torturous existence” could possibly have had something to do with my sarcastic response.

YOU advocate a position of pot being illegal. therefore YOU advocate for me not being able to get pain relief. YOU are attempting to make certain that i will never be able to be free of pain t the threat of haveing everything i own seized and myself tossed in jail for posesion of a single freakin joint. so NO im actually just doing you the courtesy of being brutally freakin honest. which if youve ever paid attention you would know is what i ALWAYS do. i tell it like i see it and i dont care who doesnt like it. as for a discussion about my position on this. please atleast be honest with YOURSELF you made up your mind and have no desire to see anyone else’s point of view so dont try to play it like you actually would have bothered to listen to anyone else

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Don’t assume, kiddo. I have smoked weed, often, back when I was a teenager. I’m well aware of ways to be stoned and trick parents and authority figures into thinking I was not stoned. It’s quite possible to have a good buzz on and disguise it outwardly.

Weed certainly does not make people better, more cautious drivers, if that’s what you’re implying, and the same goes for employees.

As an adult, I know several pot smokers. I think they are idiots. I can often tell if they are under the influence, but not always. Which is part of the reason why I oppose legalization until we have better testing.

I agree with you about the paranoia, though. Are you stoned right now? Because your comments really give that impression.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM

hah nope not stoned , though i am reading porn on the net, and actually the crap typing and stuff is because my desktop broke and my husband decided to “honor” me with a laptop , and unfortunately the mouse pad thingy is so darn hyper sensitive that i find myself typing and then looking up to see my words coming up just fine but in the middle of text i already typed. i keep asking him to fix it but he never has time. sorry like i said im a brutally honest type of person. at themoment i am not stoned i tend to only smoke when i have gotten to the point where i cant walk. i have kids so i tend to wait untill i have no choice before i attempt to do anything about the pain, mostly because i worry incesantly about everything i guess. and no i never said it makes anyone a better driver , good grief i never even intimated that. i just meant i never met anyone who would even consider driveing high. but seeing as how your the rabid anti legal sort i guess i can see why you would want people to think i did. too bad. personally i just dont get why you think your opinion is worth more than mine but then again i guess its cuz im just s imple stay at home mom and not the obviously colledge educated princess you are huh?

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 8:57 PM

seeing as how your the rabid anti legal sort

Wow, really? This, in spite of the fact that I’ve said repeatedly in this thread that I would not care if it were legalized as long as no one else’s rights are infringed, using employers and drivers as really obvious examples where harm could be caused.

cuz im just s imple stay at home mom and not the obviously colledge educated princess you are huh?

Wow. I guess you know ALL about me. And this is based on, what? The fact that I’m literate? Again, you assume too much.

Whatever. Enjoy your porn.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

nope i inferred it from your overly condescending manner. and yes i will enjoy my porn i like finding creative stories that give me ideas about things my husband might enjoy whats wrong with that? nothing thats what. and as for you repeatedly saying your for it as long as no ones rights are infringed….. seems to me your only concern is wether or not YOUR idea of rights. because you certainly dont consider my rights to be valid or you would not be attempting to impose YOUR views on those of us who dont agree. i have a right to my opinion and i have a right to do what i need to handle my own medical concerns DONT I? if it were YOU and you had pain management issues im quite certain your tune would be different but since it isnt you , then it doesnt get factored into your little equation. as it stands the law in my state says that if you have a workers comp claim you must submit to a drug test and if that test shows ANY SUBSTANCE legal or illegal that affects performance including alcohol then workmans comp does NOT pay the claim. as for the driving issue , yeah there is no breathalyzer test for pot, so maybe instead if a cop thinks your stoned you should get ticket for wreckless endangerment and have to submit to a drug test within 24 hours . if the test is positive the ticket stands. im not a lawyer but i do know there is always a way. but you dont care about finding a way around it you just want to hold tight to it cant be done because your mind is already made up.

katee bayer on June 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Thank you for that artful display of fearmongering histrionics. Too bad alcohol isnt illegal – businesses cant terminate people for showing up for work intoxicated because alcohol is totally lawful! So, natch, the same concept would apply to maryjane…

Jeddite on June 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Ummmm… I work for an engineering company and their policy on alcohol is very clear. if you are intoxicated during a random test or a test following a safety incident you are terminated. Period. I don’t know where you are getting your info on “illegality” of termination for alcohol, but I would love to see a link.

Hazzard on June 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I am so glad to see Obama’s evolutions, for, as you see, he sits at the very back of the line.

He has a long way to go and all that TA and intercepting and chooming does not help.

De-evolution more like.

But how much is the question….

A primitive mammal?

Or say a platypus-like creature?

Or even something that just crawled out of the sea and has primitive air bladders?

Hmm….

Sherman1864 on June 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Ummmm… I work for an engineering company and their policy on alcohol is very clear. if you are intoxicated during a random test or a test following a safety incident you are terminated. Period. I don’t know where you are getting your info on “illegality” of termination for alcohol, but I would love to see a link.

Hazzard on June 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

~~~~ WHOOSH ~~~~

Jeddite on June 17, 2012 at 1:15 AM

One expects that once Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, or any other major pharmaceutical has a profit motive to develop a device/chemical litmus test that can determine THC-intoxication down to, say, three hours… they will. Once the states have a need to outfit law enforcement with such equipment, the Big Pharma will respond.

Jeddite on June 17, 2012 at 1:25 AM

There is a test which can determine – within an hour or so – when you’ve smoked weed? Meaning it can tell the difference between the Saturday night bong and the Monday lunch blunt. I haven’t heard of this, please provide a link.

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Laura ( billy holiday jr.) curtis,i dont have a link,all i have is a hard copy. The National Workrights Institute: Impairment Testing – Does It Work?

also your way late to the game. marijuana was recommended for legalization way back in 1972.I was 8 yrs old at the time,but beleive it or not, a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION recommened that marijuana should be legal. you can find this info when you look up the ”Shaffer Report”. maybe you should hang with the ”national socialist”,over at stormfront,their leaders were and are all about social regimention and social engineering.

svs22422 on June 17, 2012 at 2:29 AM

*same way, not say way. Doh!

Laura Curtis on June 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Put down the liquor bottle, or you’re going to fall off your pedestal and hurt yourself.

Squiggy on June 17, 2012 at 7:06 AM

It would be awesome to have stoned road crews, DMV workers, pizza delivery guys, dental technicians, leos , insurance adjusters, death panelists… – tom daschle concerned on June 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You already have them. Just decriminalize pot and there won’t be the need for the drug cartels. And, the use of pot has much less medical consequences than the consumption of alcohol. For the record I don’t like drunks or potheads, please get stoned out of their minds.

SC.Charlie on June 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Jeddite on June 17, 2012 at 1:25 AM

It would be rather amusing to see MJ legalized, then every company from A to Z taking a hard stance against its use and backing it up with those kinds of tests. So you can light up in public, but good luck finding someone who wants to your dumb stoned self as a paid worker.

MelonCollie on June 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Laura Curtis: billy sunday not billie holiday. how i could ever mix you up with her and the radical preacher is beyond me.actually it was proabley the weed. /s

svs22422 on June 18, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Well then let’s let Barry BAMSTAHHHHH!!! YOU DA MAN BAMMY BABYY YYYYY !!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLL!!!!! YAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

GarandFan on June 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

cableguy615 on June 18, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2