I agree with Andrew. I love Obama's sense of humor. His answer was funny. But then not really. I'd rather hear jokes after marijuana legalization actually gets a fair hearing.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/6700
I kind of agree, but you really think this is the time to talk about legalizing weed? While I believe the calls for Obama to concentrate on the economy and nothing else are stupid, this is one of those subjects that may simply have to wait its turn. Of course, with violence on the U.S./Mexico border spinning out of control, waiting for too long could add another war to the two Obama has inherited. Still, the outrage over Obama's Weed Question is wasted energy.
Further, Obama's answer fit the context of the question: "Would legalizing marijuana help the economy and spur job growth?" Obama's answer was no. He did not extend the answer to include his thoughts on the legalization of marijuana. And if he DID say, "yeah, it's something to explore--let's look into it," what do you think the headlines--and the Republicans--would spend the next week or so screaming about? He's fighting enough wars with the right and the media as it is. Can't we give him a puff-pass on this one?
Furthermore, the President has the power, at his sole discretion, to set free every person in federal prison for drug possession, and I hold him personally responsible for every moment that they continue to suffer. Instead, he makes jokes and laughs at his people's very real demands for justice. I find that monstrous.
I agree with BabylonSista. Pay attention to the context of the question. Further, there is a distinct difference between legalization and decriminalization.
Ultimately, the legalization of weed is a political question. I think that the possession of a kilo or less of warrants no legal action. But, what about 5 tons on a tractor-trailer? I don't have an answer.
All I know is that the prison industry in the U.S. is huge, and they have a humongous lobby. Who's going to go up against them? I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of a nonviolent crime, where no weapons were involved, should be incarcerated. They should be sentenced to community public service, be paid a minimum wage and live in the community.
That would reduce the current prison population by 65%. But, it would be a detriment to job growth and the economy. It is a complex moral and ethical judgement. I don't have an answer other than possession of a key or less.
I don't see any complex moral and ethical judgment with pot. It should be legal, period, as a matter of personal rights. And making use of its medical benefits is the moral thing to do.
I agree that nonviolent crimes ideally ought not to merit incarceration, but we hardly need concern ourselves with that for now. Letting Madoff out on the streets is a whole different ballpark than letting your average pothead or even crackhead out.
babs, i'll agree to give him a puff pass this term but second term, i'm not so sure.
with respect to those in media, i think people in front of the camera need to come clean on what their weed use had been. the issue cannot move forward with just the stoners putting it out there when you know plenty of other people are more than a little familiar with the herb but want to act as if legalization movement is some kind of fringe thing.
i'm calling out, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Joe Scarborough, Larry King, etc. Let's have a national conversation and get this out of the closet.
time for cannabis smokers of all stripes to come of the closet.
This was a double edged sword for Obama. Right now would NOT to be a good time to talk about legalizing weed no matter what the merits are especially when he is trying to get his budget passed while Michele Bachmann is calling for an armed revolution against Marxism. But on the other hand the actual question (which wasn't worded the way he said it was) got so many votes that if he avoided addressing it I am pretty sure there would have been outrage from the blogosphere. So he addressed and just tried to make it into a joke. I only hope that behind closed doors when he isn't under pressure to convince everybody he isn't the anti Christ/Chairman Mao that he is actually looking at the merits of legalization. Obviously it wouldn't be something he could do for say the next two years but after that the topic deserves to at least be explored and from my point of view political pressure aside, it should be a no brainer.
It depends on how you frame the question. Now would not be a good time to talk about legalizing pot. Now would be an excellent time to talk about ending drug anarchy. That's what we have now. We have absolutely no control of the markets for a whole list of dangerous and not so dangerous drugs. The only way we're ever going to have control over drugs is to regulate them. Just as we now realize we have to regulate "innovative" new financial instruments, so we should also regulate drugs that are currently illegal. If you're not in favor of that, you are in favor of the status quo: drug anarchy. Unfortunately Obama seems to be in that camp, partly because no one frames the question in that way. The solution is to regulate all drugs--some lightly and some heavily. Legalizing pot alone doesn't solve the problems with unregulated markets in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico. But we can see all too clearly the results of leaving drug regulation to the dealers. When we get tired of drug anarchy, the solution is clear. It will be messy and difficult at first, just as the financial crisis is messy and difficult. But the sooner we get started, the sooner we can get through the transition.
I understand the frustration of being labeled a pothead because of principled support for legalization, but that's a stereotype that's hard for us to escape when we fall back on abstract political principles. If we restrict our case to medical marijuana, we can argue based on specific, concrete benefits. But to argue for complete legalization invites the question of why we find it such a worthy cause. Economic arguments aren't enough to banish such suspicions, because they might equally be applied to any currently illegal industry, including the harder drugs. Sure, weed isn't anywhere near as harmful, but with the cultural stigma that has been attached to it, we can't support legalization based on negative reasoning alone. We have to explain how it will benefit society, and unfortunately, that puts us in a Catch-22.
It reminds me a little of the case for getting rid of the Electoral College. The arguments are highly compelling, and they are widely accepted by numerous people across the political spectrum. But there are enough people who will aggressively dismiss any attempt to disturb the status quo that it will ensure these fossil policies will continue well into the future.
Not that I find Obama's response in any way surprising. We all know this "radical communist" is in fact as conventionally hawkish on drugs, crime, and foreign policy as any Democrat who hopes to win the presidency these days has to be.
I'm disappointed Barack did not display his usual rationality and calm analysis on this issue. Instead, he made a joke of a very serious issue and laughed it off. At a point in the very recent past a lot of us could have easily laughed off suggestions of a black President. Funny how things change.
And so the elephant in the corner raises its head and speaks...it always returns to race. Sigh. And y'all wonder why he couldn't have a rational discussion of legalizing marijuana on his 65th day in office.
Exactly. We are such a silly nation sometimes I worry that there are not enough serious people. I do think that now is the time for legalization and I'm glad that people are actually talking about it, whereas just a few months ago just bringing up the topic gets you weird looks. I'm not exactly a Ron Paul fan, but how come every time he goes on a show to discuss his principled stand against the Drug War they have to ask if he's smoked pot. I think that question is only relevant when some one is making wild and untrue claims about marijuana.
However, I also believe that Obama was right to joke about it. He had to address it since there is a clamoring among his netroots base for it, and while he has throughout his career spoken in favor of decriminalization now is not the time for HIM to be talking about legalization. He can't bring that up now. He doesn't need to bring that extra heat on himself that could possibly kill unrelated legislation he's trying to pass. Dude's been in office for 2 months, can we give him some time to deal with the 2 wars, economic depression, health care crisis, education crisis, energy crisis, and all the other things that are in crisis or near-crisis states in the aftermath of the disastrous administration we just had for 8 years that ignored even the most basic governing before we start pushing for legalization.
There are much bigger things we need to push obama left on first. That's one where he's genuinely with us, but we'll have to push him on eventually. Still, it's a sticky issue for a politician to deal with. Especially the president. He's already taken huge steps by taking the federal government out of the state's decisions regarding the issues. Let's use that. Marijuana activists should be pushing for medical marijuana in all their states. Followed by decriminalization and eventually legalization. This is something easier to deal with on the state level. It's a process. You can't just jump from nowhere to legalization. You have to build something. Start by going out into your states, door by door. Explain the issue, remove the stigma. Get activists on TV. Make the people call for it. Back the politicians into a corner. Get people talking about it and get them to accept the idea of medical marijuana first. Then when the world doesn't crumble decriminalization. Then push for legalization.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I feel as if I'm not fleshing out my ideas completely. I can't seem to line up my mind with my fingers just right at the moment.
I'm actually wondering what will happen if a state like California legalizes pot. Will Obama keep a similar approach to that of medical marijuana or will there be such a hue and cry that he feels obliged to step in? Will the unthinkable happen and the states rights people actually be consistent in their beliefs? I think the issue may become salient more quickly than Obama would like it to.
Aw, be real. Equating smoking weed with the election of a black president is ridiculous. The states will decriminalize weed as time passes. I smoked a lot of weed between 17-33. It wasn't good for my health. Sorta like cigarettes. Nicotine is a great drug. But the delivery system sucks. It's all about the delivery system. It's also incredibly addictive; weed is not addictive in the least.
I predict that THC tabs will be available OTC if the purchaser is over 18, by 2030.
One of the tricky things about marijuana is that no one is actually sure if THC is even the most important psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The BBC made a documentary about mainlining THC and cannabidiol with interesting results. Obviously the biggest problem is that it's nearly impossible to get funding for this kind of research, so no one really knows what's going on.
I understand President Obama reticence in responding honestly to this question. The man has to run and win a second term. I think that he wants to decriminalize marijuana, but he can't overtly say so, the same way that he can't be "angry".
It is the first year of the first black president. No matter how much I'd like to see this injustice go - I agree that it would be asking much at this point. But what could and should be done here and now is to at least admit that "economically" speaking it would do overall good. Barack can still reject it on social grounds for now. The first president who also happens to be a mother is better suited politically, given human nature, to set us all free?
At least the idea's out there. Interesting dissonance between his words and Hillary's, though. She's over in Mexico saying we're partially to blame for the drug violence there. One of the best ways I can think of to stop those drug wars is to start decriminalizing drugs. When we start growing the stuff legally, who's going to pay to have it shipped in from Mexico? When that revenue stream dries up, so do the gangs. (Obviously marijuana isn't their only source of income, but it's a big one).
People gotta get real about criticizing Obama about laughing off legalizing pot. Look, I think Obama is a talented dude, but he could not pull that off. Not even discussing it, really. He did the smarted and only thing he could do. Otherwise, he's smoking joints in every political cartoon and won't be able to get anything else done.
There is a good case to be made for legalizing marijuana. Probably a better case for some serious decriminalizing. But it doesn't need to be made by the President. Certainly not this president, the first black president, in his first 100 days. People are only jokingly proposing this, right? It would be like the opposite of Nixon goes to China. It would be the answer to all Obama's critics prayers, and nobody would ever talk about Health Care again.
Wisely, Obama laughed it off, but somebody tell me the next time the FBI or DEA raids a pot store in California. Because from what I read, those days are over, and the Feds are gonna look on "medical marijuana" as a state's rights matter and leave it to the locals. And anyway, unless you're a dumbass you've been able to buy and smoke weed with essential impunity for years in places like L.A. and San Francisco.
Obama got this one right, and the critics should eat a bowl of dank. If you want to smoke pot, move West.
BIG:
"Going back to Cali, strickly for the weather
Women and the Weed, sticky green, no seeds bitch please..."
Again, Obama can, at his sole discretion, free any and all people convicted or accused of any federal drug crime at any time he wishes with no check on his power.
Also, I don't really care about smoking pot. I care about people in fancy blue and black costumes shooting my countrymen over the possession of tiny amounts of native plants. I'd like that to stop, please.
You all may as well ask him to talk about reparations. Sorry, no way this is happening until late second term. Even is 70% of the country supported, the other 30% could still use it to kill his political power for the rest of his career. He's not the one to bear this standard.
The first Asian Prez won't discuss our base in Okinawa.
The first Arab Prez won't discuss a Palestinian state.
The first Black Prez won't discuss legalizing weed.
Best he can do is be a centrist and pass this one to the left.
Let me suggest that if you want a serious answer, you should ask a serious question.
The drug laws in this country should probably be changed. And there should be a serious policy discussion about it. But the problem isn't that legalizing pot would help the economy. That's basically a flip suggestion. I'm not surprised it received a flip response.
Ta-nehisi. Please turn off the spam filter now that we have to sign in to post. I have just wasted an hour trying to figure out how to post some links to The Economist, The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal - trying to show to Robert that if he wanted to be serious.... I always end up in line for "Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner." and it never happens. Cheers.
Marijuana decriminalization was passed 65-35 in MA. Before the election, the talk in the media was that it was up in the air. Massachusetts is liberal, but it's also fairly religious. We still can't buy alcohol after 11.
I understand legalization is a different issue, but people do not care as much as politicians think they do. The fact is, this drug does not hurt anyone anymore than alcohol and tobacco which actually kill people. We wouldn't have to worry about harmful pesticides, nor about giving money to drug lords if we did. Our prison numbers would go down, and our tax revenue would go up.
I understand the instinct of those who say he could never do this as a black Democrat president. But I'm tired of conservatives being the only ones that get to govern even when they are out of power. If he moved in on this, he could actually help destroy the Republican party by prying away many of the libertarians and young Republicans.
I know it's an issue that is taken lightly, and maybe after we are not in a full blown crisis, an actual discussion could occur. However, this isn't an issue that should be taken lightly, and it's time to bring some actual reason into American politics.
"The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,"
I tend to disagree on this answer: I appreciated diplomatic finesse that made only one commitment -- which was not to legalize pot _in order to grow our economy_.
Fair enough... I think prohibition is a bad idea, but I'm also willing to accept that we can't 'grow our way' out of recession, and I think Obama was right to say so. And, as many others have suggested above, he was probably also right to defer addressing the larger questions surrounding prohibition as public policy.
Contrary to popular belief, good politicians (and good diplomats) know enough not to lie. Often, however, they avoid addressing the truth in the matter at hand -- which is not the same thing. The problem is that few observers are particularly good at parsing political statements to surmise the truth behind political statements such as this one.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I kind of agree, but you really think this is the time to talk about legalizing weed? While I believe the calls for Obama to concentrate on the economy and nothing else are stupid, this is one of those subjects that may simply have to wait its turn. Of course, with violence on the U.S./Mexico border spinning out of control, waiting for too long could add another war to the two Obama has inherited. Still, the outrage over Obama's Weed Question is wasted energy.
Further, Obama's answer fit the context of the question: "Would legalizing marijuana help the economy and spur job growth?" Obama's answer was no. He did not extend the answer to include his thoughts on the legalization of marijuana. And if he DID say, "yeah, it's something to explore--let's look into it," what do you think the headlines--and the Republicans--would spend the next week or so screaming about? He's fighting enough wars with the right and the media as it is. Can't we give him a puff-pass on this one?
No.
Furthermore, the President has the power, at his sole discretion, to set free every person in federal prison for drug possession, and I hold him personally responsible for every moment that they continue to suffer. Instead, he makes jokes and laughs at his people's very real demands for justice. I find that monstrous.
I agree with BabylonSista. Pay attention to the context of the question. Further, there is a distinct difference between legalization and decriminalization.
Ultimately, the legalization of weed is a political question. I think that the possession of a kilo or less of warrants no legal action. But, what about 5 tons on a tractor-trailer? I don't have an answer.
All I know is that the prison industry in the U.S. is huge, and they have a humongous lobby. Who's going to go up against them? I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of a nonviolent crime, where no weapons were involved, should be incarcerated. They should be sentenced to community public service, be paid a minimum wage and live in the community.
That would reduce the current prison population by 65%. But, it would be a detriment to job growth and the economy. It is a complex moral and ethical judgement. I don't have an answer other than possession of a key or less.
I don't see any complex moral and ethical judgment with pot. It should be legal, period, as a matter of personal rights. And making use of its medical benefits is the moral thing to do.
I agree that nonviolent crimes ideally ought not to merit incarceration, but we hardly need concern ourselves with that for now. Letting Madoff out on the streets is a whole different ballpark than letting your average pothead or even crackhead out.
babs, i'll agree to give him a puff pass this term but second term, i'm not so sure.
with respect to those in media, i think people in front of the camera need to come clean on what their weed use had been. the issue cannot move forward with just the stoners putting it out there when you know plenty of other people are more than a little familiar with the herb but want to act as if legalization movement is some kind of fringe thing.
i'm calling out, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Joe Scarborough, Larry King, etc. Let's have a national conversation and get this out of the closet.
time for cannabis smokers of all stripes to come of the closet.
This was a double edged sword for Obama. Right now would NOT to be a good time to talk about legalizing weed no matter what the merits are especially when he is trying to get his budget passed while Michele Bachmann is calling for an armed revolution against Marxism. But on the other hand the actual question (which wasn't worded the way he said it was) got so many votes that if he avoided addressing it I am pretty sure there would have been outrage from the blogosphere. So he addressed and just tried to make it into a joke. I only hope that behind closed doors when he isn't under pressure to convince everybody he isn't the anti Christ/Chairman Mao that he is actually looking at the merits of legalization. Obviously it wouldn't be something he could do for say the next two years but after that the topic deserves to at least be explored and from my point of view political pressure aside, it should be a no brainer.
It depends on how you frame the question. Now would not be a good time to talk about legalizing pot. Now would be an excellent time to talk about ending drug anarchy. That's what we have now. We have absolutely no control of the markets for a whole list of dangerous and not so dangerous drugs. The only way we're ever going to have control over drugs is to regulate them. Just as we now realize we have to regulate "innovative" new financial instruments, so we should also regulate drugs that are currently illegal. If you're not in favor of that, you are in favor of the status quo: drug anarchy. Unfortunately Obama seems to be in that camp, partly because no one frames the question in that way. The solution is to regulate all drugs--some lightly and some heavily. Legalizing pot alone doesn't solve the problems with unregulated markets in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Mexico. But we can see all too clearly the results of leaving drug regulation to the dealers. When we get tired of drug anarchy, the solution is clear. It will be messy and difficult at first, just as the financial crisis is messy and difficult. But the sooner we get started, the sooner we can get through the transition.
Calling the extreme intervention that constitutes the status quo of the drug market "anarchy" is an offensive slur against anarchy.
I understand the frustration of being labeled a pothead because of principled support for legalization, but that's a stereotype that's hard for us to escape when we fall back on abstract political principles. If we restrict our case to medical marijuana, we can argue based on specific, concrete benefits. But to argue for complete legalization invites the question of why we find it such a worthy cause. Economic arguments aren't enough to banish such suspicions, because they might equally be applied to any currently illegal industry, including the harder drugs. Sure, weed isn't anywhere near as harmful, but with the cultural stigma that has been attached to it, we can't support legalization based on negative reasoning alone. We have to explain how it will benefit society, and unfortunately, that puts us in a Catch-22.
It reminds me a little of the case for getting rid of the Electoral College. The arguments are highly compelling, and they are widely accepted by numerous people across the political spectrum. But there are enough people who will aggressively dismiss any attempt to disturb the status quo that it will ensure these fossil policies will continue well into the future.
Not that I find Obama's response in any way surprising. We all know this "radical communist" is in fact as conventionally hawkish on drugs, crime, and foreign policy as any Democrat who hopes to win the presidency these days has to be.
I'm disappointed Barack did not display his usual rationality and calm analysis on this issue. Instead, he made a joke of a very serious issue and laughed it off. At a point in the very recent past a lot of us could have easily laughed off suggestions of a black President. Funny how things change.
And so the elephant in the corner raises its head and speaks...it always returns to race. Sigh. And y'all wonder why he couldn't have a rational discussion of legalizing marijuana on his 65th day in office.
Exactly. We are such a silly nation sometimes I worry that there are not enough serious people. I do think that now is the time for legalization and I'm glad that people are actually talking about it, whereas just a few months ago just bringing up the topic gets you weird looks. I'm not exactly a Ron Paul fan, but how come every time he goes on a show to discuss his principled stand against the Drug War they have to ask if he's smoked pot. I think that question is only relevant when some one is making wild and untrue claims about marijuana.
However, I also believe that Obama was right to joke about it. He had to address it since there is a clamoring among his netroots base for it, and while he has throughout his career spoken in favor of decriminalization now is not the time for HIM to be talking about legalization. He can't bring that up now. He doesn't need to bring that extra heat on himself that could possibly kill unrelated legislation he's trying to pass. Dude's been in office for 2 months, can we give him some time to deal with the 2 wars, economic depression, health care crisis, education crisis, energy crisis, and all the other things that are in crisis or near-crisis states in the aftermath of the disastrous administration we just had for 8 years that ignored even the most basic governing before we start pushing for legalization.
There are much bigger things we need to push obama left on first. That's one where he's genuinely with us, but we'll have to push him on eventually. Still, it's a sticky issue for a politician to deal with. Especially the president. He's already taken huge steps by taking the federal government out of the state's decisions regarding the issues. Let's use that. Marijuana activists should be pushing for medical marijuana in all their states. Followed by decriminalization and eventually legalization. This is something easier to deal with on the state level. It's a process. You can't just jump from nowhere to legalization. You have to build something. Start by going out into your states, door by door. Explain the issue, remove the stigma. Get activists on TV. Make the people call for it. Back the politicians into a corner. Get people talking about it and get them to accept the idea of medical marijuana first. Then when the world doesn't crumble decriminalization. Then push for legalization.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I feel as if I'm not fleshing out my ideas completely. I can't seem to line up my mind with my fingers just right at the moment.
Re: the states
I'm actually wondering what will happen if a state like California legalizes pot. Will Obama keep a similar approach to that of medical marijuana or will there be such a hue and cry that he feels obliged to step in? Will the unthinkable happen and the states rights people actually be consistent in their beliefs? I think the issue may become salient more quickly than Obama would like it to.
Aw, be real. Equating smoking weed with the election of a black president is ridiculous. The states will decriminalize weed as time passes. I smoked a lot of weed between 17-33. It wasn't good for my health. Sorta like cigarettes. Nicotine is a great drug. But the delivery system sucks. It's all about the delivery system. It's also incredibly addictive; weed is not addictive in the least.
I predict that THC tabs will be available OTC if the purchaser is over 18, by 2030.
One of the tricky things about marijuana is that no one is actually sure if THC is even the most important psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The BBC made a documentary about mainlining THC and cannabidiol with interesting results. Obviously the biggest problem is that it's nearly impossible to get funding for this kind of research, so no one really knows what's going on.
I understand President Obama reticence in responding honestly to this question. The man has to run and win a second term. I think that he wants to decriminalize marijuana, but he can't overtly say so, the same way that he can't be "angry".
It is the first year of the first black president. No matter how much I'd like to see this injustice go - I agree that it would be asking much at this point. But what could and should be done here and now is to at least admit that "economically" speaking it would do overall good. Barack can still reject it on social grounds for now. The first president who also happens to be a mother is better suited politically, given human nature, to set us all free?
At least the idea's out there. Interesting dissonance between his words and Hillary's, though. She's over in Mexico saying we're partially to blame for the drug violence there. One of the best ways I can think of to stop those drug wars is to start decriminalizing drugs. When we start growing the stuff legally, who's going to pay to have it shipped in from Mexico? When that revenue stream dries up, so do the gangs. (Obviously marijuana isn't their only source of income, but it's a big one).
People gotta get real about criticizing Obama about laughing off legalizing pot. Look, I think Obama is a talented dude, but he could not pull that off. Not even discussing it, really. He did the smarted and only thing he could do. Otherwise, he's smoking joints in every political cartoon and won't be able to get anything else done.
There is a good case to be made for legalizing marijuana. Probably a better case for some serious decriminalizing. But it doesn't need to be made by the President. Certainly not this president, the first black president, in his first 100 days. People are only jokingly proposing this, right? It would be like the opposite of Nixon goes to China. It would be the answer to all Obama's critics prayers, and nobody would ever talk about Health Care again.
Wisely, Obama laughed it off, but somebody tell me the next time the FBI or DEA raids a pot store in California. Because from what I read, those days are over, and the Feds are gonna look on "medical marijuana" as a state's rights matter and leave it to the locals. And anyway, unless you're a dumbass you've been able to buy and smoke weed with essential impunity for years in places like L.A. and San Francisco.
Obama got this one right, and the critics should eat a bowl of dank. If you want to smoke pot, move West.
BIG:
"Going back to Cali, strickly for the weather
Women and the Weed, sticky green, no seeds bitch please..."
Bullshit.
Again, Obama can, at his sole discretion, free any and all people convicted or accused of any federal drug crime at any time he wishes with no check on his power.
Also, I don't really care about smoking pot. I care about people in fancy blue and black costumes shooting my countrymen over the possession of tiny amounts of native plants. I'd like that to stop, please.
You all may as well ask him to talk about reparations. Sorry, no way this is happening until late second term. Even is 70% of the country supported, the other 30% could still use it to kill his political power for the rest of his career. He's not the one to bear this standard.
The first Asian Prez won't discuss our base in Okinawa.
The first Arab Prez won't discuss a Palestinian state.
The first Black Prez won't discuss legalizing weed.
Best he can do is be a centrist and pass this one to the left.
Let me suggest that if you want a serious answer, you should ask a serious question.
The drug laws in this country should probably be changed. And there should be a serious policy discussion about it. But the problem isn't that legalizing pot would help the economy. That's basically a flip suggestion. I'm not surprised it received a flip response.
Ta-nehisi. Please turn off the spam filter now that we have to sign in to post. I have just wasted an hour trying to figure out how to post some links to The Economist, The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal - trying to show to Robert that if he wanted to be serious.... I always end up in line for "Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner." and it never happens. Cheers.
Marijuana decriminalization was passed 65-35 in MA. Before the election, the talk in the media was that it was up in the air. Massachusetts is liberal, but it's also fairly religious. We still can't buy alcohol after 11.
I understand legalization is a different issue, but people do not care as much as politicians think they do. The fact is, this drug does not hurt anyone anymore than alcohol and tobacco which actually kill people. We wouldn't have to worry about harmful pesticides, nor about giving money to drug lords if we did. Our prison numbers would go down, and our tax revenue would go up.
I understand the instinct of those who say he could never do this as a black Democrat president. But I'm tired of conservatives being the only ones that get to govern even when they are out of power. If he moved in on this, he could actually help destroy the Republican party by prying away many of the libertarians and young Republicans.
I know it's an issue that is taken lightly, and maybe after we are not in a full blown crisis, an actual discussion could occur. However, this isn't an issue that should be taken lightly, and it's time to bring some actual reason into American politics.
"The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,"
I tend to disagree on this answer: I appreciated diplomatic finesse that made only one commitment -- which was not to legalize pot _in order to grow our economy_.
Fair enough... I think prohibition is a bad idea, but I'm also willing to accept that we can't 'grow our way' out of recession, and I think Obama was right to say so. And, as many others have suggested above, he was probably also right to defer addressing the larger questions surrounding prohibition as public policy.
Contrary to popular belief, good politicians (and good diplomats) know enough not to lie. Often, however, they avoid addressing the truth in the matter at hand -- which is not the same thing. The problem is that few observers are particularly good at parsing political statements to surmise the truth behind political statements such as this one.