Nevermind, Barack Obama Wants to Arrest Marijuana Users After All
For one brief glorious moment, we thought Barack Obama supported marijuana decriminalization. He said so in 2004 and his campaign reiterated it yesterday, only to subsequently retreat and pledge support for current marijuana laws.
At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct. Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use."If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers. [Washington Times]
Indeed, as Pete Guither notes, no one is really sure what "decriminalization" actually means, which likely explains the Obama campaign's ultimate unwillingness to be associated with the term.
And that tells you everything you need to know about why meaningful debate of our marijuana laws is continuously excluded from mainstream politics. Since the relevant vocabulary words have no universally accepted definition, candidates attempting to discuss marijuana would be forced to use entire sentences or even paragraphs to express their opinions. This is not something they will do voluntarily.
Note, for example, that everything we know about the major candidates' drug policy positions has emerged as a result of someone explicitly asking them. The tortured evolution of Obama's views on marijuana occurred only because this information was demanded of him. First, Bill Maher forced Chris Dodd to discuss the issue, resulting in Dodd's endorsement of marijuana decrim. Then, Tim Russert asked other democratic contenders whether they disagreed with Dodd. The front-runners sheepishly raised their hands in opposition to even mild marijuana reform. Finally, when the Washington Times forced Obama to clarify his conflicting positions, Obama's campaign briefly endorsed reform before finally concluding that they opposed decrim even though they're still not sure what it is.
The conventional wisdom among my colleagues seems to be that Obama "gets" the drug war issue. Everything he says and does can be attributed to his presidential aspirations, I'm told, and we should be grateful that he at least flirts with criminal justice reform. That's fine as far as it goes, but I continue to question the fundamental political wisdom of refusing to talk about marijuana. It's an issue people care about. It's an issue that gets headlines. And it's an issue that's been handled about as poorly as one could possibly imagine for a long long time.
I believe that marijuana reform, properly and passionately framed by an eloquent and viable candidate, could prove to be far less toxic than the brilliant campaign strategists in Washington D.C. collectively assume. And it is nauseating to consider that this terrible war on marijuana users owes its survival as much to a flawed political calculus as to the actual beliefs and convictions of those who sustain it.
(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
digg
redditThe only people who can end the drug war are libertarian jurors
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 3:01pmhttp://www.fija.org
http://www.lp.org
As far as a presidential candidate who's against the drug war, I champion the Libertarian Party Candidate
http://www.lp.org
http://www.rootforamerica.com -Wayne Root
Dr. Mary Ruwart may also enter the race, in which case she'd make a great VP to Root, and is a lifelong opponent to the drug war, although she'd have less media attention on her than Root would have on him, and it's all about the media attention.
-Jake Witmer
Ron Paul, HA!!!!!
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:19pmWhat bullshit,
Ron Paul could care less about marijuana prohibition. He is just another political animal riding on the coat-tail of hippy liberals, and bored college students looking for an excuse to get high. What a bunch of naive assholes you must all take us for.
Just as the statement "We
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 1:40amJust as the statement "We need to support our troops" has NOTHING to do with supporting a war, "We need to punish those who break the law" has NOTHING to do with supporting a prohibition.
Huh?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 2:07pmClassic case of ignoritis. So you think that doing the wrong thing is the right thing?
Ignoritis?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 5:31pmNo, you idiot. If you end the prohibition, then people aren't breaking the law -- so wanting to punish lawbreakers has nothing to do with the stance on whether or not something should be illegal.
Decriminialization is the term
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 11:54amIts not a fact of it being illegal or not, its decriminalization, There would still be laws, The possibility of laws just being removed for marijuana is outrageous, It would have to be a controlled substance still but with less harsh penalty.
The law itself is illegal, here.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 2:10pmThese "omnipotent busybodies" should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity.
Read "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 3:23pmThe most useful essay in the book is "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" by John Ross. We need to branch out and unify everyone in defense of property rights in terms they can understand (and keep in mind, anti-freedom people who support freedom in only one area can be damned infuriating!).
Then, dig deeper, and see how the unification of gun rights and drug rights makes us dramatically stronger. Read: "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross http://www.accuratepress.net/ross.html , and "Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder http://www.accuratepress.net/cow.html
Then, dig deeper and see the real answers: a jury rights movement in America, similar to the magna carta, the leveller rebellion, and the jury-nullification of the Fugitive slave act, by northern juries. http://www.fija.org
If jury rights pamphlets were handed to all incoming jurors (only legal with copy of letter from DA if you're on "court property", or on a public sidewalk, preferably while you are being videod, in case they cuff you and stuff you on the assumption that you cannot afford legal defense), on their way into every courthouse in America (usually a 2 hour period, one morning per week, but more in the big cities), then the drug war would go away over night, simply because prosecutors wouldn't be able to convicy both murderers and drug offenders... http://www.fija.org --I'm telling you! It's the way to make it happen, but it requires systematic activism!
It does no good to reach jurors one week, but not the next. It cannot be an anomaly that the state prosecutors can ignore. It must be ongoing, week after week, even when they show you the effect you are having by trying to make jury service information private. (Right now, you can call most local courthouses, and press a button on their automated line that tells you when the jurors will be entering).
Let's make it happen. Let's bring this unconstitutional police state to its knees, and force the prosecutors to enforce only the constitutional "common" laws against rape, murder, and theft...
Stay Strong,
Jake Witmer
Campaign Camouflage Strategies
Comment posted by Giordano on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 1:47amObama has it covered either way. Now if someone says Obama is pro-reform, he has plausible deniability. His campaign workers can point one way or the other on decriminalization, the timing of the purported statements being deliberately confused, while retaining the opportunity to press the necessary buttons to get the desired response from the info targeted electorate.
It would be a pleasant surprise to wake up some day and actually know what a presidential candidate stands for prior to their royal posteriors getting elected. Bush Jr. claimed to be pro-medical MJ in his 2000 election campaign, and, as usual, he lied.
However, there are candidates who appear to be sincere this time in their willingness to consider options. Still, I think the future president elect is going to continue need a lot of help changing most public perceptions on the drug issue. Unless it’s overtly unconstitutional, most sane politicians don’t move on an issue until they have a majority of the public on their side. The Democrats will probably deliver on medical MJ, but decriminalization is a separate issue requiring different political strategies.
Giordano
Your dead on about Obama's lawyerly duplicity
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:18amKerry did the same thing in 2004. Its no surprise to me that drug warrior John Kerry is supporting and advising Obama. It would surprise me if Obama sincerely articulated a reform position while being supported by John Kerry. It would also surprise me if Obama adopted a reform position with his record of support for crap like the 2005 Combat Meth Act, of which its ballooning effect even the U.S. Justice Department admits has increased the purity, quantity and distribution of meth on American streets. See my essay: Barack Obama: A Stereotype of Conventional Wisdom
Since the war on drugs is, at its core, a Jim Crow policy in America the way that I address these drug warriors is to refer to them as "Jim Crow drug warriors". Including Obama. This threatens their political viability and image. And it gives them incentive to look at alternatives. For that I offer them Ira Glasser's excellent column in The Nation Last year, Drug Busts = Jim Crow. Let Barack Obama and Hillary both justify their Democratic Party support of a policy that is mass disenfranchising core Democratic constituencies, minorities and the poor of America.
"This terrible war on marijuana users"
Comment posted by rita on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 3:22amis being waged against ALL Americans, not just marijuana users. I'm no expert on the history of the prohibition of various drugs, but the so-called "war on drugs" never WAS about protecting the public; it was started by President Nixon to win reelection. That's the reason politicians WON'T debate the issue -- they KNOW they are wrong.
Obama's just another hypocrite willing to sacrifice our lives and the lives of our children to further his own career. They all look the same to me.
Obama? Why
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:45pmWhy would anyone even consider voting for someone who won't answer a direct question? Flip Flop, Sounds like a cheap pair of walmart shoes to me. Cheap, inconsistent, unreliable. Clinton, Obama, Whoever. Vote Ron Paul. Yes he is an out of the box thinker. Look around do you want someone in the box?
Nixon expanded the drug war, but it was originally a war on race
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 3:39pmNixon expanded the drug war, but it was originally a war on race (and so it has remained!). It outlawed the drugs of the blacks, mexicans, indians, and chinese without outlawing the white man's alcohol (although alcohol prohibition later did grow out of that same jihadist mentality). Cocaine was banned in 1907 by conjuring the fears of white southern legislators infected with "Jim Crow" fever by their ignorant constituencies. The people pushing for the prohibition of cocaine conjured fears of black rapists and murderers rendered "unstoppable" by their coke use.
This asinine fear is still being used to promote prohibition, but reached a fever pitch in the 1980s under Reagan and his communist and history-illiterate bitch.
And, speaking of illiterate bitches, watch a DEA "undercover" traitor to America (and the black race and human dignity of any kind) LITERALLY shoot himself in the foot here (warning, totally sick and hilarious at the same time):
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/News/Lee%20Paige%20DEA/Lee%20Paige%20D...
...There, now you can't say I've never made you laugh! LOL (until you think about how many times that moron made the same speech, minus the negligent discharge, encouraging roomfulls of kids to mindlessly give up their gun rights in fear, and pledge allegiance to the thug state.)
Anti-gun hysteria is the same as anti-drug hysteria. Let's end both kinds of immoral prohibitions on peaceful, private, nonviolent, property ownership.
The video above shows exactly why it's bad to hand a free country over to mindless trigger happy thugs. Of course, this is already obvious to anyone with intelligence or curiosity, and shows exactly why our nation can't seem to handle the responsibility of elections: they are unintelligent, unaware, and complacent. (Thanks to the government youth propaganda camps that masquerade as "public schools".)
http://www.rootforamerica.com
http://www.fija.org
Stay Strong,
-Jake Witmer
Scott:
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:03amThanks for all of the great effort at nailing this Obama issue down. What a job. Obama is a lawyer, a politician and a member of one of the two lying thieving dominance parties and, to me, that gives him three strikes. Add to that the fact that Obama is being supported by one of the most notorious Democratic drug warriors, John Kerry, who in 2004 let his underlings imply moderate pot positions that Kerry never clearly supported.
Your journalistic cynicism is well placed today.
Don't let other well-intentioned reform folks blow a lot of wishful thinking smoke in your face on this. Folks did that with Kerry in '04 and were screwed for it.
"I believe that marijuana reform, properly and passionately framed by an eloquent and viable candidate, could prove to be far less toxic than the brilliant campaign strategists in Washington D.C. collectively assume."
I wholeheartedly agree. I think the same can be said with the entire range of drugs. Defining these issues for all of the candidates running in all elections is what I have tried to focus on rather than the individual political candidates. Working to provide them all with a new lexicon that they can reframe the debate with themselves since it is the politicians, not us, who have to take the issues to the public.
We need to provide the politicians a framework and a self-interest based rationale to consider adopting that framework.
We have the arguments. We need to get those arguments to the politicians in a way that gets them to consider our arguments. the medical pot people in New England did that quite successfully this spring when they confronted the campaigners. LEAP too raised the debate level when their Bradley Jardis confronted McCain in new Hampshire. We need to be everywhere they are. Raise the profile of the issues.
Most important is that no politician does anything without a self-interest. this is why campaign season is so important. In political season that self-interest is their political viability. Threatening a politicians political viability is the fastest way to bring their attention to an issue. I work full time to find ways to make support for the war on drugs a political liability for ALL politicians. then, and only then, will they consider our well crafted, cogent and valid arguments for drug policy reform.
No Disrespect, But 'Problem = Us'
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:57am"most sane politicians don’t move on an issue until they have a majority of the public on their side"
I hope everyone reading this will repeat that quote at least once a day, especially people running wonderful organizations such as DRCNet.
No. Seriously. Take a moment to burn that quote into your mind. Ground it firmly into the foundation of our movement.
Too many legalization resources are being spent trying to directly influence the government with slowly growing public support.
We also need to focus hard on directly influencing the majority of voters, people who think prohibitionists are sound and we are not, the WoD is winnable when the front line has arguably never budged.
The case against prohibition is very strong.
We need to do a better job of taking that strong case to 'We the people'.
We need to organize a strong, positive public relations campaign to counter the "bad guys who just want to get high" image.
We need to continuously work to establish healthy relationships with people who have direct access to the voting majority, so we can communicate with them regarding how the WoD negatively effects major issues.
We need to be publicly involved in improving society (e.g. using knowledge and experience to help build a better system of abuse prevention and treatment), instead of just complaining about how misguided our society is for believing the WoD suffices.
Even a handful of credible (professional, clean, well-articulate, etc.) members of our movement should be able to literally embarrass prohibitionists like the drug czar in any debate-like setting to a degree easily swaying the majority towards ending prohibition.
It's time to turn the giant megaphone that is a 'one prohibitionist podium on the national stage' situation into two podiums, one for us to immediately counter their ridiculously stance in front of the same audience, the majority of voters.
With majority support on our side, the government will rapidly fall in line to save their elected butts.
Not entirely right
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 10:41amWhile a majority is needed for direct election success a majority is not needed for policy change in a representative democracy.
What is needed is to get politicians and the media to talk about the issues enough to interest, inform and hopefully incite a vocal number of voters. This leads to the voter majority.
We have large numbers of elected official on our side already and that influences other politicians more than anything. After all look just at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that last summer passed a resolution denouncing the war on drugs as a failure. The Conference is made up of ELECTED local executives who represent the interests of a majority of urban America. That is a huge number of people represented. Any politician ignoring this massive volume of proven electoral support is risking political suicide.
It is incumbent upon US the reform advocates, to get this resolution in front of the presidential and congressional candidates.
Urban gun violence is a major issue in our cities. Especially among minorities and the poor who are most victimized by gun crime. Illegal guns proliferate BECAUSE the high demand by the drug gangsters makes the guns cheap and easy to get. Remove the demand by the gangsters by regulating the drug distribution and the demand for illegal guns is reduced. Reduce the demand for guns and they become less available and more expensive for cheap street hoods who use guns for street crime.
If we can get the candidates and media to confront these issues that is what will inform and persuade the electorate.
Vocal public confrontation of the candidates during the campaign both incites the candidates to consider the issues and induces the media to explore the issues.
Green Party is consistently for marijuana reform
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 11:12amThe Green Party of the United States is in the process of amending its platform to move from its current support for decriminalization of marijuana, to support for legalization. Adoption will be at the national convention in Chicago July 10-13. More info. at www.gp.org
Legalize, educate, regulate, medicate!
Drug prohibition does not work. There is a safer alternative.
Great news
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 11:28amThanks for posting it.
Many Greens are also inciting Ralph Nader to run again. He opened an exploratory committee this week. Run Ralph, Run!!!!
I will get in touch with my local Green delegate and get her more information about all of the issues of drug policy reform.
Informed consent, the ultimate revolution.
peacefull rally
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:28amPeacefull protest at the white house july 4th 2009 reply yes to this to agree
My Fear
Comment posted by M Simon on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 2:05pmMy fear is that if Obama get in he will do a Clinton and re-double drug war efforts.
Surprisingly Bush has ratcheted down Drug Task Force Spending. The opposite of Clinton.
Terror War
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 2:37pmThe War on Terror had to secure funds from other programs, this being one. Security and drug detection are interchangable. A bomb-sniffing dog can also detect drugs, etc. ... This does not mean King George III is "soft on drugs."
Anon. Is Right
Comment posted by M Simon on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 2:16pmNo Disrespect, But 'Problem = Us' posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:57am is right.
Let me add that it is not enough to get people on our side (we need to do more of that). They have to make decrim (start with med pot) an election issue that matters. Something like 70% to 80% of the people favor med pot and yet it rarely features in elections except as state referendums.
Targeting Bob Barr was good. We need to pick one off every election.
When the gun rights folks did that both parties had a change of heart.
The focus should be on Republicans since they are the furthest out on the issue. (I'm an R voter BTW - but what works works. When the Ds got it in the neck on gun rights it was easy to keep the Rs in line).
Don't Vote for Obama
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 2:34pmIt's real simple! If Obama won't support our causes, Don't vote him in! Ron Paul seems to be the right candidate, but I don't think he's popular enough to get the votes(plus he's republican). So it's a bit of a sad situation. We need to Stand Up and Take Our America Back!!! Before it's too late and we no longer can!
Obama best of the rest on drug policy
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 4:52pmWhile it's disappointing to see Obama backtrack on his position of decriminalization, he represents the most sensible position on drug policy. If he goes on to win the Democratic Primary, I'm sure the subject of his past drug use will be used against him by the Republican challenger and that ploy will inspire a much needed dialouge on the whole concept of waging the drug war.
I have no confidence in Hiliary linton when it comes to this issue. It was her surrogates that continuously brought up Obama's youthful indecrestions and I have no doubt that she approved of those attacks. The Republicans will play the drug war card against Obama. If she wins the Democratic Primary, Hiliary will emphasize a position that exudes getting tougher on drugs. I don't believe Obama won't stoop to such tactics. Just look at the Clinton record concerning the drug war; appointing a retired General to lead the fight, the growth of drug arrests and racial disparity among blacks, the firing of Joycelyn Elders. The Clintons had their chance and caved into the pressure from Right Wingers to increase the Drug War Budget every year they held office.
For those who read this blog and consider drug policy a top priority in deciding their vote, Obama is the best among the rest(HC,JM,MR) who can claim the White House.
Obama, an equal among evils
Comment posted by aahpat on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:07pmI agree with you 100% on Hillary. My criticism of Bill Clinton's drug war record, mentioning most of your points and highlighting his world record prison population and mass disenfranchisement of minorities, got me censored off of the TalkLeft lawyer blog today. LOL! Democrats are being very sensitive about Bubba Bill's facade of being a liberal.
My problem is that, while your analysis of how the Clintons and the GOP will treat him is dead on, Obama is no better on drug policy. Aside from this latest water muddying effort by him and his people regarding pot decrim he has a congressional and campaign record of supporting the most Draconian and counter-productive policies of the drug war.
Legislatively, his senate web site brags of his co-sponsorship of the 2005 Combat Meth Act. Just two years later the Justice Department's annual National Drug Threat Assessment characterized the outcomes of that policy to be classic ballooning effect. The Meth Act has actually increased the quality and quantity of meth on our streets and it has facilitated the growth into America of highly organized and extremely violent Mexican street gangs. Spreading into places that the old meth biker gangs never moved into.
Here is my blog essay on the issue:
2005 Combat Meth Act
From the Justice Department:
"...marked success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production through law enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions has enabled Mexican DTOs to rapidly expand their control over methamphetamine distribution—even in eastern states—as users and distributors who previously produced the drug have sought new, consistent sources. These Mexican methamphetamine distribution groups (supported by increased methamphetamine production in Mexico) are often more difficult for local law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate, and dismantle because they typically are much more organized and experienced than local independent producers and distributors. Moreover, these Mexican criminal groups typically produce and distribute high purity ice methamphetamine that usually is smoked, potentially resulting in a more rapid onset of addiction to the drug."
Obama is proud that he co-sponsored this national disaster.
From the official web site of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate for president of the United States of America.
"Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act, which provides more money for fighting methamphetamine (meth), tightens controls on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to the children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate and became law in the 109th Congress."
On the campaign trail he visited New Orleans a few months back and responding to people asking for help with crime in poor neighborhoods he promised that, after the election, he would increase the DEA office in the city. If he wants to help New Orleans he can TODAY, offer a bill to increase drug rehab in the city. This would quickly get addicts off the streets who are the source of most street economic crime in any community. A few million in drug rehab money today would do more good than even fifty DEA agents going into the city in Feb. of 2009. He promised five more agents. A spit in the ocean.
Obama is an idiot who does not know what he is doing. Hillary is a Jim Crow monster who knows exactly what she is doing to the electoral viability of poor and minority communities when she promises to return to Bill's world record prison population solutions to crime.
The economics of the drug war is the CAUSE of as much as 70% of the crime on American streets today. Hillary, Barack, McCain, Huck and that Mormon dick-head are all too much a part of the problem to be any part of the solution.
Flip Flop
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:55pmYou don't have to vote for the cleanest dirty sheet any more. Vote for Ron paul. I can't stand these people that say "he doesn't stand a chance so i'll vote for someone else" If everyone who says that votes for him, he will win by a landslide. At least look him up. Do the research. I thought I was damn near a socialist. Than I shut my mouth and did some research. Turns out I don't want these powere abusing beurocrats wasting any more of MY MONEY. When a company falls most of the people lining their pockets for years turn out allright. Let's cut wastfull spending. Do whats right and what is needed.
Huge difference between Obama and Hillary
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 10:15pmI agree with you that when it comes to drug policy, Obama has flip-flopped and sponsered some harmful legislation. However, he has also voiced the most critism on the Drug War and has expressed a desire to do things differently. Your comparisons of Hillary and Obama illustrate a huge difference in their approach to drug policy. We know what Hillary would do as Commander-in-Chief. So I'll go with the Devil I don't know...Obama.
Obama is the only serious Presidential candidate who past would make him the most empathetic and open minded to taking a more humane approach to our drug policy. That fact that he's been open and honest about his drug use encourages a discussion that questions the harm drug prohibition does to society. Obama's disclosure is a world of improvement compared to Bush's refusal to deny he ever used cocaine. I don't believe a Presidential candidate could pull off such deception in 08 and that's a positive change.
Let's face it! You've got two choices to make here. First, do you want Hilllary or Obama. Then assuming the right canidate wins, your second decision is Obama or McCain. To assume they're equally evil and not vote for any of them is quite cynical. Especially, when we have a canidate in Obama that wants to change from the conventional ways elected officials operate.
A vote for Ron Paul certainly isn't a wasted vote. Such a vote has long term value. But the immedate need for change in our drug policy is something I value more than building up the candidate with the ideal approach to ending the drug war.
I have watch
Comment posted by aahpat on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 10:14amthe evolution of the drug war since the day Richard Nixon signed the legislation on TV with a bunch of CIA thugs around him who were being transfered to the new DEA. They were all so tickled that they could finally have a pretext to do domestic political intelligence.
Cynical? ABSOLUTELY!
As soon as you started to refer to the candidates you had to start making empty assumptions and apply wishful thinking to your otherwise sound reasoning and analysis. I make no assumptions about the Democrats. I wish for nothing. I am grounded in reality.
The only reality that these Jim Crow Democrats and Republicans know is to threaten their political viability. As voters, that is our only leverage over them. Cynical cold-hearted political reality.
I wish I could lie that well
Comment posted by bjhe333 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 3:58pmIf I could lie and steal like a polotician I would be at a whore house everynight. When I gave my wife AIDS I would simply smile and not reply. Too bad I have a soul.
democRATS and CONservthemselves
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 11:59amthis war on drugs is funded by the alcohol and tobacco commissions.
Its not that they care so much about people being strungout on drugs as much as it is whos drugs we are strungout on.
Gay marriage and cannabis use...thats what people who have nothing fucking else to worry about, worry about.
Marijuana doesnt scare people today...
what scares people today are republicans
that and uhhhh, democrats
living in the wasteland of the fee
where the poor and the pot user have now become the enemy
peace, love, anarchy
greg williams
It's sad but true...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 9:18pmThe government uses our prison system as a profit center. As someone who has been in the system, has family in the system, and an observer to friends in the same predicament, I often wonder how long it will last. They spend 65 cents a day to feed the prisoners, pay them a dollar or two per hour to produce products sold to local governments at incredible profit margins, as well as all the money made from vending machines for the thousands of prison visits daily across America. All of these cost unfortunately filter down to a majority of middle ald lower class tax payers. Somehow the government and politicians will have to find a way to replace that income, and none of them have the answer. It's not about a moral issue, it's about profits.
However, if we could guarantee that a majority of individuals in the "system" for non violent offenses would produce outside the system as responsible tax payers, perhaps the system would find itself in a better off position in many ways. However, sadly, no one in government wants to have a serious discussion about how to fix a broken situation. It's the elephant in the room, and unfortunately, it's a generational issue. Since all the money sits at the top of the chain with the older generation, mainstream, TV elected politicians are afraid to tackle the issue. Television stations are controlled by older generation types who want the advertising revenue by endorsing the right candidate, the ones the corporations want, not the ones the people want. Obama may be as close to a revolutionary as we've had in a long time, but I'm still not sure his positions on gun control and abortion will fly in the long run with the main stream.
Bottom line, I don't want my grandparents to pass on, but I do wish they'd take their ideals and check out. I fortunately saw through the close minded, ignorance that the "Greatest Generation" passed on to my parents, but there is still alot of work to do. Perhaps, Generation X will become the greatest political generation, and show the world that we know we are only a 300 year old country, and that we can mind our business, treat each other with respect, and end the senseless policies that have been put in place by some of the smartest crooks in our history.
Tell Obama to reaffirm his support for marijuana decrim
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 10:14pmAre you on Facebook?
I've created a Facebook group from which you can write Obama and urge him to reaffirm his support for marijuana decriminalization.
Log on to Facebook and follow this link: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=34496600384
Send a message and share it with the group, then share this group with your face friends
Thanks!
What?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:16amAre you serious? Did you read the article? Is that not what the article is all about?! ...His past statements on decriminalization?! He has, again, like his fellow candidates, flip-flopped! Only one guy sticks to his guns.
And, too many people, that believe what he says, vote against him! Our country is screwed!
watch the video
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:43pmNo, actually: Decrim v Legalization
Comment posted by aahpat on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:50pm"Indeed, as Pete Guither notes, no one is really sure what "decriminalization" actually means, which likely explains the Obama campaign's ultimate unwillingness to be associated with the term."
The distinction between decrim and legalization is very clear and simple.
Decrim is simply not busting people.
Legalization is building a regulated and licensed marketplace in order to put the gangsters out of business.
Decrim does not remove the billions of dollars in subsidies available today to the black market distributors. Legalization will defund the criminal class that today preys on the drug markets.
Anti Drug War: Ron Paul - NOT Barack Obama
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 5:42pmThis is true. Not only does Obama oppose the end of the War on Drugs - he's not even close to as awesome as Ron Paul on this AND EVERY OTHER ISSUE.
Ron Paul will end the War On Drugs immediately in January 2009 - vote Ron Paul!
Marijuana Laws: Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama:
http://hempsavetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/marijuana-laws-ron-paul...
The only way
Comment posted by aahpat on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 6:10pmto end the war on drugs is to make it a political liability for the national level politicians who support it.
A vote for any drug warrior is a vote for the drug war.
The President
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 4:11amPlease, Is he the man ? How many times can he flip flop ? Do we realy want a man like him ? Even if he were elected, how long before he changes his mind.
we're doomed...i just know it
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 11:35amall of my neighbors are all up in arms over something they saw on tv
seems some politican got busted for something that wont make any difference to me
well i'm sure its all true and im tired of this too but i cant pray for some one to fall
let all these people do what people do i'm just happy to be here at all
i'm happy to be here to vote randomly on who ought to take the next dive
i'm eager to see what the outcome will be and all the hilarity on saturday night live
lately its all scandal tv these days i guess thats where the real money must fall
down from the haze of some hollywood hill i'm just happy to be here at all
todd snider
its a sing-a-long !!!
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 5:01pmits a sing-a-long, folks...jumpin on in and hang on!
i'm happy to be here to see how it goes when everything blows in their face
i've been walking my tennis shoes right through my souls just tryin' to keep up with the rest of the race
lately i stare out my windows these days watching my dog chase his ball
i'll do my job what ever it pays i'm just happy to be here at all
todd snider
vote for the only one to communicate common sense
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 6:00pmI am a union IBEW member. I always vote democrat, it benefits my way of life. But this is the first time I have to turn my back on my party. i do not trust obama, he is not playing straight with us. How can anyone support a leader that changes convictions like the wind direction? If we behaved like that our personal lives would be chaos. It takes personal conviction to direct ones life in the correct direction, a place where you want to be. I have always loved cannabia, she is the beacon that gives me strength,makes me happy, and powers my peaceful, karmic convictions.
I am voting for Ron Paul. He is the only one that tells me what he wants to do straight forward, no politician rhetoric deceptive flip flop. That is what makes me respect him. He knows what needs to be done, and he speaks his truth. I agree with his truth. His platform needs to become our countrys realities. People have said a vote for a candidate like him is a wasted vote. A vote of your own conscionse is NEVER a wasted vote!!! Let us change this country for the better this time, finally!
On another note, I hope Eddy Vetter runs for pres one day, I will vote for him too.
They're right, those who are telling you to vote for Ron Paul
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 2:34amHe is the only candidate who will, with no niggling, with no backtracking, with no waffling, END the federal war on drugs; and without the federal war on drugs, the individual states' wars on drugs will die, too. Cut of the head of the snake and the whole snake dies. A vote for ANY other candidate is a vote to continue the war on drugs. It IS that simple.
Personally...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 4:26pmPersonally I am not going to vote. if you vote you are against true american ways.
To show these dictators who really runs the place we will simply boycott the fake voting system.
Besides, if bush gets his way china will crash the market and people will riot, bush will call marshall law and stop te 08 elections, kill who he pleases trying to take over the world for the illuminate and his douchebag daddy.
You people don't get it, VOTING WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING. PUTTING ANOTHER DICTATOR IN JUST MAKES IT WORSE.
The best thing we can do is show that we want http://www.nesara.us to be announced, then have a REAL federal election.
None of the media will help you, they are bought off by illuminate. This government, or regime I should say, wants to KILL YOU, not help you. The dictators that want the highest power of all just show how greedy they are, they want to be able to tell everyone how to live and by that they want to impose their way of life onto everyone else.
We cannot allow this, besides if bush gets his way the 08 elections won't even happen. I am telling you we need to stock up on ammo and high calibur weapons, because we need to get rid of these treasonist red coats trying to ruin our country from the inside since 1933!
This Isn't a Black or White Issue , Mr. Obama ...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 5:31pmEither way We Need Some One Who Can Think for Themself and Not Be Another Puppet. example: "We need more scientific evidence first"- What About The Nixon Commission's Report Advising Decriminalization of Marijuana? that was done by the Gov. Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status. He Threw away the report without EVER READING IT!
Despite the commission's recommendations, Nixon and Congress ignored the report. Since then, more than 13.2 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, including some 735,000 in 2000 - the last year for which federal data is available.
Also: It Has NEver Killed Anybody EVER!
in 1989 it was found by a group of scientists in isreal that we have BODY PARTS MEANT TO TAKE IN CANNNABINOIDS and even produce our own natural cannabinoids. - anandamide for example fits into our CB1 and CB2 Cannabinoid Receptors and help Regulate many important body functions including :
* appetite * bone density * mood regulation * reproduction * blood pressure * Learning capacity * motor coordination ...
Let me also add theres NEVER been a direct Link Between Cannabis and Lung Cancer.
THC has anti cancer propertys which have been demonstrated and cry for further investigation but this can only happen if we allow our scientists all around america access to it...
Too bad mr. obama cant see that marijuana prohibition is based off of 1920's racism towards BLACKS and Hispanics and that anyone endorsing this pohibition (whether they know it or NOT) is also endorsing this racism. it all links back to our first american drug Zcar Harry J. anslinger. who lied about "blacks and latinos" making satanic music (jazz) and luring in white woman and raping them and getting the strength of 10 men and stupid sstuff that which quiet fankly ISNT TRUE!!!
" its not a black or white issue , Mr. Obama ...
THIS IS AN AMERICAN ISSUE ! "
End mairjuana prohibition. its unconstitutional.
~ Luis Hirschlieb
" Marijuana is Only Addictive In The Sense That All Good Things In Life Are Worth Repeating"
3rd party Candidates are Poor Choice and Ruin Chances
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/15/2008 - 12:17amYou people who feel that votng for Ron Paul (assuming he runs as an independent) or for Ralph Nader is the best choice because they are for drug-decriminalization is completely ignorant and not well thought through at all. When people vote for either of those candidates, their votes are going for someone who has ZERO chance of winning the election, while at the same time they are taking votes away from the next most liberal candidate (Obama if he is in the race). Thus, voting for Nader or Paul, rather than Obama is not only a waste of a vote, it is taking a vote away from Obama who has the next most sensible policies, and the most sensible policies out of those who can ACTUALLY BE ELECTED. So while Ron Paul and Ralph Nader may be the ideal candidates fro drug-reform, the fact that they are completely unelectable makes it foolish to vote for them. Instead one should limit their choices to the electable candidates (whoever is nominated from each party to run). In today's presidential elections only the candidates from the main political parties (dems and rebulicans) stand a reasonable chance of winning so a person must look at those two candidates and decide which one is most favorable to drug reform. That will almost certainly be whatever Democrat is nominated, Obama or Hillary, but if it is Obama in the election, than he is most certainly the best bet for someone who wants to see some drug-reform. Votes for Nader and Paul are a waste, and lessen the chances of the mainstream Democratic candidate because they take away part of the far-left (shortsighted I might add) liberal vote. Just as many people think that had Ralph Nader not ran in 2000 that Gore would have won the election, the same thing may happen in this election. Do not let your idealism ruin the chances of the only practical drug-reform candidates (Obama certainly, and probably Hillary). Remember that the Republicans, no matter how they personally feel about drug laws, must still tow the party line, and that line is for VERY harsh drug-legislation. That is why the Democrats are more likely to be drug-reformers.
I hope that this makes sense to people. In summation, Nader and Ron Paul are too extreme to be elected (no question about this, there is no chance for either of them). Most votes for them will, however come from the far left-wing, people who would otherwise have voted Democratic. The Democratic candidate is going to be, no matter who it is, the most likely to reform drug law out of those who have a real chance of being elected (the Reblican candidate and the Democratic candidate). Thus, when people vote for Nader or Paul instead of for the main Democratic candidate, they not only waste their own votes, but they decrease the percentage of votes held by the Democrat because it is a reasonable assumption that most people who vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader would have voted for a Democrat over a Republican. So when you have a close race it can tip the tide in favor of the republican candidate, who is almost certainly going to be less friendly to drug-reform. For example in a race of 100 people, you have 49 people vote R, 47 vote D, and 4 vote other (Paul or Nader). If those two were eliminated the results would have been 49 R, 51 D. This obviously is an oversimplification, but it works in that way essentially and it can doom the only real chance we have for drug-reform.
PLEASE DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE IN 2000.
I would think that
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/18/2008 - 4:57amI would think that "decriminalization" means to not make something a crime anymore. perhaps you should choose a different term on what you wish would happen. Perhaps you want to be able to posses a certain amount of marijuana before it is considered illegal, as long as it is packaged for obvious personal use. If you sell it or buy it illegally, you should be punished. If you transport more than the legal amount, it should be a felony. Someone will always try to make a dollar off of it, no matter how legal or illegal it is. You folks that want to just be able to smoke a joint every now and again need to read the current law and come with a revised law yourselves and present that to the Legislature. It's not the president you'll be dealing with, it the entire legislative cabinet that will decide how far the laws go. Not one person.
.org
Don't waste your vote on Obama
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/01/2008 - 11:34pmVOTE FOR RON PAUL THE ONLY PERSON RUNNING WHO WILL END THE DRUG WAR!
Bill Cooke
My sites:
http://www.undertakerpress.com
http://www.tobaccoland.us