Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama on Pot: Har Har Har, The Joke's On You!
At yesterday's super-excellent online intertubes Town Hall meeting, admitted pot user President Barack Obama drew his biggest laugh with his comments about legalizing marijuana:
More than 100,000 questions were submitted, with the idea Obama would answer those that were most popular. But after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax the drug.
"I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said in the session in the East Room, drawing a laugh from his live audience, which included teachers, nurses and small-business people. "The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow the economy."
Ha ha ha. Very funny. Not. Especially given two recent developments. First, Obama's Justice Department has backtracked on its pledge not to conduct raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California and other states that allow such things. Second, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is jawboning Mexico about how the U.S. will stop drug demand, etc. in an effort to decrease violence along the border.
Meanwhile, folks like Charlie Lynch, who operated a medical marijuana dispensary and faces decades in federal prison, are screwed.
Obama, You're No Stranger to the Bong. Please act like it and take the legalization question seriously.
|3.27.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Anyone who had ANY hope that Obama wouldease up on the drug war
has no understanding of what really drives government policy.
It is sickening to watch a nation of naive WWF fans cheering on
their favorite Mr D and Mr R, everyone somehow seems surprised when
they find out hulk Hogan and Rowdy Roddy piper get their paychecks
from the same guy.
Abdul|3.27.09 @ 10:56AM|#
The country's position on mairjuana is a amazingly schizophrenic. Something like 4 out of 5 Americans at least try pot some time in their lives, yet it remains political suicide to suggest that it be made legal even under very narrow circumstances.
Harry Anslinger|3.27.09 @ 10:58AM|#
I applaud President Obama, it takes courage to recognize the
danger that marijuana poses to men of his race and to stand against
it.
Black men who smoke reefer start to think that they are as good as
white men. Our civilization is organized around the principle that
the best lead and those who are less capable follow. Smoking
marijuana leads those whose place is to obey to start thinking that
they should lead.
Marijuana legalization would lead to savagery. Obviously Obama,
with both Negro and White blood, has understands the danger and is
willing to suppress the baser instincts his mongrel ancestry has
saddled him with.
Whatzooreleasedanslinger|10.20.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Were you born ignorant or do the monkies you associate with train
you to be that way??? Hmmm?!?!?!!?
IDIOT! LOL!!
tarran|3.27.09 @ 11:01AM|#
The best way to end the drug war is to rub Obama's face in the
fact that he is supporting the most destructive Jim Crow law that
ever made it on the books.
Not that it would work... can't anger the prison guards' union.
They may vote Republican after all. Theocrats will always reliably
support locking up people who are "sinful".
Xmas|3.27.09 @ 11:04AM|#
I believe the Supreme Court and Congress said something about
marijuana grown in one state for consumption in the same state is
exactly the same as marijuana transported across state lines.
So really, those California Medical Marijuana growers are actually
taking part in the drug trade from Mexico.
|3.27.09 @ 11:05AM|#
I, for one, would welcome the addition of the Road Warriors to
Congress.
"Run, Teddy! Christ, don't let them get you in the corner! Here
comes the tag; you're really in for it, now!"
|3.27.09 @ 11:06AM|#
It's perceived political suicide. I bet a majority would go along with legalization. The problem are the nannies and parents who think legalization means wholesale drug use. Like that's not the case now.
|3.27.09 @ 11:10AM|#
I find it difficult to believe that, out of all the legalization issues, the most popular was the idea that weed can be our country's bailout. There are so many more important reasons to change drug policy. Yet Obama bravely attacks the dumbest one of them all. Good job, prez. Way to be a disingenuous prick.
SpongePaul|3.27.09 @ 11:11AM|#
I was appaled that he would laugh at a majority of americans. since polls show 2/3 of the public wants cannabis sativa change. I called the white house e-mailed and wrote a very nice 2 page letter. It won't change things. But i think its important to not let the politicians get away with not repersenting the People. and to laugh at them is unfathomable
SpongePaul|3.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#
It's perceived political suicide. I bet a majority would go
along with legalization. The problem are the nannies and parents
who think legalization means wholesale drug use. Like that's not
the case now.
_________________________________________
Well if the majority go along with it, then your elected position
is safe. all it takes is a majority to win an election. and
politics should never be about if i can win again in 4 years. it
should be but is not about what the people want. because what a
politician thinks means nothing. its the people he repersents who
he should be listing to and basing his opionins on that. not wat JR
or whoever hass to lobby about!
SpongePaul|3.27.09 @ 11:14AM|#
listing to, well i guess that is still right, although it should have been listening to. but hey i am dyslexic.
|3.27.09 @ 11:21AM|#
"Black men who smoke reefer start to think that they are as good
as white men."
Time to put down the crack pipe, Harry.
energized democrat|3.27.09 @ 11:25AM|#
he doesnt really mean that hes just not using his political capital on that right now because he needs it for the budget since its so necessary. once the budget is passed then he can focus on changing things like legalizing marijuana. hes just being savvy.
|3.27.09 @ 11:27AM|#
The problem are the nannies and parents who think
legalization means wholesale drug use.
Those people think legalizing drugs will put us right on the
expressway to Hell, apparently. It drives me totally bonkers; if I
say the drug laws should be changed, the response, more often than
not, is "So you probably think murder should be legal, too?" What a
bunch of useless idiots.
|3.27.09 @ 11:29AM|#
And another thing; "If we lower the drinking age, millions of children will DIE!!!! Do you really want that?"
|3.27.09 @ 11:30AM|#
If Piper were eligible, I'd vote for him.
Ready to start eating that trash can, ProL?
Black men who smoke reefer start to think that they are as good
as white men.
One even thinks he can be president! See how dangerous marijuana
is?!?
|3.27.09 @ 11:31AM|#
he doesnt really mean that hes just not using his political
capital on that right now because he needs it for the budget since
its so necessary. once the budget is passed then he can focus on
changing things like legalizing marijuana. hes just being
savvy.
Grape or cherry? Natural or artificial sweeteners? Do you drink it
with a straw? I want details energized democrat.
trs|3.27.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I find it very hard to believe that one of the most popular questions suggested legalization as a way to improve the economy. More likely is that most asked a general legalization question and a few linked it to the economy - Obama answered the later as a way to make fun of the potheads without explicitly answering the legalization question.
BPC|3.27.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Har, Har, Har, You're going to die in prison Charlie Lynch. That Barack is a real card.
|3.27.09 @ 11:34AM|#
Too bad the Republicans don't see the political opportunity here. I don't think the religious conservatives will bolt if legalization is based on individual freedom grounds.
ed|3.27.09 @ 11:50AM|#
Guy goes on Leno and now he's a comedian? Yuk yuk. Half of the obsequiously applauding crowd behind him probably went home to a bong. Hypocrites all.
|3.27.09 @ 11:50AM|#
Obama, You're No Stranger to the Bong. Please act like it
and take the legalization question seriously.
As a means of convincing you that this is a serious issue, we
invite you to listen to a bizarre, not really funny quasi-parody
song about your past drug use.
Beaker|3.27.09 @ 12:03PM|#
What a self-righteous proselytizing asshole. Obama, may your own shit come to life and bit you in the ass.
Art-P.O.G.|3.27.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Don't any of you people care about The Children? Right on
PBrooks! At least someone (besides juanita)on this site gets
it!
Think of The Children!
You people are probably the ones who wanted to end alcohol
prohibition (angry face).
On a serious note, I could never call myself a Republican or a
Democrat in large part because of the bipartisan douchebaggery of
the WoD.
ev|3.27.09 @ 12:13PM|#
One thing that I think people don't get about pot is how
dangerous even it is when underground. I've bought drugs, pot and
other whatnot, in some extremely sketchy places. Places where you
know you're not supposed to be.
I don't think parents/others realize that that's where the danger
is. Criminalization forces kids to go to the South Side, where they
can get victimized and otherwise scared shitless.
I really fucking hate people. I'm going to get drunk/stoned just
out of spite. Which is why I do most everything these days.
Anonymous|3.27.09 @ 12:15PM|#
You know, even if you think people shouldn't use it and
therefore it should be illegal, it would pretty obviously be a huge
market. What idiot would deny that while wasting billions because
too many people are doing it? That fucking idiot.
It likely won't be, but this could be a turning point where the
tax-and-spend Republicans (exemplified by McCain) go soft on
drugs.
BakedPenguin|3.27.09 @ 12:21PM|#
I don't think the religious conservatives will bolt if legalization is based on individual freedom grounds.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohhhhhh, that was good. That is ground zero of
the 'keep drugs illegal' movement.
Art-P.O.G.|3.27.09 @ 12:25PM|#
You're right, BakedPenguin. But I've never quite understood why so many people oppose marijuana on (seemingly) religious grounds. It's been awhile since I read the Bible, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there about pot being sinful.
|3.27.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Baked, down here in bible country, the nutjobs care way more about abortion and gay marraige than drugs. Our brand new prison has already filled up because of aggressive policing of drugs, and when the nutjobs see their taxes are raised again to export prisoners they aren't going to be as gung ho as in the past.
|3.27.09 @ 12:29PM|#
In fact our parish rag has surprisingly allowed a conservation about drugs and the jail to make it into the call and comment section.
|3.27.09 @ 12:40PM|#
once the budget is passed then he can focus on changing
things like legalizing marijuana.
Public Pledge Time:
If Barack Obama backs legislation making medical marijuana legal at
the federal level at any time during calendar year 2009 or 2010, I
will comment on this site under the screen name Barack Obama's
Bitch from that point through December 31, 2010.
|3.27.09 @ 12:46PM|#
If Barack Obama backs legislation making medical marijuana
legal at the federal level at any time during calendar year 2009 or
2010, I will comment on this site under the screen name Barack
Obama's Bitch from that point through December 31, 2010.
Not so brave, RCD.
Take a real risk. If the sun rises in the west ...
JB|3.27.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Obama is nothing but a lying, hypocritical, retarded, stupid,
douche.
Fuck him, fuck anyone who voted for him.
|3.27.09 @ 1:12PM|#
I would think a regular around here would recognize that it is the drug war industry that is ground zero in the WOD, not the hated bible thumpers. Although I'll admit the moralists need to STFU about pot.
jtuf|3.27.09 @ 1:27PM|#
R C Dean | March 27, 2009, 12:40pm | #
once the budget is passed then he can focus on changing things like legalizing marijuana.
Public Pledge Time:
If Barack Obama backs legislation making medical marijuana legal at the federal level at any time during calendar year 2009 or 2010, I will comment on this site under the screen name Barack Obama's Bitch from that point through December 31, 2010.
Wow, you've got my respect for going out on a limb like that. I can
hear Joe somewhere in the distance pleading with Obama's staff on
the phone to try to get marijuana legalized.
jtuf|3.27.09 @ 1:33PM|#
A shameless promotion: I made a youtube channel today, LegalizeMarijuanaJD to raly people to pressure Obama into legalization.
|3.27.09 @ 1:37PM|#
SF, I wouldn't want to live in a world where those who are trying to devalue life at every turn go completely unopposed.
|3.27.09 @ 1:40PM|#
If it weren't for the possibility of taxing it, the vast
majority of liberals would still be dead set against
decriminalization/legalization. As evidence I cite the propensity
of every liberal argument in favor to end with the gleeful phrase,
"and then we could could tax it!"
How about legalizing it and NOT taxing it?
|3.27.09 @ 1:50PM|#
James Ard,
Yeah, OK. I guess it's the "say anything you want as long as you
don't try and make it a law" principle for me, but I see what you
are saying.
Medic|3.27.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Thats right, because as history clearly shows; the lifting of the alcohol prohibition did nothing for the US economy.
Ska|3.27.09 @ 2:03PM|#
How about legalizing it and NOT taxing it?
Do people who say "the gov can tax it" mean specifically targetting
mj? I always took it as the fed/states would be able to collect
income tax, sales tax, employment taxes, etc. I guess they would
throw in a sin tax of course.
You'd still be able to get an oz. of hydro for $50 (or you should
be able to at least) or grow your own without fear of
retribution.
Guerrilla in the Midst|3.27.09 @ 2:26PM|#
I'll take Obama literally beyond his joking about his internet
audience being composed of civil-libertarians. What else does he
expect from people who have access to the truth?
Legalization will not "grow" the economy in the Obama fashion.
Proponents of legalization talk about a billion dollar a year
industry under legalization. Illegal cannabis is easily a $25
billion dollar market in the US and that is a conservative
estimate. More money goes to the government in the form of sale tax
paid on the luxury items purchased by drug dealers than would be by
smart entrepreneurs who would almost surely reinvest their legal
cannabis sales profits rather than put rims on their Cadillac.
Legal pot would only benefit the real economy, not the imaginary
economy which Obama is creating out of government spending.
|3.27.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Do people who say "the gov can tax it" mean specifically targetting mj?
From the liberals and progressives I've talked to on the subject,
the answer is an emphatic yes. They want the taxes on it that every
other product has, PLUS a whole bunch of additional excise
taxes.
Paul|3.27.09 @ 5:03PM|#
You guys are being too hard on Obama. Obama isn't against pot, he's against pot as "free enterprise". You can't "grow the economy" by having just anyone sell and distribute marijuana. There'd a Pot bubble and then good workin' folks would see their pensions and 401k's dry up.
Robert|3.27.09 @ 5:06PM|#
The country's position on mairjuana is a amazingly schizophrenic. Something like 4 out of 5 Americans at least try pot some time in their lives, yet it remains political suicide to suggest that it be made legal even under very narrow circumstances.
Mostly because if you poll people it comes out one way, but if you
polled only people who'd make it a priority in voting for a
candidate, it would be decisively the other way. It's not a
priority issue for many voters, but among those for whom it is,
it's a losing issue.
But secondarily it's as illustrated here: it's not considered a
"serious" issue, and politicians want to seem serious. That is,
pot's main attraction is merely hedonic, even directly
giggle-inducing, so it's not considered worthy of serious
consideration. It's pretty much the same way for legalizing
prostitution. It may be that the best that can ever be hoped for as
long as it's subject to representative democracy (as opposed to
plebiscite) is reduced enforcement and lessened penalties.
|3.27.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Surprised Prez teleprompter is not all over this one. Legalize
the hemp and all the new stoners will just sit back and let obummer
do anything he wants. The US will truly become a banana republic if
that happens.
Free government ganja for all!
|3.27.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I used to say the only thing the Democrat and Republican parties
truly worked together on in the last 30 years was incumbent
protection.
That is incorrect- the Drug War is another example. It combines the
worst instincts of either party- the Republicans anti-sin coalition
with the Democrats love of anything big-Government. Sprinkle with a
heavy dose of 'for the children' and this spending may be the most
powerful force in America without an actual constituency.
Fûz|3.27.09 @ 5:22PM|#
"I will comment on this site under the screen name Barack
Obama's Bitch from that point through December 31, 2010."
R C Dean, you've already become Barack Obama's Bitch, the moment
the Spendulus package was signed into law. So are your kids, if you
have any, and so will their kids in time. We all are.
|3.27.09 @ 5:22PM|#
The impetus in keeping the status quo is simple: What give the
federal government the most control over the activities of people?
A: Make it illegal.
I wager BO is against it simply since he doesn't have a ready
answer as to how he would control the same activity in a different
way.
It's awfully rare for government to give up power. They won't do so
until they ave a way to exert the same amount of control in another
way.
And it's not just about pot. It's about control of the DEA and
other government agencies. There are a lot of people involved here
and you can't shrink government if you believe that growing it is
the path to salvation.
|3.27.09 @ 5:26PM|#
Somebody should commission Rasmussen to run a poll: should the prohibition of drugs be abandoned and the detectives of the DEA tasked to investigate corporate/ government oversight fraud? See if Obama laughs at that. I know Chris Dodd wouldn't.
|3.27.09 @ 5:34PM|#
How about just recogizing that the Federal Government has NO right or better yet, NO authority to tell any citizen what he can or cannot do in this respect.
|3.27.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Marijuana hasn't much chance of ever being legalized for economic reasons. The stuff is literally a weed,it will grow any where,with fertilizer, without fertilizer, good dirt, bad dirt, it doesn't make any difference. Tobacco is hard to grow, if you've ever suckered tobacco you'd understand why it can be grown and sold at a profit. Pot just wouldn't make any money, the market would be flooded with home grown weed.
|3.27.09 @ 5:44PM|#
What you forget is that Obama considers that the constitution is
fatally flawed because it fails to enumerated the rights that the
government has to act in what it considers to be your best
interest.
Apparently, he doesn't think the average person is capable of
figuring out that last part for himself.
Franco|3.27.09 @ 5:53PM|#
Obama doesn't need drugs anymore he's got power -kinda like a
drug only better. Regardless of his answer, the fact that he mocked
it and didn't address the serious issues around it show what a
weasel he is.
He has more important things to do anyway, like taking away every
remaining bit of freedom left in the USA.
|3.27.09 @ 6:01PM|#
President Obama did the right thing by throwing the pro-pot crowd under the bus. He knows they don't have many votes, will be ignored or laughed at and are probably too stoned to vote anyway. He was smart to lie to them in order to get what votes they could deliver.
|3.27.09 @ 6:04PM|#
Obama is nothing but a lying, hypocritical, retarded,
stupid, douche,
I'm not sure about the "retarded" or "stupid" part. He might just
be evil.
-jcr
|3.27.09 @ 6:09PM|#
I had forgotten that our commander &conman says he is a
"former drug user". I'd bet money he is a current druggie flying so
high that only his puppet master's strings are keeping him in
toe.
This two-bit street thug is going to wind up like his dead dictator
heroes Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. My hope is this happens sooner
than later.
Stephen Macklin|3.27.09 @ 6:10PM|#
I sort of figured he would be more on board with this. But then I just assumed he was pretty stoned for the 60 Minutes interview.
|3.27.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Obamacide | March 27, 2009, 6:09pm | #
Correction:
I had forgotten that our commander &conman says he is a "former
drug user". I'd bet money he is a current druggie flying so high
that only his puppet master's strings are keeping him in tow.
This two-bit street thug is going to wind up like his dead dictator
heroes Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. My hope is this happens sooner
than later.
|3.27.09 @ 6:15PM|#
More distractions as the "useful idiots" in the media continue
playing along with this punk. Why are they asking real questions
like how dare you politicians usurp "states rights" enumerated
under the Constitution? I know you haven't read the "hog" bills
that you approved but you took an oath to uphold the U. S.
Constitution so you really should read it.
Listening to the mantra of how you "inherited" record deficits
makes me wonder if you all have forgotten where and how a spending
"hog" bill becomes law. What was "inherited" was exactly the
"create a crisis" agenda that you in Congress (both houses) caused
. The media may let you slide and blame someone else but we had a
Democrat majority in both Houses. Last time I checked, Barack Obama
was a U.S. Senator during the last session! Apparently, President
Obama shares in your gross negligence, incompetence and severe
memory lapses as well since he signed the "hog" bills.
Now, after being caught for signing the unread "hog" bills, we are
hearing how outraged he and his fellow cons are about legal bonuses
that were allowed in the very unread bill that HE signed!
The answer: Pass an unconstitutional tax law in spite of legal
contracts?
I know he didn't spend much time on the job but surely he must
remember that he and many, many of these hacks were up to their
ears in the sub prime mortgage deal (Franks, Obama, Clinton, Dodd,
Waters...ACORN, Black Congressional Caucus). Has he forgotten the
bribes (donations) given to him by the very companies that were
bailed out? I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans or
Socialists! No politician should have accepted money from a company
that the taxpayer has billed out.
You are NOT allowed to void legal contracts. I am sick of this
outrage over the AIG bonuses that are just a distraction to cover
the asses of politicians too lazy to read the bill that gave them
the bonuses in the first place. If AIG needs to return legal
bonuses (thanks to the idiots in CONGRESS) then why aren't those
CONGRESS CROOKS being told to give back the bribes that they took
from AIG, Freddy, Fannie and the rest of the financial institutions
that received bailout money? I demand that you publicly request
that all donations received by any member of congress from any of
those institutions should be immediately returned to the federal
government.... not to their favorite political charity, not to the
donors but to the American people.... You know, the folks you are
supposed to be protecting instead of stealing blind.
By the way, where is the $76 BILLION that you geniuses lost in the
bailout bill last fall?
Why have you not spoken out against the administration and your
fellow senators and congressmen? This is a disgrace and I truly
expected more from you. We are spending at an alarming rate and our
children are being enslaved to Communist China as a result of these
political hacks.
I'll have much more to say in regards to the Nationalization of
healthcare , your ridiculous cap & trade laws ( a more
appropriate name would be "The Destruction of America's Future"
laws), The Americorps program ( Gee, Americorps sounds so much
nicer than "Brownshirts doesn't it?) but the #1 priority of
congress must be the end of this massive borrowing to finance your
political agenda. If you've got no money it' time to stop
spending.
"The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of
other people's money."
~ Margaret Thatcher. Guess what, you have run out of our money!
|3.27.09 @ 6:20PM|#
So, let me toss an idea out here... Let's elect Charlie Lynch as
governor. It would certainly keep the harsh light of public
attention on his unconstitutional imprisonment.
-jcr
Orange Line Special|3.27.09 @ 6:20PM|#
The reason why BHO didn't take the question seriously is because
he didn't have to: it was an incredibly weak question like all the
others that the potheads submitted.
I suggested to Reason that they submit a better question and try to
get it voted up, but - as usual - they did nothing but whine.
And, the fact that such a weak question was able to rise to the top
highlights the fact that the voting system that BHO used - and
that's been used in all the other similar efforts - is just a sham
designed to let the weakest questions rise to the top.
Here's a list of the past
user-generated question efforts and a brief description of a much
better way to select questions.
Don't expect Reason or any of the others to help push that system,
because Reason and all the other Beltway hacks have no interest in
politicians being asked real questions for a change.
|3.27.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Pot? This guy and his band of fools are destroying the country
and this is the big concern?
You have to wonder what the big picture really is and nobody seems
to be putting it together. To me, it looks likethis administration
is on a crash course which will destroy the country. At best we're
seeing incompetence and at worse, as I believe, it is the
deliberate systematic agenda to destroy this country. We have a
president with
communist parent and communist mentors and his radical terrorist
pals. We have a picture of a man groomed by an older generation of
radical leftists for insertion into the American political And view
his wholehearted
support of his lethaly violent Communist first cousin Odinga in his
Kenya. I truly believe that we are seeing the promise made over 50
years ago:
Premiere Nikita Khrushchev of the former Communist Soviet Socialist
"Republic" said: "We
will destroy you from within!"
Perhaps we should be concerned about more than our stoned president
and friends. Remember the good old days when we warned that Barack
was just a Socialist?
Carl Pham|3.27.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Have to say, as long as Reason comes across as mostly concerned
about whether they can toke in peace, they won't be taken seriously
by everyday 'mericans. (Yeah I know, you couldn't care less -- or
so you claim. But it's hard to reconcile not caring what other
people think with publishing a magazine, unless it's only intended
to establish an echo chamber.)
Is dope legalization really the absolute Number One critical
libertarian issue? Nothing else going on at the
national level in 2009 that rises to this level of
importance?
If you think so, I am sure a politician somewhere will offer to let
you get as stoned as you like -- provided you give up all other
individual liberties. That's a trade with which most collectivist
fascists would be totally comfortable. Dope all you rugged
individualists up, so you're less trouble, yeah that's the
ticket.
If you don't think so, maybe a tiny bit of re-organization of
priorities is in order? If you hit Obama visibly for his failure to
support NORML, you're just allowing his supporters and independents
to dismiss everything you say as the ravings of potheads.
Mickey|3.27.09 @ 6:32PM|#
I don't smoke, drink, or do any kind of drug, but the way he
handled an open democratic process really upset me.
Before this silly town hall, I had a rather neutral opinion about
him, but after he doubled down on Bush policies and openly mocked
the people he sought help from online, that settles it. Obama is a
jackass.
|3.27.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Mickey -
Wow! I couldn't agree more with you. When will these crooks have
their feet held to the fire?
____________
Mickey | March 27, 2009, 6:15pm | #
More distractions as the "useful idiots" in the media continue
playing along with this punk. Why aren't they asking real questions
like how dare you politicians usurp "states rights" enumerated
under the Constitution? I know you haven't read the "hog" bills
that you approved but you took an oath to uphold the U. S.
Constitution so you really should read it.
Listening to the mantra of how you "inherited" record deficits
makes me wonder if you all have forgotten where and how a spending
"hog" bill becomes law. What was "inherited" was exactly the
"create a crisis" agenda that you in Congress (both houses) caused
. The media may let you slide and blame someone else but we had a
Democrat majority in both Houses. Last time I checked, Barack Obama
was a U.S. Senator during the last session! Apparently, President
Obama shares in your gross negligence, incompetence and severe
memory lapses as well since he signed the "hog" bills.
Now, after being caught for signing the unread "hog" bills, we are
hearing how outraged he and his fellow cons are about legal bonuses
that were allowed in the very unread bill that HE signed!
The answer: Pass an unconstitutional tax law in spite of legal
contracts?
I know he didn't spend much time on the job but surely he must
remember that he and many, many of these hacks were up to their
ears in the sub prime mortgage deal (Franks, Obama, Clinton, Dodd,
Waters...ACORN, Black Congressional Caucus). Has he forgotten the
bribes (donations) given to him by the very companies that were
bailed out? I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans or
Socialists! No politician should have accepted money from a company
that the taxpayer has bailed out.
You are NOT allowed to void legal contracts. I am sick of this
outrage over the AIG bonuses that are just a distraction to cover
the asses of politicians too lazy to read the bill that gave them
the bonuses in the first place. If AIG needs to return legal
bonuses (thanks to the idiots in CONGRESS) then why aren't those
CONGRESS CROOKS being told to give back the bribes that they took
from AIG, Freddy, Fannie and the rest of the financial institutions
that received bailout money? I demand that you publicly request
that all donations received by any member of congress from any of
those institutions should be immediately returned to the federal
government.... not to their favorite political charity, not to the
donors but to the American people.... You know, the folks you are
supposed to be protecting instead of stealing blind.
By the way, where is the $76 BILLION that you geniuses lost in the
bailout bill last fall?
Why have you not spoken out against the administration and your
fellow senators and congressmen? This is a disgrace and I truly
expected more from you. We are spending at an alarming rate and our
children are being enslaved to Communist China as a result of these
political hacks.
I'll have much more to say in regards to the Nationalization of
healthcare , your ridiculous cap & trade laws ( a more
appropriate name would be "The Destruction of America's Future"
laws), The Americorps program ( Gee, Americorps sounds so much
nicer than "Brownshirts doesn't it?) but the #1 priority of
congress must be the end of this massive borrowing to finance your
political agenda. If you've got no money it' time to stop
spending.
"The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of
other people's money."
~ Margaret Thatcher. Guess what, you have run out of our money!
peter jackson|3.27.09 @ 7:20PM|#
""I don't think the religious conservatives will bolt if
legalization is based on individual freedom grounds.""
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohhhhhh, that was good. That is ground zero of
the 'keep drugs illegal' movement."
You'd be surprised how much you can get conservatives' attention
when you properly frame the war on drugs as the gravest threat to
the 2nd Amendment that exists. When the last gun is taken from the
last citizen it will be during the course of enforcing the war on
drugs. Heck, if it wasn't for the war on alcohol, we'd still be
able to buy machine guns at stores like WalMart.
yours/
peter.
|3.27.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Why should you dopers be special? We are all getting screwed by
Barry. What's funny about it though is a lot of you probably voted
for him.
Eh, no worries. Light one up and chill.
|3.27.09 @ 9:26PM|#
This is exactly where I get off the libertarian train...this is my stop. The unintended consequences of legalizing drugs are extraordinary. Any of you who don't know that the murder, rape, assault, burglary, DUI/manslaughter, HIV, Hep-C rates will go up dramatically upon legalization of drugs are living in a fantasy world.
TallDave|3.27.09 @ 9:58PM|#
The unintended consequences of legalizing drugs are
extraordinary.
I seem to recall we had a functioning republic before the
government started deciding what citizens could ingest in the
privacy of their homes.
The unintended consequences of criminalizing drugs are
extraordinary.
TallDave|3.27.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Any of you who don't know that the murder, rape, assault,
burglary, DUI/manslaughter, HIV, Hep-C rates will go up
dramatically upon legalization of drugs are living in a fantasy
world.
Why would any of those things happen?
Murder would go down, because drug dealers wouldn't be having turf
wars.
Assault and burglary would go down because addicts would only need
a trivial amount of money to sustain their habit when prices drop
99%.
HIV and HEP-C would fall dramatically because needles would be
legally available to addicts.
I don't see why rapes would be more prevalent.
Mr. Chartreuse|3.27.09 @ 11:04PM|#
I don't see why rapes would be more prevalent.
Everybody knows that smoking marijuana turns you into a sex-crazed
fiend...and it also possibly explains how Julie Benz ended up
marrying John Kassir.
|3.28.09 @ 1:20AM|#
Good article. It really bothers me that people say "I'm for the government doing this" or "I'm against it doing that" and don't have even the most basic understanding of our constitutional rights and Federal system. The US Government can *not* outlaw marijuana because there is no part of the constitution that allows it to do so, unless the interstate commerce clause is warped into some all powerful authority. Only individual states and communities can outlaw marijuana. This is by design - the government of each state is the primary authority over its citizens. This ensures that each state's laws reflects the standards of its community and turns every state into a laboratory of Democracy. If the constitution hadn't been perverted, California could legalize marijuana today and other states would be able to watch the process and the outcome and make their own determinations. I don't know why educated people don't understand this. Doesn't anyone read Jefferson or Hamilton anymore?
|3.28.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Yeah, Obama should come out for legalization of marijuana. I'm
sure the response from conservatives and Republicans would be calm,
rational, bi-partisan agreement.
Or, it might set off a media frenzy with Obama being called a
socialist dope fiend who wants to destroy our country and enslave
our children in drug addiction. I'm pretty sure I know which it
would be. I'm pretty sure he knows the same thing.
It took Nixon to go to China and it's going to take the law 'n
order Republican types to move pot legalization forward, not the
first black president. Until there is conservative support for it,
forget it.
Afr0bama-man|3.28.09 @ 8:57PM|#
("Roll another doob!")
("Yeah.")
("Yeah, yeah.")
I was gonna clear the gloom, until I got high;
I was gonna prevent financial doom, but then I got high.
This economy sucks, and I know why:
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I got high,
Because I got high,
Because I got high.
I was gonna leave the past, before I got high;
Was gonna cheat our creditors at last, but I got high.
It's ninteen-twenty-nine now, and I know why:
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I got high,
Because I got high,
Because I got high.
The stock market's hit "abort" because I got high.
Senator Judd Gregg's selling me short; he says that I'm high. ("No
he doesn't.")
Can't escape this train wreck; I'll tell you why:
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I'm so high,
Because I'm too high,
I'm really too high.
I told the kids I'd give'em green jobs; I must have been high.
("No, seriously!")
Why'd I make that dumb promise to those yobs? Guess I was
high.
Now their parents want me dead; do you know why?
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I get high,
And their kids get high
Because I get high.
Now everybody hates me, dude, because I got high; ("I mean it,
man!")
Now this country is completely screwed, since when I got
high.
Friends are backing off, and I know why:
("Get away, man!")
'Cause I might die,
Because if I fry,
They don't wanna die!
My wife wants to be a dyke because I get high;
Even God's gone on strike because I get high.
The repo man's at my White House. Can you guess why?
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I got high,
Because now I'm high,
I'm constantly high.
I can't tell my right from wrong because I'm high;
I'm singing this through my thong because I'm high.
If my pacing is too sloppy, you should know why:
("Why, man!?")
'Cause I'm high,
'Cause I'm high,
'Cause I'm high.
("Are you really high, man?")
("He really is high, man!")
("Get jiggy with it!")
[Etc.]
Ben|4.1.09 @ 9:10AM|#
Tiger:
> The unintended consequences of
> legalizing drugs are extraordinary.
Yes, just like the unintended consequences of legalizing alcohol
were extraordinary when we shucked off alcohol prohibition.
Oh wait. They weren't. I mean, except for the end to the
state-sponsored and state-engendered violence when bootlegging was
no longer profitable, that was pretty extraordinary,
actually.
So, as it turns out, you're entirely without a clue. Nice one,
Tiger. Keep on posting. Don't let that Ol' Debbil Weed win!
Ben|4.1.09 @ 9:13AM|#
> Everybody knows that smoking
> marijuana turns you into a
> sex-crazed fiend
Huh? I was a sex-crazed fiend from the moment I hit puberty until I
was about... no, wait, I still am one. Marijuana's never had
anything to do with it.
You know what made me a sex-crazed fiend?
Women. Yep, that's the cause, all right. I loves me some
women.
Pot isn't even in the same zone.
Though personal liberty is.
SunflowerPipes|4.2.09 @ 10:07PM|#
I understand why Obama chooses to play down the issue of,
"immoral" drug use, however I believe he should have shown more
respect to the issue marijuana legalization and shown the same
insight and common sense honesty that he was elected for. At the
inauguration Obama highlighted the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln a
man who led this country through one of its darkest times. What was
remarkable about the Civil War was that it pitted brother against
brother, a display to history that Americans are capable of
inflicting terrible brutalities to one another when they fall on
opposing sides of a powerful ideology. There are similarities
between the "civil" war of old and the war on drugs today. Both
wars pit Americans against Americans in a battle of divisiveness,
bloodshed and suffering. Americans should exercise our collective
control of government and email, call or write a representative. By
doing so the drug war will become an issue that has to be dealt
with now rather than a lingering one to be laughed off and
prolonged as long as it is politically prudent to do so.
SunflowerPipes.com
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245