Obama: College Experimentation Is Great, Keep That Mind Open, and Now if You'll Excuse Me, I'm Going to Continue Presiding Over Our Militarized War on Personal Drug Consumption

Here's an interesting passage from the president's latest commencement address over the weekend:

Over the past four years, you've argued both sides of a debate. You've read novels and histories that take different cuts at life. […] You've discovered interests you didn't know you had. You've made friends who didn't grow up the same way you did. You've tried things you'd never done before, including some things we won't talk about in front of your parents.

All of this, I hope, has had the effect of opening your mind; of helping you understand what it's like to walk in somebody else's shoes. But now that your minds have been opened, it's up to you to keep them that way. It will be up to you to open minds that remain closed that you meet along the way. That, after all, is the elemental test of any democracy: whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, and work with each other, and find a way forward together.

That may be Obama's "elemental test of any democracy," but mine looks more like this: When an American president is cool enough to wink-wink and nudge-nudge about taking illegal drugs in college, maybe it's time to stop laughing off sensible proposals to legalize marijuana while jacking up funding (even in times of "spending freeze") for one of the most vile, freedom-trampling public policies in U.S. history, and start being open-minded enough to recognize that there is no longer much public constituency for having the federal government police personal drug consumption. There's nothing particularly democratic about locking up hundreds of thousands of people every year for consuming unauthorized medications.

If the president really is that keen to "walk in somebody else's shoes," I might suggest that before his federal apparatus arrests even one more potsmoker or coke-snorter, he volunteer to go back and retroactively serve time for all his undetected prior offenses, then come back and tell us why the enforcement status quo (however mildly modified) is worth defending. Yes, the idea is ridiculous on its face, but that's the point: If I had robbed a bank back in college, no one would find it ridiculous if I went back and served my time. The fact that I, like Barack Obama, the students of Hampton University, and basically half the U.S. population under the age of 60, managed to experiment with illegal drugs without getting caught is neither an indication of mass societal degeneracy nor a cause for in-group mirth. It's a telltale indicator that prohibition is a terrible idea.

I'm glad that Obama and most us kids from the right side of the tracks got away with it without coming face to face with our SWAT team/prison industrial complex, but when anybody from that silent majority then graduates to a position of enforcing the unconscionable, perpetuating a policy that has mangled millions of lives, forgive me for not laughing along with the joke.

Comments

[Young 'Un]

"You've tried things you'd never done before, including some things we won't talk about in front of your parents."

Like smoke clove cigarettes or put salt on your food?

[blueGrass]

No, no, no. Well, yes. But the good stuff is the untaxed, black market transfats.

[?]

Yes, I've tried the clove cigarettes in our democracy, and to your great fortune I'm not going to let you try them since I'm certain that clove cigarettes destroy lives in this democracy and in the democracy that we are I'm perfectly willing and happy to destroy your life in our democracy if you are caught trying the clove cigarettes in your democracy. This is why I believe we benefit from kepping an open mind like mine in my democracy.

I can't decide what is more repulsive to me, the fact these people are such arrogant hypocritical asses, or that they never miss a chance to repeat the lie that we are a democracy. We are a constitional republic. And if we had just stuck to the Constitution we'd not be having all these problems that come from idiots running our government as a democracy (yes, as a democracy. Democracies are always unjust, and never democracies.)

[Suki]

That racist picture and alt-txt never disappoints me.

[?]

What's racist about it? He looks very pleased with whatever he's smoking. Nice Panama hat, too.

Seriously, it is a crack up. The classic Las Vegas reference is very appropriate, these people certainly have that classic mob mentality.

[cynical]

Constitutional: +
Republic: -

Half of our problems are due to losing control of our agents in government. Elections aren't sufficient.

[?]

Losing control as it see it happened when the public overwhelmingly wanted those agents to bypass the Constitution as well as the times it turned a blind eye.

It's hard to actually value my vote. It gets me jury duty, and is most likely cancelled out by someone voting fraudulently.

Nonetheless, electing of representatives is important, but nowhere near as important as holding those who have been elected to the rules. Little late for that now I think.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Threadjacking alert: I face homelessness in a matter of days. If I've got coming any tough love or constructive criticism from any of my libertarian friends, now is the time.

[wingnutx]

I have spent my life running in terror from responsibilities of all kinds. When I'm forced to carry out responsibilities, I feel imprisoned and humiliated. To behave responsibly is to die a living death.

Suck start a shotgun before you can breed or vote again.

K thx.

[RagnarD]

I second wingnutx's suggestion.

Go away, please.

[SIV]

Well hell, if you can't get a payday loan against a structured settlement just go camping. All my hippie , and most of my redneck friends seem to enjoy it.

[?]

Everyday is a happy camp out living in a trailer court.

[capitol l]

Go to bed early, wake up early, shower, put on some nice clothes, and go look for a job.

Nothing, not digging ditches, not washing dishes, or whatever is below you. Doing an honest days work, no matter how lowly, is infinitely better than self-imposed victim-hood.

Sure, blame your parents and school teachers and some disease you don't even have, but ultimately you bear the responsibility for your actions. The onus is on you, because in the end you will run out of things to blame for your situation, and will have to look in the mirror for answers.

I would advise getting the hardest work you can find. Something that at the end of the day you cannot keep your eyes open from physical weariness. You would be amazed at what callused hands and a paycheck can do for your self-esteem.

[SIV]

+ ?

Damn spam filter.As long as I have to type more...
Check out my tumblr blog Chicks In Their Underwear
Featuring pics of just what it says!

[capitol l]

I like the new beatnik look.

If I remember correctly, there was a spread in some mag of Gillian Anderson that was done pin-up style. I think photos like that would fit nicely with your theme, and also Scully is hot.

[SIV]

I've got some old pics of her in blue latex but they aren't hi-res enough. I'll look for the ones you mention.

[Cunctator]

Yeah,
Chicks in their underwear. That's what I'm talkin' about

[philogratis]

Depending on where he lives, it probably won't work, but worth giving a try. In Michigan there are 13 unemployed people for every job opening. So unless you are a retard, you must recognize that 12 of those people will be out of luck, no matter how hard they try.
Also, a lot of homeless people have jobs. Minimum wage is not enough to keep a roof over your head in a lot of cities.

[Balthar]

"So unless you are a retard..."

That is a test that will filter out more than a few of those making comments here.

[?]

"Nothing, not digging ditches, not washing dishes, or whatever is below you."

These are actually great and humbling experiences we can learn a great deal from.

"You would be amazed at what callused hands and a paycheck can do for your self-esteem."

A voice of experience, my guess, because you couldn't be more correct. There is no feeling in the world like the one of knowing you earned that paper you're cashing and there is no question that you deserve it.

Of course, it doesn't have to be a permanent situation if your dreams are elsewhere. On the flip side it doesn't have to be situation without a future, either. Some of these jobs aren't that unbearable, and of those some pay enough to place you well above the average national incomes. Find something you can handle, stay with it, pay attention, and there is no excuse why you wouldn't come to the point where you can enter into the business for yourself. If an idiot like me can do it, anyone can.

[Lunchbucket Larry]

I've been going to bed early and getting up early and working myself into physical exhaustion for the last 30 years. It ain't all it's cracked up to be my friend. And it hasn't kept my employer from threatening to fire me because I'm not as able to keep up as I once was. Capitalism isn't the answer. At least not any more. The problem with it is that there is nothing standing in the way of the people at the top when they decide to whip a little more out of you and take a little more away from you, in order to finance their next Ferrari. Contrary to what you folks' hero Milton Friedman seems to believe, "economic freedom" only frees a group of people at the top and effectively enslaves anyone who isn't part of that group. I agree with Libertarians on some things, like individual freedoms and responsibility. But your ideas about capitalism just perpetuate a system that is concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands while much of the world starves.

[PI Guy]

LL:

You could open your own business. If you work for someone else then of course you're beholden to their whim.

[Brock]

I suggest you get a job.

[Ice2]

I second getting a job, although i will admit it will be hard ive applied to 4 mcdonalds in my area not a single one called back yet, but the economic situation may better in your neck of the woods.

[capitol l]

Ice2, check around at local small businesses. They are often managed by the owner himself, and if you can get a hearing with him your chances are good. Make a good impression, dress nicely, and above all make it be known that you will work hard and be reliable.

[SIV]

+?

I was grabbing a real NY-style pepperoni slice at my local Bangladeshi pizza place and the co-owner was bitching that he can't hire anyone reliable enough to show up for more than two days in a row. Fucking minimum wage is like almost $7.50 and they gots killer food for perks. GA unemployment is near 11% too

[capitol l]

SIV, you are correct. I have worked in restaurants and on construction sites forever, and there is always a shortage. Because of turnover and the riff-raff that is attracted to low paying jobs, finding good people is very hard. The upside is that if you are smart, reliable, and honest you can move up in a small company very quickly, regardless of past experience, education, and indiscretions.

[SIV]

You can't necessarily "move up" in any job but for the bottom rung showing up on time and sober everyday (and putting in a full day of work without bitching too much) will guaranty continued employment until you find something better.

[capitol l]

What I meant, is that in a small business the owner generally has contact and direct knowledge of all his employees. If you stand out there is no bureaucracy or arbitrary restrictions standing between you and a promotion.

I think this is a proper response to you response. I really don't know though, as your post was, uncharacteristically, written like a third grader.

[SIV]

I left out the punctuation. What I was saying is that there isn't much, if any, room to move up in a lot of small Mom n' Pop businesses.

[capitol l]

Oh, okay. I agree with that, but if one has management experience at a small firm, that knowledge and experience can be used as an in to better opportunities.

All in all, I would say that we are in agreement, generally.

[JLE]

Owner "himself"? The (albeit unintended) sexism of these comments never ceases to amaze. How old are you? 86? If some poor idiot like yourself walked into a female owned shop and asked to speak to the owner himself, there goes that job.

But then again, this is in a thread with a link to underwear models.

Reason, really.

[&]

Oh grow up.

[Bingo]

Reason, really.

Damn, this is just hair-of-the-dog to start drinking this early.

[Almanian]

What Bingo said

[Zeb]

Themself isn't a real word and "him or herself" is too awkward, "itself" is too impersonal. What do you want?

[Mr. FIFY]

Can't please feminists, be they female or male.

[Asscheeks of Saturn]

Feminism- strong, smart and independent until things get a little bit difficult

http://www.break.com/pictures/sad-but-true1813912.html

[capitol l]

JLE, you need to lighten the fuck up.

Yes, a good percentage of small businesses are owned by women, but I am not going to mangle my comment with convoluted personal pronouns to satisfy your misguided sense of equality.

Also, what kind of maniac would go into a business and ask "Can I see the owner, himself?"? That is plain crazy talk, though it does fit into your narrative of pervasive sexism.

[Mr. FIFY]

I drove over a loose personole cover today. It made a horrible clanging noise.

[?]

Those can be better jobs with comparable pay. A business managed by the owner greatly reduces opportunities for back stabbing and biting among employees. If you get along with the owner well it's not uncommon to be advanced quickly. With smaller business' having an impossible time finding trustable employees it means they start throwing you the keys to the business whenever they need a break. You can't buy that kind of experience. They're giving you first hand experience on at least part of running that business and paying you to learn. Should you decide it's not a business for you, at least you didn't figure it out the hard way financing it yourself. And it's never a total loss, some of what was learned is always useful later.

There are plenty of real anal sphincter muscle types out there too. If it's just a matter of a jerk boss, skills learned at one of these jobs are little different at the other similar business' anywhere, be tactful about it, but just switch to another employer. The reason for not offending the douche is once you work for him he can haunt you later. Let it go, move on.

Dress nicely, true, but most importantly dress appropriately. In other words show up to apply dressed ready to work. Don't wear a suit to apply for a pipe layer job with a trenching company like you wouldn't wear caulk boots and a hard hat when applying for a position in an office.

[?]

Brian, as a libertarian you certainly must understand the importance of individual responsibility.

You'll do fine, just don't make the mistake of letting fear become your master. Fear has a way of paralyzing us at the times we must act. Like you must act now.

If I'm sounding cold, that's not my intention. Some of us really do care about people, and that likely includes most others on this board. The reason I'm laying the facts out is you are at a pivotal point in your life where you could go either way. The last thing I want to see is you ruin your life by falling to the dependency on others side.

You need to go independent. Only in independency can there be any real happiness in life. Dependency on others ultimately results in lives of misery.

Maybe it's time to leave California. Prescott in Arizona isn't far. It's a great town, I lived there myself, my friends back there tell me it's growth rate is great and expected to continue. There are jobs.

Whatever you do don't do nothing.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Jobs are for suckers. Get a structured settlement loan.

[P Brooks]

That, after all, is the elemental test of any democracy: whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, and work with each other, and find a way forward together.

Shut the fuck up, Mister Douchebag-in-Chief.

[philogratis]

People may, or may not consider it reasonable that you serve time if you robbed a bank in the 1960s, but the statute of limitations would save you.

[Matt Welch]

I'm not that old!

[Lawn Gnome]

You are just an old soul then, Mr. Welch?

We Lawn Gnomes are well aged and hold up well. We are a hardy and beautiful people.

[BG]

As should be pointed out on every drug thread:

- Drug use is a victimless act, as is selling drugs to informed consenting adults. Neither should be prohibited by the state.

- People who use drugs generally enjoy them, and most illegal drug users take their drugs in moderation (and therefore do not suffer anything close to the negative effects experienced by extreme users, as portrayed in anti-drug propaganda).

- To the extent that there are problems with "drug-related" crime (for example, some guy gets high and commits assault) it is not the drug use itself which harms others; but rather additional voluntary acts by a small percentage of users that should be considered criminal. There are other ways to combat/punish such actions that don't require making the victimless recreational activities of millions of people illegal. Also, many of the examples cited of "drug-related" crime are products of prohibition (for example the fact that murderous cartels profit from the drug trade) and not a product of anything about the drugs themselves.

[?]

All of what you wrote is without question true. It is also common sense (to all but the most extreme shut-ins or shut-outs), and in this age insatiable hungers for power will always trump common sense.

[Greg]

"There are other ways to combat/punish such actions that don't require making the victimless recreational activities of millions of people illegal"
-- Drug related crime is not a real thing. The fact that drugs can impair decision making is known, but there are an infinite number of things that similarly impair decisions. To link crime and drugs is an attempt to make just taking the drug criminal. As to your suggestion of other ways to punish impaired people, yes clearly there are other ways in use today. When a man gets in a car crash and kills someone, it is certainly relevant if he was drunk. Do the police immediately find the barman who sold him his drinks and arrest him? No because we generally treat alchohol use in a manner consistent with our principles of freedom and responsibility. In addition we have trials by jury in this country. The jury is instructed to consider the evidence in the case and sentencing guidelines allow for punishment to be proportional to the offense and take extenuating circumstances into consideration. A man who causes a traffic fatality while high gets a more severe punishment than a distracted mother who takes her eyes off the road to tend to the crying child.

[Ghost of Schr?dinger's cat]

Threadjack:
Winnipeg police shoot and kill man armed with ...
Crowbar

[SIV]

Shooting burglars who don't drop their burglary tools on command is a good thing.
You can fuck somebody up good with a crowbar.

[Gordon Freeman]

+1

[Headcrab]

You got that right!

[heller]

The article doesn't say what the man was or wasn't armed with.

[?]

Police shot a man, at least once (is it possible to shoot someone less than once), who died later in a hospital. The man may have been seen earlier with a pillow case and a crowbar. While all that it transpiring a mysterious Cadillac with bullet holes in the windows rolls into a trash bin (it's wipers were still going three hours later).

Now I'm no Colombo, but I have a hunch that car with the bullet holes in the windshield may have been somehow involved with the alleged pillow case person, possibly even with the fellow who was shot (at least once).

[Almanian]

I think it was cause he had a pillow case - those things can be tricky

[PeeDub]

Crowbar and pillowcase? Was it ... the Hamburglar?

[heller]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The article is too vague and lacking in information to conclude that the cops did anything wrong this time.

[Warty]

The fact that I, like Barack Obama, the students of Hampton University, and basically half the U.S. population under the age of 60, managed to experiment with illegal drugs without getting caught is neither an indication of mass societal degeneracy nor a cause for in-group mirth. It's a telltale indicator that prohibition is a terrible idea.

That should be branded on Obama's forehead.

[capitol l]

How about the fact that for the last 18 years the commander in chief of the United States armed forces, and the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world has experimented with illegal drugs.

[Ryback's Cook]

I'd add 4 years and H.W. to that total.

No doubt the man's been lighting up for years to escape living with that nag Barbara.

[capitol l]

Well there was that video of him and Larry King that got leaked, where they were discussing the advantages/disadvantages of different prescription sedatives. Remember when he was so zonked he puked on the Japanese dignitary.

Those drugs are technically legal so HW gets a pass...this time.

[Ryback's Cook]

Well, Quayle definitely did meth.

[?]

Nice thing about being part of the elite political class is the little people rules don't apply.

[Tulpa]

That argument is a double-edged sword. By that logic, the fact that our society hasn't collapsed, and indeed has prospered, even with the Drug War going on, is a telltale indicator that legalization is a terrible idea.

Also, the fact that most people speed in school zones without killing kids doesn't mean that school zone speed limits are a terrible idea.

[Lost_In_Translation]

If only your strawman had a brain.

[Groovus Maximus]

By that logic, the fact that our society hasn't collapsed, and indeed has prospered, even with the Drug War going on, is a telltale indicator that legalization is a terrible idea.

So breaking windows is wise use of financial resources and capital?

Also, the fact that most people speed in school zones without killing kids doesn't mean that school zone speed limits are a terrible idea.

That one doesn't quite jive Tulpa. Speed limits are in theory proactive deterrents but are dependent on compliance. The point is the likelihood of speeding in a school zone is going to cause harm to another.

The act of using recreational drugs is a choice affecting the individual first, not necessarily another party. If criminal acts follow from the use of recreational drugs, then prosecute those crimes, not the act of using, buying and selling.

[capitol l]

I considered replying to Tulpa's post, but it is obvious that he is in a mood to argue for the sake of arguing. Whenever he posts a comment that takes a contrarian view employing a stretch of logic, he is usually itching for an argument.

Groov, are you protesting threaded comments, because your replies have not had that nifty nested look of late.

[Groovus Maximus]

No, my friend. I clicked the reply link, but filled in the wrong field. I started posting here before the threaded format, but not long before the format changed. So this one was a user FAIL on my part.

[capitol l]

Weird shit happens here though, that is why I was wondering. I have hit reply to this, and typed out my comment only for it to appear at the bottom of the page.

Also, I have noticed that sometimes when I open a new tab, to check a fact or copy a link, in the middle of typing a comment it will place my comment in a strange place.

Just another mystery that makes the universe a strange and wonderful place to live.

[Tulpa]

Well, I am playing devil's advocate here. I certainly don't support the Drug War, but the argument Welch deploys here is fallacious.

And Groovus' reply assumes the conclusion, namely that drug use doesn't harm anyone except the user. Many drug war supporters would dispute that.

[?]

Can you explain why Matt's argument is fallacious because you and I appear to have arrived at different conclusions having read the same article.

I see no argument, rather I see pointing out obvious discrepancies in Obama's statements that indicate blatant hypocrisy.

The only thing more irritating than being preached to by whore supposedly turned religious is finding yourself under the thumb of such a whore.

[Lost_In_Translation]

We all know alcohol use can have societal affects that extend beyond the user, but would you argue that the mob wars of the 20's during prohibition were better than the instances of drunk driving/ domestic battery we have now?

[Tulpa]

I agree with that argument.

The argument that Matt is making is unrelated to that one -- he's saying that since our society didn't collapse after decades of most people breaking drug laws, those drug laws are stupid.

[Mr. FIFY]

They ARE stupid laws.

[philogratis]

Maybe he was talking about orgies. Or beer pong. or Marxist theory.
More to the point, there is no evidence that Obama is jacking up the war on drugs. Basically, in the late 1990s the Office of National Drug Control and Policy didn't have a huge budget, but it was mostly oriented towards demand side (prevention and treatment) rather than supply side (interdiction and enforcement). In 1996 the ONDCP spent 3.3 billion on demand stuff and 3 billion on supply stuff.
The ONDCP saw huge budget increases throughout the Bush years, eventually reaching 15 billion by fiscal year 2009 (which would have been appropriated in 2008, by a Democratic congress), with 5 billion going to supply stuff and a whopping 10 billion to demand stuff.
The only time in all those years the drug war budget went down was in 2007, no doubt because of the new Democratic congress, but spiked sharply in 2008, probably because of election year law and order posturing about Mexican drug cartels.
What has Obama done about this sense he got into office? Well, in 2010, the budget for enforcement and interdiction went down, but international spending (programs with foreign governments). Total demand side budget declined slightly for the second time in 15 years.
Supply side budget also went down slightly because of cuts in prevention stuff were greater than increases in treatment budget. My theory: They axed a bunch of stupid faith based prevention stuff that didn't work. The reason I say this is because the proposed 2011 budget boosts prevention by 13%, and includes a bunch of new programs more to the liking of Democrats.

Treatment goes up 4%, while interdiction, law enforcement, and international aid rises slightly less than 2%.

This is a long ass comment, but to some up, during the Bush years the drug budget vastly increased, and the proportion devoted to treatment vastly decreased. During the Obama administration, funding has been almost flat, but funding for treatment has gone up more than 10%. It's a step in the right direction, and ultimately Congress writes laws.

[capitol l]

Well gee philgratis, I finally feel like I have ownership of my consciousness now, thank you for your illuminating comment.

Seriously, could you give your source for the numbers you posted.

[philogratis]

Go to the original article and click the link that says "jacking up funding". It leads to another Reason magazine article, and you can follow the links from there.

[capitol l]

Okay, I followed the links and found that since 1980 the funds for the national drug control complex has increased dramatically. So, it does not set my mind at ease that after 30 years of this we now have smaller increases.

I found that the dea and local law enforcement have substantially augmented their budgets with asset forfeiture. Also that the dea can get money funneled through dha and national defense for their international interdiction efforts.

And, all these budgets end when the person is accused, therefore hiding the legal expenses and the costs of incarceration.

I realize that Obama made no promises to legalize drugs, or to reduce the costs of the war on drugs, so none of this is really shocking to me. What is shocking is the continued persecution by federal law enforcement, under the purview of the executive, of medical marijuana patients and dispensaries.

If you want links, I'll get them later, as I don't feel like dealing with the spam filter right now.

[?]

Shill

[Tulpa]

It will be up to you to open minds that remain closed that you meet along the way. That, after all, is the elemental test of any democracy: whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, and work with each other, and find a way forward together.

Even not considering the Drug War, this is utterly contrary to Obama's demonstrated governing style of villifying anyone who opposes him, and if that doesn't quell the opposition, using procedural tricks and brute supermajority force to ram his agenda through anyway.

This dope is going to be the lamest of lame ducks once the Dems drop below 55 votes in the Senate, even if they manage to hold on to the House. The only thing that worries me about his temporarily continuing in office is the fact that he can nominate SCOTUS justices. If one of the conservatives or Kennedy kicks the bucket, you just know he will install someone to overturn Heller and Citizens United. And since the Dems aren't going to lose the Senate until at least 2012, there's little the GOP can do to stop him.

[?]

Your first paragraph I completely agree with.

The second...I sure hope that doesn't happen, as well as we don't over-correct and wind up with some kind of huge GOP majority.

Best we can hope for until people wake up, if they ever wake up, is a fairly even split between Democrats and Republicans with the bases in both parties aggressively pushing partisan politics thus creating a stalemate.

Everyday our Washington politicians get nothing at all accomplished is a very good day for America.

[Ben P.]

"If I had robbed a bank back in college, no one would find it ridiculous if I went back and served my time."

I would, if you weren't ever convicted.

[Jackie]

This is great!:) Thanks!

[jtuf]

It's time to end the War on Drugs.

[Jamie Kelly]

I learned it from you, Obama! I learned it from you!

[John Smith]

It is more politically savvy to allow it to be a state issue. Right now he can not afford the political capital for such a contentious issue. Imagine the attack ads it would fuel...

If, however, he keeps his hands off and simply stops enforcing federal drug laws while watching states pass their own legalization measures, it is a silent victory, and also a valuable example of state's rights.

In a time when he is being attacked for imposing "big government", allowing states to make their own decisions regarding this matter while taking a hands-off approach is the best idea.

California's legalization measure that has recently been approved for the November ballot may be the first domino to fall. If the proposition is approved by the voters, then California will serve as a visual example of the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana legalization, hopefully inspiring other states to reevaluate their stance on the topic.

In other words, don't desire for Obama to appear to be forcing drug legalization on those that don't want it, let the democratic process of voting decide the issue at the state level.

The best way to help is to contribute to the well organized and professional organization that proposed the Control, Tax, and Regulate Cannabis bill, presenting a rational viewpoint on the need to reconsider our substance laws.

[Wind Rider]

At the very least, he could take actions to have Cannabis removed from Schedule I. Such a classification is an utter crock. If EPA can unilaterally classify CO2 as a pollutant, then FDA should be able to re-work their beauracratic regulatory schemes as well. Such an act wouldn't require Congressional approval, and a half wit with a puppet show could fool the doofuses on the Hill if they just mentioned "peer reviewed studies" and "the consensus is" in the middle of a lot of jargon. Waxman would probably melt like a tub of goo.

[Vinny B.]

What a racist picture, making Obama look like a banana boat captain smoking ganga. Maybe you should put up a picture of Bush snorting cocaine instead.

[Oligonicella]

Racist picture? That pose was obviously approved by the O himself. Keep lookin', you'll find more everywhere you want to.

[AST]

"one of the most vile, freedom-trampling public policies in U.S. history?"

Really? If you're talking about keeping marijuana illegal, you've lost me. There are and have been a lot more vile public policies than that. If all that freedom means is the ability to smoke dope legally, you've missed the bigger picture.

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

Obama's opinion is quite simple. If you smoked dope when "everybody" was smoking dope, then you're okay. If you smoke dope when it has become less trendy, then you can be arrested on suspicion of being a weirdo.

He believes in the right to conform.

[John C. Randolph]

I wonder what the Hypocrite-Douchebag-In-Chief is going to do when one of his kids gets busted smoking pot in college?

-jcr

[Garret]

Two words: Supremacy Immunity.