Drug War

On Pot, Obama Can't Even Construct a Coherent Sentence

|

In the October issue of Reason (not online yet, but you can pick it up at a newsstand), I explain how Barack Obama has disappointed supporters who thought he would be better on drug policy than his predecessor. Summing up, I say:

It would be going too far to say that Obama has been faking it all these years, that he does not really care about the injustices perpetrated in the name of protecting Americans from the drugs they want. But he clearly does not care enough to change the course of the life-wrecking, havoc-wreaking war on drugs.

Or enough to formulate a coherent answer to a straightforward drug policy question. At a presidential Q&A in Minnesota a few weeks ago, NORML's Paul Armentano notes, Obama had the following exchange:

Woman in Audience: If you can't legalize marijuana, why can't we just legalize medical marijuana, to help the people that need it?

Obama: Well, you know, a lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana. As a controlled substance, the issue then is, you know, is it being prescribed by a doctor, as opposed to, uh, you know—well—I'll—I'll—I'll—I'll leave it at that.

Did Obama suddenly remember that he broke his promise to respect state choices regarding the medical use of marijuana? Did he realize he would have a hard time explaining why he is letting the Justice Department and the DEA threaten medical marijuana suppliers and scare state officials away from licensing dispensaries? Maybe he just cares so little about this issue that he can't even bother to distinguish between medical exceptions to state drug laws and federal rescheduling of marijuana (which would allow doctors to prescribe it), let alone explain how marijuana's Schedule I status is consistent with his avowed commitment to sound science. "If the President of the United States can't publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana," says Armentano, "then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?"

Advertisement

NEXT: Americans Are Open to Reforming Social Security and Medicare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But yet every pothead who manages to find his polling place on Election Day will pull the lever for Obama.

    They get what they deserve.

    1. Well this is one pothead that’s not voting for him!

      1. Me neither.

        1. Me threether.

          1. I concur.

          2. let’s remember that MANY (if not most… but definitely many) anti-pot-war advocates are NOT potheads. god knows i am not.

            so let’s remember that a substantial %age of those fighting to end the stupid war on pot are NOT potheads, just like people can support the right to gay marriage without in fact being gay.

          3. Fourthermore, I’ll be voting for an actual pro-legalization candidate.

            1. Although I must put fourth that I am not a pothead.

  2. As a libertarian I didn’t expect much from Obama when he got elected. Not backing off medical marijuana, along with a few other things have been hugely disappointing.

  3. “If the President of the United States can’t publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana,” says Armentano, “then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?”

    When you have kids, you’ll understand.

    1. Right, because the current policy is totally keeping kids off the drugs. And alcohol, and smokes, and sex. The quickest way to get a kid to do something is to ban it. Meanwhile, adults who could possibly take care of themselves are going to prison, losing their kids (see previous article on ACS), etc. sounds great!

    2. “It’s just better if you don’t.”
      or
      “Because I’m your mother, that’s why.”

      1. Awww, mommmm!

        (I’m gonna do it anyway)

    3. I have kids and I don’t understand.

      1. well, one kid anyway.

        1. When you have another kid, you’ll understand.

          1. Wow, condescending much?

            1. Sarcasm, a little?

    4. Between alcohol, tobacco and pot, I’d rather have my kids smoke pot.

      Kids do a lot of dangerous, even fatal, stuff after drinking a bunch of beer. Tobacco addiction is physical, powerful, and hard to kick when you start young. Stoned kids, OTOH, don’t tend to have the initiative to do some of what drunk kids do, and pot isn’t physically addictive.

      And if think your kids aren’t going to smoke cigs or drink beer, then why are you worried about pot? They won’t do that, either.

      1. Thinking has nothing to do with it.

      2. Technically I don’t have kids, so I don’t understand either.

      3. if it came down to responsible use, i’d rather my kid drink alcohol.

        alcohol in reasonable doses is actually healthy. pot is relatively benign, but it doesn’t offer the host of benefits that alcohol does to otherwise HEALTHY people (i do believe it has some medical benefits).

        but given an abuser, i’d rather he abuse pot than alcohol because alcohol ABUSE is far more dangerous.

        1. Since when do teenagers drink alcohol in reasonable doses?

    5. “When you have kids, you’ll understand.”

      Pretty much happy admitting you have no control over *your* kids and relying on the government to do your job?
      Sorta sounds that way.

    6. When they were young I abstained in their presence. Now we partake together.

    7. Two kids, four grand-kids. Alcohol is far scarier that pot.

    8. “I learned it from you, dad!”

    9. need yours incarcerated?

    10. When you start parenting your kids, you’ll understand that it’s not the government’s job — or even possible for the government — to keep your kids off marijuana, especially if they’re hellbent on doing it.

    11. Yeah, because throwing them in jail and ruining their lives is so much better for them.

    12. “When you have kids, you’ll understand.”

      When you have kids who are accused of constructively possessing a joint, and therefore imprisoned, strip searched, raped regularly, barred from student aid, and slapped with a drug record for life, then you will understand the concern about government profiteers sacrificing them to grab up millions per year in whatever property they take from their victims.

    13. I have children,my wife and I instilled in our children a character trait called commonsense,the wisdom to make good choices in their future endeavors,there was no need to make a law regarding marijuana,we taught our children to be careful with drugs and medications,as well as alcohol,they don’t need to,”use”,drugs,nor do they partake in recreational alcohol or drug use,therefore,we’ve been fortunate to not have any of our children become alcoholics or drug addicts,it’s fairly simple parenting.

      Sex was also a big part of growing up in our household as well,witnessing the birth and development of siblings,providing healthy role models and fostering an appropriate level of compassion and concern for their fellow human beings was the easy part and we’ve not had any of our children coming home knocked up,or responsible for doing the knocking,again,maintaining communication is key,provide outlets for their spare time and be supportive.

      People need to stop pressuring the government to hold these,expensive to enforce and humanly destructive laws,over the citizen’s heads and start teaching their children,BY EXAMPLE,that doing drugs and drinking to excess is wrong.

      Unfortunately,THAT is NOT happening.

      So,our,”big Brother’s”,need to do it for us.

      How lame have we become?

  4. Maybe he just cares so little about this issue

    Is this issue about him? No? There’s your answer.

    Jellineck: Hey, Jerri! I know you’re in there. Listen, I have no idea what you went through. I don’t have any answers, I’m not acting in your best interests. Why won’t you trust me?

    Jerri: I wanna go back! Those people care about me!

    Jellineck: Yes, maybe that’s true. But do they care about me? I don’t think so. Do you see the flaw in your logic now?

    Jerri: No.

    Jellineck: Agh! I can’t reach her! She’s lost in some frightening world that isn’t centered around me!

    1. Fuck that show was funny!

      1. “In order to enhance your individuality to conformity, I’m instituting a dress code based on your own requests that I imagine you would have requested had I asked for your requests.”

      2. What show is this?

          1. the best

  5. Sullum assumes that Obama actually thinks for himself, instead of playing puppet for his establishment advisors.

  6. “If the President of the United States can’t publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana,” says Armentano, “then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?”

    Because it’s the Lawr and fuck you that’s why.

    1. Boot. Face. Repeat as needed.

      1. Joe M. How many times does it take you to get the boot on your face?

        1. Ask Mr. Owl.

          1. One, two, three.

            Three.

  7. The Science is settled.
    The O is a fuckwad.

    1. Yeah but how can you really blame him on this one? Americans seems to believe that that if pot is still illegal no one is smoking it. Shit, he’s got an election to win, why piss off the gullible before you need to?!

  8. As a controlled substance, the issue then is, you know, is it being prescribed by a doctor, as opposed to, uh, you know?well?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll leave it at that.

    Let me be clear.

    I was so ripped when I said that.

    1. I stuttered because I got paranoid that they would figure out that I was high!!! Man, the White House kitchen had to make me so many Oreos.

      1. mickey avalon for minister of culture!

  9. If I did not live in a quasi police state/surveillance society I would be inclined to post something which would fully capture my disappointment with/ contempt for His Royal Hopeyness.

    1. If you’re disappointed, you must have been really stoned for all of 2007/8.

      I can’t stand the guy or much of anything he does or says, but I can’t say he’s disappointed me. If anything, he’s not as bad as I expected.

      1. Oh, he’s worse than I expected. Which is saying something, because I expected him to suck. Which is why I never even considered voting for him.

        I’m still appalled at how many libertarians voted for the guy. I know McCain sucked, too–didn’t vote for him, either–but you had to be blind not to see that Obama had the makings of a statist/socialist fuck of the first order.

        1. Actually, he seemed more of a megalomaniac and more interested in his image and ego than anything else. But that’s where the real tell was: that assessment was right, but the method he chose for his “legacy” and image was that of bring in socialized medicine (or starting the process to get there) and to stick his fingers into everything.

          Which, in hindsight, should also have been incredibly obvious but just didn’t seem so at the time.

          1. I might of agreed with you a year ago, but as time goes by it seems that a genuine maliciousness drives this administration and its sycophants. Take this MedMJ story, for instance. Most of the country is pro-MedMJ, and those against it probably wouldn’t vote for Obama anyways.

            So why can’t this president and this DOJ back-off? My answer: a mean spirited and insatiable urge to control and degrade. For the life of me I can’t think of any other reason.

            1. We’re saying the same thing; I just automatically assume maliciousness in those who want power, and didn’t think I had to explicitly mention it.

              But yes, the degree to which Obama, instead of even doing nothing about MedMJ, is in fact going back on his own promises in order to be even more of a dick, indicates that he is a cruel scumbag besides being an egomaniac.

              1. I just automatically assume maliciousness in those who want power

                A good policy, for sure.

                For a while I just assumed that Obama liked the idea of being president more so than the actual power it brought. As if the highest office in the nation was filling a vapid and vain daddy sized hole in himself. Not that he was seeking power for its own sake and its ability to hurt; as seems true to me now.

            2. I have to agree. There is nothing to be gained in going after MM, except injuring and killing (see my post about Peter McWilliams below) people. It’s not a political winner, it’s just terrible fucking policy.

              I saw an interview with Joe Arpaio, where he basically said ‘…if some guy has cancer, he should be able to get medical marijuana…’ That really made me wonder about the mentality of someone who could oppose it.

              1. I agree that the MM issue makes almost no sense, until you think about it from a federal power perspective: the states are trying to legalize it, and the federal government has told them “absolutely not” for a long time. This has nothing to do with MM per se; it is the federal government wanting to retain the legal framework (we regulate drugs, bitches!) to show the states that they are more powerful.

                “You want to legalize MM? Go ahead, and then we’ll raid your dispensaries and arrest and jail people anyway. What are you going to do about it?”

                How dare those states get uppity! It doesn’t matter what the issue is!

                1. That’s even sicker, when you think that these people won’t be in power within a few years.

                  It’s almost like O’Brien from 1984 and his total admiration of the monolith of state power. Not to mention the dedication to perpetuating said power beyond one’s own life. It wasn’t the power he had that turned him on; it was the knowledge that that power would always be wielded. By someone. Forever.

                  1. Gonzalez v Raich, once again proving the awesome destructive power of the fed death star via the almighty Commerce Clause.

                    This still doesn’t explain why Obama hasnt backed off from prosecuting the drug war, but in fact has doubled down and made it an exponentially larger clusterfuck (hello Gun running ATF!!) than it was previously.

                    Four more years of President Not My Fault will make people yearn for how things are right now. Scary.

                2. “How dare those states get uppity!”

                  I see what you did there.

              2. omlet, eggs, creation therein.

            3. and those against it probably wouldn’t vote for Obama anyways.

              DoJ,ONDCP,HHS,FDA,DEA bureaucrats are against it, and most of them will vote for Obama.I’m probably leaving out other pro-Obama/anti-med mj public health Nazis and Federal law enforcement jack-booted thugs but it is hard to keep up with all the departments and agencies.

            4. WHY???

              Because the petroleum and petrol-chemical industry doesn’t want marijuana,or hemp,marijuana’s non-narcotic cousin,to be legalized,hemp has a higher cellulose fiber content than the main ingredient in ethanol,it could replace corn easily as ethanol’s production,hemp doesn’t even need to be rotated as a crop,nor does it need high quantities of petroleum based fertilizers like corn does.

              Hemp can be made into plastic resins,many types of fabric and can be processed into fuels,along with many other uses,it costs less to produce,so,we get the status quo from the oil lobby,they don’t want any competition from hemp,never mind big pharma,they don’t want their expensive to research and license,pharmaceutical’s getting shelved because patient’s prefer medical marijuana over their chemically reconstituted product’s.

              Therefore,politicians in the oil and pharmaceutical industry’s pocket’s maintain the current illegal status of marijuana and hemp,research that hypothesis and I’m pretty sure most will agree,marijuana’s illegality has nothing to do with public safety and,”keeping kid’s off drug’s”,that’s the PARENT’S RESPONSIBILITY,the fight over marijuana is strictly corporate profit based.

  10. So, any one else been following the Obama-Boehner show? Obama wants to preempt the Republican debate next Wednesday, and Boehner said that his chamber couldn’t host the speech, but could find time for it Thursday (the start of NFL season).

    Of course, the Gawkerites are screaming about how he is the President, and you will respect his AUTHORITAY!!! while forgetting that the Legislative is actually a co-equal branch of the government.

    1. You know, Congress should tell the president to fuck off much more often than it does. Regardless of which party is in control of which branch.

    2. I’m really disappointed that SugarFree never graced us with his version of the Obama/Boehner debt negotiations. Call it “A Mirrored Debt Ceiling” or something.

      1. Look into the eyes of the SugarFree and despair! I destroy you! I consign you to oblivion!

        Sorry, just getting ready for SF’s totally and unredeemingly disturbing comment.

        1. You set the bar too high.

          1. Disappointed!

      2. “The City of Blue and Red” by NutraSweet Christopher

      3. I had to get away from the guy-on-guy stuff. I kept getting really weird fanmail from Cleveland and Florida. Violent, angry mail. “I want to drink shit out of your penis” type stuff. It haunts me to this very day.

        1. So I guess we won’t be seeing “Primary Care” about Rick Perry’s encounter with a Mitt Romney dressed only in a doctor’s reflector and sock garters?

          1. Oh, and the reflector isn’t on Romney’s head. I should have mentioned that.

        2. Oh, sorry, dude, that was me.

        3. Make one of them a girl.

          1. The ‘Male Gaze’ one with Bachmann had the best of all worlds.

    3. Yep. And Ron Paul is waiting in the wings to use some procedural action to delay the speech.

      1. Yes, yes, more interbranch warfare. Let’s go for a constitutional crisis!

    4. Maybe I’m missing something, but why can’t he just give the speech from the Oval Office?

      1. Somebody might see “The Buck Stops Somewhere Else” sign on his desk.

      2. No cheering audience.

  11. Here’s my wish for drug warriors: that they suffer the same fate as writer Peter McWilliams.

    By all accounts, McWilliams was a kind man, who would have never wished such a fate on anyone. I can’t find it in me to be so gracious.

    1. “The book documents – and ridicules – U.S. bureaucrats’ attempts to legislate what people can and cannot see, read, and imbibe. ”
      http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nob…..0931580587
      At least as good as “Defending the Undefendable”

      1. 9 of 70 people found the following review helpful:
        1.0 out of 5 stars Amusingly Simplistic, May 15, 2000
        By A Customer
        This review is from: Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country (Paperback)
        i find much of the book’s central argument to be absurd. i am left wondering if any research or thought has gone into it at all. neither drug dealing nor drug use is a victomless crime. ever seen a mother abandon her children in favor of coke? it ain’t pretty and it is very much the business, not only of myself, but of all Americain citizins. if rich white people want to play revolutionary i suggest volunteering their time at a rehab center.
        Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
        Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
        Report abuse | Permalink
        Comment Comments (3)

        4 of 75 people found the following review helpful:
        1.0 out of 5 stars And they say, Marxism is a simplification!, December 30, 1999
        By Conscientious Proletarian (the Workers’ Paradise) – See all my reviews
        This review is from: Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country (Paperback)
        I don’t have too much to say here. I’ve read a few ‘libertarian’ books and always with the same result so far: some trivial things I would agree with but overall, it’s stomac cramps for me. Is anyone taking this black-and-white, cardboard-cutout depiction of reality for serious? To me, it’s either excrutiatingly stupid, or just as excrutiatinly dishonest. I don’t know which, but after reading this book I _know_ I’m no libertarian (whatever this “libertarian” label means.) Well, know thyself, so that’s good after all, I guess.

        PWND

        1. And I wasn’t one of those 13 people…

        2. Your masochism knows no bounds. I admire that.

      2. “Aint Nobody’s Business…” was pretty good, although it won’t break new ground for anyone here. It’s a good gift for (non-policy-wonk) semi-statist friends, as it presents the arguments in a common-sense, easy to read fashion. (A friend borrowed my copy, then moved out of town. I was okay with that, as I’m sure it helped his thinking on some issues).

        1. I love the hundreds of quotes he has sprinkled throughout. I have purchased 3 copies over the years and given them away. After Atlas Shrugged the best book ever.

  12. Well, you know, a lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana. As a controlled substance, the issue then is, you know, is it being prescribed by a doctor, as opposed to, uh, you know?well?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll leave it at that.

    Remember, kids, he’s so much smarter and more articulate than W.

    I’d respect him more if he just got up one day and said “marijuana is illegal because we haven’t figured out how to tax it sufficiently.”

    1. Whoa now, that’d take honesty, and he has none.

  13. heller|8.31.11 @ 6:14PM|#
    “Sullum assumes that Obama actually thinks for himself, instead of playing puppet for his establishment advisors.”

    I’m gonna say he is thinking for himself. He simply hopes (HOPE!) there’s a 2 or 3% vote advantage by lying one more time.
    His stumbling was nothing more than hoping(HOPE!)that once again, no one caught the fact that his ‘statement’ included no statement.

  14. On Pot, Obama Can’t Even Construct a Coherent Sentence

    Well I have trouble to be fair to say constructs a sentence coherent when I’m on. Pot.

    1. “Well I have trouble to be fair to say constructs a sentence coherent when I’m on. Pot.”

      Yeah, but was that a campaign speech?

      1. Every speech is a campaign speech.

    2. It to me beat you,F@&k

  15. uh, you know?well?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll?I’ll leave it at that.

    The Great Orator.

    1. Right? We keep hearing about what an incredible genius this guy’s supposed to be. He talks like he’s got a dick in his mouth.

  16. What about blaming this Congress for not being able in a million years to do anything about cannabis laws?

    You expect Obama to go out on a limb for symbolic reasons alone. That’s fine, maybe he should. But it’s not obvious that he should, since his inevitable failure would just give you more to bitch about.

    1. Man, that is no sock puppet there. That is some vintage Tony.

      See fraudsters? THIS is how you sound line Tony.

      1. “Man, that is no sock puppet there. That is some vintage Tony.”

        Archetypal shithead!
        Doesn’t matter what the issue is, there’s always some strawman, misdirection or lie that shithead can dig up and he got all three in this one short post!
        Perfect!

        1. So point them out and stop calling names.

          I’m not trying to fuck your sister, I’m trying to debate an issue. You know, playing devil’s advocate (where, here, the devil is liberals and Obama).

          1. “So point them out and stop calling names.”

            Strawman: “What about blaming this Congress for not being able in a million years to do anything about cannabis laws?”
            Misdirection: “You expect Obama to go out on a limb for symbolic reasons alone.”
            Lie: “his inevitable failure would just give you more to bitch about.”
            And second lie: “I’m trying to debate an issue.”
            Four-for-three, shithead.

            1. I think the problem here is you don’t understand either what I’m writing or the vocabulary you’re using. Or maybe you crapped yourself and you’re upset. Who knows.

              1. Tony|8.31.11 @ 10:08PM|#
                “I think the problem here is you don’t understand either what I’m writing or the vocabulary you’re using…”

                I think the problem here is that you’ve been busted (again), shithead.

              2. We expect Obama to “go out on a limb” and actually keep one of his campaign promises?

                Jesus, we can be so unreasonable!

    2. If Obama were to win re-election, and then go all in on legalization, I might gain a speck of admiration for him. Maybe. But I doubt he’ll win, and I doubt he’d ever do that if he did.

      1. He wouldn’t. I’d put money on it. He’s shown what his priorities are: himself and power. And he has shown himself to be vastly worse than expected in his first term. There is no reason to believe he won’t be even worse in a second.

        Anyone who votes for him for a second term using your reasoning above (I’m not saying you would, I’m just saying voting in the hopes that he’ll change once he has no chance to be elected again) is an absolute chump, fool, and idiot, and should be shunned for being the retard they are.

    3. Here at “Reason” we always defend congress 100% and place no blame on their shoulders.

    4. Come on, Tony, what would be so terribly hard about it? He could just refrain from going hammer and tongs after state medical marijuana laws; that would be a positive step. And how would that put him out on a limb? As another poster pointed out, the only people that would piss off are conservatives who wouldn’t vote for him no matter what he did.

  17. They are all campaign speeches.

  18. Just watched the video from home now, and it’s even more obnoxious! The fact that he can still joke about it, while people are dying because of his policies, is really fucking evil.

  19. “If the President of the United States can’t publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana,” says Armentano, “then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?”

    Because drugs are bad and getting high is wrong. Hand me a beer.

  20. Speaking of DARE, I remember when that ultra-PC fuckstastic shitpile of a program was forced down my throat in like, 5th grade? Fifth fucking grade. In a smallish, fairly affluent town, I had this big sweaty LEO teaching me about crack and horse and shrooms, and needles and cooking spoons and spliffs. I didn’t even care about girls yet. He had a big wooden case with a glass front with actual samples of actual drugs, so we could see what they looked like.

    There’s something sinister about teaching kids to identify drugs on sight. At least they’ll know if they’re getting real shit sometimes, I guess.

    1. Saw a 5th grade presentation today, given by a guy who is (sincerely, but not really knowledgeably) devoted to reducing gang violence.
      People were impressed that the 5th grade kids knew what ‘cyber-bullying’ is. I wondered if they had any idea what the 1st Amendment means.

    2. I had a coworker and friend whose (married) cop boyfriend was the local DARE officer. She was the biggest druggie I ever met (and that’s up against some tough competition) and used to call me from the back seat of his patrol unit rolling her tits off; he was a phenonenal drunk, totally shitfaced 24 hours a day. It would have made a great sitcom.

  21. Obooboo is the one that came out and said that the policy was that interfering with states that had legalized medicinal marijuana was off limits to fedral law enforcement agencys,yet they ignored him and he who is their over all boss has never said or done one thing to make them stop doing what their doing.Legalizing marijuana use for adults nation wide go’s way further than just allowing people to legaly use it.This go’s into finanial territory,medinial territory and on and on.It’s harmless for the most part.Yet they allow everything that is harmfull to be alowed.It makes no sense at all.Why keep wasting mega billions at the federal level and mege milllions at the states level trying to stop people from using marijuana and they get absolutely nowhere at all.Every year yields continue to out do every previous years yields and thats only counting whats grown right here and not whats smuggled.It would end the federal deficit completely within 3 years easily and put every state in the black within 1-2 years easily.Would eliminate any cuts with s.s./SSI and militry disability.Would create countelss jobs and would make funds avaialble for people who want to start small buisnesses of all types.Medicinaly it’s already been proven here and abroad to be second to none for a wide variety of things both physical and mental.Country’s that hve fone legal have all see dramatic drops in drug realted crimes and drmatic drops in the numbers of teens using it as well.It would all but put the mexican drug cartels out of buisness as marijuana is they bread and butter.Most of the cocaine enters thru florida and the jamacian gans there.Most heroin enters the country using the shipping buisnesses.The majority of the meth is made right here so legalizing marijuana gives the cartels very little to work with.Regulating it would be simple to do.Who would be producing it?Thats simple,the major tobaco compnay’s I say.As far as THC strenght,it would be again treated much as the alcahol buisness is.Weaker variety’s would cost less while the premium or stronger types wold cost more.Legalizing marijuana go’s way betond allowing people to use it to get high

    1. -Who would be producing it?Thats simple,the major tobaco compnay’s I say.-

      Why the hell would I go through a shop and another corperation when it’s something that can be grown in a basement? The only reason that large companies have such a hold on tobacco is the production proccess.

      The only way that works is if the police crack down on unliscenced growers and dealers.

      Same problem, different coat of paint. Keep trying, buddy.

  22. “If the President of the United States can’t publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana,” says Armentano, “then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?”

    To be consistent with all our other destructive and illogical policies I guess.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.