home

Obama, Medical Marijuana and the RNC

The marijuana reform groups think Barack Obama is going to help them. Here's his latest interview out today on the topic. When asked if he would stop the federal raids on pot dispensaries in states that have legalized marijuana:

“I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and
preventing terrorism.

The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, > “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)(my emphasis)

Of course, the science is there, the science is sound and has been for years. All he's promising is more studies and to think about it. [More...]

He's no more progressive on this issue than Hillary. Bill Richardson at least forced it through the N.M. legislature and mandated the state come up with plans to license dispensaries. He didn't care that it was politically risky, he said "So what if it's politically risky?"

New Mexico’s legislation stands to improve on Colorado’s law in at least one important way. The New Mexican law charges its state health department with establishing distribution centers — or dispensaries — where patients can obtain medical marijuana. These centers will be regulated by the Department of Health and distribute this product in secure, on-site facilities.

Obama has said with respect to prosecuting doctors who prescribe it, it's not high on his list of priorities. I understand wishful thinking, but Obama's position on marijuana give me no confidence he'll do anything about it other than toss it around for a few years like a hot potato while telling advocates it's being studied.

In November, before Oregon, which has a medical pot law (not to mention the country's own assisted suicide law) and its voters became so important in the campaign, he said:

When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn't in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.

"My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to because there's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain,” Obama said. “But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

But he added that he was concerned that the reasons for the use of marijuana would grow and create a "slippery slope."

And on punishing doctors who prescribe pot, in March, 2008 he said:

I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely.

Of course, the Republican National Committee is trumping his half-hearted support and using it to convince Republicans and Independents he doesn't understand the law and is too inexperienced to be President.

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

The RNC attack goes downhill from there.

More on Obama and marijuana reform here and on decriminalization or legalization of recreational pot here. On a 125,000 member doctor's group calling for legislative reform because the science shows the benefit, go here.

< Obama Seeks KY Evangelical Vote | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    he's either intentionally (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:50 AM EST
    ignorant, or not very bright, you make the call!

    Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.

    chemically, the two aren't even in the same catagory, much less having little difference between them. this is the classic, and false, claim made by (mostly) republican/conservative politicians for decades, to justify making pot illegal.

    considering the number of people in our nation's jails, because of the laws against pot, and the direct/indirect costs associated with that, you'd think he could, at minimum, strain himself to get the basic facts straight.

    but, that would be work.

    Oh Well (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:06 AM EST
    I guess his argument is lost on you, as I pointed out in an earlier thread. Had he compared MJ to LSD you would have an argument, but he was in fact comparing MJ to a drug that has a medical use and is not Schedule 1, but schedule 11.

    IOW, because you seem to need this spelled out, morphine has an accepted medical use, MJ does not. To compare the two is to suggest that MJ could in fact have a medical use and should as a result be taken off Schedule 1.

    Parent

    squeaky are you in the Medical proffesion? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:01:50 AM EST
    And I ask this as you state that MJ has no accepted medical use.

    Parent
    Here's the quote: (none / 0) (#10)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:59:40 AM EST
    "My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to because there's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain," Obama said.
    a

    The statement as made is incorrect as there is large difference in the way marijuana works on pain and morphine works. If what he really meant was that"  morphine has an accepted medical use, MJ does not. To compare the two is to suggest that MJ could in fact have a medical use and should as a result be taken off Schedule 1," then he probably should have said that.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:18:25 AM EST
    I know the quote, and I am not a fan of his drug policy, nor am I a fan of Hillary's. But to suggest that Obama is either "not very bright" or "ignrant" and thinks that MJ and Morpine are the same substance is absurd. Many take MJ for pain. The comparison was about a legal drug that has medical use and one that has no legal medical use even though many take it for pain and want it to in the same legal Schedule as morphine, at the very least.  

    It is rather obvious to me, but then again I am not drugged out over the exquisite odor of Hillary or Obama, unlike you.

    Parent

    Just asking... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:18:35 AM EST
    Are you incapable of discussing issues without personal name calling? I didn't call you names, or take swipes at your intelligence or mental health. Can you please do me the same courtesy?

    Parent
    Discussing Issues? (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:09:17 AM EST
    That is a laugh. I have not seen you discuss any issues other than how much you love Hillary, and how many ways you can put down Obama.

    That is not my idea of a discussion. It seems more dialogue from a high school fan club.

    Parent

    So obviously the answer is NO. (none / 0) (#45)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    You show yourself to be incapable of discussing things without putting other people down. I'll thank the other posters who downrated your uncalled for spew of venom  but I won't downrate you myself. I could ask Jeralyn to delete your post. It certainly deserves deletion. But frankly I won't because I don't care. Your idiotic insults aren't even worth the bother. I will continue to post when and where I want despite your attempt to bully and demean.    

    Parent
    please share with us your (none / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    special "obama crystal ball", that enables you to gaze into his mind, so that you know what he actually meant, vs. what he actually said.

    It is rather obvious to me, but then again I am not drugged out over the exquisite odor of Hillary or Obama, unlike you.

    as it happens, this comparison isn't unique to sen. obama, it's been made by many a politician in recent memory. that they conveniently, consistently overlook the fact that scientific evidence already exists, in abundance, for medical pot use, tells me they're either intellectually dishonest (and assume their audience is stupid), or they themselves are ignorant of the facts.

    the "slippery slope" argument borders on inane: next thing you know, the country's going to filled to the brim with drug addicts.

    you would think, given the number of blacks sitting in our nation's prisons because of pot, he would, at minimum, familiarize himself with at least one segment of the issue. apparently, that's just too much to ask.

    i'd have to go back, but i believe i gave sen. clinton grief over this very same issue, but she isn't the one campaigning on the chimera of "hope and change".

    Parent

    Not the Same (none / 0) (#44)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    You said above
    To compare the two is to suggest that MJ could in fact have a medical use and should as a result be taken off Schedule 1.

    Now you say

    The comparison was about a legal drug that has medical use and one that has no legal medical use even though many take it for pain and want it to (sic) in the same legal Schedule as morphine, at the very least.
    (emphasis mine)

    Marijuana certainly has a medical use.  Ask any AIDS sufferer.  Comparing the two is entirely valid if you set the false issue of legality aside, although you can't really link them because their effects are entirely disparate.

    And yes, it does need to be taken off Schedule 1.


    Parent

    But Oregon (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:58:46 AM EST
    believes that it has an accepted medical use.

    Scalia's arrogance in the medical marijuana decision was to assert that the federal government has the power to overrule states' determinations of what is an accepted medical use and what isn't.  That sort of determination has always been left to the states in our history.

    Parent

    Do You Think (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:52:07 AM EST
    That the question was about states rights or lifting the Federal ban on MJ? I think the question was about the latter as was Obama'a answer. The sad state of things is that a viable presidential candidate cannot advocate legalizing MJ, even for medical use without big qualifications, even if he or she knows it has medical uses and that the drug laws are both unfair and absurd.

    Parent
    every major SCOTUS case (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:47:16 AM EST
    is about states rights.  As a constitutional lawyer, and the man seeking the presidency, he should know that.  We have been battling states rights since well before the civil war.  The RNC has used the threat to states rights effectively in just about every presidential campaign (which is why Rove has affirmative action on state ballots now like he had gay marriage last time)

    This is just another example of Obama playing it to both sides.  MJ?  "We'll have to do some studies."  School vouchers?  "We'll have to do some studies."

    It's just a convenient answer to avoid taking a stand.  There are TONS of studies about this stuff out there.  And the "cops have better things to do," is such an annoying, typical excuse that every person who's ever gotten a speeding ticket has used.  You don't get to pick and choose which laws are valid as they affect your life; either work to change them or be quiet. When will Obama takne a bloody stand on anything?!

    Parent

    cpinva (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    we all makes lotsa jokes about WORM, but in this case it's absolutely clear he was talking about the similar purpose of the two drugs in a medical context, not their chemical composition.

    Parent
    i must vigorously disagree. (none / 0) (#43)
    by cpinva on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    because there's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain,"

    that's his direct quote. given his (as far as i know) lack of training in chemistry, pharmacology or medicine, how would he know? the only reasonable assumption that can possibly be taken is that he believes the two, and their chemical compounds, are the same.

    if that isn't what he meant, he could easily have said so. he didn't, and it isn't my job (or anyone else's) to have to interpret his statements.

    Parent

    Typical Obama (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by ricosuave on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:54:43 AM EST
    Vague statements that try to cut down the middle and be all things to all people.  The death-by-committee approach of saying it will be studied more before taking any action is exactly how he killed universal healthcare in Illinois.

    Can we please have Hillary for a nominee?

    absolutely true (none / 0) (#46)
    by Saxon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    everyone thinks Obama is going to do everything they want, based on obama's vague platitudes and most of them will be disappointed.

    he will at best be a 1 term pres like Carter and will screw the Democrats for the next 8 to 12 years, or at worst ... sky is the limit for the amount of damage an incapable president can cause in the 21st century.

    Parent

    They're just f*cking with us now (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:35:27 AM EST
    I mean, really:

    Barack Obama's pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is.

    Right. These pieces of sh*t side with a President who believes he doesn't have to follow the Geneva Convention, FISA, the FOIA, or... hell... anything. The Unitary Executive.

    And now suddenly the President actually has to follow the law again. I wonder if the "liberal media" will notice?

    /projectile-vomit

    AMA position, and why Obama has advocates support (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by JakeBryant on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:18:04 AM EST
       
    1. "The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease.

        2. The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies.

    People really want the science to be there, but it is not yet.  While marijuana related products (marinol) have an accepted narrow medical use, marijuana as commonly understood does not except somewhat controversially for terminal patients for whom opiates have become ineffective.  Smoking marijuana will never be an accepted medical treatment for anything outside of palliative (end of life) care.

    I don't smoke pot but I also don't think its the biggest moral sin that a portion of the population does.  However, I do think advocates for legalization are no more impartial than those who make the more extravagant claims about marijuana.  The medical consensus is that
    1 - Pot causes some cognitive problems but the extent of these problems are sometimes exaggerated and the data on long term effects is mixed.
    2 - Smoking marijuana is a carcinogenic activity of greater intensity than smoking a like amount of tobacco.  Few people smoke the equivalent of a "pack a day" tobacco smoker in marijuana however.  
    3 - There is no clearly accepted medical use of marijuana in the US or internationally outside of end of life care.  There is some data suggesting it may have some application in narrow cases outside of these situations but further study is needed.

    Obama's position is the one the data supports.  Advocates for marijuana legalization twist the data in the same way that people who claim gays are more likely to molest your kids or those who claim climate change isn't real do.  They really want to believe their beliefs are supported by science, but that doesn't make it so.
    ----------------
    As to why these groups tend to support Obama (an unsupported claim but I'll take you at your word)... people trust him.  They do not trust HRC.  As a voter, I've seen HRC change with the political wind.  Why should I believe her?  Obama supporters such as myself find him more trustworthy.  If he says he'll deemphasize the enforcement of this law and examine the science, we believe him.  If she says it, we don't know if she'll decide its an inconvenient position in the general election or in the White House.  


    you find him more trustworth (none / 0) (#47)
    by Saxon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    based on what? hope and change? or is there anything more behind the curtain in your oz land?

    Parent
    Have Some Syrup (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    with that waffle, Mr. Obama.

    So what's Hillary's position? (none / 0) (#1)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:18:48 AM EST
    Better?

    they are the same (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:11 AM EST
    see here.

    The difference is he makes people think he's promising something when he isn't. A lot of people are going to be disappointed when he doesn't come through. And of course, he won't have broken a promise because of all his "ifs" and "should considers" but people don't hear that when he talks. nor do they hear him say he isn't likely to spend much political capital on the problem.  They hear promises. They hear what they want to hear.

    Parent

    Bill made a promise, to Jacki Rickert, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:42:33 AM EST
    then reneged.

    "When I'm President, you'll get your medicine." Osseo, Wisconsin, August 1992.

    Parent

    That may be what bugs many (none / 0) (#24)
    by Saint Fnordius on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:15:23 AM EST
    Granted, I am overseas so my view is a little skewed by not getting the same coverage as in the USA, but this has been a common feature of Obama. He has the rhetorical chops to get you to think he agreed when he never did. But somehow he pulls it off nonetheless, I've noticed.

    This must be especially frustrating for Sen. Clinton, as this ability was once her husband's claim to fame. Republicans hated him for it, called him "slick Willie" because he was able to outmanoeuvre them so well. The fact that somebody with genuine African roots is edging out the wife of "America's first black president" using the same strengths must be bitter irony.

    I think in the end, his answer had the bluff honesty to state that there are so many other problems that taking a stand on medical marijuana would only distract. After all, this is a legislative issue, and the differences between him and Senator Clinton are negligible.

    Parent

    Presidential Power (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    The Controlled Substances Act delegates what would normally be a Congressional Power to reschedule to the Administration, subject to overide by the Congress.

    Parent
    A better link with quotes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:09 AM EST
    is here:

    Sen. Clinton has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Sen. Clinton also voted against an amendment in the U.S. Senate that was intended to undermine state medical marijuana laws.


    Parent
    I'm asking... (none / 0) (#6)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM EST
    ... because marjuana is KY's number one cash crop...

    Parent
    Also California's (none / 0) (#29)
    by creeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:05 AM EST
    Remember the year when the California Secretary of Agriculture included marijuana in his annual crop report?  If memory serves me correctly, they sacked him for it.

    Parent
    I believe it... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    is estimated to be the nations # 1 cash crop.

    Since it's all black market, all anyone can do is make an estimated guess.

    Parent

    obama, always with the generalities...no meat (none / 0) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:35 AM EST


    Yeah, Where's The Beef (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:30 AM EST
    I liken this in some ways to his talk about change.  Too many people never actually inquire about the content and end up projecting.

    Parent
    Realistically (none / 0) (#8)
    by brad12345 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM EST
    This is about what you'd hope for.  I certainly think marijuana--all marijuana--should be legal.  I smoke it myself--not medically.  But I also think it would be an incredibly silly waste for Obama to use his political capital to focus on medical marijuana rather than the war in Iraq or health care or global warming and on and on.  

    Also, I think that eliminating federal raids is a pretty major step, because it effectively allows states to legalize medical marijuana.  It is, in fact, very smart.  Effective, without costing political capital.  

    Announcing you''re not going to enforce (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:35 AM EST
    laws on the books most definitely does cost political capital.  It is a dumb move, IMHO.

    That said, it is a tricky issue, especially, as someone here said, for a black candidate.  Bill Clinton's presidency was terribly undermined right out of the gate by the issue of gays in the military.  I think he would have done better in the long run if he'd stuck to his guns on it, but the uproar was tremendous.  Obama doesn't want medical marijuana to be his "gays in the military," and I'd actually be sympathetic to that if he weren't pretending to be such a great and principled non-politician.

    Obama would have done better, I think, to couch his waffling in terms of people's genuine concern about the "slippery slope," not the entirely bogus one of scientific uncertainty.  That would at least have been honest and not so unpleasantly reminiscent of Bush's anti-science record.


    Parent

    Medical marijuana polls much higher (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    than gays in the military.

    Alabama
    75 percent of respondents supported legalizing marijuana for medical use under a doctor's supervision.
    POLL: Mobile Register-University of South Alabama
    DATE: July 2004
    Sample size: 417

    Texas
    75 percent of respondents said "people with cancer and other serious illnesses should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes as long as their doctor approves."
    POLL: Scripps Howard
    DATE: October 2004
    Sample size: 900

    Lots more here

    Parent

    Oops. link (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    Agricultural Hemp (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    Obama's got a pro vote on the record in the Illinois Senate. I've never heard of Hillary being asked directly. Bill's DEA denied all applications for even research permits, while Bush granted one, under pressure from Hawaii's Republican Gobvernor.

    Let's be very careful (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    about this kind of comparison.  The beginning of the Clinton administration is more than 15 years in the past (hard to believe!) and some things that were politically impossible then are less impossible now.  The whole concept of industrial hemp was completely unheard of by most people back then.  It's slightly more known now, but would still take a pretty strong public info campaign to get the idea across.  I'm very much in favor of it, but I wouldn't expect any Dem. president to do anything about it unless he/she found him/herself in a very strong political position some years along.


    Parent
    I had a conversation w Al Gore as VP Candidate (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    regarding hemp just after the '92 Convention. He expressed some familiarity, made no specific commitment, ended the conversation with "Trust us Ben."

    Parent
    "Trust us".... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    Tried that Al...personally, I'll never trust your bastardized party again.  In fact, I should have my head examined for ever trusting you and your lot of con-artists.

    Parent
    Oh jesus... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:48:01 AM EST
    ...if we're debating who is best on drug policy, we should all be heading in the direction of the libertarian candidate, whoever he or she may be.  

     Senator Obama has a hill to climb on this issue that Senator Clinton can ignore: he's "black" and, alas, blacks are perceived as, you know, drug users.  Or soft on crime.  Or something.  It depends on who you talk to.  Moreover, his youth vote is decidedly less enthusiastic about "politics of consciousness" rhetoric that may have appealed to Boomer voters when they were busy attending Timothy Leary seminars in the 60s and 70s.  While I support CA and other state medical marijuana programs, I have to admit that it is something of a disgrace, if we're being honest.  

     The thing that really frustrates me about "medical" marijuana is that the ground was ceded in the first place.  Yeah, important for AIDS and cancer and glaucoma patients to get the stuff, but why not either a) decriminalize it or b) prohibit state governments from prosecuting possession/sales cases involving marijuana in the first place? Or maybe just make it the last priority for DA offices?  The latter option seems the most pragmatic.  If the feds want to spend money on it, let them bleed dry.  In reality they're fighting a losing war against plant life.  Good luck.  

     

    How many boomers (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:01:00 AM EST
    do you think attended Leary seminars, little one? LOL

    Parent
    The president (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    cannot tell state and local governments what they should and shouldn't prosecute.  You are confusing district attorneys with U.S. attorneys.


    Parent
    No kidding... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    ...I wasn't talking about issuing a directive on high from the DOJ to limit AUSAs.  I am talking about limiting their discretion at the state level, through initiatives, legislation, etc.  Why would you assume I was talking about the DOJ?

     And yeah, if I pass legislation, I certainly can tell them what to prosecute and what not to prosecute.  What I was suggesting is forcing the federal government to take on all the costs of the drug war in some states by defunding state prosecutions, among other suggestions.  

    Parent

    That would be Bob Barr (none / 0) (#33)
    by wasabi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:47:43 AM EST
    Bob Barr.  The guy who was the administration's point man on drugs.  Who until he got booted out of Congress was the Anti-Drug Coordinator for the DOJ.  Who advocated for complete federal prohibition of medical marajuana.  Who now is running for the presidency as a Libertarian.  Who now is for states rights in allowing medical marajuana.

    Parent
    And was an impeachment hound (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    He's had an epiphany, apparently. LOL!


    Parent
    I think Gravel... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    has a much better shot at the Libertarian nom than Barr.

    But I prefer Steve Kubby get their nom...his record in fighting against drug war tyranny and against the persecution of medical marijuana users is unparalleled amongst all the horses running.

    A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a vote for drug war tyranny...anyway you slice it.

    Parent

    Obama shows more than ignorance (none / 0) (#23)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:54:16 AM EST
    Anyone who does any research into how the US formulated its' drug laws soon realizes that they were promulgated by racist crackers as a 'legal' means of maintaining an culturally ingrained oppression of minorities, particularly African-Americans, when, ostensibly due to 'liberal' influences, such overt expressions of racial bigotry was becoming publicly unacceptable.

    This is especially true of the cannabis (a.k.a 'Marijuana') laws; their chief advocate hated what he termed 'the degenerate races' (which consisted of anyone with a skin tone 3 shades darker than Wonder Bread) with a passion, and associated its' use with them. If Obama supports the laws, he supports racial bigotry. The fruit cannot fall far from the (poison) tree.

    For Obama to ignore this fact is the equivalent of  licking the spittle of long-dead racist bigots off his face and smiling. Disgusting.

    Oh, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:23:43 AM EST
    Many people believe that Mr. Anslinger collaborated with industry giants to outlaw marijuana.  It is known that he was acquainted with both the Hearsts (of Hearst Newspapers) and the DuPonts, of DuPont plastic fame.

    Hearst and DuPont--racist crackers one and all.  And very funny that the article you link to about racist southerners is in the NY Times.

    You are right that most if not all drug laws were a response to a particular immigrant group, but you do your argument no favors by stooping to stereotypes about southerners.  The use of racial scare tactics and stereotype to outlaw drugs was a national affair.  California and Hollywood gave us Reefer Madness.  Nixon clamped down on drugs because of Hippies and soldiers who were so addicted to heroin that they had to pass a drug test before they were allowed to leave Viet Nam.  Laudinum (women); Opium (Chinese), Meth/speed (biker gangs); etc, were not southern problems.  Cocaine, too, was a national problem, and you can find newspaper stories from MI and CA that have the same type of racially charged headlines.  Meanwhile, after WWII, one of the prizes America got from the Germans was Bayer's patent on heroin.

    These laws would not have been passed without communities and groups all over the nation who were adamantly in favor.  It takes a village.

    Parent

    Bring back prohibition (none / 0) (#40)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    If wine/other alcohol were treated like pot I think people's attitude would change very quickly.  Pot is the same kind of drug as alcohol with less side effects.  
    Meanwhile we are rewarding alcohol farmers and wasting money putting pot smokers in jail

    Marijuana Law ReformHelping deliver marijuana law reform news to the public and exposing the ugly ..... cost, the federal government spends $1.43 billion enforcing marijuana  

    At a time when we should be setting priorities, enforcing marijuana laws should be at the bottom of the list.

    Rick Steves smokes pot and freely admits it.
    There is nothing wrong with it....except it is illegal and used by the police to hassle people.

    Let me know when you need a prescription to have a beer