Thread: Will Obama Legalize Marijuana?

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

...
Congress truly runs this country, not the President. He only runs the executive branch. There are specific powers upon that office, and he is seen as the leader but its congress that holds more power at any given time. Nothing goes into law that both houses have not ratified and approved upon. (the three branches of gov are supposed to be seperate but equal but we know this is no longer true) ...

I think you have hit on exactly why federal cannabis laws are so f'd, most likely f'd by design. Like you said above, this is what we all learned in grade school about how the federal gov't should be run, according to the US Constitution. but with the CSA it is all bassackwards. The executive branch now has the right and responibility of writing drug laws. This just really seems unconstitional to me (if not bizzaro world ) but, we'll probably have to wait another 60 years until they finally acknowledge that.

And yes, it is interesting to watch the history of how cannabis prohibition started. It really does parallel in reverse what we are seeing right now with the Budding of America. (thanx NORML for the graphic)

Hey Boaz!!

I'll look into some of my reading and research and see if there's anything that could be watched. I haven't seen anything lately because of extreme partianship this year but you never know.

Regardless of party affiliation, we need to get poeple out of congress who toe the party line, who are in it for the greed and personal get, and work to support people who truly represent into office, people who are understanding of not just our interest but respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it was intended and written.

Just my opinion.

Also. We HAVE to work together regardless of party line or affiliation if we want to achieve this common interest. Postings like the one "pufferlungs" writes is exactly what they want; discontent among those with the common interest. If we want change, we all need to educate and inform from the same perspective.

If you don't like a law, share with your friends and neighbors why, why is it wrong and why they should vote in favor of changing it. MJ was made illegal because of racism, economics, and misrepresentation through the media and our elected representatives. How do WE as a common interest overcome that?

I know its not by calling each other names and acting like assholes to each other, but through examining why we have that common interest and how we can best achieve overturning this ridiculous law so that most of us do not have to suffer, remain dependent upon big medicine's products, and are able to make decisions for ourselves instead of government deciding FOR us what we can smoke, take, use, or otherwise.

I don't like having to take pills prescribed by the VA that MIGHT work when I KNOW that smoking a bowl of something natural DOES work. Something that I can grow myself and not worry about the script making in the mail. Something I can grow and know that it isn't full of chemicals that cause some wierd kind of cancer or otherwise.

I'm sick of people bitching about repubs and demo's when both are equally guilty in making us dependent upon one or the other based upon economic dependency and need.

Thanks for letting me rant....

I don't know why you call yourself 'pufferlungs', I can only guess ... not guessing anything good, either ...

this is a reputation message I just received from this chickenshit, that hides on his computer ... :

" Jan-04-2010 10:35 PufferLungs stupid fucking republican " ...

now, where the hell are the Mods, regarding this jerk ?

isn't that all democrats do is point their fingers at republicans? they've got the majority in congress and still can't get shit done.

phunnyman, i couldn't agree more about the party fighting bullshit. i refuse to affiliate with any party. just because i share most of the views of one doesn't mean that i share them all. putting labels on people cause rifts for them to bicker over.


-shake

Originally Posted by headshake

isn't that all democrats do is point their fingers at republicans? they've got the majority in congress and still can't get shit done.

phunnyman, i couldn't agree more about the party fighting bullshit. i refuse to affiliate with any party. just because i share most of the views of one doesn't mean that i share them all. putting labels on people cause rifts for them to bicker over.


-shake

It really is all they do. Great current example: 9/11= When President Bush was in that classroom with all those kids the day the towers were hit, the democrats/leftists/socialist/communists all slammed him for waiting approx 7 minutes before he got up and left.

12/25 = a terrorist attempts to blow up a plane on Christmas, a Christian holiday celebrated throughout the world, over the skies of Detroit, the President doesn't appear on tv, he doesn't leave vacation, we don't hear from him for nearly a week, and the head of the homeland security remains on the ski slopes throughout the day. Not one demo says a word.

This works both ways of course, but this illustrates how the party's call each other out for the same stuff. WE the citizens are supposed to have government working for us, not the other way around. WE as citizens need to let all of these elitists, regardless of party affiliation know that they are accountable to US.

Another good example: Both houses just voted to give themselves pay raises over the next two years. Bet that didn't make the national news from either party, did it?

On top of that, they receive pensions that are tax free for life and the surviving spouses continue to recieve these when they die, health care for not just them but every member of their immediate family for life plus all the perks of being a member of either house. Trust me, its not medicare but top notch care just like the President recieves for life.

I love my country, think we have the best form of government in the world, we just need to return it back to what it was intended to be according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

All three branches need to remember what was written in the Declaration of Independence, a list of grievances outlining the exact same shit these two main political parties are doing to us RIGHT now.

They also need to remember that the second amendment provides the individual right for a citizen to bear arms not just against foreign enemies, but also a domestic enemy such as a government that has become out of control and no longer represents the people. At that point, it is not only our right, but our duty to remove it from power with any and all force necessary and restore it.

When rights are taken away, the ability to fight back is also removed. Those who would give up these rights never deserved them and do deserve the enslavement through comfort and convenience. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin outlined how to to this quite well in their writings. See how well Russia turned out during the 50s-80s? Stalin killed how many of his OWN people?

Read the Federalist papers and the writings of our founding fathers including Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin to name but just a few who spoke of these ideas and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

I love my country, think we have the best form of government in the world, we just need to return it back to what it was intended to be according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

i love my country too, i just hate my govt.

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

All three branches need to remember what was written in the Declaration of Independence, a list of grievances outlining the exact same shit these two main political parties are doing to us RIGHT now.

i guarantee you they know nothing of the declaration of independence.

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

They also need to remember that the second amendment provides the individual right for a citizen to bear arms not just against foreign enemies, but also a domestic enemy such as a government that has become out of control and no longer represents the people. At that point, it is not only our right, but our duty to remove it from power with any and all force necessary and restore it.

the second amendment has already been to the supreme court and upheld. they tried to outlaw handguns in washington dc. they tried to argue that the second amendment was for militias as pertaining to fighting off the britts. a militia is merely a group of ordinary citizens banded together fighting a common enemy, right?

part of the problem is ELECTED judges!

check out my quote in the sig from the dec. of ind. i feel ya 1000% percent here!

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

When rights are taken away, the ability to fight back is also removed. Those who would give up these rights never deserved them and do deserve the enslavement through comfort and convenience. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin outlined how to to this quite well in their writings. See how well Russia turned out during the 50s-80s? Stalin killed how many of his OWN people?

a lot of our power being removed stems from the federal reserve act of 1933. when citizens had to turnover their gold to the govt. to establish the fed reserve (which is the biggest scam in the history of mankind). they aren't a govt. entity and they charge the U.S. $.10 on the dollar to print up out currecny.....the only currency accepted in the U.S. mind you.....and all in the name of our protection from americans trading gold with the germans/italians/japanese.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, more sure way of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner in which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." --- John Maynard Keynes

unfortunately keynes is the creator of the most common school of thought when it comes to economics in this country. it's a scary thought to be sure. and then you have ben bernanke who is a joke. everything he says now is the direct opposite of his position from before his time with the fed.

and stalin killed more russians then hitler did jews. funny no one remembers that.

we already meet 5 of the 10 things outlined in the communist manifesto, and have partial matches to several others.

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

Read the Federalist papers and the writings of our founding fathers including Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin to name but just a few who spoke of these ideas and beliefs.

they are all on my "to read" list. it's funny the light they try to cast our forefathers in. most of the shit you hear about them now is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.

keep on bringing it my friend!


-shake

fully legalized i dont think it will happen not in my lifetime anyways and im only 25

For what its worth and I'm not even trying to pump myself up on a forum. I teach and research political science and economics. I hold a PhD in both subjects with a marketing and organizational management bachelors degree.

After a long career in the entertainment industry, I was involved in a car accident that made it nearly impossible to travel and tour like I used to. Thats when I went back to college and began my grad work.

Keynesian theory came out in the thirties and shortly afterwards, it was debunked by many if not most researchers and social scientists. It was most effective in supporting monetary theory which is what the Fed operates off of. Keynsiean theory is widely accepted by socialists and communists in that one of its basic theories is that only the government is able to repair or change an economy. This is also referred to within command theory economics, commonly known as communism, or top down flow, where the producer or central authority makes the economic choice for the consumer.

Classical theory economics as outlined by Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and considered the father of modern economics supports the idea that the economy is a naturally occurring force, (ie the invisible hand, and so many other ideas...) and that it operates based on a bottom up flow (consumer makes the choice).

The evidence that most fully supports classical theory over command theory, keynsian theory, and monetary theory, is that it has been in effect for naturally for 5000 years originating in the near east or present day Iraq/Iran/Isreal.

So look at the information and one can easily see (with an open mind of course) that since the late 20's and early 30's, the U.S. has not had a true capitalistic system in place and the fed, along with a socialist congress (look up who has controlled the congress for the past 80 years for the most part) and that will outline why we have been weakening since our government decided it knew what was better for us than the people do for themselves. That was mistake number one.

I believe also in the switching masters theory or switching plantations theory, which many people are knee jerked into calling racist, however it outlines, explains and proves how and why black americans are more prone to support the democratic party. And it is a powerful weapon in todays modern political arena.

Currently, I am researching and writing a textbook for the college level classroom that explains, outlines, and proves how politics and economics are misused together in concert, misrepresented, and manipulated to force (the force theory of modern economics) people to choose the least bad choice with historical events and facts that reference thousands of years and culminates with the most recent Presidential election when a non citizen was elected by the media and emotion rather than issue and common sense, and how it will take a revolution to overcome this.

Last but not least; for the record: I'm not a democrat, not a republican, not an anarchist, not a hater of anyone, but a true patriot and libertarian who has served his country, loves his country, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and wants the best for everyone with regard to the afore mentioned.

Oh, and besides being a fan of smoking herb which I almost always refer to as Gods gift to us all, I LOVE firearms, knives, archery, the great outdoors, the female form, and musclecars.

My biggest mistake of all time as far as I'm concerned; In the late eighties I actually dated Janeane Garafalo for about three months before I decided she was a fucking retard and not worth the time. This was before she became outspoken and even more so an idiot.

So given all the information, perspectives, history, theories, ideas, ideology's, etc... Does anyone think Obama will legalize or decriminilize marijuana?

I don't think he or the congress will make a move to do so until more states vote to extert their rights and make a vote to do so. Only then will the federal government change the law to avoid confrontation when one case by a federal agency goes to the supreme court of either that state or the U.S. Supreme court and is struck down. That will set a precedent and eliminate the federal law altogether. A smart fed govt would see the cost of enforcement to be a waste and cancel any funding and put it in a more intelligent place like perhaps maybe education, extra pay for our troops and quality services to them and our vets, and focusing on other cost cutting ways to let the people be represented honestly, like maybe term limits, limitations on candidate budgets so everyone can have a say or chance instead of just the elite (the wealthy) in an election, protecting our borders, illegal immigration, etc....

Originally Posted by headshake

i love my country too, i just hate my govt.



i guarantee you they know nothing of the declaration of independence.



the second amendment has already been to the supreme court and upheld. they tried to outlaw handguns in washington dc. they tried to argue that the second amendment was for militias as pertaining to fighting off the britts. a militia is merely a group of ordinary citizens banded together fighting a common enemy, right?

part of the problem is ELECTED judges!

check out my quote in the sig from the dec. of ind. i feel ya 1000% percent here!



a lot of our power being removed stems from the federal reserve act of 1933. when citizens had to turnover their gold to the govt. to establish the fed reserve (which is the biggest scam in the history of mankind). they aren't a govt. entity and they charge the U.S. $.10 on the dollar to print up out currecny.....the only currency accepted in the U.S. mind you.....and all in the name of our protection from americans trading gold with the germans/italians/japanese.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, more sure way of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner in which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." --- John Maynard Keynes

unfortunately keynes is the creator of the most common school of thought when it comes to economics in this country. it's a scary thought to be sure. and then you have ben bernanke who is a joke. everything he says now is the direct opposite of his position from before his time with the fed.

and stalin killed more russians then hitler did jews. funny no one remembers that.

we already meet 5 of the 10 things outlined in the communist manifesto, and have partial matches to several others.



they are all on my "to read" list. it's funny the light they try to cast our forefathers in. most of the shit you hear about them now is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.

keep on bringing it my friend!


-shake

If you want a more modern perspective than Adam Smith and the founding fathers of our country, check out anything by F.A. Hayek or Ludwig von Mises. I'm sure our resident comedian/economist, phunnyman, would concur. These men are the fathers of the branch of economics known as the "Austrian" school, and do probably the best job of explaining why "top-down" control economies don't work. Human Action by Mises is the seminal work on the subject.

Prohibition is just one very small part of a much larger problem. FDR's appointees to the Supreme Court, and numerous ones thereafter, have construed the 9th and 10th amendments to our constitution so as to render them dead letters, when in fact they are probably the most important ones, and would have prevented the continual and progressively worse usurpation of power by the federal government vis-a-vis the states and you and I that has been going on since the depression (not this one but the last). And no, Obama will NEVER EVEN ADDRESS the legalization of marijuana. To do so would far too great an admission of government fallibility for him to ever countenance.

Originally Posted by senorx12562

If you want a more modern perspective than Adam Smith and the founding fathers of our country, check out anything by F.A. Hayek or Ludwig von Mises. I'm sure our resident comedian/economist, phunnyman, would concur. These men are the fathers of the branch of economics known as the "Austrian" school, and do probably the best job of explaining why "top-down" control economies don't work. Human Action by Mises is the seminal work on the subject.

Prohibition is just one very small part of a much larger problem. FDR's appointees to the Supreme Court, and numerous ones thereafter, have construed the 9th and 10th amendments to our constitution so as to render them dead letters, when in fact they are probably the most important ones, and would have prevented the continual and progressively worse usurpation of power by the federal government vis-a-vis the states and you and I that has been going on since the depression (not this one but the last). And no, Obama will NEVER EVEN ADDRESS the legalization of marijuana. To do so would far too great an admission of government fallibility for him to ever countenance.

my uncle actually turned me on to Mises and the austiran school of economic thought.


phunnyman, i won't sit here and pretend to be something that i'm not. i'm someone who is just now starting to poke his nose into this arena after "finding myself" after growing up. i have a lot of learning to do, but have the desire to learn it all and to make great change.

i too served my country, love my country and look forward to creating a revolution in my country. i love the constitution and the bill of rights and if i had to put a label on myself would consider myself a libertarian as well.

i think we should go back to the constitution and bill of rights and keep a very small, minimally imposing federal govt and let the states run themselves like you suggest.

i think it might take a state (texas or the original 13) to succeed from the union before the federal govt will take notice. just my opinion here. i know there are groups who are trying for this.

thanks to both of you for all the brain food! keep on posting and i'll keep reading.

i think it's hilarious that america was basically founded on the quote in my sig from the declaration of independence. that same quote will be the rallying cry for revolution yet the ones that revolt will be labeled treasonous traitors. our country has come to a sad en passe.


**on a side note**

does anyone else find it hilarious that the dems are now hoping to have a health care bill done by feb, after obama wanted it done by last march.....and then december........ROTFLMAO!!!


-shake

Both Headshake and Senor are quite dead on in their assessments on the current administration position on this subject which will set that precedent for many other rights that have been trampled and upon the Austrian school of thought regarding economics.

I'm far from an expert on the subject with only the past decade of my life being focused upon the subject of economics and working towards the ability to serve as a social scientist in something I truly enjoy and think that most are ignorant of and an up to date understanding needs to be shared, there is a wide, wide array of information, fact, and theory to be applied and studied thoroughly.

Let's pose this question in regard to the original post for some thought; With our current government and Presidential administration, why would it be advantageous or not to address the prospect of legalization/decriminalization at this time and what do you think the outcome would most likely be? How could it be a positive or a negative for this administration? If you were Obama today, how would you address or not the legalization/decriminalization?

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

Both Headshake and Senor are quite dead on in their assessments on the current administration position on this subject which will set that precedent for many other rights that have been trampled and upon the Austrian school of thought regarding economics.

I'm far from an expert on the subject with only the past decade of my life being focused upon the subject of economics and working towards the ability to serve as a social scientist in something I truly enjoy and think that most are ignorant of and an up to date understanding needs to be shared, there is a wide, wide array of information, fact, and theory to be applied and studied thoroughly.

Let's pose this question in regard to the original post for some thought; With our current government and Presidential administration, why would it be advantageous or not to address the prospect of legalization/decriminalization at this time and what do you think the outcome would most likely be? How could it be a positive or a negative for this administration? If you were Obama today, how would you address or not the legalization/decriminalization?

If I wanted to be re-elected I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole on any side of the question. The core groups on either side are too small (for now) to justify potentially pissing off the middle. From a political perspective (clearly the only one Obama, or, to be fair, most of the rest of them from either side of the aisle care about) the danger far outweighs anything to potentially be gained.

Originally Posted by senorx12562

If I wanted to be re-elected I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole on any side of the question. The core groups on either side are too small (for now) to justify potentially pissing off the middle. From a political perspective (clearly the only one Obama, or, to be fair, most of the rest of them from either side of the aisle care about) the danger far outweighs anything to potentially be gained.

i don't think obama has any worries about re-election as it won't happen (IMO). his approval rates keep sleeping, his deadlines keep not being met and he's not proactive on anything and wavers on issues. i just don't see there being a question about it. sad thing is that he has messed up other minorities chances for getting elected to pres (agian, IMO).

Originally Posted by Phunnyman

Let's pose this question in regard to the original post for some thought; With our current government and Presidential administration, why would it be advantageous or not to address the prospect of legalization/decriminalization at this time and what do you think the outcome would most likely be? How could it be a positive or a negative for this administration? If you were Obama today, how would you address or not the legalization/decriminalization?

it would be advantageous to legalize MJ for numerous reasons. first things first, in 2008 847,864 persons were arrested for mj (or 49.8% of ALL drug related arrests!). of those 847,864, 89% (or 754,224 Americans) were charged with possession only. the remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.

not to mention that the numbers are skewed because of those 11% some are MMJ patients! (it would be interesting to know the true numbers here!)


secondly, legalizing MJ would obviously help alleviate the strain on a prison system that is ridiculous to begin with. as of december 31, 2008 the US imprisons 754 inmates per 100,000 citizens. the US has the highest documented prison and jail population IN THE WORLD!

according to the US bureau of justice statistics (BJS): "In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."

betwen 2.3 and 2.4 MILLION people were in prison or jail in 2008.

"The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million inmates, while having four times the population, thus having only about 18% of the US incarceration rate"

those are some scary statistics there.

thirdly, the legalization of would take away some of the power (profits) of pharmaceutical companies. people would actually be able to afford their medication. and seeing as MJ has many medicinal properties, this would help immensely.

fourthly, the taxation of MJ, whether medicinally or otherwise) would generate revenue for a burdened economy. this has the potential to help lower, insurance rates, increase employment (the US is sitting at about 10% unemployment, with 7% of the population saying that they can't work enough or have given up looking) as well as possibly help fund numerous other programs whether it be social security, insurance or alternative fuels (the list is endless here).

one more interesting note, if they do legalize MJ they could/would/should legalize hemp. this would also create jobs and revenue seeing as all of the hemp used in this country is imported (mostly from spain).

**NOT TO MENTION THIS IS A TRUE GREEN PRODUCT**

so politicians need to quit worrying about being re-elected and put AMERICAS BEST INTERESTS AT HEART! perhaps changing the system from the inside is just what they need to get re-elected. take the power from the religious (which is funny seeing as most of our forefathers were pagans) and other groups and put the choice of americans back into the hands of said americans.

and finally, even though "the war on drugs is over" it would free up funds that are being wasted trying to cure this "medical addiction" with prison time and the like. we could put all the billions they waste here to good use as well.

check out the shafer commission. this was the commission that was used in the early '70s when the govt was trying to draft the Controlled Substance Act (since timothy leary took the marijuana tax act of 1937 to the supreme court and had it overturned for being unconstitutional). it was commissioned by richard nixon. in the report there are a couple of great quotes that i will leave you with.....

"[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."

"While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers have a responsibility to consider our constitutional heritage when framing public policy. Regardless of whether or not the courts would overturn a prohibition of possession of marihuana for personal use in the home, we are necessarily influenced by the high place traditionally occupied by the value of privacy in our constitutional scheme."



as far as the cons, i can think of none!


-shake

No. I doubt Obama will legalize it. He said he won't waste his political capital on it.
Pharmaceutical companys have to much power right now and stand to lose billions of dollars due to people self medicating for various reasons. In my opinion.

I hope I'm wrong.

High Canna,

You're right about the power of the med company's, the threat from Gods gift to us is that it is a naturally occurring organic plant that has been used for thousands of years to alleviate so many things that the med company's make their living off of.

I don't think he will either, I think its gonna take state level action to actively prevent the fed agencies from violating citizens rights, the redirection of tax monies, and the increase in the coffers for any state to see what not only the best choice is but what the right choice is. Then we will see it make its way through the house and senate....