Obama’s Cowardly Non-Stand On Marijuana
I wrote the other day that support for the legalization of marijuana is higher than support for Barack Obama with nearly half of all adult Americans in favor of ending the criminal penalties for personal use that further overcrowd our prisons.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Shortly after taking office, the new president — himself a pot smoker as a teenager — asked that Americans tell him what was on their minds. Of the top 10 responses he received, five concerned easing penalties for marijuana use. Which makes the boilerplate response of the National Institutes of Health to renewed calls for legalization so damned depressing.
As it has for decades, the NIH continues to assert that marijuana is bad, bad, bad. But in its latest statement it says that marijuana “is associated” with addiction, respiratory disease and cognitive impairment. Note that it is careful to not say that the evil weed is addictive because its scientists know that it is not, tens of millions of people who grew up in the 1960s know it is not, and it is some of those very people — now governors and legislators — who are calling for legalization.
Don’t expect the administration to have a serious debate about the issue as it has had over health-care reform and the war in Afghanistan, to name two biggies. It will continue to duck an issue where it would have a cede the high ground, and if that ain’t cowardly then I don’t know what is.
11 Responses to “Obama’s Cowardly Non-Stand On Marijuana”
Meanwhile, tobacco and alcohol remain legal and as easy to procure as oxygen and water. We’re all familiar with the legacies of those two famous drugs eh? And I saw this story this morning about the wonderful world of legal painkillers:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/prescription-painkiller-overdose-deaths-rise/story?id=14858375
All serve as contrast to the way MJ continues to be treated, how the people who use it continue to be scapegoated, locked up, and are victimized by routinely abused assett forfeiture laws. The will of “the people” be damned. More “democracy” at work..
Bravo, Shaun, you show that you can use attack words on Dems as well as Reps.
Politically correct, yes, cowardly, no.
In a perfect world, we shouldn’t be adding another easily gotten (after, legalization) substance to addle our brains and possibly our health. Alcohol and cigs are enough to do that. But, in our real world, criminal control of pot, certainly causes law and order problems. I’m not sure of my own opinion, pro or con, but I wonder if pot is legal, will that increase the flow of cocaine, meth, heroin, and other drugs to fill the vacuum. Just askin.
dduck:
A fair question. The best answer I can provide is that study after study after study shows that marijuana is not a gateway drug to harder stuff. It is not unreasonable to presume that if personal possession is legalized this will not lead to a spike in the use of — and addiction — to cocaine, heroin, and so on.
After all, there’s nothing important he ought to be working on.
(the same apparent attitude in 2009 and 2010 about the economy)
Shaun, I was not clear. I was referring to the marketing and sales arms of the cartels. They are running a business and closing down a revenue stream means they need to fill the gap.
dduck:
My answer remains the same. While closing down or diminishing a revenue stream may be an issue, it does not follow that they will compel more people to do hard drugs.
Shaun, you were asleep during marketing 101.
I know you are not a financial journalist, so let me explain my theory. 1. revenue down
2. sell our other products, C, M, H, other drugs at a low introductory price. 3. raise prices eventually 4. you have replaced the lost revenue stream.
And, you are probably aware that there are tons of prescription drugs out there. The cartels have money, labs and manufacturing facilities. I’d be surprised if they aren’t a;ready into prescription drugs.
dduck wrote:
In a “perfect” world, no American would advocate state-sanction violence against people whose only crime is that they have smoked cannabis–that is exactly what support for cannabis prohibition amounts to.
NR, I’m not getting what you are trying to say, sorry.
dduck wrote:
I have myself to blame for leaving such a terse response. I’ve written about this subject dozens of times in the past, but I can hardly expect everyone to have memorized every article/comment that I’ve posted over the last 6 or 7 years.
So allow me to offer a better explanation.
Let’s say that an individual opposes the act of smoking and/or possessing cannabis. Let’s say that this individual is so adamant in his/her opposition to cannabis smoking and/or possession that he/she personally threatens to commit violence against any other individual guilty of smoking or possessing cannabis. I think that every single person at TMV would agree with me that this individual’s act of threatening violence against a cannabis user constitutes aggression.
Of course, the number of Americans who actually go out and personally threaten (or commit) violence against cannabis users is so incredibly small that–off hand–I cannot think of a single example outside of law enforcement.
The fact of the matter is that most people who have a problem with cannabis use don’t actually threaten (or commit) violence against cannabis users. Some decide that despite their own opposition to cannabis use, the government has no place in dictating to individuals whether they can use cannabis or not. Others believe that while it’s not their place to threaten violence against cannabis users, government absolutely should do something to prevent people from smoking or possessing cannabis.
It’s this latter group–those who support cannabis prohibition–whom I accuse of advocating “state-sanctioned violence” against cannabis users.
We must understand what cannabis prohibition. Cannabis prohibition is a set of laws that prohibit the use or possession of cannabis. Laws are not suggestions; they are government edicts backed by the threat of violence. All anti-cannabis laws come with some sort of punishment–whether it is an arrest, a fine, or in some cases (depending on the amount of cannabis found) even imprisonment.
If an individual support cannabis prohibition, he/she might not personally be threatening cannabis users with violence; however, he/she most certain is advocating that the government use violence on his/her behalf. The fact that it is the government enacting the violence (instead of the individual oppose to cannabis) might make the action legal, but it doesn’t change the fact that the action constitutes violence.
I don’t know what your own position is an cannabis prohibition, but any individual who advocates the arrest, fining, or imprisonment of a cannabis user is–by definition–advocating state-sanctioned violence against that cannabis user.
And if that cannabis user happens to be a peaceful user of cannabis (which is the case for the overwhelming majority of cannabis users), then the individual advocating the arrest, fining, or imprisonment of the cannabis user is guilty of advocating not only state-sanctioned violence against the cannabis users but aggression as well (aggression being defined as the initiation of violence against an individual who has not harmed or violated the rights of another individual).
I hope that clarifies my previous assertion.
Oh…………………………, thanks.