Taking the Pro-Pot Position (Because Somebody Has To)

[SteppingRazor]

<snip>

Once again, the Obama administration has greeted this question with an out-and-out rejection, with no reasoning underlying their position. Let's ignore for a moment that Obama's answer, in and of itself, is deeply wrong and ill-informed; moving from zero taxes on weed to any taxes is obviously an increase in revenue, not to mention the shift of growing and supplying jobs from the black market to legitimacy, which means more revenue in income taxes and more jobs.

Now, couple this with the millions, if not billions, of dollars that would be saved without the government being responsible for the care and feeding of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. From 1965 through the election of Barack Obama, our government arrested 20 million people for possession of marijuana. That, folks, is a lot of stoners.

<snip>

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/taking-the-pro-pot-positi_b_179653.html

[CreekDog]

1. but first can we get something to eat?

:smoke: :hide:

[SteppingRazor]

7. Yes. You may have nachos.

;)

[WeDidIt]

2. It will take a vast amount of political capital to get pot legalized.

Step one, he can stop the federal raids on compassion clubs.

Step 2, move towards decriminalization.

The final step is legalization. We're at least twenty years out from there.

[Deep13]

3. I think it is simply a question of ...

...only wanting to tackle one huge political issue at a time.

[SteppingRazor]

5. I see. So, you're one of those that thinks the president shouldn't be handling healthcare ...

and green energy along with the economy?

:hide:

[Deep13]

8. I didn't say that and you know it. nt

[SteppingRazor]

9. I know, I know. Just messin' with ya.

Point being, though, that I don't think that "it's too big an issue" is necessarily an excuse. I do agree somewhat with the poster above, who said it would take huge amounts of political capital.

I don't blame Obama for being against legalization. I just wish he'd say why, especially in light of the fact that he has now tried this straight-to-the-public style of Q&A twice, and both times this has been a major issue for people.

[county worker]

13. ?????????????????????????????

[county worker]

4. What is behind the desire to legalize pot?

I mean is it the desire to get high? Other than for medical purposes what else is it used for?

I know we have a nation of people who like to get an alcohol buzz now and again. But do those who want to legalize pot want to get high without the fear of being arrested?

Just my opinion but I think one of the reasons people are against legalization is the picture of a bunch of people getting stoned daily. I know they already do but why don't you come out of the closet and smoke in the open. Civil disobedience. Go to jail by the thousands, clog the courts, get real!

[unpossibles]

10. what is behind it? All sorts of things, from wanting to get high without fear of losing your life

and everything associated with it, to wanting civil freedoms to do something which is less harmful than most legal substances, to the strong economic & green arguments for it.

There are all sorts of reasons.

[Q3JR4]

19. Not to mention the fact that

in a free society the government shouldn't be telling an adult what he/she can put in their bodies especially if the drug you want to use is less damaging than other, legal, drugs.

Q3JR4
Pot head in training.

[Deep13]

11. The cost of enforcement does not seem to be worth it.

Weed is a lot less harmful than many drugs that are legal, namely alcohol, nicotine and caffeen. So there is a desire for legal consistency there.

It also has some positive benefits in relieving the agony of cancer treatment.

And if people do just want to get high, so what?

[county worker]

14. I used to get high and sold pot in the 80's. I'm just asking a question no judgments

I stopped getting high when I stopped drinking. More than 20 years ago. As long as your not hurting anyone have a blast.

[Fresh_Start]

15. Even if pot is legalized

companies will still be able to decline to hire you for pot use

you will still be able to lose the privilege of driving

you will still be able to enjoy the consequences of higher insurance costs

you will still be able to be found guilty of being under the influence

you might still be able to be found guilty of drug trafficking since illegal transfers of legal drugs are still criminal offenses

[county worker]

18. I would think the same rational for using alcohol would apply.

If you were constantly stoned on the job I would expect some employer might want to fire you. I use to work at a place where guys would get stoned at work. It just meant the rest of us did more work.

[Fresh_Start]

22. yes, it will be at least as stringent as alcohol

and it escapes me how people can imagine that they will be free to indulge
Instead of outsourcing our jobs, lets outsource our drug habits.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Years ago they used to have "smoke ins"

A bunch of people would go one place, toke up, and dare the cops to arrest them. I don't know how effective they were. :shrug:

[elleng]

6. Deeply wrong and ill informed?

A bit of an overstatement, isn't it?

[tridim]

12. Obama chess.. Notice how MSNBC and online sites are all talking about this issue non-stop today?

Obama's answer created the debate! Maybe that was the goal. :)

[EFerrari]

16. Imho, what happened today is simpler than that.

Obama asked for questions.

People trust him enough to be engaged and submitted the pot question.

He laughed at them.

That was a very bad idea.

[msongs]

17. god created pot, people created religion. nt

[Dukkha]

20. it just needs the emphasis that legalization =/= pro pot

If you're against it then don't use it. But the criminalization has cause tremendous harm to society and the violence is only going to get worse and it's an unnecessary burden on the overcrowded penal system with all the non-violent offenders put away.