Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
February 2010
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Archives

Authors

Once again, marijuana is a non-issue

From MPP

YouTube’s CitizenTube forum concluded today with questions about ending marijuana prohibition receiving the most votes, by far. Yet, the questions about marijuana prohibition were not presented to the president this afternoon.

So many people wasting their time asking questions about marijuana policy. Don’t they know that it has no importance? That they should just shut up and follow what the government tells them?

Why should anyone expect that a President should be required to answer questions about marijuana? It’s not like it affects anybody’s life.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

26 comments to Once again, marijuana is a non-issue

  • Dudeman

    I’d just encourage your readers to let Youtube know what they think of their process:

    http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/02/your-questions-for-president-obama.html#comments

  • Kant

    Pete, I disagree.

    Yes it is frustrating that it was even addressed, although unsurprising. However it is symbolic. It’s another thing we can point to for evidence that this is no longer a fringe issue and that it’s politically necessary to address it.

  • Hmmm… I never know how obvious I need to make my sarcasm. I thought I had it covered.

  • Paul

    Politicians ought to know a winning issue when they see one.

    This sort of thing is really annoying to likely Democratic voters, many of whom aren’t getting a thing they were hoping for when they voted for Obama and this congress.

    Besides bankers, Goldman Sachs, and big corporate bailouts, has anybody got what they wanted from Obama? Even a little?

  • D.S.

    Pete… Paul… all we need is a Mary 😛

    I wasn’t really expecting too much. YouTube is great but official actions like this are too grand-scale to escape the censorship of the feds. One day, perhaps…

  • Shap

    Incredibly disappointing. The first day it was up, most of the categories had a marijuana-related question at or near the top. The next day, all the marijuana-related questions were moved to the “other” category regardless of their connection to the topic headings and at that point I knew there would be no way it would be asked regardless of its popularity. I will never understand why the pro-lifers are given legitimacy by the mainstream media when 70 percent of the American public says that Roe v. Wade should be upheld while the same mainstream media wouldn’t touch the marijuana law reform issue that currently has at least 46 percent support. Ughhh

  • Duncan

    Maybe we should try a little misdirection, and ask him about cannabis instead of merryjewanna.

    Canna-what?

  • claygooding

    Screw them,grow your own. Eventually,when everyone in America is either in prison or a guard in one,and this government goes belly up building more prisons,maybe the next government of this country won’t be so ignorant.

  • kaptinemo

    Of course, this is just more ‘manufacturing consent’ in operation. The attempt to create a public reality through filtration of those elements of it that don’t fit a particular mindset…or agenda.

    But…the harder this Administration tries to ignore the issue, the more noticeable their efforts in doing so will get. And that, in itself, could become embarrassing. Particularly when the ‘progressive’ base feels betrayed by the lack of accomplishment on its’ cherished agenda, and begins to see the present Administration as being a sham.

    No matter. We’re winning on the local and State levels. Regardless of how the Feds seek to ignore this lynch-pin of the criminal justice system’s gross inequalities and failures, we must drive on with more resolution than before. No let up. No breather. Keep at them. Again and again and again. Water wears the hardest of rocks down. We must be that water.

    And with the next turn of the economic screw, that water could become a flood. Recall that many people within the anti-Prohibition movement of the mid-1920’s thought that they wouldn’t win until the 1940’s, yet all of a sudden, it was over in 1933. We’re in the same position. The end of cannabis prohibition could come suddenly if we keep doing what we’re doing. As Charles Fort once put it, ‘it only steam engines when it’s steam engine time’.

    It’s ‘steam engine time’ for cannabis law reform.

    The Feds are being outnumbered and encircled by the States. Who, if only from a monetary rationale, will be forced to jettison cannabis prohibition. And that rationale will eventually govern Fed actions, as well. The writing is on the wall, as it always has been, but now there’s less smoke and mirrors between the wall and those who need to read what’s printed on it. They wish it wasn’t so, as they were largely responsible for that smoke and those mirrors, but eventually circumstances will cause them to have their chins grabbed, their faces pointed at that wall and their eyes forced to read what’s been written there. And no amount of ‘manufacturing consent’ by playing this kind of shell game will hide that fact.

  • Serpentio

    I agree, kaptinemo, and would like to add that ending marijuana prohibition has the potential to become a “shoe-in” issue for political candidates on local, state and federal levels. We may see a number of elections where the underdog candidates decide to support cannabis legalization and then win because of it. If a few of these political ostritches pop their heads out of their holes enough to see that supporting the rights, values and demands of their constituents is actually politically beneficial, then maybe a larger portion of the system will see the light.

  • woodbutcher

    This has never been an issue that any politician is woried about because the drug law’s only apply to the tax payers not the tax spenders .There is more than enough evidence to prove this . almost every politician in this country has used or has a family member who uses drug’s look at Jeb Bush’s daughter busted several times for felony amounts of drugs and serves less than a week in jail then back to rehab when any one else in florida would have been doing federal time for the amount of crack she was caught with not once but twice while in a rehab center no less this is just one of dozens of cases but like i said politicians dont care about these laws because they are protected from them as they are from most law’s

  • Once again, anyone still believing Obama is a friend of drug policy reform should change their bong water.

    There are citizen candidates running for office who support drug policy reform, and we should seek them out and give our support. Yes, most are Libertarians and, therefore, come with some awkward baggage. But any candidate that has the courage to openly challenge drug prohibition will find enough supporters to lighten the load of that baggage.

  • ezrydn

    Twice now, the voice of the People has been deleted. I’c consider that a “track record.” I just wonder what method they’ll use to shunt the November vote? It’ll be a little hard to hide that one.

    Who filtered the results? YouTube or the “All The President’s Men?”

  • tint guy

    Unfortunately actions such as these tend to disillusion more voters than they fire up……guess that’s the point,huh? I seriously think that is going to be the net result this administration.

  • permanentilt

    YouTube claims that Obama didn’t see the questions before hand. They seem to have simply decided early not to ask him the most voted on question, hence moving all the questions, regardless their relevance to the subject posted under, to “other”.

    At the previous On-line town hall meeting, he addressed the issue briefly, but the ACTUAL QUESTION voted on was not addressed. The other questions went up on the screen so we could clearly see what was asked before the answer. The marijuana question was just an “Oh yeah and I also heard there were some questions about marijuana helping the economy. Those silly internet stoners…..”

    I absolutely think that the question is one that he doesn’t want to address, but I also think that “his people” are knowingly keeping the questions at a distance. Contacting YouTube saying “If you want Obama, NO MARIJUANA QUESTIONS” and in the other town hall, not even presenting the actual question to him. They clearly do not take the issue seriously, and they think we are stupid. (Ofcourse he could have seen it himself, but I doubt he even looks before hand).

    Kapt is right again, the state fights and local elections are the only places the issue will be addressed. Eventually it will not be ignorable. We just need to make sure the ball is rolling so strong that even if another Ronald and Nancy are elected in 2012 there is no way to derail efforts.

    I am still optimistic, the truth cannot be suppressed forever.

    In a side note, did anyone see the hack-job PBS did on the regulation discussions in Colorado and LA yesterday? Refering to calls for regulation as “the backlash” and never mentioning that dispensaries WANT regulation. And stating:

    “For the past three months, angry residents have gathered in town hall meetings asking politicians to slam the brakes on one of the fastest growing businesses in Colorado.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june10/marijuana_02-01.html

  • truthtechnician

    I hope you’re right Kaptinemo. As Nietzsche wrote, “Everything the state says is a lie.”

  • Cannabis

    Pete, you must remember the <snark> and </snark> tags.

  • iDub

    reminds me of China…

  • kaptinemo

    Friends, I have no crystal ball. All I have is history to guide me. But the same pattern that was evident during alcohol Prohibition is indeed repeating itself.

    Our opponents believe that drug prohibition is immutable, inviolable, set in stone, eternal. They mirror the same sentiments of Texas Senator Morris Sheppard in 1930 when he spoke about alcohol Prohibition: ” “There is as much chance of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment as there is for a humming-bird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail.”‘ 3 short years later, Sheppard and his ilk were in desperate need of ketchup to cover the taste of the crow they were forced to eat.

    This article gives a feel for what it was like for the anti-Prohibition forces, who faced the same problems we do, the same kind of sneering derision that they were engaging in a ‘fool’s errand’. It mirrors the very same sense of almost forlorn hope combined with deep cynicism that we presently must endure…but, endure we will.

    For, history records who had the last laugh. because, like us today, the anti-Prohibitionists had one terrible, implacable, overwhelmingly powerful ally on their hands. That ally could not be scorned, nor could it be suborned. It could not be bribed or arrested and imprisoned on false charges and silenced. Nothing could be done to it, because it wasn’t a living being at all.

    I am referring, to, of course, the economy. And we face the same ‘harsh schoolmaster’ in today’s economic problems. And his ‘hickory switch’ still stings like a MFer when you’re hit with it, as millions have found out and continue to.

    As much as I hate it, it will not be voice of sweet reason but the scream of pinched pennies that will herald the end of drug prohibition…just as it was the last time.

  • snarkles the klown

    I noticed the sarcasm and love it! Sardonic wrath in writing is fun!

  • Just me

    Hey Kaptin, lets pinch that penny til it oozes zinc! and Abe screams uncle! Maybe then Big brother wont act like such big billy badass.

  • As you know, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced legislation regarding marijuana use, H.R. 2835, on June 6, 2009. This legislation would limit the penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Specifically, it would prohibit federal penalties for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for any not-for-profit transfer of marijuana. Possession of more than 100 grams of marijuana, or the transfer of more than 1 gram, would remain illegal. Shortly after its introduction, H.R. 2835 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee. We need to keep up the volume, shout out your representatives. Ask them why H.R. 2835 was buried?
    “Our nation can acknowledge the dangers of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana while still permitting their use. The only logically and morally consistent argument for marijuana prohibition necessitates the criminalization of all harmful recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. We can agree that such an infringement on personal freedoms is as impractical as it is un-American. The time has come to accept that our nation’s attitude toward marijuana has been misguided for generations and that the only rational approach to cannabis is to legalize, regulate and tax it.”

  • Ed Dunkle

    Indeed this is a classic example of self-censorship which is a vital part of manufacturing consent.

    “Do no evil”?? Fuck you, Google.

  • Duncan

    “For the past three months, angry residents have gathered in town hall meetings asking politicians to slam the brakes on one of the fastest growing businesses in Colorado.”

    Well in reality it isn’t an expanding business at all. It’s just that the revenues are now visible as they’re being diverted from the invisible black market onto the books of licensed businesses. Of course that means taxes are being collected, criminals are making less money, etc. All I can figure out is that people are effin’ crazy.

  • kaptinemo

    “For the past three months, angry residents have gathered in town hall meetings asking politicians to slam the brakes on one of the fastest growing businesses in Colorado.”

    Now, I have to ask, which ‘angry residents’? The perennial grumpy-pantsed, proudly ignorant and half-senile old duffers who are always yelling at kids to get off their lawns? The control-freak Linda Taylor types who believe they can micro-monitor ‘the children’ into blissful (and non-existent) safety? Lawmen showing up in town halls in (taxpayer supplied) uniforms to try to intimidate lawmakers? And of course, William S. Burrough’s favorites: …decent church-goin’ women, with their mean, pinched, bitter, evil faces”?

    Those ‘angry residents’?

  • As we all know SB109 passed on Tuesday setting regulations for younger patients and doctors. Thursday in the state capital our senate committee will take public comment so please get out and exercise your free speech if you can on Thursday.