The President talks about drugs

Here’s the section on marijuana, alcohol, and other drugs in the extensive New Yorker interview by David Remnick with President Obama:

When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinion—the legalization of marijuana—he seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. “As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

Is it less dangerous? I asked.

Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”

Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.”

Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.”

He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

Although the President has been extremely disappointing in terms of his actual actions in reforming drug policy, this is a really incredible message for a sitting President to be making (again showing how far we’ve come). Publicly admitting that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol? Obviously true, but not something we expect to hear from the administration.

And while it was presented in the context of ‘slippery slope,’ we actually just heard the President of the United States say that there might be a legitimate argument some day for legal, regulated cocaine or meth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to The President talks about drugs

  1. N.T. Greene says:

    I damn near choked on my drink when I read this.

    DC is sending mixed messages… Seems there is trouble in prohibitionist paradise.

    • Crut says:

      My inner seventeen year old is bouncing off the walls right now. I’m so jealous of my kids getting to see this “Berlin Wall” crumble so early in their lives. And I’m also sad this it’s still going to take a while for this whole thing to be a “normal street” again. I’m reminded of Back to the Future 3, The 300MPH freight train just burst a Presto Log and is gaining speed!

  2. Dano says:

    That is a huge step for a sitting president to even acknowledge the issue, let alone concede that there is a valid discussion on drug policy. Just a few years ago the words were not in the president’s vocabulary.

  3. Pingback: Obama Says Racial Animus Blunts Approval, New Yorker Reports (1) – Businessweek |

  4. Plant Down Babylon says:

    Soooo then, I expect Mr ‘executive order’ President to immediately, by Royal Decree, wipe Cannabis off the schedule of harmful drugs.

    Seriously, can’t Obama merely tell Holder to inform the DEAth to remove it from the list. After all, I don’t see Alcohol anywhere on there.

    How can Obama make that admission, not do anything to remedy the situation, and still remain relevant?

    As Allan would say, this seems to be a big THUD

    • Jean Valjean says:

      When’s he been relevant to anything? He continues to take his orders from his paymasters on Wall Street as we roll into the fourth term of George W. Bush.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      I understand that BHO has the legal authority to make that happen But I’m wondering, Couldn’t Congress re-schedule cannabis back into schedule I if BHO did that? It could end up being a game of table tennis.

      • Plant Down Babylon says:

        Obummer’s in charge of the dea which is overseen by the Justice dept. Aren’t they the dickheads who refuse to acknowledge any positive studies and refused to reschedule even after a lawsuit and one of THEIR OWN judges stated that it’s the ‘SAFEST THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCE KNOWN TO MAN’?

        Sorry bout my run-on sentence.

        The hypocrisy just really makes my blood boil sometimes. Notice how many legislators join us as soon as they know someone who REALLY needs Cannabis medically?!

        It would be nice if they actually did a little research on their own….

        • Duncan20903 says:


          Don’t you understand that if they weren’t such blistering idiots that we would be in this situation in the first place?

          Our #1 problem has always been getting people to actually listen to our arguments. The only thing that is unique about Dr. Gupta is that he’s a respected public figure. Well, not anymore among the hardcore prohibitionist but the point is that he presumed that the prohibitionist parasites weren’t professional confidence artists and that their sycophants weren’t simple minded dupes. The real shame of it is that people have a right to trust public officials when it comes to scientific research and that trust has been betrayed. I think that it’s genuinely difficult for any human being to admit that he’s been played for a chump. When it’s done by people who owe the public a duty of honesty it just makes it more difficult. Why did it take so many years for Bernie Madoff to get caught? The authorities were presented with the evidence of his pyramid scheme in 2001 yet the only reason he was caught was because the market collapsed which caused his pyramid to do the same.

          I guess that I think that people played for chumps by people that owe them a duty of honesty have nothing to be ashamed of. At least until they’re presented with the evidence. If they keep defending the people who played them after that then they really are chumps. That still doesn’t seem to matter to the marks.

          Has anyone ever heard that the one of the most frequently perpetrated confidence game has the con man offering to make whole people who have been played for chumps **quietly**?

  5. Servetus says:

    At least Obama is paying attention. And he’s consigned himself to the inevitability of legalization: “…it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.” It may be the first time a sitting US president enunciated the retreat of prohibitionist troops from the front lines of the drug war. If so, it’s a landmark statement.

    Still missing is the signing of the surrender papers. These may need to wait until we take Washington, D.C. It would great if the signing ceremony was held at the site where Lee surrendered to Grant.

  6. claygooding says:

    He has seen Dr Gupta’s Special report and he ignores the hypocrisy of Schedule 1,,that is one cold son of a bitch.

  7. claygooding says:

    Christie is going down in flames,,,please,,no cheering

  8. darkcycle says:

    big news. This is really unprecedented. So rather than launch off topic immediately, I’d like to direct the Couch’s attention to my (upcoming) post on the previous thread…

  9. Jean Valjean says:

    “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.”

    See what he did there? There’s no racism in the way the drug war is fought…. it’s all about black and Latino kids not being able to afford lawyers.

  10. Hah! I got to tell Allan this one. I think my drug policy IQ is rising! Of course he said “Pete will have it posted.” He’s pretty smart for an old guy. He’s also a mighty fine photographer and a not too bad gardener. We just sampled some of his produce…

    So will Obama’s statement change anything?

  11. Francis says:

    When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity.

    Well, it was a spool of cautious something anyway.

    What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities.

    Oh yes. Clearly. If only he were in some kind of position of power that would allow him to actually do something about it.

    As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case.”

    Yes, he very nimbly destroyed that strawman.

    He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

    I call this the “gateway freedom” argument: “if we stop arresting and caging Americans for possessing a plant, who knows what other freedoms they’ll want us to restore next?” Oh, and obviously we don’t want people using “finely calibrated doses” of drugs that won’t kill them or rot their teeth. Much better that they continue to use black market drugs of uncertain potency and purity with horrific and frequently deadly consequences.

    • allan says:

      atta boy Francis…

      Ok, my query couchmates is – will this soft admission lead to more pressure from the media to talk about the issue? I’m certain the prohibs will respond as usual (go team!) leading me to again wonder how folks with their heads so far up their asses manage to stick bothe feet in their mouths. And if our side isn’t on this like ants at a picnic then I am (as Miss Appleseed poimts out) getting old.

      And aloha Plant Down Babylon, yes, this is a definite


      • claygooding says:

        I am watching Fox to see what Bill has to say and the rest of the Obama haters,,how they treat this will keep it fired up I think,,jeez,,I hope my brain can take this….

        • Crut says:

          I don’t understand why you would willingly subject yourself to that kind of torture. You know exactly what to expect from those types, so just let them rile their own base out of ignorance. They must not have any feelings left in their feet that they keep on shooting.

        • claygooding says:

          Don’t you know all marijuana users are masochists,,if they will build more prisons we will come,,over forur decades of faithful docile non-violence and we all know the “position”.

        • Crut says:

          Hah! Speak for yourself!

          I’m sorry that so many know the “position”, but we’ve collectively taken our licks, and now it’s time to turn the whip on the master.

          I’m 70 pounds lighter since first starting to consume cannabis at the ripe age of 30 over 5 years ago. Is that correlation or causation? So much for falling slave to the munchies and sitting on the couch…

        • claygooding says:

          I am 65 and with over 40 years of use and I weigh about 270,,due to COPD I can no longer force my opinion on people in the manner I was accustomed to at 35,,,unless they get close enough I don’t have to chase them.

  12. Will Obama’s statement change anything?

    Talk is cheap.

    I see what he is doing with the NSA (for example). As little as possible. Support big government while placating the voters. A band aid here, and a nice word of comfort there, for the injured. Don’t worry, it will all be ok. Big Brother will take care of everything. What Jim Crow? Yes, radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities disturbs him. They should. How disturbed is he? He’s rich now. I am sure he has plenty of time to think about it. Interesting premise that the drug war might be class and racially structured. Hmm…

    • claygooding says:

      There ain’t no drug war on his street. Ain’t none of his friends kids going to jail,,,,what drug war?

  13. O. B. Server says:

    re: “If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

    “If somebody says…”

    Um, like, your doctor?

    “We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth”

    see: Desoxyn

    “… are we …”


    “O.K. with that?”

    “We” already are … Desoxyn is an FDA -approved, doctor -proscribed finely calibrated dose of meth, medicine for various aliments (ADHD, etc.).

    re: “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time…”

    Oh boy – how do we politician-parse this puppy? “Long” stretches are gauche – but short stretches of jail time for pot is hunky dory?

    • N.T. Greene says:

      You can get a fine mixture of amphetamine salts for losing focus in school!

      It’s not even that hard.

  14. DdC says:

    Ganja, Still Less deadly Than Pen Caps.jpg

    Annual Deaths.jpg
    Ganja. Safer Than Peanuts

    Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol ecp
    ☮This is the Brain of Incremental Retardation…
    ☮It Is Immoral to Cage Humans for Smoking Marijuana
    ☮As the Last Denialist’ Cling to the Stinking Sinking WoD Bullship.
    ☮Possibly the most-studied substance on the planet
    ☮58% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana
    ☮Cannabis Users Are Safer Drivers Than Non-Users
    ☮Ganja safer than not toking..
    ☮Cannabis less harmful than aspirin
    ☮Cannabis Less Risky Than Alcohol/Tobacco, Says Report
    ☮One of marijuana’s greatest advantages is remarkable safety
    ☮Study Finds Compounds in Cannabis Fight Leukemia,
    Kill Cancer Cells

    • DdC says:

      Obama laments racial disparities in weed arrests; documented in ACLU report The War on Marijuana in Black and White

    • DdC says:

      Neill Franklin ‏@NeillFranklin
      OK Mr. President, your getting there.
      Just a little further to ending prohibition.

      Matt Heenan ‏@propensity The Mirror:
      Barack Obama says smoking cannabis is safer than drinking alcohol but tells his daughters it’s a bad idea

      Ethan Nadelmann ‏@ethannadelmann
      Pres. Obama, in New Yorker Mag intrvw, says the marijuana legalization laws in CO & WA are important. That’s major!

      Ethan Nadelmann ‏@ethannadelmann
      Indeed what’s remarkable about Obama’s comment is that he sort of endorses mj legalization before almost any guv or senator has done so.

      Michael Skolnik ‏@MichaelSkolnik
      In a new New Yorker interview, Obama says marijuana “no more dangerous than alcohol.”

      edward perkins ‏@wuperkins
      @DanRiffle @BarackObama We are going to need a lot more than this. Folks are dying out here. End this racist war on drugs. #newjimcrow

      Veteran Support Page ‏@Follow4Vets
      @BarackObama Everyone please follow @SKSpeedKills And use hashtag #Follow4vets please do it for deployed troops!

      @TransformDrugs‏@DrugPolicyNews@InquisitionNews@Cannavestor1@JustSayNow The Independent (Yahoo)
      Pres Obama: Pot ‘a vice’ but
      No More Dangerous Than Alcohol
      Obama Calls New Laws Legalizing Marijuana in CO & WA ‘Important’

  15. B. Snow says:

    He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise.

    “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound.

    And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues.

    If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that?

    If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

    That is the most RIDICULOUS – “Slippery Slope” – argument/layout I’ve ever seen!
    On let’s call it = “theoretical paper”, I can see how that “logic” or “logical premise” might sound legitimate.
    But, does anyone REALLY believe we would do that?

    Seriously we’ve just taken 40-70 years to get to this particular, *theoretical* ‘slippery slope’ – How the heck does he get to “a negotiated dose of cocaine” OR even further “a finely calibrated dose of meth” from there?

    That’s stretching the definition of slippery slope by a damn sight… And, even assuming that is true or plausible = I.E. that people come up with a “safe dose” of cocaine or speed, AND then advocate for the legality of said products, I’d be okay with that…

    YES – MR. PRESIDENT, Take me to this ludicrous ‘slippery slope’ of yours, I’ll face it head-on… However horribly implausible, silly, or otherwise-disjointed as it may be.

    IMHO, That’s much more like a “slippery roller-coaster” or something – But whatever, I’ll be your risk-taker “Call Me Reckless…”
    Now, *If it were up to me* I’d rather “just sit on this couch till I’m 86”
    But if we -MUST- use your ‘logical’ premise, okay.

    Hell, I don’t even drink anymore = BUT, if you’ve got “safe doses” of coke & speed or just about anything else you wanna pull out of said theoretical thin air, well okay then
    ‘I’m your Huckleberry…’

  16. Tony Aroma says:

    Talk’s cheap. Remember, this is the president who, as a candidate, said he believed in the feds not interfering with state legal mmj. What he actually did was the exact opposite. So even this reasonable-sounding talk is totally worthless if it’s not accompanied by some action to support it. I’m not holding my breath.

    Also, why do people think if other, hard drugs are legalized, they’ll be sold in every corner store? You’d think the president would be aware of countries like Switzerland, where heroin is legal (mj is not). It’s not sold in stores or anywhere else. Legality just means you don’t go to jail for using the drug, and you can get a prescription for a safe and inexpensive supply if you’re an addict.

  17. Francis says:

    Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

    What’s with that stupid qualifier? Is he suggesting that cannabis might be more dangerous than alcohol in terms of its impact on the people around the individual consumer? You know, because of cannabis’ tendency to make its users violent and the fact that it plays a contributing role in nearly 40% of traffic fatalities? Oh wait, that’s booze.

    • Crut says:

      Translation: He’s only willing to take baby steps into the water to test it.

      I learned early on that the best way into a chilly pool is to just jump and enjoy that “infinite moment” of weightlessness before the inevitable splash. You’re going to get wet anyways, just get it over with.

      • primus says:

        Along the same lines: A politician will be criticized no matter which way he leans. If he does the ‘right thing’ and legalizes, he will be criticized by those who favor the status quo. If he does the wrong thing and lets things carry on, lets his underlings decide, lets the old farts carry the day, he will be criticized by we who favor change. Seeing as he will be criticized no matter what, there is no advantage to letting the status remain quo. In addition, it will be better to be seen in the rear view mirror of history as having done the right thing than to be viewed as an incompetent. Don’t you think?

  18. kaptinemo says:

    The pressure from above is finally meeting an (increasingly) equal – and soon to be greater – pressure from below. And President Choom is smack in the middle.

    The pressure from his bankster masters to maintain the highly profitable gravy train called prohibition is meeting increasing resistance from the electorate in the form of reformer initiatives being passed in State after State.

    The fig leaf used to cover the narco-syndacilsm that is the foundation of the modern-day financial system is slowly being pulled away, to reveal who and what is ‘behind the curtain’. And thus expose just how much our democracy is a sham, beholden to those dirty-money banksters.

    But now? For the Feds to try to negate the expressed will of the people regarding cannabis re-legalization is to rip off the last shred of that fig-leaf that’s been hiding it from the majority of the public, and to do that is to risk revolution. For it would make clear that, for the most part, voting is pointless…and then there’s no reason to play by the rules anymore, as the rules have only been just valid enough to maintain the illusion of democracy to prevent the inevitable. Remove the last bit, and Hell’s Gate awaits.

    And so, this really is bowing to the inevitable. And none too gracefully, as we can expect more under-the-table actions of ‘his’ ‘Justice’ department to continue to harass cannabis consumer voters in States without re-legalization laws…and mess with those States who already have them, albeit with less latitude – and relish – than they used to enjoy But when enough States reach ‘critical mass’, it will be Choom and his buddies in the hurt locker, for once.

    • claygooding says:

      Every state that legalizes also adds more supporters that could be called for a jury trial and could result in mistrials or even nullification in a marijuana trial,,when that starts happening prosecutors are going to start getting shy about taking any marijuana charge to trial without gang or cartel connections.
      As time goes on more people are going to try marijuana and find out for themselves that somebody has lied to them,,,trials could become very interesting.

  19. Jeff Trigg says:

    Sure, he’d rather change the subject from the 200 million text messages of American citizens he’s recording every day to his nonsense thoughts about cannabis. The timing of Obama finally talking about cannabis is just pathetic and obvious. And the idiot diehards out there will fall for it and forget about the NSA shitting all over our rights.

    • darkcycle says:

      He’d like to change the subject, but it ain’t gonna happen. There are a hell of a lot more activists concerned with the NSA and the corporatization of government than there are cannabis activists, seems to me.
      And for cannabis activists, what do you think they’re gonna do after legalization? Sit back on the couch and roll endless fatties? (well, we do that anyway…but you get me) Will they forget that they just learned they can change things? Will they forget that they’re swirling the bowl in an epic stinking mess filled with the turds of financial oligarchy, perpetual war, environmental degradation and bad television? I’m thinking no. Pot may make me forget what I came into the kitchen for, but I never forget the other shit. Don’t be such a downer, Jeff. Have a toke.

      • Jeff Trigg says:

        99% of the state and federal level candidates who win their next election will be pro-DEA and pro-NSA with an R or D next to their names. So, yes, wake me up when the cannabis/civil liberty activism out there reaches even half of the level that was shown during the civil rights and Vietnam War activist protest era. Remember, many states don’t have an initiative and referendum process like Washington, Colorado and California.

        I’m in Illinois, we’re not allowed to have a toke, although we have been completely controlled by Democrats at the state level since 2002.

        Seattle WASHINGTON and Denver COLORADO in the Super Bowl, there’s gotta be something up about that though.

        • Windy says:

          Kap’n mentioned that voting is useless in a comment above. I agree with him on not voting in national elections, it is a waste of time.

          However, in local and State elections each voter has more of an influence, especially at the local level. All the politicians in State and federal office started with winning a local election for some office. Focus your voting efforts on those local races to prevent statists from getting to those higher offices, vet the candidates thoroughly (especially the candidates for Sheriff, make certain the one for which you vote understands his/her Constitutional position, WILL protect the unalienable rights of every resident in the county and will NOT enforce unconstitutional laws on them). Then make certain your neighbors know what you learn via LTEs, comments on local TV/radio talk shows when politics is the topic, and comments on newspaper articles; or just by talking to them. Volunteer to work on the campaign of the candidate of your choice, put his/her signs in your yard. Issues on local and State ballots are also things on which one should vote and speak out in one’s community.

          The way I do it is to leave races blank where both candidates (my State has top 2 primary) are unacceptable, which is (since top 2 became law) in all federal races, most State races and, currently, also most local races. I vote the issues, referendums, initiatives, etc., so leaving those races blank reduces the percentage of total votes which either candidate receives. Another method is if your State allows write-ins (mine does) write-in “NOTA” (“none of the above”). If enough people were doing one or the other it would cause the parties to alter their choices in candidates; since when a candidate wins the vote with only 15% of voters voting for them the parties WILL notice, and so will the rest of the voters.

          I’ve been advocating this for a couple elections, now, and lately I’ve been seeing more people advocating it, too. It may not take many more elections for it to have a positive effect on the quality of candidates put forth.

        • claygooding says:

          Windy,,as CO and WA are finding out now,,getting laws in place is only half the job,,you must remove the prohibitches or they will train wreck your new law.
          We must remove the prohib mayors and city managers as well as the legislators,,remove the base support for marijuana prohibition or it will sneak up and bite you in the ass,,all prohibs are good for,,back attacks

        • kaptinemo says:

          Sure, for now, The Machine is in place…but its’ foundations are cracking. The people who run it from behind the scenes have trashed the futures of the very people they need to replace the previous suckers in the game…and thus the latest batch of new voters have no reason to play the same old tune, as there’s nothing in it for them. From such a crucible comes activism…the kind that causes revolutions.

          There’s an interesting book that’s been out a while called The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy – What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. The basic premise is that American History is subject to cycles (no kidding) and that these cycles have very distinct phases. According to the authors, we are in the 4th and last phase of a cycle, a ‘turning’…which usually is a turbulent one. The kind which spawns revolutions in thought and act.

          And I think they’re right. Look around, folks. All the old conventionalities are collapsing. The century-old financial system, as well as the century-old drug prohibitions, are being challenged. Gay rights being more and more accepted (at least in metropolitan areas). A quiet but deep resurgence in protecting civil rights in the face crypto-fascist violations of them (the NSA) is rising. That and more; the kind of things those authors of that book were talking about are coming to pass.

          IMNSHO, it has been surprisingly prescient (it was published in 1997, and claimed we’d have a major catalyst for social change by 2005, which is actually when the first breezes of the hurricane winds of the Meltdown began to be felt) about what is happening today, particularly WRT cannabis re-legalization.

          Cannabis re-legalization is but a drop of water in a generational tsunami whose effects are only just beginning to be felt. Its’ wavefront has only now just touched shore…and things are shaking already. And if those authors are right, 20 years from now, America will be a vastly different country (according to the previous generation, it already is).

          So, yes, at the moment The Powers That Be that are tugging at Obama’s puppet strings (google Clinton Obama June 6 2008 Chantilly Virginia to see whose arse you have to kiss to become Prez) may seem to be sitting pretty, but they know that what they have unleashed will ultimately destroy them, particularly now that the Internet is literally everywhere, and the only barriers to it are having a computer and access to the Internet…and more and more across the planet are getting plugged in daily.

          More and more people are learning about how they’re getting screwed…and who was doing the screwing all along. There’s only one place this can go in the end.

        • claygooding says:

          Corporations can buy legislation and legislators but they can’t buy the prople Jeff,,we will continue to change laws where we the people can,,and now legislatures are starting to get into the game,,$1 million dollars in one day is a pretty effective lobbying point.
          If a sparsely populated market can move a million in a day,,,and it isn’t like the black market in their state isn’t selling a million dollars wotth a dsy.

    • B. Snow says:

      FWIW, I read most of the article…

      He talked about marijuana and the stuff mentioned above, = in the section:

      He also talked about the NSA & Edward Snowden – and how he watched the Watergate hearings on television as an 11 year old kid, then later “… as I got older, when I saw ‘All the President’s Men,’ that was the iconic vision of journalism telling truth to power, and making sure our democracy worked.”, = in the section: “IX—LISTENING IN”

      I know what you’re getting at, I do… BUT, I have to think that legality of marijuana is a much easier problem to address than the NSA & surveillance in general.

      He can/could actually affect a meaningful change in our drug policy as it relates to marijuana.

      Doing the same with the NSA or the other 15(? =IIRC) intelligence agencies/programs and the DHS and “National Security” – those are surely more subject to changes in the future – anything he could do there would be relatively easy to undo.

      But, Legalizing marijuana after that’s done, It would surely be much more like – “trying to get the shit back in the horse (or the proverbial “goose” – take your pick.)

  20. allan says:

    On to the Super Pot Bowl!

    • darkcycle says:

      Super Bowl XLVIII, The Battle of the Bongs. Don’t watch football, but this time I’ll make an exception. Perhaps I’ll have some friends over. I have a great idea for a party game. We’ll all take Vape hits every time a talking head makes a bad pot crack.

      • primus says:

        Superbowl party at my Masonic lodge, I will be attending. I will propose the same sort of game, but of course it won’t involve the herb. It will be sort of like a new age version of Passout. You remember the drinking/smoking get smashed game? Anyway, every time a pot reference, joke etc. everyone takes a drink. I bet that will get everyone hammered by halftime.

        • allan says:

          hey Hiram… my dad’s funeral expenses covered by the Masons. Don’t think membership meant all that much to him, he was way more into his CCC days and part of that later in his life.

          It will be interesting to see if the MSM picks up on this oh-so-obvious connection. I can see Jon Stewart spending an evening having some fun with this. Jay Leno’s writers will botch it of course (JL’s drug humor sucks).

          Joe Rogan might get some mileage out of it. I can even see NBC’s Brian Williams giving it a nod.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        I might have to quit being an atheist! It certainly appears that god is on our side of the line of scrimmage.

        Of course it may be that he just wants to torture me by making me feel compelled to read the comments columns under sports articles. I know that I’ve mentioned before that the truly moronic sycophants of prohibition lurk in those comments. I think we’re going to get an object lesson in just how stupid the sycophants of prohibition can be. Oh well, it’s time to explore the black hole of stupidity.

    • darkcycle says:

      Or maybe the “Smoke a Bowl”.

    • strayan says:

      Honestly, the moons could not have been more perfectly aligned at the right time.

      Everyone in the whole country and many more will now know what’s possible. I imagine even the ‘never gonna happen crowd’ will start to change their tune.

      Super “Bowl”, indeed.

      • allan says:

        yeah, this will have too many people having too much fun!

        “This Bud’s for you!”

        “Hey, pack another Super Bowl!”

        “Damn, that was a really super bowl!”

        But remember, as far as we know it’s Duncan’s score. Where he kiped it from is anyone’s guess.

        • primus says:

          LOL Kipe. Thanks for taking care of my learnin’ for today.

        • claygooding says:

          SuperBOWL I,,,we just started a new count

        • Duncan20903 says:

          I overheard it on Saturday during the Conference Champion game by the games announcer. So it actually has already been broadcast nation wide.

          I can’t stand watching football ever since I realized that it will never offer a resolution of the conflict. It’s the same reason I quit watching soap operas.

    • DdC says:

      Drug Policy Alliance ‏@DrugPolicyNews
      Marijuana legalization means increased tax revenue, fewer arrests, and apparently a trip to the Super Bowl! Seattle vs. Denver! #SuperBowl

      The Hypocrisy of the NFL

      CO and WA are going to the Super Bowl! Sure you don’t want to rethink NORML’s ad @Intuit ? #Synergy #SuperBudBowl

    • DdC says:

      Poll: Who Will Win the #SuperBowl?

      Marijuana 420 ‏@MarijuanaFour20
      NFL Could Indeed Change Its Mind About Marijuana – Huffington Post

      Ed Krayewski ‏@edkrayewski
      I hope we can call this year’s Super Bowl the “smoke-a-bowl.” Go Seattle!

      Roseanne Barr ‏@TheRealRoseanne

      Mickey Martin ‏@CANNABISconsult
      Obama to announce the end of cannabis prohibition at halftime.

      Russ Belville ‏@RadicalRuss
      Seattle #Seahawks. Denver #Broncos. Marijuana – the Gateway Drug to the Super BOWL!!!

      Radley Balko ‏@radleybalko
      The David Brooks pot/Super Bowl/Richard Sherman column is now feverishly writing itself.

      John Tabin ‏@johntabin
      Both Superbowl teams are from states where marijuana is legal and comedy fans are all very excited to see what Jay Leno will do with this

      DCMJ ‏@DCMJ2014
      It’s official the two teams going to the Super Bowl represent the two states that legalized marijuana so far. #WA #CO #Broncos #Seahawks

      • DdC says:

        “Greenest Super Bowl Ever” by Thom Hartmann

        Even if you’re not a sports fan, you may have a reason to celebrate this year’s Super Bowl. According to the New York/New Jersey Super Bowl Host Committee, this year’s event will be the “greenest Super Bowl ever.” All of the oil waste from that day will be converted into biodiesel, and all food scraps will be turned into compost. With 200 restaurants serving up to 100,000 people – that’s a lot of clean fuel and compost.

        In addition, New Jersey’s largest utility company, Public Service Electric & Gas, will buy one renewable energy certificate for each megawatt house of electricity used during the event. They say that they’ll be buying 240 solar energy certificates and 5,700 wind certificates to offset electricity used for the big game. We don’t know yet which team will come out on top in this year’s Super Bowl, but it looks like our environment is already a winner.

    • claygooding says:

      SuperBOWL I

      • primus says:

        Every Super Bowl has a nickname. You know, the Fog Bowl etc. For this one, I propose the ‘Bud Bowl’.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          The problem with that idea is that Anheuser Busch has already used it. They had animated beer bottles playing a game of pretend football. That stupidity persisted for quite a number of years.

          I like the idea of the “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!” Super Bowl. Nah, probably way too arcane.

          Bud Bowl memories

        • Rick Steeb says:

          Ganja Bowl? Works for me!

    • Tony Aroma says:

      The SB is actually in NY. Given that many fans will be from WA and CO, I’d bet it’s going to be more like the stop and frisk bowl.

  21. Fallibilist says:

    As a libertarian extremist, I’m the last one to give President Obama more credit than he deserves.

    But, holy shit, he really hit this one out of the park. He acknowledged the complexities of the issue while (for once) not downplaying its importance or pointing out that the overall moral valence of our current policy is destructive and must change.

    And the cultural importance of a successful occupant of The Highest Office in the Landâ„¢ owning up to the true benefits and drawbacks of cannabis use…well, I just don’t have the words.

    • claygooding says:

      I wonder how t makes the NIDA administrator feel after her going on national TV and swearing marijuana was a lot more harmful than alcohol and of course Kerli,,but then Kerli has already bowed out and moved away from the strictly drug war scene,,he is now working on stopping the illegal immigrant problem on our border,,I wonder if he will ever get a job he can succeed at?

      • jean valjean says:

        guess he flat out contradicted leonharts testimony before congress when she stated that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin. im sure its a crime to deliberately mislead congress.

      • primus says:

        Still waiting to hear who will replace Kerli. Anyone heard anything or are the moles still hiding? I know if I were a mole, there’s no way I would want that thankless job. Whack-a-mole is only fun for the whacker, not the mole.

        • claygooding says:

          They haven’t reported anything TMK,,it is being run by the assistants now,,,jeez I wish someone would let me be in control of $25 billion

        • darkcycle says:

          They won’t bother. As an appointee Kerli is a figurehead. He only appeared on camera to make pronouncements. They still haven’t appointed all of the offices the Prez was supposed to appoint when he was first elected.

        • kaptinemo says:

          You can bet good money ol’ Kevvie is, uh, er, jonesing…for the position. He’s probably been feeling poorly as a lowly contractor after he had to (but did he really?) leave ONDCP (so who’s funding him?).

          That easy Gub’mint, taxpayer-supplied money as a prohib mouthpiece is so very addictive. Definitely looks like he needs an ‘intervention’ and ‘treatment’ with that much of a yen for it.

  22. claygooding says:

    So far I haven’t heard a positive tone from any Fox talking head,,,but none of the eyes bulging,spittle flinging yet we want,,,going to CNN now because my bullshit meter is destroyed,,ain’t no fixing it,,gotta get a new one.

  23. allan says:

    was just thinking how interesting that after the WT pulled Kev-kev’s oped Obama’s interview comes out like this. Could Kev have been told to STFU?

    Drug policy reform is starting to create lumps in the Prohibition gravy(train). Well I hope they burn their biscuits too.

    That makes me smile. Jeff can be as grumpy as he wants, I like what I’m seeing.

    • claygooding says:

      The way they play this game,,trying to keep enough controversy and drama so they can scare people into over-regulating the market so the black market remains in place as long as they can,,keeping the right banks making the money,,,anything is possible.

    • B. Snow says:

      Are you talking about that Washington Times piece?

      For whatever reason – its back up and accepting comments again – when I first checked it last night it was working but there were only the 2 comments from the other day… (Clay’s and 1 other.)

      I’m presuming that’s when Kev-Kev first had a hissy-fit about comments being allowed, OR maybe = being the smart news-people (possibly with a “insider-tip” of a sort) – they wanted to wait till the David Remnick-New Yorker profile/story went up online, IDK?

      Can you think of a better reason??
      Either way it’s back up, ‘tear ole Kev-Kev a new one!
      “SABET: Colorado will show why legalizing marijuana is a mistake”

      I’m thinking I should maybe invest in popcorn, What do y’all think?

      (Note: I posted/mentioned it Last Night in the other thread about it a page or 2 back, But I see y’all missed it, so i figured it was worth repeating here.)

      • kaptinemo says:

        I just left my tuppence. Let’s see if he’s mad enough to bite…

      • kaptinemo says:

        The Moonie Times Website must be glitchy; I just went back there and the comments have disappeared again. They may have server problems instead of editorial ones…

        • curmudgeon says:

          I just got to the comments using safari. My outdated firefox wouldn’t work. Even comments from non couch sitters are giving him a rectal reaming.

      • Crut says:

        Surprised that none of the comments mention Obama’s evolution on the subject…

        Hey Kev, your former boss says that cannabis is safer than alcohol, and the CO/WA experiments need to proceed. Whaddya think bout that?

      • B. Snow says:

        I left this beautiful little jem below, In response to some serious BS: (And believe me I know BS, I am BS – I have a middle Initial but that’s beside the point).

        rlhailssrpe -> “…… that marijuana use is strongly connected to mental illness.” This is the stopper. The web is filled with medical papers, from many nations, that demonstrate that marijuana use is strongly linked to psychosis, particularly in the young. The experts do not know why; they just know it is true.

        (And Moi… aka ‘James Locker’)
        Where did he get his Numbers? I’d bet you that most if not all are taken from:

        “The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) – is a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is charged with improving the quality and availability of prevention, treatment, and rehabilitative services in order to reduce illness, death, disability, and cost to society resulting from substance abuse and mental illnesses.”
        Did you ever think that by having the same group responsible for both of these things you’re going to have misleading correlations, they may look quite temptingly “true”…
        Sorry – But, that in no way actually *proves* causation? You DO know that right? And, the very real difference between Correlation and Causation?

        UNLESS, it’s oh – IDK? Maybe, if its *your job* = to prove that said links exist, even if your really just torturing numbers until they tell you what you want/(need) to hear?

        In that case -go right ahead- keep on misleading & misrepresenting surveys = which say right on the front that they measure Substance Abuse & Mental Health…

        You’ll get all sorts of things that LOOK to be true, they may *Imply Correlation*, Or *Suggest Correlation* = Especially if you want them to, or *when you need them to*, in order to justify your continued employment. But that doesn’t make any of it ‘Factual’ or ‘Provable’.

        • Duncan20903 says:


          I’ve noticed that on holiday weekends and fixed date holidays that the hysterical rhetoric of the Ignorati dunces skyrockets into laughable absurdity.

        • B. Snow says:

          Thank God, We seem to have gotten “Reinforcements” over at W-Times, it was a getting bit hairy in there.

          Crawling thru wire, slogging thru trenches – I just feel so Covered with “Stupid”…

          No wait, OMG = it’s even worse, Its “Conservative-Stupid”… Ugh, okay I need a shower now, I feel all dirty and violated somehow… *shiver*

          (Seriously though have you looked at some of the other articles on there? Its like a Tea-Bagger swap-meet. But, with no standards – or even a simple “Shirt & Shoes Required” policy – It ain’t pretty.)

  24. darkcycle says:

    More arrows for you quivers, ladies and gentlemen of the Couch:
    And for a distillation, from Psychology Today:

    • Plant Down Babylon says:

      Darkcycle, do you have an extra flaming trebuchet launcher that I can borrow?!

    • primus says:

      They say the people who tested positive for cannabinoids had no greater risk than those who had ingested nothing, HOWEVER that does not mean that taking cannabis is without risk, because the test administered was for metabolites, not impairment. It fails to explain how this negates the results, for surely some of the tested people were intoxicated, and yet still there was no connection to increased crash risk. They try to negate their own findings, even though they are very clear. Cannabis does NOT cause car crashes which kill people any more than if the driver were a sober person. Why can they not let that stand on its own?

      • Duncan20903 says:


        It happens because prohibitionist parasites and their sycophants are strict adherents to the motto of the Know Nothing prohibitionist: “Never let the facts get in the way of disseminating an effective piece of hysterical rhetoric”.

    • darkcycle says:

      And again…I’ve been a busy little drug law reformer today. Slinging ’em right and left. Nice to have a day off from Daddy-Duty once in a while…

      • Windy says:

        I too spent a goodly portion of the day fighting in the drug war trenches at the Washington Times. I finally had to get away, the stench of idiocy became too strong, so I took advantage of the sunshine (which I have missed so much) and went outside to weed one of my flower beds. The local Redwing Blackbird lifted my spirits even more than the sunshine with his call, I love that call I don’t know why but when I hear it it always makes me smile.

        I’m waiting until morning to check my email for notifications from disqus of responses to my comments, I don’t think I could take any more of that idiocy tonite.

        dc, just went to that link, it said one comment had been posted which had been deleted because the commenter posted anonymously and they will happily repost if the commenter uses his/her real name.

  25. Servetus says:

    They’re scared:

    The chief of operations at the United States Drug Enforcement Agency said only last week that increased efforts as of late to legalize marijuana across the country is scaring his fellow officials at the DEA. Others, however, have a much different take.

    Just last Wednesday, the DEA’s James L. Capra told members of the Senate that the emerging pro-pot trend is “reckless,” “irresponsible” and “scares us.”

    Former DEA agent Patrick Moen isn’t in the same boat. After over a decade of working with the federal government to put away drug dealers, Moen recently abandoned his job at the DEA in order to pursue a career with Privateer Holdings, a Seattle, Washington-based investment firm that specializes in the budding marijuana industry.

    Yes, now is the time for people to quit their reckless and irresponsible DEA and drug enforcement jobs before the rush for new replacement jobs begins.

  26. darkcycle says:

    Interesting…FaceBook activist grapevine (Debby Goldsberry, anyway) is reporting the NFL is trying to decide whether and how to license Cannabis related superbowl items.

  27. DdC says:

    Marijuana Majority ‏@JoinTheMajority
    Another U.S. senator endorses medical #marijuana. Thanks, @SenBillNelson! #mmot #drugwar

    Toke of the Town ‏@TokeOfTheTown 2h
    Rosa Sparks? George W. Kush? Puffington Post? Looks like the Prez has quite the secret grow room.

    Medical experts have concluded that smoking #marijuana is a better treatment than taking #THC pills—

    WChristians4Cannabis ‏@WC4Cannabis 3h
    #Cdnpoli > is looking for #soldiers who use #cannabis or have #PTSD and want to use…

  28. After Defending Pot, Obama Has to Pardon Medical Marijuana Growers He Jailed

  29. C.E. says:

    Watching two Kennedys going nuts on Chris Matthews right now. One of them actually is making the case that because tobacco and alcohol are so dangerous, “we don’t need another legal drug in America”. These people are simply irrational.

    • B. Snow says:

      Oh no – Fuck these Kennedy assholes – lying w/ every other breath…

      We gotta fix this shit now! (I know we can do this),
      For starters, just about everyone else on the whole damn network are either Pro-legalization, or they’re “Anti-Prohibition” even Joe Scarborough finally said last week he didn’t think it should be illegal & (IIRC, he said it should be Decriminalized – straddling the fence = the Easy way to not really answer).

      Except for a couple of the analysts or consultants (maybe Former Gov. Ed Rendell?)
      Basically, just the OLD ones by into this sorta CRAP – but its more of a conditioned response. Resulting from fear of being called out as Soft on Crime in the 70’s-90’s…
      Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Alex Wagner, Steve Kornacki, – (lets see) everyone on The Cycle = Krystal Ball, Toure, Ari Melber, probably even Abby Huntsman.

      There’s more but, first I have to calm down and think about something else for a little while,I’ve had this story in my head for 24 hrs or so and have been scouring the net reading about it and everyone’s reactions to it.

      • kaptinemo says:

        When you squeeze a loon, it honks in protest.

        Same goes for the Human kind. Words are optional.

        Looks like the prohib loons are getting quite a squeeze lately, aren’t they? All they can do now is run in circles and make the Human equivalent of honk, honk, flap-flap-flap, honk, honnnnnk!

        Really sad to see putative adults act like that in public; I mean, think of the children! Won’t anybody think of the children? (/snark)

    • Duncan20903 says:


      That lame soporific of “we don’t need another legal substance” from the intellectually challenged sycophants of prohibition has been used by them for quite a number of years.

      Wait until you run across one of them asserting that if we were serious about cannabis law reform that we would quit choosing to enjoy cannabis. There never would have been a law needed if we hadn’t insisted on choosing to enjoy cannabis in the first place! But it sort of makes sense. There hasn’t ever been a law passed which criminalized stuff that has never existed.

    • Ol’ Joe Kennedy had no problems figuring out how to make a buck off of prohibition.

      “After Kennedy’s death, and only a week before his own death, gangster Frank Costello claimed to an author/collaborator that he had been associated with Kennedy in bootlegging during Prohibition” -Wikipedia

      I see that the current generation has taken his lesson to heart. Prohibition. That’s where the money is. Right Joe?

  30. Duncan20903 says:


    OK, if we’re going to talk about the driving “problem” hysteria my very favorite real life example of it being a non-issue was one of the prohibitionists’ favorite stories is the 1990 Alaskan vote of 54.3-45.7 to implement an unconstitutional re-criminalization of petty possession and petty cultivation of cannabis in a person’s private home. It was subsequently struck down by the Alaska Court of Appeals in 2002.

    So pot in Alaska went from legal to illegal from 1991 to 2002. It went back to legal in 2002, the very same 2002 in which SAMHSA started a study which is linked below.

    Alaska joined California and Hawaii in posting statistically significant reductions in the incidence of drugged driving between 2002 and 2009. Alaska also happens to be the #1 State for the rate of people who choose to enjoy cannabis.

    In December 2010 SAMHSA released the results of the linked study which quantified the incidence of “drugged” driving both nationwide and State by State:

  31. allan says:

    NBC’s Evening News did cover both the Prez’s interview and the Super Pot Bowl connection. A not bad, about 3 minute piece. And no bad pot jokes from Brian Williams.

  32. mike says:
    Its great to see the onion skewer the “What kind of message does this send to our kids?” line.

  33. sudon't says:

    You know, we had pharmaceutical meth for many decades, available over the counter for some number of years. Did we have reports of “meth-mouth”, or rotting teeth during that time? Just wondering…

Comments are closed.