Obama Administration ‘Firmly Opposes’ Marijuana Legalization — Here’s Why

^^^huh? What does Europe have to do with US drug laws?

FUCK OBAMA the Drug War PUPPET SCUM
RON PAUL in 2012!!
 
FacedAgain said:
My impression was Obama was going to make change in his 2nd term. I wonder what the American voters (read: mostly racist) would think if the first black man to get into office, in his first term, went ahead and legalisted pot. Seriously, it would be political suicide, no matter how logical the laws are. All your war toteing rednecks would be shaking there firsts in the air as the supporter or war.

Legalisation is going to come through the states, or europe. no other way.
Click to expand...
Is the motion to legalize in California political suicide, then?
 
^^^ yes, he backtracked after an aide was reported to have done cocaine at a party, the tip accidentally slipped during conversation with a reporter that came from no one else but Kieth Strupp, founder of NORML

Obama trying to paint himself as a community organizer during the campaign was ridiculous. Communities are destroyed by prohibition, not drugs.
 
^^^ yes, he backtracked after an aide was reported to have done cocaine at a party, the tip accidentally slipped during conversation with a reporter that came from no one else but Kieth Strupp, founder of NORML
Click to expand...

yes, and then the Iran hostage crisis happened and the issue was put on the back burner entirely
 
This whole last election has made me entirely cynical of the US political system. Not that I wasn't before, but this sealed the deal. It goes to show that politicians foremost concern is getting into office, and doing that necessitates making impossible promises or taking positions which they will never follow through with. The better they are at creating these false pretenses, the more successful they'll be in politics. The game is rigged. I'll never believe anything that comes from a mainstream candidate's mouth. You never know who you're really electing until after the fact.

I've also come to conclude that anyone trying to get into office must have some kind of agenda they hope to push through. Actually representing the will of the people takes a back seat to this. Why else would you want to be president, save for egotistical reasons? It's not like they need the money from the job. In light of that it seems like a shit job unless you get off on having a lot of power or are trying to get some favors done.
 
This whole last election has made me entirely cynical of the US political system. Not that I wasn't before, but this sealed the deal.
Click to expand...

yeah I feel the same way

but I think it's a blessing that Obama has turned out to be a lying piece of shit because it's teaching the young people that voted for him to never believe in the Left Vs. Right two/two party system pack of lies. This is giving our generation a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to politics

and when the Republicans elect their own GOP version of Obama in 2012, the other side will wake up and then maybe we'll really change this country
 
yoboy said:
yeah I feel the same way

but I think it's a blessing that Obama has turned out to be a lying piece of shit because it's teaching the young people that voted for him to never believe in the Left Vs. Right two/two party system pack of lies. This is giving our generation a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to politics

and when the Republicans elect their own GOP version of Obama in 2012, the other side will wake up and then maybe we'll really change this country
Click to expand...

Yeah, but people have been saying this sort of things for decades. After Nixon and then after Clinton and all the presidents in between and since. But, this "cynicism" never really pans out to anything meaningful and this country continues to circle the drain faster every election cycle. If we want real change people are going to have to throw off the nanny state and reject it in its entirety, rediscover individual and property rights and do away with all of its statist bureaucracy. We can only steal from future generations for so long before the whole house of cards falls down around us.
 
Is anyone familiar with articles, publications, studies, whatever, that examine the role of law-enforcement labor unions in the persistence of prohibition? At least during Democrat administrations?

A question that needs to be asked: If prohibition laws were repealed, how many fewer officers (outside and inside) would be needed?

Suppose that we no longer had to finance drug interdiction, or interdiction of the crimes committed by dealers guarding their territories or addicts financing their habits. What percentage, then, of law-enforcement budgets would go toward the pensions of retired officers? My guess is more than half, but I don't have data to back up that guess.

If the populace found itself suddenly paying more money for LEO pensions than for their own safety, the populace might revolt, either with bullets or with ballots.

This seems as good a reason as the oft-cited "Big Pharma is evil; they keep weed illegal" or other such canards meant to explain the persistence of prohibition.
 
No suprise hear about the Obama administration's position. Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian. In response to Seeps question, I think you would still need cops, albeit less, its just their resources could be spent on solving more important crimes. With canabis, b/c so few violent and property crimes are involved with that scene compared to other drugs, don't think it would make a difference. But that's a very good question about the role of Law Enforcement labour unions. I don't have any info but I know there is a faction of LEO against drug prohibition called LEAP.
 
seep said:
Is anyone familiar with articles, publications, studies, whatever, that examine the role of law-enforcement labor unions in the persistence of prohibition? At least during Democrat administrations?

A question that needs to be asked: If prohibition laws were repealed, how many fewer officers (outside and inside) would be needed?

Suppose that we no longer had to finance drug interdiction, or interdiction of the crimes committed by dealers guarding their territories or addicts financing their habits. What percentage, then, of law-enforcement budgets would go toward the pensions of retired officers? My guess is more than half, but I don't have data to back up that guess.

If the populace found itself suddenly paying more money for LEO pensions than for their own safety, the populace might revolt, either with bullets or with ballots.

This seems as good a reason as the oft-cited "Big Pharma is evil; they keep weed illegal" or other such canards meant to explain the persistence of prohibition.
Click to expand...

Best post in the thread.

Anecdotal evidence that I've heard suggests that these reports (linking the need for continued marijuana prohibition to LEO job security) aren't published in places where ordinary citizens are likely to easily find them, but are hot items on the table at police officers' union meetings. Police unions, and other professional organizations that support and represent the men and women of American law enforcement, draw a lot of water in Washington when it comes time to lobby.

I, too, would like to someday come across printed hard evidence (which I'm fairly certain exists) supporting this conspiracy.

I would bet a sizeable percentage of the operating budgets of many municipal courts and police stations is payed for directly by fines and court fees for marijuana violations, especially in places where the police have little else to arrest people for.
 
Obama has been a terrible president. Pretty much the only thing he has on Bush is he isn't a homophobe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top