Obama Says No to Marijuana Legalization

[Brando @$$ Fat]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090326/POLITICS-US-OBAMA-MARIJUANA/

WASHINGTON — Legalizing marijuana is not the kind of change President Barack Obama can believe in -- -- at least not as a remedy for the ailing U.S. economy.

On Thursday, Obama tackled the issue head-on, only half-jokingly, at an online townhall meeting where he noted that the idea was a favorite among the 3.6 million people who voted on more than 100,000 questions submitted on the White House website.

"I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation," he said to laughter at the White House event.

"And I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said, tongue-in-cheek. "This was a fairly popular question. We want to make sure that it was answered."

"The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said before moving back to a more sober discussion of unemployment and healthcare reform.

"Thank you for clearing that up," said Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist, who was acting as moderator.

Many of the questioners suggested that regulating the marijuana industry could yield large tax revenues.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was later asked whether Obama, who admitted in his autobiography to experimenting with drugs in his youth, was leaving some wiggle room on the issue.

"The president opposes the legalization of marijuana," Gibbs told reporters, emphasizing his seriousness. "He doesn't think that's the right plan for America."

As for where the new administration stood on medical marijuana, he said to ask the Justice Department.

Gibbs suggested that marijuana advocates may have had a hand in stacking the deck by mobilizing supporters to send in questions and to go online and vote repeatedly for them.

_______________________________________________
I figured he wouldn't try to get it legalized, but it's still disappointing to hear him come out and say it.

I've never heard an argument against legalization that wasn't either completely stupid or really easy to debunk. If anyone here could provide me with a solid case I will thank you for making me a slightly more open-minded person.

[someguy]

Pot smokers to Obama: Well that's just like your opinion man

[Vong]

Not really surprised...it would be political suicide for him to support it.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, it's foolish on multiple levels, especially in the White House. Left or Right, no legitimate mainstream politician is audacious enough to consider this.

Haha, anyone see Ron Paul on Campbell Brown today. The guy's delusional about the entire issue of drugs...

[Vong]

Well, it isn't impossible for it to happen. There would need to be a paradigm shift of some sort to alter the American public's attitude towards pot. You'd think that taxing the hell out of the stuff in assisting a clusterfucked economy would be enough justification, but I guess we'll need a politician with brass balls (and who loves pot) to help push this idea along....anyone have any candidates?

[The Postmaster General]

In order for him to have said "no" to marijuana legalization, there would have had to been some sort of serious intent that it could have become legal. He just responded to a fringe idea that legalizing could fix the economy, and people are running with a half-truth.

[tbone]

I don't think it would necessarily political suicide. Risky yes, but not nearly as risking as legalizing cocaine. Eeven if marijuana isn't legalized the drug laws need some serious re-working when it comes to drug, particularly for mere possession.

[Potter82]

I'm not surprised, I sincerely doubt Obama would outright legalize pot, largely because he'd face a ton of "won't somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" style reactionary outrage which the Republicans wouldn't hesitate for a moment to use and sadly, I think that stuff is still capable of persuading many gulliable people.

Instead of seeing a direct, outright legalization we'll probably see a gradual process towards legalization on a state level. More and more states may choose not to enforce those laws and some may even vote to decriminialize it(fines make FAR more sense than imprisonment from an economic standpoint) and if so I doubt that the Feds would seriously challenge them.

Still it seems more people than ever are in support of legalization, largely because it is so obvious that the current US drug policies are a failure and so it's only logical to pursue other options. In time, I think it will be legalized, mayabe in a few more decades - we just need more of the "drugs are bad" reactionaries to die off first so it becomes politically possible.

[Scarface98.9]

I thought I had heard him talk about wanting the Feds to stop wasting their time on marijuana busts as opposed to full on legalization

[Homyrrh]

In time, I think it will be legalized, mayabe in a few more decades - we just need more of the "drugs are bad" reactionaries to die off first so it becomes politically possible.

So drugs aren't "bad"?

[Potter82]

So drugs aren't "bad"?

well I was sort of referring to Southpark's Mr. McKay "Drugs are bad mmkay" speech, which itself was making fun of simplistic, overly general anti-drug messages.

Of course drugs can be bad but I think a lot of people have a knee jerk reaction when it comes to discussing the subject and many people will refuse to consider the legalization of marijuana for a single second.

Despite all the medical evidence regarding marijuana and the strong arguments for it's legalization (the fact that cigarettes and alcohol is legal and both are more dangerous, the $ that would be saved in not having to jail people for possession & the $ that could be dervied through taxes), many people seem convinced that if it was legalized it would essentially bring about the collapse of society, probably because many people have had this drilled into their heads constantly by the government, media, education system, etc. for decades.

I just find it frustrating how many people seem totally unwilling to question the wisdom of keeping marijuana illegal & simplistic "drugs are bad" style messages (which basically equate marijuana w/ heroin despite the fact that they are radically different) surely isn't helping matters.

[The Postmaster General]

Comcast Press Writer: I'm going to title it, "Obama: Legalizing Marijuana Not A Plan To Strengthen Economy"

Comcast Editor: No, we need something more sensational, something that will get people talking! Don't worry, with a topic like this, no one will care. The anti-pot camp will just run with it, and the pro-pot camp will be too warm and fuzzy to notice. Let's toke up and brainstorm this while we watch Fancast.

[Criminal Rock]

So drugs aren't "bad"?

Not all of them, no.

[Cop No. 633]

If drugs were bad, music in general would be incredibly bland. If you think drugs are bad, you might as well denounce many great rock, Jazz and rap albums. Would you rather listen to the Jonas Brothers or Led Zeppelin? The choice is yours my friends. :D

[QUENTIN]

Bubba, I appreciate that someone recognizes the key disconnect between the bold headline and the decidedly less sexy story.

So drugs aren't "bad"?

With no equivocation, absolutely not.

[Homyrrh]

With no equivocation, absolutely not.
For purposes of reference, I am referring to not just marijuana, but crack cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, etc.

Do you feel that there are no distinctly grave consequences resultant of any individual, or many individuals, using these substances in any context?

[The Postmaster General]

Just to jump in, it's the same argument as with gun control, where people who say guns are bad are mostly referring to, you know, people using guns to kill innocent people in cold blood.

Drugs don't kill people, abuse does.

[Homyrrh]

Just to jump in, it's the same argument as with gun control, where people who say guns are bad are mostly referring to, you know, people using guns to kill innocent people in cold blood.

Drugs don't kill people, abuse does.
Yeah, I remember my History teacher back in high school mentioning something about a Second Amendment right to shoot dope...just saying.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, I remember my AP History teacher back in high school mentioning something about a Second Amendment right to shoot dope...just saying.


Yeah, and I seem to remember a lot of hippies hiding behind the constitution when their dope farms were raided... just saying.

Also just saying... I was looking to partake in a discussion, not exchanging attempts at one-upsmanship. That gun analogy could have been a lot of other different analogies (traffic laws, alcohol laws, prescription drug laws...) and was obviously not drawing a comparison based on constitutional rights because when people say "Guns don't kill people" (which was the actual analogy I was drawing from, please re-read) they aren't talking about The Constitution and are creating the same argument I'm applying here. You are smart enough to get that this was where I was drawing the comparison, and to comprehend that I wasn't drawing a comparison to constitutional rights, but obviously not humble or patient enough to not act like you couldn't comprehend that.

And on the front of your smarts, I really need to ask why you felt the need to note that it wasn't just a history class that you learned about Constitutional Rights (or government/civics, or any of the other classes where people learn about such things), but an advanced placement class in high school... I mean, just on the front that I think we are close in age, and I remember learning about the Right to Bear Arms in elementary school. I'm just saying, it goes along with my assertion on questioning why zingers are taking a front seat to actual discussion.

No harm, no foul, no doubt, but come on man... are we not men here? Should we be exchanging resumes prior to having a harmless discussion about why we feel the way we do about dope laws? If so, I have a PhD in Smokology bestowed upon me by the honorable Dr. Dre of City of Compton, and a Masters in Polysubstance Freewheeling under the direction of Dr. Gonzo. Ha! Beat that Mr. Toddly two doors to the left of the detention hall! Haha.

Either way, and back to the original point I attempted to engage into the discussion - while there are problems surrounding illegal drugs, there are a myriad of problems surrounding many things that are perfectly legal. Let's just focus on prescription medications so there's no more confusion, and bring up the outbreak of prescription drug ABUSE among young adults and teens. The only difference between Vicodin, and say, opium, is their legality, and beyond that there is that Vicodin is only a synthetic opiate, intended to be less affective with fewer side-effects, but at a higher cost. Opium was legal at one time, but once that started to be abused, that when the attempts to synthesize and control came into play. What did this bring us? Well, all these wonderful people trying to protect us from drug abuse came up with the wonderful discovery of heroin, which they pumped into over the counter children's cough medicine. What happened with that? Well, people started abusing it. Eventually, and as more and more substitutes came into play, heroin became illegal - not because it was bad, but because it was deemed unnecessary in light of other drugs that the government could regulate.

So what's next, and down the line, we have vicodin, oxycodone and so-forth --- then people started abusing that, so the government started controlling it more. Nowadays they like to push the synthetic opiate ultra/tramadol which, guess what? It's now starting to be abused and controlled. I'm guessing in the next 10 years we'll see that moved into the same government mandated class as vicodin. Most people don't use drugs in the name of a pursuit of happiness (note: inalienable rights as such trump constitutional rights) but they use drugs to promote a sense of well-being. Likewise, most people don't own guns because it's their constitutional right, but again because it promotes a sense of well-being (safety, as a hobby, penis insecurities, whatever...)

Another comparison to draw - I can't recall a responsible gun owner who hasn't shot a gun. Both shooting guns and shooting heroin trigger the same responses in the pleasure center of the brain. That's a fact they don't teach in AP History. I have no problem with this, and the pharmaceutical companies of America have no problem with it either - which is the most important part as it pertains to this discussion. I'm sure you've shot weapons as I have, and if you are like me, you understand the bigger the gun, the bigger the rush you get. It's a natural response. Of course, the more familiar you get with either, the less of a rush you gain. It's simple body chemistry based on stimuli. So, much like drugs, the government and gun laws seek to limit the non-practical affects gained through the use of these objects. People who push gun laws aren't worried about Mr. Nice Guy trying to protect his home, but are worried about people using them for kicks - of course there is also the concern that guns can be used to commit crimes, but bringing up the further comparisons to fear mongering toward drugs as date rape tools would only be superfluous at this point.

In short, there are many reasons it is sound to compare drugs and guns, from interpretations of rights to psychology and physiology to the tactics used by opponents of both. The reality though, is that it is actually the abuse of these objects that is behind the laws preventing people from using them responsibly.

But yeah, you are totally right. There's no constitutional right to have drugs. Thanks for the purported 411 you gained through advanced classwork in high school, but as you can hopefully now see, it really doesn't pertain to the discussion.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, and I seem to remember a lot of hippies hiding behind the constitution when their dope farms were raided... just saying.

Also just saying... I was looking to partake in a discussion, not exchanging attempts at one-upsmanship. That gun analogy could have been a lot of other different analogies (traffic laws, alcohol laws, prescription drug laws...) and was obviously not drawing a comparison based on constitutional rights because when people say "Guns don't kill people" (which was the actual analogy I was drawing from, please re-read) they aren't talking about The Constitution and are creating the same argument I'm applying here. You are smart enough to get that this was where I was drawing the comparison, and to comprehend that I wasn't drawing a comparison to constitutional rights, but obviously not humble or patient enough to not act like you couldn't comprehend that.

And on the front of your smarts, I really need to ask why you felt the need to note that it wasn't just a history class that you learned about Constitutional Rights (or government/civics, or any of the other classes where people learn about such things), but an advanced placement class in high school... I mean, just on the front that I think we are close in age, and I remember learning about the Right to Bear Arms in elementary school. I'm just saying, it goes along with my assertion on questioning why zingers are taking a front seat to actual discussion.

No harm, no foul, no doubt, but come on man... are we not men here? Should we be exchanging resumes prior to having a harmless discussion about why we feel the way we do about dope laws? If so, I have a PhD in Smokology bestowed upon me by the honorable Dr. Dre of City of Compton, and a Masters in Polysubstance Freewheeling under the direction of Dr. Gonzo. Ha! Beat that Mr. Toddly two doors to the left of the detention hall! Haha.

Either way, and back to the original point I attempted to engage into the discussion - while there are problems surrounding illegal drugs, there are a myriad of problems surrounding many things that are perfectly legal. Let's just focus on prescription medications so there's no more confusion, and bring up the outbreak of prescription drug ABUSE among young adults and teens. The only difference between Vicodin, and say, opium, is their legality, and beyond that there is that Vicodin is only a synthetic opiate, intended to be less affective with fewer side-effects, but at a higher cost. Opium was legal at one time, but once that started to be abused, that when the attempts to synthesize and control came into play. What did this bring us? Well, all these wonderful people trying to protect us from drug abuse came up with the wonderful discovery of heroin, which they pumped into over the counter children's cough medicine. What happened with that? Well, people started abusing it. Eventually, and as more and more substitutes came into play, heroin became illegal - not because it was bad, but because it was deemed unnecessary in light of other drugs that the government could regulate.

So what's next, and down the line, we have vicodin, oxycodone and so-forth --- then people started abusing that, so the government started controlling it more. Nowadays they like to push the synthetic opiate ultra/tramadol which, guess what? It's now starting to be abused and controlled. I'm guessing in the next 10 years we'll see that moved into the same government mandated class as vicodin. Most people don't use drugs in the name of a pursuit of happiness (note: inalienable rights as such trump constitutional rights) but they use drugs to promote a sense of well-being. Likewise, most people don't own guns because it's their constitutional right, but again because it promotes a sense of well-being (safety, as a hobby, penis insecurities, whatever...)

Another comparison to draw - I can't recall a responsible gun owner who hasn't shot a gun. Both shooting guns and shooting heroin trigger the same responses in the pleasure center of the brain. That's a fact they don't teach in AP History. I have no problem with this, and the pharmaceutical companies of America have no problem with it either - which is the most important part as it pertains to this discussion. I'm sure you've shot weapons as I have, and if you are like me, you understand the bigger the gun, the bigger the rush you get. It's a natural response. Of course, the more familiar you get with either, the less of a rush you gain. It's simple body chemistry based on stimuli. So, much like drugs, the government and gun laws seek to limit the non-practical affects gained through the use of these objects. People who push gun laws aren't worried about Mr. Nice Guy trying to protect his home, but are worried about people using them for kicks - of course there is also the concern that guns can be used to commit crimes, but bringing up the further comparisons to fear mongering toward drugs as date rape tools would only be superfluous at this point.

In short, there are many reasons it is sound to compare drugs and guns, from interpretations of rights to psychology and physiology to the tactics used by opponents of both. The reality though, is that it is actually the abuse of these objects that is behind the laws preventing people from using them responsibly.

But yeah, you are totally right. There's no constitutional right to have drugs. Thanks for the purported 411 you gained through advanced classwork in high school, but as you can hopefully now see, it really doesn't pertain to the discussion.
Yes, I took AP History. No, I did not finish the class, the curriculum, or even my tenure at the school; long story, but ended up in boarding school. My inclusion of these two letters was no concious effort, especially since I remember the class being pretty much inclusive of nearly half the grade. My educaton in history is a nonissue, as I've gone on to pursue a more technical education, but I do take a honest exception to having my humility questioned, especially given such a weak context from which you have drawn this conclusion. But, to acquiesce, I have edited the "AP" from my post in good faith. If it is felt, in any way (even on an internet forum), that I've given some inflection of pride, I will sooner change it than argue. I had not inended to initiate any semblance of a YouTube pissing contest, and will hence retract my comment.

I also very much doubt I am within any immediate range of your age.

To the point, however. I read your witticism and thought pretty much the same of this as I have with many of the posts, that you were just trying to be inciteful or else have questionable logic. Someone mentions drugs are "unequivocally" not bad, others feel a lot of drugs aren't that bad, and some people apparently feel it's just a Republican conspiracy to quell the civil liberties of the masses.

This metaphor you make in comparison to drugs was really not something I'd taken seriously because of its context. Much like my conviction that the vast bulk of liberalism is simply accpeted because it is convenient and may make sense without more than an initial thought, directly comparing the ownership of narcotics and the ownership of firearms is grossly incorrect. As I had mentioned, there is a constitutional right to "bear arms", but not to use certain, very harmful substances.

The fundamental root of the difference between the two is found simply in the reason for each's existence. The firearm is owned and used in the interest of self-preservation, of an innate need to protect one's self and one's priceless belongings (namely, family). This is also true for national defense.

The fundamental root of the illegal drug, especially harder narcotics like cocaine or crack or heroin, is destruction. Any drug has grave health issues, risks that users acknowledge but pass upon for the high. Indeed, marijuana may do nothing more than incite a lack of production and negligence, but the ultimate consequences of doing this are far-reaching and nothing but negative. It is a gateway substance, a vehicle for quelling American production, and legalization would be extremely hard to enforce.

Meanwhile, prescription narcotics are indeed a dire issue. Painkilling medications like Vikes or Percs or Morphine are (without any statistical basis on my part here), as much an issue on the illegal market as illegal substances. The comparison between the two is nonexistent. Prescription meds are intended to heal ailments (alright, potheads, let it rip...), but are unfortunately abused and stolen and prescribed illegitimately and ultimately profitable.

Abuse of drugs is indeed the reason they are illegal...but what else is done with drugs? Do we clean and polish them and bring them to a range twice a month? Do we lock them up in safes to prevent our kids from using them? Do we use drugs as a measure of self -defense? It is a moral fallacy on the part of a governing body to legalize any drug simply because it's only the abuse of a substance that leads to death and sickness, and not just for the user. There are some narcotics that are HIGHLY addictive, and annot find a single STRAND of logic as to why we would even consider legalizing anything but POSSIBLY marijuana (in which case, again, would just legalize the gateway to worse substances, stifle production, and is nigh-impossible ro enforce)and stimulate the snacks industry)

I am no parent or husband, but having my child choose between a firearm and a drug habit is a choice I do not even have to write here.

As ofr my own experience with firearms....M-16 FAMILIARIZATION NEXT SATURDAY...FUCK YEAH.

[countchocula]

As ofr my own experience with firearms....M-16 FAMILIARIZATION NEXT SATURDAY...FUCK YEAH.

This sums up your entire argument, which can't be taken too seriously.

Your opinions of marijuana are based on myth. There is no reason why it shouldn't be legalized in a country where alcohol and tobacco are legal. It doesn't make any sense. America is a hypocritical nation. I could destroy myself with any number of things. I fail to see how the legalization of marijuana would blacken society.

Enjoy using weapons. Me, I'm going to practice stabbing things.

[eljefe15]

Another position to add to the short list of things I disagree with President Obama.

1. Afghanistan (partially)
2. Contingency force in Iraq (partially)
3. Some appointments in his administration
4. Continued bailouts without addressing "main street" (especially student loans, healthcare, etc.)
5. Dropped the ball on AIG bonuses
6. Against the legalization of Marijuana

[The Postmaster General]

Homyrrh, I had to break down your statements for brevity purposes. After your last response, I feel that otherwise, many of my points would be overlooked or lumped together incongruously. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion.

My educaton in history is a nonissue

Then why did you mention it to begin with, especially in the context of trying to zing me with a crash course on the 2nd Amendment?

Like I said, no harm, no foul, but it really brings to question whether you are trying to have a discussion or just one-up someone with zingers. Kind of like this...

as I've gone on to pursue a more technical education, but I do take a honest exception to having my humility questioned, especially given such a weak context from which you have drawn this conclusion.

Or this...

I have edited the "AP" from my post in good faith. If it is felt, in any way (even on an internet forum), that I've given some inflection of pride, I will sooner change it than argue. I had not inended to initiate any semblance of a YouTube pissing contest, and will hence retract my comment.

Not so much this...

I also very much doubt I am within any immediate range of your age.

Which, according to your profile, you are 19 years old, and apparently there is mondo confusion on my part, because I mistook you with another schmoe who came onto the boards around the same time as you, also from Jersey. My bad. Now I'm trying to remember who that other guy was, if not you, because you both have very similar rhetoric patterns. Either way, my bad, I thought you were older than 19, definitely of drinking age.

To the point, however. I read your witticism and thought pretty much the same of this as I have with many of the posts, that you were just trying to be inciteful or else have questionable logic.

Now see, here you are talking another attempt to zing, when I seem to remember you agreeing with me on many posts, the difference between this and those though being that I was seeing eye to eye with you on the topic at hand. But alas, I use my witticisms to provide incite on a topic we disagree with, and now you mark me as having a history of questionable logic or only "trying to be inciteful." (I'm not sure if you mean insightful or as in I'm trying to incite: inciting, but either way, it's clearly meant as an attempted low blow) That has nothing to do with your pride, or lack of humility, that's just shitty. ;)

Okay, now to the point, for real...

Someone mentions drugs are "unequivocally" not bad, others feel a lot of drugs aren't that bad, and some people apparently feel it's just a Republican conspiracy to quell the civil liberties of the masses.

This metaphor you make in comparison to drugs was really not something I'd taken seriously because of its context. Much like my conviction that the vast bulk of liberalism is simply accpeted because it is convenient and may make sense without more than an initial thought, directly comparing the ownership of narcotics and the ownership of firearms is grossly incorrect. As I had mentioned, there is a constitutional right to "bear arms", but not to use certain, very harmful substances.

I gave several comparisons to draw from that are aside from the constitutional right, even pointing out that many people use drugs under the guise of the inalienable rights (which again, came first in our country's history). That's aside the point, though, because I dropped out the entire gun comparison to compare to the prescription and over-the-counter drugs, though standing by my assertion that gun comparison is just. I'm not sure why you keep blasting on about the 2nd, but thankfully you do address the prescription drug comparison -

The fundamental root of the difference between the two is found simply in the reason for each's existence. The firearm is owned and used in the interest of self-preservation, of an innate need to protect one's self and one's priceless belongings (namely, family). This is also true for national defense.

The fundamental root of the illegal drug, especially harder narcotics like cocaine or crack or heroin, is destruction.

The fundamental root of... what? No, you are just wrong now. Cocaine is actually is in the same legal classification of drugs as in oxycodone, ritalin, and lots of other commonly prescribed things. The fundamental root of cocaine, as it applies to US laws, is "The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000812----000-.html) and cocaine is illegal to be used to get high, which would be an abuse of the drug.

Everything you just listed, with the exception of crack, which is actually freebase cocaine, and freebasing is a pretty obvious form of abusing something --- If I mixed my TV with chemicals and tried smoking it, that's abuse --- Heroin and cocaine were born out of theraputic purposes. Heroin is used in much of Europe the same was morphine is used here. How can you equate that to destruction? That would be like saying that the anti-depressants, or acne medicine, or any number of pills that are linked with suicide are destructive at their roots. Just because they have been pulled from the pharmaceutical market? That would be saying every medicine ever created that was pulled from the market after it was linked to serious side-effects had, at it's root, destruction and that's clearly not true.

Any drug has grave health issues, risks that users acknowledge but pass upon for the high. Indeed, marijuana may do nothing more than incite a lack of production and negligence, but the ultimate consequences of doing this are far-reaching and nothing but negative. It is a gateway substance, a vehicle for quelling American production, and legalization would be extremely hard to enforce.

Would you agree that not everyone who uses pot goes on to try something harder, and not everyone who has tried something harder started with pot? If not, calling it a gateway drug makes sense, but if you do, you are sensationalizing and distorting statistics for a personal agenda. You are also condoning that anything the government decides to regulate would be for just reasons, and in turn be agreeing that government regulation is a good thing. Isn't this counter-intuitive toward your self-professed Republican leanings?

Meanwhile, prescription narcotics are indeed a dire issue. Painkilling medications like Vikes or Percs or Morphine are (without any statistical basis on my part here), as much an issue on the illegal market as illegal substances. The comparison between the two is nonexistent. Prescription meds are intended to heal ailments (alright, potheads, let it rip...), but are unfortunately abused and stolen and prescribed illegitimately and ultimately profitable.

As I said before, those three drugs you listed do the exact same thing as the illegal substance heroin, only less affectively. These all do the same thing to your body. They all were derived under the same thing. So, to say the fundamental root of heroin is destruction, you would be saying the fundamental root of the legal versions is destruction, since they all share the same fundamental root from which they were created.

If a mad scientist invents 3 robots to destroy the world, you can't say 2 of them are born from the fundamental root of destruction, but the 3rd one is okay because the government found out it can clean gutters economically.

The fact that you hold Vicodin and Morphine to the same standards, but Heroin to a different standard clearly states you are infatuated with the legalities, and ignoring the general indications. Morphine is insanely potent, and anyone looking to get high would be just as well scoring morphine than heroin, since they are much more closely related not just by pharmacology, but also in the potential of abuse. You would have to do an insane amount of vicodin to match the effects of morphine, but not much morphine to match the effects of heroin.

Abuse of drugs is indeed the reason they are illegal...but what else is done with drugs? Do we clean and polish them and bring them to a range twice a month? Do we lock them up in safes to prevent our kids from using them? Do we use drugs as a measure of self -defense? It is a moral fallacy on the part of a governing body to legalize any drug simply because it's only the abuse of a substance that leads to death and sickness, and not just for the user. There are some narcotics that are HIGHLY addictive, and annot find a single STRAND of logic as to why we would even consider legalizing anything but POSSIBLY marijuana (in which case, again, would just legalize the gateway to worse substances, stifle production, and is nigh-impossible ro enforce)and stimulate the snacks industry)

So wait, you agree that abuse of drugs is why they are illegal, but went through all of this to make the point that they aren't comparable to guns? I'm sorry if I touched a nerve by bringing up guns or something, but straight up - you have missed my entire point in lieu of focusing on defending your pride and your right to bear arms. That's not an interpretation, that's what you have done, because you have overlooked nearly everything I've said pertaining to the topic.

These prescription drugs, that you say cannot be compared to illegal drugs -- Heroin, Cocaine --- these were prescription drugs at one point. Vicodin used to be an over the counter drug. Morphine used to be over the counter. Heroin used to be over the counter. Then eventually they were tagged as substances of abuse, and then put under stricter regulations.

I am no parent or husband, but having my child choose between a firearm and a drug habit is a choice I do not even have to write here.

Why do you equate owning a gun, to a drug habit, and not just doing drugs? A more apt comparison would be saying you'd rather your kid have a habit of shooting guns than have a habit of shooting heroin. Of course, this would then follow that you would rather your kid go to school and shoot guns than go to school and shoot heroin. It would also follow that you would rather your kid die from a self-inflected gun shot wound than from overdosing on heroin --- Maybe not because you are concerned about the well-being about your kid, but because it would be totally embarrassing having to admit your kid was a dirty dope addict.

Here is a very hypothetical question - If you were in a plane crash and on an island with other survivors, and your leg needed to be amputated. There was a doctor on board who could perform the amputation, let's just go ahead and call him Dr. Jack. Now, Dr. Jack says that it's going to hurt like hell when he cuts your leg off, because they are going to have to hacksaw through your femur. Unfortunately, the other survivors have already raided the liquor bar on the plane, but the good news is, they found a downed plane nearby that contained a stash of heroin. Now, he can administer the heroin to you in order to perform the surgery, because mainly he doesn't want to hear you screaming why they cut your leg off --- Now, are you going to say, "No, Heroin is a drug that is illegal the US, destructive at its fundamental roots!" or are you going to use the heroin for its intended purposes?

As ofr my own experience with firearms....M-16 FAMILIARIZATION NEXT SATURDAY...FUCK YEAH.

Right, and as for my own opinion on drug laws, I support most them. I only engaged in this discussion because you said there was no context in which drug use does not result in "distinctly grave consequences".

That was only opiates and cocaine I touched on. Freebase cocaine is clearly only used for abuse. Crack is whack. I haven't gone into the widely evidenced therapeutic value of LSD and MDMA under clinical settings, but enough is probably enough. Same with gun laws, just because the use of objects is controlled by the government, that doesn't make them inherently bad.

[countchocula]

I have prescriptions for narcotics (namely Oxycodone) that my insurance pays for. I've been taking them for so long, that I'm addicted to them. So to recap...

The GOVERNMENT gives me FREE bottles of a NARCOTIC that I'm ADDICTED to.

Do you still feel that legalizing maijuana would be morally objectionable? Do you feel that America is above such a proposition?

[Homyrrh]

To express myself more appropriately, my educational background in history is a nonissue becasue it is the same as any other individual here (assuming they're of the age to have graduated high school). There is no oneupmanship because I hadn't read that you had some established history education. I've not taken a history class since 2006. Furthermore, stating that I've gone on to a more technical education is simply a statement of fact that I'm studying engineering, not some boast (I honestly don't know how you interpreted this). Then I mentioned that I'd sooner address issues of my humility than of any other, and so I took back the two letters.

I don't know how "pride", which you've mentioned mutiple times, has any relevance ot my posts. You said "Drugs don't kill people, abuse does", which is, by my interpretation of your own words, a "zinger". I took exception when you accused me of throwing out inciteful one-liners when, ultimately, it seems you threw that comment out in order to get a similar response. Such a witticism as yours is not some way to instigate academic debate.

When the comparison to guns is made, I take no personal offense in any matter, but do not understand oyur logic or any other person's. As I had said, the constitutional right to bear arms was written for self-preservation. Narcotics exist for self-destruction.

Legalizing any drug is immoral, but more objectively, entirely too difficult to enforce. Legalizing marijuana is foolish because it is often a gateway drug. Not every instance of use of marijuana leads to harder narcotics, but is "not always" a suitable defense for legalization?

My comment about "distinctly grave consequences" was taken from context. Quentin had mentioned drugs are "unequivocally" not bad. Consequently, I was inclined to ask if there was absolutely no instance whatsoever in which drugs did not have "distinctly grave consequences".

My hypothetical child, much like anyone else's, would indeed be much better off shooting twice a week after work than coming home with holes in his arms and dope in his veins.

Finally, I'd definitely take the heroin while having my limb amputated on a remote island for medicinal purposes...since there'd be no available prescriptions for Vicodin or Percocet.

I just don't quite understand what you're arguing...I am against legalizing marijuana because it is the definitive gateway drug, stifles production, and, most especially, would be impossible to enforce and make economic gain.

And you were thinking of AshleysDad. He was from the 609. No one up north likes dudes from the 609. I also wouldn't say we have similar "rhetoric patterns".

[countchocula]

Legalizing marijuana is foolish because it is often a gateway drug. Not every instance of use of marijuana leads to harder narcotics, but is "not always" a suitable defense for legalization?

How do you know that marijuana is "often" a gateway drug? Where are your sources?

[Vong]

Legalizing any drug is immoral

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. And since when did morals have anything to do with drugs, since it's up to the invdividual to use them.

but more objectively, entirely too difficult to enforce.

Where is your objectivity in this? There is no precdent in the U.S. that proves enforcing marijuana would be difficult since it has never been attempted.

Legalizing marijuana is foolish because it is often a gateway drug.

Consuming alcohol can lead to depression and addiction. People react differently to alcohol, just as they do for marijuana. I see more people use marijuana recreationally than habitually. Of course people might use marijuana and go to harder shit, but just as alcohol might cause depression and addiction, the fault doesn't lie in the drug...it lies in the individual!

You are funneling backwards conservative logic based on nothing that I can easily see in a crappy "Don't do drugs" commerical on American T.V.

[The Postmaster General]

To express myself more appropriately, my educational background in history is a nonissue becasue it is the same as any other individual here (assuming they're of the age to have graduated high school). There is no oneupmanship because I hadn't read that you had some established history education. I've not taken a history class since 2006. Furthermore, stating that I've gone on to a more technical education is simply a statement of fact that I'm studying engineering, not some boast (I honestly don't know how you interpreted this). Then I mentioned that I'd sooner address issues of my humility than of any other, and so I took back the two letters.

I don't know how "pride", which you've mentioned mutiple times, has any relevance ot my posts. You said "Drugs don't kill people, abuse does", which is, by my interpretation of your own words, a "zinger". I took exception when you accused me of throwing out inciteful one-liners when, ultimately, it seems you threw that comment out in order to get a similar response. Such a witticism as yours is not some way to instigate academic debate.

Okay, then we need to back up because I think we are both focusing on something that neither intended to be the overwhelming point we were trying to make.

When I said "Drugs don't kill people, abuse does." I was adding on to my previous statement within that post, saying that people who dislike drugs are comparable to people who dislike guns, in that they actually take issue with the worst possible scenarios that can occur from the abuse and misuse of both. Saying "Drugs don't kill people..." wasn't meant like some witty remark I came up with, but was just to illustrate the rebuttal to that attack against drugs/guns.

When you brought up the Second Amendment, it felt as if you were just trying to zing me without any discussion as I wasn't comparing guns and drugs on that front, but on the front of how opponents of both attack the legality of them. Apparently from there it stacked up, and I'm now glad it seems more evident where the discussion was derailed.

When the comparison to guns is made, I take no personal offense in any matter, but do not understand oyur logic or any other person's. As I had said, the constitutional right to bear arms was written for self-preservation. Narcotics exist for self-destruction.

Okay, I also see where other confusion is occurring and this is partially my fault. There are generally two definitions of narcotics, one being a generalized usage meaning anything illegal or controlled, and a clinical usage denoting the actual effects of the drug, which is the usage I'm more familiar with.

What you are saying though, that narcotics exist for self-destruction would then say that any drug that is illegal or controlled is used for self-destruction. This doesn't seem right though, because the way drug laws have historically worked, you would be saying that drugs first exist for theraputic value, but once they are illegal, only for self-destruction.

Laws in many states where pot is prescribed for medicinal purposes exist for self-preservation (well being). These are also constitutional amendment within the states own laws.

It is the places where pot is illegal that there is a higher likelihood of self-destruction and this is not inherently because of the drugs, but the fact that breaking the law is a self-destructive behavior, steaming from legal problems.

There are many cases of people using drugs who do not self-destruct, and lead productive lives, many finishing college, finding gainful employment, some even becoming the leader of the free world. To say that drugs exist only for self-destruction is evidently incorrect.

Legalizing any drug is immoral, but more objectively, entirely too difficult to enforce. Legalizing marijuana is foolish because it is often a gateway drug. Not every instance of use of marijuana leads to harder narcotics, but is "not always" a suitable defense for legalization?

Well, sure. Vicodin is "not always" abused or leads to self-destruction, but it is legal. Raising speed limits is "not always" safe, but is often done.

My comment about "distinctly grave consequences" was taken from context. Quentin had mentioned drugs are "unequivocally" not bad. Consequently, I was inclined to ask if there was absolutely no instance whatsoever in which drugs did not have "distinctly grave consequences".

Yes, I did take it from context and that's why I compared it to proponents of gun laws, because no one for guns can argue that there are no instances whatsoever in which guns did not have distinctly grave consequences.

Of course, as you added, you can support the unregulated use of guns by citing the second, but as I also noted, many drug cases have been thrown out based on the 4th and 5th amendments.

However, we weren't talking about defense of guns/drugs, we were talking about people wanting such things to be illegal, and on that note is where I drew the comparison. I'm not certain why this seems so far-fetched to you. Constitutional protection isn't synonymous with total deregulation, never has been.

My hypothetical child, much like anyone else's, would indeed be much better off shooting twice a week after work than coming home with holes in his arms and dope in his veins.

Finally, I'd definitely take the heroin while having my limb amputated on a remote island for medicinal purposes...since there'd be no available prescriptions for Vicodin or Percocet.

Yes, but "holes in his arms" is a sign of drug abuse. You keep equating responsible usage of firearms to irresponsible usage of drugs. If your child was in the hypothetical plane crash, you have indicated you would be fine with your child being on heroin. I would be likened to believe that if your child had terminal cancer and lived in California, you would be fine with them smoking pot as well. Maybe not(?)

I would also assume that you wouldn't want your child to abuse firearms - or would at least hope you wouldn't.

I just don't quite understand what you're arguing...I am against legalizing marijuana because it is the definitive gateway drug, stifles production, and, most especially, would be impossible to enforce and make economic gain.

Well, I'm not trying to have an argument but am trying to provide perspective. It's not my intention to win some battle of words, because there really is no point to it. I don't think any of the people making laws are reading posts on Joblo.com by someone called BubbaStrangelove looking for insight into what they are going to propose for legislation.

I just feel that you aren't acknowledging a complete picture based on many of the things you are saying, namely that just because a drug is illegal means it has no intrinsic value, and also that people only use drugs with the intent or outcome toward self-destruction.

It's my intent to just speak of some of historic reasons behind the laws behind drugs and the history behind their use to show that the above is not the case.

I agree that marijuana would be hard to enforce, but don't agree that it is a gateway drug anymore than tobacco or alcohol is. I also don't agree that it unequivocally stifles production. Maybe it does if you are an accountant, but maybe not so much if you're a comedian, or an ad designer.

The reason I feel pot is currently illegal is because of the inability to regulate it, and only that. A user can grow his own fairly easily. Pharmacutical companies are the largest lobbying industry in Washington. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2005-04-25-drug-lobby-cover_x.htm) Many of the drugs they regulate, namely anti-anxiety meds, anti-nausea, anti-convulsives, antidepressants, pain killers - namely anti-inflamatories, and many more I can't think of all have the same therapeutic values that have also been linked with pot use.

That has a lot more to do with it than the government worrying about people getting hooked on strong opiates (please see Count Chocula's post about his med regiment...), or about fear that negroes, chinamen and mexicans would rape white women, which was the first assertions made by drug opponents when regulations toward taxation began in the early 20th century.

And you were thinking of AshleysDad. He was from the 609. No one up north likes dudes from the 609. I also wouldn't say we have similar "rhetoric patterns".

Yes, AshleysDad!

Hey, you live in North Jersey! That's the nations Heroin hub! You better keep an eye on who your woman is hanging out with! Haha. Now THAT is how I respond without intent to discuss!

[Homyrrh]

Hey, you live in North Jersey! That's the nations Heroin hub! You better keep an eye on who your woman is hanging out with! Haha. Now THAT is how I respond without intent to discuss!
Like I said, I go to engineering school. We haven't any women :(

[The Postmaster General]

Like I said, I go to engineering school. We haven't any women :(

Well, I've known many an engineer student to date regularly. So based on the empirical evidence before me, I would wager it has less to do with your course of study and more to do with your listening skills.

Please don't shoot me. :D

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Comcast Press Writer: I'm going to title it, "Obama: Legalizing Marijuana Not A Plan To Strengthen Economy"

Comcast Editor: No, we need something more sensational, something that will get people talking! Don't worry, with a topic like this, no one will care. The anti-pot camp will just run with it, and the pro-pot camp will be too warm and fuzzy to notice. Let's toke up and brainstorm this while we watch Fancast.

It also says, in this article, that he does not want to legalize it. Granted, the title that they gave it wasn't the most suited one (after all, it is Comcast), but to imply that it has nothing at all to do with the article is ridiculous because Gibbs actually says "the president does not want to legalize marijuana." Hence, I defend the title of my thread, because the economic implications of keeping pot illegal are meaningless as long as we're carrying out the same brutish, Ashcroftian anti-drug policies...which are far more immoral than any use of drugs, whether they're for prescription or recreational purposes.


Legalizing any drug is immoral, but more objectively, entirely too difficult to enforce. Legalizing marijuana is foolish because it is often a gateway drug. Not every instance of use of marijuana leads to harder narcotics, but is "not always" a suitable defense for legalization?

Okay, here is where I think the gun comparison actually defeats this logic, because we are talking about logic now and not what's protected in the Constitution and what isn't. The use of a gun sometimes leads to someone shooting up a church or robbing a bank. Multiple lives can be taken away by the possession of a gun. Drug use ultimately leads to the destruction of oneself and, in some unfortunate cases, a few more if the user is behind the wheel; but the use of drugs cannot be intentionally used to wreak havoc on others. The right to possess a firearm is a societal risk, but we are willing to take it because, on that front, we were mature enough to accept the consequences in the name of personal liberty and choice.

As for the "gateway drug" label...whatever. It's a simple argument, but I stand by it: a far greater number of people take a sip of beer before they hit a bowl. Marijuana can lead to cocaine or heroin use, but often it only leads up to using other psychedelic drugs like mushrooms or LSD, if it ever leads up to anything at all (which, again, it does often doesn't).

[The Postmaster General]

It also says, in this article, that he does not want to legalize it. Granted, the title that they gave it wasn't the most suited one (after all, it is Comcast), but to imply that it has nothing at all to do with the article is ridiculous because Gibbs actually says "the president does not want to legalize marijuana." Hence, I defend the title of my thread, because the economic implications of keeping pot illegal are meaningless as long as we're carrying out the same brutish, Ashcroftian anti-drug policies...which are far more immoral than any use of drugs, whether they're for prescription or recreational purposes.

You don't need to defend your thread title, it's a paraphrase of the title of the article you posted.

Do you not think I read the part where Gibbs responded or something? I read that, and it doesn't make any difference.

Let me illustrate:

Example A)

Reporters: Gibbs, is the president going to legalize marijuana for the purposes of rebooting the economy?

"The president opposes the legalization of marijuana," Gibbs told reporters, emphasizing his seriousness. "He doesn't think that's the right plan for America."

Example B)

Reporters: Gibbs, does the president agree with current marijuana laws and have an agenda to ensure that pot remains a criminal offense and users will be sentenced to jail time?

"The president opposes the legalization of marijuana," Gibbs told reporters, emphasizing his seriousness. "He doesn't think that's the right plan for America."


I'm not saying that Obama is going to make pot legal, I've already stated my thoughts on the potential of that, but for the sake of this part of the discussion, since the context of Obama being quoted was taken from Example A, we should assume that was his intent. The Comcast article added a bunch of irrelevant information, for instance, Obama's former pot use, to give the article a certain tone.