Obama Refuses to Discuss Drug Decriminalization

President Obama is unable to distinguish between drug decriminalization and legalization.

At the Summit of The Americas:

The Colombian president also said that the war on drugs isn’t working and that he would like to see a debate on decriminalizing them.

Obama’s response:

But Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office has said he won’t entertain any policy changes that would lift the prohibition of illicit drugs, while U.S. President Barack Obama repeated at the summit on Saturday that the White House believes “legalization is not the answer.”

“The White House believes”?

Obama is deflecting/avoiding the issue, first by deliberatly lumping two totally different issues together, illegal drug legalization vs. decriminalization. Second, he lamely generalizes the issue by stating the position of “the White House”. Isn’t President Obama in charge? He’s attending a major summit of nations- why can’t Obama simply express his take? Why can’t he enter into a dialogue with the leadership of Latin American nations on this issue?

Safe to assume Obama won’t admit/discuss the militarization of the war on drugs, either.

This is all academic; it would be instructive to list all of the failed U.S. policies (both here and abroad) which Obama supports- just like several repuglican and “democratic” presidents before him.

What exactly did Obama accomplish at this Summit? VP Biden already made it clear recently that the failed war on drugs is to continue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/14/harper-summit-americas.html

10 Comments

Brendan Skwire on April 15, 2012 at 11:59 am

Obama can’t change our drug laws on his own. Even if he called for total drug legalization, the senate would block it 100%. That’s because we live in an Age of Stupid.
At the same time, Obama’s DOJ has SHAMEFULLY broken promises about laying off medical marijuana.
Gotta keep those private prisons full.
Biden’s record on marijuana is atrocious.

Welcome to the Age of Stupid, where no one has any ideas but bad ones.

Superpole on April 15, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Great points, thanks.

Regarding your point 1: Agreed, and if you read my posts here and over at dKos (where I spend much less time of late) you’ll see I put almost all of the blame for our ills where it belongs: on our hapless, incompetent Congress.

I’m not asking for total drug legalization, that’s a major point.

“The Senate would block it 100%”. The Senate- who I refer to as our House of Lords (over half of the Senate are millionaires)- why would they block even decriminalization?

1.) Partly because, thanks to Obama (and others) who continue to lamely lump legalization with decriminalization, thus pandering to the ignorant “reefer madness” types out there- Senators know they will be labeled as supporters of drug abuse by reich wing media, and again, ignorant voters who don’t know better.

2.) Big Pharma doesn’t want easy access to marijuana, even though that’s what we have now regardless of “the law”. People who want to smoke pot do so.

You’re correct, this and other failed U.S. policy contribute to/add up to the Age of Stupid. and my reading of history indicates stupid nations don’t last long.

At some point the Stupid leads to major fail. Look to the other “great” empires of the past; the Dutch, Spanish, English, etc., where are they now?
- Indianadem on April 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm
  
  Sometimes I wonder how much the liquor lobby has to do with it as well.
  - Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 9:47 am
    
    Good point- but:
    
    Liquor is readily available and relatively cheap if one is merely a beer/jug wine drinker. Recent studies show liquor consumption during the recession actually increased.
    
    With prescription drugs, one has to of course have a prescription; this means trips to the doctor to get the prescription. And prescription drugs aren’t cheap.
    
    IMHO, liquor sales are not threatened by pot use. Pot users typically drink as well.
    - Brendan Skwire on April 16, 2012 at 2:47 pm
      
      i can attest to that. 🙂

Chris Bellomy on April 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm

I’m formulating a rule of thumb about these things: “Don’t expect a candidate for President to take a stand that has yet to get anyone elected to Congress.” I can’t even begin to imagine the wingnut freakout that would erupt if Obama came out in favor of legalization, and you know that the corporate media would gleefully join in.

Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 9:52 am

Understood- but you again confused the main issue.

You stated:

I can’t even begin to imagine the wingnut freakout that would erupt if Obama came out in favor of legalization, and you know that the corporate media would gleefully join in.

Legalization is not what Columbian President Santos and other Latin American leaders are talking about- they suggest a dialogue with the U.S. on decriminalization.

Drug decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
- Quentin on April 16, 2012 at 10:53 am
  
  I’m dense. Would you explain the difference to me.
  - Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    
    Under the bill signed today, SB 1449, by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), marijuana possession will be treated like a traffic ticket. The fine will remain at $100, and there will be no arrest record.
    
    The above quote provides some detail on California’s recent decriminalization law- for possession of less than one ounce of pot.
    
    Note there is still a fine for $100, but nothing will appear on your record. This law allows possession for personal recreational use- whereas most states will bust you for possession of any amount.
    
    Nothing in this law allows you to schlep around a pound of pot in your backpack, trunk of your car, etc.
    If you do that and get caught, you will likely be busted as a dealer.
    
    Prop 19 in California which did not pass, would have totally legalized and regulated pot, more or less the same as booze and cigs:
    
    More than a year ago, Proposition 19 failed at the polls. If passed, it would have decriminalized marijuana and allowed the government to regulate and penalize marijuana use and distribution in an effort to generate additional revenue for the state government.
    
    While the word “decriminalized” is used in the paragraph above, Prop 19 goes further than the basic decriminalization law which did pass. With Prop 19, the state takes over the distribution (sales) of pot and obtains the tax revenue from sales- which anyone with a brain knows would be significant.
    
    With Prop 19 illicit dealers of pot would still get busted- just as they are now- much like makers of “moonshine” booze are busted, ever since prohibition was repealed years ago and the state got back into regulation of booze distribution and sales.
    
    See “stopthedrugwar” link below and the other link for the full story on decriminalization.
    
    Hope this clears it up for you- let me know if you have further questions/comments.
    
    http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju
    
    http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2012/04/in_the_know_president_obama_on_legalization_of_d
    rugs
    
    http://theweek.com/article/index/207764/why-california-decriminalized-recreational-pot-5-theories
    - Quentin on April 17, 2012 at 2:31 am
      
      Thanks. Now it’s clear to me.

Brendan Skwire on April 15, 2012 at 11:59 am
1. Obama can’t change our drug laws on his own. Even if he called for total drug legalization, the senate would block it 100%. That’s because we live in an Age of Stupid.
2. At the same time, Obama’s DOJ has SHAMEFULLY broken promises about laying off medical marijuana.
3. Gotta keep those private prisons full.
4. Biden’s record on marijuana is atrocious.
Welcome to the Age of Stupid, where no one has any ideas but bad ones.
- Superpole on April 15, 2012 at 12:24 pm
  
  Great points, thanks.
  
  Regarding your point 1: Agreed, and if you read my posts here and over at dKos (where I spend much less time of late) you’ll see I put almost all of the blame for our ills where it belongs: on our hapless, incompetent Congress.
  
  I’m not asking for total drug legalization, that’s a major point.
  
  “The Senate would block it 100%”. The Senate- who I refer to as our House of Lords (over half of the Senate are millionaires)- why would they block even decriminalization?
  
  1.) Partly because, thanks to Obama (and others) who continue to lamely lump legalization with decriminalization, thus pandering to the ignorant “reefer madness” types out there- Senators know they will be labeled as supporters of drug abuse by reich wing media, and again, ignorant voters who don’t know better.
  
  2.) Big Pharma doesn’t want easy access to marijuana, even though that’s what we have now regardless of “the law”. People who want to smoke pot do so.
  
  You’re correct, this and other failed U.S. policy contribute to/add up to the Age of Stupid. and my reading of history indicates stupid nations don’t last long.
  
  At some point the Stupid leads to major fail. Look to the other “great” empires of the past; the Dutch, Spanish, English, etc., where are they now?
  - Indianadem on April 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    
    Sometimes I wonder how much the liquor lobby has to do with it as well.
    - Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 9:47 am
      
      Good point- but:
      
      Liquor is readily available and relatively cheap if one is merely a beer/jug wine drinker. Recent studies show liquor consumption during the recession actually increased.
      
      With prescription drugs, one has to of course have a prescription; this means trips to the doctor to get the prescription. And prescription drugs aren’t cheap.
      
      IMHO, liquor sales are not threatened by pot use. Pot users typically drink as well.
      - Brendan Skwire on April 16, 2012 at 2:47 pm
        
        i can attest to that. 🙂
Chris Bellomy on April 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm

I’m formulating a rule of thumb about these things: “Don’t expect a candidate for President to take a stand that has yet to get anyone elected to Congress.” I can’t even begin to imagine the wingnut freakout that would erupt if Obama came out in favor of legalization, and you know that the corporate media would gleefully join in.
- Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 9:52 am
  
  Understood- but you again confused the main issue.
  
  You stated:
  
  I can’t even begin to imagine the wingnut freakout that would erupt if Obama came out in favor of legalization, and you know that the corporate media would gleefully join in.
  
  Legalization is not what Columbian President Santos and other Latin American leaders are talking about- they suggest a dialogue with the U.S. on decriminalization.
  
  Drug decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
  - Quentin on April 16, 2012 at 10:53 am
    
    I’m dense. Would you explain the difference to me.
    - Superpole on April 16, 2012 at 3:13 pm
      
      Under the bill signed today, SB 1449, by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), marijuana possession will be treated like a traffic ticket. The fine will remain at $100, and there will be no arrest record.
      
      The above quote provides some detail on California’s recent decriminalization law- for possession of less than one ounce of pot.
      
      Note there is still a fine for $100, but nothing will appear on your record. This law allows possession for personal recreational use- whereas most states will bust you for possession of any amount.
      
      Nothing in this law allows you to schlep around a pound of pot in your backpack, trunk of your car, etc.
      If you do that and get caught, you will likely be busted as a dealer.
      
      Prop 19 in California which did not pass, would have totally legalized and regulated pot, more or less the same as booze and cigs:
      
      More than a year ago, Proposition 19 failed at the polls. If passed, it would have decriminalized marijuana and allowed the government to regulate and penalize marijuana use and distribution in an effort to generate additional revenue for the state government.
      
      While the word “decriminalized” is used in the paragraph above, Prop 19 goes further than the basic decriminalization law which did pass. With Prop 19, the state takes over the distribution (sales) of pot and obtains the tax revenue from sales- which anyone with a brain knows would be significant.
      
      With Prop 19 illicit dealers of pot would still get busted- just as they are now- much like makers of “moonshine” booze are busted, ever since prohibition was repealed years ago and the state got back into regulation of booze distribution and sales.
      
      See “stopthedrugwar” link below and the other link for the full story on decriminalization.
      
      Hope this clears it up for you- let me know if you have further questions/comments.
      
      http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju
      
      http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2012/04/in_the_know_president_obama_on_legalization_of_d
      rugs
      
      http://theweek.com/article/index/207764/why-california-decriminalized-recreational-pot-5-theories
      - Quentin on April 17, 2012 at 2:31 am
        
        Thanks. Now it’s clear to me.

Obama Refuses to Discuss Drug Decriminalization

About The Author

Superpole

10 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments