Liberal/Progressive Hero Obama weighs plans to crack down on legalized weed

[Smokey 1]

Slavery is a state of mind. If I feel like smoking a joint I will do it regardless of what the laws are...

Well we definately are on the same page.

[skeemer]

Slavery is a state of mind. If I feel like smoking a joint I will do it regardless of what the laws are...

Do you smoke 81 blunts a day?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular

[soulflower]

Do you smoke 81 blunts a day?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular

I call BS. Doesn't seem possible. Even if he smoked non-stop for 24 hours

[skeemer]

I call BS. Doesn't seem possible. Even if he smoked non-stop for 24 hours

Depends on the size of those blunts. If he's using cigar blunts then yeah; if he's using Swisher Sweets then it's possible.

Also, if I were him I'd be smoking joints and/or water bongs. Blunts are so harsh.

[gonzoliberal]

Depends on the size of those blunts. If he's using cigar blunts then yeah; if he's using Swisher Sweets then it's possible.

Also, if I were him I'd be smoking joints and/or water bongs. Blunts are so harsh.

All that tobacco isn't good for you.

'Just sayin'...

[SemiAuto]

Just for fun, I wonder if the DOJ would launch a RICO investigation into the state governments of Washington and Colorado? From the Federal point of view, aren't they essentially organizing crime?

[Steveg85321]

I just don't understand the duality of the government's position. The Government is fine with people using tobacco and alcohol even though they are not "good for us" by some puritanical/health standard, but the government cannot abide the idea of people smoking pot for pleasure. What is the difference?

I believe the big problem is the whole war-on-drugs-industry, the police, the judicial, the legal, not to mention all the gangs of smugglers, dealers, and money launderers who would be out of business if pot became legal regulated by the government. These people just don't want to give up their power over us. It is just more big-government BS, and is unlikely to change soon. The president may be populist in his politics, but he is first and foremost a politician, and he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

[Smokey 1]

I just don't understand the duality of the government's position. The Government is fine with people using tobacco and alcohol even though they are not "good for us" by some puritanical/health standard, but the government cannot abide the idea of people smoking pot for pleasure. What is the difference?

I believe the big problem is the whole war-on-drugs-industry, the police, the judicial, the legal, not to mention all the gangs of smugglers, dealers, and money launderers who would be out of business if pot became legal regulated by the government. These people just don't want to give up their power over us. It is just more big-government BS, and is unlikely to change soon. The president may be populist in his politics, but he is first and foremost a politician, and he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

You are right. People on both sides of the law stand to lose money if it is legalized.

[dsummoner]

When the pot smoking prygryssyves start going full Fallujah on federal agents sent to oppress them and place them in Obama's Federal rape rooms then they can be considered Liberals again (instead of government boot licking, unyielding to 'change' at the Federal level conservatives).

[johnpolitics]

The other option for the feds is to do nothing. Conservatives want states to regulate abortion but not weed. That makes no sense.

[Steveg85321]

The other option for the feds is to do nothing. Conservatives want states to regulate abortion but not weed. That makes no sense.

That statement makes no sense. This discussion is not about abortion, which is a matter of life or death. This discussion concerns legalization of a recreational drug that harms no one, is none of the government's business, and could save lots of time, money and effort and/or be a source of revenue. Not to mention being an issue of personal freedom.

But to follow your line of reasoning, if we may call it that, if the government is open to people's desire to kill their babies, why should it not be open to people's desire to get high?

[SomeIdiot]

I won't be surprised if the Obama administration cracks down. All Republican means is that you like your authoritarians to be white rednecks and all Democrat means is that you like your authoritarians to be black and cosmopolitan. President Obama is an immoral person for enforcing drug prohibition and it would be nice if his supposedly liberal supporters would remember it.

[johnpolitics]

That statement makes no sense. This discussion is not about abortion, which is a matter of life or death. This discussion concerns legalization of a recreational drug that harms no one, is none of the government's business, and could save lots of time, money and effort and/or be a source of revenue. Not to mention being an issue of personal freedom.

But to follow your line of reasoning, if we may call it that, if the government is open to people's desire to kill their babies, why should it not be open to people's desire to get high?

You missed my point. It is picking and choosing what to regulate.

[BlandFood]

I call BS. Doesn't seem possible. Even if he smoked non-stop for 24 hours

I dunno about that, ask the Grand Wizard..... at 83 I think he set some kind of record.

[BlandFood]

Anne who?

Since he's never read a book or heard of Ann Frank it can't be her.

[Calamari]

Interesting thread in light of what Obama's actual stance on this turned out to be.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=325334