PDA

View Full Version : Obama lost my vote



Hedley LaMarr
28th October 11, 09:41 PM
When it comes right down to it, I'm a single issue voter. And that issue is the legality of marijuana.

The people of reddit created a petition on the whitehouse.gov's new automated petition site with the intention of legalizing marijuana and regulating it in a way similar to alcohol. Here is the response to the petition:

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuana) is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.
According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health (http://www.nida.nih.gov/nidahome.html)- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction (http://drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/marijuana4.html#addictive), respiratory disease (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm), and cognitive impairment (http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N3/MarijMemory.html). We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions (http://oas.samhsa.gov/TEDS2k7highlights/TEDSHighl2k7Tbl3.htm) and visits to emergency rooms (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/DAWN034/EDHighlights.htm). Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years (http://home.olemiss.edu/~suman/potancy%20paper%202010.pdf), raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's (http://drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/addiction.html). Simply put, it is not a benign drug.
Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108643.htm) nor the Institute of Medicine (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2003/Marijuana-and-Medicine-Assessing-the-Science-Base.aspx%20class=) have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.
As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.
That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/2011-national-drug-control-strategy) is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/Drug-Free-Communities-Support-Program), this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works (http://www.drugabuse.gov/PODAT/faqs.html#faq3). In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts (http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts) across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.
Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.
Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/2011-national-drug-control-strategy) to learn more.

link https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/what-we-have-say-about-legalizing-marijuana



(https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/what-we-have-say-about-legalizing-marijuana)I don't know if I'll vote in the US anymore, but if I do, it'll be for that crackpot Ron Paul. America might go to hell in a handbasket but at least I'd be able to toke up and enjoy the descent.

Robot Jesus
28th October 11, 10:42 PM
legalizing pot is politically impossible at the moment.

although I think the interesting question is what needs to happen for it to become possible.

jvjim
28th October 11, 10:56 PM
Just to clarify, you'll only be able to use marijuana legally if it's legal or decriminalized in your state. Also, if you honestly believe Ron Paul's platform will be a net negative for the country, you shouldn't vote for him. I will say this: he's the candidate the least likely to ask you to die in a foreign country and the candidate the least likely to tell you when, how, and where you can kill your body with chemicals. Also, his economic views will probably reverse much of the damage over the past few decades and definitely prevent the type of damage we saw during 2007-2008 collapse.

Hedley LaMarr
28th October 11, 11:12 PM
Just to clarify, you'll only be able to use marijuana legally if it's legal or decriminalized in your state.

Most states are more or less required to balance their budget every fiscal go round, so I doubt they'd keep up the prison industrial complex once they lose the federal funding for it. Maybe South Carolina or Texas, but they can go fuck themselves.


Also, if you honestly believe Ron Paul's platform will be a net negative for the country, you shouldn't vote for him.

Every mainstream politician's platform is a net negative for this country. That's been true for decades, possibly a century. Ron Paul's is just the lesser of all evils at this point.


I will say this: he's the candidate the least likely to ask you to die in a foreign country and the candidate the least likely to tell you when, how, and where you can kill your body with chemicals.

The latter is the only real benefit Paul has going for him.


Also, his economic views will probably reverse much of the damage over the past few decades and definitely prevent the type of damage we saw during 2007-2008 collapse.
It might "prevent the type of damage" caused by a plutocratic system run by major banks, but it's going to open the door to all sorts of other fun problems 20 years from now when the American education system is completely in the shitter, food riots are rampant and we go back to the days of coathanger abortions and witch doctors.

I'd really prefer Jesse Ventura to run. Now there's a guy with style.

jvjim
28th October 11, 11:20 PM
I don't think the American educational system can get much worse unless we regress to undeveloped status. The best way to end food riots would be ending the massive subsidies and price/quantity controls we have on corn (which cause food riots abroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis#Biofuel_ subsidies_in_the_US_and_the_EU)) and other goods. Abortions would be illegal in some states, most likely.

Hedley LaMarr
28th October 11, 11:27 PM
I don't think the American educational system can get much worse unless we regress to undeveloped status.

Which we will, especially south of the Mason Dixon.


The best way to end food riots would be ending the massive subsidies and price/quantity controls we have on corn (which cause food riots abroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2008_world_food_price_crisis#Biofuel_subsidie s_in_the_US_and_the_EU)) and other goods

While that needs to be done, it's not going to prevent food riots. The only thing that would really prevent food riots is if real estate prices thoroughly bottomed out, so the people can go back to being subsistence farmers the way the Good Lord and Thomas Jefferson intended.


Abortions would be illegal in some states, most likely.
No, all states. "Mr. State's Rights" has been trying to pass "Sanctity of Life Acts" in Congress for over 15 years.

jvjim
28th October 11, 11:38 PM
The areas of the South you're talking about probably couldn't get any worse than they are now. However, some areas in the South are among the richest in the country. Also, the South has some of the best (tertiary) schools in the country. I have diplomas from a couple of them. Albeit, it does have some of the have some of the worst schools in the country. I have diplomas from several of them.

I doubt that food prices and real estate prices are tied the way you say, but if you have sources that say otherwise I'd be interested in reading them.

The Sanctity of Life Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act) removes federal challenges to abortion prohibition, it isn't a nationwide ban on abortions.

Hedley LaMarr
29th October 11, 12:05 AM
The areas of the South you're talking about probably couldn't get any worse than they are now. However, some areas in the South are among the richest in the country. Also, the South has some of the best (tertiary) schools in the country. I have diplomas from a couple of them. Albeit, it does have some of the have some of the worst schools in the country. I have diplomas from several of them.

Right now, I'm taking about K12 education. College is a separate matter entirely. And without federal funding or programs like Teach for America, schools in the south will go back


I doubt that food prices and real estate prices are tied the way you say, but if you have sources that say otherwise I'd be interested in reading them.

Reread what I wrote. I said "subsistence farming." If you grow your own food, food prices are irrelevant.


The Sanctity of Life Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act) removes federal challenges to abortion prohibition, it isn't a nationwide ban on abortions.
In the wikipedia article you cite, it clearly states


The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person) (specifically, natural personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person)) as beginning at conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)#Humans),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act#cite_note-0) "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

That's not just removing federal challenges to abortion prohibition, that is opening the door to charging people who perform or undergo an abortion as murderers.

jvjim
29th October 11, 12:27 AM
Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.
You're going to need some sources for apocalyptic version of the South, because it runs contrary to the vast economic and social improvements made over the past 50 years.

Hedley LaMarr
29th October 11, 02:38 AM
You're going to need some sources for apocalyptic version of the South, because it runs contrary to the vast economic and social improvements made over the past 50 years.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html
(http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html)This compares how much money a state sends to the federal government and how much they get back, the numbers they use are from 2005 (don't know if it's pre or post Katrina, because obviously FEMA spending contributed a large amount of federal cash after the incident in Louisiana, Mississippi, etc...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state)These numbers are from 2007. Look at the bottom ten states per capita (don't include Puerto Rico because it fuck em). 5 of the 10 are what most people consider "the South" (West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky). These are states that traditionally get $1.50-$2 back for every $1 they send to Washington. For a comparison, Wisconsin gets about $0.86 for every dollar it sends to Washington.

I'll continue digging tomorrow when I hit the library, but basically what I am saying is without massive amounts of federal subsidization, the South would be just as bleak as it was before LBJ. His "Great Society" programs, including Head Start, Medicaid, Medicare, etc... have greatly benefited the South and have allowed it to grow. Without this, the South will go back to one-room school houses without indoor plumbing (at least for blacks and mexicans.) I don't have access to academic journal databases at home, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to find them.

Cullion
29th October 11, 02:57 AM
It might "prevent the type of damage" caused by a plutocratic system run by major banks, but it's going to open the door to all sorts of other fun problems 20 years from now when the American education system is completely in the shitter, food riots are rampant and we go back to the days of coathanger abortions and witch doctors.

You really believe that American public education isn't already in the shitter?

I still don't understand why so many people believe they need a central government bureaucracy to proscribe their children's educational methods. It clearly hasn't worked.

It's as if people think that they can only have something if a central government bureaucracy exists for it, and that's delusional.

jvjim
29th October 11, 04:21 AM
As to the Great Society helping the South (and Southern blacks in particular), Thomas Sowell disagrees with the consensus. (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html)

As for Head Start, the HHS (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/head-starts-impact-evanescent-hhs-study/) conducted a study which revealed that most of the gains achieved by students in the Head Start program subsided by the end of first grade, despite the $100 billion the program has cost to date.

The current state of Medicare speaks for itself.

Also, the cities of Atlanta, Birmingham-Hoover, Nashville, Baton Rouge, Charlotte, Charleston, etc have seen incredible growth over the past 50 years, while cities like Detroit fell into decline. Not to belittle the suffering in those communities to prove a political point, but saying that ending Federal largess will return the South to the 1930's borders on the absurd.

Alabama, for example, certainly does receive a disproportionate amount of Federal money. However, most of it's education budget (http://www.decaturdaily.com/stories/Alabamas-department-budgets-rely-heavily-on-federal-funds,52666) is provided by Alabama tax dollars (with schools receiving some federal grants). The Federal government does provide the lion's share of our Medicaid, transportation, and Human Resources budget. However, we outspend the government almost one hundred times over in locking up our citizens. Obviously there are social and economic problems, but they are not problems exclusive to Alabama.

Robot Jesus
29th October 11, 10:50 AM
It's as if people think that they can only have something if a central government bureaucracy exists for it, and that's delusional.

I thinks it's more people don't want to let Alabama set it's own educational standards, most people just don't want to say that out loud.

Ajamil
30th October 11, 09:02 AM
Returning to the original post, why are people going to the ER for marijuana? Are these for injuries obtained while under the influence? Allergic reactions? Coughing fits? As far as I am aware there is no real way to OD on THC.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
30th October 11, 09:40 AM
I'm guessing psychosis

Hedley LaMarr
30th October 11, 01:19 PM
Returning to the original post, why are people going to the ER for marijuana? Are these for injuries obtained while under the influence? Allergic reactions? Coughing fits? As far as I am aware there is no real way to OD on THC.
Here is a rebuttal of the white house's response by norml
http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/

(http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/)Here's the bit regarding the ER visits


Visits to emergency rooms” links to 2009 DAWN data which contains this interesting bit of fine print, “Within DAWN, the drug misuse or abuse category is a group of [emergency room] visits defined broadly to include all visits associated with illicit drugs.” (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/DAWN034/EDHighlights.htm#footnote4) That is, if you mention pot, have pot on you, or your urine or blood tests positive for pot, that’s a drug-related emergency room visit. If you smoked a bowl last night, broke your leg skiing today, went to the ER, and they found metabolites of THC in your pee, that’s going into the DAWN stats as a pot-related ER visit. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine found “marijuana dependence was associated with the lowest rates” of emergency room admittance compared to other drugs (http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/marijuana%20dependence%20was%20associated%20with%2 0the%20lowest%20rates).

EvilSteve
31st October 11, 09:02 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lu86b/the_white_house_petition_to_legalize_marijuana/
(http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lu86b/the_white_house_petition_to_legalize_marijuana/)
tl;dr : The drug czar must by law oppose any efforts at legalization. It has been interpreted that this also allows the drug czar to lie to the public if necessary towards this end.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st October 11, 11:39 AM
Alabama is the Down's Syndrome cousin, stuck in the far lower right corner, ruining America's family portrait

Ajamil
31st October 11, 08:48 PM
it's a fine plafe as long as you're not educated there.

nihilist
31st October 11, 11:40 PM
Maybe Obama lost your vote because he was so frickin' baked.

Hedley LaMarr
1st November 11, 12:50 AM
7961

OZZ
9th November 11, 03:02 PM
Here's another reason to dislike the Obama administration:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/scrooge-obama-administration-tax-christmas-trees-154557411.html

Spade: The Real Snake
9th November 11, 03:09 PM
I thought we couldn't call the Christmas trees

And Clint Eastwood likes Herman Cain


Sent by telekinesis via Cerebro

Hedley LaMarr
9th November 11, 03:28 PM
Obama is attacking one of the greatest distribution mechanisms of the bourgeois's great pacifier. Either he is playing his hand and hoping to instigate the class war by oppressing this icon or he does not realize what he is doing and is simply giving in to the US Public Interest Research Group's agitation. They and eco-freak groups like them target the "Christmas tree" as a source of environmental destruction, not realizing that it will only spur more to purchase artificial Christmas trees which are far worse for the environment in terms of production and pollution. Either way he is a fool, and will serve no purpose in the furthering of humanity's progress.

Commodore Pipes
9th November 11, 03:51 PM
Indeed, Comrade, nothing amuses me so much as to hear the Wall Street Puppet decried as a Socialist.Indeed, I laugh until I weep; they are bittersweet tears, as I think of all of my brothers who will lose their lives in the great restructuring of society. But better to lose your life transforming the world into a more just society than breathing coal dust.

EvilSteve
10th November 11, 02:55 PM
Here's another reason to dislike the Obama administration:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/scrooge-obama-administration-tax-christmas-trees-154557411.html

That was established in April of '08- when Bush was still president. It's a trade group working with the USDA, which happens a lot. Remember those "Pork, the other white meat" ads? Same thing.

Obama wasn't behind this, but it got brought up as a right wing talking point for the annual "war on Christmas" festivities.

Not that I'm a big Obama fan, but I think there's enough lying in politics already.

OZZ
30th November 11, 12:50 PM
It seems Obama is sucking just about every special Interest group's dick now that he's hurting in the polls:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/horses-could-soon-slaughtered-us-human-food-congress-083524048.html
Quietly letting shit like this slip through is what really gets under my skin regarding politicians.
I hope this meets with HUGE public disapproval and forces the government to start funding the inspections again.

OZZ
30th November 11, 12:52 PM
Forgive me for my ignorance of American politics if I'm wrong in laying the blame on Obama here..but I've got to be mad at someone.

resolve
30th November 11, 12:59 PM
American politics - "depose the figurehead whilst keeping the same dicks in power who keep screwing us over" about sums it up nicely.