• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Does Not Favor Changing Pot Laws … 'At This Point'

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,348
Reaction score
1,800
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I love it! :lol: http://news.yahoo.com/-obama-does-not-favor-changing-pot-laws%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9Dat-this-point%E2%80%9D-184905783.html;_ylt=A2KJjalaOhVS8GYA5CDQtDMD

So on the one hand:
President Barack Obama doesn’t think cracking down on individual pot smokers is a good use of federal dollars, but he also doesn’t think it’s time to loosen the country’s marijuana laws
But, on the other:
at least ”at this point.”
And:
“The priority in terms of the dedication of law-enforcement resources should be targeted towards drug kingpins, drug traffickers and others who perpetrate violence in the conduct of the drug trade,”
Then again:
and not individual users
Obviously, someone doesn't understand "supply and demand".

So The Pres says he doesn't want to make an effort going after the demanding abusers, but:
“the president does not, at this point, advocate a change in the law.”
Okay .. so it's obvious Obama is attempting to placate a many vote-panderable segments of the issue as possible. We get that. So what he truly wants from a national-best-interest perspective is simply unknown.

Too bad, as we would like to think The Pres would be clear about what he thinks is in the nation's best interest in the matter.

Still, abusers of
“Aunt Mary, BC Bud, Blunts, Boom, Chronic, Dope, Gangster, Ganja, Grass, Hash, Herb, Hydro, Indo, Joint, Kif, Mary Jane, Mota, Pot, Reefer, Sinsemila, Skunk, Smoke, Weed, and Yerba”
are still abusing a schedule I class drug, a federal offense, because
Those are “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence,” the DEA says.
And the DEA should know, obviously, as they are the experts in the matter, and not likely to lie about the damaging deadly effects of these drugs like, oh, the drug abusers would.

Yet Obama wants to be lax with these criminals and illegals and the like, as, you know, they tend to vote for his liberal Democrats.

For the drug abuser, however, though Obama won't be riding the neighborhood range and rustling up stray addicts, he will be cracking down on their feed source, meaning the so-called "drug war" is still in full-force under our executive-order-happy despot.

So addicts would do well not to push, or they could easily get caught in the crossfire and sent to the pokey.

Yippee ki-yay, druggies!
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,936
Reaction score
38,002
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I love it! :lol: Obama does not favor changing pot laws

So on the one hand:

But, on the other:

And:

Then again:

Obviously, someone doesn't understand "supply and demand".

So The Pres says he doesn't want to make an effort going after the demanding abusers, but:

Okay .. so it's obvious Obama is attempting to placate a many vote-panderable segments of the issue as possible. We get that. So what he truly wants from a national-best-interest perspective is simply unknown.

Too bad, as we would like to think The Pres would be clear about what he thinks is in the nation's best interest in the matter.

Still, abusers of are still abusing a schedule I class drug, a federal offense, because

And the DEA should know, obviously, as they are the experts in the matter, and not likely to lie about the damaging deadly effects of these drugs like, oh, the drug abusers would.

Yet Obama wants to be lax with these criminals and illegals and the like, as, you know, they tend to vote for his liberal Democrats.

For the drug abuser, however, though Obama won't be riding the neighborhood range and rustling up stray addicts, he will be cracking down on their feed source, meaning the so-called "drug war" is still in full-force under our executive-order-happy despot.

So addicts would do well not to push, or they could easily get caught in the crossfire and sent to the pokey.

Yippee ki-yay, druggies!
Obama does not believe in allowing congress to change laws, that is to hard for a "leader" to do, he feels that it is his job to enforce (or change) the law to be as he feels that it should be.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I love it! :lol: Obama does not favor changing pot laws

So on the one hand:

But, on the other:

And:

Then again:

Obviously, someone doesn't understand "supply and demand".

So The Pres says he doesn't want to make an effort going after the demanding abusers, but:

Okay .. so it's obvious Obama is attempting to placate a many vote-panderable segments of the issue as possible. We get that. So what he truly wants from a national-best-interest perspective is simply unknown.

Too bad, as we would like to think The Pres would be clear about what he thinks is in the nation's best interest in the matter.

Still, abusers of are still abusing a schedule I class drug, a federal offense, because

And the DEA should know, obviously, as they are the experts in the matter, and not likely to lie about the damaging deadly effects of these drugs like, oh, the drug abusers would.

Yet Obama wants to be lax with these criminals and illegals and the like, as, you know, they tend to vote for his liberal Democrats.

For the drug abuser, however, though Obama won't be riding the neighborhood range and rustling up stray addicts, he will be cracking down on their feed source, meaning the so-called "drug war" is still in full-force under our executive-order-happy despot.

So addicts would do well not to push, or they could easily get caught in the crossfire and sent to the pokey.

Yippee ki-yay, druggies!
Marijuana, and Psilocybin don't meet the definition of schedule 1 narcotics. Plain and simple.
You have to be pretty misinformed to equate pot with heroine.
 
Last edited:

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And the DEA should know, obviously, as they are the experts in the matter, and not likely to lie about

Our government never lies about anything. Ever.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
...and the OP itself argues against the law of supply and demand. Unless you're suggesting mass executions, the demand will always bring the supply. The real question is what is wise to do about it?

Most Schedule 1 drugs are those nobody ever heard of. When has somebody slunk up to you and offered you Alpha-methylthiofentanyl

When will they ever learn?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,675
Reaction score
33,253
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama does not believe in allowing congress to change laws, that is to hard for a "leader" to do, he feels that it is his job to enforce (or change) the law to be as he feels that it should be.
Yes, because Congress, particularly those small-government Republicans, have just been chomping at the bit to end the war on drugs, right? :lamo
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,332
Reaction score
29,163
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
...and the OP itself argues against the law of supply and demand. Unless you're suggesting mass executions, the demand will always bring the supply. The real question is what is wise to do about it?

Most Schedule 1 drugs are those nobody ever heard of. When has somebody slunk up to you and offered you Alpha-methylthiofentanyl

When will they ever learn?
Don't forget that you are talking to a slew of people who still believe in supply-side economics and not demand side. They might not understand what you just said.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,936
Reaction score
38,002
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, because Congress, particularly those small-government Republicans, have just been chomping at the bit to end the war on drugs, right? :lamo
So, even if the federal law is unchanged then the president now has the power to simply ignore it or, worse, to selectively enforce it? Does this power extend to taxation as well? Can the POTUS simply decree that all who owe less than say $10K are no longer "worth" prosecuting? Why even have a legislative branch if the executive is now free to add, change or delete the letter of the law that congress passed and that he, or past presidents, have signed?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,675
Reaction score
33,253
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, even if the federal law is unchanged then the president now has the power to simply ignore it or, worse, to selectively enforce it? Does this power extend to taxation as well? Can the POTUS simply decree that all who owe less than say $10K are no longer "worth" prosecuting? Why even have a legislative branch if the executive is now free to add, change or delete the letter of the law that congress passed and that he, or past presidents, have signed?
Yes, actually, the IRS can do this. Under powers granted to them by Congress. They often waive penalties if you just pay what you owe because "**** it," basically.

That's the part a lot of people don't realize about the executive branch: Congress grants them a lot more discretion than most people realize. Because congress doesn't want to be bothered with every little freaking detail. Like, the FAA tells me I can't fly below certain altitudes. Congress never signed any law regarding that.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,936
Reaction score
38,002
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, actually, the IRS can do this. Under powers granted to them by Congress. They often waive penalties if you just pay what you owe because "**** it," basically.

That's the part a lot of people don't realize about the executive branch: Congress grants them a lot more discretion than most people realize. Because congress doesn't want to be bothered with every little freaking detail. Like, the FAA tells me I can't fly below certain altitudes. Congress never signed any law regarding that.
That is actually very scary when you think about it. So the president could simply decide not to bother with all of that "detail" and order the FAA to outlaw/deny all commercial use of U.S. airspace - say to prevent CO2 "pollution" or to prevent terroists from trying to (ab)use those aircraft?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,675
Reaction score
33,253
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is actually very scary when you think about it. So the president could simply decide not to bother with all of that "detail" and order the FAA to outlaw/deny all commercial use of U.S. airspace - say to prevent CO2 "pollution" or to prevent terroists from trying to (ab)use those aircraft?
No.
21
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
61,332
Reaction score
29,163
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Quick question for all of you in this thread...

IF you were prez... would you consider doing a blanket pardon for all in prison for pot using charges. Not pot dealing charges and not a pardon for any other crimes in addition to their usage. Just charges of pot usage to be expunged from their records?

Who'd have the God size gonads to do this as prez?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,936
Reaction score
38,002
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Quick question for all of you in this thread...

IF you were prez... would you consider doing a blanket pardon for all in prison for pot using charges. Not pot dealing charges and not a pardon for any other crimes in addition to their usage. Just charges of pot usage to be expunged from their records?

Who'd have the God size gonads to do this as prez?
Rand Paul? ;)
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Maybe it's because I'm not as smart as most of you, but I don't see the actual point the OP is trying to make? Is there supposed to be something unusual about politicians clinging on to failed policies?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,675
Reaction score
33,253
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Somebody grounded all commercial aircraft on 9/11/2001. ;)
Yes, the FAA possesses emergency air traffic powers. (once again, deliberately granted by Congress because we don't always have time to call a session of congress when **** hits the fan) This is not blanket authorization to permanently ground all aircraft.

Distribution of power in this country is not as black and white as you seem to believe. In basic Civics class they probably told you about checks and balances. Weren't you listening?
 
Last edited:

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,044
Reaction score
4,099
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why waste your breath on double-talk?

He didn't actually say anything.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
51,140
Reaction score
32,851
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quick question for all of you in this thread...

IF you were prez... would you consider doing a blanket pardon for all in prison for pot using charges. Not pot dealing charges and not a pardon for any other crimes in addition to their usage. Just charges of pot usage to be expunged from their records?

Who'd have the God size gonads to do this as prez?
Gary Johnson
decriminalizing weed would be a wise 2016 presidential platform for someone who wanted to attract the youth, libertarian, liberal, independent, and black/brown vote
probably would not garner much of an evangelical following ... fair trade off
 

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And the DEA should know, obviously, as they are the experts in the matter, and not likely to lie about the damaging deadly effects of these drugs like, oh, the drug abusers would.
This line made me chuckle. I would of thought it was satire, had the rest of the post not been so serious.
Word by word and point by point, the sentence is so wrong, it is beyond help.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,804
Reaction score
2,386
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
On the campaign trail in 2008 he said he didn't think MJ should be illegal. But after he got elected, MJ arrests and raids on medical MJ facilities increased. Obama is just another two-faced sell-out turd in a suit.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
67,744
Reaction score
26,444
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We all know that Obama can't lead...even though he is the leader of our country.

To expect Obama to take a stand on any issue that:

1. Is not part of his liberal agenda, and:

2. Is not worth spending what little political capital he has left,

Is expecting WAY to much from the guy.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Quick question for all of you in this thread...

IF you were prez... would you consider doing a blanket pardon for all in prison for pot using charges. Not pot dealing charges and not a pardon for any other crimes in addition to their usage. Just charges of pot usage to be expunged from their records?

Who'd have the God size gonads to do this as prez?
I would, and then I would get to watch my political career go down the drain. Still, it would be worth it for me.
 
Top Bottom