Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

Will Obama End the War on Drugs?

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted May 18, 2009.


Is Obama really committed to a fundamental shift in America's approach to drug policy or is this about serving up a kinder, gentler drug war?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When it comes to addressing America's disastrous war on drugs, the Obama administration appears to be moving in the right direction -- albeit very, very cautiously.

On the rhetorical front, all the president's men are saying the right things.

In his first interview since being confirmed, Obama's new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, said that we need to stop looking at our drug problem as a war. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs" or a 'war on product,'" he told the Wall Street Journal, "people see war as a war on them. We're not at war with people in this country."

He also said that it was time to focus more on treatment and less on incarceration.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would no longer raid and prosecute distributors of medical marijuana who operate in accordance with state law in the 13 states where voters have made it legal.

Holder has also said that his department intends to eliminate the outrageous and prejudicial sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

And while on the campaign trail, President Obama called for repealing the ban on federal funding for anti-AIDS programs that supply clean needles to drug users.

All positive signs that we are ready to move beyond our failed war on drugs.

But when it comes to putting its rhetoric into action, the Obama administration has faltered.

Just a week after the Attorney General said there would be no more medical marijuana raids, the DEA raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in California.

Obama's '09-'10 budget proposes to continue the longstanding ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs.

The current budget is still overwhelmingly skewed in favor of the drug war approach -- indeed, it allocates more to drug enforcement and less to prevention than even George Bush did.

Testifying today in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Holder, in his opening statement, called for a working group to examine federal cocaine sentencing policy: "Based on that review, we will determine what sentencing reforms are appropriate, including making recommendations to Congress on changes to crack and powder cocaine sentencing policy." A working group? Why? As a senator, Obama co-sponsored legislation (introduced by Joe Biden) to end the disparity. What further review is needed?

(To be fair, during questioning, Holder said he and the president both favored doing away with the crack/powder disparity and said that Justice would even consider doing away with mandatory minimums altogether. But why the initial equivocation and the use of the very familiar needs-further-review dodge?)

So the question becomes: is the Obama administration really committed to a fundamental shift in America's approach to drug policy or is this about serving up a kinder, gentler drug war?

And this at a time when the tide is clearly turning. Inspired by the massive budget crises facing many states, and the increase in drug violence both at home and abroad -- leaders on all points across the political spectrum appear more willing to rethink our ruinous drug policies.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for "an open debate" and careful study of proposals to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has also urged renewing the debate, saying that he isn't convinced taxing and regulating drugs is the answer but "why not discuss it?" Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, pointing to evidence that Mexican drug cartels draw 60 to 80 percent of their revenue from pot, suggested legalization might be an effective tool to combat Mexican drug traffickers and American gangs.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: drugs, marijuana, obama, mexico, drug policy, colombia, brazil, war on drugs, war on drugs, drug war, medical marijuana, crack cocaine, eric holder, holder, obama marijuana, gil kerlikowske, crack cocaine sentencing, eric holder attorney gene, eric holder drug war, obama drug policy, ryan grim

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Red Meat
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on May 18, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will play the drug card when it's necessary to deflect public rage from a more sensitive issue, like the prosecution and hanging of the Bush/Cheney criminal conspiracy, or to jack up his sagging approval rating.

Not a moment sooner.

FREE AMERICA

VOCA, NOW !!

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean Needles
Posted by: colinmeister on May 18, 2009 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And while on the campaign trail, President Obama called for repealing the ban on federal funding for anti-AIDS programs that supply clean needles to drug users."

All that is needed here is to rescind stupid laws which make it illegal to buy hypodermic needles and syringes from drugstores.

I can't imagine anybody would take up injecting drugs just because they could buy needles, but people who are already addicted could lessen the risk of disease by buying clean needles.

No federal funding is needed, just a change in the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clean Needles Posted by: Dankhank
Talk is cheap
Posted by: sunnywater on May 18, 2009 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheaper than bread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell Obama to end marijuana prohibition
Posted by: greenferret on May 18, 2009 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every year, marijuana prohibition puts thousands of Americans in prison for a nonviolent, victimless crime that the last three US presidents have all committed.

Tell Obama and your elected representatives that it's time to legalize and regulate marijuana.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A change in name?
Posted by: December5 on May 18, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So it's not going to be called the War On Drugs anymore? I guess the new name is "The Military Action Against Non-Violent American Citizens."

Didn't someone say something about putting lipstick on a pig?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The shadow he casts
Posted by: That_SOB on May 18, 2009 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is either the most naive president ever to be elected, or the shadow he casts isn't his own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No he can't
Posted by: grindermonkey on May 18, 2009 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his first 100 days Obama has demonstrated that his "do no harm" policy is another way to protect the established order. The law enforcement and judicial industries in the US have invested their futures in beating up pot smokers and throwing them in prison. Obama the candidate represented the dream of progress in this regard but as president he is more of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The War On Marijuana Is A Colossal Failure.
Posted by: Steven Eisenhauer on May 18, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As A 40 year user I can honestly say the only harmful and damaging effect form Marijuana is the laws and penalties, that the feds put on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two-Faced Politicians???? Why Do They Change Once Elected?
Posted by: picket on May 18, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once they MAY HAVE been on the side of the majority population... but now there has been a change. Could it possibly be ASN? Acquired Situational Narcissism, a pre-existing disorder ..."NARCISSISTS tend to gravitate to professions and settings which guarantee fame, celebrity, power and wealth."

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21001-narcissism

Words do not help much if you are a drug war casualty but there may be some comfort in these words:

"He who commits injustice is ever made more wretched than he who suffers it." PLATO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hopefully he is waiting for the right moment
Posted by: fapper on May 18, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too have been disappointed that the change we want with respect to the drug war is slow in coming. However I am still hopeful that Obama is smarter then I am (I would immediately do a 180 from where we are now), and is waiting for the right moment. This type of change could come a little easier after he has had some successes with the Afghan/Iraq wars, economy, etc.

At the town hall where everyone was upset about his answer to the marijuana question he said..

"I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said with a chuckle. "We want to make sure it was answered. The answer is no — I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."


Of course he gave the right answer since an immediate end to the drug war would not solve the problems of the budget and economy despite the positive effects it would have. So he answered the question that was asked correctly.

If he does not give it a serious attempt in in his first term though I will start voting independent (that will teach them !). He/we are up against some pretty entrenched propaganda and I think he knows that the forces against decriminalization are Talibanic in nature, and needs to be done carefully.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government interference
Posted by: solrev on May 18, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama claims some form of Christianity, but you would not know that by his works. Obama is a politician and every decision he makes will be a political decision. If Obama is a Christian he would know that interfering with the exercise of freewill is blasphemy. God has given us freewill and what God has given man can not take away. How can God make a just judgement if we are not free to make our own choices? Until the government stops passing laws that protect me from me, there will be no change. Secular laws are there to protect me from you. You atheists can handle the situation any way you like. However, in the land of the free we will never be free as long as there are those who would make laws to prohibit our exercise of freewill. As long as you live in a land that is a nation of laws in place of a nation of people, you are a part of the deception. People are not good enough you have to have laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christianity is For Consumers Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Christianity is For Consumers Posted by: edgar_michel
I need pot, not rehab. Pot IS therapy.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 18, 2009 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are dozens (at least) of medical conditions pot alleviates or cures. Dozens (at least) of medical problems it prevents in the first place.

I need it for medical reasons now (and can't get it), when younger, I used it recreationally.

WTF is wrong with recreation?

Did we ban that sometime and I missed it?

It's time to expose the big lie that Republicans believe in small government. Starting with Nixon's declaration of "War on Drugs," we have created the biggest prison industrial complex on the planet, creating 25% of the prisoners on the planet - and all the cop/judiciary apparatus to feed it - with the Republicans making it impossible to pull back at all.

Locking someone up is the biggest possible intrusion of government onto the citizenry justifying "No knock" drug laws which eviscerate the Bill of Rights and the Fourth and Ninth Amendments in particular. Death, of course, is actually the greatest intrusion - but guess what? Under the "Kingpin law" a pot dealer has been sentenced to death!

INFU**INGCREDIBLE! So much for the "Land of the free." It is a lie. It really breaks my heart to say that, because I believe strongly in the idea of this country. I would love for that idea to change from fantasy to reality someday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Branch of Gov't....Not a King
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 18, 2009 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is yet another issue which the Far Left fails to mention the Fact that the President is merely One of Three Branches of Gov't. One of the other 2 is divided into 2 houses. The Third has been rendered impotent in acting as a True folcrum in the realm of Checks and Balances. In fact the SCOTUS can't even Scream "UNConstitutional' until someone brings them a case- thus allowing numerous unconstituional acts to go on until someone is able to bring it before them- Absolutely ridiculous, basically gelding the one branch that could derail illegal activites committed by the other 2 branches BEFORE the occur.
But I digress,there are instances of the ability to pass thing through executive order (and priviledge)- but truely have we not seen how that power can be abused,esp in the last admin? Just because I voted for him, I have not desire to provide him a throne.Granted the 2 Houses could use some guidance and leadership- but dictatorial Rule is not an option.
As much as th eRight is accusing Obama of acting like a 'monarchy' or weilding 'communist' Rule..The far left is playing right into their hands by demanding he act like one.You not only lend credence to their delusional claims- you help write their next day's talking point memos and scripts.
If you want to convince the Right to join up on legalizing drugs, hit them where they live.
Expound the Virtues of Individual Freedoms, the ability to bring down personal taxes by taxing the 'sinner' and 'low life' druggies. Hell Righties hate those addicted to illegal drugs (apprently make those addicted to Pharm's leaders of their party) - so remind them how many 'druggies' will decline off their streets through Attrition- if need be.They'll love the idea they will be essentially committing suicide and they won't have to bear the tax burdens anymore for rehab or emergency care or welfare. Oh they'll love that! And since they are the most 'apt' parents they should have no concerns their 'well raised moral' children will become addicted- only those kids of the 'welfare' class who "can't or Won't" raise children 'properly and morally' anyway. Leverage the argument off their Greed and Hatred,Off their Self rightousness and sense of Superiority (class & Race). Come on the Right has proven they are not deep thinkers, easy pickin's for Twisted logic as long as it feeds into their own ideological views of themselves and the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, Not a King, just a CZAR Posted by: kettleblack
Personally I Don't Care What Happens to Drug Users
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 18, 2009 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug addiction is a self induced disease and doesn't deserve public funding for treatment.

Drug addiction is a drain on the rest of the community.

Drug addiction exhausts resources that are gravely needed to fight real threats to human existence like global warming and environmental degradation.

Some forms of drug addiction produce violent behavior in the addict that is a danger to the rest of the community.

I have lived four years on the streets of Los Angeles and I have seen close up the devastation and experienced violent physical abuse from drug users and their suppliers.

So now you want to provide more money to the addict so that after all his violence he can have his cake an eat it too.

If you had a plan that would work I would be listening, but what I have seen is that they would exhaust the resources you provide and then quickly return to their former habits because there is no penalty for those habits.

Long term prison terms is not the answer, but short prison terms requiring hard work coupled with good nutrition and drug use education might work. Then again the addicts might just use prison as a sort of vacation from the streets and their addictions only to return to the only daily habits they know.

Along with short prison terms, the prison term should end when the prisoner leaves prison not follow him or her for the rest of his or her life regardless of what exemplary behavior he or she displays for the rest of his or her life.

You can't provide cart blanch support for drug addiction. Drug users have to compete mano a mano with everyone else; and if they can't make it, then they justly deserve to die in the streets. That would be strong incentive to end drug addiction, just remove the public safety net.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can see your point Posted by: donl51
» RE: Yeh; I Agree With Your Comment Posted by: edgar_michel
» You're right Edgar_michel Posted by: donl51
» You should care. Posted by: linecrosser
» RE: You should care. Posted by: edgar_michel
» You equate "use" with "abuse" Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You equate "use" with "abuse" Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: what is "disposable time?" Posted by: kettleblack
» Excellent rebuttal! Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: I Care About Our Communities Posted by: edgar_michel
» Huh? Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Huh? Posted by: edgar_michel
» OK, Here's a PLAN Posted by: hardwroc
We should try George Washington in absentia and posthumously.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 18, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conviction would be ex post facto and unconstitutional, of course, but the constitution had been no impediment to the Stormtrooper mentality this prohibition has fed.

Ol' George lamented in his diary that he had failed to kill off the male plants in his crop. At the time, the only known reason to do that was to increase the potency of the drug! It was completely irrelevant to making rope or any other known use. Period.

So "The Father of our Country" was either a head or a dealer - or both.

A show trial would be an interesting publicity stunt. don't you agree?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weigh in on Medical Marijuana
Posted by: Jim in Eugene on May 18, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Obama has made it clear that, when creating policy, his administration will hold science over political ideology.

Below is the location to tell President Obama he must tell the U.S Department of Health and Human Services that "they must correct statements disseminated on federal websites and in the Federal Register that falsely declare that cannabis “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/04/22/
scientific-integrity-principle-c/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "made it clear " Posted by: oregoncharles
Every incarcerated "marijuana criminal" is a political prisoner.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 18, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nixon declared the "War on Drugs" as a tool to disrupt the antiwar movement and get "those long-haired hippie bums" who were bringing down his presidency. Criminalization was begun in large part as a tool to marginalize, persecute and harass Blacks and Mexicans (who along with some musicians were about the only citizens who smoked it at the time.)

It is also a convenient tool to suppress the votes of a demographic that overwhelmingly votes Democratic. Millions have been denied that fundamental right of citizenship since this prohibition began.

I won't accept decriminalization as a solution either. As long as Maryjane is illegal, future governments will be able to incrementally ramp up the penalties until we are back where we started.

If it ever becomes legal and taxed, there is no way America will allow it to be criminalized again. Ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why legalise it???
Posted by: richholland on May 18, 2009 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asume CONSUMERS are not put in jail nor have to pay fines.
Asume production for own use is allowed.

This is the case in Holland and Portugal and other Eurocountries

why USA people love the law, the police, and jails so much.

Once legalised the corporations will start with McWeed and small shops go out of bussiness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rhetoric vs. reality
Posted by: oregoncharles on May 18, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did Obama first burst onto the national stage? By giving a speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Note that Kerry lost that election, by a fairly convincing margin.

And what got him the nomination, last year? He is SUCH a good speaker. I've watched his performances, and he's far better than anyone since Slick Willy. We may well hear that beautiful voice as utterly smarmy before he's done, like Reagan's creepy "grandfather" act, but in the meantime, he's a vast improvement in the rhetoric dept. - not that that took much.

The last time Arianna wrote about O. on Alternet, she was listing his accomplishments. At least half of them were purely rhetorical, so this article is an improvement: she's actually comparing rhetoric with action.

Strange, how they contradict each other. This approach to governing goes back to Reagan. He, or his handlers (always remember the handlers - "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!"), discovered that if you get the P.R. right, the rest doesn't matter. He trashed the economy, but some still remember him as a great President (something similar could be said of JFK, whose reputation was saved by the assassin's bullet, so maybe it goes back further than Reagan).

Where was I? Oh, yes, Obama: try shutting off the sound. Just look at the ACTIONS. Arianna provides them, and we've seen plenty of others, on other issues, like torture or escalating the war in Afghanistan. Maybe you aren't old enough to get the full impact of "escalation." That's what we always did in Vietnam, and I still shudder to hear it. O. doesn't use the word, of course; that's my point.

He Just Does It. He doesn't TALK about the Drug War, he....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drug Warrior Barack Obama
Posted by: aahpat on May 18, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will never be the source of drug policy reform.

"My attitude is we do have to treat this as a public health problem, and we have to have significant law enforcement." Barack Obama March 15, 2009 Dallas Morning News

"Significant law enforcement" is not a public health approach to drugs.

Obama put $3 billion in the "stimulus" package to reinvigorate the Byrne criminal justice grants for corrupt drug task forces.

Obama got $400 million above the 1.5 billion Plan Merida for border enforcement escalation and militarization.

Quoting an AP article reporting on President Obama in Mexico "We have a responsibility as well, we have to do our part," Obama said. He said the U.S. must crack down on drug use..'

There is only one potential to significant reform of America's authoritarian drug war, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's S-714, to create a national criminal justice commission.

Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia authored S-714 to create a national criminal justice commission to look into all aspects of the use of America's criminal justice system. Sen. Webb has even indicated that marijuana legalization is "On the table"Thus far 28 senators have signed on to Sen. Webb's S-714 as co-sponsors. S-714 tally sheet of senators thus far co-sponsoring the bill. The bill needs all the support it can get because drug war supporters have offered a counter bill in the House of Representative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socialize Pot
Posted by: Gaubladt on May 18, 2009 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we, as a country, want to encourage the use of marijuana, then we should legalize it.
But, If we don't, we should socialize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What does that mean? Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: What does that mean? Posted by: richholland
I think his heart's in the right place, but
Posted by: willymack on May 18, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's up against some very powerful vested interests, who'd rather keep the phony war on drugs going. Who are those vested interests? Does the word "bailout" ring a bell?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look to Europe for the answers
Posted by: zrants on May 18, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best way to review drug policy options is to look at the results of the drug policies of our European allies. Each nation has a slightly different approach. Most have decriminalized at least some drug use and most have a public health policy that treats addicts. These policies have been in effect for quite some time, so the results are based on facts, not assumptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Portugal Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: Look to Europe for the answers Posted by: richholland
You never know
Posted by: james108 on May 18, 2009 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's weird how people forget that Biden co-authored and pushed the crack disparity laws himself back in the day. He's had lots of time to rip families apart. When they announced Biden on the ticket I didn't see much hope. Even though Biden seeemed to turn a 180 these past few years, it seemed like one of those fake, Barr-Libertarian 180s, a weird history-optional twilight zone reality that ommitted his part in many of the draconian laws in the first place. Then again, Obama and top democrats fought against legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while taking more money from them in a few short years than others did in decades long carriers, took on board chief finance chairwomen Peggy Pritzker who seemed to lead the new bank bookcooking, and he had sued CitiBank on behalf of Acorn to force them give bad loans, and we act like he's the cure.

You never know though. Maybe if his kids get caught he'll realize it's wrong to tear families apart and ruin people's lives over things that shouldn't be crimes.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner09062008.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOTHING TO DO WITH DRUGS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 18, 2009 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's simply a way to fill the jails. For some strange reason the big time distributors and suppliers continue to stay in business and OUT of jail. This is not a coincidence. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone remember...
Posted by: LeeAnnG on May 18, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Star Trek Next Generation episode (I don't recall the name) in which most of the members of Star Fleet Command were taken over by aliens? You could tell which ones were the aliens because they had nasty little tails sticking out of the backs of their necks.

The show was obviously (to me) a parable concerning the corrupting forces of power. It wasn't the ensigns who were taken over, it was the highest officers.

It seems that when anyone becomes a powerful elected official, the body snatchers just take over. I used to be married to a man who was a teacher. He would go on and on about school administrators and how corrupt they were. Then he went back to school and got his administrative degree and managed to get a job as a WV State Education Department administrator. Suddenly all the perks he'd complained about were his, and he didn't refuse them. He'd comment about how much money it cost, for example, for each administrator to have a single expensive hotel room for the interminable retreats and conferences, but he never expressed opposition to his superiors. (So-called.)

His "reasoning" was that he didn't want to cause trouble or upset anyone. And he also said that he'd earned the perks during all his years as a teacher.

That's pretty much the mindset on a small scale. Outsiders can complain, push agendas, and protest, but once they are one of the establishment, they go along, accept the special treats they get, and become afraid of rocking the boat.

I'm very afraid that, no matter how noble he was or how much integrity he once had, the body snatchers got Obama. Watch for the tail under his shirt collar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Conspiracy" episode Posted by: VocalCitizen
Considering Obama once sold coke
Posted by: Daito on May 18, 2009 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and was never even questioned about whether he did other drugs, (I guess we all assume he did), I would say he WILL drop the war on drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Considering Obama once sold coke Posted by: AgnosticPriest
Simple answer to the headline question:
Posted by: AgnosticPriest on May 18, 2009 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nope!

I've been saying this before Obama was elected: no matter who gets in the office, they're all the same.

Good luck with "change you can believe..."

The only change is change in color. It's a good step in race relations, but not really a change that will affect the whole U.S. of A.

Get used to it: Obama is a corporate shill, just like all the rest. He's just a better speaker than the previous shill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms California's Medical Marijuana Law
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on May 19, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms California's Medical Marijuana Law

The lawsuit filed by San Diego in 2006 challenged the state-mandate to implement an identification card program for patients based on the argument that state law is preempted by federal law. However, both the San Diego Superior Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected that argument, which was followed by the California Supreme Court's refusal to review the case in 2008. Despite this failure in the state courts, the San Diego Board of Supervisors voted to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group, which represented patients in the county's lawsuit against the state.

"The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law."


I think we can call it a victory for states rights and the rule of law.

Does this mean it is now safe for me to grow pot in my yard?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks, Lauren Posted by: UnEasyOne
micko
Posted by: micko on May 21, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The California proposal includes taxing marijuana at $50 an ounce. Sounds like just another statist ripoff of the people. Nothing changes. The people accept crumbs while having their lives increasingly controlled by the government. Case in point: a 14 year old boy and his mother now on the run from the government because they refused chemotherapy. Shoot to kill enforcement of drug laws. You name it. America once deserved the sobriquet: land of the free. No more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Vacuous rhetoric"
Posted by: PorkySwine on May 22, 2009 8:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chomksy is right when he talks of Obama's "vacuous rhetoric". All he does is re-package. He is an advertising triumph.

Gitmo is not closed. torture is in, the GWOT terror becomes the Af-Pak quagmire. The same absurd war mongering towards Iran goes on. He is NOT bringing the troops home from Iraq.Obama grovels to Israel and condones murder. He gives away tax payers cash to the same greedy corporations which are ruining America...

I have never understood the enthusiasm about Obama. He's a politician. Expect nothing but lies and self interest from him.

Unless huge pressure is put on him, nothing important will change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a word...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on May 24, 2009 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO!!!

Obama is a corporate whore, and a repackaged Shrub. Bam-Bam is essentially Shrub-Lite.

The man is a coward and has shown zero, zilch, nada, inclination toward real "change."

Those that smoked the Obama rhetoric should be coming down from their high by now and realize the only answer for true progressives is a third party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternative Out of the Box Treatment....
Posted by: WaywardBill on May 24, 2009 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ibogaine.net/
Ibogaine is a African root that cures all, tobacco, alcohol, opiates, cocaine. It's turns junkies into born again pot heads!
Free the Weed!
Join "The Green Blizzard"
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/282812?m=96aaaf39
Peace, Love, Pot, Politics,
Wayward Bill
Yippie
US Marijuana Party

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement