85 replies to this topic

[PeaceFrog]

http://www.alternet....weed?paging=off

The will of the people has been outstripped by the interests of professional drug warriors, and we should be complaining constantly and loudly.

December 10, 2012

Barack Obama has pissed off the stoners again. He always does. In 2009 a question about marijuana legalization made him laugh, a hard to miss sign that he didn’t take the issue seriously. Worse than laughter has been his DEA, and its increasingly heavy-handed war on legal marijuana dispensaries. Now that recreational marijuana has been legalized in Colorado and Washington, his Department of Justice is weighing its options, and, reportedly, none of their options seem to be “just let people smoke their marijuana, because it’s harmless.”

Instead the feds are either looking to have a judge declare the state regulations invalid, or are out to browbeat states into recriminalizing the demon weed by withholding federal money. (A similar strategy got the drinking age raised to 21 in every state, though it required legislation.)

Andrew Sullivan is not thrilled. There is some talk of “giving them hell.”

Libertarians have been mocking the liberal Obama supporters dumb enough to think the president secretly supported legalization, but most of the liberals I know have always been aware that the president’s been awful on drug war issues. We just hoped he’d be persuadable, or susceptible to pressure.

In June, I urged Obama to come out in favor of ending marijuana prohibition, as he belatedly came around on gay marriage. I still think that if he did, it would aid the cause of legalization, and justice, immensely. I imagine Obama doesn’t think the drug war is winnable, because he’s not a stupid man. But that’s just what I imagine, and it’s his actions that matter. His actions have so far been quite annoying. The president says his administration made a decision not to arrest or prosecute users, but decided to crack down on “traffickers” — the ones who grow and sell the legal-in-the-state-but-not-in-the-country weed. That’s not a great argument — it’s not terribly fair to arrest people growing and selling domestic pot while not arresting people smoking pot sourced from violent Mexican cartels — but it’s an argument that’s pretty Obamaesque.

Arguably Obama is being entirely consistent with his liberalism in being such a dick about marijuana, because federal law does trump state law, and Tenth Amendment arguments to the contrary are usually wielded by extremist right-wingers. The arguments people use to claim that the feds shouldn’t act to block Colorado from licensing and taxing marijuana frequently resemble ones Tenthers use to say they should be able to opt out of Medicaid and the Clean Air Act.

I happen to support both the Clean Air Act and the legalization of marijuana, so I’d prefer that the Obama administration not enforce federal law in this instance. And Jacob Sullum points out that the Justice Department has never once tried to have medical marijuana laws overturned with preemption arguments, possibly because a state legalizing the possession and sale of a substance under state law doesn’t affect, and therefore contradict, the substance’s status under federal law. (I have a feeling, though, that there are a lot of courts and judges who’d happily buy the federal government’s anti-drug case, no matter how poorly argued, in the event the Department of Justice ever decided to attempt a preemption-based suit.)

Here’s what I know: The DEA is full of people who went to go work for the DEA, and the Justice Department is full of prosecutors. Professional drug warriors, shockingly, are drug warriors. The Pentagon, similarly, is staffed with a lot of people who like dropping bombs and firing missiles, and every postwar president has ended up doing quite a bit of both once in office, no matter what they said they’d do before they were elected. The American state’s brutal machinery of death and prosecution is difficult to slow or stop. But the Obama administration presided over the most deportations of undocumented immigrants ever, then said they’d stop deporting people eligible for the Dream Act. It’s not hard to imagine something similar happening with marijuana, but there we go imagining again.

As Sullivan says, we should be giving them hell. We should be bitching constantly and loudly. Unfortunately, a second-term president is far less dependent on his “base” than a candidate or a first-term president. He is responsive to Congress, and Congress is not really full of legalization advocates. But it should be, and filling it full of legalization advocates ought to be a goal. It’s silly to depend on presidents, especially when prohibition is based not on executive orders but on federal law.

If Obama is not persuadable, it should be every liberal’s job to ensure that the issue becomes a litmus test for the next candidate, and the one after that, as gay marriage has become. (We won’t see another anti-same sex marriage Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes, I promise you.) We should be making sure that the next generation of Democratic leaders is less awful on drug issues, and that means agitating at the local and state level. The money people — and money helped win legalization in Washington, just as money has funded so much of the marriage equality battle — should be convinced that the legalization fight is a good and just use of their money.

Let’s make his marijuana policy end up as Barack Obama’s DOMA, the thing he’ll most desperately wish he could take back.

[TakeAStepBack]

Special Interest group LOLberals.

[Tim the Beek]

While I don't disagree with the premise of the article, this is at the bottom of a long list of things people should be putting his feet to the fire about...

[concert andy]

Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use



Liberals and those 18 to 29 most in favor; Americans 65 and older most opposed

[PeaceFrog]

yeah, it doesn't make sense to try to accomplish something we all agree upon...

let's just keep spending money by imprisoning non-violent offenders.

[Tim the Beek]

yeah, it makes sense to focus on people being able to get stoned legally while we're using joysticks to kill innocent children.

[PeaceFrog]

American children's parents are being incarcerated. American patients are suffering, and Americans have to figure out a way to pay off the deficit.

It's not just a social issue, it's an economic one and there is 50% + support for it.

But, it's interesting to see how you'd rather tear other people down than try to muster up support for your own cause.

[Tim the Beek]

But, it's interesting to see how you'd rather tear other people down than try to muster up support for your own cause.

Where, exactly, did I tear anyone down?

If you think nationality trumps innocent children's lives being taken, that's your right...

[Tim the Beek]

And I'm not trying to muster up support for a cause. I believe that what we're doing with drone strikes is wrong on it's face. I have no interest in trying to persuade anyone of that who can't see it for himself.

[PeaceFrog]

so start a petition.

http://www.washingto...ouse-petitions/

Marijuana advocates won’t give up on White House petitions

In our story Monday about the White House’s “We the People” online petition program, we reported on how the Obama administration is responding to the large number of off-beat petitions that have flooded the site in the past 16 months.

Perhaps the most popular issue of all has been the repeated efforts to legalize marijuana. Currently, the No. 2 most popular petition, with 66,000 signatures, asks the president to remove the plant from the federal Controlled Substance Act.

The White House has issued three responses to marijuana requests, each time coming out against liberalizing production and distribution.

But the administration’s position has not stopped marijuana supporters from pressing the White House. The issue has dominated the White House’s social media efforts even before the petition site was launched last year.

In March 2009, during President Obama’s “virtual town hall,” he was asked so many questions from marijuana supporters online that he paused during his question-and-answer session to address the issue.

The president told his audience that one question ranked high among the 3.5 million questions that came in to the White House: whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and spur job creation.

“I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but I don’t want people to think – this was a fairly popular question and we want to make sure it was answered,” Obama said. “The answer is no, I don’t think that’s a good strategy to grow our economy.”

Sabrina Fendrick, outreach coordinator at NORML, said that response disappointed marijuana supporters who believed Obama had showed signs of supporting changing the laws when he was running for office in 2008.

NORML submitted a petition in September 2011 asking the White House to regulate the plant in a manner similar to alcohol, an idea that got 74,000 signatures. But the administration’s response to the marijuana petitions has been equally perfunctory, Fendrick said.

In its response, the White House said it supports ongoing research into potential medical benefits from the drug, but that it continues to oppose legalizing it for recreational use.

“Our concern about marijuana is based on what science tells us about the drug’s effects,” wrote Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in his response to the petitions. “Marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease and cognitive impairment.”

Fendrick said she was not surprised by the answer.

“It’s pretty much the same response they have on their Web site,” she said. Fendrick said NORML is hopeful that the moves by voters in Washington and Colorado to legalize marijuana will lead to future gains for the movement.

As for the petition effort, Fendrick said her organization was glad to at least get a response from the White House and have the opportunity to promote the issue on the administration’s Web site.

“Historically, it is one of the only ways to get attention for a cause, especially years ago when it was still very taboo,” she said.

yeah, it makes sense to focus on people being able to get stoned legally while we're using joysticks to kill innocent children.

I perceive that as an attempt to try to tear marijuana activists down

[Joker]

Let's vote for someone who doesn't support legalization and then bitch about it




If only there had been someone running who supported legalization



Jill Stein on Drugs

Green Party presidential nominee; Former Challenger for MA Governor




I support legalization of marijuana

Students must be engaged because they bring creativity and fresh life into our economy. We will provide tuition-free higher education, since it's comparable to a high school education in the 20th century--you need a higher education degree in the 21st century economy and it should be provided as a basic right.

I also support legalization of marijuana, ending war, and other bread-and-butter concerns for young people. This is a constituency that is just itching for a platform of this sort.

http://www.ontheissu...Stein_Drugs.htm

[Tim the Beek]

I perceive that as an attempt to try to tear marijuana activists down

You perceive it incorrectly.

It was a sarcastic riff off of your sarcastic statement, and meant to convey the notion that I think that there are things of greater priority to be outraged about and put pressure on the President for than legalizing psychoactive cannabis. I'm all for legalizing de nugs. But when it comes to priorities, I think many things take presidence, including legalizing Industrial hemp.

[concert andy]

Let's vote for someone who doesn't support legalization and then bitch about it




If only there had been someone running who supported legalization



Jill Stein on Drugs

Green Party presidential nominee; Former Challenger for MA Governor




I support legalization of marijuana

Students must be engaged because they bring creativity and fresh life into our economy. We will provide tuition-free higher education, since it's comparable to a high school education in the 20th century--you need a higher education degree in the 21st century economy and it should be provided as a basic right.

I also support legalization of marijuana, ending war, and other bread-and-butter concerns for young people. This is a constituency that is just itching for a platform of this sort.

http://www.ontheissu...Stein_Drugs.htm

Coulda woulda shoulda.

I would never vote for her or anyone from the Green Party (or the Tea Party for that matter).

I do not feel the far right or the far left is the way to go.

[PeaceFrog]

extremism is highly impractical.

this thread really shows people's true colors though.

[Smiles]

http://www.nytimes.c...bling.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.
Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.
Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.
Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.
“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”
Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.
The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.
“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” she said. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”
Ms. Durkan’s statement also hinted at the deliberations behind closed doors, saying: “The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington State. The department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.”
Federal officials have relied on their more numerous state and local counterparts to handle smaller marijuana cases. In reviewing how to respond to the new gap, the interagency task force — which includes Justice Department headquarters, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the offices of the White House Counsel and the director of National Drug Control Policy — is considering several strategies, officials said.
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be “severed” from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
Mr. Katsas said he was skeptical that a pre-emption lawsuit would succeed. He said he was also skeptical that it was necessary, since the federal government could prosecute marijuana cases in those states regardless of whether the states regulated the drug.
Still, federal resources are limited. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued a policy for handling states that have legalized medical marijuana. It says federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should for large-scale trafficking organizations. The result has been more federal raids on dispensaries than many liberals had expected.

[Tim the Beek]

this thread really shows people's true colors though.

It certainly does...

[TakeAStepBack]

Ah, more consolidation of powers to the federal level. And Obama voters actually thought they were voting for someone who wanted to give people more liberty (liberalism).


That's funny.

[TakeAStepBack]

Let the black market rise up and choke the life out of the state.

[concert andy]

Ah, more consolidation of powers to the federal level. And Obama voters actually thought they were voting for someone who wanted to give people more liberty (liberalism).


That's funny.

I am not complaining at all...

That said, at least Obama is not over ruling state laws voted on by the people. If they step in and use federal powers then, bad Obama.

Until then, I do not expect this to pass anytime soon.

[Joker]

You perceive it incorrectly.

It was a sarcastic riff off of your sarcastic statement, and meant to convey the notion that I think that there are things of greater priority to be outraged about and put pressure on the President for than legalizing psychoactive cannabis. I'm all for legalizing de nugs. But when it comes to priorities, I think many things take presidence, including legalizing Industrial hemp.

Dude, your statement was clearly more of an attempt to tear down marijuana activists than, let's say, voting for someone who is against what they are fighting for.

[TakeAStepBack]

http://www.nytimes.c...bling.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.
Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.
Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.
Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.
“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”
Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.
The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.
“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” she said. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”
Ms. Durkan’s statement also hinted at the deliberations behind closed doors, saying: “The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington State. The department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged.”
Federal officials have relied on their more numerous state and local counterparts to handle smaller marijuana cases. In reviewing how to respond to the new gap, the interagency task force — which includes Justice Department headquarters, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the State Department and the offices of the White House Counsel and the director of National Drug Control Policy — is considering several strategies, officials said.
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be “severed” from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
Mr. Katsas said he was skeptical that a pre-emption lawsuit would succeed. He said he was also skeptical that it was necessary, since the federal government could prosecute marijuana cases in those states regardless of whether the states regulated the drug.
Still, federal resources are limited. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued a policy for handling states that have legalized medical marijuana. It says federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should for large-scale trafficking organizations. The result has been more federal raids on dispensaries than many liberals had expected.

I am not complaining at all...

That said, at least Obama is not over ruling state laws voted on by the people. If they step in and use federal powers then, bad Obama.

Until then, I do not expect this to pass anytime soon.

Sounds like the fed are gearing up to find a way to keep enforcement. Essentially nullifying the state decision. A Republic, this does not make. Nope.

[Tim the Beek]

Dude, your statement was clearly more of an attempt to tear down marijuana activists than, let's say, voting for someone who is against what they are fighting for.

Is it too late for me to vote now? I don't wanna be a tearerist no more.

[concert andy]

Sounds like the fed are gearing up to find a way to keep enforcement. Essentially nullifying the state decision. A Republic, this does not make. Nope.

Then that would be bad. but I did not vote for Obama for this right, and I am not an activist for these rights.

[PeaceFrog]

so, which is it you two? Is it a low priority, or should I have voted for an extremist? Sounds like we have a couple of conflicting opinions here.

Doesn't Jill Stein want to spend your money on free shit for poor people? I thought you were against that in principle?

[TakeAStepBack]

Alright, Andy. No worries then.

I was simply saying that Obama wasn't a vote for more freedom. I've heard that quite a bit, especially on the social aspects. Anyways, yeah. No reason to get personal on it. I wasn't singling anyone adult out here. Just an overall general sentiment on social issues and democrat liberals.

[Tim the Beek]

Sounds like the fed are gearing up to find a way to keep enforcement. Essentially nullifying the state decision. A Republic, this does not make. Nope.

Raich v Gonzales. There's nothing that isn't interstate commerce anymore.

Big Pharma + Alcohol lobby + Segments of Big Ag + entrenched drug warriors in the DOJ = not legal at the federal level for a long, long time to come.

[TakeAStepBack]

Ever. Maybe those states will want to secede?

[Tim the Beek]

Ever.

But, but but...

[concert andy]

Alright, Andy. No worries then.

I was simply saying that Obama wasn't a vote for more freedom. I've heard that quite a bit, especially on the social aspects. Anyways, yeah. No reason to get personal on it. I wasn't singling anyone adult out here. Just an overall general sentiment on social issues and democrat liberals.

My vote for Obama was a fear vote against Romney. And for the Supreme Court.

I accept all the flaws otherwise as O as president because I voted for him.

But I have reasonable expectations of him or any president. (none).

[PeaceFrog]

I knew that Mitt Romney would be even more inflexible regarding this issue. I voted against him.

I also agree with Obama on many more important issues.

Obama is in the right direction.

[MeOmYo]

the nice thing about social issues and legal reform is they can be petitioned and fought for by the public. although important, IMO the more important issues facing this country like economic reform and foreign policy it seems cannot and require a president with like minded agendas on those topics. Of course, believing a presidential candidate's agendas is another issue all together.

[concert andy]

I knew that Mitt Romney would be even more inflexible regarding this issue. I voted against him.

I voted against Romney because everything he said in the Primaries, was very different to what he said during the general election.

[Tim the Beek]

so, which is it you two? Is it a low priority, or should I have voted for an extremist? Sounds like we have a couple of conflicting opinions here.

Doesn't Jill Stein want to spend your money on free shit for poor people? I thought you were against that in principle?

You think quite a few things which aren't the way they really are.

And since when do I have to agree with Joker on everything?

[PeaceFrog]

My vote for Obama was a fear vote against Romney. And for the Supreme Court.

I accept all the flaws otherwise as O as president because I voted for him.

But I have reasonable expectations of him or any president. (none).

exactly.

[concert andy]

the nice thing about social issues and legal reform is they can be petitioned and fought for by the public. although important, IMO the more important issues facing this country like economic reform and foreign policy it seems cannot and require a president with like minded agendas on those topics. Of course, believing a presidential candidate's agendas is another issue all together.

The president has carte blanche on Foreign Policy.

[TakeAStepBack]

But, but but...

Yeah, I still had some steps to clear before totally out of the fog. Ideally, we will. But the unfortunate historical record does not look good. Im sure at some point things will "change" though.

Until then, let the black market choke the state.

[MeOmYo]

The president has carte blanche on Foreign Policy.

that's part of my point.

[Tim the Beek]

I also agree with Obama on many more important issues.

Why do you have to diss the good folks at NORML like that?

[PeaceFrog]

Why do you have to diss the good folks at NORML like that?

oh because that's just what I do.

[PeaceFrog]

I may be incorrect, and if I am please feel free to correct me, but I think most of the country supports whatever Obama does overseas.

I'm not a big fan of everything that I hear is going on, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the information -- really no clue actually. I actually do trust his judgment over there and give him credit for the job he's doing.

I do think that within the next 4 years there will be protests if it gets worse -- but everything depends on a lot of situations... it's hard to say really.

This (legalization) is an issue that it seems most Americans -- and several states -- agree upon. Why ignore it?

[Tim the Beek]

I guess, in part, it's personal moral code. I can't envision a situation in which I envision children's lives as collateral damage being acceptable to me. So reading about outrage because the federal government might not give people carte blanche to get baked while that's going on just doesn't sit well.

That aside, it seems absurd to me to do things to "fight terrorism" which will encourage more people to become terrorists.

And I'm not saying the legalization argument should be ignored. As I mentioned above, I'm very much in favor of it - probably for all of the reasons you are, and some which have to do with political philosophy. So go for it...write your congresspeople...call the White House comment line...educate people on the issue (I've done some of these regarding legalization myself)...but when we're talking about people making someone in government "regret" something, it strikes me that there are far more serious things at stake.

YMMV.

[Tim the Beek]

oh because that's just what I do.

That made me . Well played.

[PeaceFrog]

foreign affairs really isn't my specialty, and I don't think any civilian really knows what is going on. All we can know is what we're fed by 3 news corporations.

have you ever heard of this:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I believe that I'm wise enough to know that I don't have much say in foreign affairs.

I'm not saying that people should give up their protests... there's room in this world for more than one issue.

The Military Industrial Complex is pretty huge though... even ending war has a negative effect on certain sectors of the economy, and I think that's what some people are afraid of. Other people might just be filled with hate - I don't know really. It's a complex issue and I'll leave it up to you to research and inform the rest of us since you're so passionate about it.

[TakeAStepBack]

Well I'm taken. That's a cogent thought there from PF.Although I'd beg to differ that the matter is not in our hands. It is. it's about how much we care en mass. This time around proved other priorities more immediate. Sadly.

[PeaceFrog]

there's actually more than 3 news organizations if you include Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and the BBC.

From what I've heard, there's 3 American media conglomerates.

the three american news media conglomerates are Time-Warner, News Corp., and Comcast.

I could be wrong though.

[PeaceFrog]

yeah, obviously anything can be done if everyone cares "en mass" as you say.

And, people en mass are agreeing that marijuana should be legalized.

[TakeAStepBack]

Well then, go gettum. Special interests is the new way after all.

[hoagie]

Poking smot is not as fun once it becomes legal.

The whole being upset at Obama for not supporting decriminalization os really silly, as it is easy enough to find quality product just about everywhere. Im not really sure legalizing it is really even neccesary at all.

[PeaceFrog]

it isn't really about availability. It's about social justice. There are people serving time for growing, selling, and possessing it.

it's also an economic issue because we're paying money to incarcerate people who would otherwise be good and productive citizens.

I think there are a lot more people who are being victimized by this law than there are innocents getting bombed by drones.

I don't know the exact numbers... just a gut feeling. We don't know the number of innocent people killed by drones, but we can be sure of the injustice happening right here in our own country.

[Julius]

Legalization is top of the list of issues I could give a flying fuck about. Anything people can already do with total impunity if they have half a brain is not worthy of fighting for.