« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Obama and The Hypocrisy of Choom.

Alternative title: Obama's Betrayal Of The Choomers.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  May 27th, 2012 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let me just lay this out for you.

Look, if you want to be a drug warrior, be a drug warrior. Pot can do a lot more damage to people than its boosters admit; calling it a drug that’s no worse than alcohol (which I largely consider it to be) is not exactly a compliment. And if you think that medical marijuana laws are a back door to de facto pot legalization… well. Yes, they are. I note all of this to establish that I’m not an enthusiast about legalizing pot; I just don’t see that we’re getting a good return on our investment when it comes to suppressing it. In short, I can easily concede that the people who really don’t like marijuana may have a point.

The problem here is that President Obama only pretends to be one of those people – and that is offensive. You see, I don’t actually think that the President cares about pot use any more than I do. He’s letting people get arrested for this stuff – many of them, for doing the things that Barack Obama enthusiastically did when he was a teenager – because it’s easier than actually doing any of those wonderful-sounding things about education and treatment that politicians like to trot out when the subject comes up. No. No, Barack Obama had his Choom Time, he got away with it – something that gets pointed out several times in this Hot Air link round-up – and now the President’s supremely indifferent about whether somebody less lucky than Obama was gets his or her life ruined by getting caught.

I want to make sure that this is clear: I’m not complaining that the President is hardcore on the War on Some Drugs. Many people are hardcore. Many people think that they have excellent reason to be. I don’t really agree with them, but I may end up being wrong. What I am complaining that the President is being a fake about being hardcore.

It’s just not decent.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Basic human politeness forces me to note the H/T to firedoglake’s Just Say Now blog. Well, character is what you show when nobody’s looking.

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • medamorphus

    Maybe Obama’s just evolving

  • acat

    Where did Ace of Spades and Jim Treacher pick it up?

    (Okay, Treacher hat-tips Alex Pappas who hat-tips buzzfeed …

    … but so far Moe has the only link to FireDogLake.

    Mew

    p.s. I’m waiting for the reaction from Ron Paul’s supporters. I figure it’ll take a couple more days….

  • msctex

    . . .is honestly the closest he comes to the firm, decisive leadership of a superior mind half the country was sold upon.

    It’s all he’s got to offer. It really is.

  • loganyung

    I don’t believe that politicians really want to solve this issue, because it is an issue that is important to the base of the Democrat and Republican parties, though for obviously different reasons.

    It’s a little maddening, because, I think that the solution to this problem is pretty straight forward. The cost of drugs is very cheap. The street price is not, reflecting a pretty substantial risk premium at various levels of the distribution network. What the government needs to do is to keep the existing drug enforcement laws, but, create a non-risk (non-prosecution) avenue for the drugs to be sold early in the distribution cycle. The federal government should dig deep wells in various locations on the border and close to other drug manufacturing centers, purchase the drugs at a “no risk price”, and then bury the drugs down into the deep wells.

    The sale to the government would be legal, such that most of the drug sales from the manufacturers would choose this route to avoid the risks. Purchasing the drugs would be cheaper than the current enforcement costs. The street price would increase dramatically due to the scarcity and thus, the quantity sold to end users would drop dramatically. Drugs would still be available on the street, but, only to a small number of wealthy buyers.

    I’m sure that there are other similarly straight-forward solutions, but, again, it is in the interest of both parties to keep the issue alive.

  • jaykali

    I have never used drugs but it is stupid for people to be in jail for using. I don’t think you have to legalize it which is a bridge too far for a lot of people. I think you could make it a misdemeanor or something which is what it should be so that we don’t have a bunch of pot smokers using up our over-crowded prisons. I would think we should just let the states do what they want to do. This is already sort of happening but the Feds are still spending a lot of time at war with California and other places, at least they were at some point. As far as other drugs like crack and stuff, those are much more harmful so it’s difficult to say what the answer is there. But marijuana culturally is already pretty excepted, I think it would do a lot of good to de-criminalize the use and let states pass their own laws.

  • PowerToThePeople

    there is not a criminal repercussion for having it or using it basically is the same as making it legal.

    But as to the other drugs you mentioned, if we are going to legalize or decriminalize weed, why not the others. If I am on the wrong side of the argument for wanting drugs to remain illegal and keep enforcement in place all while “putting my values on others,” why are you and others not side by side with me when you want to keep the harder drugs illegal?

    I mean, cocaine has medical benefits, is less addictive than alcohol, kills less people than alcohol, etc. Same can be said about many of the other drugs. Why are some so willing to fight for weed all because people should be able to do what they want, docs should be able to prescribe what they want, government needs to stop wasting money on a loss cause, yet not apply that to all drugs.

    The answer is simply, everyone has their line in the sand, they just do not like my line all while justifying their own line.

    And considering that the number of prisoners in both jails and prisons for weed number less than 15%, they are not the main resident. Add to that the fact that most of the ones locked up for weed were doing much more than smoking a joint and or had other serious charges or a felony past, the argument that jails and prisons are filled with some potheads does not hold up to scrutiny.

    Not jumping your case, just do not get this whole weed is breaking us argument, jails are filled with simple weed users argument, or the (maybe not in your case) hypocritical line that so many draw where weed should be OK and if you do not agree you are stupid yet keep these drugs (put in name or names)illegal. Either stand for the legalization of all drugs or stand against the legalization of all.

  • acat

    instead assuming that anyone who makes a case for legalizing another relatively mild mind-altering substance *must* want to legalize *every* so-called victimless crime, and then making completely bogus accusations based on that wrong assumption….

    (not to mention that your argument hangs on outdated and incorrect information – see below)

    … has something to do with the response to your desire to keep the line where it is.

    There’s quite clear evidence that we’re funding a vast illegal smuggling operation – that can obviously be used against us to move more than just weed.

    There’s quite clear evidence that we’re rewarding wrong behavior by the police – drug law seizures do not follow the same legal process as “nuisance condemnations” or other government “takings”.

    Finally, there’s the question of why we’re not legalizing and *taxing* – since that’s worked *relatively* well for tobacco and alcohol and gambling, also unhealthy practices, but ones where some of the cost to society is offset through heavy taxation.

    Mew

  • julianusrex

    but I do care that he’s a hardcore liar and a hardcore hypocrite.

  • aesthete

    As far as I’m aware, over-the-counter pharmaceuticals are drugs.

    The list of scheduled substances has changed, and is rather arbitrary. Your argument on the grounds of consistency is rather absurd, considering how much the list has changed and what drugs and addictive substances are excluded.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that he is and has long been a totalitarian leftist, remains one, and has a record of destructive policies. Its what they do after the last joint wore off. Dubya won two wars. Obama wrecked private enterprise in America.

  • aesthete

    All three of them used marijuana, cocaine, and several other drugs.

    None of them went to prison for it.

    It’s unlikely that society or they themselves would have benefited from going to prison.

    I hate to make this about race and class, but right now in America the big money for weed and coke is primarily in Asian and white middle and upper class markets, and the people going to jail are mostly lower class Hispanics and blacks (as well as “trailer trash” in many smaller communities). This problem is duplicated on the global level, as well: the US and other developed countries in Europe and Asia are the primary markets for illegal drugs, yet it’s countries in Latin America and Asia which bear the brunt of the cost through repressive governments, civil war, and narcotrafficking-related terrorism. If drug use in suburbia got cracked down on in these big money neighborhoods as hard as it does in black neighborhoods, we would see an immediate repeal of these laws. As it stands, it’s a problem that’s out of sight, and out of mind.

    Obama is the ultimate example of this dichotomy: he does “a little blow” (read: a lot of blow), smokes Mary-J like a chimney, and gets to laugh about it on Jimmy Fallon and pretend like he’s cool, all the while throwing people in prison for much less and raiding medical marijuana dispensaries for providing pot and dealing with it much more humanely and legally than Obama did in his “Choom gang”.

    Obama’s not just being a hypocrite — I don’t care too much about that. He just doesn’t care. He’s in the upper class, so he gets to break all our rules, talk about it casually in a book that makes him millions of dollars, look “cool” in front of his SWPL fans and assorting fluffers, and laugh at people for wanting to be able to do much less than Obama. It’s not about hypocrisy, because Obama doesn’t really care about universal legalization. The offense he’s prosecuting is not drug use; he doesn’t care about that. His administration is putting people in jail for the equivalent of trespassing on the king’s hunting grounds, and that is even more offensive than mere hypocrisy.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    just saying….smile

  • Viet71

    Pharmacies in India, for example, sell Cipla pharmaceuticals via “Canadian storefronts” on the internet. One’s supposed to have an Rx for these drugs, but guess what.

    As for pot, my daughter, who just this past week visited Venice Beach in L.A., reported to me that pot vendors were out in the open and in force.

    Seems to me drug laws mainly benefit the violators and the corrupt the police who protect and serve them.

    I used to be a throw-em-in-jail and throw-away-the-key person when it came to drug offenders. What changed my mind were two things: (a) seeing how ineffective anti-drug laws are; and (b) seeing how anti-drug laws corrupt law-enforcement officials.

    Not sure what I’d do if I were put in charge. Surely wouldn’t continue down the same path.

  • garfieldjl

    Things like marijuana should largely stay criminalized, the only exception I can see for it would by via a doctor’s prescription. Despite what people claim that it isn’t an addictive drug, I would submit that it isn’t as harmless as people claim. only reason I don’t hold the same stance on alcohol is because alcohol is too ingrained in our culture.

    I’m on prescription medications, I have been since 2nd grade, for the ADD that I have in addition to the Autism. For most people, those medications can be extremely addictive (like most stimulants are), however since my brain chemistry is different, they act in a different way almost like a mild depressent. (Fun fact: Nicotine is the second most addictive drug there is, the most addictive is actually caffeine (though caffeine isn’t exactly dangerous to most people)).

    Another example one that many people are on:
    Prozac, it is an anti-depressent, however if one is given a doseage that is too high, it will act as a powerful depressent.

    Marijuana affects people’s conscious state of mind and as a result is not something people should be playing around with, cause actually it can make people dangerous to other people (more due to inattentiveness than violence (if I remember correctly violent acts are not commonly seen with marijuana)).

    While I’m a firm believer in a person’s right to privacy, there is a point where you have to draw the line because of the tendency for said individual to infringe on someone else’s rights.

    I would argue that a serious attempt should be made for drug rehab (not the farce that Hollywood actors and actresses use) first, and incarcaration should be a last resort. I think the ones dealing and distributing should be going to prison though.

    @ PowerToThePeople
    Cocaine if I remember correctly is a stimulant, like most stimulants it is addictive when abused. This idea that alcohol is more addicting only applies when someone is an alcoholic (which is a depressant I might add).

    Furthermore the kills less people than alcohol comment fails to take into consideration that the number of people that have actually used cocaine is significantly less than the number of people that have had alcohol.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    attitude and explanation for who he is at his core.

  • Viet71

    Larry would have loosened hm up. No need for drugs.

  • macbookben

    The producers and distributors of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. would rather enjoy their underground economy profits than watch their margins shrink due to government taxation and regulation schemes. There will always be a healthy demand for mind-altering, buzz-producing substances, whether this market’s participants face life-changing legal punishments, or have to pay a hefty tax (as they already do with tobacco and alcohol). And law enforcement and corrections will continue to be a growth industry as more government funds for drug interdiction pour in from the treasury. And politicians are free to choose either side of the “to legalize/not legalize” because either position poles well enough to get them elected, depending, of course, on the districts they represent. Whether some or all drugs are legally obtainable does not matter as long as folks are willing to take a certain amount of risk to procure them, including loss of freedom due to incarceration. The argument regarding the social costs of legalization is a sop to our national conscience. Sorry to to be so cynical, that’s just how it looks to me.

  • johnt

    Perhaps he’s bagged by breakfast, I mean would you like your eggs while Michelle glowers at you across the table. Does it explain his fumbles, teleprompter and all. When bombed is he more accepting of the absurdities foisted on his already weak mind by the svengalis, the clowns behind the curtain? Is Bill Clinton his bag man? Only the Shadow knows.

  • sulmak

    based on the rock hard evidence of being asked if he was a coke-head by a reporter, and having done volunteer work for a charity in college. Because there is absolutely no other reason to do charity work unless you were arrested for cocaine. None at all.

  • toothpick

    I’m surprised it hasn’t occured to The One that he could simply assert the principle of federalism in order to avoid taking responsibility for this issue, as he did (sort of) with gay marriage.

    He could say that the criminal penalties, if any, for these various drugs should be a matter for the states to decide. He could utter some high-sounding fluff to make everybody think he was agreeing with them. And then he could safely sit on both sides of the fence, thereby voting “present” on yet another issue. That would be a more typical M.O. for this president.

  • acat

    The Reefer Madness generation are long since retired…

    The “Just Say No” generation are now the adults in the room…

    The situation is not stable, in part because the porosity of the border is changing in response to the international security threat …

    At what point does this tip?

    Mew

    p.s. if you don’t think ADM and GlaxoSmithKline et al wouldn’t be able to have product on pharmacy shelves within 6 months of some form of legalization .. you’re impaired.

  • Tbone

    I have old friends who did lots of drugs and they are now brain addled just like Obama. Like he, they can’t string three sentences together.

  • macbookben

    The situation is unsustainable, and to act decisively and deliberately on the border situation would take considerable political courage, which seems to be in short supply. And though I agree if the climate were to become favorable for the marketing of cultivated and synthetic psychotomimetics by ADM, GSK, and others, they are being inconspicuous about politically supporting its advocates at the present time.

    PS: Grateful for the clips. Now I must go “tell my children” (ages 10 and 11) their having fried brains for breakfast tomorrow.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    and yet this is the guy who has access to the nuclear football?

    Shouldn’t that be at least a little disconcerting to the House/Senate?

  • zachv

    If I were a Senator/Congressman. Legal, yes. However still maintain laws of small personal possession, sin taxes and laws against improper usage, e.g. DUI.

    I largely feel that the wide availability + low harm of using weed (like alcohol) in moderation has led to a mini-Prohibition type atmosphere. It promotes criminal behavior such as trafficking, violence, gangs, theft, etc. and it’s costing government millions of dollars in enforcement and in the court to persecute.

    Weed is way too harmless for the amount of resources that we devote to it.

    Full disclosure: I’ve smoked legally (one time) in Amsterdam. Nothing beyond that. The amount of people that I know who smoke though is absolutely staggering: from hippie artists to police officers.

  • jakee308

    producers from saving back a little from the sales to the gov?

    First, there’s the law of supply and demand. The demand remains fairly stable. It’s the supply, WHICH IS INFLATED BY GOV ACTION, that regulates the price. (this is oversimplifying for the basis of argument. the real demand and supply fluctuate for various reasons and thus the price does also).

    You’re solution would only lead to the gov spending money on drugs and then spending money to fight the importation of what wasn’t sold to them. Not really a workable solution.

    Also criminals being criminals, they won’t trust the gov very much (sensibly so) so there will be many that don’t sell to the gov. They will sell on the street and reap the increased price. Plus the gov may reduce it’s enforcement arms thinking they’ve got the problem solved and thus allow more to infiltrate to the street.

    Better to tax either the user or the seller or both. This regulates and controls, increases revenues, decreases outlays. The down side is that drugs would be more available to those underage and those who imbibe to excess will be more able to do so.

    Anytime an act that some find pleasurable is outlawed, a vice is born and the price goes up and someone will step in to take advantage of that. Human nature. It’s why raising taxes too far doesn’t work (people leave or stop producing LEGALLY).

  • luvnthebigsites

    Me thinks Mr. Moe has clicked submit and pushed away from the keyboard with his own ?Cheshire Grin?. What better a topic to leave on the ?top? for the holiday weekend? The only thing that beats (legalize/decriminalize pot) is religion in politics or Sarah Palin? (as far as audience participation goes). Heh. Oh and yea, where are the Ronulan?s and Paulbots? Good point.

    Keep em? coming acat? /Salute

  • jakee308

    Because of forfeiture laws, the police are very aggressive on pot laws. It puts money in the depts pocket plus pot users and producers aren’t as aggressive as coke, crack or heroin dealers. (as a generalization there’s always exceptions.)

    Who would you rather try to arrest, a pot smoker or a crack whacked psycho? So do the police. It’s just human nature. I would guess there’s more pot users than crack users in jail in some states. It’s the law of averages and pot has a giveaway smell and is bulkier so more easy to detect.

  • zachv

    We did Constitutionally ban alcohol at the beginning of the century. Even after the repeal of the amendment, our laws still have a huge anti-alcohol bend to them. Everything from the 21 vs full adult at 18, to the three-tier alcohol distribution laws, to the “can’t sell alcohol past x:xx o’clock” and even the sin taxes. It’s a culture shock when you go to another country and see 15 years olds sitting at the beach sipping at a beer and that’s considered perfectly normal.

    What I’ve come to believe is that it’s very much an issue of cultural attitudes and education. Youth in other countries (as a generalization) are sat down, educated of the consequences, given some free reign and thus lean more towards the attitude that “Sure it’s fun, but you have to have some moderation.”

    Whereas American culture still has the puritan attitudes, which is very good, but conflicts with our human nature. When we’re told “No, absolutely not!” – we do it anyway and have as much fun as possible doing it to just to spite ‘em ! Which results in binge drinking (re:Wisconsin), drunk driving and dead teenagers. We fail to establish ‘responsibility’ and ‘moderation’ as virtues and end up in a vicious cycle of negative consequences that reinforces the intolerant attitudes that reinforces the uneducated and unsafe behavior that cause the negative consequences.

    What’s more you see the behavior in both liberals and conservatives too. Can’t smoke because the liberals passed a smoking ban in bars and restaurants? “We’ll smoke ourselves to death and be darn proud of it! (But you’re killing yourself!) We don’t care! Conservatives defend an anti-pot law? Barry Obama will smoke pot and be darn proud of it! He’ll even giggle and sneer about it. Long live the Choom gang. >:(

  • zachv

    Good thing they didn’t have Red Bull or 5-hr energy back then. Jessie would’ve hit the ceiling. ;)

  • Tbone

    who dance to the tune of their elitist staff people. They haven’t noticed that they have spent $15 trillion more than the government has stolen from the people. Why would they notice what a stoned POS Obama is?

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    As a family member to some, as friend to some, rooommate with several, and as transport officer for a few.

    I can say this with some authority. Marijuana does not affect everyone the same. Some people get buzzed, some get nothing. Some people get addicted, some don’t. Some people get all paranoid and ‘so freakin man’ and some do not.

    This is a very complex drug, chemically speaking, to which we do not know all the effects.

    There are people who get addicted for life (my biological father was for 20+ years), there are people who use who want only to try a bigger and better high, and there are people why die under the influence.

    I support the war on drugs, I just wish we could unite strongly behind that war.

  • renny

    which is why he thinks we have 57 states (really 59, because he hadn’t campaigned in Alaska or Hawaii), thinks Hawaii is in Asia, and does not know IL and IN are not next to Alabama or Georgia, even if IL and IN were Southern states.

  • johnnyd

    If legalized what amount is acceptable to drive? How do you test drivers for how much they have in their system? Or is it a no amount is acceptable to drive law? I would hope so, but if we are trying to justify MJ with alcohol………

    Add a little alcohol and the whole effect is changed, add a lot of alcohol and you have people blacking out.

    I have known people who were everyday MJ users that finally admitted they wasted 10 years of their life, stalled by using MJ. Once they quit the whole world opened up for them. A few recovered addicts I have talked to definitely do not think MJ should be legalized, they say it was their gateway drug,

    I hate to tell you folks but our youth are using MJ in alarming numbers. Just ask your high school aged kids. I know for a fact that a local chain fast food place had an undercover video surveillance installed. The manager 30 yrs old and 11 high school workers were caught using their walk in cooler to smoke MJ. As it turns out they had problems at all their branches in the area.

    The offenders just moved to other fast food places. They were not prosecuted and no records of their actions are tracked or recorded to keep them from being passed on to other unsuspecting employers.

    Maybe it is just becoming an acceptable practice for some.

    If you are a small business owner and you do not drug test upon hiring and have random testing you really need to think about it. Especially if you hire teenagers and 20 something?s.

  • acat

    but some people just don’t like coffee.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I don’t buy your slippery slope argument that if we legalize weed we have to legalize cocaine, crack, etc.. And I am not necessarily all for legalizing it bc I don’t exactly like the idea of govt ‘regulating’ weed. At any rate I think making it a misdemeanor charge makes a lot of sense.

    It’s not hypocritical bc smoking and drinking are already legal. I think weed is worse but I would never smoke anything. It is a straw-man’s argument to say you have to legalize or decriminalize everything to decriminalize weed. I think we waste a lot of resources cracking down on what is a pretty normalized drug in our society. I don’t think we have to normalize it necessarily by legalizing it, but decriminalization would save a lot of resources.

  • jaykali

    Do we want a powerful pot lobby like what we have with the smoking industry pouring money into lobbyists and politicians? I think there could be some disastrous consequences there.

    If I was for anything it would be a) decriminalizing marijuana and b) letting the states figure out what they want to legalize within reason. I would not at all be for some sort of full-on federal legalization of drugs, that won’t happen anyway.

    This works well bc California will be the first to jump on this sort of thing (obviously it’s already more/less legal anyway) and we can see how well it works.

    In my state I know we wouldn’t be legalizing anything. In other states like California, NY maybe they legalize some things. I think it should be like gambling, etc. – let the states decide.

  • jaykali

    People who want to smoke it are going to continue to smoke it. I think making it a misdemeanor is much more practical and doesn’t waste our police officers time with petty small non-crimes such as this.

    I don’t really see how marijuana is that much different from a night of drinking + smoking which are already legal. I would never smoke anything but I think the over-enforcement is a waste of money and I am more on the libertarian side of letting ppl do what they want to do.

    If ppl want to smoke and gamble and other things that I don’t care much for but don’t impede my freedom I don’t much care. I would say let the states decide. I don’t think the govt needs to be enforcing their views of morality. I would err on the side of freedom there and like I said you can choose where you live.

  • jaykali

    I hear this all the time, well lets just legalize and regulate drugs. And sure maybe that works in Amsterdam. We have 300 million ppl. So things do not always work the same. If we legalize I think then you would have the obvious next step of bureaucrats regulating these types of drugs and new ‘companies’ coming to existence that can buy politicians. That is a bit of a scary thought. That is why I would be against any sort of Fed legalization. I still think that the most sensible solution is decriminalizing marijuana and giving the states some leigh way as to what drugs they will want to regulate.

    If you live in NY or California you might have some kind of drug-related ballot initiative just like the lottery or casinos you could vote for it. I know that even tho I am taking the more ‘libertarian’ view in this thread I would definitely vote against this sort of thing in my state. And I am confident these measures wouldn’t pass. But that’s fine. We need to stop making decisions for 300 million people in this 1-size-fits-all way. I have 1 congressman for my district and 2 senators for the whole state. Which is basically the way it works for everyone. Our 1 advocate at the federal level is more or less a handful of people. Let’s get back to federalism!

  • zachv

    Regulated by both the FDA and the states as both tobacco and alcohol are except with a bit more stringent policies.

  • drsheilahere

    Talk to any teen about the dangers of pot and their eyes glaze over and their mind goes to the feeling, whatever that it, they associate with the drug. As them if it is addictive? They will say no.

    Then ask why they call it chronic?

    They smile.

    “A Failed Presidency: Explaining Americans to a Clueless Obama.”

    http://www.drsheilaherenow.net/sorting-through-the-ashes-of-obamas-failed-presidency-what-should-obama-have-learned/