It sounds like a few domestic tweaks such as more treatment (and the corresponding drug courts to make sure that everyone gets the treatment they deserve) instead of incarceration, and most likely a new and improved education campaign and anti youth usage initiative, yet the same laws on the books with more money towards enforcement, and a ramped up international involvent with more money backing that as well.
The biggest change is the name. But lets see what these proposed changes will be as they are announced.. all indicators point strongly to a lot more of the same under a new label.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Yes you are correct.. Obama's stance is that he, and consequently the federal governments position will not consider legalization.
However, and this is likely a pipe dream (no pun intended), legalization and decriminalization are not even close to the same monster, and the door is still open there.
But this is not the entirety of his stance on the subject.
As Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro pointed out:
Which now brings us around to your statement that you do not see MJ being legalized in the next 10 years.The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind
We could be seeing (state) constitutionally legal pot in Ca in as little as 3 months provided the ballot initiative in the works gets the required signatures in time for the Nov elections. (Sept. 5th for the Nov. ballot btw, otherwise in June)
If that does not happen, there is still AB390 in Ca, as well as Ma legislation that is not dead yet either.
A few guinea pig states and more will follow suit in short order, and this is in the next 12-18 months.
Last edited by marduc; 08-20-09 at 09:35 PM.
Although there are no statements actually going against any potential decrim views he has, the wordings and posturing coming from the oval office have for the most part attempted to portray a contradictory message (focused on anti-legalization, while avoiding the decrim concept).
This is part of why I take the news coming out of the name change as a very watered down pathetic attempt to distance themselves from a failed war; while pursuing basically the same tactics under a new name. The signals have been anything but consistent since he took office; although he has not actually closed the door on his previously stated views towards decriminalization.
Last edited by marduc; 08-20-09 at 09:56 PM.