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

Rethinking strategy key to battling drugs

Redress said:
To the presidency.

You appear to be mistaken about Obama's stance: Drug czar: Feds won't support legalized pot - Local - fresnobee.com
Click to expand...


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:

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
Click to expand...

Which now brings us around to your statement that you do not see MJ being legalized in the next 10 years.

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:
OxymoronP said:
no a stance is what you put forward publicly, but based on his history and his own words he definately wants to decriminalize them.
Click to expand...

All the words of his I can find disagree with you. Got any sources for your claims?
 
OxymoronP said:
no a stance is what you put forward publicly, but based on his history and his own words he definately wants to decriminalize them.
Click to expand...

his words prior to becoming president most certainly reflect a view towards decriminalization; however since he has been in office any hints of this mindset have all but been abandoned -most likely to save political capital, and not create uneeded uproars.

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:
Redress said:
Which potential candidate actually supports decriminalization? I don't know of a single mainstream candidate who supports that.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul. Via letting states chose.
 
Redress said:
Not really a mainstream candidate. Will never get the republican party nomination.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's what the news will tell you. So it must be true.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Yep. That's what the news will tell you. So it must be true.
Click to expand...

Noooooo. That would be my analysis of it, based on what I know. It is at least as reliable as what you know, since I use sources other than youtube to get my information.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Ron Paul. Via letting states chose.
Click to expand...

Also we have on this list:

Reps.
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
Jim McDermott (D-Wash.)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
Ron Paul (R-Texas) (yeah repeat)

And

Senator Jim Webb (D- Va)

All of whom have endorsed legalization.

Also although not specifically stated we cannot exclude Obama himself from the "in favor of letting states choose" side based on this statement from the oval office I previously quoted:

The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws
Click to expand...


Actual federal legalization is hindered because we would have to renig on treaties we pushed on the rest of the world in order to pull it off.

The loophole is this:

1. (a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, [ect.]...
...shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally
Click to expand...

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikisource

Although a question of interpretation (and a harbinger of future SCOTUS challenges), States rights can be considered a constitutional limitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom