Blogs and Stories
Obama's Marijuana Buzz Kill
Dan Callister / Getty Images
The formerly cool president could have given a reasoned response to a question about legalizing pot. Instead, he was dismissive and insulted his stoner constituency.
Barack Obama’s first online town-hall meeting may have been a new media success, but he lost the stoner vote.
Asked whether he would seek to legalize marijuana as a strategy to boost the economy, the usually long-winded president—who famously admitted to his own youthful inhalations—answered with little more than a dismissive “No.”
Whereupon America’s laid-back lobby recoiled in, well, withdrawal. Where was the love?
Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
More than 64,000 viewers posted about 104,000 questions online for the virtual meeting, the topic of which was the president’s budget. Of those questions, Obama answered seven that were preselected based on interest as measured by online votes.
Apparently, a significant portion of those casting 3.6 million votes wanted to talk pot.
Obama joked that he wasn’t sure what the question’s popularity said about his online audience (snarf, snarf), but said he doesn’t think legalization is a good strategy to grow our economy.
Dude.
While a live audience applauded approvingly, Obama’s virtual audience sank into despair. Internet threads in the days since have reflected disappointment and disillusionment. What happened to the president they thought they knew? You know, the cool one who once said that inhaling was “the whole point”? What happened to the guy who loves online audiences? You know, the ones who put Obama in office?
The pot questions—there were variations on a tax-and-regulate theme—had been stoked by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Within hours of the president’s rebuff, NORML got to work organizing reform-minded Americans in a letter-writing campaign. Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
Just what’s so funny about marijuana-law reform, asks Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director. An American is arrested for pot every 38 seconds, he says. Since 1965, more than 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses, 90 percent of them for simple possession.
And despite baby boomers being in charge in recent years—the relevance of which can be enumerated as 1-9-6-8, otherwise known as the year America turned on—annual pot busts have tripled since the non-inhaling Bill Clinton took office.
It isn’t only marijuana consumers who want to see weed legalized. (None other than William F. Buckley was for it.) Ending prohibition is also a popular cause for at least 10,000 cops, narcs, judges, and others who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
From LEAP’s down-and-dirty perspective, prohibition exacerbates rather than ameliorates America’s drug problem. Prohibition not only diverts resources from the pursuit of more-serious crimes, it empowers criminals and enhances black-market incentives. Money spent fighting what adults seem to want could be better allocated toward education and rehab.
The argument, meanwhile, that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is true only to the extent that kids who try pot realize they’ve been lied to. If the pot-will-make-you-insane warning is so obviously false, then kids may figure that warnings about more serious drugs must also be so much smoke.
Far more dangerous to pot consumers than severe munchies, or the risk that one may become temporarily riveted by the charms of tiny things, is the gateway marijuana now serves to the criminal world. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) may not eliminate the black market, but it would severely diminish its power and appeal.
Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron recently urged legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana, as the only way to eliminate violence associated with the drug cartels now moving into the United States. More border patrol and more narcotics agents are more likely to exacerbate than reduce violence, he argues. Did we learn nothing from Al Capone?
As for the economic ramifications of legalized weed, there can be little doubt that marijuana would provide a welcome cash transfusion for a financially anemic nation. By Miron’s estimates, federal, state, and local governments spend roughly $44 billion a year to fund prohibition. Through regulation and taxation at rates akin to those on alcohol and tobacco, those same governments could collect $33 billion a year.
And that’s not good economic strategy?
As a bonus, we’d empty court logs of frivolous possession cases; redirect resources to deal with, for instance, 400,000 rape kits that today sit unopened (and in many cases useless as the statutes of limitations have passed) because the cops were too busy busting adults for gazing too long at sunsets. We might also minimize the attraction of the illicit and make kids less likely to visit the black market.
All while raking in billions! Put a smiley face on that bailout.
Obama’s tone-deafness Thursday was unaccountably odd, given that the success of his virtual town-hall meetings depends on an online audience. And given that a healthy chunk of the online audience is youngish, possibly potheadish, and voted Obamaish, why not toss the marijuana lobby a crumb, preferably chocolate chip?
How hard would it have been to say something like: “Cool idea, brah, but...” OK, maybe not. But why not something reasonable and presidential, such as:
“Look, I’m not ready to legalize marijuana tomorrow, but I do think it’s time to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of some of our criminal justice policies. And I support Sen. James Webb’s current efforts to do just that.
“I also don’t mean to make light of this issue because I know that a lot of kids wind up in jail who shouldn’t. And I know from personal experience that smoking marijuana is not a career-ender. But I do want to study this issue carefully before I suggest any broad changes in policy. Thank you for your question.”
Everyone would have gone home reasonably satisfied, if not quite ready to celebrate. Instead, Obama enjoyed a brief flashback and insulted his merrier minions.
As pot smokers blanket the White House with letters of protest, Obama may want to rethink his position. He not only has ticked off a portion of his grass-roots, so to speak, but, when the Chinese come to collect interest on those trillions, he may find it preferable that more, rather than fewer, Americans be mellow.
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.







genoftheheart
It's not just tokers who want cannabis legalized. It's anyone with a modicum of common sense and a disdain for the criminal justice bureaucracy. Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of the "gateway" drug myth. There is no bigger gateway drug than alcohol.
sonofloud
The Obama pattern:
1. Spread a rumor that Obama is going to do something liberal (decriminalize marijuama, end don't ask don't tell, etc.).
2. Obama supporters use this as prove that Obama is indeed a democrat.
3. Obama then ignores the rumor or comes out against the idea all together.
Result: Obama thinks he is scoring points with "centerists" while true democrats end up paying the price.
Sempronia
Just whose interests is Obama trying to address here anyway?
Zorkadork
Not only will the economy be helped by the possibility of taxation of the product, the savings in court costs for possession cases, but also the $40,000 per year costs of housing another inmate in an overcrowded, underfunded prison system.
This alone, let's do the math $40,000 X 20,000,000 (number incarcerated referenced in article) = $800,000,000,000
If the author's numbers are correct, and I can read all the zeroes correctly, this is eight hundred BILLION dollars. And this in only the incarceration portion, not including all the other ancillary court costs.
Then, of course, how do we put a dollar cost on the lives ruined by the harsh Nancy Reagan laws. These are the lives of people we knew as gentle souls, who liked getting high, sitting around contemplating their existences, or navels, or tiny bugs, or whatevers.
Whatever happened to that kid you knew in college, who later got his life slammed into a slammer for smoking what everybody seemed to be smoking back then?
So, yes it is time to change our laws concerning cannibas.
If we fail to do so, it will simply be another sign that our 'democracy' is that in name only. It will support the hypothesis of our founding father's dream becoming a big machine that runs on money, special interests, and corruption, instead of individual liberty, majority rule, and freedom.
sonofloud
The Obama pattern:
1. Spread a rumor that Obama is going to do something liberal (decriminalize marijuama, end don't ask don't tell, etc.).
2. Obama supporters use this as prove that Obama is indeed a democrat.
3. Obama then ignores the rumor or comes out against the idea all together.
Result: Obama thinks he is scoring points with "centerists" while true democrats end up paying the price.
sonofloud
sorry for the duplicate but only the first comment was being shown
rahrah
"Everyone would have gone home reasonably satisfied, if not quite ready to celebrate."
This is false. Seconds after he uttered such an answer, I would have an email from Michael Steele in my inbox with boldface letters stating that Obama wanted to legalize heroin.
NorCalGladiator
Just legalize it already.
Not only will it help the Federal State's Budget, it was also help "producer states" such as CA whose economy is in shambles as we speak. Most of us can agree it's a win-win for state and federal budgets. why wait to help both economies grow (no pun intended)?
thelonepenguin
I agree, a more thoughtful, diplomatic answer would have greatly reassured me that this is indeed the man I voted for. I have come to expect a thoughtful respect in his address of all subjects, and his brush-off on this subject was surprising.
picopallasi
So long as marijuana stays illegal, we know that our political leaders don't have a modicum of reasoning between them.
mooncalf
i tried to read this article, but a serious point was SO waylaid but these tired, silly (heehee) little pot-smoking puns that i wonder if they were the whole point to writing the article in the first place. give it another shot when you come down, Ms. Parker.
mooncalf
the most important consumers of the cannabis users are the medicinal ones, like myself (i'm epileptic, not taking it for seizures but to counteract side-effects of medication) aren't out there staring at sunsets or begging for chocolate cookie crumbs. some of us need this funny little weed to get through the day without vomiting... no mention of us in your knee-slappin' essay.
mooncalf
this is absolute crap. until people like this journalist start taking this issue even a little bit seriously this is going nowhere. despite what any of you believe, many people actually DO use this as medicine... and i know from personal experience that THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE. and many of us are sick of being lumped with "stoners". forget the money lost or saved, THIS IS MEDICINE for god's sake. isn't that reason enough?
mooncalf
consider: this journalist's use of puns comes from the same point-and-giggle discomfort that many children express toward pudenda. it's a way to shield oneself from the embarrassment of dealing with something one doesn't feel comfortable with, something one has no experience with and finds a bit naughty. it's an immature, silly attitude toward a serious matter, and it's a common reaction to this issue.
certain individuals needs are thwarted by this attitude. it's a serious issue and it's very much tied up with the reasons behind obama's disrespect for the drug. it's all part-and-parcel with the same silly attitude shown here.
obama's cute little "that's the whole point" comment was NOT a serious statement of his attitude toward this drug. he was his attempt to seize an opportunity to further his 'cool' image, and to take an obvious shot at bill clinton in the process.
my previous post seems to have been removed, so i have attempted to rephrase this point in a more temperate manner.
sinclair
if you look at the stance holder from justice is taking towards (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26thu4.html) the issue, maybe this is more of a calcuated decision to let the states decide and not bear the brunt of being the pres who legalizes grass.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.