Latest Column

Nice column JK. The sentencing aspect that Webb and Specter touch on goes to the idea of Mandatory Minimums which showboating politicians love but people who actually work in the system -judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys-recognize as simplistic.
.
This was a nice touch too JK-
.
"In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio"

.
Nice to see this topic surfacing in major periodicals, Joe...and to add that Michigan will start accepting applications for permits to use medical marijuana this weekend...also that:

In the wake of the Michigan vote [to legalize medical marijuana], legislatures in other states, including Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey, are advancing bills to legalize the medical use of marijuana, and Michigan will be watched carefully to see how it works...

I'd provide more info, but all of a sudden I'm hungry...

I wish that, instead of getting cute, you'd just come right out and said it. Our current policy is wildly counterproductive and immoral. We survived the end of alcohol prohibition, we'll get by just fine with the end of marijuana prohibition.
-
Just how fringe, really, is support for legalization?
-
Helpful noises, some funny lines, but in the end, it's conventional wisdom a bit dolled up. C+.

JK -- I agree this conversation is long overdue and just as the last depression made us recognize that the moral majority of that period advocated a policy that was economically, socially and politically untenable, this depression-lite ought help us do the same. We ended prohibition then and we ought to end it now. And to those who object the so called moral hazard of legalizing marijuana is what exactly?
.
Are the religious zealots saying that a product provided by God, that comes from the land and needs no intervention by man to exist immoral? Is it immoral to use a product that helps you unwind and relieve stress after a brutal day at the office? And what about the moral hazard of continuing to support a policy that is clearly not working? Are we passing on to our children that it is more moral to be stupid than to be high?

.
Elvisberg: I wish that, instead of getting cute, you'd just come right out and said it.
.
Disagree; we're not the audience for this piece. If you can get the sticks-in-the-mud that were horrified by Reefer Madness to laugh, they'll be less likely to raise a fuss when someone finally does seriously start pushing for legalization.
.
There's also stories to be written about medical marijuana users, the pain they suffer, and the stew of painkillers and anti-psychotic drugs they would have to take instead of eating a pot-laced brownie.

Joe I really really like this article. Especially because you presented the case in a way that has to be taken seriously even while keeping it light hearted at the beginning and the end. You even rightly point out that even had President Obama wanted to answer question of legalization differently it was not a politically viable time to do so. But I think the part I liked the most was you calling out Rush Limbaugh without ever having to use his name. I am sure there are other pill popping alchoholics on the radio who make a living taking pot shots at President Obama but I think most folks will make the connection to Rushbo immediately.
.
Good on you!

Part of the reason we don't have a serious discussion about marijuana laws in this country is that the participants can't keep from giggling. Present company included.

Great column, Joe. Something is wrong, I'm liking almost everything you're writing these days.
.
This is great: The hypocrisy inherent in the American conversation about stimulants is staggering.
.
You could have put any number of things in place of "stimulants" there though.
.
There really is no sound argument for the further prohibition of Mary Jane. What's crazy is these synthetic drugs that Big Pharma is pushing on people, they have crazy side effects and pose much more danger to youngsters who think it must be kinda safe because it's legal.

I also have to be honest and say Obama disappointed me with his flippant response to the question. This is a serious issue and it's not just about being able to get high.
.
I live in Texas and the border situation is getting ridiculous. Our drug laws play an important part in that fiasco taking place down there. There's nothing funny about it.
.
There's also nothing funny about locking up non violent people with my tax dollars.
.
Nobody can be everything to everybody, but I can still be disappointed.

JK, you are now an honorary Fabulous Furry Freak Brother, having exemplified on a macro scale the central thesis: weed will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no weed. This is actually a case where the Prez is behind the drift and a bit out of touch with everyday people, but he'll do the right thing I think if given sufficient cover by (relatively) sober, mainstream people. The legacy of this whole disaster has become way too big a burden and it's time to lay it down. It has always been about the money... Congress was lied to, the ABA and AMA were both opposed to criminalization, and the whole exercise in demonizing a plant has been a complete and utter waste of time and money and everything else. Cut the liquor people in on it, tax it, treat it like alcohol, and that will be that. If nothing else there will be a big improvement in popular music. And I say there'll be a dramatic lack of interest in harder drugs if you can buy a pack of good weed at a local liquor store for twenty bucks.

somepeople
.
I felt the same way for about half a day and then I thought it over and really I don't think he could have handled it any other way than to just ignore the question. But having an online town hall means that you have to address what is asked. Now after watching it again its apparent to me that some folks had told Obama not to address the question, which is why he brought it up himself. But when he is trying to get his budget passed I am not sure how fair it was for me to think he was going to seriously address the question. Especially with our gotcha media. I think Joe has it exactly right about how it would have gone down had President Obama given a serious answer to that question. Hell he said no and the media STILL made an issue out of it. The fact thtat Eric Holder has said that the feds will stop raiding medical marijuana shops in states that allow them and Obama's own earlier statements about decriminalizing marijuana to me show that he has given the issue serious thought and will continue to do so. But there are times when a politician is right to take political considerations into account. I want weed legalized but not at the expense of the President's budget with money for green energy, health care, and education.
.
Oh and since Glenn Beck is now saying that Obama isn't a socialist but a facist I don't think he needs any more stereotypes and smears to combat

Great column Joe! Brave post. Love this line:
...
"Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio."
...
It's true, I wish I could get high just once in a blue moon, away from cars, the kids, the job, just as a mental health break. It would do me a world of good, but of course I can't because of my job, reputation, and family, due to the illegality of pot.
...

somepeoplelikeit -- I totally understand why you might expect Obama to take this more seriously, and I would say in reality he actually has in terms of his appointment of the Seattle police chief that openly told his officers to ignore marijuana crimes (or something to that effect -- I admit I am not entirely sure I read it in passing but the gist was in practical terms he made it a really low priority for the department).
.
Realistically, Obama can't come out in favor of marijuana legalization In a country where the dominant frame of reference for opposition to marijuana is "reefer madness." A black president would be serving himself up like a lamb to the slaughter if he took on this issue. Clearly, at a time like this, when we need a president who can reboot this nation this would be the equivalent to Clinton's gays in the military, that many argue hobbled his presidency from the outset.
.
Sorry folks, on top of the political backlash, he also faces what every parent faces when they have the drug discussion with their children. There is no way that this dad is going to advocate marijuana legalization on tape that his daughters will be able to play back on a continuous loop down the road.

I'd've liked to read something more unequivocal and less jokey, but pretty much everyone else posting here thinks that this is the best way to do it. I certainly hope that you are all right and I am wrong.

Dee,
You raise a good point but riddle me this. What 'hot-button' or 'culture-war' issue can you think of that isn't a spillover from the basic conflicts between parents and their children?

SG and Dee, I can't argue with what you are saying. There have been several instances where I thought Obama should do one thing, he does another thing and turns out to be right. You both make the point that it would be harder for him to do what he needs to do right now, and it's a valid one.
.
But Dee, I don't believe "reefer madness" is the dominant point of view any longer. Elvis has a great link above. What I didn't like about what Obama did was that he laughed at it and the crowd joined him. It was a laugh fest at the stoners. My point is that it's bigger than the stoners. If this was a different issue that could put billions into the economy and make our streets and borders safer many would be outraged that he laughed it off. He furthered the perception that it's okay to laugh it off.
.
The timing may not be right politically, but the timing is right socially and economically. I think the opposition to this is more of a paper tiger than people realize.
.
And if Glenn Beck said it, I believe it. Especially if he's crying.

While in the private practice of law about fifteen years ago, I represented a guy whose job (with a defense contractor) depended on retaining a security clearance. After ten years the clearance came up for renewal. Being honest (or afraid of being caught lying), he admitted on the questionnaire to having taken one puff of one reefer a few years earlier. He was in a group just sitting around when someone else lit up a joint and passed it around. He felt it was more decorous to take a puff than ostentatiously avoid it. (We never discussed whether he inhaled.) That was his total drug use over a period of ten years.
.
Well! You'd think he'd admitted to being Jack the Ripper. We had him attend a dozen sessions with a therapist (courtesy of his employer), and he put on such a good act for the authorities you'd have thought he was actually repentant. In fact, he and I both knew it was a farce -- and so did his therapist, who testified that he was now capable of resisting such temptations, and so did the Feds who were charged with deciding whether he got to keep his clearance. He eventually got a two-year probationary extension and a stern lecture. And I don't know how many of those of us who participated in this absurdity were able to stifle their laughter after the last session broke up.
.
Thus prohibition doth make hypocrites of us all. I'm sufficiently ancient that during the years when I was most likely to have experimented with pot I would have had no idea how to get some even if I'd wanted to. But back then pot was the "gateway to heroin," and I was afraid of it. I don't smoke anything, marijuana included, never have. But that's my personal decision. If others choose otherwise, I can't see any basis for punishing them in any way, let alone putting them in prison for years.
.
In many ways this country is collectively mentally impaired, and marijuana prohibition is one of them. And since I'm not that far from 80 any more, I'm willing to sign up for Joe's bargain. I'm not all that great a drive anymore, and I live close to a subway line. Bring it on, Joe!

somepeople
.
Unfortunately in this country its often times the paper tigers that rule our politics. Remember the stimulus bill fight with all the stupid arguments about stuff that sounded funny but were actually beneficial like the family planning provision and volcano monitoring? It sucks but its the reality we all live in.

SG, Unfortunately in this country its often times the paper tigers that rule our politics.
.
True. But that bill did pass. If something is right, stupid arguments shouldn't stop you. I think you guys are right though, maybe now is just not the time. It's just hard to accept that the correctness and justness of this takes a back seat to political BS.
.
That could be true of any number of issues though, I suppose.
.
I think it should be a state issue anyway.

somepeople
.
Well when you think about it, it IS now a states issue precisely because Holder said the federal government won't overstep state law anymore. That could be interpreted as a wink and a nod to people on the state level to start pushing for legalization at that level and let it work its way up. I know you can get medical marijuana in a hell of a lot of states now and thats something nobody would have believed just 20 years ago. So maybe thats where we should be putting our efforts.

Dee: It was the Seattle voters who passed an initiative that marijuana should be the lowest enforcement priority.
.
Kerlikowske is considered fairly moderate on this issue, but in that particular case it was the voters.
.
I just wish the Federal government would defer to the states on this issue.

about stuff that sounded funny but were actually beneficial.
.
Don't forget Hog Manure Odor Abaitment!
.
It remains my favorite.

Good column, Joe. Clearly you are a filthy, degenerate pothead (kidding, kidding). 2 points:
.
1) I'm sure you have very limited (if any) control over this, but the header graphic and the paragraph end links in the column really undermine your argument by bringing it back to Cheech & Chong and DFHs.
.
2) This is largely picking a nit, but I don't think specific numbers on tax revenue are going to be very accurate. It seems to me that if cannabis were legalized, the prices would invariably come down, reducing tax revenues. There's a fair amount of risk priced in to anything illegal, and that risk pricing wouldn't be justifiable on a legal product.

What's crazy is these synthetic drugs that Big Pharma is pushing on people...
.
My favorite phrase - "the benefits of may outweigh the risks for some people."
.
I could make the same statement about scooping up a mouthful of dirt and eating it.

JK: I swear you're undergone the political equivalent of "seeing the light". You're my newest bestest friend. I haven't partied in over 25 years, but if they legalize pot I'll bring my truck to DC and me and you will trick Amy and MS into taking a ride with us. We'll keep the windows rolled up and burn a fattie. We won't let them out until they're trashed and begging us to teach them how to roll. I'll even spring for some Zig-Zag t-shirts.