President Obama taking questions online for follow-up webcast next week | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times I was going to bring up the fact that we should all get together and ask obama (via youtube) to legalize. Or ask him his current progress/ideals on the situation (i'm sure someone has beat me too it). But anyways i wasn't sure how to find the article so i googled some simple key words and came across this article (President Obama taking questions online for follow-up webcast next week | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times). Edit: apparently obama thinks the same this was his resonse to the question in which he apparently took "head on" Then at the bottom of the article it says "If we learned anything from the town halls, we can expect a bevy of stoners flocking to the Web to ask questions about legalizing marijuana." So is it just me or is this one of the major problems with legalization? Were all just a bunch of stupid stoners . Who what? Are incapable of understanding legalization, are stupid for bringing it up in the first place. Dunno, fucking stereotypes bringing us down. The President: Three point five million people voted. I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy -- (laughter) -- and job creation. And I don't know what this says about the online audience -- (laughter) -- but I just want -- I don't want people to think that -- this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy -- (laughter) -- to grow our economy. (Applause.) (WTF PEOPLE APPLAUDED THAT SHIT????????) Apparently that douche thinks the same, i hope hes just appealing to demographics
Yea I've read his response before. I have always highly doubted the chance of marijuana becoming legalized, but I think he should take into heavy consideration decriminalization it across the country. Of course, he never answered that, just responded to legalization of it.
We don't need stoners, period, to help battle marijuana prohibition anyway. We need as many moderately sober and highly intelligent activists as we can get to represent the cause. We tried having everyday stoner's represent us; that obviously failed.
I wrote a (in my mind) well worded comment- which is up for moderation before it will be posted. All I asked was rather then dismissing the "bevy of stoners" the writer and President Obama should open their minds and become educated on the subject. I doubt we see it make it to the bottom of the page, but it would be nice to have a somewhat coherent response to the condescending tone of the writer.
To save your president the effort of empty and sometimes insulting words to stoners, maybe he should just do what our Prime Minister did and shut down government. No one's asking the government questions they don't want to answer when there's no government to ask
Man, it's time to start supporting candidates who focus on state's rights over the power of people 3000 miles away to decide what I can and can not smoke.
Yeah...I kinda wanted to slap him after seeing this...good thing us stupid stoners know how to run a computer and vote on polls or that question never woulda ranked so high [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak7HBA5f-Y8]YouTube - Obama at townhall meeting March 26th on marijuana legalization[/ame]
If you were to click on the OP's link and read the comments you can see precisely why no one takes us seriously. I don't believe my comment(I'm Jerick) is in any way the absolute definitive answer or best comment ever. I do know that after reading the one right below it I wouldn't take us stoners serious either. Its this same repetitive random arguments that dig us deeper into the stoner persona. There are enough well articulated and thought out arguments out there that the populous can be swayed. Perhaps if we all start copy and pasting the good ones and stop with the 7th grade arguing we might do a lot better. And I am not saying that comment is a bad one. I agree with it completely. Its just the wrong format to change anyone's mind.
I think even if we had everyday 'stupid' stoners representing themselves, it wouldn't drastically hurt any kind of public sentiments towards stoners if everyone looks at the matter on a pragmatic level. I find that fairly well everyone who smokes weed is pretty harmless, compared to drunks, who can drink legally. So if the plant is banned on the grounds of protecting society and the people (that's what all the pro-legalisation arguments boil down to), why aren't more harmful things such as alcohol, spraypaint, petrol and many pharmecuticals made criminal to possess, sell or consume with jail punishments, fines and such? People can responsibly use ANYTHING, and responsiblity over yourself is not their responsiblity. It'd be nice if Obama and everyone else could respect this.
One thing is your president, another is the electorate. No president or congress or senate will legalize cannabis until they know a good majority of the electorate think it is a good idea. The fight for legalization have never been a top down cause. Get a good leader in place, and all will be great, is a bit of a pipedream. Democrat or Republican, or a better choice, will not legalize our dear hobby and preferred intoxicant until a substancial amount of the voters say that it must be legalized. With cogent arguments, that hits politicians where it hurt, in their budget. And for the shady ones, their wallet. It's all about making the case that cannabis is essentially harmless, at least compared to alcohol. And not least, that legalization can bring forth a rather big fortune in taxes. From a now black-economy, without regulation that spurs crime. It's a triple whammy. Less crime, less expenditure on penal facilities, more focus on real crime. Then, much tax-dollars on the legal trade of cannabis. And third, the remedial effect cannabis have on everything from cancer treatment bi-effects, to glucoama and various other chronic and systemic diseases. Not to mention other non-euphoric cannabis usages, not least natural fibres and oils. The problem is not so much our politicians, but our electorate. We need to educate, not put our hopes onto those that seek the status-quo majority opinion. In short, we need to create a new majority opinion. And that will not be all that easy, seeing as legal or not, only a minority of us will find the pleasure of smoking the herb. In much the same way that only a minority of us willl find the pleasure of drinking wine. Sure, a majority will do it once and again, and at least have a taste. But it is an aquired taste, and not all will get to know it properly edit: and yes, in danger of being elitist, there is a difference between drinking wine for the alcohol, and enjoying wine. As there is between toking up on good stuff for a proper mellow buzz, and just inhaling until you get stoned out of your ass. Even on bad shit. I prefer the good stuff for that mellow feeling. Both in wine and weed