http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUNX9o19U-8 this is the most rescent view Obama has given on Marijuana decriminalization... See him raise his hand in opposition... I just wanted to clear that up for everyone.
obama didn't even say anything in that video, he sheepishly raised his hand a little. here's mccain's view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5660...r-mccain-belittles-medical-marijuana-activist they're both about the same based on these two videos
What does it matter when it is datted, he thought that less than a year ago. Thats like a FairWeatherPolitic,he is just sayin the stuff that will get him into office, TBH he has about as much experience for the presidentual spot as Sara Palin has for the VP spot
There's a huge difference between the issue of medical marijuana (which McCain spoke against in the above video) and decriminalizing marijuana, which is what the first video was addressing. If you search the 'net there are dozens of videos and articles where Obama claims that he does not sanction raids on MMJ clinics and he believes that the use of MMJ is an issue between a patient and a doctor. IMO, that's a HUGE step forward. IMO, it's unrealistic to expect a viable presidential candidate to campaign in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. Yes, it would be great if more politicians took this stance, but as soon as they do their campaign would be over, so then we are right back where we started. I would rather a candidate take a wishy-washy, or even a negative, stance on the issue, but then work behind the scenes to change laws. I think the reasonable question to ask in this debate is which candidate is more likely to cut funding to the war on drugs? I think if Obama had to choose between funding for education or funding to the DEA, education would win hands down. McCain? not so much.
1. what marijuana laws has Obama worked behind the scenes to pass? or was that not what you were getting at... 2. That is a rediculous presumption, I don't like McCains stance on the issue, but to say he would choose the DEA over education is rediculous.
I wasn't speaking of Obama... just political candidates in general. What I mean is that as soon as any viable candidate comes out and says "yes, I am for the decriminalization of marijuana", he is no longer a viable candidate. So what good does that do us? I would rather a politician dodge the issue and take a non-stance while campaigning, but then work to change laws while in office (I don't necessarily mean the president, either. Again, I'm just speaking in generalities). The education vs. DEA funding, was just a hypothetical situation, but Obama has said he does not sanction DEA raids on MMJ clinics. McCain on the other hand has very staunchly spoken out against MMJ and he does not support it, so yes, he is FAR more likely to keep throwing money into the DEA's efforts. And, overall, republicans are more likely to throw money into "security issues" like the war on drugs then they are to support education. But, it's like I've said many times.... laws are going to change from the ground up, not from the top down. It's far more important to work on state initiatives and to support local candidates who are in favor of MMJ or Decriminalization. The president's role in this issue is minimal at most.
the closest we ever got to MJ decriminalization was during the 70's in cogress during hard times, hopefully we can get not considered a federal crime, then like you said local governments can get it decriminalized. It doesn't matter in local governments do as long as it is still considered a federal crime.
I agree that the federal law will always override state law, but if enough voters vote in favor of MMJ laws, and enough cities and states start passing decriminalization laws, then eventually the federal government will have to take notice. They aren't going to do anything until it's an issue they can no longer ignore.
Obama supports mmj at least, and he admitted to doing mad drugs in college. I think after he gets elected and no longer has to worry about the social stigma of drugs affected the election he will ease up the federal war on drugs a bit.
I don't think he supports it at all; no politician does (except for maybe Ron Paul). I saw a video when a guy asked Obama his thoughts om pot and Obama didn't know what to say. He even asked an advisor for tips on how to respond, Then he gave a bullshit answer. People care about the economy and jobs, not about weed dicriminalization. I'm looking for the vid... Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI&feature=related Very uncomfortable to watch, especially for pot supporters.
Do you think it's more worthwhile to vote for Obama, who has a strong chance of winning & says he will end the policy of federal intervention over state mmj laws or to vote for a third party candidate who is for total marijuana decriminalization but has no chance of winning just to support the movement?
No, I actually think Obama is the best choice for our leader out of all the candidates- third parties included. I would have voted Libertarian if the party actually chose a Libertarian as their candidate.
Well why not Nader then? IMO the major issues: war, declining civil liberties and central banking Anybody who supports any of those is whack. And I don't think the President should be viewed as our "leader", just one of the tools of representative government. If we were voting for a King or something, I agree Obama is the most regal.
I haven't been a fan of Nader since accepted GOP funding in the last election. He's a sell out. I give him a lot of credit for what he's accomplished in his lifetime, but I think he's crazy. Like it or not, the president is the lead tool.
Of course I can see it but it was more of a question to everyone. I'm personally undecided. I know how bad Obama is compared to what it should be but compared to what it realistically ever is he's not that bad if he's sincere about ending federal interference in state medical marijuana laws. & I don't want McCain to get in. But I would rather Ralph Nader be president but it's an impossibility.