Obama ducks legalization question

[idirtify]

In Schnecksville PA, Obama was just asked by a brave 2nd-year college student if legalizing drugs and prostitution and gambling wouldn’t be a good way to stimulate the economy. Of course lots of the audience and panel laughed while Obama jokingly patronized the student by saying he was doing what he was supposed to by questioning conventional wisdom, but that he will not be proceeding down that path. Then he gave a long pause and sounded like he was going to elaborate, but didn’t. He simply started a long-winded speech on how he thinks the state could stimulate its economy, without a single reference to the question.

[PBrady]

I missed that (had it muted while watching something on my computer), but I'll have to play it back.

Did you hear him just a second ago basically describe the federal reserve, but attribute it to Wall Street instead (the part about making money from nothing)?

[constituent]

In Schnecksville PA, Obama was just asked by a brave 2nd-year college student if legalizing drugs and prostitution and gambling wouldn’t be a good way to stimulate the economy.

The best questions are narrow in scope, particularly when aimed at politicians.

[PBrady]

Ok, I saw the question. It certainly didn't help that the kid looked as if was high, and looked like he had just woken up and put on a suit.

When people see kids like this making the argument, it loses a lot of credibility. That, and the whole phrasing was very poor. He just didn't come off as being serious.

[Bruno]

In Schnecksville PA, Obama was just asked by a brave 2nd-year college student if legalizing drugs and prostitution and gambling wouldn’t be a good way to stimulate the economy. Of course lots of the audience and panel laughed while Obama jokingly patronized the student by saying he was doing what he was supposed to by questioning conventional wisdom, but that he will not be proceeding down that path. Then he gave a long pause and sounded like he was going to elaborate, but didn’t. He simply started a long-winded speech on how he thinks the state could stimulate its economy, without a single reference to the question.

sounds like the same old change

[idirtify]

Ok, I saw the question. It certainly didn't help that the kid looked as if was high, and looked like he had just woken up and put on a suit.

When people see kids like this making the argument, it loses a lot of credibility. That, and the whole phrasing was very poor. He just didn't come off as being serious.

Yeah but how about we focus on the bigger aspect and give him credit for asking the question and getting the topic into the GM. (Actually he spoke wayyy better than I would have, and I believe he narrowed it down to “getting rid of consensual crimes”.) What if two more had asked the same thing? The GM would have little choice but to address it, that’s what. That’s how topics get popular. People are herd animals and follow leads. It only takes a little exposure and people begin to assume it’s a safe topic to discuss in public without ridicule. The laughter was clear evidence that the topic is starving for more exposure into the arena of serious consideration.

[PBrady]

Yeah but how about we focus on the bigger aspect and give him credit for asking the question and getting the topic into the GM. (Actually he spoke wayyy better than I would have, and I believe he narrowed it down to “getting rid of consensual crimes”.) What if two more had asked the same thing? The GM would have little choice but to address it, that’s what. That’s how topics get popular. People are herd animals and follow leads. It only takes a little exposure and people begin to assume it’s a safe topic to discuss in public without ridicule. The laughter was clear evidence that the topic is starving for more exposure into the arena of serious consideration.

I certainly agree that getting the question out there is a good thing - but how we do it is equally important. Imagine how incredibly more effective that question would have been if it had been the kid's professor asking it. I'm just worried that if the question keeps getting brought up primarily by college stereotypes, it will lose all credibility.

[idirtify]

I certainly agree that getting the question out there is a good thing - but how we do it is equally important. Imagine how incredibly more effective that question would have been if it had been the kid's professor asking it. I'm just worried that if the question keeps getting brought up primarily by college stereotypes, it will lose all credibility.

Well of course if only we all had professors to speak for us, how much better everything would be! But come on, how realistic is that? It’s certainly not a legitimate complaint against the one courageous enough to speak out. The one to criticize here is NOT the one who questioned authority and made a good point.

[paulpwns]

Big Pharma Supporting Obama----- CHECK
DUPONT/Textile Industry Lobby Supporting Obama----CHECK


Chance for freedom of choice and legalization?

Not a chance in the world.

[Ron_Paul_Knows]

Here is the video. It's only worth watching until he abandons the question around 1:40.

YouTube - Obama About "Legalizing Prostitution, Gambling, Drugs & Non-Violent Crime To Stimulate Economy" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOtkl3vMVds)

[andrewh817]

I certainly agree that getting the question out there is a good thing - but how we do it is equally important. Imagine how incredibly more effective that question would have been if it had been the kid's professor asking it. I'm just worried that if the question keeps getting brought up primarily by college stereotypes, it will lose all credibility.

The truths are there regardless of who's saying it, and people stupid enough to disregard an opinion based on how the person looks or presents the argument are incapable of critical thinking.

And I also know you're wrong because every time a real question has been posed to Obama, he attempts jokes to distract people........it's happened multiple times already.

[dannno]

When people see kids like this making the argument, it loses a lot of credibility. That, and the whole phrasing was very poor. He just didn't come off as being serious.

Then maybe you should go and ask the question.

Why is it that adults who don't look high and appear responsible aren't willing to ask them?

[BlackTerrel]

What percentage of Americans would agree with such a move? I would to see a poll.

I do sometimes think that 50 years from now people will laugh that marijuana was illegal. It's about as preposterous as prohibition and separate water fountains for different races.

Eventually someone just says "this is stupid" and we can't imagine it any other way.

[tpreitzel]

What percentage of Americans would agree with such a move? I would to see a poll.

I do sometimes think that 50 years from now people will laugh that marijuana was illegal. It's about as preposterous as prohibition and separate water fountains for different races.

Eventually someone just says "this is stupid" and we can't imagine it any other way.

I'll be blunt. Why do you inject the subject of RACE into nearly every one of your messages?

[Flash]

My local news in Massachusetts referred to him as a stand-up comedian.

[devil21]

Bush did the same thing, making jokes to distract from the question itself. But in all fairness, people were laughing when the guy was asking the question. Face it. Our country loves to be told what to do. Sometimes I think this place would be sheer chaos if there were no authority telling everyone how to live, what to do, what not to do, etc. All while robbing them blind of their money. They seek out authority because they can't function without it. Life is too hard for some people if they had to make their own choices.

[paulpwns]

Bush did the same thing, making jokes to distract from the question itself. But in all fairness, people were laughing when the guy was asking the question. Face it. Our country loves to be told what to do. Sometimes I think this place would be sheer chaos if there were no authority telling everyone how to live, what to do, what not to do, etc. All while robbing them blind of their money. They seek out authority because they can't function without it. Life is too hard for some people if they had to make their own choices.

I agree sometimes I shudder to think what this country would look like with complete freedom in the state we are already in.

[ClayTrainor]

I agree sometimes I shudder to think what this country would look like with complete freedom in the state we are already in.

Much much better, considering the alternatives...

YouTube - The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-5Lbpk_3Y)

[jkr]

SHILL "legalize" hemp u dumb mf'ers

[Ron_Paul_Knows]

They covered this in the opening segment of NBC Nightly News tonite (at about the 2:25 mark)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news#34281820 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news#34281820)

[LibForestPaul]

.all drug laws are anti-liberty, anti-constitutional, anti-federalism.
i.e. there is nothing he can do about it. The people must regain and take their liberties back, see NH...

[BlackTerrel]

I'll be blunt. Why do you inject the subject of RACE into nearly every one of your messages?

I'll be blunt. I didn't inject race into it.

I said having a law against marijuana is as stupid as old laws making alcohol illegal or making it illegal for a black person to drink from a white water fountain.

Those were stupid laws and I was making a point. Or do you not think those were stupid laws.

And FYI I actually stole that argument from Adam Carolla (white guy) who last week had a couple pot legalization advocates on his podcast. He made the exact argument and I thought it made sense so I repeated it.

[WorldonaString]

idirtify - good points and a very (lol) appropriate 420th post!

[tpreitzel]

I'll be blunt. I didn't inject race into it.


"It's about as preposterous as prohibition and separate water fountains for different races." - BlackTerrel

emphasis mine.

[Matt Collins]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Obama/n576265004_4272702_428.jpg

[t0rnado]

Obama is a horrible public speaker. To be honest, he sounded way too much like George Bush in that video.

[TheEvilDetector]

Much much better, considering the alternatives...

YouTube - The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-5Lbpk_3Y)

That's an extremely well thought out video I must say. I very much wish it would be practical as far as eliminating the state for ever goes.

The trouble is, after a period of time, DROs will collude and establish a de facto government. DROs will form cartels and establish de facto contract codes governing wide areas (no one likes to reinvent the wheel 1000 times over). De facto rules in wide areas = government.

Put another way (and this applies most strongly in case of gigantic DROs): if you don't want to work with DROs (and in a free society why should you?), you will become a pariah (while its not a cage, it is its close equivalent in the isolating effect).

So do you have freedom, when you must conform to DROs cartel whims?

If a DRO cartel sees a startup DRO that is trying to steal business from them, what could possibly stop the cartel using its collective muscle (man power, influence, money, prestige etc etc) to put the startup DRO out of business?
(so that they retain the dominating market share and therefore the largest share and influence on society's resolution processes, i.o.w de facto law making)

As much as the system being presented feels nice, its worth bearing in mind, there is no utopian solution to human greed, lust for power, and general tendency to explore limits of behaviour just to see where the line is.

Put in other words, let every human on earth be his own government, are you going to tell me that over time, there won't emerge governments that rule over others?

We all know that governments will emerge even if you started with every man for himself.

That's the cold reality as I see it, there is no magic fix to getting out of the eternal battle for proper limitation of the government.

Even if presenter's world was reality (and to be honest I would have nothing against trying out a system like that), we would still have to be vigilant about DROs becoming too powerful.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

We don't need legalization.

Start selling drugs now, the profits are huge. The kind of money rolling in could allow a conscious effort to defend such free trade from state thugs.

[ClayTrainor]

That's an extremely well thought out video I must say. I very much wish it would be practical as far as eliminating the state for ever goes.

The trouble is, after a period of time, DROs will collude and establish a de facto government. DROs will form cartels and establish de facto contract codes governing wide areas (no one likes to reinvent the wheel 1000 times over). De facto rules in wide areas = government.

Put another way (and this applies most strongly in case of gigantic DROs): if you don't want to work with DROs (and in a free society why should you?), you will become a pariah (while its not a cage, it is its close equivalent in the isolating effect).

So do you have freedom, when you must conform to DROs cartel whims?

If a DRO cartel sees a startup DRO that is trying to steal business from them, what could possibly stop the cartel using its collective muscle (man power, influence, money, prestige etc etc) to put the startup DRO out of business?
(so that they retain the dominating market share and therefore the largest share and influence on society's resolution processes, i.o.w de facto law making)

As much as the system being presented feels nice, its worth bearing in mind, there is no utopian solution to human greed, lust for power, and general tendency to explore limits of behaviour just to see where the line is.

Put in other words, let every human on earth be his own government, are you going to tell me that over time, there won't emerge governments that rule over others?

We all know that governments will emerge even if you started with every man for himself.

That's the cold reality as I see it, there is no magic fix to getting out of the eternal battle for proper limitation of the government.

Even if presenter's world was reality (and to be honest I would have nothing against trying out a system like that), we would still have to be vigilant about DROs becoming too powerful.

I have similar some questions as you do, and am not too confident in my knowledge of the DRO system yet, but i do think it's a workable alternative to the "necessity" of having a government for protection services.

I agree with your final point about remaining vigilant, for sure. I think you have a reasonable argument, and probably the most common one against the DRO system. I also agree that Utopia doesn't exist in reality. I think it's safe to assume that most of us here wish to minimize the potential for conflict.

As far as I understand it, DRO's don't set the "rules", as you seem to suggest. A more realistic description of a DRO would likely resemble something akin to a security firm like ADT or Brinks, an insurance agency like Triple A, a reputation agency like the Better Business Bureau, etc.

Pretend for a second that you own a DRO, and whatever concerns are raised by your client, you either find a solution to that concern, or you won't get their money and your business fails. Can you help me out with the following question? How could a DRO get so large that it can make 'defacto laws' if everyone who signs with that DRO is afraid of it establishing and growing into a government?

[idirtify]

Sorry, but I hope this thread won’t get hijacked into a debate between minarchism and anarchism. I do not dislike such debates, but there are plenty of them elsewhere in this forum. I hope this one can remain on topic. Besides, one does not need anarchism to eliminate drug prohibition – and eliminating drug prohibition is a far cry from eliminating government. In that regard, the subject is not relevant here. Thanks.

[ClayTrainor]

Sorry, but I hope this thread won’t get hijacked into a debate between minarchism and anarchism. I do not dislike such debates, but there are plenty of them elsewhere in this forum. I hope this one can remain on topic. Besides, one does not need anarchism to eliminate drug prohibition – and eliminating drug prohibition is a far cry from eliminating government. In that regard, the subject is not relevant here. Thanks.

Fair enough... I apologize for that.

I welcome taking this "hijack topic" into Philosophy, if EvilDetector wishes to continue it.

[Austin]

I saw this live. I was disappointed with how Obama handled the question, especially considering just minutes earlier he said something along the lines of "You might not always like my policies, but you know that I always give honest answers to your questions."

But, it is to be expected. I would have rather the kid have asked about legalizing industrial hemp. There is no logical reason for industrial hemp to remain illegal.

[Bruno]

I saw this live. I was disappointed with how Obama handled the question, especially considering just minutes earlier he said something along the lines of "You might not always like my policies, but you know that I always give honest answers to your questions."

But, it is to be expected. I would have rather the kid have asked about legalizing industrial hemp. There is no logical reason for industrial hemp to remain illegal.

oh yes there is - it might get mixed up by kids and police with higher-grade cannabis. How would they enforce it? :rolleyes:

[BlackTerrel]

"It's about as preposterous as prohibition and separate water fountains for different races." - BlackTerrel

emphasis mine.

Yes those are preposterous laws. Do you disagree?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes those are preposterous laws. Do you disagree?
As it was with all tyrannies back in that day, the tradition of family in Africa kept the masters and slaves living peacefully together. The agitation of a declared natural law later granted them their freedom in their new home in the United States, as in "The Truth will set you free." This Civil Purpose they inherited eventually trumped and won out over every legal precedence, every long standing tradition, as well as it will continue doing so over every future event yet to happen.
The United States for them wasn't a perfect place, but it was a far better place than their former African culture. In other words, at least they got to drink at their own water fountain in the United States. If it is true that their ancestors in Africa were only worth 1/12th of a horse, because the going rate in the slave trade there was twelve human souls for the price of a single horse, then that means back in Africa they weren't deemed worthy enough to have been allowed to drink with the horses.

[jonahtrainer]

I saw this live. I was disappointed with how Obama handled the question, especially considering just minutes earlier he said something along the lines of "You might not always like my policies, but you know that I always give honest answers to your questions."

But, it is to be expected. I would have rather the kid have asked about legalizing industrial hemp. There is no logical reason for industrial hemp to remain illegal.

Unemployment numbers were down, didn't you hear? With Obama, more lies ahead.

[davesxj]

We don't need legalization.

Start selling drugs now, the profits are huge. The kind of money rolling in could allow a conscious effort to defend such free trade from state thugs.

Quoted for importance. Such strategies will lead to lasting solutions. Politics sway in the breeze.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Unemployment numbers were down, didn't you hear? With Obama, more lies ahead.

I can't help but see the issue of race in this thread. Yet, as Americans, an Anglo American should feel ashamed of how African Americans once allowed themselves to fall into living as slaves just as an African American should likewise feel ashamed of how Anglo Americans at one time allowed themselves to fall into living as slave owners. Do you see the point? We have absolutely nothing to do with what our ancestors once did and the shameful acts they committed against each other. All this type of teaching does is constantly dig up prejudice and distract us away from "we the people . . ." and the long struggle they have had against tyranny.