Obama, Steppa, and the legalization of the healing of the nation.

search.yahoo.com...[/

m.youtube.com...

Kingston (Jamaica) (AFP) - US President Barack Obama had been on the verdant Caribbean island of Jamaica less than 24 hours --

and had already visited Bob Marley's former home --

before he was asked by a dreadlocked Rastafarian about legalizing marijuana.

In a Kingston town hall event, participant Miguel Williams, sporting a "Rasta4life" wrist band, asked the US commander-in-chief if he would become ganja’s champion.

"Give thanks! Yes greetings Mr President," said Williams, "life and blessings on you and your family." "My name is Miguel Williams but you can call I and I 'steppa'... That is quite sufficient, ya man."

Unperturbed by giggles from the audience, Williams set forth his case for legalization and decriminalization of the hemp industry and marijuana.

A man (L) asks US President Barack Obama about decriminalizing marijuana during a town hall meeting … The Rastafari faith includes the spiritual use of cannabis. "How did I anticipate this question?" was Obama's joking response. "Well," he said adding a comic sigh. "There is the issue of legalization of marijuana and then there is the issue of decriminalizing or dealing with the incarceration in some cases devastation of communities as a consequence of non-violent drug offenses," Obama said.

"I am a very strong believer that the path that we have taken in the United States in the so-called 'war on drugs' has been so heavy in emphasizing incarceration that it has been counterproductive," he said to some cheers.

But on the question of whether the United States should, in the words of reggae musician Peter Tosh "legalize it" Obama was more circumspect. "I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis."

Watched this earlier.

I am particularly perturbed by Obamas condescending, "how did I anticipate this question?", (followed by the uptight self righteous chortle from many)

He does hint however that the legalization movement may be gaining some momentum but is for some reason downplaying what is really going on.

I'm sure many of you have seen this. It's on the front page of yahoo.com.

I and I sharing it here anyway.

edit on 10-4-2015 by GoShredAK because: Links

a reply to: GoShredAK

I think he handled that as candidly and openly as a sitting president possibly could have. He made it clear he wants to see progress in decriminalizing it but didn't go much farther.

I can't picture any president we've ever had being that open to the idea, at least not publicly.

And I didn't take his joke at the beginning as dismissive or anything other than jest. It worked.

a reply to: GoShredAK

I am particularly perturbed by Obamas condescending, "how did I anticipate this question?", (followed by the uptight self righteous chortle from many)

Wait! Obama was condescending? Say it ain't so?!?

a reply to: Cuervo

It's true, I personally do not care for Obama.

But on possible legalization, he handled that as well as any president holding a town hall full of Rastafarians.

Great for a laugh.

a reply to: Cuervo

I think he addressed the fact that what is to come is inevitable.

I can't shake the fact that he stereotyped the kind Rastafarian man in a rude manner.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: GoShredAK

I am particularly perturbed by Obamas condescending, "how did I anticipate this question?", (followed by the uptight self righteous chortle from many)

Wait! Obama was condescending? Say it ain't so?!?

I know, huge surprise. I just wanted to blow your minds with something new.

2

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: GoShredAK

I can't picture any president we've ever had being that open to the idea, at least not publicly.

And I didn't take his joke at the beginning as dismissive or anything other than jest. It worked.

Totally agree. It was in jest and not condescending in the least.

The eruption of laughter after the quick jab not condescending in the least? OK.........(old school eye rolling smiley)

Moving on, I do appreciate that the POTUS aknowledged that the "Drug War" has been mostly counterproductive. He also is taking it further than any president before him, but I just equate that to, "getting with the times"......

It will be legal on a federal level in 10 years, as more and more baby boomers die off so do their power over the country.

originally posted by: BoxFulder
It will be legal on a federal level in 10 years, as more and more baby boomers die off so do their power over the country.

Ahhhhhh a refreshing breath is your post Boxfulder. Supportive, and contrast to the stagnant outdated and thoroughly brainwashed opinions that have run rampant for far too long...

a reply to: GoShredAK

Huh what happened to.your link?

a reply to: GoShredAK

GoShredAK,

If Obama was the imperious, self motivating, autocrat that some make him out to be, and made policy simply a matter of giving an order to his functionaries, then I would have thought that many things in the US would become legal, which are not, and many other things would become illegal, which are not.

However, in terms of his answer to the question, first, his comment at the beginning of his response was a nod to the fact that the elephant in the room had well and truly been recognised, and I think responding with humour first was probably wise. I say that, because you will note that although there was a generally conciliatory approach to his comments, he was constrained by the realities of his position.

The US senate, and congress, and so on, have power. They have a great deal of it. Changing the law on these things will mean convincing a great many people, not just in those chambers, but across the political divide in the US, that decriminalising and legalising use of, possession of, and the cultivation of marijuana, will be beneficial to the nation as a whole, and will not result in outcomes the like of which we hear from the hyper conservative commentators on the subject.

So for him to have answered in any other way, to have been any more optimistic on progressing thinking on, and the law on these matters, before that crowd, would have been disingenuous in the extreme. If he had said "yeah, I have a change in the law penciled in for next week, right after I bath the dog!" then that would have been clear BS. I thought his response was quite forthcoming in actual fact, since it is clear, from his own comments, that his opinion of the way the law works on these matters at the moment, is that the laws are quite inappropriate and not fit for purpose, where pot is concerned.

In short, his feelings on the subject are sympathetic to Steppa's question, and indeed his point of view in some respects. However, as the leader and the elected representative of a nation, he had to put forward the point of view held by the current legislation, which presides over that nation, else he would not be representing his country, but representing himself and his views, over and above those of his nation.

For all that it is a fine line to tread, he seemed to deal with the question very evenly I think.

a reply to: TrueBrit

He is the autocrat we think he is, but he has to work slowly because the Congress and judiciary do have power as does public opinion.

Right now, he's embroiled in a legal battle over his latest use of autocratic power on immigration.

He can't queue up a new action in the autocrat arena without considerable political capital, and he simply doesn't have that. The marijuana issue doesn't have nearly the political pull or power a lot of people like to think it does. It's a "that'd be nice" issue at best for a lot of people. There are other things that are far more important.

So most everyone pretty much crushed the thread, especially the last two. Thanks you guys for taking the time to weigh in. Not much left now to discuss or debate on this one.

Sorry for my many poor or pointless attempts at contributions here and there on this site. I kind of lose sight of the valued standards that are expected to be respected here. I promise to continue to improve my ATS etiquette, and do more research as well.

The last thing I can say about the video is that our prez does use some outdated "refer madness" age stereotypes in there.

He says that if these two states that have embarked on this "experiment" do not become magnets for criminal activity and addiction it's possible the legalization movement may gain momentum.

By Itself, left completely alone, Mary Jane will not relate with crime or addiction. On the contrary this plant may help defeat those negative things.

a reply to: GoShredAK

I am assuming you're referencing CO and WA, correct? The CO model, the price-instrument, has been a glaring successful of public policy and american entrepreneurship. Kudos, CO. WA model (quotas), the quantity-instrument, isn't nearly as efficient and beneficial to the consumer and/or government. All, including the current AK and OR legalization measures, remaining state measures will follow CO's model. Once Congress reschedules marijuana under the CSA, the Feds will likely let them be at their state-level discretion. The future is bright - consider here in TX they're actually considering decriminalization. In TX! This year.

Leave Barry out of it. He's, by no means, part of the refer madness paradigm.

originally posted by: GoShredAK
a reply to: Cuervo

I think he addressed the fact that what is to come is inevitable.

I can't shake the fact that he stereotyped the kind Rastafarian man in a rude manner.

I don't think he stereotyped anyone to be fair.

He was acknowledging the obvious is what i got from his attitude.

He in an island nation, which is known to heavily use Cannabis for spiritual reasons...it's fairly obvious the questions about Cannabis and people being locked up for non-violent crime relating to it would have come up in such a place.

He handled it quite well really. He was not condemning Cannabis, and not endorsing it either...what else could he have done in such circumstances?