Here's an example of someone who is able to make inroads where Obama is not:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/28/webb/index.html

"Importantly, what are we going to do about drug policy - the whole area of drug policy in this country?

And how does that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives that we might look at?"

actually i think if they had broken off from their parties, these two working together could have possibly gotten elected. They would have had to have done this at least two years before the elections.

Create a new party, get some senators into office, and slowly build the third party. In two elections, 8 years, they can take over.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the world has many problems right now that could be affected by changing the legal status of marijuana. Its non-smoking use could change the way we do many things. But pinning the hopes of the outcome of that argument on one person, and deriding him for not taking a stand in favour because so much of his support came from online donors is misguided, and that was my original point. Keep up the fight, but you've got to fight from within, you can't expect too much help from without, at least not in the States. If they had elected Kicinich or Paul, things might be different, but there wasn't a chance in hell of that happening , was there?

hi Mescalero,

i think this is the report that you're referring to: FINAL REPORT: CANNABIS: OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY

For the record, i happen to agree with Garitar, this is crypto-slavery.

and you are right, i don't mind being called a pot activist, but what i'm really doing is fighting for my freedom, the freedom of future generations, and for the well being of the environment. This is not a simple case of allowing time to pass for things to change, if they don't change now we are in deep shit (to put it lightly).

A second read through your rewording of my paragraph highlights the implication that I am an abolitionist. I resent that. I'm sure Chycho doesn't resent being referred to as a pot activist ("420") because that political leaning is pretty clear from posts here.

But to call me an abolitionist because I said expecting Obama to jump on the bandwagon is asking too much is quite frankly, stupid. I'm in my early 40's have smoked pot and hash and defend everyone's right to do so. I have smoked a joint across the street from cops in Vancouver, and was left alone and think that's the way it should be. Don't partake much myself anymore. That's just me.

However, I do not agree with legalization and taxation. Look at what that did for alcohol and tobacco. Pretty soon you will only be able to buy pot at licensed stores and the big tobacco manufacturers will be selling boxes of joints full of enhancements and whatever other crap they are putting in cigarettes. No, I think everyone should be allowed to buy from their local grower, or better yet, grown their own. That way the government is out of the loop and the gangs lose their control. this needs to be done step by step, and we're doing it right in
Canada. A Senate report a few years back recommended loosening pot laws-Chycho details?- and as soon as we boot Harper out, maybe we'll get somewhere on that one. It's a whole different battle south of the border and they have a lot of catching up to do.

Garitar, not really following your argument. If you're tying pot smoking with slavery, I find that to be a bit of a stretch. They may be throwing way too many people in jail for way to long in the States, but that means changing laws, not crying "
Slavery!" I'm sure there a lot of descendants of slaves that would take issue with that. Unfortunately so many of them are in jail.......I'm sure Maher would be flattered to be compared to Douglass.

Chycho, I totally agree that he was flippant and dismissive. But like I said, this is not an issue that he can be seen to be tackling publicly, it has to be done on other levels. The chess match and all. As for human rights, it's at the State level that the laws have to be changed. Be pissed a the right wing drift down there. Obama will never create a decriminalization bill. If one is handed him to sign, that's different.

Spark one up and chill, Mescalero.

Right now there are more pressing things than ending slavery. You abolitionists always get your panties in a twist (most recently, Frederick Douglas, just because the question was popular) over this. You can't seriously suggest that the President of the United States spearhead a drive towards abolition? This is something that has to start at the local and state level and trickle up until it is challenged in the Supreme Court.

It's not like up here in Canada, it's a completely different culture, with calcified attitudes and huge profit being made from slavery. Give it some time. Lincoln's got too many fires to put out, and he's only been at it for 2 months for peet's sake!

Hi Mescalero,

As far as I’m concerned, this is a human rights issue, so it should be at least in the top 10 list of things to do for Obama.

And the way he dismissed the online audience was crazy, as if he was talking to children. Very insulting and arrogant of him.

Spark one up and chill, chycho.

Right now there are more pressing things than decriminalization of pot. You 420's always get your panties in a twist (most recently, Bill Maher, just because the question was popular) over this. You can't seriously suggest that the President of the United States spearhead a drive towards decriminalization? This is something that has to start at the local and state level and trickle up until it is challenged in the Supreme Court.

It's not like up here in Canada, it's a completely different culture, with calcified attitudes and huge profit being made on the law-enforcement and confinement levels. Give it some time. Obama's got too many fires to put out, and he's only been at it for 2 months for pot's sake!

You're also suggesting that O's online supporters are pot supporters because it was the number one online question. False logic. Each were movements organized for a different purpose. One was to elect someone who is far more progressive than Bush and to avoid McCain/Palin. The other movement was to bring awareness to wrong-headed drug laws. You can't conflate the two. Calling Obama a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack because Obama never ran on a platform of decriminalizing pot, and his supporters didn't give him money to do that.