Schwarzenegger Says "Time for a Debate" on Decriminalization

[jefferson_dem]

Schwarzenegger Says "Time for a Debate" on Decriminalization
by Lucas O'Connor, Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:59:54 PM EST

Even though a number of smart people have been making sense about the issue lately, you may remember President Obama laughing off the notion of legalizing marijuana back in April (video), or at least the idea that it might be good for the economy. Well, for what it's worth, Governor Schwarzenegger disagrees:

The governor was asked about a recent Field Poll showing that 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenues for cash-strapped California. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would legalize the drug for recreational use, rather than just medical purposes.

"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"

Granted, that isn't much close to a full-throated 'legalize it' cry. But it acknowledges not only California's multi-billion dollar budget shortfall but the staggering prison crisis that has led to illegal levels of overcrowding and mandated early releases. Which would be helped tremendously by reducing the number of non-violent drug users in prison. Plus it drags federal drug policy away from prohibition, inch by inch.

It's been 30 years since the last time this country seriously debated drug policy. This is another step in the right direction.

<SNIP>

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/5/5/205954/7413

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Now THAT would make me head down to San Francisco for a little tourism.

I could go down to Haight st. and smoke a J and see all the old hippy spots. It would be really fun actually.

[sarah553807]

15. here here

:fistbump:

[islandgirl808]

28. right behind you

:smoke:

[pinto]

2. Good to hear the Gov keep this discussion open. While I have no illusion that decriminalization will...

solve our budget problems, either overnight or in the immediate future, it's a good discussion for the State to maintain.

[DrToast]

3. Correction: He said it's time for a debate on legalization

Marijuana is already decriminalized in California.

[BeFree]

4. For and against

Just about everyone is for it except crooked lawyers, jailers and judges, old nasty ladies, mean old men and dumbass government people who fear reefer madness. Basically the two sides are about even.

So why not? Why not have a debate?

[Bryan]

5. I have a little trouble putting stock in this

Schwarzenegger likes to feint to the left to keep the interest of Dems and independents, but he's got no interest in pushing hard on the issue and possibly offending wingnutty CA Republicans.

[PassingFair]

8. Most wing-nutty republicans I know are FOR decriminalizing MaryJane.

Only people I talk to who want
it to remain illegal are law
enforcement people.

[ZombieHorde]

6. Its a sad day when Schwarzenegger makes more sense than Obama. nt

[DrToast]

7. Obama isn't running California.*

*

[ZombieHorde]

10. Schwarzenegger still makes more sense concerning this topic.

Their job titles are irrelevant to the argument.

[stevenleser]

11. Schwarzenegger doesnt have to win Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia in 3.5 years (n/t)

[ZombieHorde]

12. Schwarzenegger still makes more sense concerning this topic.

Obama's remarks concerning this subject were ridiculous, he would not lose a single state if he would have said we should a national debate on our marijuana policies.

[stevenleser]

13. OK, obviously we live in different worlds. In mine, those are not progressive states...

...arguing with someone who is determined to believe that those states would be in play for Obama if he did this is pointless. Those states were either won by Bush or close enough to steal twice. That is without Gore or Kerry calling for a national discussion on whether pot should be legalized.

What is just as compelling to me is that spending political capital on this instead of getting Universal Healthcare passed with an included option for medicare for all, AND/or instead of trying to get DADT repealed and allow gays to serve openly isnt even a question. This issue is far down on the list of priorities.

[ZombieHorde]

14. Your argument in your subject line is a strawman. I am sure you already know that.

The Republican base will not vote for Obama, regardless of whatever he says.

Independents will not be turned off by a call for a national marijuana debate.

What is just as compelling to me is that spending political capital on this instead of getting Universal Healthcare passed with an included option for medicare for all, AND/or instead of trying to get DADT repealed and allow gays to serve openly isnt even a question.

What is stopping him from doing this now?

[stevenleser]

16. No, its not. You actually created one with the first line of your response

I never asserted that the "Republican Base" will vote for Obama under any circumstances, nor could anything I said be remotely parsed to suggest that.

You, however, asserted that all US States are progressive enough to still be in play if Obama started a national debate on Marijuana and other drug legalization (at least in as much play as they would be otherwise). Tell me that this is an incorrect restatement of your position. So, I specifically narrowed that to a discussion of Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina since those are the states that Obama needs to carry next time. There is nothing remotely strawmanish about my restatement of your position.

[ZombieHorde]

21. "I never asserted that the "Republican Base" will vote for Obama"

I never claimed you made that claim. I was arguing that Obama's chances for reelection would not be hurt by starting a national debate the way A.S. started one in his state.

There is nothing remotely strawmanish about my restatement of your position.

"OK, obviously we live in different worlds. In mine, those are not progressive states..."

You made a comment claiming we live in "different worlds" in your first sentence. The same line contains a follow up sentence to the first in which you contrast our "worlds". I am assuming your use of the word "world" is a metaphor for an individual perspective (a metaphor I happen to like). The contrast you chose to type concerning our perspectives was, "In mine, those are not progressive states...", which means my "world" or perspective conflicts with that claim.

Consider this example:
Obviously we live in different worlds. In mine, women should have the right to vote.

In the above example, I am implying you do not believe women should have the right to vote. Am I not?

Perhaps we both just used poor post construction.

[mkultra]

17. actually, your argument is a strawman

as it asserts that obama has spoken on the issue of legalization in California, which he hasn't. Obama has said, before that weed is not something the federal government should be regulating thus, in a sense, indicating that the issue should be discussed at the state level.

In your race to bash Obama, you missed some of his previous statements on the matter. In fact, if im not mistake, he has said a couple of years ago that it was time to start talking about decriminalization.


In summary, you have made assumptions, erected a strawman of false stance on obama's part, and then proceded to bash him in regard to this strawman. You should go work for rush limbaugh.

[ZombieHorde]

22. "as it asserts that obama has spoken on the issue of legalization in California"

You're being intentionally silly.

Obama has said, before that weed is not something the federal government should be regulating thus, in a sense, indicating that the issue should be discussed at the state level.

I understand you probably don't read every thread on DU, but there were several threads concerning his latest comments on marijuana.

you missed some of his previous statements on the matter

I wish I was wrong on this subject. Obama has recently scoffed at the idea.

In summary, you have made assumptions

Based on Obama's latest comments on the subject in which he literally laughed at the idea. Real Time and the Young Turks covered it.

erected a strawman of false stance on obama's part

Obama was clear on his stance.

eta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etYrAZxCAKU">Link to TYT on youtube concerning Obama's stance in March of 2009.

[mkultra]

29. Yeah, your still making vast assumptions

>You're being intentionally silly.

If you say so, but again, the issue of legalization is a STATE issue and the only position the federal should ever have on it is in regards to interstate commerce and removal of federal controls. It remains a state issue.

Obama has said before that weed is not something the federal government should be regulating thus, in a sense, indicating that the issue should be discussed at the state level. Holders office has also said that are stopping the bush raids in states where it is legal

>I understand you probably don't read every thread on DU, but there were several threads concerning his latest comments on marijuana.

I don't need to read the opinions of people on DU to get a bead on Obama's stance. The idea of the "war on drugs" from the national level is just about all the true impact his office can have and on that he has said the following.

“The war on drugs has been an utter failure. (W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation’s) marijuana laws.”

you missed some of his previous statements on the matter

>I wish I was wrong on this subject. Obama has recently scoffed at the idea.

The only thing he has scoffed at has been the presumption that the weed industry could have a significant economic impact. Again, the failing US economy is the top agenda item for his office. legalization and the delivery of your pony have all been shuffled to lower positions. And no, no administration can do everything at once. If you want to debate this, open a new OP

In summary, you have made assumptions

>Based on Obama's latest comments on the subject in which he literally laughed at the idea. Real Time and the Young Turks covered it.

I watched those segments and even i could tell that he took the question in terms of pots relation to the economy. TYT made some assumptions about Obama skewing the question but its clear to me that legalization discussion at the federal level is not getting traction. I think it is clear that if California, or your state, legalizes pot, then Obama will not allow the federal to step in as its not constitutional.

erected a strawman of false stance on obama's part

Obama was clear on his stance.
i agree and let me poach the following from a gawker article regarding his stance starting with a quote from obama:

"My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana, then that's something I'm open to," Obama said in November 2007 at a campaign stop in Audubon, Iowa. "There's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain."

And since getting a medical marijuana prescription in Cali is as easy as telling some weedhead doctor "I have stress," weed is basically legal there now, as well as in many other states.

[ZombieHorde]

30. "Obama said in November 2007"

Unfortunately, Obama has flipped-flopped several times on this issue. Stopthedrugwar.org has chronicled his various positions.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

18. And what compels me is that..........

folks never give the administration any credit for their ability to multi-task. They can have a debate on decrim or MM without unduly compromising their stances on other issues. They are not a one-headed beastie. In fact I would put all the issues you note above under the same blanket as legal/decrim grass. Its a civil rights issue. UniHealth has received a bad stigma because all of the yokels that decided that being somewhat like Sweden would be a bad thing, whilst ignoring all the socialist aspects already present in our culture, ie: Social Security, Medicare, USPS, etc....... DADT has already had its first spasm of death-throes in that gay folks and GLBT issues are starting to get a more sympathetic ear in our society and is starting to gain a wider acceptance.

While on its face decrim and legalization would not seem to be as pressing as healthcare or GLBT rights, I say that its easily as pressing. Just ask the 700,000 folks who were arrested last year for marijuana offenses, most simply for possession of small amounts. One has to understand that pro legal/decrim folks aren't just standing up and demanding the laws change so they can get high, they're standing up against what many see is a bad legal perspective with a racist origin, and the right to not go to jail for their medicine/recreation. And, if done correctly, would not compromise the civil rights of others.

Even though neither Gore nor Kerry have stood up and demanded the debate, politicians like Jim Webb, in regard to his new prison reform bill said: "nothing is off the table". Several state law-makers have called for not just a debate, but have crafted decrim legislation for their respective states to consider to not just fill their coffers, but create room in their prisons for folks more suited to incarceration (read: violent). And when polled as to what the most pressing business the president should attend to in his first months in office, a recent whitehouse.gov poll had legal pot topping the agenda. The mood in this country is positive now (if you trust polling), and I would imagine there would be some casualties if a politician stood up for changing the laws, but I seriously doubt it would be career-killing.

However, I do agree with you in that they need to get Dawn Johnsen confirmed ASAP, then maybe... maybe, we can finally get some traction on the torture issue.

[stevenleser]

19. There is an important distinction between multitasking regular issues, and multitasking major fights

Yes, Obama can deal with the economic crisis, foreign policy crises and various other things at the same time.

That does not mean he can reform social security, implement universal healthcare, implement gays openly serving in the military, legalize drugs, and all of that at the same time, nor does it mean he has the political capital for all of the above.

Let's get Universal Healthcare with a medicare for all option and lets get the LGBT community their full civil rights. Then lets worry about everything else.

[ZombieHorde]

23. "lets get the LGBT community their full civil rights"

Has Obama changed his stance on gay marriage?

[truedelphi]

24. If Obama consistently fails to do the right thing in his first 110 days,

What point is there in having him re-elected?

I am so fed up with the One Party, Money Party I could scream!

Every nation on earth that has decent Universal Single Payer Health care has more than two main political parties.

Every nation on earth that has decent de-criminalized drug laws has more than two major, bought and sold out parties.

Every nation on earth that has decent economic policies that are truly supportive of the middle class, with protection and bennies for the lower class, is again, a nation that has more than two parties.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Obama has done some wonderful things already.

Such as releasing the torture memos and helping women get equal pay for equal work.

[truedelphi]

27. Yes those two, and also his call 4 a return to sanity on stem cell research

But we were all told WAY BACK in 1993 that we needed to give President Bill Clinton some time before we could expect some changes in legalization of marijuana - and now it is a long sixteen years later.

By next year, Obama's blowing of the economic situation, through his criminally enterprising advisers and appointees, will pretty much disable any chance for his changing things. Either economic collapse or such devaluation/inflation that no one of the middle class will survive easily.

[NC_Nurse]

9. Good. Bout time.

[cbc5g]

20. +1 for Arnold , Obama doesn't understand prohibition and its externalities

[Romulox]

25. During the campaign, Obama claimed he didn't know what "decriminalization" means.

A claim hard to credit from the former president of the Harvard Law Review.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/17/225516/066