Skip to comments.Obama: Marijuana 'not very different' from cigarettes
Posted on 01/19/2014 11:07:30 AM PST by gusopol3
President Obama in an interview released Sunday said that using marijuana was not that different from smoking cigarettes nor any more dangerous than drinking alcohol.
As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life, Obama said as part of an extensive profile published by the New Yorker on Sunday. I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
A heavy equipment operator with a lengthy rap sheet who is accused of being high on marijuana when a downtown building collapsed onto a thrift store, killing six people, surrendered Saturday to face charges in the deaths, police said.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-benschop-equipment-operator-in-philadelphia-building-collapse-probe-surrenders/
Strangely enough, Mr. President, when the news came out about this tragedy, it wasn't mentioned whether he were smoking a cigarette.
Aren’t they banning e-cigarettes only because they confuse the cigarette nazis?
LOL this is a joke right ??
Obviously, the more logical comparison would be to ask if he was drunk.
There's your problem right there (and his photo). Using that as an excuse to ban marijuana bears logical similarity to banning guns for the law abiding because criminals misuse them.
I thought is was horrific when Clinton via the Lewinsky scandal introduced and condoned oral sex, a form of sodomy, to our youth, but now we have Obama encouraging the youth to break laws and smoke pot.
Furthermore, he gives them the false impression that pot is as harmless as alcohol.
He will destroy many teen lives, just like Clinton.
The Pot has affected his pea size brain.
I live in the UP of Michigan medical marijuana is taking over the area. You go outside now and the distinctive odor of what is similar to a dead skunk is the preponderant odor. I cleaned off my roof of snow and nearly fell out of my wheelchair because of the odor was captured in the snow. Just found I have 7 neighbors whom use medical marijuana.
What a stench!
Unless you’re a contractor with a wrongful death suit filed against you.
Drug-addled little barry bastard boy can no longer tell any difference, expect when the first wookie slams him for droppin’ out.
Obama is weighing in on this, why???
Why did he weigh in on the Washington Redskins name being offensive? To prove that he’s liberal on a certain issue?
Is he trying to prove that he is liberal/libertarian on marijuana?
Is this going to be a topic in the State of the Union?
Guns are the second amendment, I forget which amendment is the pot amendment.
Approval rating for Obama 40%; approval rating for marijuana 50%; you gotta hitch your wagon to a star.
Me, too, LOL. I knew you'd come back with that!
Pot isn’t mentioned in the Constitution at all. So, technically, the government has no right to outlaw it. Just the states, under the 10th.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Dude’s got quite the hairdo.
Making your link clickable — I haven’t looked at it yet
OK by me, you line up with Obama on this one; his endorsement will likely move state initiatives along rapidly, just as it did for gay marriage. Then you get to the Dred Scott effect where one state cannot exclude what is legal in another, and the Holder DOJ will stand back and let it go.
Thanks, it’s an old article, just one with some notoriety.
Brave New World needs its Soma
2ndDivisionVet: Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie ‘not very different’ from Barack Obama.
The quotes are all about him (as usual) so its probably real.
LOL, you don’t want to go there. Statistics for marijuana show it to be so far safer than alcohol or guns or even aspirin, that you’d be laughed out of the discussion.
But I will tell you where you can argue against marijuana - its effects on the brain development of children. Up to a certain point (late teens, I believe) it has a marked and measurable negative effect on all sorts of mental abilities, with associated negative emotional effects, from apathy to panic attacks.
After the brain reaches physical maturity, those negative effects drop off dramatically. But for kids and teens, marijuana is bad news.
On the other hand, for kids and teens, alcohol is bad news too - equally if not worse.
So there are deeper issues here than yes/no.
Once again, brilliance out of our Hahvahd magna, coolest dude, chuuum puffin’, smartest Prez EVAH!
So add all the crap caused by dopers on the road, etc. with all the drinkers and we have Nirvana, right?
And I thought inhaling anything other than God-given clean air was not the lib tard, greeny-ac way?
Obvious follow up questions:
When did you stop smoking marijuana?
At what age was the last time you smoked it?
I’m kind of a clown, so I don’t mind being laughed at. So at what point does employability become a part of the rubric? If somebody on the job has a BAL and there’s an accident, they need a mighty fine lawyer. Yet they can be rip-roaring drunk the night before, it’s no issue. On the other hand, well, you know wht\at I’m going to say.
That guy looks a bit like an older Jimi Hendrix .. had he not died of an overdose and suffocating on his own vomit. Ah drugs .. what a glorious life.
I think he was “a kid” until a couple years after law school. shucks, he’s young at heart even now.
Here's a thought: e-cigs should be manufactured in the shape of a joint (or whatever it is called nowadays)- fat at the center and skinny at the ends. Vapist must hold this between thumb and index. The vap scent must be appropriate also. Cigarette problem solved.
In 1916, even though there was a huge temperance movement that wanted alcohol banned, there was a general agreement that the FedGov had not been granted the power in the Constitution to do so; thus arose the Prohibition Constitutional Amendment process.
However, by 1936, while a Constitutional Amendment was being ratified to nullify Prohibition, Congress was passing laws to regulate and prohibit the manufacture and use of drugs without permission from the FDA ... with no outcry that the FedGov was not granted this power in the Constitution.
Twenty years ... one generation ... is all it took to loosen the chains that limited the FedGov power.
On this one issue, I agree with him. Marijuana should not be illegal. People are going to do it whatever it is or not. All we accomplish by keeping it illegal is filling up our for-profit prison systems with non-violent drug offenders, which makes them harder criminals. We get crap like asset forfeiture which means that cops can take your money or property without charging you with a crime. We lose liberties. It does WAY more harm than good.
If it’s legal, companies can still do piss tests and not hire pot heads. My fiance was nearly turned down for a job because they said she had alcohol in her system (She’s diabetic, and the ketones in her urine mimiced alcohol).
People can refuse to hire for any reason.
Well that all comes under impairment. Whether alcohol, marijuana, or a police dispatcher who bought shoes that are too tight and as a result missed a call because they were rubbing their toes, an employee has a personal responsibility to be in a safe state of mind - and an employer has a responsibility to require it in a meaningful way. But that doesn’t mean that the particular thing that caused the impairment should be illegal per se.
I’d be the first to say smoking your last joint two weeks ago is unlikely to have any bearing on your mental acuity today. However, the test still is positive. I guess if somebody can afford to take a few days-weeks off intermittently, it’s ok for the President of the U.S. to tell him marijuana is no different from cigarettes.
Who is he kidding?
Yep, the test would be positive after the high wore off. But certain alcohol indicators would be present after the drunk wore off, too. So it would be a matter of which test was used, and how, etc.
Obviously, things people ingest or do in order to escape the stress of daily life, are going to be antithetical to the duties of the very daily life they are trying to escape. So I’m not saying that misuse can occur. But if a more accepting approach to drugs was made, rather than kicking in doors and shooting people over them, then maybe better testing methods could not only be developed, but accepted by the population.
Fact of the matter is that alcohol poses a devastating counter-argument to the drug war. Few drugs are as damaging as alcohol, but it’s legal and common. That contradiction should have knocked any drug war laws clean out of the box. That it didn’t means that the legal problem is way bigger than the drug problem.
Clinton's perversions set the state for the rise of gay marriage.
Kids were taught that sex was the only thing you could lie about in court, character didn't matter, and BJ's were not sex so could be practiced in abandon.
Clinton also was largely responsible for 9/11 because he weakened the military with DADT, appeasement of N. Korea, ignoring the '93 WTC bombing and the Somalia disaster though this is NEVER spoken about anymore.
Well it is pretty much verboten to smoke cigarettes anywhere in public today,so why the hell is the idiot President comparing the two,all I have heard for the past 50 years is how bad cigarettes are for you even just the second hand smoke ,now all 0f a sudden it’s,what’s the big deal?
Pot smoking = OK.
Eating potatoes in school = Not OK.
Obama can be a poster child for why it is called “DOPE”.
Now we know what the acronym POTus stands for.
I always wondered why, in SF, you can freely walk the streets and parks smoking pot, but if you smoke tobacco that is a no-no.
I thought it was an addictive gate-way drug? That’s what they’ve been telling us for the last 50 years isn’t it?
DO TELL! Ok- lets go with that( it’s a lie, but what the hell). Pot is no different than tobacco- and we know tobacco is BAD for you, and we will prevent you from smoking it in public, in the open, in your home! We want what’s best for you so you will be taxed and hounded if you dare smoke tobacco....OR POT! Isn’t that how it’s going to work- or does the government only care about the health of tobacco smokers? Do they want pot smokers to DIE???
That’s no different than an alcoholic drinking while at work. Same crime, Same shame.
Responsible people just aren’t going to get high before or at work. Just like responsible people don’t get drunk or drink while at work.
Think about this ... It’s just like responsible people not running out and amassing personal armories and then going out and killing a bunch of school kids.
When someone smokes marijuna it alters their consciousness such that when you are driving a car down the road you see 4 sets of headlights coming at them. You do not know which set to dodge. If your child is in a car coming at that ‘smoker’ do you want a 3,000 pound car hurtling at them? Smoking tobacco does not do this. Both will cause emphysema, vascular disease, cancer, etc. It is best to avoid both .well, yea.
Responsible people continue to test positive for pot weeks after their last joint. Responsible employers have every reason not to hire them or to fire them.Irresponsible drinkers test negative for alcohol 12 hours after their last drink. Responsible employers have no grounds to fire them or to fail to hire them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.