Skip to comments.Obama pot comments not meant to endorse legalization: White House
Posted on 01/23/2014 12:30:05 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
President Obama wasnt trying to set new federal drug policy when he stated that Colorado and Washington state should go forward with new laws legalizing marijuana use, the White House said Wednesday.
The presidents position on these matters hasnt changed, said White House press secretary Jay Carney. He made clear that he sees it as a bad habit and a vice, and not something that he would encourage. Hes not endorsing any specific move by a state, hes simply making an observation.
Under federal law, marijuana use is illegal. The president has acknowledged smoking marijuana former friends in his so-called Choom Gang say he smoked heavily as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Don’t bogart that nanny state PING!
He’ll impose severe healthcare restrictions for those who use alcohol and tobacco.
Oh go on, if you are going to ask him about pot, ask him about cocaine as well (including when was the last time he used either).
Living proof that the Whitehouse is no place for a stoner.
But wait, how can it NOT be a legalization endorsement?? If it’s no worse than alcohol, under what conceivable authority can they ban it? Or is he endorsing a return to prohibition? That’s the only way this could honestly be viewed as not endorsing pot legalization.
Yeah, I figured he was blitzed when he said it.
IOW: “don’t worry what the president says, he’s not running this place.” said Valerie Jarret.
Shoot, ask about anal sex.
He needs to borrow Pope Francis’s translator.
Obama the Narcissist wants everyone to be exactly like him, so he doesn’t have to feel bad about himself. That’s what drives the homosexual propagandists, too.
“former friends in his so-called Choom Gang say he smoked heavily as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii.”
That explains a lot.
Is it me, or is the WH Press Office having to “walk back” a greater number of Obama’s pronouncements than for any similar period in this administration?
Oh suck it White House. We have ears and brains... do not confuse us with the rat base.
Let me guess...
Obama's position on smoking pot is 'evolving', just like his position on gay marriage.
Did I get it right?
In Dreams of My Father Barack Obama bragged about smoking reefer, drinking beer and enthusiastically doing drugs.
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them, like this quote from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out - we have a lot of work to do.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
My other personal concern is the evil entities behind the fool.
Also, this post is not to be construed as an endorsement of marijuana use.
To begin with, the title of the article is misleading. It is misleading because the feds only have limited power under the Commerce Clause to regulate things like marijuana.
More specifically, thanks to the legacy of unconstitutional case precedents established by FDRs activist justices concerning Congresss constitutionally limited powers, many low-information citizens, evidently including institutionally indoctrinated federal and state lawmakers and judges, seemingly dont understand the following. The Supreme Court has historically clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate either intrastate commerce or intrastate agricultural production. This is evidenced by the following case opinion excerpts.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added) Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added). Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936 .
So the states uniquely have government power to regulate intrastate marijuana production and associated commerce, marijuana only becoming a federal issue under the Commerce Clause when marijuana commerce crosses state lines imo.
Note that there may be many Constitution-impaired state lawmakers who dont have a grip on the federal governments constitutionally limited powers. Although such lawmakers may be against the use of marijuana, they may not understand that the corrupt federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate marijuana production and associated commerce.
The consequence of such thinking is that lawmakers may be foolishly satisfied that such unconstitutional federal laws protect their state from marijuana issues, such laws actually nothing more than lose canons waiting to go off.
In fact, Constitution-respecting justices would have to strike down federal marijuana laws not reasonably associated with interstate commerce imo, just as certain provisions in the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) were recently found unconstitutional, the states having never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate (define) marriage.
Thanks for the ping!
As a libertarian I have no problem per se with people smoking pot. Or even making it legal like the Super Bowl team states Washington and Colorado. Government should not try banning a plant that can be grown in your backyard.
But a lot of conservatives wonder openly and logically why liberals are okay with pot/THC and not nicotine. It’s a good question.
The best answer I can think of is Reading Aldous Huxley’s “brave New World”.
Nicotine increases concentration and focus. Helped Woodward and Bernstein to keep an eye on big government and their Abuse of power.
THC/pot will just make you want to watch “American wedding” in a continuous loop while eating Doritos and KFC.
Meanwhile big government operatives can just convince you to believe in man-made global warming. Or anything they want. The populace will be too drugged to know the difference.
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.