Obama's recent comments about legalizing pot

Has anyone seen this new story?

http://time.com/3746953/obama-vice-interview-marijuana/

Am I the only one rubbed the wrong way by this? I don't know why the president is under the impression the "youth" of today care more about weed then climate change or war. Where did he even get that claim from? Does he have any actual numbers to back that up?

It almost sounds like he is telling us all something that didn't need to be said. Of course war is a bigger issue then pot being legal, did anyone ever say otherwise?

My problem is though..he is being disingenuous. This isn't just about pot, it's about the fundamental level of hypocrisy that has been going on in our government for far too long. Booze is legal, all I need to do to get booze is be over the age of 21, have a valid ID, and of course enough money to purchase it. I don't need to go through a background check nor do I need to see a doctor or anything. It makes no sense I can do that for something like booze, but something that is less harmful to both your health and society in general..is illegal?

I guess my problem is if our government is so inept they can't solve minor issues like legalizing pot, why would we trust them to be able to solve major issues? So this just rubbed me the wrong way, especially because if Obama truly feels a significant portion of the "youth" feel legalizing weed is more important then things like war...well, shouldn't that tell him something about how badly people want this change? An elected official is telling us what WE should focus on, but..shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the people decide what to focus on?

I am not saying the country doesn't have other issues, but am I the only one really bugged by this? Either he legitimately believes most young people care more about pot then war..or he is just saying stupid statements like that for no reason. But like I said, if he truly believes a majority of the youth are focused on this..wouldn't that be a sign it is something he should look into solving as soon as possible? He tries to trivialize an issue that, at it's core, isn't just about drug use, but the overall hypocrisy and manipulation that has been going on in our government for decades.

So am I in the minority here? I also want to note I am indeed not saying this pot issue is the most serious issue this country is facing, but I do believe we are capable of multi-tasking and I do believe that, while it is minor..it is still something that has gone on for far too long. Not just because of the massive amount of hypocrisy one needs to say weed should be illegal but booze shouldn't, but what about all the tax dollars wasted on the war on drugs? Or the money wasted on putting petty drug dealers away?

Plus consider the fact our government purposely lied and spread false propaganda about marijuana..all so they could justify keeping it illegal. That is more disturbing then anything else. They sat there chugging their booze and puffing on their cigars..all the while saying how pot is the devil's weed and you will go crazy and kill your family if you do it.

So like I said I don't think this is just about weed, but the overall precedent that has been set for far too long. You can still have laws about something while making it legal. Booze is legal, but it is illegal to drive drunk. Same logic can apply here, making weed legal doesn't mean we'd be saying it okay to go hand out a bunch of weed to little kids or be toking on a blunt inside a movie theater or something along those lines. Some people against this don't even use logic on their arguments. I saw one person saying that we had booze illegal at one point and once we made it legal again that didn't make it any safer. Which is of course flat out untrue.

Never sleep on Barry O.

TBF, universal weed smokage probably would lead to a massive decrease in wars

Typical hypocrite.

"I smoked and did cocaine when I was a kid, didn't join the military, but by God, others should not be allowed to smoke and focus on war, and O' climate change!"

Typical Obama-basher

Originally posted by Lestov16
Typical Obama-basher

😂

So wait, he's not a hypocrite?

Oh wait you had a knee jerk reaction because you thought I was talking about you.

I guess my problem is the "focus on more important things" goes both ways. Like, why was our government focused on spying on us by reading our emails? Obama feels issues like climate change and war are the big issues. Was our government under the impression they'd find the secret to stopping climate change by reading our emails? Were they looking for strategies on war?

It's also not bashing Obama if what people are saying is true. The government is hypocritical, and by Obama saying "it shouldn't be legal just decriminalized" he just becomes part of the problem then.

It's also somewhat disturbing he feels all the people rotting away in jail over crimes related to weed..those are just mere minor issues. Yep, the people who voted for him wasting away in jail for asinine reasons? Totally koscher.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
😂

So wait, he's not a hypocrite?

But you bash him for anything he does, good or bad, so it appears to people that you are against this out of a well known anti-Obama stance, not because you care about the issue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He is a hyprocrite. He isn't a great president. And he is wrong about this issue.

But you bash him for anything he does, good or bad, so it appears to people that you are against this out of a well known anti-Obama stance, not because you care about the issue.

So anyone that criticized bush, like yourself and all the Obama lovers here is not guilty of the same thing? Sounds like more hypocrisy.

😆

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So anyone that criticized bush, like yourself and all the Obama lovers here is not guilty of the same thing? Sounds like more hypocrisy.

😆

It depends on whether it is the issues or the person one disagrees with. Obama could cure cancer and achieve world peace and people like you would still find something to criticise him about. Because it doesn't matter to you what he does, it matter that he exists.

Additionally, I don't think we had interactions during the years Bush was president, so I'm not sure why you think you can judge my stance towards him.

For me, I think Obama should of just kept his mouth shut. If he truly feels a large portion of the youth feel this is very important..well, aren't we the future? By this I mean, I'm constantly hearing reports about how soon the "baby boomer" generation will not make up the majority of this country anymore. So if a good sized majority of the people who..make up a majority of this country feel it is important, doesn't it become important, regardless of what Obama personally believes?

Yes

Originally posted by Bardock42
It depends on whether it is the issues or the person one disagrees with. Obama could cure cancer and achieve world peace and people like you would still find something to criticise him about. Because it doesn't matter to you what he does, it matter that he exists.

Additionally, I don't think we had interactions during the years Bush was president, so I'm not sure why you think you can judge my stance towards him.

No if he did cure cancer and want to achieve world peace so be it and I would be overjoyed, however he had the opportunity to reverse Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research. Did he do it? Nope.

Back on point, I find it odd that the person intent on staying out of wars and downsizing troop numbers in the military who additionally smoked and did drugs as a youth and is now telling youth to focus on war and not drugs.

What the hell?

Obama certainly is not our most effective president ever, and as evidenced here, he certainly is not omnisciently wise, but at least he seems to care about using his position to improve American lives, unlike the prior president, who used the job to get his VP's companies a bigger profit. As stated, he's not our best president, but he's most certainly nowhere near our worst, and it disturbs me people seem to think that despite our last president's near-mentally-challenged incompetence. Between McCain, Romney, and Obama, Obama is definitely the best choice out of the 3. If people want a better president they need to start at a local level by electing competent people into Congress. Otherwise, this is the best we're going to get.

Sorry I went OT. No, I don't necessarily agree with Obama here, but nobody's perfect.

Drugs will make a loser out of people. That could be the only reason someone would want to leaglize it.

So admitted-weed-smoker Carl Sagan is a loser?

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Drugs will make a loser out of people. That could be the only reason someone would want to leaglize it.

Right, okay. So booze and cigarettes CAN'T make losers out of people? How's that work?

I mean hey, your argument is one route to take, but if we take that route it means booze and cigarettes go as well.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Obama certainly is not our most effective president ever, and as evidenced here, he certainly is not omnisciently wise, but at least he seems to care about using his position to improve American lives, unlike the prior president, who used the job to get his VP's companies a bigger profit. As stated, he's not our best president, but he's most certainly nowhere near our worst, and it disturbs me people seem to think that despite our last president's near-mentally-challenged incompetence. Between McCain, Romney, and Obama, Obama is definitely the best choice out of the 3. If people want a better president they need to start at a local level by electing competent people into Congress. Otherwise, this is the best we're going to get.

Sorry I went OT. No, I don't necessarily agree with Obama here, but nobody's perfect.

Showing that you think Obama would be a better president then Romney really shows your ignorance to the real issues of America.

You would rather have a man with zero experience in governing a state much less a nation. Being a junior senator sitting 143 in his seat and voting "present" for most of his votes in the senate, run the country? Rather then a governor of a state who could run a state and before that large companies, private equity firms and a whole host of other things in his career?