Obama: Drug Legalization 'Worth A Serious Debate'

WASHINGTON -- Drug legalization is an "entirely legitimate topic for debate," President Barack Obama said Thursday during his online YouTube town hall, in response to a question from a former deputy sheriff who has turned sour on the drug war.

In endorsing such a debate, Obama went further than any president has since the start of the war on drugs, which can be traced back at least to President Richard Nixon, but more realistically to the early 20th century, when the federal government began criminalizing drugs that had long been legal.

Obama, who said again toward the end of his answer that drug legalization is "worth a serious debate," lent legitimacy to a policy area that has long been relegated to the "unserious" corner of American political discourse.

His answer indicates an evolution in his administration's approach to the question of legalization. In the past, Obama has not treated the issue with the same respect.

In 2009, during a similar online event, the president paused to address the hundreds of questions that had been submitted regarding marijuana and drug policy. "Can I just interrupt, Jared, before you ask the next question, just to say that we -- we took votes about which questions were going to be asked and I think 3 million people voted," he said to aide Jared Bernstein. "I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy -- (laughter) -- and job creation. And I don't know what this says about the online audience -- (laughter) -- but I just want -- I don't want people to think that -- this was a fairly popular question, we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy -- (laughter) -- to grow our economy in 2009."

His answer Thursday was hardly an endorsement of legalization, but it was nonetheless a marked turnaround. "I think this is a entirely legitimate topic for debate," he said. "I am not in favor of legalization. I am a strong believer that we need to think more about drugs as a public health problem."

The president's comments came in response to a question from MacKenzie Allen, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and a retired deputy sheriff with law-enforcement experience in Los Angeles and King County, Washington. In this year's YouTube poll, Allen's question garnered twice as many votes as the second-most popular question online.

LEAP head Neill Franklin, a retired Baltimore narcotics cop, applauded Obama's comment but called for him to turn the words into action. The White House is preparing a budget to submit to Congress in the coming weeks, and how much priority it gives to drug treatment versus incarceration will be an indication of the direction the administration plans to take.

"The president talks a good game about shifting resources and having a balanced, public health-oriented approach, but it doesn't square with the budgets he's submitted to Congress," Franklin said in a statement. "The Obama administration has maintained the Bush-era two-to-one budget ratio in favor of prisons and prosecution over treatment and prevention. It doesn't add up. Still, it's historic that the president of the United States is finally saying that legalizing and regulating drugs is a topic worthy of discussion. But since the president remains opposed to legalization, it's clear that the people are going to have to lead the way. Police officers and innocent civilians are dying every single day in this drug war; it's not a back-burner issue."

Obama's response to Franklin's question appears below:

Comments

[Paul Paul]

08:18 PM on 02/11/2011

What he's saying is that he is leaving the job of legalising up to you. He'll just keep on going on as he has and so will the government but you can get out there and legalise pot and he won't get in your way. He'll put a hold on Holder and a curl on Kerlikowske and they won't enter the debate next election.

So enroll to vote and make those petitions and sign them and vote.

Legal in 2012

[Ed3547]

10:01 AM on 02/04/2011

If you won't stand up for us, we will not stand for you come election time. It's that simple.

[nmaddog7]

03:59 AM on 02/02/2011

I believe he is just stringing along a faction of his voters for the 2012 election, throwing them a hint(similar to Bush with getting gay marriage banned in the constitution). I can tell because he keeps on doing the Youtube town hall, thinking the results will be different from the last time marijuana activists controlled the questions. This mean he wants to be perceived as growing on the issue, thinking about it. Then, b4 the next election he will hint more strongly at the possibility of debate. This may get some desperate suckers who still belief Obama is acting in their interests-possibly only liberal media ppl, I live in VT where veryone voted for BO, and no one likes him now.

[ScienceRules420]

06:44 PM on 01/31/2011

Why does everyone seem to miss what happened here? Top 200 questions (by vote on youtube) were about drug policy (well 198 of them), prop 19 barely fails (amid mass votes against from growers who are actually for, but protecting profits). This is not a new cry for a debate (been crying foul since the 60s)! After all the questions asked; Obama sends potheads from "Criminals" to "Drug Addicts"... when what is being asked is to be called "Law abiding adults choosing to not drink a bud but smoke one". That is what everyone wants. I guess it is indeed a step in the right direction, but I still resent being considered someone with a substance abuse problem if I smoke once per month but a guy who drinks daily is OK?!?!!oNE!1?

Prejudice does not just mean racism... if you pre-judge someone (pot heads are dumb/slow/stinky/unemployable/etc) you are being prejudice.

I still cannot get past the fact that people protect (rightly so) a woman's right to choose an abortion, but not a person's right to smoke a joint. Freedom to choose is freedom to choose no matter what you are choosing.

[nmaddog7]

03:41 AM on 02/02/2011

It's amazing how we are told Obama will debate this, and then get the drug criminalization is a public health policy, compared to,in the great Obama's response, buckling seat belts and stopping drunk drivers. Where is the debate? Do we get to ask him why he laughed at the very serious issue in terms of $$$, morality(medicine being denied to the sick),race(more blacks in jail for marijuana possession despite being a minority),American public opinion(vastly supports decriminalization), democratic government etc.?
Also, do we get to ask how his public health policy approach is different than criminalization? No.
Did he talk about the cost and the proportion of minorities & more poor residents in jail?NO.
On top of all this, we get websites,blogs, and papers supossedly for liberal causes try to spin the answer in favor of Obama?!?
I will go pull up each of these spin docs articles on GWB's drug policy and see if they wrote that the next guy in needs to decriminalize marijuana when they get in office, not debate it.
As a matter of fact, someone should pull up what GWB and other conservative presidents said about the the war on drugs and public health policies.
BO is throwing the public a bone, just like GWB gay marriage being against the constitution--they both know if they delay, then seem to consider it, then delay again, in Barack's case in pursuit of pointless wars that keep super rich backers selling guns, prison construction contracts, etc

[tauleonardo]

09:45 AM on 01/31/2011

I believe it is very positive that the President acknowledges the "validity" of this debate. Whenever the validity of the debate is recognized, such a "recognition" invariably implies that our side has a "valid argument"; this being so, it follows that our side has a very real possibility of winning this "perfectly legitimate debate", for otherwise it would not be a "debate". All this is true even if the President is "personally opposed" to legalization (at least for now). But we cannot sit on our butts and passively expect positive developments to occur. We must participate actively, write comments at the news articles, write to politicians, sign petitions, register to vote, etc. I specifically urge all the young people to talk to their parents and grandparents and educate them about Cannabis vs. alcohol and hard drugs. As the logical evidence in our favor inexorably accumulates, we will win this "perfectly legitimate" debate!

[Memoryoverflow]

08:00 PM on 01/30/2011

Marijuana will never be legal to grow or sell like corn or wheat. With legalization and regulation of marijuana the growers will not only pay for the regulations but they will have to start paying INCOME TAXES on their profits. The Feds will still be running around busting illegal grows that are trying to avoid paying the taxis. Right now marijuana is easy to get and the price is reasonable but it could get worse.

[ScaredAcademic]

11:06 AM on 02/03/2011

Try logic. It rocks and has the potential to transform your life. It might also assist you in forming a coherent opinion from this set of disparate ramblings. But a small example, paying income taxes. Feds running around busting illegal grows. Let's try complete non sequitur. That it is being grown implies either a futures contract or that the produce is not yet ready for market. In the latter case, there is no realized income as presence in the ground is somewhat prohibitive. In the former case, tax is either evaded or not but the relevant tax is a sales tax, not an income tax.

[Memoryoverflow]

07:58 PM on 02/05/2011

Mr. ScaredAcademic
At this time the value of the marijuana crop in the USA is estimated to be $25 billion. If marijuana were to become magically legal (when pigs fly) the growers would have to start paying their income tax to the IRS just like you would do now if you had a job. Don’t expect the growers to take the taxis out of their profits they will raise the price of pot and pass the tax to you the user just like any good capitalistic enterprise. The Feds will be busy busting the growers who are trying to avoid paying their taxes just like the Feds bust illegal stills now. Didn’t you ever see the movie “Thunder Road” with Robert Mitchum? It’s really good you should see it.

[ray christl]

07:09 PM on 01/30/2011

The DIMS are weak as in sick...while the RIPS are just plain criminal. Let the CIA-Mafia continue to destroy our planet.

[fumes]

02:31 PM on 01/30/2011

pot's good medicine..

"Many highly accomplished individuals past and present have chosen homeopathy as their therapy of choice, including several U.S. Presidents. Many of America's literary greats advocated for and often wrote about homeopathy, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Mark Twain - as did European greats such as Goethe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lord Alfred Tennyson, and George Bernard Shaw.

At the turn of the 20th century, the AMA came right out and admitted that competition was destroying physicians' incomes. Thanks to funding from John D. Rockefeller and the Carnegie Foundation, the AMA was able to repress and ultimately eliminate homeopathy and other natural and alternative competition. The 22 homeopathic medical schools that flourished in 1900 dwindled to just 2 in 1923. By 1950 all schools teaching homeopathy were closed.

Ironically, John D. Rockefeller believed strongly in homeopathy. He referred to it as "a progressive and aggressive step in medicine." Rockefeller lived to the ripe old age of 99 using only homeopathy in the latter part of his life."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029940_homeopathy_scientist.html#ixzz1CXrycpWQ

[media4me]

01:23 PM on 01/30/2011

Soooooooooooooo
Nobody made a big deal when prez Obie said that we'd be out of "Afghanistan" by the end of the year in his dupetube presentation.
Hey Sarah, you get a mulligan now. Use it wisely.

[Mister Anonymous]

07:34 AM on 01/30/2011

I really wish that LEAP didn't propose a blanket legalization of all drugs. While the arguments for cannabis legalization do apply to other drugs, the focus should be on cannabis only for now.

So,, when will this debate take place? Who decides who wins? Will it translate into actual laws being passed? I think an accurate translation is, "let's have a debate, as long as the legalization side loses".

[fumes]

10:39 AM on 01/30/2011

I think an accurate translation is, "let's have a debate, as long as the legalization side loses".
-------------------------------
that was my impression too.. sigh.

[ray christl]

07:17 PM on 01/30/2011

LEAP going full-bore is good as it sets up cannabis the safer versus all the powder problems that still need access from doctor-pharmacy. Control and tax hemp products,esp. fuel,paper,plastic,food and building material.

Tax the millions of jobs that are created like the internet advance. Stop putting poor people in prison for trying to enjoy their lives.

[tauleonardo]

06:57 AM on 01/30/2011

In this society of ever-increasing stress levels, how can anyone possibly justify keeping the substance that promotes violence (alcohol) "legal", while insisting that the substance that suppresses violence (Cannabis) should be kept "illegal"! Total absence of logic. Cannabis is not physically addictive as it has no documented physical withdrawal syndrome associated with its use; smoking Cannabis has been shown to have NO connection with increased risk of lung cancer, the so-called "gateway drug" theory is a non-existent entity altogether, and Marinol is a synthetic THC analogue, which is not at all the same thing as Medicinal Cannabis. This is together with the remarkable medicinal properties of the Cannabis plant, the denial of which is not even a "rational" thing to do! It is as pointed out in the prestigious "Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook" that states clearly that "Cannabis use suppresses violent behavior and only the unsophisticated think otherwise". Cannabis prohibition is doing more harm to this society than many people realize, as the (young) people are pushed to "experiment" with alcohol/hard drugs or dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, many of which promoting violent behavior instead of suppressing it as Cannabis does. CA Prop. 19 directly challenged the DEA "dogmas", and it was the reason why it infuriated the "powers that be" the way it did!

[ScaredAcademic]

09:12 PM on 02/05/2011

Prop. 19 failed because it was a poorly written law and not because it is a bad idea.

I think you too readily dismiss the gateway drug idea but that is a product of the current system. Marijuana is a gateway drug in the sense that most people turn to suppliers that, at some point, have specialized in evading the law and delivering product. It is not obvious to me that the same specialization required (outside of California) for trafficking marijuana is also useful for heroin, cocaine, etc. etc. The gateway drug idea is wrong if one thinks that trying or using cannabis makes one try others. It is less wrong if, to get pot, one has to get to know the people who deal all kinds of other stuff. Though not all people will wander all the way through the menu, it seems naive to suggest that some will not. The cause of the gateway phenomenon is the prohibition, not the drugs themselves. The gateway idea may be valid; I contend the causal mechanism is what people have failed to understand.

[justsayknow]

04:46 PM on 01/29/2011

People who dont take drugs are the ones who should be most angry about prohibition. It creates financing for gangs and drug cartels as well as financing wars. The corruption from bad laws causes far more harm than the drugs themselves.

Obama doesnt want the historical implications and being 'tough on drugs' gets misinformed political support.

[Rodger leMonde]

04:00 PM on 01/29/2011

Petty laws bred great crimes.

The war on drugs has not made for a safer country. It has destroyed many lives.

[Flying Sparkz1]

11:44 AM on 01/29/2011

I want to grow my own and use it. I don't want pre-emptive rehab.

[Flying Sparkz1]

11:42 AM on 01/29/2011

" Drug legalization is an "entirely legitimate topic for debate.""

"I am not in favor of legalization."

Debate over. You lose.