*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, May 21st, 2012 8:46am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Boise_Lib.

State's rights don't mean anything to any administration if there's a powerful corporate entity that wants it regulated.

Penn's wrong here...not surprising. Obama didn't personally come up with this stance, it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.

>> ^Yogi:

State's rights don't mean anything to any administration if there's a powerful corporate entity that wants it regulated.
Penn's wrong here...not surprising. Obama didn't personally come up with this stance, it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.


Cali is the most populated state in the union, containing nearly 12% of the entire US population. If it was state regulated, that is at least 12% of the people free from this. I don't understand your point exactly I guess.

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.


I hear ya.

I also don't know how to relate to that.

Not even a sip of wine? Did he always feel superior? Or, just his own fear?

Never drank, never smoked, never did illegal substances....and I don't feel superior to people who drink and some illegal substances. I actually admire them if they can balance it into their life and it brings them some happiness.

I can't stand smoking, I grew up around it, had all but one grandparent die because of smoking giving them lung issues that either ultimately killed them or prevented them from getting procedures done to stop heart problems. Weak lungs would have guaranteed their death during surgery and no one would operate. So, I don't feel superior to them, but I'm an asthmatic it smells horrible, so I just can't be around them. Hell as I got older I had to quit hanging around with a friend of mine until he quit smoking because he just smoked more and more and I couldn't take being around him. Allergies, etc. Plus anytime he smoked I had to be away from him, so the more he smoked the less point there was to trying to hang out.

Illegal substances, mixed bag. Marijuana, not really a huge deal to me...I know too many functional people who use it. However I have a brother who is absolutely obsessed with marijuana, and it's obviously not beneficial to him due to that control it has over him. Cocaine, meth, heroin, etc....just seems like pissing money away for health issues you'll have to deal with later...plus a lot of substances age you prematurely or make your teeth fall out, etc. And teeth falling is something I've had nightmares about, so why the hell would I want to do that.

And I *KNOW* I have an addictive personality, this is why I don't try these things. Not because I feel superior, in fact I don't like not being able to try alcohol in particularly. I just know I would slowly slide into over-use on it. Plus most of it smells horrible, so as long as it smells horrible to me and I don't develop a taste for it...Im set.


I don't like Penn yelling/ranting like that to make his point, but I do think that they need to re-examine their drug policies. Because they seem less about drug control and more about people control, especially non-influential and poor people control. If it were about drug control, I think they'd be telling you that if they catch you on substances while driving you are out of a license immediately. Or if you commit a crime while on them, it's worse punishment. While if you're just on them and not doing anything of note.......then that's what you choose to do. I do get the argument on having to treat people who use substances.....but it's similar to people who overdose on scripts or over the counter stuff.

Rehabilitation does not happen anymore AFAIK, not like it used to. Now they work them for pennies on the dollar instead of paying minimum wage to regular workers. It's more for profit now than anything else, which I think is the real issue...they will find any law to enforce to get their populations and numbers up for profits.

@Porksandwich

Thank You.

@Enzoblue & @Boise_Lib

He talks about it often, it is because drugs killed his idols as a kid, like Lenny Bruce.

Here is a read with him talking about it.

@Porksandwich I feel ya, I have an addictive personality as well, so I stay far far away from anything even remotely physically addicting. I know I would end up killing myself, or loosing my job, or ending up a street person...so I just steer completely clear, except for drinking...which thankfully has its own built in suffering mechanism.

>> ^Yogi:

it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.


Many of the stances he took to get elected have turned out to be just that. Gitmo is open; the wars continue on Bush's schedule; the MCA is in effect; minimum wage is $7.25; he now supports gay marriage; he sang the praises of "prolonged detention" not 3 months into his term. He can't change his position on drug laws because...?

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Did he always feel superior?

Why is this always the first place the conversation goes when someone doesn't drink? It's really obnoxious.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.

Many of the stances he took to get elected have turned out to be just that. Gitmo is open; the wars continue on Bush's schedule; the MCA is in effect; minimum wage is $7.25; he now supports gay marriage; he sang the praises of "prolonged detention" not 3 months into his term. He can't change his position on drug laws because...?


He can't if he wants the support of the pharmaceutical industry.

I can't believe you people are angry about his percieved superiority instead of being angry about what he was saying.

Are y'all stoned?

>> ^Payback:

I can't believe you people are angry about his percieved superiority instead of being angry about what he was saying.
Are y'all stoned?


I can be angry about many things at once.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

I hear ya.
I also don't know how to relate to that.
Not even a sip of wine? Did he always feel superior? Or, just his own fear?


That is such a weird stance to take. What is it about drugs and alcohol that is so integral to your experience that you don't know how to relate to a person that's never tried it? I drink, but there's nothing magical about alcohol. I'd be the exact same person if I'd never had any.

Do you feel the same way about other people that have never tried other experiences? Have never eaten beetles or fermented fish or rotten soybeans or killed a man or surfed on the north shore or climbed a mountain?

You've never climbed a Russian bridge and stood on the rails? Did you always feel superior?

I agree with what Penn is saying about drugs policies. But, now back to Penn's personal stance... didn't he used to run a show called "Bullshit!" ?

>> ^Enzoblue:

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

Would he have to suck a dick before you could trust his position on gay marriage? He's on the correct side of the issue, afaic. Why does he need any different motivation than simply recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of people sitting in prison for a victimless, non-violent "crime"? He can't be outraged unless he's smoked pot?

I gave up watching this prick years ago...

Even when he's right (it does happen occasionally), he's a major asshole. Of course, he's a major asshole when he's wrong too, so I guess that sort of balances things out.

Obama, like any another politician, can't do jack unless he's elected. The US is not going to elect someone in favor of legalizing pot. This has nothing to do with what's the right policy.

If we let the people out of prison, who will operate the factories they are attached to? Where will we get our cheap paint and crappy fiberboard office furniture?

(In the United States)the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. (...)

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 - ending court supervision and decisions - caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell" services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

Source=/globalreasearch.ca/Vicky Pelaez/2008

The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

>> ^MrFisk:

The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.


And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

>> ^MrFisk:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch


I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?

"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."

"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."

Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:

"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."

Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.

In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?
"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."
"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:
"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."
Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.
In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


Technically, the FBI's main concern is terrorism. It's the DEA that has been licking their chops to bust stoners, grow-ops, etc. Them, and state's attorney generals looking for a feather in their cap.
I don't think the President can tell them to ignore laws on the books. However, he does work with Congress to write a budget that funds them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights
And as you can see, the Obama administration continues the same failed policies of his predecessors. So, I'm not say he's powerless; I'm saying he's complicit.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/feb/15/meet_obamas_proposed_2013_federa

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Penn Jillette, Michael Goudeau, Obama, weed, a little blow' to 'Penn Jillette, Michael Goudeau, Obama, weed, a little blow, marijuana' - edited by messenger

Lincoln, so I've heard, was elected on a pro-slavery platform.>> ^heropsycho:

Obama, like any another politician, can't do jack unless he's elected. The US is not going to elect someone in favor of legalizing pot. This has nothing to do with what's the right policy.

You also might have heard that it was an extremely close election, and the balance was tipped by adding several anti-slavery states over the span of several decades once popular sovereignty became the political compromise to determine whether slavery would be legal or not in the new territories. I'm thinking it's a little late to go invade Mexico, carve it up into states that are pro-drug, and join them to the Union by now.

The issue of illegal drugs isn't particularly regional. IE, you won't win a bunch of states if you favor it at the cost of losing some. Prior to the Civil War, strongly opposing slavery would help you win Northern states, at the cost of the southern states. Then, it simply became how to turn a state or two left to win the presidency. If you favor legalizing drugs, there's little assurance you gain any states quite honestly, so it's not a viable campaign strategy.

And note that Lincoln won in 1860, not 1820. He'd never have been elected in 1820.

I don't mean a pro-drug legalization candidate will never win the presidency. I simply mean Obama, even if he did favor legalization of pot or other illegal drugs, knows it would seriously jeopardize his chances of winning. I also think he doesn't consider it a priority even if he did favor it. He's far more focused on the economy and foreign policy.

>> ^messenger:

Lincoln, so I've heard, was elected on a pro-slavery platform.>> ^heropsycho:
Obama, like any another politician, can't do jack unless he's elected. The US is not going to elect someone in favor of legalizing pot. This has nothing to do with what's the right policy.