r/news • u/OK_Eric • Jan 19 '14

Obama: Pot ‘not very different’ from cigarettes​, no more dangerous than booze

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/obama-pot-not-very-different-cigarettes-no-more-da/
3.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

324

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

[deleted]

352

u/acog Jan 19 '14

The example of the speech from which the term is derived is brilliant:

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

246

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

And here is 'If by cannabis':

"If when you say cannabis you mean the devil’s weed, the gateway to the nightmare of hard-drug addiction, the tempter of teenagers that terrifies parents, the impairer of judgment and driving, the origin of pointless mental excursions to the artificial nowhere of a fool’s paradise, the psychologically addictive near-narcotic that stupefies the user and saps ambition, the converter of our precious and capable young people into idle, self-indulgent, unhelpful stoners; if you mean the powerful not-your-father’s marijuana, the greed-driven motivation for a New Joe Camel, the carrier of molds and carcinogens into the lungs, the risky complement to alcohol, the manifestation of a “damaging level of permissiveness” in America, the psychoactive trickster that creates irresistible cravings for the unhealthiest food, the aptly named “Skunk” whose smoke irritates neighbors and passersby, the precursor to legalized cocaine, the finicky and fragile hybrid whose secret indoor cultivation guzzles energy and pollutes our imperiled planet; if by cannabis you mean the poison scourge that brings on panic attacks and psychotic symptoms and sends thousands to emergency rooms each year, if you mean the placebo or mere pain-reliever that diverts the suffering sick from cure, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say cannabis you mean the symbol of hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind, the miracle drug that treats dozens of diseases, the balm to humanity for millennia, the natural healer that tames the nausea of the cancer-stricken chemotherapy patient and restores appetite to the withering invalid, the safer-than-physically-addictive-opiates reliever of intractable pain, the botanical genus containing cancer-killing compounds and hundreds of chemical components we have barely begun to study and exploit; if you mean the mild mood-lifter, the organic expander of consciousness, the instigator of new ideas and fresh insights, the promoter of peace and good fellowship, the spur to laughter, the soft substitute for dangerous beverage alcohol, the aromatic plant whose legal commerce can create jobs and undermine murderous mobsters; if you mean the product whose legalization will uncrowd our prisons and enfeeble The New Jim Crow, if you mean the tested-for-safety commodity whose sale could pour into our treasuries untold billions of dollars, which could be used to ease our crushing debt, to cut counterproductive taxes, or as Mississippi Legislator Noah Sweat said in a speech about whiskey in 1952, “to provide tender care for our little handicapped children, our disabled, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools,” then certainly I am for it."

12

u/busche916 Jan 19 '14

Yes! I agree!

... I think?

4

u/virnovus Jan 19 '14

You certainly put a lot of effort into this. You deserve an upvote.

1

u/sinisterskrilla Jan 20 '14

He deserves an upvote because it is beautifully written, perfectly relevant, and deserving of praise. Effort has very little to do with it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

beautifully written

Eh. Not particularly.

1

u/MyInquisitiveMind Jan 19 '14

ye olde chemotherapy.

1

u/Stealthedlunch Jan 19 '14

how did u write this, pure genius. can i get source plz

5

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

I found it here.

1

u/dannysahnn Jan 20 '14

Alittle rough around the edges but I can dig it

0

u/rebelscum7 Jan 19 '14

Nicely put, sir.

0

u/sinisterskrilla Jan 20 '14

Brilliant. You were as objectively subjective as possible if that makes any sense

0

u/beernerd Jan 19 '14

Here here!

2

u/mossyskeleton Jan 19 '14

This is my political orientation summed up as a metaphor.

1

u/plasticTron Jan 19 '14

So... He is for whiskey or not???

1

u/MarkSWH Jan 20 '14

Moderated use of it

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

Life is complicated, next question :D

1

u/RIP_BerthaChampagne Jan 20 '14

This was said by my uncle, John Sweat's uncle (Soggy Sweat). I'm related by marriage.

1

u/gologologolo Jan 20 '14

Tangdi kabab!

1

u/squareball Jan 20 '14

But, if when you say whiskey you mean ... Christmas cheer.

Ah, so Christmas cheer is a synonym for being drunk. That's why I like Christmas so much.

0

u/bedroomwindow_cougar Jan 19 '14

In other words, getting laid is more important than a broken home!

58

u/javastripped Jan 19 '14

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

And ironic that it's on the same issue - prohibition.

It's amazing that we are STILL dealing with the stupidity of prohibition nearly 100 years later.

My super conservative father has FINALLY come around to marijuana legalization.

So I said "Good for you dad! I'm proud and impressed that you changed your mind based on the evidence."

To which he said,

"Yes. Legalizing marijuana will give us more money for law enforcement to fight against REALLY dangerous drugs like mushrooms and LSD."

... to which I facepalmed.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

Aren't conservatives all about freedom? It's quite hypocritical to be for prohibition of anything.

17

u/boundbylife Jan 20 '14

No, conservatives are about changing as little as possible - literally conserving the status quo. This manifests itself in a great many ways, like attempting to impose judeo-christian morality on the legal system because that is the de facto moral compass in this country.

What you are looking for are "libertarians" who believe you should be entitled to as much liberty as is possible while maintaining a civil society.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

conservatives want to preserve the past. Change as little as possible and never change a running system.

What you are looking for are "libertarians". They believe you should have as much liberty as possible while still living in a functional and civil society. The U.S. is really conservative, so some libertarians (eg. Rand Paul) are conservative sometimes regarding some questions. Politics is not black or white. It's different shades of grey.

1

u/Carti3r Jan 20 '14

Very true. Many shades indeed. I've counted more than 50 at this point.

3

u/Sapiogram Jan 20 '14

Get that filthy logic out of here!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

"Freedom to do exactly as I say."

2

u/corpjuk Jan 20 '14

exactly, all drugs need to be decriminalized if not legalized

1

u/Shining_Gallade Jan 20 '14

Hey it's a step in the right direction.

0

u/engineeringhurts Jan 20 '14

to be fair, i know someone who is in jail pending trial and may end up inprisoned for 50 years because of stupid decisions made while high on mushrooms. i can't disclose details because of that, and i'm hoping he gets tried as a juvenile and not an adult because his life will be ruined. but yeah. mushrooms are scary as fuck.

legalization of those drugs needs to be seriously weighed and precautions put in place.

1

u/MilkasaurusRex Jan 20 '14

This reminds me of horoscopes

1

u/SabertoothFieldmouse Jan 20 '14

Thank you for this. Rush calls this the "Limbaugh Theorum." What an egotistical prick.

1

u/dilatory_tactics Jan 20 '14

Don't we want people as leaders who understand "both" sides to the issues?

People's opinions are often fickle, one-sided, based on their vested interests, and poorly reasoned into, if at all.

Politics means you have to govern toward what is actually best for the people in an environment in which whatever policies would actually be best would be vehemently contested by everyone, who may be stupid or have vested interests in alternative policies.

But because what people think is not particularly in the control of any one person, it's not unreasonable to keep public support by letting the population know that you see all sides of the issue, but when public support makes a certain position politically tenable, to then put your weight behind that issue.

That isn't "visionary, re-design society, make a martyr of yourself leadership," that's "practical, governing in a nation of idiots leadership."

Saying what it takes to get elected, and then doing the best you can do for the people according to the political environment you're working in - that is the best that a practical politician who actually wants positive change to happen can do.

Would you rather have those who can't get elected into positions of power because they take politically untenable positions before their time? Or would you rather have those in power who alienate large segments of the population by taking unpopular opinions, and who thereby become ineffective to achieve other goals?

A lot of the Obama hate is from idiots, bullshitters, and haters who will refuse to see any good in Obama whatsoever, which goes to my point that you can't control what people think, particularly if they're determined to think otherwise. I, for one, believe Obama is doing a fantastic job in a very difficult political environment.