Carlos Santana To Obama: Legalize Pot

[babylonsister]

Carlos Santana To Obama: Legalize Pot

MARCELA ISAZA | April 3, 2009 07:02 AM EST | AP


WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — President Barack Obama brushed off a question about legalizing marijuana in his online town hall last month, but guitar god Carlos Santana says he wishes he would seriously consider it.

"Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education," Santana said in an interview this week. "You will see a transformation in America."

During his online town hall on March 26, Obama fielded a question about whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of recession. Obama said he didn't think it was good economic policy, and also joked: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."

But Santana said making pot legal is "really way overdue, like the prohibition with the alcohol and stuff like that.

"I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana we can actually afford a really good governor who won't keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do 'D' movies and we can get an 'A' governor," referring to former movie action hero and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.


more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/carlos-santana-to-obama-l_n_182717.html

[NightWatcher]

1. advocates should frame it as another "sin tax" to help the kids

Cigarettes have made two price jumps in a few weeks and are about to make a third around here, (GA, FL, and SC).

Why not frame the issue not as a freedom for a harmless substance, but as "sticking it to those potheads" to save the children. The Lotto was pitched around here as "for the kids" and the proceeds above a certain amount went to fund a scholarship for students maintaining B averages through Highschool and into College.

[4_TN_TITANS]

35. Good way to frame it, kids were the TN lotto's ticket in. n/t

[MADem]

2. Obama to Carlos Santana: Check out my forty foot pole

The one I wouldn't touch that issue with...!!!!

This has to percolate up from the states. It will not be a top-down effort from the federal government, unless a bunch of potheads start providing massive funding to a critical mass of legislators and actively start working for their reelection.

[babylonsister]

3. I agree with you, but I'm a big fan of Santana, too.

And pot, for that matter. And of course, the prez. :D

[MADem]

5. It's going to happen. Just not quickly, and not emanating from the Feds.

There may be one of those technical decisions ("We're not going to be pursuing 'use prosecutions' at the federal level" for example) that signals the states to move forward, but Obama's not going to stand up at a SOTU and say "Light up, my brothers and sisters, light up!!!"

[kerrywins]

4. How Does the Federal Government Punish Those Who Possess and Sell It?

There is no such power authorized to the federal government in the constitution.

[MADem]

6. The Constitution empowers the Congress to make laws. That's where it all begins. NT

[kerrywins]

10. Make Laws That Are Constitutional

They cannot make laws that, let me rephrase that, they are not supposed to make laws that give them power beyond that which is authorized to them in the constitution.

Ex) They cannot make a law that states \"The sale of bananas is prohibited. All bananas are to be confiscated by the federal government\".

That would be a violation of our right to property and liberty.
Such power was not authorized to them in the constitution.

This is why they had to amend the constitution to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
There are no amendments made that prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Well, that's kind of ignoring the history of drug laws in the United States.

In the early 1900s, the United States government began regulating the purity of pharmaceuticals, which was well within their power, and which was just and necessary. It has since been a slow and steady move towards outright prohibition of possession, with no particular law clearly leaping from regulation of commerce to regulation of individual behavior. The Federal government of today would be horrifying to the Founding Fathers in many ways, but yet few honestly think Social Security is unconstitutional. Living document and all that.

[MADem]

15. Sorry, I don't buy your banana argument.

Bananas don't get you high.

Alcohol remains "limited" in distribution. A sixth grader cannot order a scotch and soda with his happy meal.

FWIW, I am in favor of legalization, but I find your argument a bit, er, tortured. There are no amendments that limit the sale and possession of cocaine, either.

If it were that easy, the case would have already been made.

[Occam Bandage]

17. There's no explicit Constitutional authority banning murder, either. nt

[kerrywins]

18. There Does Not Need to Be, That Would Be a Violation of Our Right to Life

The federal government is supposed to protect our rights:
right to life, liberty, and property.

All other rights can be classified under those listed above.

[Occam Bandage]

24. There is no explicit "right to life" or "right to property" in the Constitution, either.

Perhaps you've confused John Locke with the Constitution? You can't make up rights if you're going to play the strict constructionist game. You'd be right if you said that common law and case law have a significant impact on our rights and on the powers of government, but that argument extends to drug laws as well.

[kerrywins]

40. We Absolutely Do, You Are Incorrect

Protection for all three – life, liberty, property – is guaranteed in writing by the United States Constitution. This guarantee appears in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791.

I am amazed at people who beg to have their freedom taken away.


The phrase, "life, liberty, and property," does not appear in the Declaration. The phrase is incorrectly attributed to John Locke. It was implied in Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690), but it does not appear. Locke used the word estate rather than property. He subsumed all three words under property.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Unless you're purely playing at pedantry,

and this post is something of a feint to cover a retreat from the battlefield consisting of the fact that the Federal government can prosecute murder despite not having the explicit authority to do so under the Constitution, you have just based your case on the claim that the Federal government has authority to prosecute the homicide of one citizen by another because the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from stripping a person of their life, liberty, and property without due process.

Before I continue, I would like to know whether you concede that the government can prosecute murder despite not having the expressly, literally granted authority to do so in the black-and-white text of the Constitution, or whether you seriously believe that the Fifth Amendment's protections from court abuses actually constitute the basis of Federal power to prosecute murder. As an alternative, you could argue that the Federal government actually ought not have the power to prosecute murder, and that in fact all Federal criminal convictions not involving treason, taxes, interstate commerce, etc. are actually fraudulent.

[kerrywins]

48. Incorrect Again

Murder remains a matter of state law in the United States, except in rare cases where the Constitution actually does give the federal government jurisdiction (on the high seas, etc).


However, some people seem to think that the Constitution enforces itself. It doesn't. Government officials who violate the Constitution aren't struck down by the mighty, mystical power of a piece of paper signed a couple hundred years ago.

[MADem]

19. Precisely. NT

[davsand]

28. Have you never heard of Bananadine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananadine

That poster may well have been trying to be a little more serious than it might seem.


:shrug:


Laura

[MADem]

38. I am old enough to remember people using the retort "What, are ya smokin' banana peels, or sumptin?"

as a response to an absurd argument!

But I guess nowadays, the thing to do is "Toad!!" At least that's what I saw on FAMILY GUY a few seasons back!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OMgFHchdO4

The kid with the camera was probably doing TOAD when he filmed this (I know why he did it like this, though--they'll take down a digital version, but they leave up something filmed off a monitor!)

[kerrywins]

12. Here\'s a Little More Detail

The Constitution brought into existence the most unusual government in history. It was a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document itself. If the power wasn’t enumerated, the government could not exercise it. Fearful that the newly formed government might try to break free of that enumerated-powers straitjacket, the American people, through their duly authorized representatives, enacted the Bill of Rights.

The first eight amendments to the Constitution expressly prohibit the federal government from denying people fundamental rights and important procedural protections. To ensure that federal officials would not later claim that the list of such rights was exclusive, the Ninth Amendment was enacted.

Then, to ensure that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government could still be exercised by the states, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The issue of power – and the potential for conflict of power between the federal and the state governments – was of critical importance to our forefathers. Don’t forget that our ancestors severely distrusted government power and that the last thing they wanted was to bring into existence a federal government with the same amount of power that the British government had had over the British colonists.

[datasuspect]

9. incarceration in BOP?

many people are locked up doing fed time for drug CONSPIRACY let alone actual possession or trafficking.

duh.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Article I, section 8

"The Congress shall have power...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

Article III, section 2
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States."

Those, combined, pretty much let the Federal government do whatever it wants. I mean, Treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution, but it's not like that's the only crime the Federal government prosecutes.

[kerrywins]

13. re:

I had just posed this when you made this post, so you probably didn\'t get to see it....


\"The Constitution brought into existence the most unusual government in history. It was a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document itself. If the power wasn’t enumerated, the government could not exercise it. Fearful that the newly formed government might try to break free of that enumerated-powers straitjacket, the American people, through their duly authorized representatives, enacted the Bill of Rights.

The first eight amendments to the Constitution expressly prohibit the federal government from denying people fundamental rights and important procedural protections. To ensure that federal officials would not later claim that the list of such rights was exclusive, the Ninth Amendment was enacted.

Then, to ensure that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government could still be exercised by the states, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The issue of power – and the potential for conflict of power between the federal and the state governments – was of critical importance to our forefathers. Don’t forget that our ancestors severely distrusted government power and that the last thing they wanted was to bring into existence a federal government with the same amount of power that the British government had had over the British colonists. \"

[Occam Bandage]

16. I've made a post above since, but

the strict restrictions on the Federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers have unraveled over the centuries, all because of that "necessary and proper" clause. Realistically a law is not judged on whether it violates the terse and sometimes ambiguous terms of the Constitution as written (for that would be impossible with the complex legislation that has arisen since the 1700s), but rather whether it meets the standard of Constitutionality, as practically defined by other laws that have been found Constitutional. As a result, the Federal government has slowly shifted from a body that cannot do anything it is not specifically authorized to do, to a body that can do nearly anything it is not specifically prohibited from doing.

[kerrywins]

22. \"to a body that can do nearly anything it is not specifically prohibited from doing\"

Yes, our government has given itself authority to do almost anything. This is very unfortunate as it is incompatible with freedom.

[Occam Bandage]

25. A Federal government capable of regulating commerce is not incompatible with freedom.

It is a prerequisite. Our government is much stronger today than it was in 1890. And, as individuals, we are much freer. Why? Because Federal power, which is continuously watched by the courts and media, and held accountable by the entire voting populace, is a better representation of American ideals than is corporate power (which is answerable only to shareholders) or State power (which is answerable to a narrower swath of voters more willing to overstep boundaries to pursue goals).

[kerrywins]

39. We Will Have to Disagree

We are not more free.
Federal government is limited to the powers authorized in the constitution, however, over the years they have ignored that fact and taken away more of our liberties.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Name one way in which you are less free than a person of average social status in 1880.

We'll play a game. For each way you claim you are less free than the average human in 1880*, I will list two ways in which you are more.

*I have chosen the Gilded Age because this is when I believe the Federal government was at its most impotent when compared to the power wielded by private citizens, being captains of industry. If you believe power ought instead rest at the state level, well, think the claim that state governance guarantees freedom for all is entirely demolished by the sad and violent history of state-level rights and power regarding slavery and civil right.

[hootinholler]

34. Indeed there is not...

That is why the prohibition is based in the tax code. To legally sell pot in the US you have to have a stamp that was never issued.

Personally I think we need an amendment that forbids the Fed from passing a tax stamp they never intend to produce.

-Hoot

[dbt]

7. I Love Him!

Ain't but a handful of guitar players on Earth who are recognizable during their first eight notes and Santana is somewhere in the top two. Charlie Daniels couldn't carry his flatpick.

What he says will work and I'm glad he's talking about it. Can't wait to hear about this from George Clinton and other great thinkers who play music. Skynyrd? What y'all got to say?

[babylonsister]

20. I do, too, for exactly that reason. He's so good, and so distinct

in his style. His 'Sacred Fire' album/CD is a classic and one of my faves.

[DemoTex]

8. A friend of mine flew Santana's prop-jet in the 1970s ..

My friend said that the reefer smoke was always thick in the passenger cabin of that Fokker F-27.


Fokker F-27

[BeFree]

21. How do you tax it?

Will they issue a $50 license to smoke?

Cop catches you puffing, he asks:.... Can I see your license, please?

[Occam Bandage]

26. Pot advocates often have two incompatable arguments:

1. Everyone will buy their pot from stores and therefore there will be tax revenue.
2. It's illegal because everyone will grow their own so the Evil Corporations won't be able to make a profit by selling it in stores.

[tridim]

32. Frugal smokers and hobbyists will grow their own

But the vast majority wont want the hassle and will just buy it at the smoke shop.

It'll be just like the homebrew industry.

[babylonsister]

27. The same way they tax alcohol and cigs? nt

[Romulox]

29. The same way they tax anything. At the point of sale.

Do you really think that the average person will commit to a months long growing process (which requires a surprising amount of fussing!) rather than purchase the stuff?

Really?


It's trivial to brew beer in one's home. Is Bud Light not profitable therefore?

[the other one]

30. Its as easy to grow as tomatos.

So yes I do believe that so many amateur farmers will grow it that it will be available at roadside stands everywhere. No appreciable tax revenue here.

OTOH, we can save billions on law enforcement AND restore respect to our justice system at the same time.

I only feel bad for all the justice system workers who will lose work because they won't be able to make money off the misery of 800,000 otherwise law-abiding americans every year.

[Romulox]

33. Yet there is a robust tomato industry in the US

Hard to reconcile your point with the existence of a multi-billion dollar US agri-business industry, innit? :hi:

"So yes I do believe that so many amateur farmers will grow it that it will be available at roadside stands everywhere. No appreciable tax revenue here."

Most people who eat tomatoes don't grow them, or buy them from mom and pop stands. Your analogy does not support your point.

[Spike89]

36. But I can get tomatoes for $2/pound

If the tax on pot is high enough to really make an economic difference, the economics will make it much more likely to be grown (tax free) than bought. I do grow tomatoes, in the summer. But I buy many more the rest of the year, not to mention ketchup, salsa, etc. However, if the government was going to tax tomatoes at say $50/ounce, well, I'd either give 'em up or grow 'em indoors year round.

[Romulox]

45. Your reasoning is circular.

A prohibitive tax will obviate any benefit of decriminalization. You argue that a prohibitive tax would increase the incentive to cultivate, and thus hurt tax revenues. I can think of one simple solution to such a problem: don't impose a prohibitive tax! :think:

[proud patriot]

42. NRML seeks the same laws as the Wine Industry

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Carlos speaks as clear and true

and his intonations on the guitar.

[OhioChick]

31. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

37. I stand with Santana.

:bounce:

[stevedeshazer]

41. Excellent Friday Night Thread!

:smoke:

[chimpymustgo]

46. K&R!!

[slackmaster]

47. K&R

:kick: