After a pleasant debate with a friend and fellow Adelphi University alumnus regarding the environment, I decided to do a bit of research into Barack Obama's official position on offshore drilling. He, a proud supporter of Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney (who stands as much chance at winning the presidency as Libertarian Bob Barr and write-in candidate Howard Stern) lampooned Obama's flop-flipping and centrist shift when it came to this pressing issue. I supported Obama's call for environmental bipartisanship, but he kept up the assault, saying, "You're saying Obama doesn't support offshore drilling, but that he's just willing to let it happen. That's still unacceptable considering the urgency of the climate crisis." I agreed with his comment in theory, but I wanted to find out more. Truthfully, I was less than satisfied with the theories and articles that covered his stances, and found videos of Sen. Obama making promises that he will not drill offshore and then acquiescing to doing just that. With nowhere else to turn, I wrote the campaign, something I did before regarding the FISA Bill. After receiving an adequate answer pertaining to the latter topic, I expect a similar response to the former. My correspondence is below and when I receive an answer to my query, I will post it and hope that it adequately addresses the concerns I and many other Americans have.
Senator Obama and Vested Members of the Campaign,
I wrote once before regarding the issue of the FISA bill and received an answer that I believe to be most satisfactory, though without the stronger language I would have liked. That's okay, though, I understand that in a campaign season, heated rhetoric must be tempered with a more rational vernacular.
This time, however, I am deeply concerned about the seeming shift to the center when it comes to our energy efficiency and offshore drilling. Back in July of 2008, Sen. Obama lambasted Sen. McCain over his assertion that the answer to our environmental woes lay with drilling offshore. In August, Sen. Obama seemed to be more open to offshore drilling, telling reporters that his interest is in "...making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." (Source: CNN, 8/3/2008) Again, although I don't agree with the drilling aspect, I think showing flexibility is necessary to win major elections.
Still, one month later, the official answer from the "Q&A" page is borderline self-parody when juxtaposed with Obama's rhetoric on the environment under the "Issues" tab.
Under the Q&A section: He (Obama) has strongly opposed efforts by the Bush Administration to gut environmental laws and open pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
Under the Environmental issues tab: An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
With all offshore drilling destined to destroy the natural flora and fauna of the area, and with Sen. Obama's position on drilling creeping from rigid refusal to gentle acquiescence to subtle promotion, my question is two-fold: 1. What is Senator Obama's official stance on offshore drilling? 2. How or will this be tempered with a more rational and friendlier energy policy?
Thank you for your expedient reply to my earlier query. I expect nothing less regarding this pressing issue.
Sincerely,
Sean McGrath
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Response to America's Proponents of Offshore Drilling
From Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA: Fox News was showing footage of people in Venezuela standing up to Hugo Chavez and his spy bill. In this bill were provisions for neighbors to be jailed if they didn’t tell on each other. The streets were filled with dissenters as far as could be seen. Chavez decided to rescind the law.
It is time the American people stood up to Congress because of its stupidity. We could have prevented the oil crisis if Congress had not been so obstructive to the president’s agenda. The bill on drilling oil should have been passed in 2001. We would be independent from foreign oil. Congress cares more about its hatred of the president than for the welfare of our nation.
In Venezuela, the price of gas is 12 cents a gallon. There also are very low prices in the Middle East. Hugo Chavez, Castro and Ahmedinejad have teamed up to wreck our economy. They are succeeding with the help of Congress.
John McCain criticized the president over Katrina. The president stood before the nation and declared a state of emergency for the Gulf Coast on Saturday afternoon. The Category 5 hurricane hit in the wee hours on Monday. The governor said she didn’t want federal aid; she wanted Bill Clinton’s FEMA team. Florida had just been through four consecutive hurricanes before Katrina struck. Louisiana now has a new governor.
My two grandsons have more knowledge of the problems of this nation than any of the candidates. They have nothing but rhetoric.
Gas prices will not get any better unless we drill and build refineries and ignore the EPA. We have to put God first. He controls the climate, not the politicians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to the American people who, like, Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA, who foolishly believes that off-shore drilling is the panacea to our economic woes:
The oil crisis was continued, not by a Democratic Congress dissenting with a hawkish president, but by the initial invasion of Iraq and the attempts to control the oil fields. It was started in the 1970s when the United States removed a secular, but non-western dictator, named Shah Pahlevi, in Iran, and replaced him with the despotic, but western-friendly, Ayatollah Khomeni. Khomeni, according to many, sold out his people and their resources to America, increasing much of the hatred they have for us today. Compounded upon that egregious blunder is the burgeoning demand for worldwide oil - especially by China and India - that siphons the Middle Eastern shipment to the U.S. causing supply to remain lower than usual. Additionally, with futures speculation on oil a legal loophole thanks to the so-called "Enron loophole" passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress in 2000, traders wanting the price of oil to increase for their own profits are going to invest millions upon millions of dollars into the industry to continue to raise prices. Finally, with Big Oil lobbyists fighting and pressuring an increasingly timid Congress to shoot down bills investing millions of dollars into new-energy technologies, the dependency on foriegn oil has never been greater.
Still, it is foolish to think that opening up our petroleum reserves and drilling in wildlife refuges is going to have a positive outcome for this country. The average money saved by each American by 2017 if we were to open up every single area to production and start shipping the oil immediately would be 3.7 cents. Read that again: 3.7 cents in 10 years. Why? It takes years to bring oil wells online, and even more time to begin the actual process of drilling. With all of the shipyards that build platforms - a two to three year endeavor - all booked up, it would take significantly longer, and may end up costing you more at the pump. How do you think the government is going to pay for all this new equipment?
Ms. Counts, your grandsons may have a greater knowledge of the problem than either of the two candidates, but if you are simply spouting off their ideas and mixing in some of your own beliefs, it's clear that your combined knowledge of solutions is nil. Barack Obama wants to end this country's dependency on foreign oil and is committed to investing in new, American-made, technologies - John McCain is, as you correctly point out, hype and rhetoric, who doesn't know what he wants. As recent as three weeks ago, John McCain, at a Greenvale, Wisconsin campaign stop, had this message about off-shore drilling to the audience, "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later." That was three weeks ago.
Lastly, Ms. Counts, if you are ludicrously suggesting that God, rather than wind patterns, geographical location, and atmosphere control climate, I implore you to do further research on this topic.
Hugs and kisses,
Sean McGrath
It is time the American people stood up to Congress because of its stupidity. We could have prevented the oil crisis if Congress had not been so obstructive to the president’s agenda. The bill on drilling oil should have been passed in 2001. We would be independent from foreign oil. Congress cares more about its hatred of the president than for the welfare of our nation.
In Venezuela, the price of gas is 12 cents a gallon. There also are very low prices in the Middle East. Hugo Chavez, Castro and Ahmedinejad have teamed up to wreck our economy. They are succeeding with the help of Congress.
John McCain criticized the president over Katrina. The president stood before the nation and declared a state of emergency for the Gulf Coast on Saturday afternoon. The Category 5 hurricane hit in the wee hours on Monday. The governor said she didn’t want federal aid; she wanted Bill Clinton’s FEMA team. Florida had just been through four consecutive hurricanes before Katrina struck. Louisiana now has a new governor.
My two grandsons have more knowledge of the problems of this nation than any of the candidates. They have nothing but rhetoric.
Gas prices will not get any better unless we drill and build refineries and ignore the EPA. We have to put God first. He controls the climate, not the politicians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to the American people who, like, Connie Counts of Coeburn, VA, who foolishly believes that off-shore drilling is the panacea to our economic woes:
The oil crisis was continued, not by a Democratic Congress dissenting with a hawkish president, but by the initial invasion of Iraq and the attempts to control the oil fields. It was started in the 1970s when the United States removed a secular, but non-western dictator, named Shah Pahlevi, in Iran, and replaced him with the despotic, but western-friendly, Ayatollah Khomeni. Khomeni, according to many, sold out his people and their resources to America, increasing much of the hatred they have for us today. Compounded upon that egregious blunder is the burgeoning demand for worldwide oil - especially by China and India - that siphons the Middle Eastern shipment to the U.S. causing supply to remain lower than usual. Additionally, with futures speculation on oil a legal loophole thanks to the so-called "Enron loophole" passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress in 2000, traders wanting the price of oil to increase for their own profits are going to invest millions upon millions of dollars into the industry to continue to raise prices. Finally, with Big Oil lobbyists fighting and pressuring an increasingly timid Congress to shoot down bills investing millions of dollars into new-energy technologies, the dependency on foriegn oil has never been greater.
Still, it is foolish to think that opening up our petroleum reserves and drilling in wildlife refuges is going to have a positive outcome for this country. The average money saved by each American by 2017 if we were to open up every single area to production and start shipping the oil immediately would be 3.7 cents. Read that again: 3.7 cents in 10 years. Why? It takes years to bring oil wells online, and even more time to begin the actual process of drilling. With all of the shipyards that build platforms - a two to three year endeavor - all booked up, it would take significantly longer, and may end up costing you more at the pump. How do you think the government is going to pay for all this new equipment?
Ms. Counts, your grandsons may have a greater knowledge of the problem than either of the two candidates, but if you are simply spouting off their ideas and mixing in some of your own beliefs, it's clear that your combined knowledge of solutions is nil. Barack Obama wants to end this country's dependency on foreign oil and is committed to investing in new, American-made, technologies - John McCain is, as you correctly point out, hype and rhetoric, who doesn't know what he wants. As recent as three weeks ago, John McCain, at a Greenvale, Wisconsin campaign stop, had this message about off-shore drilling to the audience, "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later." That was three weeks ago.
Lastly, Ms. Counts, if you are ludicrously suggesting that God, rather than wind patterns, geographical location, and atmosphere control climate, I implore you to do further research on this topic.
Hugs and kisses,
Sean McGrath
Friday, May 2, 2008
You May Be Wright, I May Be Crazy...
Back in 2005, the Terry Schiavo case garnered wall-to-wall coverage, with all major news networks showing the same footage of a moribund woman in a vegetative state seemingly looking at her husband while photogs and other hospital room intruders greedily snapped their camera shutters. Schiavo, as I'm sure you probably recall, suffered brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest back in 1990. The long periods of time she spent without oxygen caused severe and irreversible brain damage, and Mrs. Schiavo was fitted with a feeding tube to keep her alive while doctors worked tirelessly to find a cure. In 1993, Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael, entered a "Do Not Resussitate" injunction into her will based on the testimony of Mrs. Schiavo's doctor who claimed that her hope for recovery was almost nil. Twelve years passed, and Terry Schiavo, after being at the center of multiple court cases, was no closer to being cured than she was when she was first institutionalized. The legal battles between Mr. Schiavo, who desperately wanted his wife's hospitalization to end, and Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who claimed that their daughter could feel pain and should be kept alive, continued. In 2003, Florida passed Terry's Law which gave the State government the ability to intervene as a quasi-in loco parentis. Suddenly, the Schindlers and their right-to-life supporters were thrusted into the middle of a national debate with Mr. Schiavo and those who believed Terry Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed. Sure, the pain of one family could be put on display for America to discuss over their dinner tables, but the right of this person to have her feeding tube removed, as was stated in her will, was disallowed by an "pro-life" governor whose only interest in the case was his political career. Soon, the case sparked Federal interventions, through the Palm Sunday Compromise, and the raging right-to-life versus right-to-die debate exploded throughout the media. Almost exactly three years later, Barack Obama currently finds himself in a Schiavo-esque situation: he and his supporters continue to disavow any political or idealogical connection to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and hope that the story dies while his detractors and the media force feed it down our throats like a feeding tube inside someone who barely realizes its presence hoping beyond hope that some feeling is evoked.
The problem with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not his belief in America's lousy foreign policy being the cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for if that were the case, Republicans would have denounced Ron Paul a while ago. It is not his unabashed promotion of a vengeful and angry God, for if that were the case, John McCain would not have sought the endorsement of a figure even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. I'm referring, of course, to Pastor John Hagee. Why the Jeremiah Wright story is so powerful is because America clings to the notion that angry, black men sell. Americans want to see black men angry at their "white oppressors" and act out in a manner that gives credence to stereotypes and cuts short the notion of civic and civil progress. It is the media's continual harping on a story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a poor judge of character. Twenty years ago, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were married by a priest whose controversial rhetoric, while not hateful, inspired Mr. Obama to not only become a Christian, but run for public office. Using titles of sermons from which he, himself, drew strength - "The Audacity of Hope" being of the most notable - Mr. Obama won a senate seat in 2004 and used that to propel himself to the national level of politics. His bipartisan and transcendentally inspirational messages of hope, change, and improvement have not only emboldened millions of people to take ownership in their communities and to take part in politics, but they have encouraged and empowered people to believe in the future once more; to believe in America. Now, because of the attention paid to this story, and not to the issues that truly matter, Barack Obama is getting caught up in the old school politics of the twentieth century, and is playing right into the Republican machine and the Clintonian Democrats.
Hillary Clinton threw fuel on this fire, and now that it is raging and threatening to cause a foundational collapse in the Obama campaign, is calling on the same media who originally picked up on her comments to focus on the issues she had wanted to muck in the first place. This is the same person who questions Mr. Obama's judgment, for how dare he align himself with such an anti-American and divisive figure? Shouldn't he have known better? Perhaps he should have. Maybe a younger Barack Obama, upon knowing that he would run for president, should have realized that Rev. Wright's animated style would not play in America's sticks and he should have distanced himself from his family pastor from the beginning. What concerns me is the fact that absolutely no one has brought up the fact that maybe Hillary Clinton should have had the foresight to know that her husband was a philandering womanizer. Why should her poor spousal judgment be considered taboo while Obama's religious affiliation is continually called into question? What makes one person's poor judgment less valid than another's? Similarly, why has no one paid attention to the political craftiness of Hillary Clinton's latest story about George Bush supposedly allowing the outsourcing of Indiana jobs to China when it was, in fact, her husband who signed the 1995 bill. Where is the Democratic outrage when Hillary Clinton, a supposed liberal spender, and John McCain, a fiscal conservative, support the suspension of a national gas tax that will save Americans a whopping $30 this summer? The problem is that the cameras are all away, focused on America's newest angry black man, hoping that he says something else inflammatory to distract people from the real issues.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to end the Iraq War with a speech about God. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to turn this country's economy around and make America the economic powerhouse it once was by making remarks about the white devil. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to assure that all Americans have health care by talking about state-sponsored terrorism. America, stop pressing the snooze button on your alarm clocks and wake up! Barack Obama, the voice of hope, reason, and a better future, is being dragged down by partisan politics and the noise being made by a pastor whose fifteen seconds of fame have almost expired. Listen to the message of the man and not the self-aggrandizement of a person whose inflammatory remarks are made just to be made. This election is about the issues, it's about change, it's about real leadership in Washington... don't let that ideal become just another casualty of hope.
The problem with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not his belief in America's lousy foreign policy being the cause for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for if that were the case, Republicans would have denounced Ron Paul a while ago. It is not his unabashed promotion of a vengeful and angry God, for if that were the case, John McCain would not have sought the endorsement of a figure even more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. I'm referring, of course, to Pastor John Hagee. Why the Jeremiah Wright story is so powerful is because America clings to the notion that angry, black men sell. Americans want to see black men angry at their "white oppressors" and act out in a manner that gives credence to stereotypes and cuts short the notion of civic and civil progress. It is the media's continual harping on a story that has absolutely nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a poor judge of character. Twenty years ago, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were married by a priest whose controversial rhetoric, while not hateful, inspired Mr. Obama to not only become a Christian, but run for public office. Using titles of sermons from which he, himself, drew strength - "The Audacity of Hope" being of the most notable - Mr. Obama won a senate seat in 2004 and used that to propel himself to the national level of politics. His bipartisan and transcendentally inspirational messages of hope, change, and improvement have not only emboldened millions of people to take ownership in their communities and to take part in politics, but they have encouraged and empowered people to believe in the future once more; to believe in America. Now, because of the attention paid to this story, and not to the issues that truly matter, Barack Obama is getting caught up in the old school politics of the twentieth century, and is playing right into the Republican machine and the Clintonian Democrats.
Hillary Clinton threw fuel on this fire, and now that it is raging and threatening to cause a foundational collapse in the Obama campaign, is calling on the same media who originally picked up on her comments to focus on the issues she had wanted to muck in the first place. This is the same person who questions Mr. Obama's judgment, for how dare he align himself with such an anti-American and divisive figure? Shouldn't he have known better? Perhaps he should have. Maybe a younger Barack Obama, upon knowing that he would run for president, should have realized that Rev. Wright's animated style would not play in America's sticks and he should have distanced himself from his family pastor from the beginning. What concerns me is the fact that absolutely no one has brought up the fact that maybe Hillary Clinton should have had the foresight to know that her husband was a philandering womanizer. Why should her poor spousal judgment be considered taboo while Obama's religious affiliation is continually called into question? What makes one person's poor judgment less valid than another's? Similarly, why has no one paid attention to the political craftiness of Hillary Clinton's latest story about George Bush supposedly allowing the outsourcing of Indiana jobs to China when it was, in fact, her husband who signed the 1995 bill. Where is the Democratic outrage when Hillary Clinton, a supposed liberal spender, and John McCain, a fiscal conservative, support the suspension of a national gas tax that will save Americans a whopping $30 this summer? The problem is that the cameras are all away, focused on America's newest angry black man, hoping that he says something else inflammatory to distract people from the real issues.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to end the Iraq War with a speech about God. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to turn this country's economy around and make America the economic powerhouse it once was by making remarks about the white devil. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going to assure that all Americans have health care by talking about state-sponsored terrorism. America, stop pressing the snooze button on your alarm clocks and wake up! Barack Obama, the voice of hope, reason, and a better future, is being dragged down by partisan politics and the noise being made by a pastor whose fifteen seconds of fame have almost expired. Listen to the message of the man and not the self-aggrandizement of a person whose inflammatory remarks are made just to be made. This election is about the issues, it's about change, it's about real leadership in Washington... don't let that ideal become just another casualty of hope.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I Was Going To Give This Post a Title, But Then I Got High and Supported Terrorism Instead*
It seems that ever since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency, there have been myriad half-hearted and inane attempts to derail his campaign with audacious accusations about his character. Fox News has been the biggest supporter of impugning Obama, claiming that he not only has Hussein as his middle name (gasp!), went to a "Muslim school" in the Philippines, (no, not Muslim!) and is... (mothers, you may want to turn your children away from the computer screen at this point) a smoker! That's right! "Mr. Change" himself is not only one step away from being a full-fledged supporter of Al Qaeda, but if he's not opposed to slow suicide via cigarettes, what else could he be hiding?! A hidden moustache? A connection to the Nazi party? Walt Disney's head?? C'mon. This line of thinking is elementary at best. In fact, a fifth grader being taught deductive reasoning for the first time could see through these tenuous arguments. This smoke-and-mirrors tactic is what Fox News does best: blind its audience with extremist American fervor, rile them up to the level of "blind patriot" and spoon-feed them the news that couldn't be fair and balanced if it were a white woman standing in the middle of the Liberty scales. As he is a freshman senator from Illinois, his record is cleaner than most, which means these neoconservatives have to go digging deep. The latest news item from the "always American" right is the claim that Barack Obama was only supportive of decriminalizing marijuana when he wasn't a prominent figure in the public eye (i.e. before he announced his candidacy) and is now against such measures. In fact, even the most basic research will show those self-proclaimed dispassionate dramatists at the Conservative-leaning Washington Post (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/1001)
that this is simply erroneous. Barack Obama has always been the only candidate, and that includes my preferred nominee prior to withdrawal, John Edwards, who has been for the decriminalization of marijuana.
I think, at this point, we must ask ourselves just what the big deal is. Why is marijuana stigmatized now, as it was in the 1930s, with the moniker of "assassin of youth"? What properties, contained therein, are so detrimental to a person's well-being, that simply by being around them would cause great personal harm? The main ingredients in cannabis sativa (the plant from which marijuana is cultivated) are pistillate plant leaves and dried, aged flowers. The by-product of this flora is a chemical known as Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC to you hipsters) which, when rendered as a molecule, looks a bit phallic in nature. Just saying. Combining the THC inherent in the plant with the product itself causes an adverse reaction in its consumer: dizziness, nausea, mild hallucinations, increased heartbeat, increased appetite, reduced reaction time, and the ever-dangerous short-term memory loss. Perhaps these are reasons alone to ban marijuana completely and call Barack Obama to the gallows for daftly insinuating that weed offenses should be lessened. I argue to the contrary.
With the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937," yes, that's 1937, marijuana was made illegal in the United States. Increased knowledge of the adverse side effects of certain drugs, including cocaine, opium, and snuff led to this widespread ban on all narcotics. Spreading the myth that pot is a gateway drug, that increased use will lead people to "...tune in and drop out," and, more recently, that smoking marijuana is akin to giving money to terrorists, the United States government has spent more money to prosecute those who smoke the wacky tobacky than they have on the No Child Left Behind Act. Disregarding the facts that Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were born and raised, has over $10 TRILLION invested in the U.S. economy and that simply by relying on foreign oil produced by terror-supporting nations, we as Americans indirectly support terror, in 2002 over $12 billion was spent destroying marijuana plants grown in the southern Atlantic states, including Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. This continued prohibition of a drug with known medical benefits is absolutely preposterous. The War on Drugs has been fought continuously since 1937 and it does not look like the American troops are faring well in this one. Perhaps they should take a page out of President Bush's agenda and withdraw soldiers... wait...
The killer side effects I mentioned earlier are found, not only in alcohol, but in products consumed by Americans of all ages: sugar and coffee among the main offenders. Naysayers will claim that continued pot use will result in incurable lung cancer due to the carcinogenic components of the THC contained within. These same naysayers will make this claim whilst lighting up a cigarette, putting six sugar-substitutes into the venti chai extra-whip no frap macchiato beverage from Starbucks, cleaning their floors with ammonia and bleach, eating McDonald's french fries, and using over 12,000 other products that may cause cancer. The disease argument must be taken with a grain of salt that may or may not also cause cancer. In 2006, 13,470 people died on U.S Highways as a result of alcohol, with the number being slightly higher than the previous year. Yet, except for the ubiquitous Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), cries for prohibition, regulation, or even temperance were nowhere to be heard.
It is truly sad when people who claim that the United States does not have the best interest of its citizens in mind are starting to look less and less loony. The only reasons I can see for the denunciation of marijuana is lack of profit, lack of historical significance within the United States, and lack of complete knowledge about the drug. By telling U.S. citizens that they cannot do something because it is illegal and wrong is akin to putting a giant red button in the middle of a room, a la Ren and Stimpy, and saying, "Now kids, whatever you do, don't push this button." Yet, I have found that the continued criminalization of marijuana in the United States is almost directly related to social status. Naturally, those in poor, urban environments are likelier candidates for drug use than those in the middle- and upper-classes, and by persistently prosecute those who use marijuana recreationally, it allows a continuation of the class war within the country. Indeed, with over 250,000 inmates currently incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses in our nation's prisons, I think it's time that we take a look in the mirror, take a deep breath, relax, and press that red button. I think if you check your facts, Washington Post, you'll find that Barack Obama was most definitely a fan of Ren and Stimpy.
*Note: I neither got high nor supported terrorism before, during, or after this post.
that this is simply erroneous. Barack Obama has always been the only candidate, and that includes my preferred nominee prior to withdrawal, John Edwards, who has been for the decriminalization of marijuana.
I think, at this point, we must ask ourselves just what the big deal is. Why is marijuana stigmatized now, as it was in the 1930s, with the moniker of "assassin of youth"? What properties, contained therein, are so detrimental to a person's well-being, that simply by being around them would cause great personal harm? The main ingredients in cannabis sativa (the plant from which marijuana is cultivated) are pistillate plant leaves and dried, aged flowers. The by-product of this flora is a chemical known as Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC to you hipsters) which, when rendered as a molecule, looks a bit phallic in nature. Just saying. Combining the THC inherent in the plant with the product itself causes an adverse reaction in its consumer: dizziness, nausea, mild hallucinations, increased heartbeat, increased appetite, reduced reaction time, and the ever-dangerous short-term memory loss. Perhaps these are reasons alone to ban marijuana completely and call Barack Obama to the gallows for daftly insinuating that weed offenses should be lessened. I argue to the contrary.
With the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937," yes, that's 1937, marijuana was made illegal in the United States. Increased knowledge of the adverse side effects of certain drugs, including cocaine, opium, and snuff led to this widespread ban on all narcotics. Spreading the myth that pot is a gateway drug, that increased use will lead people to "...tune in and drop out," and, more recently, that smoking marijuana is akin to giving money to terrorists, the United States government has spent more money to prosecute those who smoke the wacky tobacky than they have on the No Child Left Behind Act. Disregarding the facts that Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were born and raised, has over $10 TRILLION invested in the U.S. economy and that simply by relying on foreign oil produced by terror-supporting nations, we as Americans indirectly support terror, in 2002 over $12 billion was spent destroying marijuana plants grown in the southern Atlantic states, including Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. This continued prohibition of a drug with known medical benefits is absolutely preposterous. The War on Drugs has been fought continuously since 1937 and it does not look like the American troops are faring well in this one. Perhaps they should take a page out of President Bush's agenda and withdraw soldiers... wait...
The killer side effects I mentioned earlier are found, not only in alcohol, but in products consumed by Americans of all ages: sugar and coffee among the main offenders. Naysayers will claim that continued pot use will result in incurable lung cancer due to the carcinogenic components of the THC contained within. These same naysayers will make this claim whilst lighting up a cigarette, putting six sugar-substitutes into the venti chai extra-whip no frap macchiato beverage from Starbucks, cleaning their floors with ammonia and bleach, eating McDonald's french fries, and using over 12,000 other products that may cause cancer. The disease argument must be taken with a grain of salt that may or may not also cause cancer. In 2006, 13,470 people died on U.S Highways as a result of alcohol, with the number being slightly higher than the previous year. Yet, except for the ubiquitous Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), cries for prohibition, regulation, or even temperance were nowhere to be heard.
It is truly sad when people who claim that the United States does not have the best interest of its citizens in mind are starting to look less and less loony. The only reasons I can see for the denunciation of marijuana is lack of profit, lack of historical significance within the United States, and lack of complete knowledge about the drug. By telling U.S. citizens that they cannot do something because it is illegal and wrong is akin to putting a giant red button in the middle of a room, a la Ren and Stimpy, and saying, "Now kids, whatever you do, don't push this button." Yet, I have found that the continued criminalization of marijuana in the United States is almost directly related to social status. Naturally, those in poor, urban environments are likelier candidates for drug use than those in the middle- and upper-classes, and by persistently prosecute those who use marijuana recreationally, it allows a continuation of the class war within the country. Indeed, with over 250,000 inmates currently incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses in our nation's prisons, I think it's time that we take a look in the mirror, take a deep breath, relax, and press that red button. I think if you check your facts, Washington Post, you'll find that Barack Obama was most definitely a fan of Ren and Stimpy.
*Note: I neither got high nor supported terrorism before, during, or after this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
