Obama Says No to Creating Jobs through Legalizing Drugs, Gambling or Prostitution

[Jkid]

Source: ABC News

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports:

As President Obama prepares to formally announce ideas on Tuesday for a new jobs bill, one thing that won't be on the list to spur job growth: legalizing prostitution, gambling, drugs and non-violent crime.

Prompted by a rather bizarre question from a Sophomore at Lehigh Carbon Community College who wanted to know – based on his criminology course studies – if the President has considered legalizing prostitution, some drugs, and releasing non-violent offenders to stimulate the economy, the President answered with an unequivocal no.

"I appreciate the boldness of your question," Mr. Obama said during his Allentown, PA jobs town hall, "That will not be my job strategy."

The president praised the student for "doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing," in college by "thinking in new ways about things."

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-says-no-to-creating-jobs-through-legalizing-drugs-gambling-or-prostitution-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

---

Why not?

We are going have to think outside the box if we are going to get out of the Great Recession. The federal or state governments can tax these activities and regulate them.

If that's not his planned job strategy, then what is?

[bluestateguy]

1. But states can legalize prostitution and gambling... and drugs (sort of)

and I'd be all for that too.

[rantormusing]

8. States can't legalize drugs

DEA would be in there in a heartbeat. Look at California, and the people they've locked up for Federal drug laws.

[Brother Buzz]

22. DEA has been directed to back off California medical marijuana dispensaries

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reinforced the White House’s policy that federal resources shouldn’t be wasted raiding medical marijuana dispensaries that operate within state law.

This is a one-eighty degree change from the Bush administration.

[paulsby]

30. california has already decrim'd

mj, and the feds do not step in on minor possession cases, so it's effectively decrim'd.

heck, it's effectively decrim'd all over the place.

[Oregone]

32. Decriminalization is not the solution

In many cases, it allows the war on drugs to continue against traffickers of a drug recognized as harmless by a government that decriminalizes it. This leads to the continual merging of soft and hard drug dealers and cartels, high prices, and violence/crime associated with its production and distribution. In fact, all decriminalization does is increase the market demand for a substance that is still illegal to distribute & manufacture (leading to higher prices and more incentives for people to enter the business end of the drug industry). While medicinal marijuana solves the manufacturing end for the segment of the population allowed to use it, for everyone else, there is only the black market to fulfill their demand.

Take a moment and watch, if you will: "The Union: The business behind getting high". Most people here would love that doc (I just saw it). It lays out a great case for legalization.

[paulsby]

34. i'm not saying it's the answer

i'm saying it's a step in the right direction

[Oregone]

35. Im not even sure that is a given

Just because of the effect on increasing market demand, but allowing all the criminal elements of the manufacturing to remain in control. Honestly, decriminalization is probably the absolute preferred status of the cartels, which is odd. Prices remain high, they retain control of operations (by whatever means necessary), and there are plenty of people to sell to. In the end, you have some strange narco-state that sets legalization two steps back.

Maybe it depends on how it is done and where, but decriminalization can have a lot of negative effects. There is really nothing wrong with the marijuana trade unless it remains illegal and black market, ran by gangs (the same that may also control heroin or meth trade, such as the Hell's Angels who run a lot of the show in BC).

While I see that its great to not punish users, it could amplify the fucked drug war. Its just not without consequence at all, and it deprives the government of the ability to tax it.

There are enough grown-ups now that we should be honest and talk about legalization, treated the same way alcohol and tobacco are. There is no reason to keep the status quo or pursue alternative policy that still allows criminal elements to run the trade

[paulsby]

36. decrim has many positives

1) for the anti-mj people, it is way more acceptable because decrim essentially makes people hesistant to just light up in public, where others could see, and essentially keeps it behind closed doors
2) it doesn't marginalize the otherwise law abiding people who just want to smoke a little bud. that's a BIG PLUS
3) it frees up cops and the courts for actual crimes

etc.

[SteveM]

39. I agree. "Decriminalization" institutionalizes prohibition even further (nt)

[Patsy Stone]

2. That is NOT change I can believe in!

:hide:

[jkshaw]

28. OP didn't mention that the audience was roaring with

laughter. It didn't sound like a serious question, the audience there was great and good natured. The president played them, as usual, like a piano. But actually, on edit, I believe prostitution should be made legal and be regulated. Marijuana, too.

[Froward69]

31. I Second that

[DJ13]

3. Crap

Owning a drug den whorehouse with slot machines was my lifelong dream.

Im ruined!

:cry:

[rantormusing]

10. no

But the people who get their doors kicked in during the middle of the night may have their lives and dreams ruined.

Cory Maye, Ryan Fredericks are just two of the victims of the WOD's

[DJ13]

12. I agree the WOD is wrongheaded and an abuse of the Constitution

But I dont think its Obama's responsibility to legalize everything all at one time.

I would most definitely like to see him recognize the Constitutional abuses the WOD is responsible for and realign our priorities.

My other post was just an attempt at humor.

[rantormusing]

16. I agree

and apologies if i seemed eager and rude, but it is an issue i feel strongly about. A day doesn't go by where you find another story of militarized police tactics being used that lead to an a death of an innocent or a law enforcement officer.


Plus cop propaganda pisses me off...lol

[JackRiddler]

53. What is "Obama's responsibility"? Does his jurisdiction extend to my bloodstream?

How many prisoners should this country have?

Whose responsibility is it, if not the federal government's?

[JVS]

49. Someday JVS' House of Vice will happen!

[gateley]

4. There is no way he could do this and not be shredded by Reps and Dems alike --

and he needs all the support he can get.

I sure hope some day that'll be the case, but the poor guy gets demonized for bowing to a foreign dignitary. Can you imagine the uproar if he were to try to legalize pot and prostitution?

I'm for it, by the way, but I'm just being pragmatic. As much sense as it makes, no one in his position would be willing to risk that stance.

IMO --natch!

[mangeydog democrat]

17. He already gets ripped and shredded by the Pugs

God forbid if a president would do what's right instead of what's politically expedient so he can get re-elected. If he did legalize or decriminalize marijuana he would at least be demonized for doing something important instead of some inane claptrap.

[pipoman]

58. The answer IMHO

is not to legalize anything at the federal level. The answer is to return control of all intrastate commerce back to the states. No federal intervention on prostitution, drug policy, firearms...allow the states to set their own policy. Without the freedom to do just that there will likely never be nationalized legalization. Such things almost always have sprung from a patchwork of state laws, with federal regs in place the patchwork can never develop. I think if it was framed as a "return of power to the states", it would get a lot of support from Dems and Repubs alike.

[mother earth]

5. We can't cut in to CIA moneymakers now can we? LOL

[boppers]

6. How would relasing non-violent offenders stimulate the economy?

Doesn't that add to the labor pool?

[ima_sinnic]

15. wouldn't it reduce the expense of housing inmates?

that would reduce prison budgets. State and federal money could be spent on other things.

[Jkid]

20. That's the point.

[boppers]

25. Ah, I follow now.

Thanks!

[Jamastiene]

19. If they were released AND at the same time,

prostitution and marijuana was legalized, we'd all be rolling in the dough. We'd have a rip roaring good time.

I just wish we had had a "roaring 20s" style decade before this latest economic collapse...maybe it is not too late.

[NYC_SKP]

7. If he wants to lose the maximum number of Dem Congressional Seats next year...

Then he should support for jobs from one or more of these three enterprises.

:patriot:

[regnaD kciN]

9. Has ABC News been bought out by The Onion...?

Because that sure sounds like one of their headlines to me.

[rantormusing]

11. While the question really wasn't part of a employment policy,

it was really brave and important that it was asked. AT least Obama was respectful towards the man and his question, that at least was decent of him.

I know Obama isn't going to lead the charge for change in this area, but it is needed if just for the sake treating our fellow man decently. This country treats drug users like dogs, and it has to stop. Locking people up for incentive and budget rationalizing needs to stop. Controlling what men and women do with their bodies needs to stop.


Surely with the world as bad as it is right now, Obama wouldn't begrudge a man a little P...O...T...


LOL

[Jamastiene]

21. At least, he praised the student for thinking outside the box.

:thumbsup:

[rayofreason]

13. Legalize and tax n/t

[ima_sinnic]

14. gives lip service to "thinking in new ways" while ensuring that that thinking leads nowhere.

gee, I am so surprised. I thought somebody said something about "change." I guess he meant that the "change" would be in name of the president.

[Jamastiene]

18. What a party pooper.

There go my plans for the future.

:P

[bread_and_roses]

23. These changes must come from ground-up, but maybe he could stop the war on SA's poor

I am probably among the most critical of Obama's current actions here, but these are changes that have to arise from public demand. No politician is going to get out in front on legalization of either prostitution or drugs, however sane and rational such a move would be (and I support both). And since they would actually create profit opportunities (other than release of non-violent offenders, which will be vociferously fought by the prisons-for-profit complex) - might actually have a chance of being heeded, unlike most of the public's demands, like health care, which negatively impact a for-profit system.

However, even then the real opposition would come from powerful interests who do want to lose the immense untaxed profits and opportunities to hide $$ that arise from illegality. The paltry profits of your local legalized pot dealer or sex-seller are not even drops in the bucket, and cannot compete with those interests.

The effort to reform NY's draconian "Rockefeller Drug Laws" was a many years long effort accomplished by a broad coalition of many groups from many sectors of the community. We provided the political shield and back-up for the reforms that were eventually passed.

I've never been clear about the extent of the powers of the DOJ, but what I am guessing an administration could do is to stop the use of near-Gestapo tactics by officers in the insane "WoD."

I would imagine also the Admin could also put a stop to the insane war on the poor of South America - the endless spraying of herbicides, funding for arms and militias, etc. in the name of the "WoD."

[notesdev]

24. Here's why not

It conflicts with the interests of his donors in the beer industry, Wall Street, and Wall Street, respectively.

[AlphaCentauri]

26. Is there legal prostitution in pornography?

the student forgot to ask

[Gamey]

27. Legalize freedom then! If not then at least decriminalize

How's it go? 5% of the world's population, 25% of the incarcerated.

[grahamhgreen]

33. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7158631

[Prophet 451]

29. *sigh*

I can understand Obama not wanting to legalise drugs (even pot) or prostitution. I think most "soft" drugs and prositution (subject to a whole lot of regulation) should be legal but I don't have to get re-elected in a nation that's had forty years of anti-drugs scaremongering and which is still an adolescent boy about sex.

What I don't understand is the refusal to legalise gambling. Here (Britain), you can find a licensed bookie in any town (the license means they have the usual health and safety certs and they're legally obliged to pay you if you win), gambling attracts a 9% tax on your stake or winnings (better's choice) and it's adults-only. In other words, licensed, regulated and mostly crime-free. The industry employs about 60,000 people, generates a turnover of around £84 billion in a normal year (much reduced this year for obvious reasons) and the number of gambling addicts has been stagnant at around 0.6% for years (and having known a few, they'd be addicts even if it was illegal). I've worked in this industry; it's safe, clean and largely harmless.

So I simply cannot understand why the Obama admin isn't taking steps to legalise gambling.

[exboyfil]

37. In many parts of the country

Gambling is de facto legalized in many parts of the country (probably majority). It actually is a state regulated function and not federal. I have a casino within 20 minutes of my house, another 40 minutes, and two more within 60 minutes. I have access to lotteries on almost every street corner. I have paramutual betting within 60 minutes. I don't have easy access to sports books, but, with the internet, this is possible as well.

For the record I bet $2/week on pooled Lotto tickets with coworkers (insurance I don't want to be left behind if we hit). This is the only betting which I do - I consider gambling a voluntary tax on the mathematically illiterate).

[Prophet 451]

44. I'll stick to poker

I like poker. I grew up playing five-card stud (which someone has renamed "Texas Hold 'Em" without informing me), kept playing it and got really irritated when poker became the new fashionable thing. Way I figure it, only a small percentage of poker is actually down to luck. Most of it is about applied psychology. And that's why I don't play online poker.

[exboyfil]

52. I would stay away from any online gambling involving probabilities

I have seen lots of news reports regarding the games being fixed. It would be very easy to fix any of these games. I also agree that poker is a whole lot more than what is in your hand - without tells and responses from a living person on the other side it is not nearly as good a game. Games like Blackjack (assuming it is not fixed) work a lot better because you have a set of rules that the dealer always has to follow. Poker is about psychological skill while Blackjack is about probabilities. I am not very good at either.

If I was to play a game extensively, then poker would be very attractive.

[Ter]

64. Five card stud and Texas Hold 'Em are not the same at all

N/T

[Odin2005]

45. Gambling is an immoral tax on the poor.

[Prophet 451]

57. Bullshit n/t

[MindPilot]

66. No, it's a tax on the stupid.

and unlike most taxes gambling is voluntary.

[Blue_Tires]

65. i've been in favor of it, too...

people sooner or later have to bury the ghosts of 1919

[SteveM]

38. Those jobs are already there; the discussion should be around legalizing them (nt)

[hollowdweller]

47. The issue with legalization

Is who benefits??

With gambline and prostitution can we have little gambling parlors and independant prostitutes or will they have to work for a big business that will exploit them??

On the weed aspect how about a 500 dollar per year cultivation permit. That allows you to grow pot and sell up to 2 lbs per year. This would keep the money more in the little guys pocket.

[mdmc]

40. mission accomplished!

[mbperrin]

41. These are already legal! You think bank execs don't get high on the money

they rip from you and me? You think the stock market as constituted is not gambling, as well as all the various derivatives? And if you don't think politicians are well-paid prostitutes, you just are not paying attention!


So, no need. Druggies, gamblers, and prostitutes are already running the country. They just don't need any lower-level competition.

Absolutely no sarcasm implied or intended....

[guitar man]

42. Yeah why not?

The govt never should have outlawed any of these activities for consenting adults to begin with.

[bamacrat]

43. Forget prostituion and gambling, legalizing pot would create atleast 100,000 jobs over night.

I hate how our politicians are to scared to admit this. If they wont give us real healthcare we ought to be able to self-medicate with something that doesnt kill us and contribute to the economy at the same time. What a douche. Im starting to lose my hope. WHats the point in electing a "liberal" president if all the things he does would have been done with a republican in charge. Jimmy Carter was the only one with the balls to admit that weed is not bad. May if Obama is re-elected he will go more left and start looking at things rationally I will support any candidate who will legalize, tax and regulate weed. Over Obama in a heartbeat. Just hope its not a republican. hahaha that made me laugh. shown by my hahah.

[hollowdweller]

46. Lets take 30,000 pot smokers and compare them to the 30,000 sent to Afghanistan.

At the end of a year whichever group has the highest mortality related to pot smoking or being in a war lets either legalize weed or pull the troops out of Afghanistan!

[tabasco]

48. "rather bizarre question"

Yes, I suppose rational government is a bizarre idea in the USA, where we prefer to imprison more people than any country in history.

edit: Not a slam on Obama, just the writer of the article. Obama is moving us in the right direction but the reality is - he just can't come out and say radical shit. Anyone who expects utopia overnight is a dumbass. But we're moving back in the right direction after eight years of freefall under the neocons.

[seeinfweggos]

50. but he promised he would, just like he promised to get out of afghanistan!

[edwardian]

51. No drugs, prostitution or releasing non-violent

offenders. But sending 30,000 troops to a hellhole for no good reason is acceptable policy. Obama is a fuckwad. He is a full blown lying ass politician and no hope for any American except those who are stupid and love being that way.

[JackRiddler]

54. If he'd been arrested when he was a pot smoker he wouldn't be President today.

Hypocrite.

Barack Obama Arrested for Possession of Joint, Imprisoned.

(My post from Jan. 2009, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4920164#4920956)

Imagine what a great injustice could have been. But for a bit of luck and prudence, the scenario of my shameless headline could have happened to the young scholar in the 1980s, when he was attending Columbia University in the New York of the Rockefeller drug laws, in the neighborhood still known as Harlem.

American political candidates for election (and reelection) are not allowed to question drug war as it has been waged since 1914, despite the unending human disasters the policy has brought forth. The last major progress on this front was achieved with the end of alcohol prohibition after FDR's inauguration, in 1934.

Imagine that: this country had a Constitutional amendment banning beer in force for 14 years.

At best, the US politicians of today may show tolerance for state-level medical marijuana initiatives. But they D.A.R.E not support statutory decriminalization, not even of hemp; let alone any of the other recreational drugs currently designated as illegal to possess or trade. A whole seven House members signed up to co-sponsor Barney Frank's marijuana decriminalization bill last year; one soon dropped out. For most office-holders, the perception of being "soft on drugs" is still tantamount to a political death sentence.

In that light, consider the reaction of the nation's most beloved politician, Barack Obama, to the overwhelming victory of marijuana legalization as the most popular idea in a straw poll of policy proposals held on his campaign website, change.gov. In a word, the statement issued on the president-elect's behalf said: No. In four words: Ain't happening. Forget it.

Recall that among his many presidential firsts, Obama is the first to admit he inhaled reefer smoke. Repeatedly. For the express purpose of getting high! In the company of other stoners, passing the Dutchie.

And just imagine: had the promising undergraduate Barack Obama lived exactly the same exemplary life, had he made all of the same sound decisions -- including, ultimately, to stop smoking the weed -- but had he been stopped by the police at random just once and searched... and had this search found a single joint or even just a roach, he would have been arrested and his subsequent political career might have been rendered impossible.

In fact, that one moment might have ruined any chance at a professional career, for he could have ended up serving a prison term, given the draconian Rockefeller laws of New York State in force in the 1980s, and the reality of how black men fare in the justice system to this day. Prison time, for a joint, along with thousands of others who were not as lucky as he. Obama knows it. And this insanity and tragedy springs, not from some age-old existential problem, but directly from the statutes of the government he now heads.

What does it take to put an end to the drug war?

[ima_sinnic]

55. +1 x 10^10

the absolute stupidity of NOT legalizing pot is mind-boggling, and the way the idea is not EVEN discussed or allowed to be considered seriously is an outrage. Obama's dismissal of it was just the beginning of disappointments, and I still feel sick and pissed off when I think of it. It will take a new generation to blast through the stupidity. With time, as today's younger people grow older and take the helm, the thing will ultimately be done.

[Garam_Masala]

56. So why let the criminals get away without paying taxes?

Drugs are a multi-Billion dollar trade and does not contribute
1 red cent to US Treasury. Besides the government spends more
Billions on courts, judges, cops, bailiffs, lawyers, prisons,
prison guards, etc arresting, prosecuting, and jailing drug
addicts and peddlers.

If the gov't can stop illegal drugs that is one thing. But the
illegal trade is booming! And all the profits are going to the
bad guys. How stupid!

[pipoman]

59. Oh contrare

the .gov indeed profit from drug prohibition. Our drug policy has allowed state and fed drug enforcement to seize millions in cash annually.

[pipoman]

60. Hey, instead we should

fix our unemployment and economy by entering into a free trade agreement with the Pacific Rim nations. We don't need the remaining few manufacturing jobs we still have anyway...soon we will have a strong economy again this time based on guaranteed sustainable industries like haircuts and oil changes.

[yurbud]

61. those three things aren't the same.

[rocktivity]

62. Nobody likes a wet blanket, Mister President.

:rofl:
rocktivity

[NYC Liberal]

63. I wish they would be legalized

Unfortunately we've had years of hysterical propaganda about drugs and generations accepting blindly what they were told about pot and other drugs. Like the whole "drugs fund terrorism!!" meme, which, aside from stretching the truth, ignores the fact that the government itself has funded and engaged in terrorism .

Slowly but surely I think people are waking up. We might need to wait for the next generation of politicians to come into power before anything significant happens though...