Obama says NO to legalization

In his first internet town hall, President Barack Obama said he is against the legalization and taxation of marijuana. Since the majority of the questions for this town hall came from individuals via the internet, the response was instantaneous. Twitter users reacted swiftly with their disapproval (check it out on the previous article).

The tough part for politicians and businesses today is the quick reaction by bloggers, Twitter users, and Facebookers to write about what they see wrong. I trust that Obama has worked with experts to come to this decision for now- what's nice is it seems Obama isn't completely adverse to change and is willing to admit he was wrong and not have to stick to his guns. If a good argument is economically and scientifically presented, I'm sure he'd change his stance based on the evidence.

Once again, I'm torn on this issue. I'm wondering what my friends over at Faces and Voices of Recovery would have to say about this; I can say that there hasn't been a lot of uproar about this issue besides some Twitter feeds from Vaughn Howland.

It's really interesting to watch people in the industry start to get into social media, like blogging, Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook. I'm still working on ways to make all of this work better and would welcome any ideas to help use social media to help our cause. Make sure to check out the All About Addiction blog as well.


Here's a good argument pro-legalization.

Here's an interesting video from Lou Dobbs:





Here's something funny.


As always, find me on LinkedIn and Twitter. See you later this week.

Marijuana as an economic stimulus?

So there's been lots of discussion regarding the state of California attempting to legalize marijuana- I've heard it covered on NPR, CNN, MSNBC and the like. A big article in Time magazine covers a lot of the topics- from economic impact to societal impact. Now Dr. Sanjay Gupta has come out and said he is against the decriminalization of marijuana, and I can't hep but stop and think a little. With our current legal drugs (alcohol and nicotine) costing us $98 billion and $157 billion respectively, is it worth it add another one to the mix?

And yet I'm struck by anecdotal evidence. In talking with people who DO continue to smoke pot, they seem less likely to get behind the wheel of a car after having "one too many tokes." The long term health effects of smoking marijuana are similar to those of smoking nicotine, an already legal substance. And from purely talking to people, it seems as though marijuana has a lesser occurrence of addiction than alcohol does. So I'm torn. If we're already making money from people for two terrifyingly addictive substances, why not add a third to the list? And if that's not justified, then why not ban alcohol and nicotine as well? We're living in this gray area that seems to be driven by lobbyists, and that's the hard part.

Thoughts?

Here's some thoughts from CNN-



And here's a debate from Fox News (which I don't really watch but the debate was good:)



Here's something funny.

As always, find me on LinkedIn or Twitter. Have a great day!