It's obvious at this point, the Republican Party is in permanent campaign mode, still. Their primary concern is regaining power and making the Democrats look bad. They are most concerned about elections, about their own political future, not about doing what they honestly think is best for the country.
Case in Point, Arlen Specter, Republican Senator who listened to his conscience and actually voted for the bill. Arlen believes that some of his Republican colleges are glad the bill passed "without their fingerprints on it". From an interview after the vote, "My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, '
No, I might have a primary....'" (translation, he might offend the Limbaugh's of the world, and they'll try to smear him in the Primary election)

you can listen to the actual audio there too. (Another Example: Dancing about obstruction.

) there's plenty of examples.
I think we can take it as a fact, the top concern of at least SOME Republicans is reelection, and their internal calculations told them voting against the bill would work out better for them. (others may just have nonsensical thought patterns :) which allowed them to believe their convoluted arguments against it, like spending doesn't stimulate the economy, and the New Deal didn't work. Sorry, but you have to wonder) anyway
If your top concern is reelection, or the survival of your party... Governing, and serving your constituents, becomes your second priority, along with everything else.
How can Obama beat the math and bring the change to Washington that he promised?
First you get the public on your side, then the politicians follow. Work from the bottom up, outside of Washington. If Congress is worried about reelection, go straight to the people who elect them.
I think Obama's press conference, and his town hall meetings were very effective. And the underlying reason is that he looks like he is fighting for the public, meanwhile congress looked like it was fighting amongst itself.
The reason for Obama's 70%-80% approval rating is his working class hero image, and his promise to bring the public into the government.
Obama left Washington, and met with people at his town hall events. He heard our concerns, and he basically promised solutions. Manwhile back in Washington, the Democrats followed his lead, to make sure those promises were kept.
I watched Obama on TV, and I called my Congressman. I wanted more School funding and state aid, but with a pre-condition of strict oversight, because I know state governments are corrupt too. I wanted the housing tax credit provision eliminated, or focused on less expensive homes so it would be useful to my neighbors who don't make $150,000 per year, and whose homes sell for $70,000. Not sure if my voice mad it to negations (Higgins was there) but my concerns were addressed.
The point is, People hear Obama speak, and they agree, then they call their congressman. That's how you get the job done. Bring the heat from the street.
The Irony, Obama is kind of a Washington outsider with a bold list of changes. As president, he is the leader in Washington. But Washington has stubborn traditions, that don't die easily. He seems to do well when he's fighting from the outside.
Symptom: Ideological Blockage
Solution: Leave Washington
Actually, yesterday on NPR they were mentioning the costs in this state of jailing a person per year ($45,000!) and a new measure to decriminalize the possession and sale of small quantities of drugs. This is about to happen - I do not know when the legislation will be introduced, but likely a side effect of the Senate going to the Dems will be the passage of a decriminalization bill very soon.
I'm sure there are people that do care that Marshawn smokes pot. I'm not one of them, and everybody pretty much knows my stance on the decriminalization of pot, and even legalization/regulation of it. The government is missing out on an enormous opportunity, particularly with marijuana, since it is such a commonly used illegal drug with no dramatic downturn in use likely to occur. It's potential damage to society is infinitesimal compared to alcohol. I do think that usage would increase, but hardly at a dramatic rate. Worrying about the social ills of dramatic increases in drinking did not stop the repeal of Prohibition. The medicinal aspects of its use are incredibly important in my mind (I trust pot far more than I trust some dubious, overpriced pharmaceutical), and also bringing pot out of the shadows will reduce the criminal element involved.
Turns out Marshawn got charged for the gun in the car. 3 years probation
:::link:::
I have no idea how much it actually costs, because the figures I got from pr-drug/anti-drug groups varied so wildly they were just unreliable. So I went to our government's drug enforcement web site. The numbers I had there were a little too vague. But here is, I think, a good enough estimate.
In NYS alone there are 4680 people serving time for pot. That is a cost of $163,800,000. And that is just for incarceration, there are still costs for enforcement, legal costs, and subsequent costs for families.
Peter raises a good point, Marshawn was in a smoke filled car when he was caught, and that should pose legal problems for him. Unlike Phelps who was just at a party.
James, I love Data! if you find any let me know.
Decriminalization may be the first step, but I think the black market problem is very serious, and would have a huge impact on crime. When I lived on the west side, the only think i worried about was crackheads. Desperate addicts. The violence surrounding drug use and the drug trade is a major reason why good people, and families, have left inner-city neighborhoods.
Making it legal and de-criminalized are not even close to the same thing. With making it not a crime to have small amounts you would still have a lot of the street element I think. Would crime fall some yes it would. But see if you made it legal it would take a lot more of the streets and then violence out of it. You could get tax money and put a certain amount of that into rehab for people who want to quit. Plus you could tax growers and things like that.
I think that there are a lots of reasons why pot is illegal.
-cuts into Tobacco company money (tobacco companies put a lot of money out there)
-Hemp clothes could compete with other fabrics
-Government can't figure out how to regulate it
-War on Drugs is a big Business
I think there is nothing wrong with pot. And I think Phelps is a coward. What he should have said is something like this.
" I'm a young Guy who went to a party, who can say they have never tried drugs at a party, I'm not saying it is ok to do this, and I'm not saying to kids that they should do this, but this is a drug and it is no different than Drinking to get drunk, or getting plastered at a football game" He then should have found some stats on drug use from one of those anti drug campigns and ""ed it as an example that weed is a common place drug and that it isn't a performance enchancer and explain that, doing that is cheating and wrong. But what he did was some fake "I'm Sorry". He isn't sorry at all, he is sorry someone took a picture and sold it on him.
I don't think there is anything wrong with smoking weed. In some circles it is looked at, as so bad. But in some circles if you said you did drugs and you said it was weed, people would laugh and say that isn't a drug. I think though there is a difference between smoking at home and in a car. In a car that you are about to drive that could wind up hurting some else and that ain't cool at all.
I do think that weed can be a gateway drug. I think you have some people who smoke it and that is fine and they never do anything else. But some people who would never do drugs think, well it is weed there is nothing wrong with it. Then once they try it, it leads to other things. An example I can think of is a "laced blunt" it might be called a WU but not sure about that term. It is a blunt with weed and than that had cocaine in it also.
I think the big problem with drugs is that people don't want to admit that drugs are a very personal thing. Person A will try something and will get addicted and will steal from family to get high, and Person B will smoke up only during a concert or at a party.
I am trying to find stats on the number of people serving time for offenses related to pot so we can estimate how much a year we are spending on prisons alone, leaving aside enforcement and legal costs to the state. But god damn, it is so tough to find verifiable numbers.
I think it is more reasonable to push that it be de-criminalized rather than legalized. While I am not sure I want the government to tax/regulate pot, it seems stupid that our jails are filled with people who are not really a danger to anybody at all.
I agree about marijuana being more of a gateway drug simply because of the source. But that isn't to say alcohol or cigarettes aren't. They are as well gateway drugs but I think less than marijuana because they are legal.
I am certainly not opposed to legalizing and taxing it. I do think there would be more widespread use of it and we may see health effects similar to that of cigarettes. Although I can't imagine anyone smoking an entire pack of joints in a day. I do believe that would be along the lines of "smoking yourself retarded". But eventually it would probably gain a similar stigma that smoking cigarettes do.
With all of that said I'm certain it will be a cold day in hell before its ever legalized.