Change: Up in Smoke?
The election of Barack Obama not only gave the United States its first African-American president but also its first openly admitting, former pot smoker. Yes, Obama, on many occasions and in humorous ways confessed to his past experimentation with marijuana. In 2004 he spoke out in favor of marijuana decriminalization. During his primary bid, Obama spoke out in favor of drug policy reform and medical marijuana usage, but as he inched closer to the presidency his tune changed. No longer did he mention the word "decriminalization," though at least he continued to support the rights of the sick to be prescribed marijuana by their doctors. Now that he is about to obtain the powers of the presidency, and is assembling his team, our compassionate leader is rumored to be buckling under DC pressure to nominate Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad as his new Drug Czar. Ramstad is a former alchoholic; however, his compassion for the addicted does not move beyond those zombified on state-sanctioned drugs, and his stance on marijuana is just as dangerous.
We still have a chance to influence the president-elect. Spread the message wildly like a virus even to those who you assume may not be open to the idea -- you may be surprised. Represent your convictions and inner truth and flood the Obama Transition Team's website with the message of change we want in our country's drug policy. Below is a short letter if you'd like to copy and paste into the site's provided field; however, personalizing it makes it all the more effectual:
To the President-elect,
During the campaign you spoke out candidly against the United States growing incarceration rate of non-violent drug users. Please embrace the fact that this issue is very much connected to health care reform and our current economic troubles. You fully acknowledge that the War on Drugs is an utter failure and outrageously expensive. Do not forget your stated and heartfelt position on this as you assemble your Health Care team, appoint your Drug Czar officer, and guide the DEA. You understand that drug use is a health issue. Lead us in a new direction with compassion for the rights of addicts, the sick, and non-violent experimenters. Under US Law you got lucky that you were not caught during your innocent, experimental phase with marijuana. Is it fair that others may not be so lucky? You are becoming the President of the United States -- some Americans can not even go to college or find employment for doing the same exact thing you have done, and worse yet some are spending their life behind bars. Prove to us that you believe in equal opportunity for all Americans . . . and not just those that get lucky (like yourself) or have the financial means to protect themselves against these erroneous and racist laws. Do not forget about common people, and who you once were, as you ascend into political power. Make health care and drug policy reform, which are one and the same, a high priority of your administration. The public mainstream opinion on this issue is not being represented in Washington DC right now . . . it is of extreme importance that you appoint receptive, creative, and open-minded thinkers to the positions that will direct these efforts; and not people like Congressman Jim Ramstad whose positions run counter to your inner truth.
Thank you.
Image: "Barack Obama" by march on Flickr courtesy of Creative Commons licensing.
Tweet- 12-18-08
- Michel P. Anderson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
O-Bomb
Maybe he... uh, forgot. ;)
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/17/photo-of-young-obama.html
There's a surprise! -
There's a surprise! - welcome to 'change'
Lije Baillie -
Flowing through the arts of psy
A politician, is a
A politician, is a politician, is a politician. I believe zero percent of campaign promises. They can say whatever they want, but when it comes down to it they rarely follow through. Particularly when it comes to the president. If an issue is controversial it seems that truthfulness takes even more of back seat. Ohh the system we live in!
It's vibration left a plume climbing it's way up a blue-blessed curl, which was girdled by aurora of obliging black morel.
Change means Status Quo. It's NewSpeak. Duh.
It'd be great if Reality Sandwich wouldn't stoop so low as to tell us that the way to change things is to write to our dear old politicians. Sadly some here are still on that delusional bandwagon - they're slowly weening themselves from that disasterous habit, so don't encourage them.
It's completely absurd to think that the system would legalize things that encourage the dissolution of all that it stands for - war, poverty, crime, violence, sickness, death, profits - maintaining the status quo. If you do some real homework on the Drug War you'll see that it's one of their most potent weapons. What better way to lock up all the young, poor, and disenfranchised, who would challenge the system in every way, were they not behind bars.
Our role is to transcend the system, to ignore it, to create something better, to give it as little pretense of authority as possible, and to see it as the irrelevant relic that it is. Saying that "We still have a chance to influence the president elect," is a naive false hope. Put the power back where it belongs - in ourselves and our communities.
And why not?
Well...being I wrote the post I obviously don't agree with everything you said, Jedi. Unfortunately, I understand and share some of your cynicism; however, seeing the very real progress many of our states have made on this issue, coupled with the reawakening and acceptance of psychedelic research, I do believe this is a change we can see in our lifetime...if the public dialog continues to grow. As far as I know, those state laws didn't magically change without effort and public support.
I appreciate a good few of your points, but what good does it do to dissuade people from being more informed and open about this issue, writing their reps, and demanding change? Can such a thing not be added to your list of ammo and part of community strengthening? I don't see why not. And to do so doesn't threaten my autonomy in the slightest and I still don't respect (or follow) they're authority on this matter. So why not?
Its extremely easy for me don the cloak of cynicism and say that your notion of transcending the system through ignoring it is a "naive false hope." But why would I want to do that? Hell, aren't we on the same team?
The Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org/) and LEAP (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php) have been making progress in our country...I suggest visiting their sites and reading up on their accomplishments.
This war is over. If we want it enough.
Agreed
At the very least, if people keep asking their representatives (or Presidents) to do something -- and keep getting ignored -- then those people come to understand more and more that the system does not work for them...and they will feel motivated to begin building something else as well.
We gain nothing at all by ignoring the current system. That is a winning scenario for 'them'.
I agree we shouldn't put any faith in the system, or in politicians changing...they obviously will not. But if we make it equally obvious to more persons that this is the case, we weaken the perception of these people as anything but what they are: self-righteous, arrogant individuals who have charisma and a good speaking ability; believe they know what is best for everyone, and desire to force that plan on the populace, "for their own good" (and that is the 'good' politicians...the 'bad' ones don't even care about that; they only want to help themselves).
Obama could never have gotten to where he is today without lying, cheating, and clubbing his way to the top. Those are the characteristics rewarded by this society (and especially by our political system).
If he was actually standing for something of substance (say, like, the will of the people), he would have ended up (at best) in the same boat with Kucinich and Paul.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
What Did you Expect?
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Jim_Ramstad.htm
Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Rated -30 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006) but Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."- Albert Einstein
Go figure
Anyone who thinks Obama could have attained any kind of power without current and ongoing support from the ruling elite is living in a dream world. The only thing he has expressed a genuine interest in is increased security, which has been the fundamental platform of the ruling class. Get ready for any and all legal rights we have as US citizens to disappear as the New World Order desperately tries to force itself into existence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Video isn't too incriminating, just plain ominous.
Transcending Dualism
I think Obama is picking people who are competent, not ideologues. He's looking for people who know the territory, who can offer their thoughts, but who can also follow orders, and serve competently within their fields.
As for the broader picture: The kind of "only talk with the people we like," or "only bring our kind of people to the table" politics is exactly what Obama is working to change. Obama is about conversation and synthesis, not force or picking sides. The call is for a greater maturity and a broader understanding of the other, and this is not something he can force or legislate on us- that is something that only we ourselves can provide.
Obama has chosen idealism; It remains to be seen whether we will punish him for that choice, by resorting to our carnal political tribalism, or work for a better America and world, by engaging in real work- conversation with those we disagree with.
Recognize that drugs have been a real mixed bag -- profound spiritual insight and creativity, yes, but also, inner city devestation. It is okay to understand the perspectives of others, and even to speak to them: We lose nothing for our cause by doing so.
The goal is to transcend black-white us-them dualism. Not just in our head, but in our politics as well.
"I think Obama is picking
"I think Obama is picking people who are competent, not ideologues. He's looking for people who know the territory, who can offer their thoughts, but who can also follow orders, and serve competently within their fields."
That's what he says, anyway. I hope it is true. Only actions will finally tell us, one way or the other. I must say that I am starting to become increasingly skeptical of it, however.
I always thought that the McCain/Palin ticket just seemed waaay to incompetent and absurd, in practically everything they did. It is almost as if the Powers That Be wanted Obama to win. Maybe not. Maybe it was the grassroots victory that it looked like, that initially gave me such excitement.
I guess, really, only time will tell (hard to believe the man isn't even officially in office yet =P)...but we need to be on the front-line, watching carefully and demanding promises be kept. If he is a wolf, we need to rip the sheep's clothing off of him as soon as possible -- and expose him to the world for what he, in fact, is.
As I have said before, if W taught us nothing else, I hope it is that we cannot be too cynical or questioning of those who claim to 'have authority over us'.
"The kind of "only talk with the people we like," or "only bring our kind of people to the table" politics is exactly what Obama is working to change. Obama is about conversation and synthesis, not force or picking sides. The call is for a greater maturity and a broader understanding of the other..."
A nice way to look at it, and I hope you are correct. I'm not going to bet on it; but I am open to the idea of the possibility.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
What's this "IF" he is a wolf business?
I don't care if he's Jesus Christ himself. And if he was, he'd say don't look to me for change, for answers, for authority, for salvation. Look to yourselves. Look within you. Have thousands of years of following tyrants taught us nothing? How is there any pretense of legitimacy left? Obama is just a reaction to Bush, another face on the podium. It's nothing new at all, however if we believe it is, then we'll stop searching for real change. And indeed, this IS the change - mass consciousness rejecting external authority and believing in themselves.
"There is a root to the problems, and they work for it..."
The evidence is mounting for this to be the case.
I don't want it to be the case...but, if 'want' were food; then no one would ever go hungry again.
The system still is what it is, and it still rewards and reinforces a) disconnect from the constituency, and b) false persons who are good at making people think they are something they are not.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Sent mine...
Thanks Mike
I guess I just can't compromise that much.
This has been the central issue of our time - how easily will we give up power to a central authority. We encourage the victim consciousness of a master/slave father/son relationship every time we write to our politicians and ask them "pretty please will you let me do this?" I'm going to write Obama and say, "Do not forget your stated and heartfelt position on this as you assemble your Health Care team, appoint your Drug Czar officer, and guide the DEA."? See the relationship you're encouraging? You're saying if only people were more politically vocal, appealed to Obama's heart, and wrote more emails we'd be able to freely eat something that grows in the ground. "They" only have power if we believe they do. By getting into activism and maintaining the old pattern of asking the gov. to change, we're maintaining the "us" and "them" relationship.
We wouldn't want to change the system even if we could. If we treat the legislation and its enforcers as legitimate, then the house of cards stays up. It's our disempowered consciousness that keeps it all together and produces it.
"This war is over if we want it enough." So it's about one population segment ramming through a certain law, and then the good guys win and everything is okay? Instead I think it all boils down to how we view ourselves and how our consciousness is changing. This personal change is reflected in our larger world. The sickness aflicting the world today is one of externalizing responsibility and authority. Discussing these titles of Drug Czar and DEA creates division between people. We say, "Oh, someone with a badge and a funny hat can make laws and put a gun in my face and tell me what I can and cannot eat. That's just government doing its job." No, that is the manifestation of a sick, disempowered consciousness. Lets remember that we're just human beings, each with infinite worth and validity. No one has any divine right to rule over me and I'm not giving anyone such pretense of legitimacy by asking to change one of their laws.
I think we lack imagination with this issue. Writing to these father figure politicians is an old gimick, a pattern we must unlearn.
Also lets look at it from the bigger picture. Society is rapidly changing. Pinchbeck says we might see the U.S. default sometime this summer. The system as we know it is tearing at the seams. Why keep it together with minor proposals like these? Again, laws will be irrelevant if we treat them as such. This isn't like any other time in history where change is slow and happens over generations.
The best thing we can do is break out of these old paradigms for ourselves, as we watch government slide into oblivion as an outdated model for a dying age.
Sure, true. But...
I agree with virtually every word you say. What appears to differ is our interpretation of actions. To me, getting into activism, writing letters, etc, re-empowers people who have given up their inner-authority.
I was taught, as a child (and I imagine it is similar for most Americans), that the government exists to serve us, and to enact our will. They are not meant to be 'leaders' -- especially in the old, tyranical sense of the word. They are meant to be public servants. We elect them to be organizers, and to perform necessary functions that arise when you have so many people living around one another.
They are meant to represent us, not themselves -- or some ideology. This is what the people need to be reminded of.
I encourage participation because it reminds people of this supposedly central tennant of American ideology. And, as they participate, they do have their eyes opened to exactly how corrupt and ineffective our system has become. For me, at least, the end-result of activism was the understanding that, if change is going to occur, we must be the ones to bring it.
Those with a vested interest in the current system will never want to change it...at least not in any way that disempowers them.
Besides, participation is as much habit as anything else. Get people out of the habit of participating in their society/community, and you end up right back where we are right now: isolated individuals living in boxes, believing themselves to be powerless and alone in a world that doesn't care -- and is run by those who still believe in themselves enough to do something about it.
The person with a funny hat making laws and sticking guns in faces has that authority only because we have given it to them. Exactly right: we are the ones with power, not them. They have only the power we give them, as you say. But I feel we give them more power by not standing up and speaking out when they do wrong.
As you say, we externalize our responsibility upon others. Its all their fault, not mine. I didn't let them conquer the world -- they just did it, because they are mean so-and-sos.
The end goal is, again I agree, the creation of a new world and a new way of living together. The end of old paradigms in fire-and-flame, and a new bird born from the ashes. But that new world is unlikley to just fall out of the sky. Far more plausible is the idea that it is going to be co-created by people coming together and participating in the making of that new world.
Activism and participation in the current way is, for many at least, the first step on that road.
The crises looming do promise the potential for a far more rapid change than is usual. If/when they happen, and the old system collapses finally and truly, then a lot of the more radical notions on this site will suddenly seem much more logical to everyone...and this step will be more-or-less removed.
"The best thing we can do is break out of these old paradigms for ourselves, as we watch government slide into oblivion as an outdated model for a dying age."
I think just watching as it slides into oblivion is too dangerous. These people are going to do whatever they can to keep the current system up-and-running, and retain their dominance (both from selfishness, and because they really believe it is the Right Thing To Do). This is the time to be active, to try to save as much as possible.
Otherwise, there might not actually be enough left for us to survive on, by the time it all goes down.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Rhetoric Vs. Action
Propaganda Anonymous
Obama inspired so much hope in many of us. His campaign managers are brilliant indeed.
O's Rhetoric was fantastichis Actions, so far are only who he is appointing, seem very dubious, starting with Rahm.
Bill Clinton made some grandiose promises in his election campaign, and I'm thinking, at this moment, Obama will go the same course.
However, viewing all of this from a strange meta-level, taking into account how memes affect individual consciousness and then that consciousness then affects reality.
MAybe we can prove that Mind is greater than Matter and Will Obama, through guided imagery, into be the President we ant him to be. ;)
Everyone make your own Obama puppets, and let's get crackin!
On the real though, perhaps the message of this campaign is really about setting a fire under people's asses and get them involved and engaged in how things are being run.
Maybe, as Jedi states, this will help everyone transcend the political system.
Let's hope.
Changing Minds
Thanks for the great conversation, all.
One very positive and intriguing thing about Obama's election is the swelling of political interest I have witnessed grow in the ghettos of Baltimore . . . where I live. And let's not minimize the positive energy flowing through people all over the world (whether it is delusional or not). The African American community here has always been very removed from the political scene . . . and I do believe that you have to be aware of a system in order to transcend it. Many of the people that frequent RS may take that for granted at this point, and from that distance see the current political system as obviously broken and outdated. But truth be told, the RS community is a very small minority; and this understanding of political reality has slowly grown out of serious interest, contemplation, and (perhaps) disappointment.
Lately the library here has been bustling a bit more than usual . . . which is nothing but fantactic. I can see the possiblity that as Obama settles into his seat, and the Powers That Be begin tugging on his strings, the disappointment caused from all the campaign promises that are not kept will affect a much larger portion of human beings. I'm not about to downplay the political victory and hope that has been won by the African American community of the world . . . I'll let Obama do that through his actions. In fact, this may convert some of that hopeful, positive energy that is flowing around the world and kickstart the more revolutionary, self-empowing, ideas that are being discussed in this thread.
Yes . . . Let's Hope.
Obama's Rhetoric
Obama has shown already that he is a master of rhetoric (or, at least his speech writers are).
His rhetoric, however -- and especially that about change, hope, etc -- may end up being his downfall (if he is false). There is a bit of an example from early colonial American history:
I forget the exact dates, and I don't have a good reference at hand. I believe it was around 1740-1770. The colonial agitators, many of whom would become the Founding Fathers, were constantly speaking out to the people against the greed of the governors and the English king. They incited the people with rhetoric about the inequality of lifestyles ("they live in luxury while you starve!"), the unfairness of taxes, etc.
So, after a bit of a build up, off goes the colonial population of Boston (I think it was Boston) to the Governor's house; which they began to mob and tear down, even setting fire to it, I believe. But it didn't stop there.
You see, to the average person, the middle-class was just as guilty of unequal treatment and exploitation! So, once they had finished with the Governor's mansion...they went off to the area of town inhabited by the middle-class (which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were....upper middle-class) and started the same process there -- raising a cry to bring about 'general levelling' (which meant redistribute the wealth/land).
It took a while for it to simmer down, and troops were involved. After it subsided, a new course of rhetoric was started: nothing, they said, could justify 'riots and tumults' of this nature. People could be angry, but destroying houses, rising up, and whatnot was the wrong way to go about things...though they had all but encouraged exactly that previously (and would again, at the start of the Revolutionary War...once they had established themselves as the 'leaders' of the movement, and thereby exempted themselves from the anger of the people).
Their own rhetoric caught up with them. The people took them at their word...and acted upon it. It got derailed, true (blasted better armaments and trained soldiers...this has been the downfall of every single movement to date...which is why I try to warn about the possibility of it...we begin to pose enough of a threat, they will find an excuse to send in the big guns...if history is any guide at all)...but still, it shows the power and the danger of getting the populace to get behind you based on ideals of equality, change, and hope.
They just might take you seriously, and demand what they were promised.
For a more detailed and accurate description of this event (as well as many other eye-opening tidbits about this country), I recommend A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
I agree, I am not for
I agree, I am not for violence, per se. I think organized non-compliance is the way to go.
However, if the brute-squad comes at me, guns a'blazin...I do not think I am quite evolved enough to just let them cap me in the noggin'. =P
I think they have largely hijacked the non-violence rhetoric as a very potent control mechanism: they obviously don't believe in it, or follow it themselves.
What to do about that, I don't know...as you say, I do not believe in violence...but, as long as they do, I am afraid we will be powerless to actually stop them.
A few Predator drones with the right weapons loaded could scatter a Million Man March pretty quickly...all by themselves. What, realistically, do we do about that?
I know the argument is that they won't be able to, for some reason: financial collapse, resistance from the populace, etc...but I really don't see them just acknowledging the truth of our movement, and relinquishing their power. I still foresee some kind of conflict. By sheer force of numbers -- and by weakening their infrastructure/supply chain through non-compliance -- we might very well win...but it is unlikely to be pretty.
As I said, it has happened to every single movement of this nature, ever, previous to this. I think it naive to believe this one will be different.
All I know is, once the RFID implants start becoming mainstream...I'm heading for the hills. Hopefully, (depending on how long it takes all of this to play out) I will be there already, happily co-creating a community with a group of souls who wish to live the way I do.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Survival
A couple of good resources you might look into are Tom Brown, Jr.'s Fieldguide to Wilderness Survival and How to Stay Alive in the Woods by Bradford Angier (I don't like cities, and I'm certainly not going to try to ride out the end-times in one ^_^ ).
If nothing else, these books help put to lie much of the supposed 'scarcity' society likes to tell us it has saved us from; and 'improvement' it claims to have made in our lives.
Living in the woods, if you know your plants and techniques, is like living in a Wal-Mart. The only real difference is the amount of elbow-grease it takes to get stuff off of the shelf. ^_^
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Ground Xero
Xanadu talk is cheap! Personally I think it's wrong that you are being censored. I think that you are very wise, very intelligent and very psychedelic. Maybe you could tone it down a little? I know that's not your style but nobody's perfect, we all have character flaws. Don't be too critical Xero at least Daniel and the contributors are trying and everybody's got to make a living. Personally I am skeptical of anybody who's trying to be somebody from N.Y. or L.A. or D.C. City slickers IMO are always working the angles, it's not called a concrete jungle for nothing.
Chibi and Will and I'm willing to bet other commentors on this site have been thinking a lot about survival lately. I am feeling this survival vibe also. I been watching a lot of survival videos on youtube. My favorite survival teacher is a guy named Cody Lundin. Check out his youtube vids. Cody wrote two great books on survival, 98.6 degrees the art of keeping your ass alive and When all hell breaks loose: Stuff you need to survive when disater strikes. Cody pratices real sustainable living this dude talks the talk and walks the walk without shoes! Check it out.
http://www.codylundin.com/
P.S. Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays
Canadian Homegrown
Watch this documentry film if you get the chance:
Escape to Canada
(link goes to the trailer)
It shows the power of the Canadian people coming together for 2 causes-- marijuana legalization and homosexual marriage. They had a major impact. Very unreported in the USA.
I have no doubts that things can change around here if we find the will to action.
Empty Suit?
I recommend reading the new David Icke article, he actually makes some pretty strong arguments regarding Obama. I'm still on the fence on this one, but it's worth bringing it to the table! I am especially irritated that Rick Warren is going to be doing his invocation message. He is a master of backwards mind control, as I have witnessed myself in Orange County.
http://www.davidicke.com/obama
wanderlust
Excellent link.
It is good to see that others are seeing the ever-more-obvious hints of Fascism in Obama's rhetoric, and of his Cabinet so far ("we're all in this together", "we will need to make sacrifices", "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", etc).
The similarities between his rise and that of Hitler are quite striking.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
ashamed of Ramstad, but what else is new?
"The only thing constant in life is change" -François de la Rochefoucauld
hello
Image
All around the Mulberry bush....
Its getting pretty crazy over Middle-East way in general.
Pop! Goes the Weasel!
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
New Article
This article was just made known to me...figured I post it here for others to see:
Why Obama Really Might Decriminalize Marijuana
New Letter to send out:
Posted by the DPA: Sign & Send