The Worst State of the Union

Of all of the things people followed on video tonight only one of them has halfway decent at this whole public speaking business, and it wasn't Mr. Litecoin.

The actually rather eloquent speaker was one, Barry Obama.1 During this year's State of the Union Mr. Obama talked about everything he hoped people would do for him while talking about nothing he could do on his own. He even branched out from economy and healthcare to discuss gun legislation.

The problem with this sort of state of the union, so late into a Presidency is that he has time to talk Congress into acting along these lines. He has what, two of these speeches left out of eight? Maybe for most of his presidency the opposition party actually was picking on him. That doesn't make the things he has wanted to try since the 2010 mid terms and lacked the space to proceed with are speech worthy.

At his point in his career what matter is the things Obama could be discussing instead which would redeem his previous failures. These are things that he could take substantive action on with that executive authority as commonly understood, that as the rare questionably legal bandaid he has used when legislation has failed.

If Obama truly wants to help poor black people, he has the room to through executive action push through marijuana legalization at the federal level.2 I don't really enjoy the whole marijuana smoking deal.3 Statue of Limitations would be a relevant term that might apply to the last time I sought out Marijuana, personally not much about it interests me. What interests me though is Irony. That of the specific legislative actions that have been damaging to the experiences of black people in the United States4 that the most damaging legislation passed in history would be a collection of those laws which allowed continued enslavement of African Americans, the Jim Crow laws which worked out of spite to lash out that owning African Americans was no longer legal, and Marijuana prohibition. I specify Marijuana restriction as especially harmful to Americans with skin colored darker than Irish, because no matter who approves of or promotes a law, its actually effect is imposed by those who enforce it.

I have seen times, plural, where white poor achieving college students for marijuana "offenses" received meaningless, harmless, jack off school level sanctions while in other instances high achieving black students received state charges for marijuana offenses. As I mentioned before, I don't really care about the marijuana issue because smoking more of it could be fun. What I care about as far as marijuana prohibition goes is reducing the room whereby people operating on the behalf of government can inconvenience people on the title of:

We don't much like your kind.

That is the true moral wrong underlying excess criminalization of anything. That the local county mounties can just arbitrarily pick up High School students to put the scare into them over a little bit of marijuana while the CIA most likely gives the Sinaloa Cartel a protected corridor such that they might move any drug they wish directly into Chicago, which is an area that spans from the Mexican border nearly to the Canadian Border.

A particular artifact of the wrongness of the current drug control regime in the United States is that the above assertion that "the CIA most likely gives the Sinaloa Cartel a protected corridor such that they might move any drug they wish directly into Chicago" is a claim of such nature that the burden of providing evidence most reasonably rests with Sinaloa and the CIA to rebut the claim. I merely offer a conclusion that can be synthesized off of a number of reports declassified that span the 1960's and 1980's culminating with the Iran Contra affair which suggest that the CIA is kind of cool with drug trafficking when they can find a purpose to protect it, Combing that with media reports that Sinaloa gets drugs straight to Chicago with little trouble and I dunno how many lines a person has to read between to come up with a more nefarious solution that connects the facts.

Instead of repeating the speeches he presented verbatim for most of the past four years5 the independent actions of Washington and Colorado gave Obama room to finally specify a plan of action for addressing forms of injustice that his administration had perpetuated in spite of what he advertised as personal regrets. By the power of his office Obama can singlehandedly address the issue of marijuana prohibition in the United States. He seems to choose to not exercise his power in this area, though even though he has approved of continuation of largely old invasive NSA programs under newer, fluffier and friendlier names.

Maybe something resembling an old politburo style decision has been undertaken when the party says, no leave prohibition be Obama. Let the next candidate run on ending prohibition. Stretching this ordeal out longer might buy the party a few more years of election victories.6


  1. Amazing how at one point I was so moved by his public speaking ability I actually contributed to his campaign, not in the meaningless volunteer to spam sense, but in the sense of actually tossing some cash in that direction. Six years later Inputs.io and BIPS seem like they could have a greater rate of return. At least money deposited those places couldn't go below zero.  

  2. Like happened with gay marriage where a couple of states rebel against the federal law, and the federal government's swift surrender could lead to state restrictions suddenly hitting a losing streak in courts.  

  3. I'm no Charlie Shrem. My vices of choice are openly declared in this website's uniform resource locator.  

  4. As opposed to the harder problem whereby some people just happen to be racist.  

  5. The first Obama State of the Union speeches were qualitatively and substantively difference from th recent string of retreads.  

  6. I don't know that anyone who has read Plato can find such a course of action wise. The entire point of the Apologia is that a lot of aspects of Democracy fail simply on the grounds that people when grouped can be astoundingly inclined to vote against anyone's interest or freedom.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *