Obama and Google Ignore Top Voted Question at Online Forum

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:28:00 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama held an online forum last night organized by You Tube and Google+. Readers submitted questions via You Tube and text. They also voted on the questions submitted by others. Obama took questions from five people via You Tube.

Those were five lucky people: According to the White House' YouTube channel, almost 230,000 people submitted 133,183 questions, and 1.6 million people gave those questions an up or down vote.

Here's how it worked: [More...}

Last week, the White House launched the next in its long line of social media engagement initiatives, this one entitled “Your Interview With the President.” The concept was simple, anyone could upload their question to the President on YouTube, others would vote on them, and the highest rated ones would be posed to the Commander in Chief in a Google+ Hangout on January 30th.

NORML posed the question:

With over 850,000 Americans arrested in 2010, on marijuana charges alone, and tens of billions of tax dollars being spent locking up marijuana users, isn’t it time to regulate and tax marijuana?”

Even though the question got 4,000 votes within hours, it was removed as "inappropriate." NORML then encouraged people to submit their own questions about marijuana. And they did, in huge numbers. At first these questions were also flagged as "inappropriate" but then either Google or the White House, whoever was doing the flagging, gave up on the censorship attempt. When the submissions closed on Saturday:

Of the top 160 questions asked, marijuana reform questions accounted for 105 of them. Reposts of our question brought in an estimated 17,524 up-votes in addition to the 4,028 the original received before being removed. Combined, that is over 21,000 votes for one question, which is 5 times as many votes as any other question on the page. The 105 marijuana reform questions in the top 160 brought in over 74,000 votes, dwarfing any other topic. (my emphasis.)

So what happened during the forum? Obama didn't come near the subject. Afterwards, the White House said Google didn't submit the questions to him. Lame. Like no staffers checked the site? Like they didn't collaborate beforehand?

The Number One voted video question (which ranked second among all questions submitted) was from a former Los Angeles police officer. You can view it here. Or read it below:

"Mr. President, my name is Stephen Downing, and I'm a retired deputy chief of police from the Los Angeles Police Department. From my 20 years of experience I have come to see our country’s drug policies as a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources. According to the Gallup Poll, the number of Americans who support legalizing and regulating marijuana now outnumbers those who support continuing prohibition. What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?"

Downing is a board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. LEAP has issued a press release, that states in part:

Today YouTube ignored a question advocating marijuana legalization from a retired LAPD deputy chief of police that won twice as many votes as any other video question in the White House's "Your Interview with the President" competition on the Google-owned site. They did, however, find the time to get the president on record about late night snacking, singing and dancing, celebrating wedding anniversaries and playing tennis.

Downing's response to Google and the White House ignoring his question:

A majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana to de-fund cartels and gangs, lower incarceration and arrest rates and save scarce public resources, all while generating new much-needed tax revenue. The time to discuss this issue is now. We're tired of this serious public policy crisis being pushed aside or laughed off."

In case you're wondering, the overall number one vote-getting question (counting video and text submissions) was submitted by text and pertained to the extradition of British student Richard O'Dwyer to the U.S. to face charges of copyright infringement. (His conduct was not illegal in the UK.) Google did submit that to the President:

That question asked Obama why he is "personally supporting" the extradition of a British citizen in Sheffield named Richard O'Dwyer. The U.S. Justice Department has identified O'Dwyer as someone running the TVShack.net, which was streaming free television online. Justice seized the domain in the summer of 2010 and wants O'Dwyer to to extradited to the United States to face the charges in U.S. court.

Obama responded that he wasn't "personally supporting" anything, but that intellectual property has to be respected.

The White House billed the forum as:

You asked the questions, and President Obama answered in the first-ever completely virtual interview from the White House, presented by YouTube and Google+.

The event was moderated by Steve Grove, YouTube's head of community partnerships, from Mountain View, What's his excuse for not submitting the top voted video question and #2 top question overall to Obama? How can Google+ expect viewer and reader participation when it ignores them?

< Monday Night Open Thread | Facial Recognition May Replace Online Passwords >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama and Google Ignore Top Voted Question at Online Forum | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

After midnight (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by randy80302 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:59:56 AM EST

Too bad insomnia is not a qualifying condition for the Colorado medical marijuana law.

: It isn't? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:16:40 AM EST

I don't know what qualifies for a prescription. I only know that my father has one now, and hopefully that will alleviate my need to ever have to hop on a plane and fly to Colorado in an instant and bail him out of jail.
But with how things are going in the war on weed, who knows how this goes? Maybe he won't have enough cash at some point on hand to buy "medicinal" and would make some kind of trade with someone who wasn't considered legit, and then I would be on that plane? I don't know what actually makes him safe in all this.
And I would leave one disabled person behind in order to go defend the another disabled person who would be most likely terrified. He's getting older. He isn't as tough as he used to be.

: A Comedian... (none / 0) (#7)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:33:33 AM EST

...who went to the doc to get prescription for MM...
The doc asked him why, he said the thought of getting busted with weed was causing him a lot of anxiety.
If I could remember who said I would give them credit.

Again, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by NYShooter on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:10:48 AM EST

you have to wonder about the competence level of Obama's team. Certainly, they must have vetted most embarrassing areas of questions. Weren't they ready for questions about his MJ policies? Or, did they miscalculate how far up the list it would be?

Doesn't look good. I don't think it helps him regardless of which side of the issue one is.

So, who screwed up, Obama, or his team?

Why Answer It ? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:29:51 AM EST

He's got your vote.

There is literally no reason to bother answering or even giving actually thought to other real questions when he's got most D's vote sealed without answering it.

Is there really any question as to where he stands on the issue ?

But that 'interview' does kinda mirror his Presidency, a publicity stunt, lots of shine and little substance.

oh puhleeze! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:25:37 AM EST

was anyone really foolish enough to believe pres. obama was going to go within a mile of any question involving pot, unless it was one about making the possession/use/sale of it a capital offense?

the "war on drugs" is, next to the DoD, the single largest public jobs program in this country, providing employment (directly & indirectly) for hundreds of 1,000's. there's no way pres. obama, or any politician, is going to do anything that will adversely affect those jobs, especially in the midst of what's still a major recession.

to seriously think otherwise is simply delusion.

Jobs.. (none / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:56:15 PM EST

the same is probably true for the insane war economy..

Blood money, and unsustainable, suffering-creating madness - masquerading as pragmatism - all the way around..

Of course, if Obama touches the Mary Jane issue, the holier-than-thou Brand R trogladytes, pigs, and Torquamada DAs would publicly jump on him with both feet and with talons out.


: as opposed (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by NYShooter on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 02:00:02 PM EST

to their overtures of friendship and cooperation exhibited to date.

Not sure what it will take (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by BobTinKY on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM EST

for those governing to recognize that addressing the concerns of the governed is indeed not only appropriate but necessary in a representative democracy.

: I have an idea... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:11:13 AM EST

what it might take, candidates without D's or R's after their name winning some elections.
But I'm told we can't risk that, we might have a Brand R controlled government not adressing our concerns as oppose to a Brand D or split government not addressing our concerns.

Are we a unique species here at TL? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by NYShooter on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:39:53 AM EST

Why is everyone so reflexively sure Obama shouldn't touch the MJ subject with "a ten foot poll?"

Like any Republican will vote for him because of his Draconian pot policies? Since it's been said here often that there's little enthusiasm to vote "for" Obama, just to vote "against" the Republicans.

Wouldn't many people here, as I'm sure many more nationwide, be quite pleased for him to take a more enlightened attitude towards marijuana laws?

Wouldn't that be a reason to vote "for" him?

Makes no sense to me Shooter... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:57:01 AM EST

any liberal-leaning demographic that is pro-drug war has got to be very small....and if he did have the stones to find the topic appropriate, he'd have a new large group of enthusiastic supporters.

All I can think of is he was warned during his initial briefing not to touch it by his real bosses....like cpinva said, so much blood money and blood employment tied up in prohibition. Money laundering revenue for his banker buddies, prisoners for his prison industrial complex buddies, jobs for his police state industrial complex buddies and on and on and on.

I'm thinking he's too intelligent to actually believe in prohibition as sound policy or moral policy...it must be crookedness or cowardice.


You forgot some other bloodsuckers (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by SeeEmDee on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:29:37 PM EST

Namely, Big Pharma. After years, their cannabis-based medicines are about to receive FDA approval, and they are expecting huge windfalls from obscenely high-priced cannabis meds.

Needless to say, this necessitates the removal of any potential competition from non-Big Pharma sources of cannabis. hence the crackdowns.

The Feds are just muscle for Big Pharma. The DEA is practically their enforcement arm, the people and their will or needs be damned. Crony capitalism in action in all its' breathtaking arrogance.


Correctamundo... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:48:49 PM EST

a glaring ommission on my part.

Alcohol lobby is another...Coors gives made dough to pro-prohibition advocacy groups.

"This is a very complicated case Maude, lotta ins lotta outs."


if meds work... (none / 0) (#33)
by diogenes on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 03:01:46 PM EST

If big pharma can make a successful cannibis based medicine besides Marinol, if it works and has precise dosage delivery, and if it doesn't have the rare addiction potential of smoked pot, the why not? The pills might be expensive, but pot is too. Controlled tablet doses can be used in scientific study (to determine whether it works, what dose, etc). It's hard to study a drug which is smoked. Is this all about getting cannibinoids to those who need them medically or really about giving people an excuse to get high (a la California "loose" medical marijuana laws).


: Prohibition makes pot expensive... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 03:08:55 PM EST

true cost of production ain't much, all the money in the wholesale/retail price is the risk.
And why take an expensive pill with additives that doesn't work as well as the natural plant form?
Have no clue what you're talking about with this "rare addiction potential" business...it is no more addictive than television or Talkleft.
Big Pharma's problem is if more people tried it if the stigma and risk of criminality was removed, the more it would render some of their expensive remedies obsolete.

: Prohibition is why 'pot' is expensive (none / 0) (#50)
by SeeEmDee on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:47:41 AM EST

And the prohibition is generally maintained not so much for purported moral reasons, but economic ones. As in the ancient Roman query about "Cui bono?". With a little research it becomes very clear who is in the 'bono' position...and it's not the average citizen.
And, in an aside: why the Hell should I allow a Big Pharma corp to have the monopoly on production of something that I can grow in my backyard for pennies on the dollar, were it legal again?
They'll want a lot for something that is in essence re-blended cannabis. That's all Sativex is. The whole plant, reconstructed fancily, given a catchy name, and sold for a fortune. It's like a chemical Rube Goldberg machine. All to avoid the 'stigma' (which was handily echoed by the Big Pharma industries) of 'marijuana'. Which, you can bet your ass, will remain illegal for us helots. That's what these creeps are literally banking on.
BTW: did you know that the former Number Two at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dr. Andrea Barthwell, is a board member of GW Pharma, which is marketing Sativex? The whole time she was sucking down a taxpayer-supplied paycheck at ONDCP, she was railing that 'medical marijuana is a cruel hoax', and that there is no such thing as MMJ. Now that she's a member of GWP, she says that its' only smoked marijuana that has no medicinal value.
(Best 'Mr. Rogers' imitation) Children, can you 'hypocrite'? (Might be easier to say than "Conflict of interest") Suuuuuure you can!

Actually (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:07:59 PM EST

A slim majority of people in the US feel marijuana should still be illegal, except for medicinal purposes, so yes, the fact that an overwhelming number of people here support legalization shows that the perception here is a bit skewed, which is not surprising, since it is a self-selecting, pro criminal defense and liberal blog.


Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:04:59 PM EST

But 40% is still, and I am guesstimating, around 70,000,000 adults.

But if majority is the rule, can we at least stop locking people up for something 40% of the Nation approves of.


a slim majority (none / 0) (#15)
by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:16:16 PM EST

can mean a lot of things.

But frankly this strikes me as one of those things where the people who care fall on one side of the issue and the people who don't care that much fall more on the other side.

That is to say, those who want it to be legal feel more strongly about it. But I will admit that's just a hunch.

I feel suprememely unqualified to comment on the national psyche of this issue since my state voted to decriminalize it by an overwhelming margin in 2008. Pot was more popular than Obama and Obama was very popular. So it's not just this blog, there are certainly areas of the country where this is a popular opinion. But I'm not surprised it hasn't hit 50% yet. I'm not sure gay rights are there yet either.


: i think it will get there (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 12:20:50 PM EST

But reading and commenting on a blog that is tailored to specific issues can tend to make us lose appeeciation that it isn't an actual reflection of society.

It's not that he shouldn't, (none / 0) (#34)
by Anne on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 03:05:14 PM EST

it's that he won't; it's just not who he is - I mean, have you seen the size of his judgmental streak?

He won't do it because it will upset conservatives and the right-wing media - being for any form of legalization or decriminalization will have GOP campaign operatives writing ads about Obama wanting to stand on the corner and sell your child drugs.

He won't do it because when he comes to these kinds of forks in the road, he almost always goes authoritarian - he loves him some law enforcement, doesn't he? Wouldn't surprise me a bit that he's secretly crushed that Bush ruined the flight-suit-photo-op.

Or he goes corporate - can't be getting on the bad side of Big Pharma, can we?

Ugh.


Oh yeah, and I can't smoke weed (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:19:11 PM EST

I become one with the post. I tried some of that legal high stuff....because I'm forever the curious by nature that you never get over and eventually kills you. I just wanted to see. OMFG, that was a bad trip. That was like being hit in the head with a giant valium thrown by the smiling kitty from Wonderland. And I got so chewed out when my husband found out, it was like I cheated on him or something. Josh wanted to know what everyone was so upset about and he was told that his mom has been smokin the ganj. WAS NOT, it was ganjish!

: Then you definitely don't want... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:40:14 PM EST

to eat one of those "special" cookies. I know some professionals that can only eat a half of one at a time.

The fact that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 02:38:32 PM EST

that there is more expense and risk in drug dealing than kidnapping and sex trafficking is pretty horriffic.

I think I found something else for the DEA to do.

I think we'd be surprised by... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 02:44:56 PM EST

how many Republican voters partake as well, and don't appreciate being criminalized. I mean we're talking millions if not tens of millions, they can't all be Dems, or as in my case None of the Aboves. Granted, a sizeable chunk are probably smart enough not to bother voting;)

If Brand D got out in front of the right side of this one they might win a few of those millions over....who knows until you grow a pair and try to do the right thing.

Maybe NY Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 03:33:16 PM EST

But it's been my experience that plenty of republican users users understand why certain drugs are illegal and even support it and certainly not bothered by it.

Suggesting users are pro legalizers just doesn't match my reality. And that isn't just drugs, how many uninsured republicans hate Health Care or welfare republicans complain about socialism or scream about taxes when they don't pay any or my favorite, complain Obama is a liberal...

Brand D IMO is garbage, maybe not rotting week old R garbage, but it still stinks. The days of progressive with a D brand at the National level are gone.

No one is out on this issue is any meaningful way... and I cannot believe its because they think it will sink them, they simply don't agree that it should be legal. They live and breathe polls, yet they always miss these polls. Or rather their advisers miss them, they can't be taxed with what us commoners think.


Point taken... (none / 0) (#38)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 03:42:06 PM EST

I know a few like that...users who prefer it's illegal. Users who flip a couple lids to smoke for free especially;)

Some worry about what a legal reefer trade would do to quality too...but that doesn't seem to be an issue in states with legal medicinal use...they have some of the best sh*t, not to mention the delicous baked goods.

Another counter-point is what legalization would do to all the people who currently make a living at it...not the cartels (f*ck them), but your friendly neighborhood bush doctor. I must admit I would feel bad for them if it were legalized tomorrow, but at the end of the day getting the chains off is the greater good imo.


: I'm not even talking decriminalization (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by NYShooter on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 04:41:54 PM EST

Just send a message that it's time to re-think the issue. He can lick around the edges without going "all in."
Mainly less jail time, maybe community service, you know, stuff like that. Like ABG says, it's the direction that counts.
Just tease'm a little bit. I bet It would pay some pretty good dividends.
Problem is, "O" is just about the biggest wussy I think I've ever seen in the Presidency. His squeamish personna, neither here nor there, satisfies no one, and worst of all, no one's afraid to kick him in his ba!!s.
Pathetic.

: really? (none / 0) (#40)
by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 04:48:10 PM EST

I don't know any users who would prefer it to stay illegal.
As for your local neighborhood drug dealer, it depends. They could just get a job at a coffee shop or something. I think the really solid growers will always have a place in the market for boutique high-quality stuff, like microbrews vs the mass market that might come from Marlboro.
I think the smart ones plan ahead for that and the others would die off, which frankly, is fine. Selling is a job. So it could just become a real job. Sure, prices might go down a bit, but you would have the bar scene too with markup just like with booze.

Look at his actions, ABG; (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Anne on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 05:29:13 PM EST

he's ramped up the drug war, putting his DOJ on the trail of medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized the use of it, gotten himself a nice indefinite detention law that he and his DOJ are already raising in courts, he's got people like Leon Panetta in positions where they boldly and unashamedly defend orders to assassinate US citizens who - without benefit of any kind of judicial/legal process - have been declared "terrorists." He defends and advocates for more intrusion into our privacy, has gone after whistleblowers who dare to reveal the government's dirty little secrets with more force and intent than any president in recent history - yes, even more than Republican presidents - sending a loud and clear message that we question the government's actions at our peril: if there's something they think we should know, they will tell us.

So, you tell me, ABG, does this sound like someone who's going to listen to or consider a decriminalization or legalization argument? Like someone who gives a hoot about civil liberties, privacy rights and individual freedoms?

Not in my book. In my book, when you have the choice, and over and over again, you choose the authoritarian approach, that's who you are.

I don't need to be a psychologist to come to that conclusion; it's something that ought to be obvious to anyone with basic critical thinking skills.

Anne (none / 0) (#46)
by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 05:41:57 PM EST

The answer to your question is state nullification.

The same tactic California is using against fed drug laws will be used to combat Obamacare, Real ID and a number of other state policies.

By cracking down on state nullification primarily in a state he will win, he is setting the precident for state nullification of other more material fed rules.

That's why, IMHO, he's doing it. Then because of CA, he has been forced to do the same thing in Colorado, but that is OK because Colorado is fairly strongly Obama anyway.

So there is your answer and it is one that makes complete sense that could be true without your psych analysis.

Just so you don't think this is an ABG creation, here is the argument.

I understand that you view this theory as BS, and that's fine. But you should understand that intelligent people see reasons other than yours to explain what is happening.


: Heh - I love how ... (none / 0) (#48)
by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:03:37 PM EST

... when someone else draws inferences about Obama's motives/intentions that are "bad", it's suddenly "psych analysis", but when you do the very same thing to imagine "good" motives/intentions behind Obama's actions, it's just good-ole 12 dimensional chess, free from any "psych analysis".
Funny stuff.

ABG, this thread is about (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:00:30 PM EST

Obama and marijuana. Stop hijacking it to talk about Obama in general. I've cleaned the thread of off-topic comments.

Election year (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:22:45 AM EST

facing the Newt Gingrich/Mitt Romney voters and all the crazy they would inspire over legalizing weed. He won't touch it. Now that I haven't hammered him on something that does affect the safety of my family, and I was a Hillary supporter, can I get a cookie or something for not hammering Obama?

Are the feds being weed bust crazy though BECAUSE this is an election year? Did seven children end up in the high risk Social Services system because it is an election year?

: the short answer: yes (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:28:12 AM EST

the longer answer: yes
any other questions i can help you with?

There is something obscenely... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:30:15 AM EST

inappropriate here, and it ain't the f*ckin' youtube questions.

How chickensh*t to just dodge instead of defending your policy...of yeah, it is indefensible policy, all they can do is dodge and distract and change the subject.

That's why I wrote (none / 0) (#21)
by NYShooter on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:10:55 PM EST

what I did on the "subject" line.

I don't believe we're all that unique. I don't believe Obama would lose many votes by taking a more benign approach towards this issue, and might even gain a substantial amount.

But, other than being pathologically risk averse, I think many here hit the nail on the head with the economic hurt it might inflict....at least in the beginning. I guess doing it because it's the right thing to do, and alleviate untold amount of pain and grief.....not "on the table."

Anyway, it's just my opinion.

this is accurate (none / 0) (#42)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 05:25:48 PM EST

i don't think you can reasonably argue with that - on this issue, Obama is doing what any conventional major-party politician would do in an election year & he would be crazy not to

of course, a transformational major-party politician in an election year would read the tea leaves & get out in front of this issue & lead on it

during the primaries (none / 0) (#49)
by fishcamp on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:34:40 PM EST

in the 16 or 17 states where mj is legal will there be different answers for the legal medical usage that is already happening?