The Weed Question: An Online Hijacking? Or Democracy in Action?

Nancy Scola | March 27, 2009 - 10:49am | 5 comments | Email This!

You may have heard that during yesterday's Open for Questions event at the White House, President Obama interrupted MC Jared Bernstein to address a question that had demonstrated considerable mojo in the online forum. "I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high," he said to a chuckling audience, "and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation." Breaking out into a smile, Obama got in a dig at those crazy kids on the Internet: "I don't know what that says about the online audience." That online audience is now abuzz with discussion over the incident. Did Obama behave badly? Did "we" -- to use the word loosely -- behave badly by giving such a high profile to the question (in a creative interpretation of the "green jobs" category)? In very brief, the arguments in favor and against...

The argument in favor of the legalization question: With rather horrendous drug-fueled violence in Mexico increasingly in the news -- and especially in light of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's admission that the U.S. is partially culpable because of our considerable appetite for illegal narcotics -- legalization is a timely and important policy topic. Besides, millions of Americans make use of the marijuana on occasion, whether for recreational or medicinal reasons. Web tools like Google Moderator are simply tapping into that collective interest, even if it's not one often discussed in polite society. And that's exactly the sort of opening up of communications channels that Internet-powered politics promising.

The argument against: NORML and other marijuana advocates unfairly manipulated Google Moderator to promote their question to the top of a citizens' forum, hijacking and event that was meant to focus on the economy in general and in particular the president's budget proposal. Obama respected the spirit of online openness and participation by addressing the question, while acting like a good moderator and not letting the forum get off topic.

So, which is it? Your thoughts?

Our readers also like:

Daily Digest: America Has a Few (Thousand) Things to Ask Obama
106 recommended posts
Categories: 

Comments

Couple of thoughts

by lhtorres on March 27, 2009 - 11:15am

1 - I seem to recall that the top TWO questions in the Green Jobs and Energy category were mary jane related.

2 - President Obama likely knew he wasn't going to get there (question category Eight, with room for only five Internet questions), so his pulling a question from the bottom of the bag should be seen as a win

3 - It was a loaded question, with two parts: would the president decriminalize marijuana, and would doing so help grow the economy. He answered "no" to the second part IMI.

On whether it was appropriate to "game" the system: of course. This about traditional organizing of pressure groups - the instinct is to "flood the system" - letter, faxes, postcards, emails, online comments etc. why would voting on an Internet platform be help to a different standard? Its all about voice in our democracy, and expanding that "voice as pressure" is part of the game plan.

So, for NORML, great work! You made you point. Back to the state legislatures and canvassing until the next opportunity - and hopefully there'll be more competition for you - AARP, NRA, etc...

Well I wasn't "organized"

by Mrpacific on March 27, 2009 - 2:34pm

No one informed me of any campaign. As an internet user, I have read all of the pro-legalization posts that come my way, and it just made sense to support those questions. Support for legalization is pretty strong across the net, regardless of use, in my experience.

—

You lost. Get over it.

Great result! And a suggestion

by JonPincus on March 27, 2009 - 3:52pm

One of the things events like Open for Questions, Ask the President, Ideas for Change, and Rebuild the Party are useful for is to show the online strength and organizing savvy of different groups. There's no question that legalization advocates are at the top of the charts here, along with libertarians, Dream Activists, Democrats.com, Get FISA Right, and some other very recognizable names.

I certainly don't think it was inappropriate to organize behind a question on legalization and the economy. It's an issue that's gotten a lot of attention, and I was interested in hearing Obama's position. Even though I thought he dismissed the idea a little too quickly, I appreciated him answering. It's clear feedback to legalization activists on two fronts:

1) the economic case isn't yet presented as compellingly as it needs to be
2) at the national level, leading with the economics isn't likely to persuade Obama.

This is really valuable information and so I think the effort people put in certainly paid off. Congrats!

That said I do tend to agree that the overall focus of this iteration of Open for Questions was the economy, and the noise from all the pot-related questions drowned everything else out. There are a lot of good arguments for legalization and drug policy changes, and the potential for billions of dollars in tax revenue is one. But it's far from the most important economic issue. Legalization activists need to be careful to avoid causing a backlash.

So my suggestion: don't bogart the leaderboard.

—

jon -- http://talesfromthe.net/jon

Globalization of Democracy

by Balean on March 27, 2009 - 5:56pm

This is great, because democracy will be a good lesson.
pro and contra are usual depending on how we look.
Balean Blog

Exercising Leadership

by Prokofy on March 29, 2009 - 10:29pm

The pot lobbyists are not hijackers. They are merely a persistent dissident group. It's wrong to try to suppress them. I don't support them, but I think the allergenic reaction to them is hugely suspect. The answer to these kinds of persistent lobbies is more speech not less.

One of the reasons we who are not on the hard left with you all in fact did elect Obama is because we had some notion that with his background as a lawyer, professor, community organizer, etc. he might have some ability to exercise leadership and moderation, and tack more to the center and make compromises as is fitting in leading a diverse nation.

The hope was that despite all the loons and lefties and commies and Weathermen and opportunists and Silicon Valley hustlers around this president, that he might steer a course around such extremists when they became too shrill and too untethered from reality (like the pot lobby). So the hope remains. Don't kill it.