Support NeoGAF

[TDG]

Also, he's going to flip flop on Iraq rather soon when he comes back from his recently announced trip there and will probably discover that things are going well enough that we don't have to withdraw all the troops.

I don't think it's going to be that simple. You actually think he thinks that Iraq is in a complete state of chaos, is going to go on his heavily guarded trip to Iraq, then come home and announce that "everything is great, nevermind that shit I said a while ago"? :lol

Obama isn't going to bring "change." They're both men who want to get elected and want the power of being the president of the US.

It's funny how, if you want to be elected, you couldn't possibly bring change. Getting elected is a way of getting into the best possible position to create change.

I swear, people are so naive sometimes. :lol Did you just figure out that Obama is trying to get elected to gain the power of being president? This dirty little secret about Obama has been out there for a while. :lol

 

[Synth_floyd]

He won't do it overnight obviously. It's like if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water he'll jump right out, but if you put him in cold water and slowly raise the temperature until it's boiling then he won't know what hit him.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

The most important thing - his tax proposals.

 

[siamesedreamer]

I don't keep up with or care about the abortion issue, but appearently this is another flip:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

AP

 

[NewLib]

I don't keep up with or care about the abortion issue, but appearently this is another flip:



AP

I dont think this is a flip. And I find it very hard to allow mental distress (Which literally could be anything) to allow late-term abortions. Once you are getting into post-viability its hard to define the fetus as not an actual person.

 

[syllogism]

Once again, none of these things are flips

 

[scorcho]

how is that a flip, exactly?

and i'm getting a bit tired of reading about flips when the word in itself explains little, especially considering how irresponsibly swaths of the media seems to be reporting these issues (Obama's Iraq stance in particular).

 

[speculawyer]

Once again, none of these things are flips

There is a slight move to the center but I agree that none of these things are flips.

Did you catch 'race to the whitehouse' the other day where Scarb & Tony Blakely were insisting that Obama flipped on a position but they were hallucinating a "Yes" in an answer that Obama gave where he never actually said "Yes". Rachel Maddow was very frustrated to be ganged up on by two people hallucinating a word.

I think Obama has moved a little on some positions . . . but "flip" (as in 180 change) . . . No.

 

[artredis1980]

I don't keep up with or care about the abortion issue, but appearently this is another flip:



AP

flips


McCain 10109120
Obama 10

 

[Lemonz]

Obama attending a parade right now.

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1

 

[Gaborn]

There is a slight move to the center but I agree that none of these things are flips.

Did you catch 'race to the whitehouse' the other day where Scarb & Tony Blakely were insisting that Obama flipped on a position but they were hallucinating a "Yes" in an answer that Obama gave where he never actually said "Yes". Rachel Maddow was very frustrated to be ganged up on by two people hallucinating a word.

I think Obama has moved a little on some positions . . . but "flip" (as in 180 change) . . . No.

Except on drug decriminalization. (used to be for it, now drug warrior)

 

[Cheebs]

Except on drug decriminalization. (used to be for it, now drug warrior)

When was he for it? He never was for outright decriminalization when he was a senator.

 

[Gaborn]

When was he for it? He never was for outright decriminalization when he was a senator.

2004. and talk left would also disagree with you.

 

[TheClimaxan]

Barack isn't flipping, he's using his brain. He isn't changing his Iraq policy. He's simply stating that he will get our troops out based on a timeline that wouldn't endanger them based on the conditions on the ground. Unlike President Fuckthingsup, he's not too proud to change his mind or admit when he's wrong. If we had a President who was flexible in his policies, now that would be some fucking change.

And seriously, McCain people. You try to downplay Barack's Presidential ability over made up flip-flopping, yet you are supporting the Flopmaster. Please, do explain that logic to me.

EDIT: He also still supports decriminalization for first time offenders.

READ: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/21472234

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't keep up with or care about the abortion issue, but appearently this is another flip:



AP

How is that a flip flop? His original statement concerns the health of the woman, and the statement he just made concerns the health of the woman. If anything his newest comment is simply more detailed

 

[SouthernDragon]

Most of the things people have been calling "flips" have been Barack detailing his positions.

Yeah, he's pro-choice, but that doesn't mean he supports all abortions.

Yeah, he's for getting out of Iraq, but that doesn't mean he'll rip the Army straight out of the region.

Yeah, he's supporting FISA for other reasons, but he doesn't agree with some of the provisions in the FISA Bill (like the horrible immunity clause).

Yes, he opted out of public financing, but that's because McCain is using every trick in the book to circumvent public finance law, and in some cases, outright break it.

God forbid a candidate have some nuance in his stances.

 

[Gaborn]

EDIT: He also still supports decriminalization for first time offenders.

READ: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/21472234

Interesting, that's still not his original position, and it's TOTALLY different what he claimed after the video was leaked. So again, I maintain one major issue where he's flip flopped from his 2004 senate campaign is marijuana decriminalization. You can argue he did it for political viability reasons or whatever else you wish, but a "complete 180 degree flip" as speculawyer says seems to be what he did.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's a good article that sums up why Obama is just a regular politician and all the talk of "change" is total BS. Since he's gotten the nomination he's reversed his position on FISA, public financing, etc., just so that he's more electable.

Exactly . . . it is so he is more electable. He can't change ANYTHING unless he gets elected.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Most of the things people have been calling "flips" have been Barack detailing his positions.

Yeah, he's pro-choice, but that doesn't mean he supports all abortions.

Yeah, he's for getting out of Iraq, but that doesn't mean he'll rip the Army straight out of the region.

Yeah, he's supporting FISA for other reasons, but he doesn't agree with some of the provisions in the FISA Bill (like the horrible immunity clause).

Yes, he opted out of public financing, but that's because McCain is using every trick in the book to circumvent public finance law, and in some cases, outright break it.

God forbid a candidate have some nuance in his stances.

On the Iraq point, Josh Marshall nailed it.

The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don't appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I've even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they're passing on the revealed truth. McCain's campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama "has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground."

I've watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I've listened to Obama's position on Iraq. He's been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

This is an elementary distinction the current occupant in the White House has continually tried to confuse by claiming that his policies are driven and constrained by the advice he's given by his commanders on the ground. There's nothing odd or contradictory about Obama saying that he'll change the policy to one of withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq with a specific timetable but that he will consult with his military advisors about how best to execute that policy.

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it's the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn't some gotcha line. It's a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's role in the world and future in the Middle East. Reporters who can't grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush's game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.

 

[speculawyer]

Except on drug decriminalization. (used to be for it, now drug warrior)

Yeah . . . that is probably a flip. Drug decriminalization is a losing platform in a National election.

All politicians will have flips as they run for different types of offices . . . as with most election things, you have to pick the guy who does the least amount of flips that offend you.

And on a lot of these flips, you gotta wonder where the person's heart truly lies. Like with McCain, he has flipped on the Bush tax cuts . . . but I certainly hope he is not pro-deficit like the Bushies. The math on McCain's budget views just don't work so I suspect he still does support eliminating some of those tax cuts.

 

[Gaborn]

Yeah . . . that is probably a flip. Drug decriminalization is a losing platform in a National election.

All politicians will have flips as they run for different types of offices . . . as with most election things, you have to pick the guy who does the least amount of flips that offend you.

And on a lot of these flips, you gotta wonder where the person's heart truly lies. Like with McCain, he has flipped on the Bush tax cuts . . . but I certainly hope he is not pro-deficit like the Bushies. The math on McCain's budget views just don't work so I suspect he still does support eliminating some of those tax cuts.

Sure, I understand that, I was just responding to your blanket indication that you believe Obama hasn't ever flipped during the campaign, just "shifted to the center a little."

 

[speculawyer]

Sure, I understand that, I was just responding to your blanket indication that you believe Obama hasn't ever flipped during the campaign, just "shifted to the center a little."

One could say he flipped on his decision to not to be in the public financing system. However, this seems to be more of a campaign decision flip instead of a policy decision flip.

 

[Gaborn]

One could say he flipped on his decision to not to be in the public financing system. However, this seems to be more of a campaign decision flip instead of a policy decision flip.

True, and honestly I have a harder time criticizing flips I agree with (though I will say I wish he had come to that decision before it became politically sensible for him to do it).

 

[TheClimaxan]

Interesting, that's still not his original position, and it's TOTALLY different what he claimed after the video was leaked. So again, I maintain one major issue where he's flip flopped from his 2004 senate campaign is marijuana decriminalization. You can argue he did it for political viability reasons or whatever else you wish, but a "complete 180 degree flip" as speculawyer says seems to be what he did.

There is a difference between a flip-flop and the detailing of one's stance. While many people (including myself) support outright decriminalization of marijuana. I realize that straight out legalizing/decrimnalizing it would make a majority of the people in this countries head explode. If you want to actually win the election, a candidate can't simply be idealistic, they have to be REALISTIC. Barack may not come right out and say "decriminalization" but it's simply semantics. Not charging or fining first time offenders = the first step towards outright decriminalization. Actions like this prove to me even more that Obama can actually back up many of the promises that he's making. As Obama further reveals the nuances of his positions it's clear that there is real planning going on. He doesn't just give pretty speeches, if you take the time to read his policies then you would understand that these phantom flip-flops are only Obama out-lining the details of his grand-scale policy decisions. For example with Iraq, people are saying that Obama possibly changing his time-table for withdrawl is a flip-flop, but by calling it that you are obviously not reading the second half of the sentence, you know, the part that says WITHDRAWL. Right now Obama says 16 months, however if conditions make it harder to pull out safely in 16 months and it takes 20 months then that's not a flip-flop. That's smart decision making. If Obama came right out and said "Fuck it, the troops are staying and I'm headed to the ranch", that would be a flip-flop. Our troops aren't toy soldiers and John McCain of all people should realize that. If the same foresight and careful planning had been used before going into Iraq then we wouldn't even be having this argument about what it would take to safely get them out.

 

[Gaborn]

There is a difference between a flip-flop and the detailing of one's stance. While many people (including myself) support outright decriminalization of marijuana. I realize that straight out legalizing/decrimnalizing it would make a majority of the people in this countries head explode. If you want to actually win the election, a candidate can't simply be idealistic, they have to be REALISTIC. Barack may not come right out and say "decriminalization" but it's simply semantics.

First, I'm not a McCain supporter so I won't defend him in the least, but come on, Obama went from "I support marijuana decriminalization and that's always been my position" to "I don't support marijuana decriminalization" to "I might support reducing jail time for first offenders." This isn't detailing his stances, what I suspect happened is he supported it in 2004, didn't want to seem soft on drugs in 08 so opposes decriminalization a nationally televised debate, and then because a video of his opposite position in 04 surfaces he has to come up with some sort of middleground stance. I understand why he'd do that but it's still a flip flop. You can argue as to why, but it was a total reversal of public position.

 

[TheClimaxan]

First, I'm not a McCain supporter so I won't defend him in the least, but come on, Obama went from "I support marijuana decriminalization and that's always been my position" to "I don't support marijuana decriminalization" to "I might support reducing jail time for first offenders." This isn't detailing his stances, what I suspect happened is he supported it in 2004, didn't want to seem soft on drugs in 08 so opposes decriminalization a nationally televised debate, and then because a video of his opposite position in 04 surfaces he has to come up with some sort of middleground stance. I understand why he'd do that but it's still a flip flop. You can argue as to why, but it was a total reversal of public position.

A flip-flop is a change in policy without any real reason of doing so. It's very easy to say you support outright decriminalization in 2004 when no one but your supporters are listening to you. A cornerstone of Obama's campaign is his desire to reach across and compromise. If a majority of the country is against decriminalization (which they still are) then as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, which he wasn't in 2004, you have to be able to find a common ground. A flip flop would be a total abandoning of a path towards decriminalization which he isn't doing. Just like you cant up and pull the troops out of Iraq overnight you can't introduce polcies to straight out decriminalize when it would be met with a great deal of opposition and sway potential voters. Once again, what you call a flip-flop I call foresight and smart decision making. You have to crawl before you walk, and the fact that Obama wants to decriminalize first time offenders is a first step in total decriminalization. If the first time offender program is successful then those who opposed outright decriminalization would be more open to the possibility. If you ask me, Obama's approach to this issue might be the most feasible way to get it done on a national scale.

 

[Gaborn]

A flip-flop is a change in policy without any real reason of doing so. It's very easy to say you support outright decriminalization in 2004 when no one but your supporters are listening to you. A cornerstone of Obama's campaign is his desire to reach across and compromise. If a majority of the country is against decriminalization (which they still are) then as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, which he wasn't in 2004, you have to be able to find a common ground. A flip flop would be a total abandoning of a path towards decriminalization which he isn't doing. Just like you cant up and pull the troops out of Iraq overnight you can't introduce polcies to straight out decriminalize when it would be met with a great deal of opposition and sway potential voters. Once again, what you call a flip-flop I call foresight and smart decision making. You have to crawl before you walk, and the fact that Obama wants to decriminalize first time offenders is a first step in total decriminalization. If the first time offender program is successful then those who opposed outright decriminalization would be more open to the possibility. If you ask me, Obama's approach to this issue might be the most feasible way to get it done on a national scale.

Interesting rationalization of a flip.

 

[TheClimaxan]

Interesting rationalization of a flip.

 

[Cheebs]

2004. and talk left would also disagree with you.

Reconsidering a law doesn't mean he supports decriminalization. :lol

 

[avatar299]

A flip-flop is a change in policy without any real reason of doing so. It's very easy to say you support outright decriminalization in 2004 when no one but your supporters are listening to you. A cornerstone of Obama's campaign is his desire to reach across and compromise. If a majority of the country is against decriminalization (which they still are) then as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, which he wasn't in 2004, you have to be able to find a common ground. A flip flop would be a total abandoning of a path towards decriminalization which he isn't doing. Just like you cant up and pull the troops out of Iraq overnight you can't introduce polcies to straight out decriminalize when it would be met with a great deal of opposition and sway potential voters. Once again, what you call a flip-flop I call foresight and smart decision making. You have to crawl before you walk, and the fact that Obama wants to decriminalize first time offenders is a first step in total decriminalization. If the first time offender program is successful then those who opposed outright decriminalization would be more open to the possibility. If you ask me, Obama's approach to this issue might be the most feasible way to get it done on a national scale.

So in other words the man has no principles at all, and will bow to public opinion no matter how wrong they are.

I understand what you are saying, but he still flipped.

 

[TheClimaxan]

So in other words the man has no principles at all, and will bow to public opinion no matter how wrong they are.

I understand what you are saying, but he still flipped.

Thats not what I'm saying at all. Principles play a lage role. The issue i'm specifically targeting here is decriminalization of marijuana. Taking a hard-line stance on that issue would be loading McCain's cannon for him. I'll definitely concede that Obama has softened his stance, but calling it a complete 180 just isnt accurate. He hasn't abandoned the principles of it, nor is he bowing to public opinion. Pulling the troops out of Iraq falls in line with public opinion, but it's also the right thing to do, as there are mounds on mounds of evidence to prove that. Keep in mind Obama is trying to win this election. Preaching immediate decriminalization has never won anybody the White House so what makes you think it would now? However, starting small with decriminalizing it for first offenders keeps that door open while at the same time not jeopordizing his campaign. I guess my biggest issue with calling it a flip is the conotation behind the term. A flip is usually regarded as a negative shift and I see this as a smart move on Obama's part.

 

[siamesedreamer]

If you want to argue technicalities that these aren't true 180 degree flips, then that's fine. But, the NYT isn't buying it - and they didn't even address several things.

 

[TheClimaxan]

If you want to argue technicalities that these aren't true 180 degree flips, then that's fine. But, the NYT isn't buying it - and they didn't even address several things.

This all started over technicalities, so why not argue them? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating blind alegiance to a candidate. I'm all for accountability. FISA for instance is something worth complaining about. But some of the shit-people are nitpicking Obama for are absolutely rediculous non-issues.

It's been a pleasure arguining with you gentleman/ladies (I mean it), but I'm headed out to a BBQ. I'm sure I'll help to conitnue this discussion some more later.

 

[Chichikov]

Enough with this stupid flip-flop talk, I hate what it done to this country's political discourse, where it is better to hold to a stupid position than to adapt and change.

The absurdity of it just blows my mind, McCain is attacking Obama for getting closer to what he believes to be the right position?

Seriously people.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Enough with this stupid flip-flop talk, I hate what it done to this country's political discourse, where it is better to hold to a stupid position than to adapt and change.

The absurdity of it just blows my mind, McCain is attacking Obama for getting closer to what he believes to be the right position?

Seriously people.

But if you change, how can we trust you?!

I agree with everything you said. Dynamic policy making should not be seen as a negative.

 

[Chichikov]

But if you change, how can we trust you?!

I agree with everything you said. Dynamic policy making should not be seen as a negative.

I'm really disappointed with the Obama campaign's inability to change the narrative on this "issue".
By getting defensive and trying to prove you never changed your opinion, even when factually true, you play into the GOP's hands.
You don't mud wrestle with a pig, you can't win, the pig enjoy it, and the end you're both covered with filth.

I mean, you run on fucking change, you are trying to replace a regime that had staying the course as a mantra.
For fuck's sake, even look at the DNC primaries, what was better received?
Edwards' admission that his Iraq's vote a mistake or Clinton stubbornness?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama can't control the media. They have their narratives, and he's done what he can to shape it on the issues. The media pounced on a non-criticism of Clark's and a non-reversal on Obama's parts. Neither did anything wrong, and both of them just stated something they've said many times. To the extent that Obama has done focused campaign tours so far - first on the economy, then on patriotism, father's day, "values", etc it's been Obama that has shaped the topics. And starting next week, it's health care. We'll see how it goes.

But I'm encouraged because I think Obama's campaign has a good plan, and despite the media flaps, I think the plan is going to work. Oddly enough, it's stuff like Montana that have me feeling good about where things are going. He's up in the last poll, and he's expanding the field where McCain hasn't even thought about it.

Barack Obama is spending today in an unlikely place for a Democratic candidate for president: Montana, a state that has only voted Dem twice in the last 50 years but where a recent poll has put him ahead. It's a further indication of just how the wide the playing field could be this year.

The Associated Press notes that Obama has hired staff and targeted the state with his ad campaign, while John McCain has zero paid staff here and has yet to visit.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_courting_montana_voters.php

 

[GaimeGuy]

This election cycle has the potential to be an obama blowout (I'm talking a MOV of 200, here). The media knows it has to do everything it can to make the race closer, for the sake of fattening their wallets.

This is what happens when you have profit-driven news.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I mean, non-swing states that are currently labelled red that Obama seems to be polling well in include:

North Dakota
Montana
Indiana
Mississippi
Alaska

That's a 52 electoral vote swing right there, and I expect obama's chances in other currently republican states to increase more and more.

Georgia, Arkansas, Kansas, and Louisiana could be put in play, for instance.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Is it still 2004?


zzzzzz

 

[Door2Dawn]

Obama is not going to win Mississippi.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm just saying, the amount of non-swing states that obama is looking to have a shot at swinging is pretty staggering.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm just saying, the amount of non-swing states that obama is looking to have a shot at swinging is pretty staggering.

And even in states that he won't win, he can force McCain to pay attention, and expend resources, in them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

And even in states that he won't win, he can force McCain to pay attention, and expend resources, in them.

I think that's the more important thing. He's spending a lot of time in states he's not going to win - Mississippi? lets be real - but he's spreading McCain out. McCain doesn't have the money to compete

 

[Guileless]

This election cycle has the potential to be an obama blowout (I'm talking a MOV of 200, here). The media knows it has to do everything it can to make the race closer, for the sake of fattening their wallets.

This is what happens when you have profit-driven news.

I disagree with this oft-expressed sentiment. No reporter is going to get a raise if the election is close. The people who rely on quick feedback from ratings are the TV hosts who are playing to partisan audiences and not trying to be objective anyway. Reporters want good stories to write about, and a close but non-volatile election would just be a boring replay of '04.

Plus, the last time a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote, the NES was in its prime. It's not ridiculous at this point to assume it will be close again. If Sen. Obama looks like he is going to win a majority of the vote and be elected, that is a good story and "the media" isn't going to try to invent ways to tell people otherwise.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I disagree with this oft-expressed sentiment. No reporter is going to get a raise if the election is close.

The networks made a fortune off the extended dem primary, even after it was decided in February. Reporters? No. Networks? Yes.

 

[Guileless]

The cable networks benefited from the long primary fight because they are on 24/7 and need something to fill all of that airtime. This election (barring another 2000-esque debacle) will end on the first Tuesday of November regardless of what the media says for the next four months. Normal people who aren't political junkies won't really pay attention until after Labor Day. Nobody in the media except for the handful of TV hosts who make millions of dollars and have a real financial stake in ratings approaches their day-to-day coverage like that.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I disagree with this oft-expressed sentiment. No reporter is going to get a raise if the election is close. The people who rely on quick feedback from ratings are the TV hosts who are playing to partisan audiences and not trying to be objective anyway. Reporters want good stories to write about, and a close but non-volatile election would just be a boring replay of '04.

Plus, the last time a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote, the NES was in its prime. It's not ridiculous at this point to assume it will be close again. If Sen. Obama looks like he is going to win a majority of the vote and be elected, that is a good story and "the media" isn't going to try to invent ways to tell people otherwise.

Bullshit.

Obama had a bigger lead at the beginning of June than he did at the beginning of March over Hillary Clinton, but the news made it sound like they were neck and neck with her closing the gap.

The media doesn't care about integrity or the issues. They care about making money, and the best way to do that is to cover the issues from the perspective of the political game, that is, which groups and demographics will react in what ways to which stances.

It's disgusting.


Case in point:

Obama had a problem iwth women against Hillary. Then he had problems with white women. Now, against McCain, he hasp roblems with white suburban women.

There is no way you can say the media isn't going to try to make this as close as possible, because they've been trying their damn best to do that for the last 4 or 5 months.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Plus, the last time a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote, the NES was in its prime.

2004 doesn't count?

 

[Gaborn]

Reconsidering a law doesn't mean he supports decriminalization. :lol

Except Obama said at the time:

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,"