Obama marijuana pot head

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-...
The Choom Gang: President Obama’s pot-smoking high school days detailed in Maraniss book
Political blogs went to pot on Friday.
The Internet is buzzing after the Washingtonian published a review of Washington Post associate editor David Maraniss’s forthcoming book “Barack Obama: The Story,” including an excerpt about President Obama’s high school clique and their favorite pastime.
Let’s just say jobs weren’t the president’s first green initiative. The group of friends smoked marijuana frequently enough to nickname themselves the “Choom Gang.”
But enough of my bad weed puns. Here’s what other blogs are writing about the excerpts.
Yahoo: Bill Clinton he was not.
BuzzFeed has a handy “User’s Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama” compiled from excerpts in Maraniss’s book.
Time’s post is titled the “Audacity of Dope.”
And NPR has “Inhale to the chief”
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reminds us Obama has previously written about his drug use:
In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about eating green eggs and ham. As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”
He would smoke it here and there. He would smoke it anywhere.
Conservative outlets are especially having fun with the new fodder.
Hot Air writes,“Apparently, we elected Pauly Shore.” And Reason’s headline is Obama Still Bogarting Nation’s Joints, Man.”
Since you stuck around this long, here are a few of the high-interest excerpts from Maraniss’s book:
Maraniss notes that Obama spent a lot of time at the Punahou School in Hawaii with a “self-selected group of boys who loved basketball and good times and called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning “to smoke marijuana.”
“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes,“Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”
One of those was:“Total Absorption” or “TA”.
“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang,“you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”

One of Obama’s old friends at the school, Tom Topolinski, told Maraniss:“Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”
Obama helped popularized the concept of “roof hits,” as well, writes Maraniss.
“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”
Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”:“When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”
Maraniss notes that Obama, looking back later in life on those days, made it sound as though he was hanging out with a group of misbegotten n’er-do-wells, what he called “the club of disaffection.”
“In fact,” Maraniss writes,“most members of the Choom Gang were decent students and athletes who went on to successful and productive lawyers, writers and businessmen,” Maraniss writes. One notable exception was Ray, the group’s pot dealer who, known for his ability “to score quality bud,” would years later be killed by a scorned gay lover armed with a ball-peen hammer.
Maraniss notes that Obama, in a high school yearbook, acknowledged the hippie drug dealer, Ray, who sold the Choom Gang pot, but didn’t acknowledge his own mother.
“Thanks Tut, Gramps, Choom Gang, and Ray,” Obama wrote,“for all the good times.”
Of course he forgot his mother, she is white, and Obama has been running away from that since he was little.
The only thing i so far like about Obama is that he is deporting illegals more than any other President, and his token resistance to the pot industry is a joke, shut down the states ability to pass medical marijuana laws and go after the drugs stores.
But i believe that when the Mexicians and Muslims run this nation, there will war like never seeen before here, because the whites will have been diarmed by the left and the fools believing the left logic for a safe planet. Funny that criminals never follow the law and always have guns...

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

One of Obama’s old friends at the school, Tom Topolinski, told Maraniss:“Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”
Obama helped popularized the concept of “roof hits,” as well, writes Maraniss.
“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”
Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”:“When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”
Maraniss notes that Obama, looking back later in life on those days, made it sound as though he was hanging out with a group of misbegotten n’er-do-wells, what he called “the club of disaffection.”
“In fact,” Maraniss writes,“most members of the Choom Gang were decent students and athletes who went on to successful and productive lawyers, writers and businessmen,” Maraniss writes. One notable exception was Ray, the group’s pot dealer who, known for his ability “to score quality bud,” would years later be killed by a scorned gay lover armed with a ball-peen hammer.
Maraniss notes that Obama, in a high school yearbook, acknowledged the hippie drug dealer, Ray, who sold the Choom Gang pot, but didn’t acknowledge his own mother.
“Thanks Tut, Gramps, Choom Gang, and Ray,” Obama wrote,“for all the good times.”
Of course he forgot his mother, she is white, and Obama has been running away from that since he was little.
The only thing i so far like about Obama is that he is deporting illegals more than any other President, and his token resistance to the pot industry is a joke, shut down the states ability to pass medical marijuana laws and go after the drugs stores.
But i believe that when the Mexicians and Muslims run this nation, there will war like never seeen before here, because the whites will have been diarmed by the left and the fools believing the left logic for a safe planet. Funny that criminals never follow the law and always have guns...

What is your opinion of the effect of the right wing's unqualified support of gun control laws such as Lyndon Johnson's 1968 Act on the legitimacy of more recent gun control laws? Additionally could you point to the text in the 2nd Amendment that allows congress to decide who has these rights?

That is like needles make me use drugs or spoons make me fat!

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your opinion of the effect of the right wing's unqualified support of gun control laws such as Lyndon Johnson's 1968 Act on the legitimacy of more recent gun control laws? Additionally could you point to the text in the 2nd Amendment that allows congress to decide who has these rights?

I am against any think, person, law, regulation, treaty, ordance that in any way or any shape has any remote way, method, of restricting any American from owning as many guns and any type that they want, in any way.

There are too many nations that had guns that are no w/o guns because the politicians say so....

Now did you go register yet?

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your opinion of the effect of the right wing's unqualified support of gun control laws such as Lyndon Johnson's 1968 Act on the legitimacy of more recent gun control laws? Additionally could you point to the text in the 2nd Amendment that allows congress to decide who has these rights?

How many times the USSC need to uphold the second Amendment before the people tell the regulators to STFU.

based on the second we should have the most modern weaponry of the day without restriction from border to border.

Gun control is illegal in all forms and no matter where it comes from,local,county,state,or federal governments are restricted from regulating the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
How many times the USSC need to uphold the second Amendment before the people tell the regulators to STFU.
based on the second we should have the most modern weaponry of the day without restriction from border to border.
Gun control is illegal in all forms and no matter where it comes from,local,county,state,or federal governments are restricted from regulating the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

That isn't exactly the state of the law. As J. Alito explained in Heller the congress is free to maintain bans on ownership and possession of firearms as long as the prohibited persons system is defined. The list began with violent criminals and the clearly insane. Since then it has been extended to include anyone convicted of an offense that carries a maximum of more than a year in jail (in NM that could mean probation for a $26 bad check 50 years ago), anyone who smokes a joint at any time, anyone getting prescription pain meds long enough to be termed addicted and now a class of misdemeanor, but interestingly enough, not habitual drunkenness. Beginning to see a pattern? That is hardly a right not to be infringed. All the congress need do is add you to the list.

The principle works this way. When they come for you only the only ones you can look to to save you will be those even more conformist than you. The government need not confiscate all the guns if they continue to deny arms to all but the government loyalists. That is where we are headed.

The point of placing items in the constitution and placing a high bar for amendment is to eliminate legislating enemies of the state and a graduated system of citizenship. Since that is too high we have accepted the right be defined by statute. Where is that in the Constitution?

Why are we willing to accept clearly unconstitutional laws to regulate a right that may not be infringed? Because we are a soft and terrified country and the powers that wish to rule know that. Accept this infringement and you will be safer. bingo! Then the courts decide that any governmental interest trumps the rights of the individual and your constitution has been routed. This is how we got welfare and it is how you will eventually be disarmed by your neighbor who will vote his fear of your gun just like every generation in the last century. Frog in the heating water.

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
That isn't exactly the state of the law. As J. Alito explained in Heller the congress is free to maintain bans on ownership and possession of firearms as long as the prohibited persons system is defined. The list began with violent criminals and the clearly insane. Since then it has been extended to include anyone convicted of an offense that carries a maximum of more than a year in jail (in NM that could mean probation for a $26 bad check 50 years ago), anyone who smokes a joint at any time, anyone getting prescription pain meds long enough to be termed addicted and now a class of misdemeanor, but interestingly enough, not habitual drunkenness. Beginning to see a pattern? That is hardly a right not to be infringed. All the congress need do is add you to the list.
The principle works this way. When they come for you only the only ones you can look to to save you will be those even more conformist than you. The government need not confiscate all the guns if they continue to deny arms to all but the government loyalists. That is where we are headed.
The point of placing items in the constitution and placing a high bar for amendment is to eliminate legislating enemies of the state and a graduated system of citizenship. Since that is too high we have accepted the right be defined by statute. Where is that in the Constitution?
Why are we willing to accept clearly unconstitutional laws to regulate a right that may not be infringed? Because we are a soft and terrified country and the powers that wish to rule know that. Accept this infringement and you will be safer. bingo! Then the courts decide that any governmental interest trumps the rights of the individual and your constitution has been routed. This is how we got welfare and it is how you will eventually be disarmed by your neighbor who will vote his fear of your gun just like every generation in the last century. Frog in the heating water.

Did you vote? Did you register yet?

Here is a pretty good history of the disarming of America. It does skip the Lautenburg(sp?) Amendment, but otherwise FDR started it. It lay doemant till LBJ picked it back up. Since then both parties piled on.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

Michael Morris wrote:

Here is a pretty good history of the disarming of America. It does skip the Lautenburg(sp?) Amendment, but otherwise FDR started it. It lay doemant till LBJ picked it back up. Since then both parties piled on.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

So did you vote or register yet?

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

<quoted text>
So did you vote or register yet?

Yes. My registration number is 2516453. Any more questions Maricon?

Mike,

Yes we have become cowards and it's odd that you mention the laws that were not enforced before now being used to disarm Americans. Last deer season I was going to go hunting with a friend that I have been hunting with for over 30 years and he decided he was going to buy a new deer rifle for hunting that used a smaller cartridge because he said he thought he was getting to old to shoot his old Rifles and they hurt his arms to much, well he went to bass-pro and found him a little Savage .243 rifle and was going to buy it when his back ground check came back that he was not allowed to own or buy any firearms, why ?, after 30 years of buying legal firearms did this happen and they suddenly decided he could no longer own firearms,? well you tell me, but they claim it is because in 1968 he was on leave in Tokyo Japan at a bar when he was attacked by 5 marines that were drunk and he defended himself and he was charged with assault and it was later dropped, well to make a long story short, since he was charged with a felony, yet never convicted he is no longer allowed to own firearms, now mind you he was never charged, only arrested for a felony and being only arrested was enough for him to lose his rights to own a firearm.
I miss hunting with my buddy, the man got maybe two speeding tickets his entire life and was never ever arrested for anything else, yet he can not own a firearm.

As far as us becoming cowards ?, yup I agree and we have good reason to be, with the new defense bill that pretty much allows us to be killed on the Presidents whims or the new Patriot act that allows us to be arrested with out due process, who can blame us for being cowards ?.

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
That isn't exactly the state of the law. As J. Alito explained in Heller the congress is free to maintain bans on ownership and possession of firearms as long as the prohibited persons system is defined. The list began with violent criminals and the clearly insane. Since then it has been extended to include anyone convicted of an offense that carries a maximum of more than a year in jail (in NM that could mean probation for a $26 bad check 50 years ago), anyone who smokes a joint at any time, anyone getting prescription pain meds long enough to be termed addicted and now a class of misdemeanor, but interestingly enough, not habitual drunkenness. Beginning to see a pattern? That is hardly a right not to be infringed. All the congress need do is add you to the list.
The principle works this way. When they come for you only the only ones you can look to to save you will be those even more conformist than you. The government need not confiscate all the guns if they continue to deny arms to all but the government loyalists. That is where we are headed.
The point of placing items in the constitution and placing a high bar for amendment is to eliminate legislating enemies of the state and a graduated system of citizenship. Since that is too high we have accepted the right be defined by statute. Where is that in the Constitution?
Why are we willing to accept clearly unconstitutional laws to regulate a right that may not be infringed? Because we are a soft and terrified country and the powers that wish to rule know that. Accept this infringement and you will be safer. bingo! Then the courts decide that any governmental interest trumps the rights of the individual and your constitution has been routed. This is how we got welfare and it is how you will eventually be disarmed by your neighbor who will vote his fear of your gun just like every generation in the last century. Frog in the heating water.

The dope smoker in high school and college who gave props to his dope smoking buddies in the “Choom Gang,” but not his rich white granny who paid for his private schools! I would bet a $1000.00 that if Obama took a piss test right now, he’d pop positive.

Skuttlebutt wrote:

The dope smoker in high school and college who gave props to his dope smoking buddies in the “Choom Gang,” but not his rich white granny who paid for his private schools! I would bet a $1000.00 that if Obama took a piss test right now, he’d pop positive.

And if you took an IQ test you would score as plant life. It must be hell for a racist such as yourself to accept that he is President of the United States and you are nothing, never been anything and will die nothing. That is what really angers you, isn't it?

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
And if you took an IQ test you would score as plant life. It must be hell for a racist such as yourself to accept that he is President of the United States and you are nothing, never been anything and will die nothing. That is what really angers you, isn't it?

So you believe that the President is greater than those who vote to elect him?

or is He just greater than the ones who voted against him?

Or are you just an idiot that didn't think before he posted?

or are you just opposed to free speech,free thought and free elections?

Would like to silence anyone who disagrees with you?

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe that the President is greater than those who vote to elect him?
or is He just greater than the ones who voted against him?
Or are you just an idiot that didn't think before he posted?
or are you just opposed to free speech,free thought and free elections?
Would like to silence anyone who disagrees with you?

You sure jump to a lot of conclusions there. I didn't try to silence the racist jackass. It is sort of funny to listen to those with no ambition or accomplishment sling crap. If placing the poster in perspective upsets you then that is your problem.

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
You sure jump to a lot of conclusions there. I didn't try to silence the racist jackass. It is sort of funny to listen to those with no ambition or accomplishment sling crap. If placing the poster in perspective upsets you then that is your problem.

Is everyone a racist that doesn't bow down to the chosen one?

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
And if you took an IQ test you would score as plant life. It must be hell for a racist such as yourself to accept that he is President of the United States and you are nothing, never been anything and will die nothing. That is what really angers you, isn't it?

I think you hit a nerve among the armchair warriors.

da boy is in over his head!

Michael Morris wrote:

<quoted text>
You sure jump to a lot of conclusions there. I didn't try to silence the racist jackass. It is sort of funny to listen to those with no ambition or accomplishment sling crap. If placing the poster in perspective upsets you then that is your problem.

So it's all good for you to speculate on another posters accomplishments but it's not ok for other to do the same to you?

The conclusions you claimed that I jumped to are actually what your post infered, for a jail house lawyer you're really not to bright when it comes to the written word and how to brace yourself for the impact your lack of ability has with those who interact with you.

Now let's get back to my questions.

Do you think the President is greater than those who elect him?

Or is he just greater than those who voter against him?