No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says

[babsbunny]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/no-change-in-marijuana-laws-coming-white-house-says/

Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) – President Barack Obama isn't looking to change current federal laws dictating the classification of marijuana, his spokesman explained Wednesday.

Josh Earnest, the deputy press secretary, said Obama "does not, at this point, advocate a change in the law" that places marijuana in the same class of drugs as heroin, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, and which deems cannabis to have no medical use.

Responding to a question from CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin, Earnest described the Obama administration's position on marijuana as mainly focused on prosecuting drug traffickers rather than individual users.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. More hope and change?

[drhobo]

6. the war on drugs is needed to help justify the militarization of the police

Without the premise of busting heavily armed drug dealers, it would be hard to explain why police depts need all the goodies they have received in recent years.

[Daniel537]

21. Yep, same with the "War on Terror" used to justify the shredding of the 4th amendment. n/t

[RainDog]

39. Senate Sub-committee report: The war on drugs is a racket

A U.S. Senate subcommittee report (released Dec. 2011) called into question efforts to curb drug exports from Latin America, suggesting that billions in tax dollars had been wasted in no-bid contracts with no oversight on how the money was being spent or whether efforts were succeeding.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that our efforts to rein in the narcotics trade in Latin America, especially as it relates to the government's use of contractors, have largely failed," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, said in a media advisory. "Without adequate oversight and management we are wasting tax dollars and throwing money at a problem without even knowing what we're getting in return."

The McCaskill report indicates that U.S. taxpayers have shelled out over $3 billion for work and equipment related to the drug war in Latin America from 2005-2009, and most of that money went to private contractors.

McCaskill launched the inquiry after looking into counternarcotics efforts underway in Afghanistan. However, neither the Department of Defense nor the State Dept. were able to provide adequate documentation on their contracts and in many cases could not even identify firms that were given millions in tax dollars.

Five major defense contractors received the bulk of drug war contract spending: Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, DynCorp, ARINC and ITT. Out of all the firms, DynCorp benefitted most, winning $1.1 billion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117026

[Blanks]

48. The 'corrections industry' would collapse...

If they let pot smokers out of prison - it would hurt the economy.

It's big business you know. A real growth industry.

[progressoid]

38. No hope for change.

[Lint Head]

127. We were just giving the hope that things would change not the change.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. Barack Obama is wrong about this, and he deserves scorn for his continued position.

Hypocrite.

[Phlem]

53. He is a Hypocrite!

I saw coming a mile away a while ago but try and say something about in DU.



-p

[Jesus Malverde]

3. Change isn't coming....it's here.

The White House will one day catch up with the people.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. damn right it's here.

[msongs]

4. the alcohol peddlers & DEA's bloated bureaucracy rejoice nt

[malthaussen]

5. Obviously, as a former doper himself...

... Mr Obama realizes that smoking pot may lead one to run for President.

-- Mal

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. heh.

[City Lights]

7. Surprise, surprise, surprise. nt

[Safetykitten]

8. Just in...Dorritos parent company stock dives.

[bunnies]

9. .

[LaydeeBug]

10. This is v disappointing. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

11. I'm so pissed off right now, I can't even think of anything to say except cuss words.

I am sorry I ever voted for this man.

[hobbit709]

12. And no change in my attitude towards the administration is coming.

[AmyStrange]

13. How can that be true?

-

Holder has already said minimum sentencing laws for drugs should be changed, that seems like a change to me?

I know some people may argue with me that this is not a change in Marijuana laws, but in MY opinion it is a change. Isn't it?

d

-

[Bonobo]

99. Consistent.

Talk about change.

Do not actually implement it.

[AmyStrange]

106. ha ha

-

the only thing that's changing is their minds

Thanx Bono

d

-

[pscot]

111. Sleight of hand

Keep the shells moving,

[Bonobo]

113. Which one do I look at? Which one do I look at?

Answer: Look at the one that fits with what you WANT TO BELIEVE.

Its like the internet. Choose the website that gives you the "information" that supports your worldview.

The Obama admin provides us with that service.

Eternal hope IS possible through careful image management.

[MH1]

103. Not a change in law, a change in the approach to prosecution.

Sounds like it will result in potentially lighter sentences. It could be a significant improvement for some offenders, but not the change we are really looking for.

[AmyStrange]

110. Question M...

-

if 2/3rds of the states actually legalize marijuana, can it be spun to mean that a new amendment to the Constitution could be implied by this fact?

Does that make sense?

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you with this. I just thought of this a couple of minutes ago, you were next on my reply list, and you seem like a thinker,

d

-

[RainDog]

121. I've wondered about this too

as in... at what point is it worthless for the feds to continue doing what they're doing when states simply ignore them because they're too corrupt, apparently, to change bad law that denies funding for certain groups?

the idea with state-by-state legalization is that this action puts pressure on states that keep the old law on the books because they will lose revenue as people in their state drive to a nearby legal one and spend their disposable income on hotels, stores, nightlife, museums and so on in those other states.

even if marijuana does not bring in the tax revenue anticipated, the revenue from neighboring states would put pressure on those neighboring states to change their laws to gain back some of this lost income.

this relates to the idea that Richard Florida talked about - that people in growth sectors of the job market, educated people, etc. etc. choose, whenever possible, to live in areas that are more liberal in attitude and action - until costs drive out the artists and musicians that made a place attractive in the first place. it's harder for states to attract businesses when the people they want to work for them don't want to live in those states. I know a lot of people who would never apply for jobs in some states, simply because the govt. is so regressive.

Only a decade, DECADE after DC passed it mmj bill, Congress finally appropriated funds to enact the law. The first dispensary in Washington DC opened not long ago.

This has prompted one lawyer to claim that Congress has, in essence, legalized medical marijuana in every state because of the equal protection clause. I hope this is one route marijuana activists will pursue.

It would be great to give Congress an "out" to say... oops. Because some people in this nation will never get past reefer madness. If they lack the political courage to do the right thing, outright, they could at least do the right thing and then pretend they didn't mean to. lol.

[AmyStrange]

122. Very well said...

-

thank you RainDog for sharing.

You're right of course. As a matter of fact, the need for more tax revenue is what finally got the US out of alcohol prohibition, or so I've heard.

And a very interesting theory about the DC mmj congressional funding vote, VERY interesting.

Again, thank you RD,

d

-

[MH1]

158. Intriguing thought, but I don't think so.

I believe there is a particular process that has to be followed for a constitutional amendment, which starts with it being passed by both houses of Congress. Then the amendment has to be ratified by a certain number of states.

For one thing, the exact text of the amendment would have to be agreed on. Even though several states have some sort of MMJ law, the laws are not exactly the same.

Also, a constitutional amendment really isn't required for MMJ and I'm not sure it is appropriate, because MMJ is a more complicated artifact than what would make a great constitutional amendment: that a person can't be thrown in jail for growing ANY plant as long as it is only for their own personal consumption (but allowing the gov't to stipulate that certain substances can't be given to children because of known toxicity). Now, to me that is where we probably should go, but that's a rather different direction than MMJ. MMJ would still be needed for people who aren't capable of growing their own but need it medically anyway. Then there is the question of legalizing commercial sales for recreational use.

All that said, if 2/3 of the states legalized MMJ, one would surely hope that we could vote out enough of the drug war profiteers and supporters to get some action at the federal level.

(Thanks for the compliment. Sorry I am responding so late; I probably went offline shortly after that post.)

[AmyStrange]

163. Didn't they bypass that whole process with alcohol prohibition?

-

obviously the process isn't totally set in stone. It can be manipulated. And I'm thinking more in the recreational legalization more than medical. but medical has more states at the moment, so it is the thing to watch right now for future problems.

But, I think you're probably right. Ain't going to happen, but that is so ironic when you think about what the original Constitution was written on,

d

-

[Le Taz Hot]

14. . . .

Of COURSE not!

[RainDog]

15. Time for Congress to Step Up

Democrats have written legislation to regulate marijuana like alcohol. It's time for Democrats to lead the way, in Congress, to change laws based upon racism and sustained by lies.

http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=318723

Washington, Feb 5, 2013 -Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) today introduced two pieces of legislation to de-federalize marijuana policy and create a framework for the federal taxation of cannabis. Polis’ Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act would remove the Drug Enforcement Agency’s authority over marijuana and allow states to choose whether to allow marijuana for medicinal or recreational use. Blumenauer’s Marijuana Tax Equity Act would create a federal excise tax on marijuana. Together, these bills would provide a system of regulation and taxation for marijuana in states where it is legal.

“We are in the process of a dramatic shift in the marijuana policy landscape,” said Blumenauer. “Public attitude, state law, and established practices are all creating irreconcilable difficulties for public officials at every level of government. We want the federal government to be a responsible partner with the rest of the universe of marijuana interests while we address what federal policy should be regarding drug taxation, classification, and legality.”

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act follows Colorado’s model of regulating marijuana like alcohol by:

-Removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act;
-Transferring the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, which will be tasked with regulating marijuana as it currently does alcohol;
-Requiring marijuana producers to purchase a permit, as commercial alcohol producers do, of which the proceeds would offset the cost of federal oversight; and,
-Ensuring federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.
-States could choose to continue to prohibit marijuana production or use in their states and it would remain illegal to transport marijuana to a state where it is prohibited.

[SunSeeker]

68. +1

[Socal31]

17. Somewhere tonight there will be a $5,000.00 bottle of Pinot Noir opened.

The people enjoying it will be BigPharma lobbyists.

[Billy Pilgrim]

18. We're jumping the gun.

Obama is not a dictator, and cannot change marijuana laws himself. Revisions to US drug policy have to be made first. Those revisions are already supported by Eric Holder. After the revisions are made, then and only then can the Obama administration support a reclassification of marijuana. Public opinion is on our side. Our Attorney General has already come out for reform. It is happening, just not yet.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. yeah, right. I believe Holder about as far as I can throw him.

[RainDog]

22. Holder has supported sentencing reform

Because, in this nation, you can go to jail for life for possession of a substance that is less harmful than a cup of coffee, based upon the sentencing laws the rightwing has inflicted upon this nation.

Reagan, Gringrich, et al remain a cancer on the ass of humanity by the legacy of three strikes and mandatory minimums.

[Marrah_G]

25. He is always impotent unless something positive happens

and then he is fucking superman.

[RainDog]

28. LOL n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

143. ...

[burnodo]

37. Oh bullshit

He's the president of the United States of America. If he can't make something happen what he fuck is he doing there???

[marsis]

152. Obviously

doing the bidding of the puppet masters. Worse than Bush on this front, disgusting hypocrite. Dare I say something about Chicago Democrats?

[Comrade Grumpy]

40. Wrong. The Justice Department has the authority to seek rescheduling.

Still, I'm not a big fan of rescheduling. That would just mean I'd have to have a doctor's permission to smoke weed.

It needs to be de-scheduled.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. In case you don't know the history,

it was Nixon who talked Congress into letting him, the president, assign cannabis as a Schedule I drug. That was right after the study he commissioned to affirm his Reefer Madness preconceptions about cannabis came out and said, "Nope. Not bad for ya." (OK paraphrasing here.) Nixon flew into a rage, assigned cannabis as a Schedule I drug, began the War on Drugs and we're still saddled with this disastrous program in 2013. So, iow, since a president was the one who assigned cannabis as a Schedule I, a president can re-assign it if he so chooses to do so. Apparently he does not so choose to do so .

[Billy Pilgrim]

98. If that's true, well, that's sad

and I retract my statement.

[Art_from_Ark]

170. I'm not sure if it was Nixon who really got the War on Drugs rolling

It seems to me that dope was pretty much out in the open in a lot of places back in the '70s. Reefer smoke was a pretty common smell in my dorms, and during various trips I took to New York City in 1978 and 1979, I saw guys with little trays handing out samples of giant reefers and various substances of dubious integrity on street corners, calling out their names like they were selling hot dogs at the ball park.

[Le Taz Hot]

174. I'm talking about the "official" version

and actually naming it "War on Drugs." No, the unofficial war on drugs started in the early part of the 20th Century with the rise of . . . TA DA!. . . store-bought pharmaceuticals. Before that, most people could only afford and had access to home remedies.

But back to the War on Drugs. Read up on Nixon's role -- it's an interesting one. Did you know that he actually REMOVED mandatory sentencing for drug offenders? The War on Drugs actually started to die down under Ford and Carter but, enter Reagan, who jacked it up to the steroid level it is now.

[Art_from_Ark]

179. I admit, I wasn't really paying attention to the drug war under Nixon

This is basically all that I remember from it:

[winter is coming]

69. Eric Holder's "support" couldn't hold up a helium-filled balloon.

At a time when we needed an AG willing to work hard to undo the bad policies of the Bush years, we got a don't-rock-the-boat placeholder.

[cali]

132. I think that the administration could change marijuana classification by itself

and that would be a huge change.

[Daniel537]

19. I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED I SAY!!!!!

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. Why can't he just order a study on the medical uses or something?

All of America has seen Sanjay Gupta's Weed at this point, and we know there's compelling evidence of medical uses that indicate it should not be schedule 1, but classified with other controlled substances with medical uses. If Obama were to at least kick the ball down the road, and ask for a study to be reviewed by congress at a later point for possible reclassification of schedule, (does NOT mean legalization) he could avoid looking like this Nixon type, battling hippies when all science points against him. Obama was never the super far left guy, but Obama HAS been a science positive guy, and he's risking breaking that trend here.

[RainDog]

26. Obama could instruct Holder to have the DEA reclassify

Based upon the existing studies of medical usage AND recreational uses.

The DEA has a report that was commissioned by Nixon that recommended decriminalization of marijuana. Their own commission, which conducted the largest study EVER concerning cannabis, noted that the govt's position was based upon lies.

Yet here we are, decades later, still living with those same lies.

There is NO SCIENCE to support the current administration position. If they cared about the science, the administration would call upon the DEA to change the drug schedule immediately and would call upon Congress to pass the Polis legislation.

No respect for this administration regarding this issue. They don't deserve it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

74. lol! Poor Nixon. My apologies.

That criminal president, smeared by history for ... wait for it... spying on several people. And now I learn of that. These are crazy times indeed.

[RainDog]

101. Nixon refused to take the advice of the best experts

because marijuana was associated with the enemies on his list - jews, psychiatrists, hippies, african-americans... this is not an exaggeration.

in his white house tapes he talks about this in relation to Jews

[Later on in this conversation tape, Bob Haldeman left, and
George Schultz entered with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. The
following is from that segment. The President and Daley are
talking about how Chicago approaches drugs.]

RN: "Well, let me tell you one thing that just happened here
because it probably wasn't, I'm sure it wasn't in the press here,
I had a press conference in California which was not televised,
but, I was asked about marijuana because a study is being made by
a, group, [unintelligible] the government. Now, my position is
flat-out on that. I am against legalizing marijuana. Now I'm
against legalizing marijuana because, I know all the arguments
about, well, marijuana is no worse than whiskey, or etc. etc.
etc. But the point is, once you cross that line, from the
straight society to the drug society -- marijuana, then speed,
then it's LSD, then it's heroin, etc. then you're done. But the
main point is -- well, well we conduct, well this commission will
come up with a number of recommendations perhaps with regard to,
[unintelligible] the penalties more, because [unintelligible] too
far in this respect. As far as legalizing them is concerned, I
think we've got to take a strong stand, one way or the other,
and, uh."

RD: "Against, uh."

RN: "Against legalizing. That's the position that I take. Because
I think if we legalized it, take the, then, then, your high
school and elementary kid, well why not? It [unintelligible]."






May 26, 1971, Time: 10:03 am - 11:35 am -- Oval Office
Conversation: 505-4 -- Meeting with Nixon and HR 'Bob' Haldeman

RN: "Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong
statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this
sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?"

HRH: "Sure."

RN: "I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.
I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it.
You know it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are
out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the
matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I
suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists, you know,
there's so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By
God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it
right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on
that. More [ unintelligible ] work with somebody else with this."

HRH: "Mm hmm, yep."

RN: "I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of
thing."

http://www.csdp.org/research/nixonpot.txt

[napoleon_in_rags]

105. And back my impression of Nixon goes... Great stuff.

I knew I was talking about something in my first post. The battle against the hippies seems very Nixonian, but I confess I don't know much about his history. I just know the gist of Watergate. Thanks for informing me! I'm learning a lot on this thread.

But I love that: Every one of the bastards that are
out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the
matter with the Jews?

What the Christ is the matter with the Jews? In a Nixon voice. That will forever come to mind as the mantra of MMJ prohibition to me.

[RainDog]

108. LOLOL

Have you ever seen Dick?

Whenever you have a few hours and need to laugh... watch All the President's Men and then Dick. One of the plot lines fits right into this thread, in fact. lol.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/

[AmyStrange]

131. Nixon actually appeared on Laugh-In...

-

"Sock it to me?"

Laugh-In was the SNL of the 60s,

d

-

[RainDog]

151. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them?

LOLOL!

I cannot stop saying this in my horribly bad Nixon impersonation voice. I'm tempted use it as a sig line, but I don't want people to misunderstand without context.

I just keep coming back, in my fight with insomnia, to read that paragraph.

[napoleon_in_rags]

165. It's all about shaking your jowels while you say it..

"Whatsh thuh matter with thuh jeeooosss..." say it like that while shaking your head back and forth rapidly and you can't go wrong with your Nixon voice.

[RainDog]

102. and here's the full commission report

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

...criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance.

When the issue was brought up again, in regard to medical marijuana, the DEA's own judge, Francis Young, said -

"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

[AmyStrange]

114. It was a kind of bait and switch... Catch 22... one of those things

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 03:26 AM - Edit history (1)

-

In 1970, Egeberg recommended pot be classified Schedule 1 until these studies tell us more. I kid you not. Here's my source (Dr. Gupta was on the short list to be Surgeon General by Obama)....

==========
Why I changed my mind on weed
By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent
updated 8:44 PM EDT, Thu August 8, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana

" ...On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years. My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:

"'Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue.'

"Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25 years earlier... "

-
added link to full article

[RainDog]

126. yeah, that was Nixon's "out" to ignore the recommendation

it was supposed to be revisited - and when it was, and was again recommended as medically safe, the drug warriors created a standard for scheduling that would never allow a plant to be classified as medicine.

we now have ample evidence that cannabis is not a schedule 1 substance (i.e. no medical value.)

even so, as a plant, cannabis cannot meet the standard of a medicine, according to the way in which medicines are established for use in this nation.

...which is why Jared Polis' legislation is good stuff because it removes cannabis from the oversight of the DEA and puts in under the bureau of tobacco, firearms, alcohol... and marijuana.

If the plant were simply decriminalized at the federal level, it would be possible for states to work out their laws without the interference of those federales who are in the pocket of one lobbying group or another.

[AmyStrange]

130. And talk about Catch 22, having to get the NIDA's approval before you can do medical research...

-

on marijuana. What the hell is that all about?! The NIDA's (National Institute on Drug Abuse) specific mission is to find things wrong with drugs, not good things.

By the way the link to the article above by Dr. Gupta:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana

-
added "Dr." before "Gupta" in the second sentence

[RainDog]

135. yeah, I'm familiar with his change of mind

what took him so long... lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023426380

the drug policy forum, here, has links to a lot of research and documents related to the issue of cannabis legalization and drug policy reform, as well.

Gupta is saying things that people have noted here for years.

[tridim]

44. The administration supports MMJ in legal states. nt

[theaocp]

75. Based on what evidence? n/t

[tridim]

139. The thousands of legally operating dispensaries with no Fed intervention at all.

Everyone ignores them because there are following the law.

[napoleon_in_rags]

83. DEA Continues Crackdown on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

http://news.yahoo.com/dea-continues-crackdown-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-172506568.html

Thats what I'm seeing. In fairness, its not clear if its a chilling meassage but its pretty ambiguous.

[Egalitarian Thug]

84. Sure it does, that's why it's persecuting all of the largest, best run, and most transparent

dispensaries along the west coast. It just follows that insisting that it remain a schedule one substance, as one of the very worst drugs with no medicinal value whatsoever is a clear indication of its support.

With support like that...

[Egalitarian Thug]

125. Nothing at all. To even suggest such a thing would be be so cynical as to border on traitorous.

The Democrats are our friends. They are doing all that is possible. Nothing else can even be hoped for. Trust and obey our leaders, they will take care of us.

[cali]

133. it does NOT. That is a complete falsehood. you have a lot of nerve to say that shit.

[tridim]

138. ^ Every one of these responses is a lie.

The administration supports MMJ in legal states. Period.

They don't support dispensaries in legal states that break the law, nor do I.

[RainDog]

142. This is BULLSHIT

As I already noted - Harborside, which provided mmj for the kid with epilepsy (actually, not the girl here, but another child) was targeted by the justice dept.

If the City of Oakland is suing Holder - that means the administration was going after a legally operating - and the longest standing dispensary, as well - in CA.

The Cole Memo, which I note, below, EXPRESSLY STATES THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT SUPPORT DISPENSARIES OR GROWERS and considers them targets for prosecution.

What the administration has said is that they do not consider medical marijuana PATIENTS targets for prosecution - this is prosecutorial discretion and the administration has EXPLICITLY stated they do not include the infrastructure of dispensaries and growers in this group that isn't worth prosecution.

That is VASTLY different than saying the administration supports mmj in legal states.

[tridim]

144. So the thousands of legally operating dispensaries with no fed intervention at all aren't real?

If the admin's view is as you claim, those dispensaries would all be tied up with endless legal battles with the fed. They are not.

You're wrong. Sorry.

[RainDog]

147. LOL

okay. then Obama is wrong too, as is his spokesperson who reiterated the admin continues the Cole memo policy.

the reality is that the feds cannot arrest their way out of legalization.

but they can create burdens to make it expensive to operate a facility, create a climate of uncertainty, and randomly target people who are abiding by the laws in which they are attempting to operate.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

156. Do we really need to give you a dictionary definition of "supports"?

You seem to be able to string sentences together in response to other posts, so it's not a literacy problem you're having. It must be an agenda problem you're experiencing. Sorry to hear about that.

[cali]

148. It does not- no matter how many times you repeat that ludicrous claim

The admin has stepped up busts of registered legal medical marijuana dispensary raids.

Obama: Marijuana Dispensary Busts by Feds Aren't About to Stop

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/04/marijuana_obama_prosecution_rolling_stone.php

stop making shit up. It's disgraceful.

SHAME ON YOU

[DisgustipatedinCA]

155. That's an obvious-on-its-face lie.

[dflprincess]

104. Because Pharma wouldn't like it

A recent survey said most doctors would prescribe it if they could so the medical evidence is already there.

When my brother's oncologist prescibed marinol for him he did say "Many of my patients find a more natural form of this works better." - Minnesota doesn't allow medical marijuana so he had to word it that way because he can't legally tell his patients to smoke weed (not that my brother ever needed someone else to encourage him to indulge).

[Marrah_G]

24. It's a good thing he didn't get caught when he was younger

Otherwise his entire life would have ended up quite differently.

[olddots]

29. you said it best

he has to lead by example---wish he would .

[SammyWinstonJack]

149. Wonder how he would address that question should it be asked of him.

[villager]

27. Of course not. That would be actual "change," instead of bullshit lip service

n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Droolingly stupid.

Bad politics, bad science and just more of the same.

[Phlem]

61. welcome to my ignore list.

AW

-p

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Mojo Electro]

31. "White House says"

White House says, do they?

Before too long there won't be much they can do about it. The tipping point has been reached.

[RandiFan1290]

32. Cowards

When families like the Figis need him the most he lets us down. You want these parents in jail, Mr President?




Choom this

[tridim]

43. The Figis have full access to MMJ in their state. Zero Federal intervention. nt

[hobbit709]

47. There's lots of places with legal MMJ and plenty of Federal intervention.

[RainDog]

95. And Holder has prosecuted the dispensary that supplies this mmj

And the city of Oakland has sued Holder to allow the dispensary to remain open.

Holder is on the wrong side of history here.

You are incorrect to say that there was zero federal intervention. Harborside was raided and its owner has been charged with crimes and the dispensary is threatened with closure.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/oakland-sues-attorney-general-holder-cha

Oct. 11, 2012 3:44 pm

Yesterday the city of Oakland, California, sued Attorney General Eric Holder and Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, challenging the Justice Department's forfeiture of the property that has been occupied by Harborside Health Center, the state's largest medical marijuana dispensary, since 2006. The city's complaint, prepared by the San Francisco firm Morrison & Foerster, argues that the forfeiture action, initiated last July, exceeded the five-year time limit prescribed by federal law, since by that point the city-licensed dispensary had been operating for almost six years. More intriguingly, the city argues that the forfeiture is barred by the principle of estoppel because for years Oakland officials reasonably relied on the federal government's assurances that it would not target medical marijuana suppliers unless they violated state law. Based on that understanding, the city created a regulatory system for dispensaries with which Harborside complied, and now the feds are saying all bets are off.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. the feds might consider not throwing terminally ill people in prison for smoking pot, for now

but they sure as shit aren't going to let them buy it or grow it.

[Hydra]

33. Just rolling out the stupid today, aren't they? n/t

[Demo_Chris]

34. This administration seriously sucks. nt

[burnodo]

35. Which is another lie

So joe schmedly who arranges for his friend to get a quarter should be prosecuted Barry? What happened to your drug use Barry? Did you get arrested? Should you be POTUS now? I hope all your brothers who are arrested for a joint agree with you when they can't ever become POTUS.

[tridim]

42. I heard a distinct, "At this point" in the quote.

I assume if you already hate Obama you'll ignore those three words and assume the worst. It's called FUD.

Legalization is coming, after the 2014 elections... At THAT point.

[RainDog]

46. "At the point" means

Obama is willing to throw liberals under the bus, still, rather than demonstrate leadership on this issue.

You don't have to hate Obama to see that he is not willing to stand with the majority of people in this nation in regard to this issue. This is the demonstrated reality.

Legalization is here.

The administration has refused to address this in regard to CO and WA.

[tridim]

56. No, it means there is no change at this point. AKA today.

It doesn't mean change won't come in the future.

The administration has already announced that they are seriously discussing CO and WA. Conclusions are forthcoming.

[Caretha]

63. Oh please

That's like saying spit in one hand & wish in the other and see which one fills up first.

Just fuckin' dumb. It's okay, I know you can't help it.

[Billy Pilgrim]

66. Exactly.

Thank you. Change is already happening. Change takes time as we all know.

Let's please try to have realistic expectations.

[RainDog]

97. It is realistic to expect Holder to weigh in on legalization in CO and WA

but he has failed to do so thus far, which prompted Jared Polis (D-CO) to say that he would not be sad if Holder stepped down as AG.

But you're right. Change is already happening.

19 states and DC now have medical marijuana laws.

2 states have legal marijuana laws.

At least 8 states have decriminalized marijuana.

For more than a decade, more than 70% of American voters have supported legalization of mmj.

Those at the level of the federal govt. have FAILED to respond to the will of the people regarding this issue.

The only reason for such a failure that I can possibly fathom is that the war on drugs makes a lot of money for certain groups - like military contractors, for-profit prison businesses, and protects the alcoholic beverage industry from competition by a product that is safer than alcohol.

Those are where the problems lie. With monied interests that want to put people in jail for using a substance less harmful than alcohol, less toxic than aspirin, and with far more medical benefits than either of those two substances.

[RainDog]

67. Jared Polis has repeatedly asked the admin to weigh in

on legalization in CO (and WA, for that matter.)

The time is here.

The administration is just too scared to lead.

[tridim]

140. As I just stated, the admin is already discussing CO and WA.

They are NOT stupid, and they are serious about it.

[RainDog]

146. Polis is complaining that Holder has failed to provide legislators information

about the stance of the federal govt. regarding legislation and, he said, Holder has AVOIDED addressing the issue.

So, you can claim whatever you'd like. The guy in the legislature that is leading the way on legalization at the federal level, however, disagrees with you.

No one said they are stupid.

What has been said is that they are FAILING TO LEAD or provide adequate information for those who are TASKED, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION voted into place in their states regarding this issue.

This isn't just some la-de-dah complaint.

Legislators have to PAY for the legislation they implement. They have to allocate funds and SPEND MONEY to create the infrastructure for a legal system of marijuana distribution, taxation and regulation. Polis wants to know that he will not be wasting taxpayer money on these necessary expenditures if the AG is going to turn around and bring down the IRS, the DEA, etc. etc. on these businesses, burdening them, too, with expenditures.

The legislation needs to be in place. Legislators want to know how the admin is going to respond because, otherwise, they don't want to waste taxpayer dollars if the AG, etc. are going to, again come down on the side of banksters laundering money for cartels rather than citizens who want to operate legal businesses.

[liberal_at_heart]

86. I'm not falling for that after the elections crap again. Obama can't be re-elected and Holder is

leaving office soon. There is no reason they can't call for a re-scheduling except maybe that they are receiving some pretty hefty lobbying checks. And the whole notion of waiting to do the right thing until after an election is cowardly. There are people suffering with debilitating diseases who need this medicine.

[Logical]

109. We heard the same shit about the 2012 elections! n-t

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. I believe I read this poster post exactly that about exactly this. After 2012... be patient! n/t

[tridim]

141. Yes it will occur after 2012.

My prediction has been 2014 for some time now, we need a real congress.

[cherokeeprogressive]

145. I think it changed after November 2012.

Some time now indeed.

[markpkessinger]

115. Right -- they'll do it in the next term. Oh, wait . . . n/t

[LearningCurve]

45. To be fair, Congress makes the laws

I can't see Obama taking up this losing cause, given the makeup of the House. I'm not saying he would if Democrats held a House majority, but this issue is a loser right now.

[burnodo]

49. Another issue where electoral politics defines morality

Woohoo!

[RainDog]

50. Why not force the libertarians to see Republicans in action, then?

If libertarians care so much about victimless crimes, why not force all those Republicans who will be running for office to come down on the side of lies?

The issue is not a loser now when two states have voted to legalize, and these votes were bipartisan.

The issue is not a loser now when 52% support TOTAL legalization of marijuana and more than 70% have supported legalization of medical marijuana for more than a decade.

The administration is a loser by its failure to address the lies that have allowed RACIST law to continue, unabated, for more than 70 years. They don't represent science or the will of the people.

But fat cats in the banking industry who were given a slap on the hand for laundering drug cartel money and defense contractors who get billions in no-bid contracts LOVE what this administration is doing in regard to this issue.

Money money money money... money.

[SunSeeker]

70. Exactly. Why doesn't Rand Paul introduce some legislation? nt

[burnodo]

73. he's probably against it

why, do you know something about Rand Paul's intentions?

[SunSeeker]

79. Nope. Why do you think Rand Paul is now against it? nt

[RainDog]

80. Republicans, including Paul, introduced hemp legislation

It's like the two parties divided the legislation so that the freaking numbnuts from the religious right couldn't get their panties in a wad over Republicans sponsoring the equivalent of the repeal of prohibition.

..because the Republicans are all about personal freedom and responsibility unless the issue concerns sex or sensibility.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/04/mitch-mcconnell-and-rand-paul-join-force

Supporters of industrial hemp gained a powerful ally in Washington several weeks ago when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined fellow Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul and Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) as a co-sponsor of S.359, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013. The House companion, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), has 28 co-sponsors. The bills would amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp, the domestic production of which has been illegal since 1970.

McConnell and Paul sponsored this because KY wants to be able to grow hemp as a cash crop... which they should most definitely be allowed to do.

[SunSeeker]

88. It only allows nonnarcotic industrial hemp, and it does not appear to be going anywhere.

Paul keeps enticing the youth vote with his talk of pot legalization. He should act on what he says.

Legalizing industrial hemp is a good first step though. Hope it passes, but unlikely with this Congress.

[burnodo]

90. so he only wants hemp legalized?

what does that have to do with anything?

[RainDog]

92. oh yeah, Paul is an ass

you just mentioned legislation and I just noted that the two parties have divvied up the legislation concerning cannabis into hemp and "marijuana" bills.

If it doesn't pass, you have to wonder who is paying to keep it illegal since, as you note, it has no psychotropic value.

[SunSeeker]

93. Agreed. Both Pauls are asses. nt

[cali]

134. yeah, but the administration could change classification which would make a

huge difference.

[CBGLuthier]

51. Hope for Change in one hand and shit in the other

Nothing ever changes and your hand smells bad.

[Cooley Hurd]

52. facepalm...

n/t!

[gopiscrap]

54. I am not surprised

[Phlem]

55. I remember when he lost the majority in congress

and I posted my displeasure about it here in DU because I had a very strong suspicion he didn't want a majority (the latter I was afraid to post being new).

I also the remember the mauling I got here.

He never wanted a majority, and here we are.



-p

[tridim]

58. That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on DU.

If you believe that, you're insane.

You took a drubbing because you deserved it.

[warrprayer]

57. Napoleon was right after all

[MNBrewer]

59. No hope. No change.

[Rex]

62. I didn't really expect change on that particular subject.

I mean I was hopeful, but guarded.

[Matariki]

64. Why not? Lots of privately owned prisons to fill?

[sorefeet]

65. After the CNN documentary

anyone who continues to deny medical marijuana is corrupt, plain and simple.

[liberal_at_heart]

120. I agree. We all know this medicine helps people. If Obama doesn't know that by now he is

being purposefully obtuse. Sick people need this medicine.

[Garion_55]

71. so done with this administration. whats hillarys stance btw?

if its the same bullshit im hearing now then i wont support her either.

[Chan790]

81. My first stop on positional questions for candidates.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm#Drugs

Of the 9 citations, none reference marijuana...but extrapolating a position from her other drug stances, I would expect she would be about the same on drug issues as the current administration.

[Garion_55]

85. blah.

stupid prison industrial complex buying and selling our politicians.

[NorthCarolina]

72. Well, it's not like he campaigned on CHANGE or anything.

Oh wait...

[SunSeeker]

77. Did Obama campaign on legalizing pot?

He campaigned on stopping the war in Iraq. He did that. He also pushed through healthcare reform that will cover 30 million who are uninsured, like my brother. I see a LOT of change for the better from this president.

I would love to see pot legal. But I realize he needs to pick his battles.

I don't recall him ever promising to legalize pot. Got a link?

[NorthCarolina]

78. He may as well have. that promise would have been as good as any of the others. nt

[SunSeeker]

82. Really? He didn't end the war in Iraq?

[NorthCarolina]

87. Really?

Remember the campaign talk about fixing NAFTA?...got TPP FAIL

Remember the campaign talk of a Public Option? Where is it? FAIL

Remember the campaign talk of protecting Social Security? He proposes Chained CPI FAIL

He could have pulled out of Iraq way sooner, but how many more had to die first?

There's plenty more, but I'm sure you know them already.

Anyway, glad you're happy with the POTUS and his "CHANGE", me...not so much.

[SunSeeker]

91. I'm glad the war in Iraq is over and my brother will finally be insured.

I'm sorry you're not.

[Bonobo]

100. About ending the war in Iraq.

First of all, the US had never been in a war that lasted a decade, so I hardly think that it ending as it did was any great surprise or accomplishment.

It is also an undeniable fact that the status of forces agreement which called for the troops to leave Iraq was negotiated in 2008 under the Bush administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Obama actually wanted to keep troops in Iraq but changed his mind at the last minute when Iraq denied US troops immunity against prosecution if they committed a crime.

[SunSeeker]

116. Obama never "wanted to keep the troops in Iraq." He was always against the war.

Your wikipedia link does not dispute that. Sure Bush thought the war would end quickly. Remember when he said it would just be a few months? Then it stretched into years. If McCain had been elected, it would have stretched into decades. And my brother would still not be able to buy health insurance because of his pre-existing condition. And we'd have two more Scalias on the Supreme Court instead of two progressive women. And the U.S. auto industry would be dead. And we'd be in a second Great Depression. And we'd still have DADT.

We did well with Obama. He kept the key promises that he made, except for Guantanamo, which he did try to close, but Congress blocked him. Same thing with immigration reform. He never promised to legalise pot, so I was not expecting change from him on that front. All the folks here who were expecting him to push to legalize pot simply weren't listening to his campaign speeches.

[LordGlenconner]

154. That's because he didn't campaign on it

However, he does have what I think is a good head on his shoulders. Given that, he should be able to figure out times have changed.

The fact of the matter is the country has now moved past reefer madness. Two states have fully legalized. Many more have medical pot. Public sentiment is CLEARLY in favor of decriminalization, at the very least.

Either he is so obtuse on this issue that facts are not entering into his thought process or there are other motives for keeping it schedule I. My question is what would those motives be?

I don't believe he can remove it himself from the list of Schedule I drugs, but he could at least be open to changing its status and say so. This status quo bullshit does not fit the mood of the nation on this particular issue. At all.

Does someone need to draw him a picture? I guess what is most disturbing is that politically, he has absolutely nothing to lose by coming out in support of its removal from Schedule I.

[SunSeeker]

157. When CA finally legalizes pot, then it will reach unstoppable momentum.

But we are simply not there yet. The last effort, CA Proposition 19, got only 46% of the vote in 2010. The backers of Prop 19 outspent their opponents by $3.7 million and still came up short. In freaking California.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/california-marijuana-legalization_n_2760513.html

Obama is not being obtuse. He's looking at the facts. If we want him to come out in favor of pot legalization/decriminalization, we need to come out and vote overwhelmingly for these initiatives in the big states.

[RainDog]

162. Prop 19 failed for a variety of reasons

One was that cannabis growers in northern CA were worried about losing their income - they are willing to take the legal risk for the higher return on their work. They lobbied against passage of the legalization bill - and they'll likely oppose any other bill, as well, unless there's some provision for them to protect their income.

Another is that the guy who started Oaksterdam was the principle behind the prop and others disagreed with the language in it - the provisions, because it allowed the Oaksterdam guy to run a huge cannabis warehouse and others were afraid of a monopoly (btw, last year, Oaksterdam was raided and the guy was so intimidated by the federales that he got out of legalization lobbying - I wonder if he was threatened with major jail time... anyway, that's Obama's AG office in action on this issue...)

The same problems with the language prevented Oregon from being one of the first legal states as well.

Colorado's amendment 64, on the other hand, is considered a much better written provision. Colorado has a strong libertarian Republican tradition - stronger than California's. The vote was bipartisan. There are a few strongholds of the religious rightwing in CO, but they are countered by the libertarians. Both "blue" and "red" counties voted for the amendment.

So, it's a bit disingenuous to point to CA and say we're not there yet because CA couldn't pass a bill that many disagreed with, even when they support legalization. Also, at the last minute, law enforcement orgs and the beer distributors industry put some substantial bucks into quashing the prop, and the prohibition talking heads were out in force.

In addition, Ahnuld decriminalized marijuana just before the vote to weaken support. One month before. This was purposefully done to harm the prop.

We're there when a governor decriminalizes by fiat in order to weaken a Proposition. We're also there when CA has had mmj dispensaries and use for more than 15 years and hell has not broken loose.

No doubt some politicians would prefer to have more states put props and amendments on their ballots to encourage voters in 2014, but this strategy ignores the need of CO and WA to have some guidance from the justice dept. as they work to implement the votes in their states.

In terms of population size, not the number of states - we are past there when you consider the combined populations of the 19 states/DC with mmj and the 2 states with legal mj law. Since CA not only has legal mmj and also decriminalized recreational marijuana on the books - they are so far ahead of the administration on this issue it's silly to claim Obama needs more motivation to take action.

[SunSeeker]

167. The main reason is the stoner & youth vote did not come out big time.

And all hell did break loose in some areas after mmj got voted in. Oaksterdam and a lot of the dispensaries were so over the top and in your face, with their huge neon light pot leaf signs and crazy names for what was supposed to be medicine like "Durbin Poison" or "Purple Kush," that local communities starting banning pot shops. You can't walk down Venice Beach without being accosted by someone trying to sell you a MMJ license. The downtown L.A. toy district has transformed into the bong district, with a few odd toy shops still selling plush animals in between the bong shops. It's surreal.

The greedy idiots kinda ruined it for everyone, and turned off the soccer mom vote. Then, the stoners and youth vote just did not show up in the numbers needed for prop 19. MMJ businesses still have a lot of growing up to do. Hopefully they will do that, clean up their act, and we will try again in 2016. The youth vote apparently only bothers to come out in Cali on Presidential election years.

Just two relatively small states have legal pot. We need a Florida or a Texas or NY or CA joining that list before we can expect our President to "evolve" on this issue. Why should he stick his neck out if we won't even bother to go to the polls when the issue is on the ballot?

[RainDog]

168. Jeff Mirons, who has studied this issue, disagrees with you

He said that the overreach - i.e. a poorly constructed proposition, was the problem. This may be another way of stating what you're saying but his emphasis is on the provisions, not the persons.

Medical marijuana has been around since 1996. So, since 1996 the problems you mention have existed? It seems to me the reality is that, since the Ogden Memo, dispensaries, etc. have proliferated - in fact, I know this is true because it's cited as a reason for more dispensary raids.

One problem people have repeatedly talked about in regard to CA's marijuana reform is that the laws did not clearly articulate standards for operations, etc. This has long been the comparison to the CO amendment.

I agree with you, however, that marijuana businesses do not present themselves in such a way that appeals to the soccer mom vote or many other voters (including me, former soccer mom.) I don't think stoner humor, per se is funny and I dislike the stoner stereotypes because they're inaccurate - but they have made some people a lot of money - people who are smart business people, like Tommy Chong. He wouldn't have been so successful if he were actually the stoner stereotype he presents in his humor. At the same time, most people can distinguish between hyperbole and reality.

But I'm not a stoner so stoner humor doesn't do it for me. So, I understand your argument about the off-putting cannabis culture that is presented as what this issue is about. For me, it's about other things having to do with compassion, the purpose of criminal law and its application, the racism that has been the foundation of cannabis prohibition since its inception, and the rejection of science over propaganda.

I suppose we'll see what happens between now and 2014 and beyond, but honestly, I don't think it's sticking your neck out when the numbers support a change in position across the nation and not just within the state of CA.

[SunSeeker]

172. Jeff Miron is a East Coast prof working for the Cato Institute.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/miron.pot.vote/index.html

He does not know how things are on the ground here in Cali, and he did not address voter turnout. His thing is to propagandize that appealing to conservative libertarians will save the world. I, and most folks here I hope, would disagree.

He does agree with me on one of the causes of prop 19's failure: people didn't trust the supporters. I explained why in my post, and sounds like he would agree. He opines that "Past liberal efforts, such as medical marijuana, invite charges of hypocrisy and weaken support" and that "the general perception is that legalizers are stoners, acting mainly out of self-interest."

 

[RainDog]

180. He's an economics professor at Harvard

whose work looking at the economics of the drug war has been funded by the Cato Institute. That doesn't discredit his work, especially when it is supported by others who are not funded by the Cato Institute in social democratic nations in other parts of the world, for instance, and in other universities in the U.S.

It's funny because my response was directly related to the link you provide.

You read it and think he's applying propaganda, without actual concern about the issues he spoke about, which are the ones I mentioned, which were the provisions in the law - this is the overreach he talks about in terms of claims of economic benefit, the way in which the Prop was written as overreach because of LEGAL issues related to provisions within it.

However, I will agree that your comments about the proliferation of cannabis shops without input from people in a community has caused public relations harm. Venice Beach, however, isn't exactly an example of a place that, say, bears any relation to Orange Co.

It's interesting that you discount the impact of decriminalization, however, when, by doing so, the Gov. offered a way for users to possess small amounts of cannabis while growers in N. CA still operated illegally and thus were able to maintain higher profits because of the greater risk.

This is no small issue in CA, it seems to me. But, hey, I could be wrong.

[snappyturtle]

89. My intitial reaction, without looking at the replies, is:

of course not.

The classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug is NUTS!

[one_voice]

94. disappointing. I hope...

that 'at this point' means they're holding their cards for the 2014 elections. Maybe to bring out the youngins' and pull some liberal libertarians that think this is an important issue.

It would be a good play. We'll see.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. Legalization reduces highway traffic fatalities. Why would we want that? Nt.

[Logical]

107. LOL, another idiotic decision. Stay progressive Obama! n-t

[mucifer]

112. But, it's ok that President Obama did it when he was young and

it didn't exactly destroy his life.

But, it's cool if others who don't have good lawyers go to prison for it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. A really good "investigative reporter" would track down EVERY member of "The Choom Gang" and

ask them what they think about where we are now as a country vs where Barack Obama was then and if they are surprised at his allowing the DOJ to continue harassing medical marijuana dispensaries in states where their existence is perfectly legal.

"...as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-decriminalize-pot/#ixzz2cfQLfNPc

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Bleh.

[appal_jack]

123. Well, fuck him then.

Well, fuck him then.

I've voted for Obama twice, but it's long past time to say that when he's wrong, he's wrong. On marijuana, Obama has been consistently wrong.

-app

[Egnever]

129. And another missleading headline

Swallowed hook line and sinker...

[RainDog]

136. What was said is this: the Cole memo is in place, still

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

The Cole Memo was a revision of the Ogden Memo.

"Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law," the memo reads. "Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA."

The memo, authored by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, "clarifies" a memo released in 2009 that declared medical marijuana sales in states that have legalized it to be a low priority for law enforcement and prosecutors. The so-called "Ogden memo" first appeared to drug law reformers as evidence that President Obama was dialing back the war on drugs. The DEA and U.S. Attorneys office continued to raid and prosecute state-legal grow operations and marijuana shops after the memo was first circulated, leading reformers to conclude that Obama was lying when he said that his administration would not be doing those things.

The memo written by Cole and addressed to DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart and several members of the U.S. Attorney's office is a severe amendment to the Ogden memo. "The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels," the memo reads.

"The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts." The memo also says that the meaning of the Ogden memo has not changed since its writing.

The Cole Memo, basically defined "caregiver" as NOT someone who operates a dispensary or grows cannabis to supply patients with the medical substance that may provide the best form of palliative care or medical treatment - in the case of MS, epilepsy, etc.

This was a "clarification" of the Ogden Memo - that said the feds will go after marijuana growers and providers, NO MATTER if a state has created laws that are in contradiction to this action.

So tell me, how has this been misconstrued?

What was said is that Obama is not willing to expend any political capital on helping the two states that passed marijuana legalization bills to implement their laws, since this would require legalization of growing and provision. Those two states have gone beyond medical marijuana to extend the right of Americans to consume cannabis for recreational purposes - and the Obama administration has stated he does not support such legalization.

So tell me, how has this been misconstrued?

The question was presented after and in response to Gupta's discussion of the lies that have been the basis for marijuana prohibition for decades. Gupta admitted the DEA was lying, as well as the NIDA, and noted that both have functioned as ministries of propaganda, not scientific resources for decision making on policy. In reply to this question, the WH spokesperson said the administration is continuing its backward policy that pretends those who need medical marijuana will magically pull it out of their behinds, while ill, in order to have access to the same.

So tell me, how does this headline misconstrue what was said?

Obama may not AT THIS TIME want to state any changes to administration policy. However, his administration, specifically the AG office has been asked to inform legislators in legal mj states what the administration's view is concerning implementation of policy. This is responsible action on the part of state legislators.

Obama has said it is the job of Congress to create legislation - and, yes, this is true.

However, the executive ALSO has the power to request rescheduling from the DEA, to serve as a "bully pulpit" to encourage legislators to address issues - such as the various cannabis-related legislation that has been created - or to tell the AG office to use prosecutorial discretion to simply ignore federal-level violations of drug laws when states are creating their own legalization/decriminalization frameworks.

And this last bit is what Obama has failed to do, and he reiterated his unwillingness to do any of those things by restating current positions.

It's entirely possible that Obama will "evolve" on this issue, just as he evolved on the issue of gay marriage - but it's ridiculous to expect voters to be mind readers to say.. oh, okay, when... 53% support legalization instead of 52% - then he will evolve? But when states spend the money to fund and enact legislation - if the Obama administration turns around and creates financial burdens when asked, repeatedly, by Democratic legislators about this issue - well, that's not going to be okay, no matter how you try to spin it.

The truth is that the federal govt cannot arrest its way out of the current reality that legalization is here. Yet this administration seems unwilling to acknowledge that prohibition has lost this battle and the best practice, now, would be to lead by calling for the passage of the Polis bill.

Many people who maintained their opposition to gay marriage also evolved when the president did. Because he spoke out and presented a case for the issue.

The same is needed now regarding the end of cannabis prohibition.

[Fumesucker]

137. Vast bureaucracies and billions of dollars don't or didn't depend on keeping gay marriage illegal

There are far more vested interests, stakeholders if you will, in the Drug War than there ever was in the War on Gay Marriage.

[Logical]

160. Explain how! n-t

[MineralMan]

150. Wrong place for my post.

Sorry.

[In_The_Wind]

159. Damn!

[blackspade]

161. Well, of course not!

There is too much corporate money and law enforcement theft in the war on MJ for them to do a simple rescheduling.

[RainDog]

164. yet, a Denver LEA claims mmj saved them from the recession

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/colorado-tax-enforcer-tells-60-minutes-weed-beat-recession-denver

A former cop narcotics officer said the medical marijuana economy saved the city from recession.

October 22, 2012

That runs contrary to President Barack Obama’s logic: he said in 2010 that legalizing marijuana is not “a good strategy to grow our economy.”

But the economic impact on Denver? According to Matt Cook, a former narcotics officer who oversees enforcement at the Colorado Department of Revenue, “it’s huge.”

“Look at all the electrical contractors, HVAC contractors,” he said. “The number of ancillary businesses — it’s huge. Tax revenues exceeded, I believe the last number I heard was an excess of $20 million.”

Cook helped write the state’s medical marijuana law, and works as a consultant for medical marijuana businesses in the state. Speaking to “60 Minutes,” he said that the industry accounts for “over a million square feet of lease space in the Denver area.”

I guess it depends on who you want to get the money from drug policy - small businesses or military contractors.

[blackspade]

166. EXACTLY!

The continued criminalization makes no sense considering the health and economic benefits to the little guy.

[davidn3600]

169. Is this guy going to change ANYTHING before his 8 years are up?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

178. Hope for Change?

[livingwagenow]

171. I've long ran out of reasons to defend the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

From a full-time professional leftist.

Obama is so wrong on this..

knr

[B Calm]

173. He will find out soon, it's not up to him!

[Warren DeMontague]

175. THANK GOD!

I was really worried that we might actually focus on actual criminals, instead of spending 60 Billion a year to send SWAT teams into the basements of cancer grannies to find THE WEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TeamPooka]

177. Prohibition is a failed public policy...again. nt