MMP on Obama Pot Policy: "Worst president in history." Guns play role.

[SteveW]

It's no secret that President Obama has infuriated anti-Drug War groups with his policy shift over the last several months. In a November 11, 2011 letter to its members, Rob Kampia, Executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project, contends that the president abandoned his pledge not "...to prosecute individuals acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws." Kampia says that has changed:

"But a few weeks ago, President Obama essentially ripped up that 2009 memo and allowed federal prosecutors to attack medical marijuana providers in California. And, unfortunately, MPP must now fight back."

"All four federal prosecutors in Clifornia announced that the Obama administration will no longer ignore dispensaries and will actively prosecute many commercial operations."

Kampia comments further:

"This is perplexing, because medical marijuana is far more popular than he is."

and then warns:

"MPP is taking action with an intensive media strategy and a grassroots effort to generate email messages and phone calls in opposition to the Obama administration's shift in policy"

The MPP letter provides an issue comparison which it claims points to obama's hostility toward medical marijuana users. And tucked away is this unexpected issue:

"ATF Scaring Gun Shops from selling Guns to MMU Patients."

MPP is at the forefront of both lobbying and state initiative efforts to legalize marijuana, and is currently making Colorado ground zero for its efforts to fully legalize marijuana.

How serious Obama is regarding the use of BATF to pressure gun shops to not sell to medical marijuana users is unknown. But with the president's standing among independent and more "libertarian" voters in serious question, can he afford angering this portion of the electorate? Can he afford incurring the wrath of an effective special interest group? And can he risk a possible alliance between marijuana legalization advocates and strong Second Amendment groups?

NOTE: Form 4473 of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requires an answer of "NO" for this question:

"e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
_______________
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kampia/obama-from-first-to-worst_b_1001781.html

[spin]

1. "e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant...

stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

If an individual has met all legal requirements for medical marijuana in their state, I would assume he could answer, "No" to this question on the Form 4473. He is by state law a legal user.

[X_Digger]

2. Legal by state standards, but this is a federal form.. n/t

[spin]

5. Might make for an interesting case...

Although the Feds would probably prevail in the end.

[X_Digger]

6. Yeah, I think it'd make heads explode..

State powers v War on (Some) Drugs.

[SteveW]

3. True. But the Feds have their "superior" definition and answer.

I found it surprising that MPP used gun shop harassment in their argument, though maybe I shouldn't be. MPP clearly favors more Democrats than GOPers on the pot issue, but in the end they are agnostic.

[rl6214]

4. As a person with a standing prescription for Vicodin for a bad back

I regularly answer NO to that question on the Form 4473. I take no more than the 3 pills I am prescribed daily although you could say my body would react adversely if I suddenly stopped taking them.

[Doctor_J]

8. You would have a reaction if you quit. Ergo by definition

you are addicted, and by answering NO you are committing a federal offense.

My advice: Become a bankster and rip off the taxpayers for a few billion $. then you can afford black market prices for your meds and your guns, AND buy your way out of any trouble you might get into.

[gejohnston]

9. I don't think so

He is taken it as prescribed, lawfully. You don't know if he is addicted, the reaction would be increased pain. It is certainly within the spirit of the law.

[rl6214]

10. If you stopped drinking caffinated drinks your body would react adversely

that does not make you an addict although you may be addicted.

[Doctor_J]

11. True, false, and true

Caffeine is addicting (very mildly), for the reason in your subject line. Withdrawal usually results in headaches and drowsiness. So regular caffeine users are addicted. And if they are addicted, that does make them addicts.

[rl6214]

15. It's a matter of semantics

It's a matter of semnatics to a large degree. Docs will refer to it as a "dependancy" and that it isn't an "addiction". The difference being that a dependancy is what you physically develope after long term heavy use under the care and direction of your physician. It's still a rough road to get off of, but you probably want to get off of that road.

An addiction is the physical dependancy coupled with the mental want of the substance. It's the drive to obtain more of it regardless of physical need that defines the addict.

[Doctor_J]

7. The entire War On Drugs/ATF scam is just another money-making venture for the movers & shakers

You would think MMU, anti-prohibitionists, and 2A proponents would be directly in line with each other on both issues; but the fed is keeping them at each others' throats.

So if you take Vicodin for chronic pain, and answer "yes" to question e., you've committed a federal offense

[SteveW]

13. Part of the problem is the culture war which inevitably grows up around prohibitions...

Newt Gingrich, among many on the Far-Right, took dead aim at the counter-culture of the 60s in creating his 1990s "revolution," using marijuana has a major club to hit at anyone to the left of Eisenhower (though he was a toker himself). And many Second Amendment advocates have fallen into line, or are intimidated into falling the Far-Right party-line, if for no other reason than to club down their enemies because of expediency.

You not only commit an offense, but you can be judged a felon and have your guns confiscated and barred from ever owning them again (I believe that can be concluded by the language at the end of 4473.

[Doctor_J]

14. Yup. Just like Al Capone & Bugs Moran got rich off of the Volstead Act,

today's gangsters are getting rich from the "War on some drugs"

[pipoman]

12. It really is time to require

candidates to promise to end the war on marijuana immediately. It is a huge waste of taxpayers money when we have public programs being cut while funding for enforcement and prosecution of benign non-crimes is being increased..

My state is not a MMU state. My sister is suffering from pancreatic cancer. She has never in her life used marijuana recreationally, she is an RN. Three months ago she was taking chemo treatment which was making her violently ill to the point of hospitalization for dehydration. Anti-nausea drugs costing thousands of dollars were not effective. A friend brought her some candy from a state which has MMU. It was effective and almost completely diminished her nausea, in fact made her want to eat and drink. She opted, at that time, to discontinue chemo treatment and watch her marker count. The count remained stable until last weeks test, it increased, her doctors recommended taking chemo treatment again. She called me terrorized from the prospect of taking treatment and having no medicine nor the knowledge of how to get any. A friend drove 1000 miles to get her the medicine, illegally, both my sister and the friend risking prison. Little to no nausea with her current treatment. It is unconscionable for a Democratic administration to support such madness. Morphine? No problem. Medical marijuana? A federal crime...fucking unbelievable..