Some local medical marijuana proponents unhappy with President Obama after dispensary crackdown

[DreamSmoker]

"I spent thousands of hours to get him elected," said Abel Chapa, president of the nonprofit San Bernardino Patients Association and Foundation for Alternative Medicine Research.

"He said, `Hands off the medical marijuana patients.' He's a straight-up liar."

Relationship started strong

Local cities causing more problems than Obama, some say
Some local proponents though believe blaming Obama is misguided.
Why the change?
Questions abound about why Obama has undertaken a harsher attitude toward medical marijuana.
Obviously, they could easily be chalked up to politics.
With Obama facing a tough reelection campaign, independents and moderates, who the president will need to vote for him in November 2012, are less likely to have a welcoming attitude toward medical marijuana.
Swerdlow and Chapa agreed that Obama's reelection is the reason for the reversal, but they point toward another ever present element in the campaign trail - money and endorsements.
Obama will need the support of law enforcement as well as campaign money from pharmaceutical companies.
"It's his way of getting money and endorsements from law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies," Swerdlow said.
But Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance in Los Angeles, said he can't figure out why Obama would go against medical marijuana.
Gutwillig's group and others contend the dispensary crackdown is bad policy and bad politics because Obama indicated federal resources would not be used to shut down dispensaries.
"The Obama administration should be encouraging responsible regulations of medical marijuana at the state and local level instead of creating chaos among public officials and fear and outrage among patients and their providers," Gutwillig said.


http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_19233975?source=rss_viewed

[EOTE]

1. If you had listened to Obama during the campaign, you'd have expected this.

He said in no uncertain terms that he'd utilize gestapo-like tactics to shut down medical marijuana facilities nation-wide at all costs. Oh wait. I mean, the official policy of the Obama administration is that it supports medical marijuana. I mean...

[Fumesucker]

2. I did and I did..

I listened carefully to what Obama didn't say, he managed to get through an hour long speech on race in America and never once mention the toll taken on blacks and black men in particular by the drug war despite his own self admitted earlier drug use.

[EOTE]

3. That's because the drug war is a sacred cow.

Obama talked a big game about deescalating the drug war, but his actions have been pathetic. This is not a broken campaign promise, it's a filthy lie. And if Obama loses a second term because of this alone, I would not be disappointed.

[patrice]

4. One of the biggest criticisms of PO is that he is too political. If MM demonstrates political streng

th, PO will follow, IMHO.

[Taverner]

5. SOME????!?!?!?!?!

[Bragi]

6. Yeah, that word caught my attention as well

Were there some MM advocates who welcomed the crackdown on MM dispensaries?

[patrice]

13. You know . . . that could be a possibility, IOW, Competition.

[tridim]

7. Obama and Holder had nothing to do with the raids.

You know that.

Marijuana Crackdown in California: U.S. Department of Justice Says it's Not President Obama's Fault
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/marijuana_crackdown_obama_us_a.php

Obama Not Implicated In California Medical Marijuana Crackdown, U.S. Attorney Claims
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-administration-medical-marijuana-crackdown-california_n_1033482.html

[Doctor_J]

9. I thought the DoJ was part of Executive

and that the AG was a presidential appointment. When did that change.

[tridim]

12. Did you read the articles?

[EOTE]

14. I did. Did you?

I believe if you had a lick of sense and HAD read the articles, you'd understand that this doesn't let Obama off the hook one iota. That is if you had a lick of sense.

[Irishonly]

20. I did and they are full of BS

DOJ is part of exective branch and if we are to believe what the articles say Obama has no clue what the departments are doing. Federal prosecuters serve the president. Bush fired those who did not dance to his tune. Obama is silent. I figured when he apponted Holder this MM position were words.

The biggest misconception is that MM patiets are nothing but stoners and do not vote. They have been ridiculed and lied to by this administration.

[Autumn]

64. "Obama has no clue what the departments are doing."

Good grief. Where the hell has he been? On vacation? I call bullshit, Obama is not kept in the dark. Like you ,I think he does exactly what he wants to do. The excuses are becoming too damn stupid. My Grandson says he's not voting for Obama again.

[EOTE]

10. Ahhh, OK. So he does support MMJ, he's just entirely incompetent.

That's soooo much better. Do you ever get tired of defending such incredibly indefensible bullshit? Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.

[patrice]

16. Royal fallacy. This IS a president, not a king, a president functioning under one of the most

fluid socio-political-economic dynamics in relatively recent history.

If the people want MM, they must get it for themselves and conditions are more nearly conducive to that, or any, kind of movement than they have been for quite a while, which is why a president CAN'T do it for us and also is why we CAN do it for ourselves.

[Fumesucker]

17. I was under the impression that the electoral process was about electing people to do these things..

Now you say that our elected representatives are powerless to change anything.

:shrug:

[EOTE]

19. That's exactly what he's saying.

And if the president is so incredibly powerless, I might as well not even vote for one.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. I am constantly amazed at how often Obama gets a free pass when clear he shouldn't be give one.

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

38. My amazement was smothered to death..

Under a monstrous pile of little blue links.

;)

[EOTE]

18. No doubt, and Presidents do have a certain amount of power.

Specifically, the DoJ serves the President, not the other way around. If the DoJ is 100% opposed to the Obama administration's position, he has the power to do something about it. He's done absolutely nothing. He has their tacit approval. There are two options to consider:

1) Obama was lying his ass off during the campaign.

or

2) He's completely incompetent and is letting the DoJ walk all over him.

Neither of those reflect positively upon him.

[patrice]

22. False dichotomy. There are more than 2 possibilities. Perhaps he's getting MM proponents mad enough

to take that particular ball and REALLY authentically run with it themselves (a tactic that some high school teachers may recognize), which is what some of us would prefer to corruption-enabled politically arbitrary power that is here today and gone tomorrow.

Besides recent examples, lots of other government enabled economic activity has crashed (e.g. haven't looked at it lately, but thinking of the fishing industry from Reagan/the '80s on; the economic and environmental travesty known as ethanol . . . others).

Let the people make it happen & then do it.

[EOTE]

23. Ahhh, so either my two possibilities or he's fucking with us.

Thanks, I'll take a president who actually keeps his fucking word rather than fuck around with the people who got them elected. I won't support a president who promises to eliminate the death penalty and then goes around executing people in the hopes that he'll get the public so mad as to outlaw the DP. We're not children, we can deal with a president who keeps his word.

[patrice]

26. Personally, I think saying TTE "Do it for yourself" is the opposite of fucking with us. nt

[EOTE]

28. So he asks to be elected by promising to do certain things.

And then his own agency goes 100% against his campaign rhetoric and he leaves us all high and dry. That's "do it for yourself"? What unmitigated bullshit. We live in a democracy, we CAN'T do this by ourselves, we have to elect politicians to enact policy. California voted overwhelmingly for MMJ. Obama said that he'd support MMJ, what the fuck else are we supposed to do? If Obama can't keep his word, that's his own fault, not ours. He's worthless and he won't be getting any more of my support.

[patrice]

37. Personally, I consider A-N-Y use of the word "promise" to be misleading. There are no absolutes and

anyone who hears/sees "promise" should suspect the user and take their own responsibilities to qualify their own expectations about whatever is possible when/where/why/how . . . like a grown up.

After all, it IS politics, politics in a completely corrupt system, btw, so picking and choosing when you think that fact is relevant and when it isn't, picking when YOU say it is the determining factor and when YOU say it isn't, sets off my skepticism alarms.

Power to the people!

[EOTE]

41. Ahhh, so we should just assume the president's word is worthless.

Got it. I've been making that assumption for quite some time.

'I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.'

Yep, not a promise. Also completely worthless.

[patrice]

42. More false dichotomies. We should consider any politician's words relative to the context in which

political actions occur, what/when/where/why/how etc.

It IS politics and no politician does much for anyone, such as what calls itself "the Left" in this country, when "the Left" makes a zero-sum game out of it, TTE, "Do it FOR us or we will not vote for you", thusly putting the politician in the (obsolete authoritarian paradigm) lose-lose position of trying to accomplish something based upon SUPPORT THAT IS NOT THERE, and, thusly & perhaps intentionally, insuring defeat on whatever the demand is AND loss of votes.

It is more functional to facilitate the conditions under which the people do their own political/issue work FIRST and the political "leaders" respond to that.

[EOTE]

46. So there are times when it's fine for a politician to lie to us?

I completely disagree. I supported Obama in 2008, I was more than thrilled when he was elected. I guess that's because I thought he'd be 100% less full of shit than he is. In one important matter after another, Obama has lied to me and millions of others. Obama's MMJ policy is now even worse than Bush's. That's fucking pathetic.

[EOTE]

48. And you've got everything completely ass backwards.

There was no "Do it FOR us or we will not vote for you", it was the opposite of that. Obama was the one talking all that positive rhetoric about California actually having a will of its own. It was the Obama administration that took up the popular issue of MMJ and used it as part of its campaign. So they should be completely unsurprised when they lie their asses off and thinking people stop supporting them afterward.

[patrice]

62. California is one of 50 states. To itself it is ALL there is. To those bureaucrats & pols reacting

to CA, the state and what it does, & ergo their official responses to same, is one of 50 different sets of potentialities related to the same issue affecting their bureaucratic/legal jurisdiction/responses.

[EOTE]

66. So once again, Obama lied his ass off and you're fine with it.

That's OK. I, however, am incensed that he'd pander to me so shamelessly and completely turn on me once elected.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. Your cred is now laughable.

why do you even try these days?

[SomethingFishy]

63. If that is true then why did he not either

come out and condemn the actions or put a stop to it? If he had nothing to do with it and has already come out and said "no more raids" then why did someone not get FIRED for doing expressly what the President said not to?

[tridim]

67. Because state laws were allegedly broken

It's none of his business.

[Upton]

68. The raids are being conducted by the DOJ..

are you suggesting what the DOJ does is none of Obama's business? Yeah..okay :eyes:

[SomethingFishy]

71. None of his business what his Justice Department does?

That's your answer? You can't be serious...

[PufPuf23]

65. Why don't you quit posting BS in the MMJ threads?

Please.

[Upton]

69. +1,000,000

[RainDog]

70. Here is the conflict - it's about legally making money off of cannabis cultivation

It's about the feds acting against normalizing cannabis sale and cultivation in states - the feds have stated they are not going after individuals or individual caregivers. They also note, however, that they ARE going after large-scale (and "large" seems to include medium or any for-profit scale) production facilities because they view these in the same way that they view the Mexican drug cartels.

To me, the irony in this, along with the note, in the Ogden memo, that cannabis sales remains the greatest money-maker for Mexican drug cartels, is that the feds are HELPING the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS by closing off the means to produce and distribute locally-produced and sold cannabis. California is trying to work toward a way to move cannabis from an illegal to a legal substance.

Yes, the medical marijuana laws have been used by commercial producers as a way to get a foothold in what they (and others) see as an emerging, new legal market... Because of this, they are in violation of state and federal laws. However, since a majority of the American population views cannabis prohibition as bad law, those who are trying to change it by flaunting it are not viewed as the "bad guys" by so many because, in truth, cannabis is the largest cash crop in the U.S. and offers potential revenue streams for California municipalities that need the revenue. The prohibition itself is arbitrary - as is obvious when compared to alcohol. This is where the frustration comes in. The prohibition itself is the problem.

Those who want to change this law are eliding the difference between legally-provided medical marijuana (i.e. non-profit and small-scale) and commercial enterprises as a way to attack the recent raids by claiming they are an attack on medical marijuana - and to those who use these services they can be and are effected by access- but these money-making dispensaries remain illegal by state law - the state, however, has been trying to work out how to regulate this market and they don't want the feds to interfere.

Those who want to attack Obama claim this is a change in policy - when, in fact, it is not. It is an implementation of policy that was expressed more than 2 year ago. If there was any question about whether or not the Obama Administration supported the recent actions by the 4 Attns Gen, it should have been settled with the Friday release of the reply to petitions to regulate cannabis like alcohol and tobacco. That reply reiterated claims that "smoked" marijuana does not comply with the fed. govt's view of what constitutes acceptable medicine.

It is ridiculous to try to make the claim this was done w/o Obama's okay or that his stance that he supports medical marijuana means that he did not intend to come down on for-profit dispensaries - we have two years of clarification to indicate that Obama's pov matches that of the DoJ.

So, it is JUST as disingenuous to claim that Obama had nothing to do with these raids as it is to claim the raids are a change of policy. Of course these raids reflect his policy views. How do we know this? by the memos that undergird the actions by the 4 Attns. Gen, by the way that this crackdown on for-profit cannabis dispensaries (as well as RESEARCH) has been coordinated across several federal agencies - the DoJ, the IRS, the DEA, the Bureau of ATF and the Dept. of Health and Human Services and by the statement from Obama's appointed director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, just this last Friday.

---Here is the paper trail for those who are interested----

The Ogden Memorandum: http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

October 2009:

In an October 2009 memo, previous Deputy Attorney General David Ogden said U.S. attorneys “should not focus federal resources” on prosecuting those who are in “clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

That includes the 4 who were the spokespersons for this raid. Now, the kicker in this is that the businesses that were raided are not in compliance with existing state law, because the state law protects those who are providing NON-PROFIT cannabis cultivation.

This memorandum indicates that what is going on now is NOT A REVERSAL of the Ogden memo, tho many who didn't read it may try to pretend this is the case.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Holder noted this same position here in 2009:

“For those organizations that are doing so sanctioned by state law, and doing it in a way that is consistent with state law, and given the limited resources that we have, that will not be an emphasis for this administration,” Holder said.

The Cole memo came out this year that reiterated, not changed, what does not constitute compliance with the law:

http://www.freedomisgreen.com/full-text-department-of-justice-memo-on-medical-marijuana/

The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.

...within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of the millions of dollars based on the plant cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

The Odgen Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. 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. Consistent with the 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 enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA.

Here's the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy response to online petitions:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/what-we-have-say-about-legalizing-marijuana

[Doctor_J]

8. Bad strategizing at play

With Obama facing a tough reelection campaign, independents and moderates, who the president will need to vote for him in November 2012, are less likely to have a welcoming attitude toward medical marijuana.


Nope, nope, nope. All he needs to get re-elected is for the same people who came out last time to come out again. and raiding MM outlets is the very best way NOT to have that happen.

[tridim]

11. Obama is not raiding "MM outlets"

Obama supports legal MMJ.

See articles in my post above.

[EOTE]

15. The hell he does. You are lying.

And your incessant coming out in these threads to spread that filthy lie is disgusting.

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. I agree..... its like he can't see the forest through the trees

And nobody is buying his links anymore, he's smoking Oregano
and trying to sell it as MJ to the rest of us.

[EC]

21. Has anyone stopped to think for a minute

that these are the same repub agents that were doing this under Bush and are continuing (even though Obama told them at the beginning of his term to stop)to make Obama look bad to that contingency? If the main job of the repubs is to get Obama out, why wouldn't the stooges Bush put in civil service jobs to continue the right wing agenda be sabotaging too?(since that is why Bush put them in those jobs)

[patrice]

24. Indeed. Remember the BushCo "Justice" department plants? Co-opted regulatory capacity?

[EOTE]

25. And why wouldn't he fire those people?

He IS the president after all. Why wouldn't he get rid of people who insist on acting in 100% opposition to his administration's policy?

[EC]

33. That is why Bush put them into civil service jobs.

The President can't just "fire" them. Civil service jobs are not the same as appointments.

[EOTE]

35. There is no one in the DoJ that can make these decisions

who is not also fireable by the president. It's absolutely ludicrous to think that there are people in federal agencies that can go 100% against the president's wishes and keep their jobs.

[EC]

39. No it's not,

it's done all the time. As long as the laws are on the books these agents are protected. Congress has to change the laws. We know how that will work out. But no, civil service jobs are subject to discipline with verbal, written and then suspension before any firing. If there is no legal reason for the employee to be warned/written up then they can't do it. I suppose they could do like others in corporations do and get them for being a minute late or some such crap.

[EOTE]

40. So which of the 4 U.S. attorneys ordering these raids is a civil servant?

Surely you could name at least one of them who is?

[EC]

45. U.S, Attorneys are appointed and confirmed

Obama's choices haven't been confirmed so these old ones chosen by Bush are still there until the new ones are confirmed. Again the Congress. And you do remember what happened when Bush tried to get some fired, don't you?

[EOTE]

47. Bush tried to get them fired merely because they were democrats.

Not because they refused to do their jobs. These people are refusing to do their jobs. That's reason for ANYONE to be fired.

[EC]

49. Again, as long as the laws are on the books

their asses are covered.

I concede that Ben Wagner and Melinda Haag are both Obama appointees, but I'm guessing they lean right since they were confirmed.

The Congress has to change the federal laws, that is the only way to stop this.

Believe me, I want it legalized period. I've indulged for the last forty years, daily, and don't think I've suffered any ill effects from it. But it will have to the the Federal law that changes.

[EOTE]

50. And what law prevents them being fired for not doing their jobs?

And not even getting a warning at that. To act like the President is completely powerless against those 100% in opposition to his policy is ridiculous.

[EC]

51. Again

IT IS DOING THEIR JOBS IF THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW. They can't just be fired for DOING their jobs.

The President isn't King, he can't just say, "Hey, I told you guys to lay off the dispensaries and you didn't, so you're fired" They ARE doing their jobs.

[EOTE]

53. So Obama was knowingly full of shit when he said that his DoJ wouldn't pursue MMJ?

Why would he say something like that if he has no control over it?

[EC]

54. Hope and Change....

If you remember - that's what he was hoping for, just as the rest of us were.


If you really want to do something constructive instead of crying about Obama, work with Norml to change the fed laws.

[EOTE]

55. This is a discussion board, I'm discussing why he no longer has my support.

I do work with NORML, they're one of the few organizations I give my money to. But I sure as hell am not going to give Obama a free pass on this one. It was a blatant lie and it won't be forgotten by myself or many others.

[EOTE]

56. And I don't vote for a president because they hope things will change.

I vote for a president because, as president, they have the ability to make that change.

[EC]

57. You're really in for a lot of future

disappointment if this is truly what you believe. America is backward and slow. The Presidency is the #1 position in the country, but I have learned through the years, they have little to do with changing laws. I'll be long dead before pot is legalized here and many other things I would have liked to see changed.


I've been waiting for over 40 years for things to change in many catagories, pot and alternate energy being the ones I'm concerned about.

[EOTE]

58. This is not "changing laws", it's allowing states to decide their own laws.

Something this administration is very much in favor of when it's laws that they support. California has already voted on this, Obama said that he'd allow California to abide by its own laws. He lied.

[EC]

60. When a state law conflicts with a Fed law

the Fed law takes precedent. What are the D.A.'s raiding for? I saw one where a delivery was made across county lines and others where the dispensaries were too close to schools. Find out why they are doing this and change the state laws to eliminate the problems. I'm guessing that repubs in the Cal. Congress added some poison pills to the bills and they were passed with gaps allowing for problems. Repubs are good at writing laws so they look good but are in fact useless, when they don't want to change something and know the law will change.


That's it, I'm done with discussing this any further.

[EOTE]

61. Then once again, Obama shouldn't have said that he'd allow California law to stand.

Why would he say such a thing if he were completely powerless? And the DAs are raiding due to pretty much every reason in the book, no dispensary is safe as of now.

[tridim]

31. I've called it ratfucking since the first day this story hit the Internet

A coordinated effort to blame Obama for everything started on that day and has not stopped since. None of it is true.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. He owns the Pie

and we know who he served it to.

i'm tired of your shit on this.

[EOTE]

36. So, in other words, we have no reason to vote for Obama again.

Considering that he's completely powerless and completely unable to influence legislation. Good thing I know your view on this matter. The president is completely powerless. Got it.

[patrice]

43. "completely" = More false dichotomies.

[EOTE]

44. Whatever, you're clearly not interested in a serious debate.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that he'd leave MMJ alone and his administration has done the opposite of that. That makes him worthless in my opinion and I won't be supporting him. I guess you don't have a problem being lied to.

[redqueen]

52. I wasn't sure...

but seeing how this issue has been hammered (32 active threads, 5 on front page the last time I was annoyed enough to check) makes me think you're on to something there.

It's not an unimportant issue but FFS... 32 threads? Sorry, but to me it seems like trying just a little too hard to push something to the front. It's a great issue to use as a distraction, too. Not a bad attempt, just a little too forceful.

[EC]

59. +1000 n/t

[jtuck004]

30. I wonder if they would have time to beat up on the most vulnerable

if they went after the bankers who torpedoed our economy with a criminal investigation. There are a couple million documented cases of fraud that the FHFA is suing i civil court right now, yet not a criminal case among them. Money used to support political candidates, gained by fraudulent means. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?

It's easier to beat up on sick people, I guess. Hope that makes them feel big. Like cops beating up on unarmed protesters, perhaps.