Bummer
Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior.
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Google(Page 3 of 4)
That October the Justice Department issued a memo that expanded on this policy. While emphasizing that marijuana remained completely illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden told federal prosecutors that “as a general matter” they “should not focus federal resources” on “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” Ogden mentioned two specific classes of people who should be left alone: “individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses” and their caregivers. But he also listed criteria for federal prosecution, such as “sales to minors,” “sale of other controlled substances,” and “financial and marketing activities” inconsistent with state law, that make sense only when applied to suppliers. He warned that “claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws”—meaning that federal prosecutors had to distinguish between bona fide medical marijuana dispensaries and fake ones.
“That was a pivotal moment for the national medical marijuana movement,” says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “It essentially provided a green light for states which had already legalized medical marijuana to say if dispensaries are operating legally under state law, the feds will not get involved. It also sent a message to state legislators in the states that were considering medical marijuana legislation, that the federal government would respect new laws.” As Trish Regan reports in her 2011 book Joint Ventures, the administration’s apparent promise to leave legitimate dispensaries alone helped set off a “green rush” of entrepreneurs eager to exploit the newly permissive environment in states such as California and Colorado.
Yet the DEA’s raids continued. If anything, the pace picked up. Americans for Safe Access counts at least 41 raids on growers or dispensaries between Obama’s inauguration and the Ogden memo, almost five a month on average. As of late May, there had been at least 106 raids since the Ogden memo, nearly six a month. In fact, medical marijuana raids have been more frequent under Obama than under Bush, when there were about 200 over eight years.
Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, says the raids seem to be consistent with the letter, if not the spirit, of the Ogden memo, which demands “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state law. In states where the rules for supplying medical marijuana are unclear, such compliance is difficult to achieve. For example, California, where most of the raids have occurred, does not explicitly authorize the medical marijuana dispensaries that have sprung up across the state. California’s Compassionate Use Act, approved by voters in 1996, allows only patients or their “primary caregivers” to grow and possess marijuana. At first dispensary operators claimed to be their customers’ caregivers, but in 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that a caregiver has to do more than supply marijuana. Nowadays dispensaries tend to operate as patient “collectives” or “cooperatives,” an arrangement that Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor) approved in 2008. But some local officials disagree with this reading of state law, taking the position that all dispensaries are illegal. In any event, the Justice Department does not necessarily defer to state officials’ interpretations of state law, meaning that even a California Supreme Court ruling approving dispensaries might not count as definitive.
Four months after the Ogden memo, Jeffrey Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the DEA’s Denver office, publicly disavowed the notion that the feds needed to consider state law at all. “It’s still a violation of federal law,” Sweetin told The Denver Post in February 2010. “The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody. They’re violating federal law; they’re at risk of arrest and imprisonment.”
‘Exactly the Same As What Bush Said’
Alarmed by Sweetin’s remarks, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) asked Holder at a May 2010 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee whether they were “contrary to your stated policy.” Yes, Holder said, “that would be inconsistent with the policy as we have set it out…if the entity is, in fact, operating consistent with state law and…does not have any of those factors” mentioned in the Ogden memo. He said those criteria would determine “whether or not federal resources are going to be used to go after somebody who is dealing in marijuana.”
Given Holder’s assurances, it came as a surprise when U.S. attorneys began warning local and state officials that compliance with state law provides no protection against federal prosecution. In a letter dated February 1, 2011, Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, responded to questions from Oakland City Attorney John Russo about the city’s plans to license four large-scale marijuana growing operations. “We will enforce the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana,” Haag wrote, “even if such activities are permitted under state law.” She threatened to prosecute not only city-licensed growers but also “individuals who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees, including property owners, landlords, and financiers.”
During the next few months, U.S. attorneys sent similar letters to officials in at least seven other states: Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. All of them claimed to be consistent with the Ogden memo, which they said applied only to patients, and most claimed to be based on consultations with Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole (Ogden’s successor). One of the letters took the vague threats against people who “facilitate” drug offenses a step further. Referring to a bill that would have authorized state-licensed dispensaries to distribute medical marijuana, two U.S. attorneys, Jenny Durkan and Michael Ormsby, warned Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire on April 14 that “state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA.” Two weeks later, citing that threat, Gregoire vetoed the legislation.
After Gregoire’s veto, the ACLU and several members of Congress asked Holder to clarify how prosecuting state-authorized medical marijuana suppliers could possibly be consistent with not prosecuting them. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who halted plans for state-licensed dispensaries after receiving a threatening, hand-delivered letter from U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha on April 29, said he wanted an assurance from the Justice Department that “they are not going to raid us and shut us down.” During a June visit to Providence, The Providence Journal reported, Holder was “peppered with questions about the Justice Department’s position on dispensaries.” He promised that “we’re going to bring clarity so that people understand what this policy means and how this policy will be implemented.”
Holder’s much-anticipated explanation came in a memo quietly released on the night of June 30, right before a long holiday weekend. It brought nothing like clarity. Deputy Attorney General Cole insisted that the recent prosecution threats were “entirely consistent” with the Ogden memo, which he claimed applied only to patients and caregivers, meaning people “providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.” Alluding to Oakland’s aborted plan, he expressed special concern about “large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers” with “revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.” But he gave no indication that smaller-scale, nonprofit dispensaries would be tolerated. And while Cole did not mention state employees, he warned that “those who knowingly facilitate” the cultivation or distribution of marijuana “are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act” and that those “who engage in transactions involving the proceeds” of marijuana sales could be charged with money laundering—meaning that investors, landlords, banks, and even vendors who deal with dispensaries could be subject to forfeiture and prosecution.
The Ogden memo’s guidelines for distinguishing between genuine dispensaries and criminal fronts went down the memory hole, along with all of the assurances from Obama and Holder about respecting state law. Indeed, since the Justice Department now says anyone but patients and caregivers is fair game for prosecution, Obama’s policy is indistinguishable from Bush’s. “That line,” says Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes, “is exactly the same as what Bush said for years: ‘We’re not targeting patients.’ There is no change.” The problem is that most of the “individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses” whom the Obama administration claims to be sparing are not up to the task of growing their own marijuana. When DEA raids or Justice Department threats to landlords shut down dispensaries, Hermes notes, “patients wake up the next morning wondering where they’re going to find their medication.” The administration’s position, essentially, is that patients can have marijuana; they just can’t get it anywhere.
Why would Holder make such a big deal out of changing the policy and then abandon the new approach while denying that he was reversing himself? “I don’t think Eric Holder really is in command of the department,” says Eric Sterling. “I think the prosecutors are in command, and Holder is something of a figurehead. The statements that he has made are being contradicted by the actual policies coming out.” It looks like federal prosecutors and DEA agents recoiled at Obama’s promises of tolerance, especially as dispensaries multiplied and came to be seen as legitimate businesses. The idea of explicitly authorized, officially licensed dispensaries and grow operations spreading across the country was too much for drug warriors to take.
Perhaps Obama shared their concerns about widespread defiance of the federal ban on marijuana. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, notes “the historical fear that Democrats have had for the last 40 years” of being “painted as soft on crime.” In any case, while polls indicate that “medical marijuana is far more popular than Obama is,” Kampia observes, “very few voters vote on the medical marijuana issue.” If Obama “has not chosen to make the effort” required to impose a new policy on a resistant bureaucracy, Sterling adds, “part of the reason is that those who care have not made him pay a political price yet.”
‘Empty Threats’
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
I would guess that Obama wants to avoid a Mike Dukakis like Willie Horton ad in the 2012 campaign.
-
Heck, that would be the least of his problems. More people support easing up on the Drug War than support death panel"socialized medicine" that accelerates costs, strips people of coverage and enriches Big-whatever
-
I have an article up at American Thinker The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan
-
It is about how Ken Burn's movie "Prohibition" will change the election dynamic.
-
You gotta be kidding me. A 100% tie-dyed in the wool Lefty wants big Nanny government to completely rule over people's lives, including what they put in their body.
You don't say.
-
And the other team is any better? The whole mess is so deep in the pockets of prisons, prison guard unions, and pharma that there will never be any meaningful change.
Like Bill Hicks said, they show the newly elected president the movie of the Kennedy assassination from the grassy knoll, and the first question out of their mouth is when do we bomb .
The culture war is over, and freedom lost.
-
ah yes, bill hicks. of COURSE obama is acting like a fuckstick drug warrior because they "threatened him" with assassination
jesus christ.
obama is acting like a drug warrior because he is a statist asshole.
that's reality
-
"And the other team is any better?"
The problem is the assuption in Reason circles that the Left side should be better on the drug issue. However, goven the left's nannny tendencies elsewhere, it does not make sense why Reason thinks this is so, other than they often take liberal politicians pronouncements at face value.
-
'they often take liberal politicians pronouncements at face value.'
Like the era of big guv'mint is over? LMAO -
this
-
"It would be going too far to say that Obama has been faking it all these years, that he does not really care about the injustices perpetrated in the name of protecting Americans from the drugs they want." Why, exactly,would it be going to far to say His Royal Hopeyness does care about the injustice of the drug war? I'm not following the logic. Obviously, if Obama cared about it, he would do something about it instead of ramping up the persecution of medical marijuana providers. You know why Obama scares me even more than that imbecile Dubya? It's because he has this slick veneer of compassion and sanity and puts a pretty face on the undercurrent of jackbooted, brown shirted, fascistic inclinations.
-
he has this slick veneer of compassion and sanity
It's only slick if one is gullible and hasn't payed attention to the activities of Team Red for the past 40 years. His "slickness" is composed of the same tired salespitches progressives have used, in one way or another, for 200 years.
-
Yeah. Reason certainly doesn't have a problem questioning the motives of every other politician in the world.
They are just beta male white guys. They can't quite bring themselves to be hard on the first black President.
-
In the end, Obama turned out to be just another drug warrior.
Yeah, Sullum's pullin' his punches there.
If you've noticed, Jacob tends to be the least (or nearly the least) hyperbolic writer on the staff. Given how easy it would be for critics to say "Well, what do you expect from the pot smokin' so-and-so?", it's easy to understand why.
-
Yes, the other team is better because they don't lie about ending the war on drugs and they don't believe the fed. government should be in control of EVERYTHING.
-
yes, to go all pj again, republicans are at least semi-honest about being statist dickheads before they take office and begin being statist dickheads.
dems have been ardent (to put it mildly) drug warriors. clinton was a perfect example. i was a cop when he was in office, and man did the grant money for drug shit explode when he took office.
federal grant money to clarify. the record is clear. dems (at least on the national level) are AWFUL on the WOD
-
"dems (at least on the national level) are AWFUL on the WOD"
Even if they were good on the WOD, who would want to live in a Dem controlled country where you had to satisfy your munchies with carrot sticks?
-
Would you rather have a 6% tax on Cheetos or six months in Chino?
(Yes, I know the best answer is "neither")
-
I already pay an 8.5% tax on Cheetos.
-
that is barbaric.
-
"the govt will get my cheetos when it takes them from my cold, orange stained fingers"
-
ROFLMAO! Funniest comment in a long time!
-
u would know
-
Throughout his public life as an author, law professor
Obama was never a professor. Stop reinforcing the lie just because you voted for this fool.
-
Thank you. It drives me crazy when peole give this fool credit he doesn't deserve. .... OH wait, does that make me racist? Like I give a shit.
-
Marijuana, marijuana, marijuana, marijuana, sure I'm all for legalizing marijuana. . .
But what I really want to legalize is LSD and other psychedelics/entheogens.
-
Freedom is hard.
-
Why would I want to try to stop people from taking LSD? And, because we can't really stop them, why would I want to try to "interdict" drugs being produced in other countries to fulfill our demand?
-
you need to see the movie called wild in the streets
-
This.
-
Hey, Sullum, why don't you Reason nitwits reprint the 2008 roundtable with "libertarian" authors like the incomprehensible John Scalzi gushing about how Ooooobama will be so libertarian and stop the WOD?
Go ahead. Reprint it. Just for kicks.
-
Why do they need to reprint it? Somebody will post a link to it at least once a month, and has for the past 3 years.
-
I know Obama wants to pass a terrible heathcare law and is going to want to spend us into bankruptcy.
But he is going to close GUITMO, get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, repeal the patriot act and do something about the War on Drugs.
And it is not like any of that other stuff will get through Congress anyway.
-
What Sullum, do you get paid by the word? Now you know why some people don't subscribe to your magazine, it's a bunch of rehash of what anyone who would read Reason has already heard or read ad nauseam.
How about a drug warrior article ripping the shreds out of assholes like Santorum, Perry, Romney, and every right of the aisle hack. They're the ones who need to be exposed for their "small government tendencies" except when it comes to the drug war. I wish there would be a question in one of the debates for the repubs to explain the difference wrt the commerce clause as it pertains to obamacare and the controlled substance act. That would be interesting. Or quote them Thomas' dissent in Raich but don't tell them it's with regard to drugs and watch them support the statement. Now that would be entertaining. Drug war, terror war, obese war, poverty war, wtf? -
So that lets a sitting President who claimed to be better during his campaign off the hook?
-
Obama's not going to win or lose on the drug war for crying out loud. But at least make the big government repubs squirm to support a war that obviously is doing more harm than good, costs way to much money, distorts everybody's idea of individual freedom and causes massive unintended consequences. Wait a minute, that sounds like Iraq, Aphganistan, Libya, and every other country we have troops. But anyway the tea party debate would be a good place to start the exposure of the big gov repubs.
-
Have fun. In the mean time, Reason should continue to shame Obama for being a complete fraud who is anything has made the drug war worse by ending any idea that there is any dissent about it among the two parties.
-
Paul (and Johnson, if they ever let him debate) might just make them squirm over the WoD.
-
They already got a piece on Romney. Having been subjected to Straight in the 80's, The article doesn't even begin to cover the shit that happened in there.
http://reason.com/archives/200.....-and-teens
I will never vote for than person.
-
When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, the violent crack epidemic of the late 1980s was already subsiding, the prison population-local, state and federal-was about 1.3 million. When Clinton left office, that number had ballooned to over 2 million, becoming highest rate of incarceration-as well as the highest total number behind bars-in a democratic state in the history of the whole planet.
“(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;”It was Joe Biden (yes our current Democrat VP) who authored this act, who wrote those words and then pushed this abhorrent law (which created ONDCP, the position of “drug czar” and the mandate to lie thru their teeth) thru congress.
-
highest total number behind bars-in a democratic state in the history of the whole planet
Ireland belches, farts and laughs at you, before falling down while spewing vomit.
-
yet is too drunk to realize that the US still has the highest total number behind bars-in a democratic state in the history of the whole planet
why is Ireland so fucking stupid?
-
Tommy Chong on Joe Biden: "Biden comes off as a liberal democrat, but he's the one who authored the bill that put me in jail. He wrote the law against shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail -- which could be anything from a pipe to a clip or cigarette papers."
Tommy Chong did 9 months in federal prison for selling water pipes!?! Selling WATER PIPES, in the land of the free!!!
-
Were any of the dissenters in Gonzales v. Raich appointed by democrats?
-
Let's see, dissents by Sandra O, Rehnquist, and of course Thomas.
So that would be no.
-
No, but 4 of the 6 in favor of the government were republican appointees and 2 of the a-holes are still there.
-
There is zero chance that a democrat would ever appoint someone like Thomas so I'll take my chances with republicans, especially if they can elect someone like Perry who doesn't like the Feds stepping on the states. Not saying Perry supports legalization but he certainly sounds like someone who would appoint someone like Thomas.
-
Right.
Cos a guy who can brag about executing 234 people without a single second thought or doubt is the person I want in charge of the Federal machinery of *ahem* justice.
Or perhaps not.
-
Yeah, I guess you would send them to bed without dinner. moron.
-
No, asshat. Should a person attempt to commit a crime against my family, person, or property, they would find themselves met with rapidly applied deadly force.
But the question is not what I would do. The question is what we want the government to do in our name; the same judicial system that has far too frequently wrongly convicted and imprisoned people on poorly constructed, flimsy, or falsified evidence.
And when a politician can boast of executions and state that the process never even gave him pause, I am concerned, as should be any rational being.
So take your ad hominem and shove it, fuckstick. I choose not to side with the jackbooted thugs.
-
No, asshat. Should a person attempt to commit a crime against my family, person, or property, they would find themselves met with rapidly applied deadly force.
But the question is not what I would do. The question is what we want the government to do in our name; the same judicial system that has far too frequently wrongly convicted and imprisoned people on poorly constructed, flimsy, or falsified evidence.
And when a politician can boast of executions and state that the process never even gave him pause, I am concerned, as should be any rational being.
So take your ad hominem and shove it, fuckstick. I choose not to side with the jackbooted thugs.
-
We get it JohnD you're a conservative not a libertarian so why are you on this thread?
-
Corporate greed and individual bigotry have accelerated us towards a situation where all the usual peaceful and democratic methods needed to reverse the acute damage done by prohibition no longer function as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of our once great and free nation. Such a political impasse coupled with great economic tribulation is precisely that which throughout history has invariably ignited violent revolution.
In order to avert what will surely be a far more violent situation than we are all presently experiencing, there appears to be just one last avenue left to us - Jury Nullification.
Jury Nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment. All non-violent drug offenders, be they users, dealers or importers, fall into this category. If you believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy, then you don’t have to help to apply it. Under the Constitution, when it comes to acquittals, you, the juror, have the last word!
The idea that jurors should judge the law, as well as the facts, is a proud and vital component of American history.
The most shining example of Jury Nullification occurred during the shameful period in US history when slavery was legal. People who helped slaves escape were committing a federal crime - violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Jurors would often acquit, even when the defendants admitted their guilt. Legal historians credit these cases with advancing the abolition of slavery.
No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safer; only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution? - When called for Jury Service concerning any non-violent prohibition-related offense, it is your moral and civic duty to VOTE TO ACQUIT!
-
Well, yeah, nullification has lots of libertarian supporters. I, for one, would never vote to convict anyone of a non-violent drug offense - or any other offense based on a non-crime. You know, malum prohibitum.
-
Yeah, it's all the Corpurashun's fault.
-
Most cases go nowhere near a jury-- the Public Defender tells the accused to cop to a lesser charge, or else. The true nature of the American criminal justice system is out of the sight and mind of much of the public. But I agree with your sentiments.
-
how many run-of-the-mill drug users and drug dealers know of this, though? An EXTREMELY low number of drug cases actually go to jury trial. Someone gets busted they usually just think they are fucked and make whatever plea deal they have to. Very few people besides libertarians and lawyers know about jury nullification. I actually had a Business Law professor thank me for mentioning jury nullification on a school thread but go on to say that he couldn't be on a jury wherever he was from (Texas maybe?) because he was a lawyer.
Also, at 28, I have never even been summoned for jury duty.
-
drugs make girls like me.
-
Very good article, jersey wholesaler thank you for your sharing, I learned a lot of things.Good Luck!
-
Obama co-sponsored that stupid Combat Meth Act? The act that makes my wife take 2 trips a week to CVS for Claritan to keep her family of 5 hayfever sufferers from sneezing their brains out? You know, they recently busted a meth factory in Mexico that employed hundreds of employees that was supplied by literally boat loads of precursor chemicals supplied by India and China.
Just another reason why I hate Obama.
-
Traitor
-
He has no will. Lobotomy.
-
The idea of being able to create a set of safe harbors for recreational drugs is a fantasy. The regulatory and bureaucratic apparatus that is set in place by the medical-industrial complex will not stand for the creation of something that will expose the rational inconsistency of its very existence.
How, if you are able to purchase pot or any other hallucinogen in an uncontrolled market free of the threat of prosecution, can you justify making someone go and kiss the ring of a doctor before trying a medication for overactive bladder? It makes no sense, and if they allow such a scenario, they know their goose is cooked.
This whole mess began with physician licensing and it will have to end there as well. If you want the regime to fall, cut it off at the root.
-
Who uses pot or hallucinogens for an overactive bladder?
-
mushrooms cure migraines, pass it on
-
There was a news story here in Sydney, Australia that Obama is flying in for a visit. 58 of the first 60 comments told him to fuck off and stay in America.
-
I knew I liked those Aussies
-
+1
-
thanx
-
IMHO: At some point in 2010 Mr. Obama realized there was no way in Hades that he had a prayer of winning re-election based on his pathetic performance as POTUS. Mr. Obama found the support he hopes will win him a second term, but the quid pro quo required that he throw drug law reform under the bus. For the short time in 2008 when he was acting POTUS, all of 2009 and for perhaps the first half of 2010 while certainly not likely to be mistaken for a legalizer he most certainly wasn't a drug warrior either. It's pretty obvious to me he sold out, and abandoning drug law reform was at least part of the price he agreed to pay in return for a chance of re-election.
-
Fuck Obama
-
On the subject of "needing more evidence" about cannabis before making it legally available, the AMA certainly agreed:
http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....37,00.html
Please notice that the article linked above was published in Time Magazine more than 43 years ago on June 28, 1968.
As everyone knows, the motto of the Know Nothing prohibitionist is to "never let the facts get in the way of disseminating an effective piece of hysterical rhetoric." Of course the truth is that with over 22,000 peer reviewed studies cannabis is the most researched plant in history. How many more decades should we allow the government to use the "needs more study" canard? Even presuming the assertion true doesn't there come a time when the people should insist that the government actually engage in promoting these "needed" research studies?
A similar example of stonewalling is the claim that we can't re-legalize cannabis because we haven't got a "breathalyzer" equivalent. Just throw out the fact that there are in fact blood tests that can be used for determining present cannabis use, and consider that the first time I heard that lame excuse was in 1977 when it seemed a sure thing that Jimmy Carter was going to push through legislation which would result in the decriminalization of petty possession of cannabis at the Federal level. That was 34 years ago. Once again, how many decades do the Know Nothings get to use that particular fraud without actually promoting its demise? The United States of America dispatched Messrs. Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito along with their "Axis of Evil" in 3 years and 9 months. The end of World War II was brought about in large part by the research of the Manhattan Project which successfully invented and deployed the atom bomb in less than 3 years and 9 months. But we're to believe that our scientists are too stupid to be able to develop a "cannabis breathalyzer" in a time frame that's a little more than 9 times the length of World War II? I can just see the Church Lady scowling with disapproval, and hear her saying, "isn't that con-veeee-nient?"
When do people stop allowing themselves to be scammed by this stripe of nonsense propaganda produced by the Federal government and promoted by the Know Nothing prohibitionists?
-
Back in the early 20th century when Congress was debating whether to ban cannabis, a representative from the AMA testified in opposition to the move, saying it would have a chilling effect on medical research into the herb, which was already showing benefits for people with muscle spasms and other ailments. Congress not only ignored his advice but also recorded that the AMA fully agreed with the effort to ban cannabis. Ryan Grim's book on the history of drugs in America examines this in detail.
-
The congress and the president,,,any president,will never end the WoD.
Too many people with a voice,money=voice,the people that make the campaign contributions are paying about 10% of what the WoD is costing the American people to keep America ""Drug Free".
-
If I was a drug lord, I'd be making campaign contributions/bribes to keep the WoD going. Why would I cut my own throat by destroying business?
-
Understand. The WoD gives the Nanny State power. Using it, the police are now kicking down doors, shooting innocents - and getting away with it. It allows the closest we've ever come to a home grown Gestapo. Why would you believe that any power mad, statist, beltway troglodyte is going to legalize drugs? That would take a powerful club out of their hands.
-
There's too much graft to be had in banning drugs. And why should our elitist lefty aristocracy care about making marijuana available to the dirty stupid masses when they can get whatever recreational drugs they want by virtue of being above the law. Our hypocritical socialist rulers actually believe that they must control you for your own good, for example; the efforts to ban food that they believe is unhealthy, while partaking of it themselves.
-
What's really scary about all of the is that perhaps Obama really wanted to decriminalize and DEA/Justice/FDA simply won't let him?
-
I knew Obummer would be a travesty but if he decriminalized Pot,I could have lived with his folly.
-
"It would be going too far to say that Obama has been faking it all these years, that he does not really care about the injustices perpetrated in the name of protecting Americans from the drugs they want."
Oh really, Jacob? Exactly what has this man done during his nearly three years in office that would cause you to give him such a benefit of the doubt...or to claim that it "goes too far" to suggest that he did not mean something he said on the campaign trail?
Remember all the debates being on C-SPAN?
Remember being able to keep your current health insurance plan if you like it?
Remember closing Guantanamo and leaving Iraq "the day I take office?
et cetera, et cetera....
-
Good job on glossing over the fact that the dispensaries being targeted are violating California law.
-
I disagree. With 99% of all Comments. Ron Paul is probably the only sincere candidate on MJ. The rest are politicians.
As for Obama he gave his Hands off approach from March 2009 till December 2010. During, that time there has been expolsion of marijuana distributed in California...more importantly across the United States. This has everything with interstate commerce and nothing to do with his promise. If you send weed from California to NYC and do in BULK on regular basis ....yeah the White House will have to crack down.
It not just about one person, one dispenary, one county, one anything. Rather the whole system is corrupt from the core.
Sometimes you have tare down an entire house, in order to build a better one. That's what is going to happen in California and all states who had program established more than 4 years ago.
I'd still vote for Obama cause doing the "right" thing, may not always seem like the right thing.
-
Mo police, mo power fo me, mo money, suckas!