Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More Signals of Medical Marijuana Tolerance
Today Attorney General Eric Holder gave the clearest indication so far that the Justice Department plans to respect state laws that permit the medical use of marijuana:
The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law....Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law.
As medical marijuana activists noted, that still leaves unresolved the issue of what will happen to pending cases against people who provide cannabis to patients in states such as California. Thomas O'Brien, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, has gone back and forth on that question. Charlie Lynch, who ran a medical marijuana dispensary in San Luis Obispo, is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday and could spend decades in federal prison.
I wrote about the Obama administration's post-election signals regarding medical marijuana here and here. I discussed the Lynch case, which also has been covered by Reason.tv, last year.
Another positive sign: Congress Daily reports that the Obama administration is likely to revisit the DEA's rejection of an application to establish a private source of marijuana for medical research. I discussed that proposal back in 2003.
[Thanks to Bruce Mirken at the Marijuana Policy Project for the tips.]
|3.18.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Hey, that's not the pony we were promised! It looks more like an old goat. If Obama is the savior all the liberaltarians claim he is, then I want to see complete legalization of marijuana use and sales. Anything less is just political methadone.
|3.18.09 @ 10:09PM|#
How about just respecting adults being able to injest whatever
they like, without putting others in any danger? Who cares how you
self medicate or if it is just entertainment?
Marijuana, cocaine, heroine, whatever.
jtuf|3.18.09 @ 10:10PM|#
While every bit we get is good, we should insist on complete legalization. Now is the time to change the law so that hemp dispensories don't have to rely on the good graces of who ever is in the white house.
SIV|3.18.09 @ 10:13PM|#
Jacob
I'm not afraid to admit that I might have been wrong about Obama on
this.
We can only hope.
The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal
and state law....Given the limited resources that we have, our
focus will be on people, organizations that are growing,
cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way
that's inconsistent with federal and state law.
I still smell a loophole: taxes,agricultural
regulations,"diversion" etc.
|3.18.09 @ 10:21PM|#
Give me a break. The 'medical' marijuana people are not fooling
the anti-marijuana people a bit, and yes, that is all they are
trying to do, fool people into legalization.
Just stand up and say you want to smoke and it is your RIGHT, then
be done with it.
The Angry Optimist|3.18.09 @ 10:28PM|#
I will candidly say that Suki is right: medical marijuana is the
thin edge of the wedge.
That being said, I don't give a shit. Most moderate voters who were
raised in the DARE/"Just Say No" culture need a fig leaf, and
medical benefits provide them an out to say "but this drug is
DIFFERENT!"
Ditto politicians. They can still go after "hard" drugs for TEH
CHILDREN, but say that they aren't denying sick people the
treatment they need.
One step at a time.
|3.18.09 @ 10:33PM|#
Oregon and California are both talking about the state growing taxing and selling pot as a way to boost revenue and cut law enforcement cost. There's a silver lining in every dark cloud. If Obama doesn't fix the rotten economy too fast, we might see full legalization sooner than we thought!It is catching on that the gubmint is missing out on a huge amount of taxes and you know how they can't stand that.
Orange Line Special|3.18.09 @ 10:36PM|#
The results are mixed, but I'm prepared to declare
victory.
P.S. Everyone remember: we aren't supposed to mention that crack
legalization is our next goal. Save that for later.
|3.18.09 @ 10:36PM|#
What Jefferson was saying was, "Hey! You know, we left this England place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves - pronto - we'll just be bogus too!" Get it?
|3.18.09 @ 10:38PM|#
"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal
and state law....Given the limited resources that we have, our
focus will be on people, organizations that are growing,
cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way
that's inconsistent with federal and state law"
a) aren't the federal laws the problem?
b) what authority does the Justice Dept. have prosecuting violators
of state law?
Isn't this just another muddy Obama proclamation?
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|3.19.09 @ 12:05AM|#
"Isn't this just another muddy Obama proclamation?"
Yeah, like you, and many other people on here give two shits what
it means. Intellectual honesty is rare trait even with the most
brilliant minds. Hell, it's easier to convince people to kill
themselves.
Anyway, Obama's not a Libertarian church member, and he isn't
outright legalizing every single drug on the planet, so it's not
worth veering from the "Socialist Monster" script that many of
you've been indoctrinated into since birth.
You're like women. You have a poor grasp of nuance. Bubbling
beneath the calculated exterior is a hyper emotional creature
waiting for a bus that will never come.
Ah, yes, the "New Romantic."
(Please tell me that I bruised at least one ego with this
post.)
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|3.19.09 @ 12:07AM|#
"When I can haz weeds?"
The lolcat rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose
again.
|3.19.09 @ 12:20AM|#
MaM!,
4/10. Absolutely retarded, but partial credit for the "You're like
women, who wait for busses, who know not of nuance" cutdown. Mmmm,
that's good crazy. Thanks for coming out, and stay fucked off.
|3.19.09 @ 1:46AM|#
What an effin' crock.
1) Even with a medical marijuana license from CA, you can still be
busted for possession. It all depends on The Man's mood.
2) So if some CA dispensary is believed to be in violation of
non-weed federal law, the Feds are still gonna stay away? Sure.
KyleG|3.19.09 @ 2:12AM|#
Giving people the freedom to make their own choices takes time and compromise but entitling them to trillions of dollars of debt just seems to happen overnight. fuck.
|3.19.09 @ 2:23AM|#
Here's a spot where Obama is unquestionably superior to both Bush and Clinton, and still the thread is filled with haters. Can't we give credit where credit is due? It's so rare to see the feds actually moving in the right direction on a topic near and dear to many of us here. Can't we use this as an opportunity to take a deep breath, release some of our anger, and smile about something?
Anonymous|3.19.09 @ 2:36AM|#
Major policy shifts take time and political compromise.
That's what they said before Poland was invaded.
MNG|3.19.09 @ 6:34AM|#
It's silly to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Marijuana legalization=perfect
Medical marijuana=good
Obama seems to be doing something good, something remarkable (any
previous administrations been this good on it?). Something that
would not have happened had we got a GOP President.
MNG|3.19.09 @ 6:36AM|#
I mean, you have to have a right wing streak a mile wide and a kilometer long to still be hating on these actions when even SIV acknowledges Obama's administration is moving towards something genuinely good and your hating because he didn't legalize everything in one fell swoop. Check your biases fellas.
|3.19.09 @ 7:10AM|#
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
US-Notenbank
Zur Stützung des amerikanischen Finanz- und Immobiliensektors will
die US-Notenbank zusätzlich eine Billion US- Dollar (770 Mrd Euro)
in die Märkte pumpen.
Wie die Federal Reserve am Mittwoch in Washington ankündigte, will
sie bis zu 750 Milliarden Dollar (577 Mrd Euro) an
hypothekenbesicherten Wertpapieren erwerben. Außerdem sollen bis zu
300 Milliarden Dollar an langfristigen Staatsanleihen gekauft
werden, um die Zinsen auf verschiedenen Märkten zu drücken. Dadurch
sollen Kreditklemme und Immobilienkrise überwunden werden. Zugleich
beließ die Fed den US-Leitzins auf seinem historischen Tiefstand
von knapp über null Prozent, der Mitte Dezember festgelegt worden
war.
Click here to find out more!
"Die Federal Reserve wird unter den gegebenen Umständen alle
verfügbaren Mittel einsetzen, um die wirtschaftliche Erholung
voranzutreiben und Preisstabilität zu gewährleisten", hieß es in
der Mitteilung der Notenbank nach der Sitzung des
Offenmarktausschusses.
|3.19.09 @ 7:25AM|#
federal, I tried reading your comment in my best colonel klink accent. It didn't work. Could someone please translate for me?
|3.19.09 @ 7:28AM|#
brotherben,
Whenever I see something in German in the comment threads, I just
assume it's a screed denying the holocaust.
|3.19.09 @ 7:30AM|#
Ben, it's a love note from Hitler to Eva Braun. Oh shit, I just Godwined the thread!!!
Mad Max|3.19.09 @ 7:33AM|#
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't think the
Pres has done it for the right reason.
The right reason is that it's not interstate commerce to grow,
harvest and smoke a plant inside the boundaries of a single state,
nor is regulating such is a necessary and proper measure to carry
into execution the commerce power. The Congressional statutes
saying otherwise are unconstitutional. The usual cop-out, that the
President can veto unconstitutional bills, and if that doesn't
work, he has to enforce them, is not applicable here, since Obama
wasn't President when these unconstitutional bills were passed, so
he had no chance to veto them.
The only defense of the constitutionality of federal marijuana
regulation is that such regulation is necessary to enforce American
anti-drug treaties. These treaties should be repudiated as an
improper interference with U.S. sovereignty.
The President takes an oath or affirmation to "preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States." If the
anti-marijuana laws are constitutional, then he must enforce them
"to the best of [his] Ability." If not, then he must to the best of
his ability treat them as null.
Mad Max|3.19.09 @ 7:35AM|#
No wonder Hitler's relationships were so dysfunctional, if his love notes were filled with discussions of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
|3.19.09 @ 7:38AM|#
Epi, what is this "godwining" you speak of?
It involves a gerbil, one testicle, and lederhosen.
"He keeps putting his testicles all over me."
"Excuse me?"
"You know, like octopus? Testicles?"
"Tentacles. N-T. Big difference."
|3.19.09 @ 7:57AM|#
In my day, Mary Jane gave black men the strength of 10 and all they wanted was white women. Times were simpler then. Not sure what it would do for white folks, we never got that far 'cause we couldn't take the chance. Too dangerous.
MNG|3.19.09 @ 8:00AM|#
"If the anti-marijuana laws are constitutional, then he must
enforce them "to the best of [his] Ability.""
Well, he can just say, as Holder did, that the best way to enforce
the drug laws, given the limited resources the fed gov has
available, is to only go after the ones that are "inconsistent with
federal and state law."
I'm not sure he can get around the "Prez should have vetoed the
law" argument by saying "well I wasn't Prez back then." Are you
saying any future President can say, about a law that a past
Congress passed and past President signed "uh, I don't think that
one was constitutional, so I ain't going to enforce that one." That
sounds pretty lawless to me...
MNG|3.19.09 @ 8:01AM|#
"Works every time."
Uh, indeed.
But works to what end?
Ah, there's the rub.
I mean, there is rubbing involved, right?
|3.19.09 @ 8:06AM|#
Mad Max,
No wonder Hitler's relationships were so dysfunctional, if his
love notes were filled with discussions of the U.S. Federal
Reserve.
You really have to hear Adolf read them out-loud to truly
understand their allure. Spittle-fleck lips make all the
difference.
|3.19.09 @ 8:08AM|#
Art-P.O.G. | March 19, 2009, 8:00am | #
Ah, yes, the "New Romantic."
Best music movement ever. IMHO.
Is someone spoofing Art-P.O.G.? That's not cool, man.
|3.19.09 @ 8:12AM|#
So Ron Silver and Natasha Richardson are dead. Who will be number 3, to fill out the celebrity death trifecta? Taking all bets.
|3.19.09 @ 8:20AM|#
Is someone spoofing Art-P.O.G.? That's not cool, man.
My love of teh Synthpop is just one more good reason to hate myself ;)
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 9:16AM|#
So Ron Silver and Natasha Richardson are dead. Who will be
number 3, to fill out the celebrity death trifecta? Taking all
bets.
I am hoping it is not Ed Asner. He makes protests worthwhile.
John|3.19.09 @ 9:30AM|#
The right reason is that it's not interstate commerce to
grow, harvest and smoke a plant inside the boundaries of a single
state, nor is regulating such is a necessary and proper measure to
carry into execution the commerce power.
According to Wickard vs Filburn it is.
The Congressional statutes saying otherwise are
unconstitutional.
The CSA states that because drugs cannot be known to be intra or
interstate, they are assumed to be interstate. This is like if you
are caught with over a certain amount it is assumed to be with
intent to distribute. This is legal because it is what the law says
and the law is constitutional because of the Wickard reading of the
commerce clause.
health advocate|3.19.09 @ 9:42AM|#
I personally think that alchohol and ciggarettes are more dangerous than marijuanna. How many people have you heard that have been killed by a high driver? I know MANY people who have been killed by DRUNK drivers.
John|3.19.09 @ 9:58AM|#
How many people have you heard that have been killed by a
high driver?
I know of one.
|3.19.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Liberals rarely admit to smoking. It makes them appear
lumpen. And even if they do admit to it, they would never
object to restrictions that they think will apply mostly to other
people.
Spoof-troll foul, 15 yard penalty, no first
down
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 10:23AM|#
SugarFree,
Just because I smoke them does not mean that I want it to be ok to
smoke them everywhere.
Knee-jerk Republicans like you give your side a bad name.
Tym|3.19.09 @ 10:28AM|#
And your baseball rule thingie in bold makes no sense to
me.
Football you mean.
|3.19.09 @ 10:36AM|#
The policy is to go after those people who violate both
federal and state law
Better than nothing, but less than meets the eye. Subject to change
at the whim of the AG and/or his boss.
And, my understanding is that in California much of the medical
marijuana business is technically not in compliance with CA law,
which essentially allows you to grow for your own medical use, but
not for anyone else's use. California has tolerated the
non-compliant operations, but under the Holder policy, they would
still be subject to DEA raids until California changes its law.
|3.19.09 @ 10:41AM|#
The only defense of the constitutionality of federal
marijuana regulation is that such regulation is necessary to
enforce American anti-drug treaties.
John is right about how federal law on intrastate growing and using
of any agricultural product, including pot, is constitutional under
Wickard.
If we were to take the contrary view (which I agree with), so that
the feds had no Constitutional power to regulate intrastate
agriculture, entering into a treaty which seems to call for the
feds to exercise an unconstitutional power does not give them that
power. Treaties do not amend or override the Constitution.
For example, if Obama were to enter into a treaty banning civilian
possession of firearms, it would not repeal or modify in any way
the Second Amendment, or authorize any federal laws that would be
unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Mad Max|3.19.09 @ 10:47AM|#
'This is legal because it is what the law says and the law is
constitutional because of the Wickard reading of the commerce
clause.'
On this subject, I agree (for once) with
Abraham Lincoln:
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional
questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny
that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to
a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled
to very high respect and consideration, in all parallel cases, by
all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously
possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case,
still the evil effect following it, being limited to that
particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and
never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than
could the evils of a different practice. At the same time the
candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government,
upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be
irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant
they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal
actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers,
having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into
the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there, in this view, any
assault upon the court, or the judges. It is a duty, from which
they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them;
and it is no fault of theirs, if others seek to turn their
decisions to political purposes.
'Are you saying any future President can say, about a law that a
past Congress passed and past President signed "uh, I don't think
that one was constitutional, so I ain't going to enforce that one."
That sounds pretty lawless to me...'
Yes, if the law is actually unconstitutional. What would be
'lawless' would be to enforce an unconstitional law.
Are you saying that if Congress passes a law requiring the
President to kill terrorist suspects without trial, Presidents
would have to carry out that law?
If Congress thinks the President is violating a
constitutionally-valid law, the impeachment option is available.
There are also judicial remedies (like habeas corpus, injunctions,
and the like) in some cases, though not in all.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Football you mean.
Whateverball. I don't follow brutality entertainment.
MNG|3.19.09 @ 7:01PM|#
"Are you saying that if Congress passes a law requiring the
President to kill terrorist suspects without trial, Presidents
would have to carry out that law?"
If THE PRESIDENT at the time signed it, then yes, he must
faithfully execute the laws. A particular President can veto a law
if they think it is unconstitutional, but once the OFFICE has
passed on it we can't have every INDIVIDUAL who occupies the office
decide what they want to execute and what they don't.
Robert|3.19.09 @ 7:45PM|#
John is right about how federal law on intrastate growing and using of any agricultural product, including pot, is constitutional under Wickard.
No, Wickard didn't go that far, but Raich did. The logic of
Wickard, which was about promoting interstate
commerce in wheat (which could then be federally cartelized), alone
would not apply to a case where the federal gov't was trying to
suppress commerce across the board in an item.
Raich took it farther by saying that by providing an escape from an
overall scheme of regulation, it would interfering with the federal
law for intrastate commerce to not be regulated by the same
law.
Electronic Medical Records |3.24.09 @ 11:31AM|#
When choosing a doctor to take care of your medical needs you need to make sure that the doctor that you trust your most personal information to is keeping that information safe and secure.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245