Word from the Obama Admin is coming on mmj
- Thread starter rootfingers
- Start date
- Status
K
Kola Radical
FanFriggin'Tastic!
This calls for a fattie. Make it a spliff.
Yes, Colorado has several Dispensaries... one on every other corner. Over a hundred in Denver now.
One just opened a few blocks from my house. The historic Hippie Gold Rush is on for sure.
This calls for a fattie. Make it a spliff.
Yes, Colorado has several Dispensaries... one on every other corner. Over a hundred in Denver now.
One just opened a few blocks from my house. The historic Hippie Gold Rush is on for sure.
Last edited:
quadracer
Active member
They are just guidelines, which aren't binding law. And these guidelines aren't something new, it is just a written form of their on-the-record statement.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/DOJ_Lynch_Response.pdf
The people that were recently sentenced asked the DOJ for clarification on their medical marijuana policy. The DOJ never gave one, despite their statements to the contrary.
There is still a lot of grey area in California law. These guidelines aren't really clarifying anything. They still leave it to prosecuters to decide on a case-by-case basis.
If you think these guidelines provide any move forward, we will have to wait and see. I am not going to be holding my breath. And please don't put words in my mouth, nothing is instant, never said it was.
But it is my opinion that these guidelines don't really change much. They are putting to writing what they have already said as public officials. The DOJ also reserves the right to prosecute whomever they think is violating state law.
Like Dale said, who decides that? What about local officials who still don't want to follow state law?
Hopefully these guidelines will get people out of prison and keep people out of prison. I really hope so. But we will have to wait and see.
It is "just a written form of their on-the-record statement" which clarifies and documents what was previously stated.
There is a clear way for people to stay within the law, if they are not interested in constantly 'testing the boundaries.' This clarification of policy was never intended to fix California's cannabis laws.
If a state clearly defines what patients and caregivers are allowed to do, and people stay within the boundaries the states set forth, then the feds aren't gonna bother with them. How can you imply this is not a step forward.
You will never finish the race unless you continue to take steps forward.
I am not putting any words into your mouth, and am certainly not asking you to hold your breath.
The ability to hold one's breath until the problem is solved, implies that you would like a solution which is much more instant than the steps which are being taken. Of course we have to wait and see, that's the whole point I was making when I said this was a process.
Here is the change, clearly spelled out for you...
Under Bush the DOJ policy was to prosecute all marijuana cases, regardless of state law.
NOW, the DOJ policy is to only go after marijuana cases where state law can be shown to be have been broken.
Before, state law made no difference... Now, it does...
Saying something to a public official and writing it down are quite different, wether or not you understand that difference...
This statement does nothing to address state problems. The states need to sort that out themselves.
I doubt they will get anyone out of prison. I have NO doubt it will keep people out of prison.
IMO nothing will change with this statement. I imagine it like a candy company:
"Would all the children like GRAPE flavored candy?"
"YEEEAAAAYYY!"
"Well would you like the grape candy to be MADE?"
"YEEEAAAAYYY!"
"Well we intend to MAKE IT FOR YOU!"
"YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAaAAYYY!"
"Joy, Joy! Well, that's just too bad! We don't WANT to make the grape candy for you anymore!"
...
"You sonofabitch!"
"Well tough shit deal with it little kid. I'm the guy in power, and I think I own everything, so THATS JUST TOO BAD! hahaha"
I sincerely hope I'm wrong though, but I'm not holding my breath about it. Looking at past actions, I don't think we'll get anywhere to be honest. The Obama admin has done the all-important voicing of the opinion (something new to American politics I'm afraid), but it's picking up the backpack for the hike across the mountains. Not enough. It's really all that they can do, and it's an important thing to do, but it's not enough. This doesn't have anything to do with new or old generations - people have been saying since the 60's that pot will be legal in 'a few years', well the states have picked up the ball and lowered penalties and decriminalized and what have you (in some areas).
But on a federal level, nothing is done, and the feds seem to be the only ones who care to do a bust in most areas, key word being most. And fed penalties can be harsh, almost grossly so compared to if the state (area) your in will simply rip plants growing on your property if there happens to be 7-foot bushes in front of your house.
tbh I see this as something that tries to ease the tension of the issue, but doesn't take care of the issue. I will be happy when the issue *begins* to be taken care of, although there is a lot on the plate of the gov't right now those issues doesn't matter to you if your in a jail because of medical grass.
I think we would definitely see more done if we weren't in wars and shit right now tho.
"Would all the children like GRAPE flavored candy?"
"YEEEAAAAYYY!"
"Well would you like the grape candy to be MADE?"
"YEEEAAAAYYY!"
"Well we intend to MAKE IT FOR YOU!"
"YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAaAAYYY!"
"Joy, Joy! Well, that's just too bad! We don't WANT to make the grape candy for you anymore!"
...
"You sonofabitch!"
"Well tough shit deal with it little kid. I'm the guy in power, and I think I own everything, so THATS JUST TOO BAD! hahaha"
I sincerely hope I'm wrong though, but I'm not holding my breath about it. Looking at past actions, I don't think we'll get anywhere to be honest. The Obama admin has done the all-important voicing of the opinion (something new to American politics I'm afraid), but it's picking up the backpack for the hike across the mountains. Not enough. It's really all that they can do, and it's an important thing to do, but it's not enough. This doesn't have anything to do with new or old generations - people have been saying since the 60's that pot will be legal in 'a few years', well the states have picked up the ball and lowered penalties and decriminalized and what have you (in some areas).
But on a federal level, nothing is done, and the feds seem to be the only ones who care to do a bust in most areas, key word being most. And fed penalties can be harsh, almost grossly so compared to if the state (area) your in will simply rip plants growing on your property if there happens to be 7-foot bushes in front of your house.
tbh I see this as something that tries to ease the tension of the issue, but doesn't take care of the issue. I will be happy when the issue *begins* to be taken care of, although there is a lot on the plate of the gov't right now those issues doesn't matter to you if your in a jail because of medical grass.
I think we would definitely see more done if we weren't in wars and shit right now tho.
A
Amstel Light
That would be a real day of celebration !^^^^
i wonder if you would be saying the same thing if the headline read " DOJ setting mandatory sentances for med users")? I went round and round with neocons just 3 months into his precidency.....all negative regurgetated limbaugh beck clones.... now 9 months in and some good news, but it's not really real is it....
A
Amstel Light
wtf... its on every form of news media IT'S out there!! it may not be LAW but the subject is recieving positive attention...
HAHAHAHAH only 10 months for the potential release of thousands of prisoners!!!!! and the piece of mind of current med patints?!!!
i would have voted for that chimp bush if he had did it in 4 years.....your going nowhere quick on this one....
yea a suggestion means nothing.....but now he is starting to do what he said he would....you think after the media attention recieved by this he could ever start retracting ??especially with elections coming in 2010?
yea get his back annd then you 2 can tivo glen beck and all three of you can cry together about the future of america..
Per Page 2:
Medical Marijuana is expensive because of the overhead. Yes. I can produce 1-2 ounces for about 20 bucks and get by with 200 an ounce if I sold, but I don't. Nor I don't have the store front to lease, the employees pay, the insurance or the lawyer fees and retainers to jack up the cost of my small time grow op.
The policy is still good to see and should help a majority of patients. Now if my state would get in line and get on board. I think it's best for people not to get involved with it. You can grow a few plants in your house undetected and avoid putting money and guns in the hands of a few big time criminals.
Medical Marijuana is expensive because of the overhead. Yes. I can produce 1-2 ounces for about 20 bucks and get by with 200 an ounce if I sold, but I don't. Nor I don't have the store front to lease, the employees pay, the insurance or the lawyer fees and retainers to jack up the cost of my small time grow op.
The policy is still good to see and should help a majority of patients. Now if my state would get in line and get on board. I think it's best for people not to get involved with it. You can grow a few plants in your house undetected and avoid putting money and guns in the hands of a few big time criminals.
Thanks for all the +rep everyone! I'll add some more of my thoughts, from a political and business perspective, if anyone wants to hear them.
I'm not so sure it'll be that far off. The tipping point is when it becomes more lucrative for governments (local, state, and federal) to tax and regulate than to prosecute and seize. This is where paying attention to the history of the repeal of alcohol prohibition is key. With governments starting to starve for revenue (the fed's corporate tax intake is down approx 50% over the last year...states are doing even worse because they can't print money like the Feds can) just like during the Depression, taxation becomes a much quicker avenue for revenue than does prosecution. Gov't may be a big ship that takes a while to turn but it does turn. This announcement (and the media hoopla around it...that is VERY important in politics...control the media and you control opinion) tells me that the revenue streams are starting to gain more attention at the top than the corrections industry. There are people that are anti-alcohol today for various reasons but the industry makes way too much money for governments for the governments to care what some people think. Cannabis is moving in the same direction. Learn from history! It always repeats itself!
Something else to consider is that cannabis will not be outright legalized until existing corporations have already worked out how to control the industry. Heck, they'll probably be writing the legislation! This is why I mentioned that a grower should be thinking about positioning to take advantage as soon as legalization occurs.
For example, there are HUGE fields of cannabis in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they are actually owned by giant international corporations already that are working out how to grow and distribute the product in a legal environment. There won't be a sudden legalization one day and big business never gets caught with its pants down. In other words, when legalization occurs you better believe that Walmart already has their product ready for the shelves of the pharmacy and the whole supply line is in place and running smoothly. They know what's going to happen before you do. It's part of politics in a pseudo-capitalistic society.
The key for the "little guy" is to recognize this and plan accordingly. I already have a filled out business license application just waiting for date and signature. Hell, I even have a few business names thought up. One thing that big business will never be able to accomplish is producing the REALLY GOOD SHIT on a large scale! Walmart (for example) will own the brick weed market but Walmart will never be able to supply your local market with the best strains and quality through their giant supply chain. That is where you, the grower of quality product, come in. I look at it like either you start your own legal cannabis business supplying the very best (you're selling the Dom Perignon while Walmart sells the Asti Spumanti) to the clientele that wants it. Another option would be to approach a large business like Walmart (again, just an example) and offer your product to them to sell to your local market at their stores in your area. You profit, they profit, people get high legally and the gov't gets its tax money. EVERYONE WINS!
Just a few thoughts about looking forward. When cannabis is legalized, there will be no more money in it unless you start thinking like a capitalist businessman. Otherwise youll grow all the personal smoke you want without fear of jail, but you better start looking for a real job.
If I have time later, I might post on how inflation should be taken into account as well. The quoted post above assumes that prices will come down. They might due to the new legality, BUT depending on how badly inflation starts to take off (due to current US economic policy that's destroying the US dollar), you may find that today's $2500/lb is actually $5000/lb in a few years. The reason is because $1 will be worth half of what it is today, therefore prices would actually go up. Sooo much stuff to consider.
With the excutive branch of the government making this statement it would mean the case for cannabis being schedule I is now bullshit? Nevermind the fact the US Government owns a patent on medical marijuana.
quadracer
Active member
It's not as clear as you think it is, especially when California's laws are not all that clear and still being resolved through the courts.
Has California clearly defined what patients and caregivers are allowed to do? I don't think so, especially considering that the Kelly decision is still far away.
You don't need to "spell it out" for me.
We will have to wait and see, especially when state law is not all that clear in the first place.
But yes, this is way better than the Bush administration's policy. As to whether or not it will be followed is the issue. So far, the Obama administration has continued to raid and even sentenced medical marijuana patients and providers, which is what Bush did. Like we both have said, we will have to wait and see. It is great though that the administration is specifically addressing it.
But the language they used is definitely strong and puts all the power to the federal government.
Let me spell it out for you, the above quote says that the government still has the power to arrest and prosecute people for violation of federal law. And since marijuana is still in violation of federal law, they still have the right to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers, even if the patients are acting within state law.
Don't forget that these are just "guidelines" and are no way binding.
This voluntary respect of state-law gives no guarantee that they have to or will follow it at any point in the future. I would like to see something a little more binding to prevent any future Bush's from changing policy again. Perhaps something from the Supreme Court. But that may be wishful thinking.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october192009/lynch_update.php
Time for a joint. Peace.
Medical Marijuana is not a synonym for California.
This clarification by the DOJ is only about FEDERAL POLICY.
if California has problems with California's marijuana policy then California needs to clear that up, NOT the DOJ.
I do need to spell it out for you, since you keep getting confused thinking this has anything at all to to with California's State law.
There are 13 MMJ states who are affected by this statement, yet completely unaffected by California's 'foggy grey areas'.
And even in California It IS COMPLETELY possible to be undeniably in compliance.
The 'grey foggy areas' don't apply to every MMJ patient,
and if this clarification of policy keeps one person free who would otherwise not be,
then it is worth it and a good thing imho.
Sorry this step forward was not radical enough for you to hold your breath until it resolves. I agree there is much much further to go, and ALL we need from the feds is for them to stay out of people's business who are following their state laws... If they will do that, then States (maybe not CA, lol) can come up with easily understandable MMJ laws which are easy to demonstrate compliance with, and set up a workable system to provide patients with quality controlled meds.
This clarification by the DOJ is only about FEDERAL POLICY.
if California has problems with California's marijuana policy then California needs to clear that up, NOT the DOJ.
I do need to spell it out for you, since you keep getting confused thinking this has anything at all to to with California's State law.
There are 13 MMJ states who are affected by this statement, yet completely unaffected by California's 'foggy grey areas'.
And even in California It IS COMPLETELY possible to be undeniably in compliance.
The 'grey foggy areas' don't apply to every MMJ patient,
and if this clarification of policy keeps one person free who would otherwise not be,
then it is worth it and a good thing imho.
Sorry this step forward was not radical enough for you to hold your breath until it resolves. I agree there is much much further to go, and ALL we need from the feds is for them to stay out of people's business who are following their state laws... If they will do that, then States (maybe not CA, lol) can come up with easily understandable MMJ laws which are easy to demonstrate compliance with, and set up a workable system to provide patients with quality controlled meds.
This is a written memo regarding statements made earlier this year. Although it is a baby step in the right direction, it is not, nor was it intended to, be full legalization.
Quit freaking crying. I can't believe the volume of whiners on this forum.
Accept it for what it is, a small step forward. If we can handle this small piece, maybe there will be another step in the future.
Prohibition has been here 70+ years. It's not going away overnight.
Be happy !
Quit freaking crying. I can't believe the volume of whiners on this forum.
Accept it for what it is, a small step forward. If we can handle this small piece, maybe there will be another step in the future.
Prohibition has been here 70+ years. It's not going away overnight.
Be happy !
quadracer
Active member
How significant is the change in federal drug policy? What will the new
guidelines mean for local and state law enforcement?
* Tom Riley, drug policy official in Bush administration
* Richard N. Van Wickler, corrections superintendent
* Henry I. Miller, Hoover Institution
* Joseph D. McNamara, former police chief, San Jose, Calif.
-----
A Muddier Federal Role
Tom Riley was associate director of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy from 2001 to 2009.
The new policy announced on medical marijuana can be broken down into two
parts. The first of these is not really “new†and the second is not really
“policy.â€
First, Attorney General Holder announced that it would no longer be a
“priority†for the federal government to prosecute patients with serious
illnesses. But that has never been a priority of federal law enforcement,
which has been focused on people engaged in the cultivation and trafficking
of significant quantities of illegal drugs. Let’s not be conned here: The
average quantity of marijuana that someone is in federal prison for
marijuana possession is over 100 lbs.
That is not “personal use,†nor is it Granny getting locked in the slammer
for puffing a few joints for “medical†purposes. Leaving aside the wisdom of
determining medical policy by ballot measure rather than by science, keeping
the federal law enforcement focus on drug trafficking is nothing new — it is
a continuation of the Bush and Clinton administration policies.
Second, the memo itself is internally conflicted to the point of
incoherence. While ostensibly encouraging prosecutors to defer to state and
local laws on marijuana, it also recognizes that federal “interest†can
still allow the feds, at their discretion, to step in and prosecute. In
fact, federal law remains completely unchanged.
The memo specifically states that the new policy should NOT be interpreted
to mean that medical marijuana has been legalized, and that it does not
provide a legal defense against federal prosecution. Moreover, it states
that even if an individual scrupulously complies with state laws, they STILL
may be subject to federal prosecution.
The gap between the headlines and the reality can only lead to further
confusion. California municipalities are struggling with an explosion of
store-front pot shops and grow operations. The new federal “guidelines†make
the federal role muddier, and may send a green light to cultivators and
traffickers who have been cynically using the “medical†label.
-----
A Victory for Common Sense
Richard N. Van Wickler is the Cheshire County superintendent of New
Hampshire Department of Corrections and a member of Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition.
The announcement by the Obama administration to not use limited resources to
target states that allow the use of medicinal marijuana, and the citizens
who use them, is a significant victory for common sense.
One case in point is California, which has built 21 new penitentiaries in a
five-year period. The state should get some relief from the no fewer than
200 raids by federal officers on state-approved medicinal marijuana
cooperatives — a significant acknowledgment of compassion for the sick and
respect for the autonomy of our individual states. The change shines a new
light on the horribly failed drug war.
Citing limited federal resources as a principal reason not to pursue
state-approved medicinal marijuana cooperatives is only one of many
excellent reasons why our country must change course. Considering that 83
percent of property crimes and as much as 40 percent of violent crimes are
unsolved in our country, it seems that what resources we do have could be
much better utilized. If preventing crime, reducing disease and addiction
rates, and reducing violence and needless death are goals of this
administration with respect to the drug war, then an exit strategy is
urgently needed on this failed war.
-----
But Is It Effective?
Henry I. Miller, a medical doctor, is a senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He was an official at the Food and Drug Administration from
1979 to 1994.
As an “exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion,†in the words
of the Department of Justice, this decision is understandable — and even
welcome — but it is not altogether satisfactory. Arguably, if marijuana has
therapeutic potential, it should be required to pass scientific and
regulatory muster like any other medicine.
We have considerable experience with making drugs from the opium poppy, for
example, but we don’t authorize patients to smoke opium for medical
purposes; rather, we require that opiate products, including morphine for
analgesia and paregoric for diarrhea, be standardized and quality-controlled
by composition and dose, fully tested, delivered in an appropriate manner,
and shown to be safe and effective. Why should marijuana be any different?
A promising and rational alternative to smoked marijuana is a
marijuana-derived drug called Sativex, formulated as a mouth spray, which
has been approved in Canada for the treatment of neuropathic pain associated
with multiple sclerosis and is in advanced clinical trials for muscle
spasticity, intractable pain and other uses. Unlike crude marijuana, its
purity and potency can be standardized.
Patients who are genuinely in need deserve safe and effective medicines, and
rigorous testing and oversight are the best ways to provide them.
-----
Hypocritical Foolishness
Joseph D. McNamara, a retired deputy inspector of the New York Police
Department and former police chief of San Jose, Calif., is a research fellow
at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
I never smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone a reefer. It’s not that I
was a puritan. Like the overwhelming majority of my fellow cops, I thought
it manly and cool to consume my share of beer and booze.
But as a veteran of more than 30 years in law enforcement, I always thought
it hypocritical foolishness to bust 700,000 to 800,000 Americans a year for
pot, and especially ridiculous to get excited about sick people smoking
marijuana because they believed accurately or mistakenly, that it helped
ease their pain.
I’m not inclined to enter the endless debates between crusading zealots
against marijuana and those who cite contrary evidence that marijuana is a
relatively harmless drug. I am convinced, however, that if you must be a
heavy drug user, you’re far better off smoking pot than, say, playing the
dangerous, insane drinking games common among our high school and college
kids, and excessive alcohol consumption by older heavy boozers.
In my mind, the question should focus on the societal costs of arresting
someone for using certain substances we disapprove of, and consequently
giving them a criminal record that can damage their lives and turn them into
career criminals. If Misters Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and countless other
successful people had been busted for their youthful flirtation with drugs
most would have been stigmatized and suffered irreparable career harm. The
learning moment here is that there is a terrible human cost to arresting
someone, which must be balanced against the harm it supposedly prevents.
Additional costs of the violence, corruption, and other crimes associated
with prohibition never seem to be included in estimated costs of drug war
policies. For example, the use of scarce police, court, and correctional
resources, and the disproportional mischief that aggressive arrest tactics
impose on minorities tilt the already out of balance price tag for our
irrational policy of unnecessarily criminalizing widespread conduct. Why is
a free society so terrified of trusting adults to make responsible
decisions?
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/a-new-course-on-medical-marijuana/
guidelines mean for local and state law enforcement?
* Tom Riley, drug policy official in Bush administration
* Richard N. Van Wickler, corrections superintendent
* Henry I. Miller, Hoover Institution
* Joseph D. McNamara, former police chief, San Jose, Calif.
-----
A Muddier Federal Role
Tom Riley was associate director of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy from 2001 to 2009.
The new policy announced on medical marijuana can be broken down into two
parts. The first of these is not really “new†and the second is not really
“policy.â€
First, Attorney General Holder announced that it would no longer be a
“priority†for the federal government to prosecute patients with serious
illnesses. But that has never been a priority of federal law enforcement,
which has been focused on people engaged in the cultivation and trafficking
of significant quantities of illegal drugs. Let’s not be conned here: The
average quantity of marijuana that someone is in federal prison for
marijuana possession is over 100 lbs.
That is not “personal use,†nor is it Granny getting locked in the slammer
for puffing a few joints for “medical†purposes. Leaving aside the wisdom of
determining medical policy by ballot measure rather than by science, keeping
the federal law enforcement focus on drug trafficking is nothing new — it is
a continuation of the Bush and Clinton administration policies.
Second, the memo itself is internally conflicted to the point of
incoherence. While ostensibly encouraging prosecutors to defer to state and
local laws on marijuana, it also recognizes that federal “interest†can
still allow the feds, at their discretion, to step in and prosecute. In
fact, federal law remains completely unchanged.
The memo specifically states that the new policy should NOT be interpreted
to mean that medical marijuana has been legalized, and that it does not
provide a legal defense against federal prosecution. Moreover, it states
that even if an individual scrupulously complies with state laws, they STILL
may be subject to federal prosecution.
The gap between the headlines and the reality can only lead to further
confusion. California municipalities are struggling with an explosion of
store-front pot shops and grow operations. The new federal “guidelines†make
the federal role muddier, and may send a green light to cultivators and
traffickers who have been cynically using the “medical†label.
-----
A Victory for Common Sense
Richard N. Van Wickler is the Cheshire County superintendent of New
Hampshire Department of Corrections and a member of Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition.
The announcement by the Obama administration to not use limited resources to
target states that allow the use of medicinal marijuana, and the citizens
who use them, is a significant victory for common sense.
One case in point is California, which has built 21 new penitentiaries in a
five-year period. The state should get some relief from the no fewer than
200 raids by federal officers on state-approved medicinal marijuana
cooperatives — a significant acknowledgment of compassion for the sick and
respect for the autonomy of our individual states. The change shines a new
light on the horribly failed drug war.
Citing limited federal resources as a principal reason not to pursue
state-approved medicinal marijuana cooperatives is only one of many
excellent reasons why our country must change course. Considering that 83
percent of property crimes and as much as 40 percent of violent crimes are
unsolved in our country, it seems that what resources we do have could be
much better utilized. If preventing crime, reducing disease and addiction
rates, and reducing violence and needless death are goals of this
administration with respect to the drug war, then an exit strategy is
urgently needed on this failed war.
-----
But Is It Effective?
Henry I. Miller, a medical doctor, is a senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He was an official at the Food and Drug Administration from
1979 to 1994.
As an “exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion,†in the words
of the Department of Justice, this decision is understandable — and even
welcome — but it is not altogether satisfactory. Arguably, if marijuana has
therapeutic potential, it should be required to pass scientific and
regulatory muster like any other medicine.
We have considerable experience with making drugs from the opium poppy, for
example, but we don’t authorize patients to smoke opium for medical
purposes; rather, we require that opiate products, including morphine for
analgesia and paregoric for diarrhea, be standardized and quality-controlled
by composition and dose, fully tested, delivered in an appropriate manner,
and shown to be safe and effective. Why should marijuana be any different?
A promising and rational alternative to smoked marijuana is a
marijuana-derived drug called Sativex, formulated as a mouth spray, which
has been approved in Canada for the treatment of neuropathic pain associated
with multiple sclerosis and is in advanced clinical trials for muscle
spasticity, intractable pain and other uses. Unlike crude marijuana, its
purity and potency can be standardized.
Patients who are genuinely in need deserve safe and effective medicines, and
rigorous testing and oversight are the best ways to provide them.
-----
Hypocritical Foolishness
Joseph D. McNamara, a retired deputy inspector of the New York Police
Department and former police chief of San Jose, Calif., is a research fellow
at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
I never smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone a reefer. It’s not that I
was a puritan. Like the overwhelming majority of my fellow cops, I thought
it manly and cool to consume my share of beer and booze.
But as a veteran of more than 30 years in law enforcement, I always thought
it hypocritical foolishness to bust 700,000 to 800,000 Americans a year for
pot, and especially ridiculous to get excited about sick people smoking
marijuana because they believed accurately or mistakenly, that it helped
ease their pain.
I’m not inclined to enter the endless debates between crusading zealots
against marijuana and those who cite contrary evidence that marijuana is a
relatively harmless drug. I am convinced, however, that if you must be a
heavy drug user, you’re far better off smoking pot than, say, playing the
dangerous, insane drinking games common among our high school and college
kids, and excessive alcohol consumption by older heavy boozers.
In my mind, the question should focus on the societal costs of arresting
someone for using certain substances we disapprove of, and consequently
giving them a criminal record that can damage their lives and turn them into
career criminals. If Misters Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and countless other
successful people had been busted for their youthful flirtation with drugs
most would have been stigmatized and suffered irreparable career harm. The
learning moment here is that there is a terrible human cost to arresting
someone, which must be balanced against the harm it supposedly prevents.
Additional costs of the violence, corruption, and other crimes associated
with prohibition never seem to be included in estimated costs of drug war
policies. For example, the use of scarce police, court, and correctional
resources, and the disproportional mischief that aggressive arrest tactics
impose on minorities tilt the already out of balance price tag for our
irrational policy of unnecessarily criminalizing widespread conduct. Why is
a free society so terrified of trusting adults to make responsible
decisions?
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/a-new-course-on-medical-marijuana/
I still say that if the statement makes one cop leave one patient alone who would have otherwise been harassed or had their rights abused, then it was worth doing and significant and is a step forward.
Just another statement to make Obama look more popular. I don't believe shit that man has said. Just another dirty politician from Chicago.
However, I hope this stops the raids and closings of clubs all across the country and especially in Los Angles and San Diego.
However, I hope this stops the raids and closings of clubs all across the country and especially in Los Angles and San Diego.
Here's a quote in the memorandum that I found interesting.....
"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".
Are they leaving the door open to prosecute those people that have minor illnesses that have gotten doctors to give them certification?
There's been a lot of talk here from people that anyone in California can get a certificate for anything. I wonder if I'm reading more into that one statement than is necessary?
"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".
Are they leaving the door open to prosecute those people that have minor illnesses that have gotten doctors to give them certification?
There's been a lot of talk here from people that anyone in California can get a certificate for anything. I wonder if I'm reading more into that one statement than is necessary?
K
Kola Radical
It's a great first step. Next we need to change the scheduling of cannabis and then legalize it outright.
We have to stop the madness and murder of the black market which is still big business for governments.
We have to stop the madness and murder of the black market which is still big business for governments.
- Status
