Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's “progressive” war against medical marijuana is the biggest of any president in history
wordpress ^ | April 7, 2015 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 04/07/2015 9:34:24 AM PDT by grundle

With help from 80 years of self-described “progressives,” Obama is now waging the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president in history

Anyone who has been following the self-described “progressive” politicians since FDR should not be surprised at Obama’s war against medical marijuana.

Obama’s war against medical marijuana is a direct result of the policies of the self-described “progressives” in the White House, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court, going all the way back to FDR’s New Deal.

During the Great Depression, while millions of Americans were hungry, the self-described “progressives” who controlled the federal government passed laws that were deliberately designed to increase the price of food. For example, they passed a law that limited how much wheat farmers could grow, with the deliberate intent of raising its price. The people who supported this policy referred to themselves as “progressives,” and they had control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

A farmer named Roscoe Filburn had grown more wheat than he was legally allowed to grow. However, he never sold the wheat, and it never crossed state lines.

However, even though he never sold the wheat, and even though it never crossed state lines, the “progressive” majority on the Supreme Court still claimed that his growing of this extra wheat constituted “interstate commerce.”

Of course this ruling is absurd. He did not sell the wheat. The wheat never crossed state lines. Nevertheless, it was ruled as being “interstate commerce.”

This 1942 ruling, called Wickard v. Filburn, massively expanded the power of the federal government. What it meant was that pretty much anything could be considered “interstate commerce,” and that there were no longer any real limits on federal power. “Progressives” cheered this ruling – conservatives and libertarians were very critical of it.

Flash forward. In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. This was completely in line with the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because of the 10th amendment, when the federal government had wanted to outlaw alcohol in the early 20th century, it had to pass the 18th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to outlaw alcohol. Without the 18th amendment, the 10th amendment would have prevented the federal government from outlawing alcohol. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. During the time that alcohol was illegal, it was controlled by organized crime, and was associated with murder, bribing of public officials, and contaminated “bathtub gin” that caused its drinkers to go blind, and sometimes even killed them. In many ways, it was extremely similar to today’s “war on drugs.”

As I said above, in 1996, California legalized medical marijuana, and the 10th amendment supported its right to do so.

A few years later, in California, a woman named Angel Raich was using medical marijuana, which her doctor had deemed necessary in order to save her from suffering from excruciating and life-threatening pain. According to California law, Raich’s medical marijuana was completely legal.

In addition, the medical marijuana that Raich was using was home grown – it had never crossed state lines, and no money had changed hands. So, according to the 10th amendment, it should not have been subject to federal control.

However, even though Raich’s medical marijuana never crossed state lines, and was never sold for money, the United States Supreme court still ruled that Raich’s medical marijuana constituted “interstate commerce.” This ruling, which took place in 2005, is called Gonzales v. Raich. The precedent cited for this ruling is the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn. Other than the fact that one case was about wheat and the other was about medical marijuana, the two cases are identical.

Thus, the 2005 ruling against medical marijuana is based on policies which were enacted and supported by “progressives” during the New Deal.

And if we look at how the different Supreme Court justices sided in the 2005 ruling, this becomes even more clear. In the 2005 ruling, every “progressive” justice on the Supreme court – every one of them, without exception – voted against medical marijuana. They did this – not because they have anything against medical marijuana per se – but instead, because they did not want to overturn Wickard v. Filburn.

So who were the dissenters in the 2005 medical marijuana ruling? The dissenters – those who supported states’ rights on the issue of medical marijuana – were justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

Imagine that – all the “progressives” on the court ruled against medical marijuana, while three conservative justices voted in favor of it. Of course it wasn’t the medical marijuana per se that they were ruling on – instead, it was the states’ right to make their own decision on medical marijuana that they were truly ruling on.

In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.

In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went

“far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.”

In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote:

“The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.”

In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote:

“Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.”

In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said:

“I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district.

In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients. In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana. In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA. In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords. During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down 40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.

In April 2013, the DEA raided four medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles, California. Also in April 2013, the DEA raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Diego, California. In July 2013, the DEA conducted multiple medical marijuana raids in Washington state, including the cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle. In August 2013, the DEA raided People’s Choice Alternative Medicine, a medical marijuana facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In October 2013, the DEA raided 28 medical marijuana facilities in Michigan. In November 2013, the DEA raided 12 medical marijuana facilities in Denver, Colorado.

In April 2014, the DEA raided four medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver, Colorado. In June 2014, DEA agents visited the homes and offices of doctors in Massachusetts who had written prescriptions for medical marijuana, and threatened to confiscate their federal licenses to prescribe certain medications if they did not stop writing prescriptions for medical marijuana. In October 2014, the DEA raided two medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles, California.

In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana. Obama’s marijuana smoking wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine – how cold hearted can a person be?



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: authorondrugs; barackobama; bsarticle; cannabis; cult; homosexualagenda; jonhuntsman; jonhuntsmanjr; jonhuntsmansr; libertarians; marijuana; marijuanacult; medicalmarijuana; obama; paultardation; paultardnoisemachine; pot; potcult; progressives; randpaulnoisemachine; randsconcerntrolls; utah; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: ConservingFreedom

But that could only be true for things not able to be produced in the same state. Otherwise all production impacts interstate commerce.

There has to be something else there and reading the whole case will probably ruin what’s left of the day.


21 posted on 04/07/2015 10:47:21 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
all production impacts interstate commerce.

That's exactly what FDR wanted, and what he got after his court-packing threat.

22 posted on 04/07/2015 11:12:37 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Marinol is the solution. It provides all the medicinal benefits and no one has to smoke.

The reason people want medical POT is simply that they want to smoke it.

I was recently interviewed by both the local TV station and newspaper - none of what I said about Marinol was mentioned in print or the news segment. Simply stated, smokers all stated they want immediate relief from smoking and did not want the same relief from a the pill form over the drug counter.

If Obama really wanted to help those in pain, legalize Marinol for prescription in lieu of Vicodin, Tylenol-3, etc.

23 posted on 04/07/2015 12:06:28 PM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jumper; grundle
Marinol is the solution. It provides all the medicinal benefits and no one has to smoke.

Since it's slow onset, its dose can't be titrated to the minimum effective level - and patients with nauseau can't keep it down.

If Obama really wanted to help those in pain, legalize Marinol for prescription

It's already legal for prescription.

24 posted on 04/07/2015 12:22:22 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Someday the useful idiots that voted for this clown just might wake up.


25 posted on 04/07/2015 12:24:19 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker; humblegunner; Syncro; grundle
"This is some overwrought stoner's rant."

Bingo!

And who might the "overwrought stoner" be?
Why it's the OP himself - The Gooch.

From his "about" page:

grundle Since Dec 29, 2001
I’m a Ron Paul supporter who was born in 1971 and lives in Pittsburgh, PA.

And of course, scratch a Paul-Bot and you'll find a frustrated Hippie - Right, Gooch?



(What's that smell?)

26 posted on 04/07/2015 12:36:37 PM PDT by shibumi ("Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Would the 10th amendment allow California to legalize Heroin, Crack, Nuclear Weapons and Biological agents too? "

Probably.

But not even Calif would do that.

But it's interesting to see how many Drug Warriors on this forum support Filburn and the dismantling of the Constitution.

So may folks are outcome-based when looking at the law.

As long as it leads to an outcome they support, the construct and restrictions be damned.

27 posted on 04/07/2015 12:42:25 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Don’t be dissin’ the “New Media”, yo.

When they steal stuff and add a few buzzwords..
why.. that’s CITIZEN JOURNALISNS...

And stuff. New Media.


28 posted on 04/07/2015 1:08:30 PM PDT by humblegunner (Cruz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
But it's interesting to see how many Drug Warriors on this forum support Filburn and the dismantling of the Constitution.

You can't support the federal War on Drugs and not support the dismantling of the Constitution. What's interesting is that they're under the delusion that they're American conservatives.

29 posted on 04/07/2015 1:17:39 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
But not even Calif would do that.

I think you are very much in error when you assert there are limits to California's debauchery.

But it's interesting to see how many Drug Warriors on this forum support Filburn and the dismantling of the Constitution.

I do not regard Filburn as a legitimate authorization for drug interdiction. I regard the mandate to defend the nation as the source for this authority.

30 posted on 04/07/2015 3:08:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"I do not regard Filburn as a legitimate authorization for drug interdiction. I regard the mandate to defend the nation as the source for this authority. "

That's a very broad interpretation. In fact, I'm sure a bunch of ACLU lawyers and the Obama admin could come up with all sorts of things they could apply that legal "logic" to.

Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.

31 posted on 04/07/2015 4:07:15 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Heroin and crack, yes. But not nuclear weapons and biological agents.


32 posted on 04/07/2015 5:26:03 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

The author has never used marijuana.


33 posted on 04/07/2015 5:27:17 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grundle; colorado tanker; humblegunner
"The author has never used marijuana."

Referring to oneself in he third person is often a sign of impending mental collapse, frequently triggered by drug use.

34 posted on 04/07/2015 5:42:12 PM PDT by shibumi ("Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Referring to oneself in he third person is often a sign of impending mental collapse, frequently triggered by drug use.

Bob Dole is a stoner?

35 posted on 04/07/2015 6:35:43 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; DiogenesLamp
I do not regard Filburn as a legitimate authorization for drug interdiction. I regard the mandate to defend the nation as the source for this authority.

That's a very broad interpretation. In fact, I'm sure a bunch of ACLU lawyers and the Obama admin could come up with all sorts of things they could apply that legal "logic" to.

Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.

Expansive readings of the Constitution always provide more grist for the liberals' mill than for the conservatives' - alleged conservatives who yield that much ground to liberals for the sake of their pet cause are fools at best.

36 posted on 04/07/2015 6:39:38 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Where do you think he got his sense of humor?


37 posted on 04/07/2015 6:46:28 PM PDT by shibumi ("Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
"Expansive readings of the Constitution always provide more grist for the liberals' mill than for the conservatives' - alleged conservatives who yield that much ground to liberals for the sake of their pet cause are fools at best. "

I'll go by the letter of the law, thank you.

And, I'll oppose any and every person who does not, with all my mortal strength. In every arena.

Every time.

Including you, here.

YOU seek an expansive reading of the Constitution if you believe it says ANYTHING on the Federal Regulation of Drugs when Interstate Commerce is not plausibly involved.

Therefore you're a New Deal Filburn supporter and enemy of liberty and the Constitution.

You just would have a different result from the same powers.

Absent Filburn, what is the Article that would authorize the Federal Government to outlaw any drug?

38 posted on 04/07/2015 7:49:40 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” - G. K. Chesterton


39 posted on 04/07/2015 7:52:16 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
That's a very broad interpretation. In fact, I'm sure a bunch of ACLU lawyers and the Obama admin could come up with all sorts of things they could apply that legal "logic" to.

It is a broad interpretation to regard dangerous chemicals being sneaked across our border and which kill Americans as a proper usage of the Defense mandate?

If you apply this exact same rule to Anthrax, or Sarin, do you still consider it too broad?

Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.

And this is just nonsense, not even worthy of rebuttal.

40 posted on 04/08/2015 6:42:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson