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

So you agree with the concept in principle, you just disagree as to the level of danger posed by different substances. I would suggest you study the drug history of China to get a better understanding of just how dangerous drugs can be to the survival of a nation.

41 posted on 04/08/2015 6:45:24 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

I don’t care what you think. You push for the legalization of all drugs. You are part of the problem with our societal decline.


42 posted on 04/08/2015 6:52:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
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.

We are. You are not. You are Libertarian, not conservative. You support policies which wreck society through a ridiculous and expansive advocacy of what is regarded as "license" otherwise known as "libertine."

Here is a quote from John Locke. Perhaps you will eventually be able to comprehend the difference between Conservative and Libertarian.

Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:

...

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.


43 posted on 04/08/2015 7:00:00 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
if you believe it says ANYTHING on the Federal Regulation of Drugs when Interstate Commerce is not plausibly involved.

What have I posted that suggests to you that I believe that?

44 posted on 04/08/2015 7:00:10 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Ms. Manners refers to herself in the third person.


45 posted on 04/08/2015 7:04:02 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Drugs are indeed bad and dangerous. But the war on drugs is even worse and more dangerous.


46 posted on 04/08/2015 7:05:04 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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.

he has not liberty to destroy himself

American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration) - which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

47 posted on 04/08/2015 7:07:58 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Mariner
being sneaked across our border

The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

48 posted on 04/08/2015 7:11:03 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Drugs are indeed bad and dangerous. But the war on drugs is even worse and more dangerous.

This is what the Libertarians have been saying for the last fifty years, but this is not true. Allowing unfettered access to drugs is far more dangerous than stopping it, but people never hear that side of the argument.

Once again, I point out what happened to China. Around ~1840 China lost the Opium war with England, and thereafter had legal drugs. Their population continued to grow in addiction until the loss of population and economic activity destroyed the ability of that nation to defend itself.

It was invaded and conquered by much smaller Japan (who also made large profits shipping drugs into China) and eventually the nation was taken over by a Dictator.

Drugs wrecked the nation of China. They CAUSED massive death and Misery to that nation. They will do the same thing if they become legal here.

This is not speculation, this is history. We know what will happen because this experiment has already occurred, and that is what did happen.

Stop listening to people who tell you the drug war is worse. No, having legal drugs is far worse. Again, we've already watched this play out once before.

49 posted on 04/08/2015 7:15:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did. You just refuse to grasp the foundation upon which both documents was built.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

- which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

Here is your false comparison again. Drugs wreck lives and kill people. Bad food choices may contribute to a decline in health, but drugs are concentrated death.

50 posted on 04/08/2015 7:19:53 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

51 posted on 04/08/2015 7:20:48 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Are you saying the U.S. should go back to having alcohol Prohibition?


52 posted on 04/08/2015 7:45:03 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did.

Quote the text in either document that does so.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

Which doesn't say government can make people moral - so what's your point?

- which is why Moochelle can't force us to eat healthy, nor can the feds force us to not use unhealthy substances like alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

Bad food choices may contribute to a decline in health, but drugs are concentrated death.

Nobody ever died because someone smoked pot. (People have died because someone smoked pot and then drove, which is no more an argument for banning pot than it is for banning cars.)

53 posted on 04/08/2015 7:55:04 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

54 posted on 04/08/2015 7:56:09 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Give it a break. No one is interested in indulging fraudulent comparisons between drugs and alcohol. Likewise If that is the only concept that you can garner from what I posted, then I regard it as a complete waste of *MY* time to attempt to engage you in discussion on this issue.


55 posted on 04/08/2015 7:58:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Quote the text in either document that does so.

No you idiot, you quote in the constitution where the word "bullet" is mentioned. Stop your deceitful lying by asserting that a word must be used for a constitutional concept to be valid.

You are a deliberate prevaricator.

56 posted on 04/08/2015 7:59:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

Defending the nation against dangerous threats is not a "penumbra", it is the most essential function the government is tasked with.

*YOU* stop lying about the constitution being unclear on this. It is very clear that dangerous threats to the populace must be dealt with.

57 posted on 04/08/2015 8:02:25 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
American conservatives seek to conserve the Founders' structure of a federal government of limited enumerated powers. While Locke influenced them, his ideas regarding the duty to preserve oneself didn't make it into the Constitution (nor even the Declaration)

But they did.

Quote the text in either document that does so.

No you idiot, you quote in the constitution where the word "bullet" is mentioned.

Quit hiding behind straw men - I didn't say any particular word had to be there.

58 posted on 04/08/2015 8:08:51 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The feds have Constitutional authority over whatever crosses national or state borders - but not things made and consumed within the same single state.

If it constitutes a threat to the nation, then yes they do.

Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.

It is very clear that dangerous threats to the populace must be dealt with.

And yet you quote no Constitutional text to that effect. Hmmm ...

59 posted on 04/08/2015 8:11:34 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Quote the text in either document that does so.

Quit hiding behind straw men - I didn't say any particular word had to be there.

Cognitive dissonance is not your friend.

60 posted on 04/08/2015 8:20:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | 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