Posted on 10/22/2009 5:56:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised to stop federal interference with state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana. On Monday, the Justice Department seemed to deliver on that promise with a memo telling U.S. attorneys to avoid prosecuting people who use or provide medical marijuana in compliance with state law.During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised to stop federal interference with state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana. On Monday, the Justice Department seemed to deliver on that promise with a memo telling U.S. attorneys to avoid prosecuting people who use or provide medical marijuana in compliance with state law.
The new policy sounds a lot better than the Bush administration's refusal to tolerate any deviation from federal law in this area. But because of disagreements about what compliance with state law requires, it may not make much difference in practice.
While campaigning in New Hampshire during the summer of 2007, Obama said "prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users" is "really not a good use of Justice Department resources." In a March 2008 interview with Oregon's Mail Tribune, he said, "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."
Two months later, when another Oregon paper, Willamette Week, asked Obama whether he would "stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers," he replied, "I would, because I think our federal agents have better things to do."
Critics of the war on drugs (and consistent advocates of federalism) were therefore disappointed that DEA raids on medical marijuana providers continued after Obama took office. There were five in January and February, all in California, even as the White House affirmed that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."
The mixed signals continued. "The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Attorney General Eric Holder declared in March. Less than a week later, the DEA raided a dispensary in San Francisco, reportedly because of irregularities associated with the collection of state sales tax (as opposed to violations of state drug laws).
In light of Holder's announcement, a federal judge in Los Angeles delayed the sentencing of Morro Bay dispensary operator Charles Lynch, only to be told by the Justice Department that the case against Lynch was consistent with the new policy. In August, the DEA arrested a medical marijuana patient and grower in Upper Lake, Calif. The DEA also has continued to participate in raids initiated by local officials, hitting two Los Angeles dispensaries in August and 14 San Diego dispensaries last month.
This week's memo, which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says merely describes what "has been administration policy since the beginning of this administration in January," helps explain these apparent inconsistencies. It tells federal prosecutors in the 14 states that recognize cannabis as a medicine they "should not focus federal resources ... on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."
In California especially, that phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for federal meddling. Last fall, the California Supreme Court rejected the idea that medical marijuana suppliers are legal as long as their customers designate them as "primary caregivers." Patients who are not up to growing marijuana on their own can still organize as "collectives" or "cooperatives," but local officials disagree with state officials and each other about what that means.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, for example, maintains that state law does not permit over-the-counter sales, which would make virtually all of the 800 or so medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles illegal.
Cooley's position may be welcomed by the DEA and like-minded officials in jurisdictions such as San Diego, but it conflicts with the views of more cannabis-tolerant officials in places such as Oakland and San Francisco. It also contradicts guidelines issued last year by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who says patient collectives may charge for marijuana, as long as they do not take in more revenue than is necessary to cover their overhead and operating expenses.
Until the law is clarified by the courts or the legislature, the federal government will have plenty of opportunities to continue interfering with the distribution of medical marijuana.
yeah, Donut Dolly, the new Spruging General is concerned about the rise in brownies use....
Also known as drug dealer Charles Lynch. Have the state dispense it. Take away any profit motive. Cut out the drug dealers and bogus prescriptions.
Or, admit it is just for getting high and legalize it like alcohol.
The messiah has killed more Americans making up his mind in Afghanistan than pot has since the 1700’s. Now he should get the fed’s hands off of important state’s rights stuff - like GUNS.
He hasn’t even made up his mind about Afghanistan and more troops are getting killed because of it
I think we need the policy on drugs for adults of all of our Founding Fathers, and presidents, congresses and courts up into the 20th Century: Liberty.
It’s not that complicated—and will leave us with a lot more money to treat addicts—who until Jesus comes again, we will always have with us.
Medical marijuana already exists; it is called Marinol. Medical use of marijuana is just an excuse to allow potheads to light up. One marijuana joint is as damaging as smoking an entire pack of cigarettes. Marijuana users I read recently are twenty times more likely to develop lung cancer.
It makes more sense to administer the active ingredient in the weed, and take a pill.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, ..."smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."
So what if someone does light up just for the pleasure of it? That is no more your business then it is the business of the State. Untill booze and tobacco, guns, fatty foods and other unhealthy and possibly dangerous activities are so regulated by the State, any laws against personal use of marijuana are unjust laws and it behooves the conservative to oppose them...Nanny Staters we are not!
Many businesses have a “no drugs” policy, and they test employees on a random and regular basis.
You cannot have someone driving a company truck without drug tests.
Insurance companies will not pay for accidents where the employee has been using drugs...both vehicle insurance and workmen’s comp insurance.
There is a big battle brewing.
The lawyers are loving it. The small businesses will get hammered over this.
I agree, as long as you are not harming another person. E.G. you can drink, but I have no problem with penalizing drunk drivers who endanger / harm others.
There are four times the amount of tar in a a joint than a cigarette, yet a joint is the same as a pack of cigarettes? Last time I looked there are 20 cigarettes in a pack, not four.
Did you even pass basic math in elementary school?
Smoking pot increases the risk of cancer by a factor of twenty, compared to smoking cigarettes.
That is complete and utter horsecrap. Name me one reputable study or anything that says that.
Marijuana cigarettes have more tar than regular cigarettes. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. For these reasons it is thought that smoking marijuana may increase lung cancer risk. But because marijuana is an illegal substance it is not easy to gather information about its effects on the body.
On the other hand more data are becoming available.
See: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096
I was quoting an even more recent study that reported the 20 fold increase in cancer risk for pot smokers. As more statistical data become available the results will be worse in my opinion, simply because marijuana has more carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and tend to be smoked without filters while inhaling more deeply, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled. Lung damage by smoking cigarettes is well documented; smoking pot with considerable more lung damaging agents has to be much worse. It is simple common sense.
Nowhere does it say there that pot is a 20x greater risk to increase cancer.
Speaking of common sense, people don’t smoke nearly the volume of pot as they do compared to tobacco. Nobody has a 20 gram a day pot habit. Tons of people have a 20 gram a day tobacco habit.
Speaking of studies:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
People who smoke marijuana—even heavy, long-term marijuana users—do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.
Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.
The findings were a surprise to the researchers. “We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use—more than 500-1,000 uses—would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana,” said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles.
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.