Obama cracks down on medical marijuana

[Puppycow]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/30/white-house-overrides-2009-mem

What they are saying doesn't even make sense:

"The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels," the memo reads.

But who are they going after?

[W]ithin the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.

Not gangs or cartels, but medical marijuana businesses authorized by state or local laws.

The US needs a third-party or independent anti-prohibition candidate for president. The only way things will change is if being "tough on drugs" loses votes rather than gains votes. People against this insanity need a way to be counted so that their votes can count for something.

 

[Mike!]

Reporter: Did you inhale?
Obama: Wasn't that the point?

 

[BenBurch]

Whatever Obama actually thinks about this topic, he is clearly scared to death of the political fallout of being seen as "soft on drugs," even when all logic and reason says he should be in this case.

 

[Ausmerican]

Whatever Obama actually thinks about this topic, he is clearly scared to death of the political fallout of being seen as "soft on drugs," even when all logic and reason says he should be in this case.

Nah. There are two more important factors at play.
1) Economy is hurting everyone and weed isn't too cheap.
2) It would be insane for the President to try buying weed on the street.

Ergo; one or two good busts and there is enough confiscated weed to get by on for quite a while!



(Disclaimer: For the far right and far left folks lacking a sense of humor. The above is a joke. I dont really think President Obama is toking (not that I would really have a huge problem with that), nor do I really think he is using the law to score free pot.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ergo; one or two good busts and there is enough confiscated weed to get by on for quite a while!

It's an interesting way to go about trying to kick the tobacco habit!

 

[WildCat]

But who are they going after?



Not gangs or cartels

How do you know? The problem with medical marijuana is there is no legal source for it. The prices paid at the counter reflect that this is an illegal product with a 10,000% price markup to cover the risk of going to prison and/or getting all your property seized. This type of work is very attractive to criminal gangs.

 

[dtugg]

**** the federal government.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The difference between marijuana and water is that one can overdose on water. That is what they say in the great socialist state I live in.

 

[Ausmerican]

The difference between marijuana and water is that one can overdose on water. That is what they say in the great socialist state I live in.

How is that incorrect?

 

[Cain]

I thought Obama admitted to not only smoking marijuana but snorting coke.

This guy. An African-American who specialized in Constitutional law and believes in a "separate but equal" institution for homosexuals. What's really sick is our country's view toward people in pain. If we did not so strictly regulate drugs (not just pot) we'd probably cut into the demand for physician-assisted suicide. But no. We insist that people needlessly suffer. Of course we can't expect Obama to exercise leadership and take a principled but unpopular stand. He's a Democrat.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Cain, you appear to be on the cusp of making the argument that marijuana ought to be a controlled substance, like uppers and downers that doctors now perscribe, rather than an illegal substance.

That is the stance that California took a while back, with the result that the Feds interfered. (My brother lives in SF, and is more than mildly familiar with the case in Oakland that saw the Feds stepping into a CA matter).

So, if that's the next solution, how to implement it?

(Two points if you notice how well meth and cocaine are "controlled" up to this point.)

 

[Cain]

Cain, you appear to be on the cusp of making the argument that marijuana ought to be a controlled substance, like uppers and downers that doctors now perscribe, rather than an illegal substance.

I admit the policy implications here are dicey, especially with a schedule I drug that approximately zero people O.D. on every year. Meanwhile Republican housewives in the O.C. are addicted to Vicodin and Percocet, freaking junkies.

As usual, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. You're not talking about the mechanics of prescriptions but how we do an end-run around the federal government? In either case I don't know. Ideally, the President takes a principled stance, wins over a majority of the public, and puts an end to this stupid war on drugs. I'd like him to wage a war on ignorance, but that's the only fight where he's a conscientious objector. I like what Puppycow said, but I think a third party built around this issue would be a waste of energy. Probably need the activism and high-profile support that's been seen on the issue of gay marriage.



We need unlikely spokespersons like Stephen Hawking and Roger Ebert. Maybe they could sing a duet. Throw in a charismatic female Republican politician -- a mom-type who has never smoked anything in her life, surround her with the girls who do beer ads (and they're wearing bikinis). Have the Coen brothers shoot it. I'm a goddamn *********** genius.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I admit the policy implications here are dicey, especially with a schedule I drug that approximately zero people O.D. on every year.

No dicier than tobacco and beer, which are what dope is a nice combination of, in effect.

Meanwhile Republican housewives in the O.C. are addicted to Vicodin and Percocet, freaking junkies.

Irrelevant to the topic of dope.

As usual, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

What do you suggest as the first step forward to the beer/smoke status. As we know, tobacco and beer are both controlled substances. They are legally controlled, and in some cases illegal to use and sell, but in other cases legal to sell and use.

So there is precedent for a substance to have more than one status.

You're not talking about the mechanics of prescriptions but how we do an end-run around the federal government?

No. CA was working the issue of locally produced and locally applied and locally prescribed dope. What they ran into was a conflict of domain: state versus federal.

In either case I don't know. Ideally, the President takes a principled stance, wins over a majority of the public, and puts an end to this stupid war on drugs.

No he gets Congress on board, one way or the other, and thus gets a bill or a law put together that puts that substance in the dual status regime.

I don't know how, and was hoping your imagination might have something lurking about in it.

We need unlikely spokespersons like Stephen Hawking and Roger Ebert. Maybe they could sing a duet. Throw in a charismatic female Republican politician -- a mom-type who has never smoked anything in her life, surround her with the girls who do beer ads (and they're wearing bikinis). Have the Coen brothers shoot it. I'm a goddamn *********** genius.

I'll settle for that on the ad campaign, those guys tell memorable stories.

But it first needs a message.

What is it?

 

[dtugg]

No dicier than tobacco and beer, which are what dope is a nice combination of, in effect.

Tobacco and alcohol are both far more dangerous than marijuana.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Tobacco and alcohol are both far more dangerous than marijuana.

You smoke tobacco unfiltered, do you?

 

[BenBurch]

You smoke tobacco unfiltered, do you?

Filters don't filter in any useful way...

If you smoked as much MJ as people who smoke cigarettes smoke tobacco, you'd be so wasted you couldn't move, and you still would not have done yourself an equivalent amount of harm.

And if you smoke really high quality MJ, you smoke very little of it, and so you are at proportionately less risk.

 

[dtugg]

You smoke tobacco unfiltered, do you?

Marijuana smoke is nowhere near as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke, if at all. And you don't have to smoke it anyway.

 

[mysteronyx]

Marijuana smoke is nowhere near as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke, if at all. And you don't have to smoke it anyway.

As supported by the following article:

Tobacco and cannabis smoke contain the same carcinogenic compounds -- and depending on which part of the plant is smoked, cannabis smoke can contain more of them -- but, whereas nicotine activates these carcinogenic compounds, THC has been shown to inhibit them in mice cells. THC is very likely to have protective effects against the carcinogens present in smoke in humans too, but cannabis smoke remains nonetheless carcinogenic.

While nicotine and THC can act on related cellular pathways, they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. The cells of lungs and the respiratory passages are lined with nicotine receptors, but do not appear to carry THC receptors. This explains why cannabis smoking has not been associated with lung cancer, a main cause of death from cigarette smoking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm

 

[dtugg]

As supported by the following article:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm

Thanks. I didn't know the explanation as to why.

 

[mysteronyx]

Of course, here's a more recent article:

The new study begins to address that question by comparing marijuana smoke vs. tobacco smoke in terms of toxicity to cells and to DNA. Scientists exposed cultured animal cells and bacteria to condensed smoke samples from both marijuana and tobacco. There were distinct differences in the degree and type of toxicity elicited by marijuana and cigarette smoke.
Marijuana smoke caused significantly more damage to cells and DNA than tobacco smoke, the researchers note. However, tobacco smoke caused chromosome damage while marijuana

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm

That doesn't directly mention carcinogenicity, but it doesn't sound good.