Eric Holder: put that in your pipe and smoke it
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Wow — no matter where one stands on medical marijuana and drug decriminalization — today is one for the history books. The Obama Administration via AG Eric Holder has just announced that it will not pursue prosecution of medical marijuana users, growers or dispensaries, as long as they are operating within state law. Seeing that 13 states already have laws allowing for some form of medical marijuana, and several others have been debating proposed legislation allowing for such access, this formal directive will have a big impact. States like California and Colorado have been grappling over how to square their own laws with that of the federal government, which still considers pot an illegal drug of the most dangerous order. But in issuing new guidelines preventing the prosecution of protected users, sellers and growers, Obama is leaving it up to the states, making a major break from the Bush Administration, which went after such “criminals” with zeal.
Read the whole story here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Good. The sooner the War on Drugs ends in the US, the sooner it’ll end everywhere else. This is a good start.
Leaving aside the question of marijuana itself, this leaves open an interesting question. If the federal government is prepared to defer to states in this, how will they justify their more overbearing application of law in other matters? The NRA can now cite this policy in an attempt to exempt states from federal gun law.
Personally, I come down on states prerogatives in both matters. But in this case the boy wonder is choosing to set aside enforcement of a federal law for purely political reasons. Presumably, he chose not to approach Congress for a revision of federal drug law, as he doesn’t want to appear too radical.
Obama is not showing any deference to states rights here, he is just naively paying back a constituency. This is the latest example of Obama’s apparent lack of preparation for the presidency. This decision will come back to haunt him.
As a defender of people’s right to self-medicate naturally, I’m pleased about this, but the devil is often in the details:
What does this mean? Or, rather, what will it be taken to mean by DEA agents who find raiding dispensaries to be much more profitable (not to mention safer) than similar attacks on people involved in the sale or manufacture of hard drugs?
Is the DEA going to be tasked with “helping” Medical-Marijuana states (especially California) enforce their own laws? I think almost all raids on California dispensaries could be defended under such language, although I sincerely hope that this memo really does stop the raids.
All true conservatives should be up in arms over our nation’s drug laws. They are antithetical to the principles upon which this country was founded. It is a secondary consideration that they do not redound to improved public health or order either. The “Home of the Free” incarcerates more of its own people per capita than any other nation (which accurately reports that data; totalitarian systems may still be worse offenders) — 1% of our entire population is in prison and 2.4% are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or awaiting trial. We have made a mockery of our founding principles and traded our birthright for nothing worthwhile in exchange. Our drug laws (and, in particular, mandatory sentencing requirements) are largely to blame. We have created a vast industry of police (including of course the DEA), corrections, and drug testing, which does not in fact benefit our society as a whole but costs fantastic sums to maintain. We now waste $2,600,000,000 annually on the DEA alone, and the cost to taxpayers of waging war on our citizens for their personal choices during 2009 exceeds $40,000,000,000 (source: http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm). I put it to you that most of our laws regulating drug possession should be swept away, and that the social ills and public health costs engendered by the abuse of drugs (which are overwhelmingly caused by the use of tobacco and alcohol, as opposed to illicit drugs) should be dealt with medically instead of criminally. You don’t have to use recreational drugs to have vital interest in this issue; philosophically it is (in my opinion) as much of a contradiction to our founding principles as slavery was. Look at the statistics (taken mostly from JAMA) about the annual causes of death in America (http://drugwarfacts.com/causes.pdf) — those who advocate criminal penalties for the use of illicit drugs (especially marijuana) simply don’t have a leg to stand on. We have been lied to for seventy years to justify our irrational witchhunt against drug users, and it is long past time for those who claim to be conservatives to repudiate the abrogation of individual liberty represented by our drug laws and the lies that generations of self-interested people have used to dupe the nation.
Next year California voters may get a chance to pass marijuana legalization for recreational purposes. A Field Poll indicates 56% of California voters would back such a measure.
This will be another test for the federal government. We can hope that respect for the decisions of each state will apply in this case as well.
The War on Drugs has done nothing except bankroll criminals as they enjoy their lucrative monopoly and destroy all of Latin America, not to mention U.S. urban areas. It has also bankrupted various governments. It has created a cycle whereby the government brainwashes children, and then those children grow up and vote for the next generation of government politicians.
Questions for Thomas Meehan:
Leaving aside the very questionable taste of your “boy wonder” reference, Obama has a constituency of medical marijuana users that he’s “paying back”? Really? Just how big is this “constituency”? And this decision is yet another “example of Obama’s apparent lack of preparation for the presidency”? Do you know the phrase “non sequitur”?
Finally, on the assumption that you’re a nice, mainstream conservative, do you feel this decision or the Bush administration’s refusal to recognize the states’ authority in this matter is closer to traditional conservative views on states’ rights and federal power?
Those amongst us who still think drug prohibition is a good idea are most defiantly not real conservatives; they are either profiting from it or are simply mentally deficient.
If you support prohibition then you’ve helped trigger the worst crime wave in this nation’s history.
If you support prohibition you’ve a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen in this country since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.
If you support prohibition then you have abandoned American children to the morals and ethics of gangsters and terrorists.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.
If you support prohibition, then you also support the black market economy that funds most of the terrorist groups in the world today. Including the Taliban and alQaida.
A regulated and licensed distribution network for all mind altering substances would put responsible adult supervision in between children and premature access to drug distribution outlets. Regulated and licensed distribution would reflect and respect society’s values, thus preventing children obtaining easy access to theses dangerous substances. What we need is legalized regulation. what we have is a non-regulated black market to which everybody has access and where all the profits go to organized crime and terrorists..
Marijuana dispenseries are the only business opening up and operating at a profit it seems right now where I live (Southern Cal). LA county relaxed its permit process for them and as a result they are everywhere. Now they are talking about repealing permits. I think if you’re a commercial building owner and finally have a paying tenant after months of vacant storefront, you’re not too concerned about permits. Im not sure how it’s taxed, being medical and all but if there’s sales tax, it could give quite a boost to a broke state.
Sheldon, If my scorn for the President offends you, I’ll just have to live with that.
The point of my comment, is perfectly clear. Obama’s decision to selectively enforce federal law rather than seek a change in law through Congress is the act of an amateur.
You wrote “Obama has a constituency of medical marijuana users that he’s “paying back”? Really? Just how big is this “constituency”? ” Perhaps I was vague there. I didn’t mean that Obama was catering to just the medical marijuana patients. I was referring to the whole pro-marijuana constituency in California. Polling released today asserts that close to 60% of likely California voters are prepared to vote yea on recreational marijuana use. That Sheldon, is a constituency. If you think that the left doesn’t retain its Sixties romance with Marijuana, you must know a very different set of lefties than I do.
Now we all know that there is discretion and some selectivity in most law enforcement. All administrations choose to emphasize some areas at the expense of others. But when the Attorney General announces that he will no longer enforce Federal law in a certain area, that crosses a certain threshold. And in my view, that is a threshold that a seasoned executive would not cross.
And you also wrote this. “Finally, on the assumption that you’re a nice, mainstream conservative, do you feel this decision or the Bush administration’s refusal to recognize the states’ authority in this matter is closer to traditional conservative views on states’ rights and federal power?” Please, try to stay above personalities. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, but if the residents of California want to smoke their own weeds they should be able to. As Congress passed laws to the contrary, recourse to the Supreme Court would be the best path. Baring that, the pot smokers of the US need to unite and have the law changed.
I had a wife with cancer, there are legal drugs available that work just as well as pot to prevent the symptoms. People using drugs are a blight on our society and I have seen more lives ruined than I care to think about. While it is true the war on drugs is a failure doesn’t drug use speak more to the failure of personal responsibility and the “it’s all about me society” we live in. No law really stops bad behavior, but by the logic of we can’t stop it with this law maybe we should legalize it, perhaps killing someone should be legal also. What a stupid argument!
[...] Wow — no matter where one stands on medical marijuana and drug decriminalization — today is one for the history books. The Obama Administration via AG Eric Holder has just announced that it will not pursue prosecution of medical marijuana users, growers or dispensaries, as long as they are operating within state law. Seeing that 13 states already have laws allowing for some form of medical marijuana, and several others have been debating proposed legislation allowing for such access, thisSource: The American Conservative RSS Feed [...]
Its kind of funny…even laugh out loud funny that these liberals want to outlaw transfats, coconut oil, fast food, salt, sugar, processed food and Im sure alot more and mandate legal abortion at the federal level….yet Marijuana is aok at the state level.
Hey I have to agree with civil libertarian conservatives and states rights advocates. These really should be states rights issues decided upon by their residents.
In a world of designer drugs, crack and other truly powerful destructive drugs that fuel drug cartels. Marijuana should not the the focus of the federal government.
After all, Obama was a regular user of cocaine, so why not?
Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn’t gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn’t gonna fund terrorism, but, well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored, and it’s when you’re bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren’t good at anything.
– Randy Marsh
Thomas, it is not your scorn for Obama that offends me; it is the phrase you used to express it. Obama is 48 – hardly a “boy.” If you can’t see the offense, it’s your problem, not mine. As for your now expanded definition of Obama’s constituency, I’m afraid I still don’t get it: What has the “whole pro-marijuana constituency” in California done for Obama that you think he now feels he owes them “payback?” Your whole notion is absurd. And, no, except for a few aging hippies, I don’t know many “lefties” who are nostalgic about marijuana. Do you, really?
Lou, you just can’t come out and say you agree with the Liberals about marijuana decriminalization, can you?
This will be an interesting coalition of COCs and Lefty hippies. I look forward to the show.
Sheldon. If you are offended on Obama’s behalf, perhaps you should report me to the white House. I’m sure they will appreciate your affection. I am old enough to be his father and I see him as a devious, unqualified punk.
And there is this, “I’m afraid I still don’t get it: What has the “whole pro-marijuana constituency” in California done for Obama that you think he now feels he owes them “payback?” In order to “not get” this you have to believe either:
A. That pro-legalize pot segment of California voters are Republicans or,
B. That they are Democrats he just doesn’t want to pay off for some reason.
Since this segment of the California electorate polls at 56%, I’m betting he would like to keep them on side.
And yes, I know quite a few Democrats who still smoke pot and wish the Government would legalize what we used to call soft drugs.