What do you think of Medical MJ and the Obama admin stance?

[quinnox]

Since this is a hot topic lately.

Note some of my poll choices are meant in good humor

34 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I agree with the approach by the Obama administration
	0 (0%)
	You have to ask? My philosophy is whatever the Obama admin does, it is correct
	0 (0%)
	I am a devoted Obama supporter, but this is one issue I disagree with the Obama admin approach on
	3 (9%)
	I am against the way the Obama admin is handling this
	1 (3%)
	I am strongly against the way the Obama admin is handling this
	30 (88%)
	The Obama admin is obviously clueless regarding this issue
	0 (0%)
	Stop sowing negative feelings about our beloved president, you traitor!
	0 (0%)
	I refuse to answer, because this is causing me too much of a headache (bring me a bong hit)
	0 (0%)
	You deserve to be drummed out of the Democratic party for not supporting the Obama admin 100%
	0 (0%)
	What is medical marijuana?
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MrSlayer]

1. Legalize completely is my longtime stance.

So, I hate what they are doing.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Is there an option for even stronger disapproval than just "strongly disapprove"?

It's a moral travesty that our roads and bridges are falling apart, our schools are under funded,but we have hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars available to lock up cancer patients for getting high.

The only real solution is to legalize, regulate and tax it. Enough, already.

[quinnox]

4. I thought about that

I probably should have made an option for that, sorry.

[murphyj87]

7. Medical Marijuana is legal.......

and has been since 2001 ..... in Canada.

On July 30, 2001, Health Canada implemented the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, which clearly define the circumstances and the manner in which access to marihuana for medical purposes will be permitted. Marihuana is categorized as a controlled substance. It is not legal to grow or possess marihuana except with legal permission by Health Canada.

The regulations outline two categories of people who can apply to possess marihuana for medical purposes.

Category 1: This category is comprised of any symptoms treated within the context of providing compassionate end-of-life care; or the symptoms associated with the specified medical conditions listed in the schedule to the Regulations, namely:

Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from multiple sclerosis;
Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from a spinal cord injury;
Severe pain and/or persistent muscle spasms from spinal cord disease;
Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from cancer;
Severe pain, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss, and/or severe nausea from HIV/AIDS infection;
Severe pain from severe forms of arthritis; or
Seizures from epilepsy.

Applicants must provide a declaration from a medical practitioner to support their application.

Category 2: This category is for applicants who have debilitating symptom (s) of medical condition (s), other than those described in Category 1. Under Category 2, persons with debilitating symptoms can apply to obtain an Authorization to Possess dried marihuana for medical purposes, if a specialist confirms the diagnosis and that conventional treatments have failed or judged inappropriate to relieve symptoms of the medical condition. While an assessment of the applicant's case by a specialist is required, the treating physician, whether or not a specialist, can sign the medical declaration.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/about-apropos/faq-eng.php

[JackInGreen]

17. I'm afraid

that even that more lenient stand is unacceptable when compared to outright legalization and regulation for general use.

[murphyj87]

20. However ....

My understanding is that even medical marijuana is illegal in the US under federal law, whereas it is legal nationwide in Canada, and accepted by even radical right wing Conservatives (Medical marijuana, universal single payer health care, same sex marriage, and a woman's right to choose - all part of the Conservative Party platform ..... Stephen Harper, the Conservative whip, and 85% of the Conservative caucus voted against a private member's anti-abortion bill)

[JackInGreen]

24. You'll get no argument from me

about the rationality or sense of the majority of the population of Canada (my ex inlaws, from north Alberta, were 'conservative', but liberal by a lot of our Yankee standards), only that even those steps are faded and thin compared to full legalization and regulation.

[treestar]

3. That it's a right wing attempt to sow discord

Who cares? Nothing has changed as far as the laws are concerned. The administration must enforce the laws. If people want them changed, work on Congress or more importantly, state legislatures. It is far from the most important issue there is.

[quinnox]

5. thanks, there are several choices for you in the poll

I agree with the approach by the Obama administration

You have to ask? My philosophy is whatever the Obama admin does, it is correct

Stop sowing negative feelings about our beloved president, you traitor!

You deserve to be drummed out of the Democratic party for not supporting the Obama admin 100%

Feel free to vote for any of them.

[treestar]

37. It is correct to prosecute for violations of the law, however

I would not even criticize the Shrub himself for doing this. If you don't like a law, you need it repealed - start with Congress. How lazy to just sit there and say the Executive Branch just not enforce it. It would stay on the books that way. Odd attitude for people who are obsessed with a single issue.

[frylock]

46. the prez can reschedule with the stroke of a pen..

fuck congress.

[treestar]

72. Prove that with a cite to the law

That allegedly allows this. That would be very, very surprising.

Can he legallize heroin and cocaine too?

[frylock]

73. here you go..

"... the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) authorizes the Attorney General to do (legalize medical marijuana), in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the DEA.144 In other words, the President would not need the consent of the Congress to make this, more fundamental change to federal law.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1768127&http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/54

[treestar]

74. That says this:

Abstract:
The Obama Administration has embarked upon a much-heralded shift in federal policy toward medical marijuana. Eschewing the hard-ball tactics favored by earlier Administrations, Attorney General Eric Holder announced in October 2009 that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would stop enforcing the federal marijuana ban against persons who comply with state medical marijuana laws.

Given the significance of the medical marijuana issue in both criminal law and federalism circles, this Article sets out to provide the first in-depth analysis of the changes wrought by the DOJ’s new Non Enforcement Policy (NEP). In a nutshell, it suggests that early enthusiasm for the NEP is misguided; on close inspection, the NEP represents at most a very modest change in federal policy.

First, the NEP won’t necessarily stop federal agents from pursuing criminal prosecutions of marijuana dispensaries. In a twist of irony, the non-enforcement policy itself is not enforceable. It doesn’t create any legal rights a court could invoke to dismiss a criminal case. And the DOJ itself will have a difficult time ensuring that federal prosecutors comply with the agency’s stated policy.

Second, even assuming the NEP would block criminal prosecutions, federal law could still obstruct state medical marijuana programs by imposing - or enabling others to impose - a wide range of civil and private sanctions on medical marijuana users and their suppliers. The problem is the NEP doesn’t repeal the federal ban on marijuana. Marijuana technically remains illegal under federal law, and the possession, cultivation, or distribution of the drug trigger a host of civil sanctions not addressed by the NEP. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) can deny federal housing subsidies to medical marijuana users, and pharmaceutical companies could potentially bring civil RICO actions against marijuana dispensaries. What is more, the federal ban arguably preempts states from shielding marijuana users and dispensaries from sanctions imposed by private parties. For example, employers can likely skirt liability under state law for discriminating against employees who use marijuana for medical purposes. Metaphorically, the federal ban is a hydra, only one head of which has been severed by the NEP (and one that could too easily be regrown). The labor of ending federal prohibition is not yet complete.

[Ruby the Liberal]

57. DOJ is an arm of the Administration

They don't make the laws, but they choose (under direction) what to spend resources to enforce.

Now, perfectly legal (in their state) dispensaries are not even able to open bank accounts because of DOJ pressure on the banks for money laundering illegal substances. http://election.democraticunderground.com/1014110286

Holder himself stated that the administration could stop this federal pressure AND reschedule MMJ with the stroke of a pen - that it is an administration job, not congress. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002628455

You really need to find another argument.

[Fumesucker]

6. Evidently there are no laws against torture..

Since I have not seen anyone prosecuted for torture and the administration *must* enforce the laws.

[treestar]

36. Maybe there have been such prosecution?

Merely because you did not know of them doesn't mean there is no one being prosecuted for it.

Instead of trying to change the law, you simply demand that it not be enforced? What kind of crap attitude is that?

[Fumesucker]

41. Actually in this particular case I was demanding torture be prosecuted..

Or at least that's what I attempted to communicate, like a few humans I'm imperfect and do not always express myself as precisely or as accurately as would be considered optimum by a disinterested observer.

Essentially my plea, or demand if you will, is for consistency in following the law, do you feel that is a bad thing?

For edited grammar.

[frylock]

52. for fucks sake, that's the same lame bullshit the bush fanbois used..

save the "you don't know what goes on behind the scenes" bullshit for some other rube.

[estiparanoic]

8. Last time I checked the RW not been closing MMJ clinics the last few years

it has been the current President and his administration, you know the guy with a (D) after his name. The RW has been pretty silent on the issue. Perhaps they are applying the hole principle this time and Pres Obama is doing the digging.

Yes, Yes, Yes I know a President with a (R) after their name would be so much worse.

[treestar]

35. THat is hilarious

You are honestly asserting the REPUBLICANS are good on this issue? Vote for them, then.

[frylock]

54. stats bear out that the obama doj is raiding facilities and making more arrests than bush..

no amount of roffle smilies will change that fact.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Who cares? A LOT OF US.

I'm sure if you're not the nausea sick cancer granny who has a swat team in her back yard over a pot plant, or the college student who just spent 5 days in a locked room with no food or water because you committed the "crime" of getting high at a frat house, the drug war is no big deal.

However, like the fact that GLBT citizens can't marry, it is a MORAL TRAVESTY and an OUTRAGE and I EXPECT some LEADERSHIP from our LEADERS on these IMPORTANT issues.

But don't worry, it'll happen. The people are way ahead of the beltway on these things.

[treestar]

34. Then do as I said and see Congress and your state people

If you really cared about sick granny you'd do that rather than lazily ranting on about the POTUS.

[RainDog]

49. I say this with respect

sometimes people would do more to help out the candidate they support by not making arguments that offend a large segment of the Democratic voting population.

this is one of those cases and you are one of those people.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. There's no danger of me deciding who to vote for or not on the basis of something "treestar" says.

Like many authoritarians, he seems to have an overinflated sense of his own importance.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. "Do as I said"--wow, what an ego

How about the president does as lots of people suggested and get that pen out and unschedule marijuana?

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Yeah, so much better for the incarcerated chemo sick cancer patients to apologize and minimize

the cruel harassment they're going through, or to pretend it's "no big deal"

...you can support someone and still tell them when they have their heads up their asses. That's what friends, real friends, do.

On this, the POTUS is WRONG.

[tru]

14. No, the administration doesn't have to enforce the laws.

They could look the other way. Like recent administrations have done about people, esp the elderly, buying prescriptions meds from legitimate Canadian pharmacies.

[treestar]

33. THAT is what you depend on?

What other laws should the administration "look the other way" on? I'd like them to do it for the tax laws. Then I wouldn't have to make those quarterly payments.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. The administration is using a ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause

To justify using federal authorities to do what some states plainly won't, ie kick down the doors of cancer patients and drag little old ladies off to supermax holding cells- for smoking a joint.

They have the choice to prioritize what they want. We have zero resources, for instance, dedicated to making sure that pacific seafood isn't contaminated with radioactive cesium from the Fukushima meltdowns.. Priorities, priorities... The drug war is a giant gravy train, and that is the ONLY reason the Feds are overstepping their bounds vis a vis state law on marijuana.

[FSogol]

44. Agree completely. Right wing attempt to sow discord.

Want to change the law? Call Congress. Bashing Obama won't change the law.

[KamaAina]

50. Did you know? The guy on your avatar is a longtime drug warrior.

I have long suspected that the reactionary escalation of the War on Some Drugs is coming from him.

[DLevine]

9. Legalize it. n/t

[Mopar151]

10. I think the Prez is getting some seriously bad advice

The Feds at his level have a lifelong investment in the "War on Drugs". A sane and rational policy would mean A) admitting they were wrong for 40 years + B) taking on Big Pharma and a substantial (& shady) part of the medical profession C)having to dismantle the whole "drug testing" industry and come up with a more rational protocol of impairment testing for drivers, pilots, and the like D)changing drug policyfrom an enforcement model to a public health model.
The scorn, bullshit, and ridicule that would be heaped on the President are simply too much to deal with in an election year. Limbaugh would be braying so loudly that deafness would become epedemic in Fla.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yah, it's the gravy train and the asshat conventional wisdom crowd

Once word gets out that it costs the taxpayers upwards of 60 billion a year to keep cancer grannies and dangerous criminals like Willie Nelson from smoking a relatively harmless plant, support will erode further.

Even the hippie hater authoritarians dont really want to PAY for it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. Don't care either way, but sick of hearing about it

Of the great issues facing the nation silly schemes for getting dope don't seem terribly important on either side of the equation.

[tru]

15. Thanks, Walter.

I hope you're never seriously ill where marijuana would help. We're not all dopers, you know. Some of us have chronic pain issues, for example.

[DLevine]

16. Perhaps you would care if it was your family member suffering. n/t

[JackInGreen]

18. I appreciate

the gravity of the overall national situations too...

but you're basically saying that when I went through chemo, the need for it as a medicinal was 'Silly'....I do not approve, and I would thank you to take my place when my skin was burning (more precisely, it felt like contact with the waking world and simple 'I feel' sensation, HATED me, and was actively trying to force me to give up on consciousness, or on life) , or the nueropathy pain was more than I could handle, or when the shakes and nausea set in....silly INDEED.

[randome]

22. Not to make light of your situation but...

...the drug Marinol is supposed to be as effective as smoking marijuana. Was that ever prescribed in your case?

[JackInGreen]

23. My oncologist

Was negative to any medications that weren't opiates or Nsaids, though I did manage to try Marinol thanks to the good offices of a friendly doctor, it did nothing what so ever for me, gross disappointment (and painful too, considering) , thankfully the local dispensary performed deliveries.

[Fumesucker]

25. Hmm.. a synthetic form of the active ingredient is legal..

Whereas the natural form is completely illegal according to federal law..

I don't think you made quite the point you thought you were making, you just managed to highlight the sheer idiocy of the law in this regard.

[JackInGreen]

29. Odd that, innit?

One thing that possesses the active ingredient is banned outright as a public hazard, the other sold and regulated as equivalent because it too contains the active component...whereas the former does the trick, and the latter does not...
Sweet con if you can get everyone to agree that you're grift is a solid deal.

[randome]

32. It's not odd if you consider that a pill form is better in concept for your health than smoking.

Unfortunately, in your case, that wasn't so.

[Fumesucker]

43. There's two arguments that make that talking point invalid..

First argument, cannabis can be eaten.

Second argument, smoking tobacco is not illegal in and of itself.

[frylock]

58. you don't have to smoke it..

but i'm pretty sure you knew that.

[randome]

64. Which is why I mentioned the pill form.

[frylock]

66. you can vaporize the plant..

cut out the middleman.

[RainDog]

51. If you followed this issue

you would know that the majority of patients of doctors who prescribe both have indicated patients prefer whole plant cannabis - for a number of reasons.

the first is that it takes seconds to take effect, while Marinol has to pass through the digestive track and takes much longer.

the second is that Marinol does not contain CBD, another cannabinoid that is in the whole plant that, for instance, has been shown to completely remove an extremely debilitating form of neuopathic pain from one form of breast cancer.

Marinol, because it is just THC, is not a pleasant experience for some people to use as medication because, again, the complement of cannabinoids work together to enhance or ameliorate the actions of others.

So, no, Marinol is not an acceptable substitute according to patients.

[smokey nj]

27. Yeah, because the war on drugs is completely unrelated to pressing issues like the economy.

[Romulox]

47. It would be nice if War on Drug supporters just owned it: You support the War on Drugs because you

think it's good policy.

We're not spending $60 billion a year and arresting a million Americans over something that doesn't "seem terribly important"--that's a logical dend end.

[uponit7771]

56. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

71. If its so unimportant, why are our prisons full of potheads?

Have you seen the DEA's "austerity" (cough) budget?

"not terribly important", my ass.

[CBGLuthier]

19. Why is "Fucking Appalled" not an option?

Because that is what I think about the Obama admin and MMJ.

I am fucking appalled.

[quinnox]

21. next time I will make a stronger option

for saying no, I agree I should have put one in the poll.

[Iggo]

26. Legalize it.(n/t)

[fredamae]

28. Federally DeSchedule, Decrim & Regulate

Our Tax Dollar investment was Increased Again by the Obama admin and is now somewhere between $80-$100 Billion annually.

The public/tax payer knows this is Pure Waste!

Cannabis seems to be "the" priority yet the Only risks associated with consuming Cannabis are the Laws, Rules and Policies governing its use.
It seems as tho this crackdown may be because the WH senses the move toward State Control under the Tenth as well as feeling public pressure. The public has now shifted to over 50% approval for outright legalization. In consideration of Medical Cannabis public polling results are well over 70%.
Those who profit from Prohibition are desperate to maintain control and status quo for profit. (corruption)

[Tsiyu]

30. There are a few sayings in the bible I can get behind

"Law was made for man and not man for the law"

In other words, laws are supposed to make life better for human beings. Laws are NOT more important than human life.

When a law harms human beings - consistently and on a grand scale, that law is crazy, insane, wrong, useless.

Turning sick people into criminals is a depressing, evil way to make a buck or to run a nation.

[99Forever]

31. This isn't my only or even my largest problem..

.. with many of the things this administration has and more importantly hasn't done, but it certainly shines a VERY bright light on just how tone deaf they are.

[bemildred]

38. I am strongly against the policy, nevertheless I support Obama's handling of the question,

because he is the "first black President", and the last thing I want to see is the racists/wingnuts flogging him for being a doper, etc. We need to push CONGRESS to fix the problem, and Ms Pelosi has as much as told us to "bring it".

[Bigmack]

39. The racist wingnuts hate him and would never vote for him...

in any case. He has nothing to lose by supporting legalization.

Hell, they think he's a communist from Kenya...and black!... how much more could they hate him for being a doper.

L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P! is what's needed, not leaving the question to a hopeless/clueless Congress.

[bemildred]

40. We disagree. nt

[Romulox]

48. So he should continue incarcerating minorities at a massively disproportionate rate--to appease the

racists?

[bemildred]

59. The racists will not be appeased, no matter what he does, as the other poster noted.

That doesn't mean we need to give them ammunition in an election year. I'm looking to take both houses back, and not willing to give that chance up just to speed up repeal of MJ prohibition.

[frylock]

61. despite the fact a majority of people would like to see it decriminalized..

your viewpoint makes no sense whatsoever.

[bemildred]

63. Most people are against vast swathes of current government policy, but they don't vote that way.

That's what doesn't make sense.

[frylock]

65. nice dodge

[bemildred]

67. Thanks.

[frylock]

60. so you believe that political expediency trumps doing what is right?

got it.

[bemildred]

62. If Obama does it, it can be just as easily undone.

Eh?

I'm against expensive and futile gestures.

[boxman15]

42. I support the president, but he's dead-wrong here

His continuation of Drug War policies are disappointing to say the least. Maybe a second term will bring a loosening of drug policies, but I'm not betting on it.

[joeybee12]

45. Strongly against...although there's an argument to be made for "clueless"

[Occulus]

55. color me completely unstunned that

The biggest Obama supporters here support this appalling set of policies...