WTF is up with "Obama's War on Weed" ?? It makes no sense at this point in the game.

[99th_Monkey]

Obama's War on Pot
In a shocking about-face, the administration has amped-up a government-wide crackdown on medical marijuana
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216#ixzz1uJn4OAdB
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

Obama's war on weed especially makes NO sense in light of recent (within this past week) three very powerful
incidents have occurred -- to give Obama all the cover he would ever need:
1) Jimmy Kimmel's epic roasting of Obama at the recent Press Correspondents Dinner.
http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/04/jimmy-kimmel-addresses-marijuana-legalization-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner
2) Nancy Pelosi .. yes THAT Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of medical marijuana being left alone for states to sort out.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/03/nancy-pelosi-defends-medical-marijuana-d
3) SCOTUS .. yes THAT SCOTUS (with strong 5/4 Conservative majority) just refused to hear the DofJ's case against
the State of California, effectively upholding lower court ruling against DofJ..
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2011/7350/supreme-court-state-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

On the campaign trail Obama made reference to FDR's famous "make me do it" admonition to a black community
leader asking him to support civil rights more vigorously, which took awhile for the forces to gather by which time
John F. Kennedy was President and Martin L. King and Malcolm X were doing just that.

What is is going to take on the Medical Marijuana issue to "make Obama do it"? .. .If the DLC Leadership, a Conservative
Supreme Court, and a harsh public roasting in front of the national press won't do it, what will?

Major FAIL in my book for Obama. He lied on the campaign trail to his base about this and needs to be held accountable.
And EVERYONE seems to know that already except Obama himself. I mean at this point, given this SCOTUS ruling, isn't the
Obama administration acting in a flagrantly criminal manner by squashing states with voter approved Medical Marijuana Programs?

[Vincardog]

1. On this PBO can not allow himself to give the opposition a chance to say "See I TOLD You he is a

Criminal". Either that or he really supports the slave labor in the for profit prisons.
I do not see value in either position.

[tridim]

2. There are thousands more dispensaries open for buisiness today in legal states..

Than there were three years ago.

"Crackdown" is a very relative term, espcially since most of the dispensaries that are being closed are breaking STATE law, evading taxes, operating too close to schools, etc. It's not a gray issue.

Major FUD.

[99th_Monkey]

3. News stories of legitimate dispensaries being hounded out of existence under threat

of having it all confiscated.. I see these like every other day. Google is your friend.

[tridim]

5. Right, for breaking state law

Read past the headline.

The whole CA "Obama crackdown!!!!111" was almost 100% state law issues.

[uponit7771]

7. THX!! See, didn't have to wait 5 minutes for this meme to be knocked on face facts alone

[99th_Monkey]

9. Why not simply let the state's law enforcement handle it the way they want?

Why waste scarce Federal dollars to impose the Fed/DoJ's interpretation of a given state's MM laws on
it citizens? Foolish waste of resources, and using it as a smoke screen for their anti-MM bias.

[tridim]

24. In most cases the state agencies do handle it.

The relatively rare cases where the feds get involved for various reasons are blasted across the internet at light-speed, amplified, pumped and hyped over and over and over again. Usually followed by hundreds of comments calling for Obama's head.

Ratfucking 101.

[SoCalMusicLover]

30. Relatively Rare, Huh?

My girlfriend has a medical marijuana license. She was a member of 3 collectives here in South Orange County. They were all raided and shut down by FEDERAL AGENTS.

Sorry to offend those who view Mr. Obama as a deity. A saint whose every action has a completely legitimate explanation.

Again, I'm really glad he's helping us out here in California, by providing support for the overburdened state government, which is too busy to shut all the collectives down on their own.

I hope they continue to get involved for the all important "various reasons" you mention.

If this were happening under *, all of you Obama worshipers would be criticizing, but since it's your god, he can do no wrong I guess.

[randome]

32. Why were those dispensaries closed down?

Does your girlfriend have any knowledge that would add to this thread?

[99th_Monkey]

59. Why, pray tell, should Obama or DofJ even give a rats ass about MM STATE laws?

Is that the best use of Federal resources, to be splitting gnats eyebrows re:
the nuances of STATE laws regarding the STATE MM programs.

STATE laws should be administered and enforced by STATE agencies, period.

[SoCalMusicLover]

4. Ummmm...Not True

They have been harassing, raiding, hassling, and shutting down dispensaries all through the state of California. BREAKING STATE LAW MY ASS!

I know of many dispensaries near my home, which were forced to shut down in recent months, and I can assure you, it had NOTHING to do with paying taxes, or being Anywhere Near a school. Just another BS cover excuse, which would be mocked on these boards if former president dickhead * were in office.

I'd have more respect for Mr. Obama if he just got up and said...."Listen, take me or leave me. Don't believe my promises. What else are you going to do, vote for that Romney jerk?"

[tridim]

8. Post the stories.

And not just one cherry picked story with a rogue state DA overstepping his/her power. Those cherry picked stories have already been posted literally thousands of times on DU. Every time the wrong person is blamed.

If/when you do, the stories will (usually) denote the state laws that were allegedly being broken.

[uponit7771]

17. +1!

[RainDog]

105. -1!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=661949

[RainDog]

38. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002661280

Colorado is telling Obama he has NO RIGHT to force the state to comply with rules THEY DID NOT SET for dispensaries.

So, honestly, if the states don't want him to do this - why the fuck is he out there pissing off potential voters?

[randome]

39. I'm sure it's because he wants to lose the election.

It couldn't be anything else.

[RainDog]

41. whether he wants to alienate voters or not

that's what he's doing.

in addition to maintaining an ignorant, anti-science policy regarding scheduling.

but, of course, you are sure that you know what people want and that whatever the federal govt does is right.

[randome]

44. Bullshit.

The federal government is NOT always right. Witness the Iraq war and other atrocities.

I just want information about why specific dispensaries were closed rather than assume it's part of a nasty-assed Obama vendetta of some sort.

[RainDog]

45. then read the articles n/t

[CrispyQ]

70. I posted this earlier tonight:

I know a lot of repubs who aren't thrilled with their candidate & they love MJ.

I know a lot of dems who aren't thrilled with their candidate & they love MJ.

Colorado has nine electoral votes.

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. Well, it could hurt him in Colorado, which is a toss-up state.

And where his US Attorney has forced about 50 dispensaries to shut down, and not for violations of state law.

The US Attorney is claiming they are within 1,000 feet of schools, but the state law doesn't have that provision. That's based on a federal sentencing enhancement for drug crimes close to a school.

I get really tired of the trio of posters who repeatedly post absolute bullshit about the crackdown.

[uncle ray]

72. the 1000 ft from schools is a reasonable rule.

i don't know all of the dispensaries shut down because of their proximity to schools, some i know of were really close to schools, and the owners should have known better. they were sent letters in advance, and given the opportunity to move. yes, 30 days isn't much notice, but it isn't a fucking gang of jack-booted thugs kicking in the door and sending you away for life.

did any previous president send nice letters asking pot growers or sellers to kindly move their business to a more discreet location?

should you be able to stand on the front steps of a high school and see a green cross? one dispensary i know well was located in just such a way, about 1/2 a block away, kitty-corner. this was not a "clinic" this was a dispensary opened by a local record store chain turned dispensary chain when they saw the $$ potential. right after Obama was elected, mind you. they have other dispensary locations that were not shut down.

now i can understand you may think 50 feet from a school is a good distance, i may think 1000 is a bit far, but workable, but in the end, there are more dispensaries open now than 3 years ago. and for the most part they are doing "it" right. and as any colorado resident or recent visitor can tell you, they are plenty visible without being next to schools. "the conversation" has taken place with every friend or family member that has visited. i'm confident they go home with a more positive opinion on the issue, after being given the rundown on how the industry operates and contributes a sizable chunk of tax revenue to the city.

the only voters pissed are so because of dis and misinformation.

[RainDog]

77. The issue is the push back from the Federal Govt

yes, I think most people would agree with zoning away from schools - but the issue is that the states do not want federal govt officials to make decisions for the state - and not just the state of CO. How many times does the federal govt intervene in business issues related to zoning for other industries in the state?

As noted below, the issue has extended across a variety of agencies and is not just about zoning and not just about CO.

However, I'm glad that people have an opportunity to have "the conversation" and take that home.

I'm not aware of all voters, but the people in this article are all activists for legalization - and that's why they are talking about this issue - they want to motivate people to get out to vote for legalization.

And I hope they're successful.

[RainDog]

64. The stories have been posted

In Montana - the DEA was harassing a politician who indicated support for mmj.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dea-investigates-montana-state-legislator-medical-marijuana-views-222007610.html

In California and other states, the DEA told state employees they could be charged with violation of federal law for implementing the states' policies as part of their jobs (the DoJ backed off on this after states protested, loudly.)

Agents armed with assault rifles and chainsaws raided Northstone Organics near Ukiah soon after the announcement, despite its sheriff's permit to grow medicinal pot.

and these actions have made local politicians less likely to permit dispensaries in their locales.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20111220/articles/111229947?p=2&tc=pg

In various states the IRS has threatened banks that allow dispensaries (no matter their location) to have bank accounts.

federal authorities have warned banks that handling receipts from marijuana sales remains illegal under federal law and could violate money-laundering laws.

The conflict is not isolated to Washington, one of 16 states — plus the District of Columbia — to allow therapeutic use of marijuana for certain patients.

This has nothing to do with violation of local ordinances. This has to do with the federal govt. attempting to stop the establishment of dispensaries at all from doing business in their states as legal entities - as they are under state law.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018103547_maribanking30m.html

Federal prosecutors in states with dispensaries have sent letters to landlords telling them that they face prison and seizure of their properties if they don't force dispensaries to close.

“This is not an idle threat. … What we’re trying to do is send a message as broadly as possible. … We are serious about enforcing federal law. … We are not just talking about it, but we are doing something about it. … Prosecuting marijuana cases is a higher priority now.” –statements of the US Attorneys for the four federal districts in California

- this is about enforcing FEDERAL law, not state law.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, at the federal level, said that someone's status as a mmj patient made that person ineligible to possess a firearm.

"Any person," bureau Assistant Director Arthur Herbert writes in the open letter to all gun sellers, "who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is ... prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19026921

Even tho the Supreme Court has already ruled that state law enforcement should implement the laws of the states, not the federal govt - i.e. the Federal Govt. cannot compel state law enforcement to enact its laws - they continue to use state law enforcement in these crackdowns.

“The actions taken today in California by our U.S. Attorneys and their (local) law enforcement partners are consistent with the Department’s commitment to enforcing existing federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), in all states,” said Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

The state of Colorado does not have the same regulatory framework as the Federal Govt. and so the Federal Govt. is, again, applying its laws, rather than the state's, to shut down dispensaries.

On Sunday, 25 medical marijuana centers across Colorado closed their doors in response to a Department of Justice crackdown which did not appear rooted in state or local law, as the administration had previously promised it would be.

The Obama administration, through U.S. Attorney John Walsh, ordered the centers in March to either move, shut their businesses down, or face criminal charges because, according to Walsh, they were within 1,000 feet of a school.

Although nothing in Colorado's medical marijuana law specifies the distance between a shop and a school, the decision, like most such zoning matters, is left to local communities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/medical-marijuana_n_1498694.html

In California, the oldest dispensary (a nonprofit) in the nation was raided and all the plants that had been inspected by the local sheriff that were also labeled for specific patients were torn out.

The argument, recently, to justify this thuggery on the part of the Federal Govt is that they did not make an arrest - but they can still make an arrest and they have harassed people who are working within the laws of their states.

Although our initial efforts in the Northern District focus on only certain marijuana stores, we will almost certainly be taking action against others. None are immune from action by the federal government.”

http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/07/federal-government-announces-escalation-of-its-war-on-cannabis/

-so, you see, the Federal agents themselves disagree with your claim that this is only about dispensaries that violate specific regulations.

In July of last year, the DEA said that marijuana had no medical use - which is an outright lie that the Obama administration supports. Leonhart said, "At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy."

Not only does this decision conflict with state laws... it also conflicts with a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the branch of the National Academy of Sciences charged with answering complex medical questions for Congress. Way back in 1999, the IOM said:

Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.

Despite the issue of smoking marijuana, the IOM said that medical use of the drug is acceptable when other alternatives have failed.

In addition, in 2006 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an investigational new drug application, or IND — which grants permission to study a drug with the goal of approving it for marketing if it is safe and effective — for Sativex, an inhalable marijuana-derived drug, which includes both THC and CBD, the main active components of cannabis. So, while one federal agency says the drug is too risky for use even under medical supervision, another is studying it for possible approval for marketing.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/11/u-s-rules-marijuana-has-no-medical-use-what-does-science-say/#ixzz1uKffzBR3

See, this issue comes down to RESCHEDULING and the bad law that is allowed to stand. Obama has indicated he has no desire to address the is bad law. HIS INACTION ALLOWS BAD LAW TO CONTINUE.

So, it doesn't, ultimately, matter if you want to argue that those raided were not in compliance - EVEN THO THIS IS NOT TRUE - because the reality is that this administration allows the continuation of unscientific policy to continue that allows the federal govt to interfere at all.

[99th_Monkey]

85. WOW! Nice work putting that post together with links and all. ~nt

[Dragonfli]

87. I agree, good, informational post! Thank you. /nt

[randome]

11. And you know this how?

I get that you might THINK there are sinister reasons behind the closures but how do you have personal knowledge to this extent?

If you do, tell us what reasons were given for the dispensaries being closed down. And then tell us why so many others are not being closed down?

[rhett o rick]

21. You really are full of questions. Well I have one for you. Do you have anything to add? nm

[randome]

22. Yeah.

I don't think the poster I originally responded to has the 'insider knowledge' he/she implies he/she has.

[rhett o rick]

49. I agree with you. nm

[SoCalMusicLover]

26. You're Right

I should believe what the administration tells me, because they are definitely not going to lie to me.

On the other hand, the dispensaries near me that have all closed, some going to delivery only operations, are feeding me a bunch of bull when they maintain the FEDERAL government has forced them to shut down their stores, clearly don't know what they're talking about. They were ALL probably breaking state law, because they really had no desire to continue their business in a legitimate manner.

I'm glad that this administration is on the case, stopping all these medical marijuana dealers who have no regard for California medical marijuana law.

[randome]

28. Absent evidence to the contrary...

...I'm probably going to trust law enforcement. If you or anyone else has personal knowledge that I should not, I'm willing to listen to it.

But it needs to be more than a desire to put the administration in a bad light.

[SoCalMusicLover]

35. "I'm Probably Going To Trust Law Enforcement"

You're right, I'm naive. Law enforcement has always been on the side of marijuana smokers. And they're all so very trustworthy. I dare anyone to name a corrupt police department or officer who acted maliciously and then lied about it. They are clearly more honest than some dishonest dispensary owner, out to break all sorts of state laws and such.

[randome]

37. Did you not see the 'absent evidence to the contrary' part of what I said?

Are police always on the side of right? No. But before I start dissing anyone, I want facts. The people who claim that dispensaries are being closed for no reason usually just want to believe the worst because it fits in with their current mood.

Give me some facts. I am always ready to change my mind on an issue. I don't give a damn about being right or wrong on this.

[SoCalMusicLover]

46. What About The Facts From Your Perspective?

Certainly there are facts which support the federal government raids. I'd like to see something which backs up your belief that state laws are being violated.

Most of the incidents I've read about, the government is keeping the true reasons "under seal," as part of a "continuing investigation."

Seriously though, please post some articles about all the Orange County dispensaries which have been raided and closed over the past few months, and where it says which "California Medical Marijuana" laws were being broken.

If my argument holds no water without proper facts and substantiation, then neither does yours.

[randome]

50. I can't see into sealed documents, that's for sure.

But the majority of dispensaries in California have NOT been closed. That, in itself, is evidence that Obama is not engaging in a vendetta of some sort.

If it was a vendetta, then wouldn't they ALL be under siege? They're not.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

56. Trusting law enforcement? Where the fuck did that misguided notion come from?

[RainDog]

40. just fyi

this person constantly posts on threads about this issue.

when actual points of law or implementation concerning this issue come up - this person has admitted he knows nothing about the situation.

all he does is cheerlead for the status quo.

he lies to himself and others about the reality of state actions and polls and pretends he knows what voters think in spite of their actions and answers to polls.

it's really amazing to see someone who is ignorant about an issue make proclamations about what correct actions should be or whether actions taken are at the will of the people in various states.

iow, you're arguing with a brick wall of ignorance.

[randome]

42. And STILL no one can give me answers about why specific dispensaries...

...were closed.

It's easier to assume that it's that vast corporate conspiracy that ensnares us all.

And I have to wonder if your interest in cancer patients who are in extreme pain extends to other aspects of their lives. Probably not. It's only the pot issue that makes you 'concerned'.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[RainDog]

48. read the articles n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. That would slow things down. n/t

[rhett o rick]

47. You loose all credibility when you use "What else are you going to do, vote for that Romney jerk?"

What you effectively are saying is that we cant criticize Pres Obama's actions because we wont vote for Rmoney.

[SoCalMusicLover]

57. Sarcasm

I am criticizing Obama. All I am doing is stating the obvious. It's not like we have much choice. What really works me up are those who are intent on maintaining that the current administration MUST have some justification for their actions. That there must be a reason they are closing down some, but perhaps not all collectives/dispensaries. That they are serving a purpose with these raids, and their harassment of dispensaries around the entire country.

It angers me that there is not enough criticism of this administration, for turning tail and running away from campaign promises. More of the same, with a (D) instead of an (R).

Or maybe all these dispensaries/collectives/colleges being raided, are breaking all sorts of big laws, and deserve what's coming to them. Because I know that when I open and run a business, the one thing I try to do from the start, is break as many laws as possible, so somebody can come in and totally shutdown my business, so I lose my investment and source of income.

But back to your question. What is my point? My point is that we have no other choice, besides Mr. Obama and "that Romney Jerk." And just because I'm criticizing Mr. Obama, I would NEVER in 200 years, vote for Romney. My vote is my own, and my choice as to whether I use it. But if/when I do, you can be assured I won't be jumping up and down for joy, that I helped elect someone who I won't believe on many, many, many issues, and have lost a great deal of respect for in the past 3+ years.

Hope is back to being just a town in Arkansas.

[rhett o rick]

67. Dang I hate it when I overlook sarcasm. The truth is I have a huge chip on my

shoulder. And since you took the time to spell it out to me simply, I understand and agree. I guess I will have to look else where for a fight.

Some might chastise you for not using the emoticon, but I feel it's my responsibility to recognize it when its there.

Carry on.

[lonestarnot]

68. Snort. Remind me to never go

into business with you!

[rhett o rick]

18. Do you have a source for that information? nm

[TheKentuckian]

54. If state laws are broken then the state can handle it

Feds shouldn't be doing the busting and then the Administration could blamelessly punt.

[uncle ray]

73. local cops wouldn't handle a raid on a gun dealer alone, they'd call in the ATF.

that's how it works. drugs are still Federally regulated, so the DEA is going to be involved in most cases.

let me know when the DEA is going down the list arresting card holders.

[uponit7771]

6. Sounds like FUDr fodder at this point, they take a lot out of perspective to bash...

...especially on DU, I used to click to find some reasonable criticism only to find out time after time after time after time they left some gating information out or their perspective was sKrewn

[SoCalMusicLover]

10. Some Of Us Had "High" Hopes For Obama

My perspective is reading a new story each week about a federal crackdown on dispensaries or places like Oaksterdam, right here in California.

I suppose we have no right to be questioning his policies, and how they're "evolving." It's tough being President.

I guess I should just forget his promises, and throw my support behind him. I'm not going to vote for Romney, that's for sure.

[uponit7771]

15. Some of us had high post for objective criticsm of Obama's actions vs half truths, out of perspectiv

...accounts and damn lies.

I can no longer take some of they hyperbolic post seriously any more

I don't expect perfection from anyone

[99th_Monkey]

25. More like DEvolving if you ask me.

comparing his campaign promises re: MM and his actions since being elected
partly based on those promises.. where's the "evolution" again? did I miss
something?

[SomethingFishy]

60. His "promises" were nothing but brilliant political statements

that left enough holes in the meaning that they could later be interpreted to say something entirely different than the point he was selling at the time. The guy is a good politician no doubt. Effective leader? Well for certain people sure, but not for all of us.

[99th_Monkey]

12. Hint: State Law = State law enforcement, not Federal DoJ shock troopers ~nt

[uponit7771]

16. Thx, I didn't even bother to read the post...sounds so FUDr-ish

[uncle ray]

74. when the business is a commodity that is Federally regulated, the Feds will be involved.

[99th_Monkey]

75. ... at their discretion <-- you must admit is true. ~nt

[Swede Atlanta]

13. He wants all the weed for himself and Michelle :)

Just kidding. There has to be something behind this. I can't see him having a strong personal interest in this unless there is something we don't know about his past such as a family member or close friend being killed or something by someone who was high on MJ. In my view there is really no political cost to him to either support medical MJ or just stand down his troops on this issue. His core constituency support medical MJ and I suggest the broader Democratic party either support it or don't care. The Independents often take a very Libertarian view on things like this so they would be opposed to any government intervention.

Something is amiss. Matt Taibii, where are you?

[SoCalMusicLover]

20. It's Called Pharmaceutical Campaign Money

He can't turn his back on them.

[Bennyboy]

14. And the WAR on pot moves to Colorado

In its official party platform, the Colorado Democratic Party endorses the legalization of marijuana.

In March, 56 percent of the Denver County Republican Assembly voted to support legal and regulated pot, a question which will be on the November ballot.

And the state's Department of Revenue has announced it is seeking reclassification of marijuana to allow doctors to prescribe it as medical treatment.

The state has embarked on an ambitious effort to regulate its thriving medical marijuana industry. When it comes to marijuana policy, Colorado's voters, businesses, tax collectors, doctors and policy makers are moving forward. The lone holdout: President Barack Obama.

On Sunday, 25 medical marijuana centers across Colorado closed their doors in response to a Department of Justice crackdown which did not appear rooted in state or local law, as the administration had previously promised it would be.

The Obama administration, through U.S. Attorney John Walsh, ordered the centers in March to either move, shut their businesses down, or face criminal charges because, according to Walsh, they were within 1,000 feet of a school.

Although nothing in Colorado's medical marijuana law specifies the distance between a shop and a school, the decision, like most such zoning matters, is left to local communities.

"I can see no legitimate basis in this judicial district to focus the resources of the United States government on the medical marijuana dispensaries that are otherwise compliant with Colorado law or local regulation," Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett told Walsh in a recent letter. "The people of Boulder County do not need Washington, D.C., or the federal government dictating how far dispensaries should be from schools, or other fine points of local land use law.”

In mid-January, letters were sent from Walsh to 23 other medical marijuana businesses in Colorado. Those have since shut down, bringing the total number of shops shuttered as a result of Obama's coordinated effort to 47. (One center pointed out that the school it was near was no longer in use and the order was withdrawn).

The push against the Colorado businesses and the patients they serve is just the latest in the Obama administration's bizarre action against a plant that was at one point a cultural flash point, but which now religious leader Pat Robertson says should be legal.

The timing is also curious given the upcoming November election. Colorado's nine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/medical-marijuana_n_1498694.html

[99th_Monkey]

23. WOW! So add that to my list in the OP, as to Obama being "covered"

MM is the way the wind's blowing, and blowing pretty hard .. hurricane like.

[tridim]

27. The 1000 foot rule is the law.

Ran into it when my group tried to open a dispensary in Colorado. There is a big map with lots of 1000' radii circles on it.

[Bennyboy]

71. For now.

Next the move the goalposts. They are using the schools as a starting point. Now the asset seizure letters go out and the exclusion letter from the IRS and that means, according to the Feds, that every pot biz is a criminal enterprise and tax evaders. Which is MUCH easier to prove and will come without court challenges that simply shutting them down would create.

They used the same tactic in CA> First schools then boom, all of sudden no shops.

[Comrade Grumpy]

121. It is NOT Colorado law. It's the feds using federal law...

...in an arbitrary fashion to chip away at the dispensaries.

Why do you keep repeating falsehoods? You've been told enough times, yet you continue. Your loyalty to Obama seems to outweigh your loyalty to the truth. That's disappointing.

[SoCalMusicLover]

19. State Law Being Broken?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/oaksterdam-university-raid_n_1397255.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/03/local/la-me-oaksterdam-20120403

Can someone please point to where there is any mention of state law being violated?

The investigation is under seal. I'm sure they'll release the "seal" well after the damage has been done.

Can't turn his back on all that drug company money he must be bringing in for his campaign. His policy will "evolve" I'm sure. By 2016 he may actually feel comfortable supporting medical marijuana and gay marriage in public.

[boppers]

80. A lawyer, you aren't.

Neither am I, but oaksterdam was running an illegal, for-profit, commercial grow, and trying to teach others to do it.

You cannot grow and sell weed for profit. At all.

That's California law.

Let me repeat that:

If you make money growing and selling weed, you are violating California law.

This is not complex.

If you grow weed out of charity, sell to the medically needy, and lose money, it's okay.

If you make money from it, you are committing a crime.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. Oaksterdam University did not distribute marijuana.

The school offer[ed] classes to would-be medical marijuana providers in fields ranging from horticulture to business to the legal ins-and-outs of running a dispensary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/oaksterdam-university-raid_n_1397255.html

The operation of schools is broadly considered a nonprofit actvity in all 50 states.

You say:

If you make money growing and selling weed, you are violating California law.

but the school was not doing that.

[Dragonfli]

86. I think even the poster knows that, but all they have is this pale red herring to throw out

"they are all evil dope dealers operating against state law so naturally, the federal government must deal with it like they do all state matters."

I always thought that is what State law enforcement was for but apparently they are only supposed to fetch donuts for Federal Shock troopers and IRS arm twisters. (I am only learning this aspect of state law enforcement just now, I thought the state Cops were supposed to investigate state business, by I am repeatedly told they are not for that at all, apparently )

it is bullshit on it's face and it's rear and all of us know it, but some prefer to throw out what they know is a red herring because they just have to justify every single damn evil done in our party's name. Such people remind me of freepers forgiving Bush everything and rationalizing it the same way.

[boppers]

89. The schools founder, who was selling, was the obvious target.

Multiple locations were part of the raid.

" A museum connected to the school and a nearby medical marijuana dispensary operated by Oaksterdam founder Richard Lee also were raided."


From your own link, I might add.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. Then obviously, the museum and not the founder was dispensing the mj

[MattBaggins]

29. Hold on a sec while I put my foil hat on.... Money

Way way way too much money involved in the WoD to make MJ legal.

[jp11]

31. What?

1) He's a comedian this is not a 'powerful' incident.
2) She has supported it for a while also she is a representitive of CA.

3) Link is from 2011, not this week, and I don't know enough about the supreme court to know all possible reasons why they might not want to hear a case.

[99th_Monkey]

88. You may want to make an appt. with your optometrist

the 3rd link is to The Daily Chronicle dated Wednesday, May 09, 2012

[jp11]

91. It shows the current date.

The story is circa 2011 per the person who added it at the bottom discussing a case from 2007.

[99th_Monkey]

92. Not sure what you mean, but whatever.

Pelosi's support for Med. Mj. state programs was getting airtime this week, for
whatever reason; regardless of what other obscure pre-dated references were made
in article.

What is out-dated about this opening sentence in the article again???

"Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a statement yesterday condemning
the Obama administration's crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries and advocating
for the drug's medical properties..."

[jp11]

93. I didn't say that statement was out dated

I said she's had that position for a while it isn't a sudden or new thing to advocate for the medical use of the drug.

Here's a link that more clearly shows the story in the 3rd link you posted was a story/event did not happen today or this week, as a matter of fact it was much earlier than that.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/07/scotus-declines-to-review-appeals-court

EDIT:

The above link may not be the same story I'm just too tired to parse it to see if the details are the same but this link also shows your original 3rd linked story is from 12/2011 and was simply added to the daily chronic on 12-3-2011 by 'weedmaster'.

http://zrants.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/u-s-supreme-courtstate-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

The daily chronic just shows the current date at the top of the page, go there tomorrow and it will be "Thursday May 10 2012".

[99th_Monkey]

108. You've got me completely stumped

as to why you have all this energy determined to "prove" that my 3rd link
is somehow "problematic" or out-dated, or not really true, or somehow
deficient.

what's up with that?

you don't dispute the truth of it, that Pelosi supports Med Mj. state programs,
and even point out that she has in fact done so for some time, being a CA rep.

basically you ask me to not believe my lying eyes where the date of the article
appears, and where in the first paragraph it sez that Pelosi "yesterday announced...."

[SoCalMusicLover]

33. The President On Jimmy Fallon

Someone in the audience asked him about marijuana legalization. There was a momentary look on his face of panic, before he realized the best course of action was to punt.

He basically said...."Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Next question please."

I think his plan is to address it during his 2nd term, or Never, whichever comes later.

[RainDog]

51. Dr. Lester Grinspoon

who is one of the long-time experts on this issue in the U.S.

thinks the federal govt intends to keep the cannabis plant illegal in the U.S. while making the cannabis plant that is processed by pharmaceutical cos. legal (ala Sativex.) Sativex is made by a British Co. but is marketed in the U.S. by Bayer.

That would be the equivalent of making willow trees illegal in the U.S. while making aspirin legal.

However, there are former members of the Drug Czar's office now working for Sativex who are lobbying the DEA for just this very thing.

It's so fucking corrupt it makes me want to spit.

[Dragonfli]

34. His war makes perfect sense when you understand who benefits and who bribes (I mean contributes) /nt

[SoCalMusicLover]

36. Do You Have Any Proof Of That?

How dare you accuse the almighty President of pursuing policies that align with his big money contributors.

Unless you can substantiate that with facts, I'm going to believe the politicians who I trust with every fiber of my being. When has a politician ever told a lie, or cowtowed to special interests?

[Dragonfli]

55. You found me out, I am just "a hater" and should admit they never lie.

In truth, not only do politicians in general ignore the prospect of large campaign contributions when forming policy.

The more sainted ones gave all the money back to Goldman Sachs because they felt it would taint their attempts to reign in the banks and bring the corporate criminals to justice.

I expect the checks to be sent (past dated) and the prosecutions to begin any day now.

Most politicians are in fact saintly, thoughtful creatures full of empathy and love for their fellow men. Our president is to those glowing creatures a sun before a mere pebble, a place far beyond sainthood in fact.
Dare I say, God Like?

I am simply jealous. I should have followed the Hymnal when posting rather than speak such blasphemy.

[WillyT]

43. K & R !!!

We're the... New Old Republicans, don'tcha know ???

[supraTruth]

52. I AGREE! STATES have gone BANKRUPT locking people up for drugs, w/NO $ now for state supported

colleges.

MSNBC's weekend PRISON SHOWS accentuate the EVIL CULTURE the DRUG WAR has created.

Obama can be NO FDR w/o ELIMINATING this SERIOUSLY EVIL PROHIBITION!

[99th_Monkey]

63. +1000 nt

[jerseyjack]

53. What the hell's the matter with youse?

Don't you know you ain't allowed to criticize He Whose Name Goes Not Mentioned until after November 8th?

[limpyhobbler]

66. If he doesn't care about the issue now, he cerainly won't care about it after the election.

The best time to influence politicians is before elections, not after.

[SoCalMusicLover]

58. I've Come To Realize...

We are pretty powerless. Whenever we try to exercise some power, there is a big hand there to swat us back down.

California allows gay marriage. Along comes a counter attack, funded by all sorts of conservative groups, to take it away. VP Biden makes a statement supporting gay marriage and then gets criticized for overstepping his bounds. Folks here stand by the administration, even though it's policies violate their own beliefs.

Two party system, this is our fate.

[musiclawyer]

61. COL and WA state control their own fates

Just pass the legalization measures and
you send shock waves throughout thè nation and put POTUS on notice

[99th_Monkey]

62. So far I think Oregon has been spared.

which is where I live and have a card... but it sends chills through me
to hear of all these raids in CA and elsewhere .. I mean shit, these laws
were passed by voters, and that needs to be respected.

and as for the "Oh they broke STATE laws, which is only reason FEDERAL
law DEA stormtroopers got involved; that's so much BS.

Duh? STATE law = STATE law enforcement = DEA please butt out.

[shanti]

95. don't hold your breath

colorado probably thought they were in the clear too....until they weren't. they're using the exact same tactics in colorado as they did here in cali because it worked.

[99th_Monkey]

106. How do you explain the disconnect?

... between the DoJ's aggressive trampling state Med Mj programs, and this recent
SCOTUS ruling? If this article's analysis of this ruling's meaning is anywhere near
correct, then Obama and the DoJ are in flagrant violation of the law.

Do you have any insight on this?

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2011/7350/supreme-court-state-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

It's about to make my head explode.

[RainDog]

119. The ruling was from 2007 in regard to law enforcement in states

If you look back at what was going on regarding this issue - after Oakland started talking about industrial-scale grow warehouses, the Federal Govt. changed its position.

[99th_Monkey]

122. Thanks for pointing out that this is about a 2007 decision

I missed that important factoid.

But still, if SCOTUS hasn't ruled otherwise since 2007, doesn't this decision still stand?

[RainDog]

65. Yes. States are going to pass these laws

If not last election cycle with CA, then this one - or the next one.

This issue is not going to go away.

[marlakay]

69. I am worried it won't pass here in WA

Because a bunch of the medical places are telling patients not to vote for it.

My husband has a card and I talked to them about why, they said because of the driving thing but I wonder if they're worried about losing business.

We are going to vote for it because once even one state does the others may follow and the Feds.

[treestar]

76. Why is it Obama's?

It is Nixon's and Ford's and Carter's and Reagan's and Bush's and Clinton's at the least, and every state governors. Medical marijuana laws are progress.

[RainDog]

109. When they were in office - it was their problem

Obama is now in office - so it's his problem.

Honestly - this is the most ridiculous argument I have heard on this site.

So, no president ever has any influence on the way in which the federal govt. deals with various issues? - or rather, if the president is Obama, he has a magic shield of special exception because you support him?

Can't you actually look at an issue and say, yes, I support Obama's election, but on this particular issue - he is a long way from the right side of this whole thing - and his stance has regressed since he took office - just as it did with gay rights.

We are calling for him to have the courage of his convictions to create positive change.

If it were any other president, the call would be the same.

Medical marijuana laws are progress that has been almost entirely achieved without any support from the federal level of politicians - included Democrats in CA. ala Feinstein.

The credit goes, entirely, to state and local activists and legislators who had the bravery to defy bad law at a time when only a minority of the population even understood this issue.

The impetus for the legalization movement coincided with the rise of HIV/AIDS and its related diseases, such as cancer. There was NO COMPASSION for the suffering of people at the federal level. And never has been.

[treestar]

113. Just blaming the current President for any societal thing is

ineffective, IMO. It is just an obsession with the Presidency as an all powerful thing, not healthy in a Democracy. For people for whom this is their only issue, I would respect them more if they forgot about all Presidents and focused on their states - each state has the power to make marijuana legal, let alone medical marijuana.

[RainDog]

114. good for you

I find your position worthless, and so do many others.

you entirely misrepresent the entire issue.

since you have no interest in this issue other than to tell people to stop talking about it, you don't have anything to contribute concerning this issue, tho, so... well, thanks for your opinion.

[treestar]

115. When did I say stop talking about it? I did not.

I am talking about it myself. I am even trying to be helpful. Forget about the President and the federal government and try to get more states on the bandwagon. With more and more states, the federal government will leave off whatever it was doing to "help" the war on drugs. Or be easier to change.

Learn to talk to people who don't agree with you better. Being that way does not do you any good. You'll never convince fence sitters or right wingers that way. And those are the people you need to convince in order to get what you want.

[RainDog]

118. You really aren't someone to advise people about this issue

What I tried to explain to you before is this: attempts to pretend that this is not a federal issue do nothing but piss off people who know better. You're better off to just not say this sort of thing than to try to tell others what to do, if your goal is to support Obama.

There are legitimate reasons to talk about this as a federal issue - and this talk comes from the top lobbyist groups for this issue in the U.S. Maybe they know more about the topic than you do.

I know how to talk to various people about this issue. Your participation on this thread doesn't have anything to do with the topic itself - you are merely telling others what you want them to do. There are some people here who, over time, have demonstrated they have nothing to contribute other than pretending no one cares about this issue, etc. - and, frankly, the way I want to talk to people like that is to tell them they don't know what they're talking about. It's not about access to information - it's about stating an opinion, over and over, and pretending like its based on something other than their own desire not to have this issue even present.

So, when that is the advice given, I am saying - that's not going to happen.

[treestar]

123. You are convincing no one

You need to learn how to do that.

[RainDog]

124. thanks for the advice

the reality is that you already identified yourself as a person who will brook no criticism of Obama.

I don't think you have anything worthwhile to say to me about this issue.

[JFN1]

78. Must...Win...Election...

Sure, a few sick people may be inconvenienced, and some "legal" drug dealers will lose their shirts, but so what? It's not hypocritical, or political calculation, NO! This is America, this is how we roll! Why, can you imagine what Republicans will do about this if they take over? It will be carnage!! So get on the big Dem train, everyone, and endorse busting people for selling and using DOCTOR PRESCRIBED MEDICATION!! After all, we have an election to win!!!

[99th_Monkey]

107. Hell, something like 70% of voters favor Medical Marijuana

being left alone if approved at state level; and something like 42% of voters
favor outright decriminalization.

What's not for voters to like? .. for Obama to simply "uphold the law of the
land" i.e. obey the recent SCOTUS ruling that Federal law does not trump or
over-ride State laws regarding Med. Mj. programs approved by voters.
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2011/7350/supreme-court-state-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

[Festivito]

79. It's an issue that could get people off their couches and politically involved.

Instead of just complaining that some guy they elected isn't doing everything for them.

In case you were actually looking for an answer to your question.

[Dragonfli]

81. It is more an issue of "some guy" actively attacking State Legal medication for sick ppl.

I think we would appreciate him doing less than he is in this respect.
Using DOJ and IRS strong-arm tactics and Federal Shock troops tend to put people ill at ease and distrustful of one.

Especially since he can stop it without Congress and he said he would last campaign, fingers crossed perhaps, but he said the opposite of what he is doing.

They are not asking him to "do everything for him" they are asking him to stop attacking them, perhaps you were responding to a different OP in another window, you clearly do not understand this OP.

[Festivito]

94. OP said it made no sense. I offered how it might make some sense.

Making it as legal as it is, hurts other people. (It's their career.)
Legalizing it will make a lot more people hurt.

It needs to be done. The question I'd pose is how do we get through the hurt.

In the mean time, there is a possible reason for is actions. And, the OP opined there was none.

[Dragonfli]

96. There is no possible reason (objectively) to deny a sick person medical assistance and

quite frankly, any rationalization to deny the sick medicine is sociopathic, a symptom that is usually found within Republican ranks, at least in the days past. Perhaps you are the new age of Democrats that finds solice in sociopathy, I can not follow you there.

Nor will I blindly follow such a callous leader, I simply cannot, I will vote for him, yes, but not because he is not evil (clearly this policy is) but rather only because the other evil is slightly more evil in comparison.

You and I are far too different as I still have the capacity for empathy, you favor jailing the sick and/or prosecuting those that would help them.

There is nothing else after all the bullshit rationalizations are washed away with the excuses for the evil it'self.

Edited to add (the other two were for spelling), my wife was a cancer victim that did not survive, the marinol that this policy supports cost a couple THOUSAND dollars far a small bottle of pills, our copay was $500 we did not have, it did not work, she was losing weight fast so I got her some weed for twenty dollars, she was able to eat again and with this medicine that made us both criminals in Obama's and your eyes (I live in NY state) she was able to eat, gain weight, and thus spend two more precious years with me before her passing.

Between the two of us I feel only I understand what this policy means and what it will cost other husbands and wives, so try to be less callous about the sick and dying that are actual real people being harmed by this pharmaceuticaly ordered (with payment in donations)
policy.

It is pure evil and has no "bright side" to look at. eom

[Festivito]

97. Yes, there is. Being held at gunpoint for example.

And, to a degree, this is a life and death struggle. There are millions of Americans employed in the anti-drug industries, police, DEA, judges, jails, jail suppliers, alcohol, prescription drugs, labs, and add in the CIA. That's just the good-guys. Add the mafia and street dealers. It's millions. (NOTE: This is not a comprehensive list.)

Some of those millions will kill themselves if we legalize drugs right away, even if its to alleviate pain and suffering, even if it extends lives the users.

You accuse me of having no empathy, perhaps it is you who lacks empathy, empathy for the workers trying to do what they consider a necessary job however misguided they may be. You can't even seem to understand what it is to have empathy for these people who disagree with you. You only seem to have empathy for people who are pre-disposed to your way of thinking.

[Dragonfli]

98. I care far more for the sick than those mythical people that are harmed by sick people

getting medicine.

I must say you have a singular talent at rationalizing harming the sick to protect those that harm them.

You have offered nothing more than that.

Tell me, how did it harm you or others (as you claim) when my wife smoked a bowl and ate dinner for the first time in a week, please explain it as it appears to be nothing more than the bullshit that "gay people getting married somehow harms married straights".

Just how long since your conversion from republican to Democrat anyway? Or or you a new normal Democrat and my party is now as bad as they?

[Festivito]

102. You think police, DEA agents, judges, et. al. are .... mythical? Yikes! No, they exist.

I gather that you care more for the sick than the suicidal. Okay. Got it. We disagree -- there.

And, that's just one place where we disagree.

You think you're going to make headway on this issue by criticizing Obama on this rather than fighting for the legalization regardless of Obama's actions. I think your mistaken and acting in a way counter-productive to your desired end.

I notice that you've had several hidden posts. You seem to attack people personally. I have thick skin. If you need to get that out of your system, I won't alert. I think I can understand your anger.

Still, it's better to attack the ideas.

However, now I must bed.

[Dragonfli]

104. I speak my mind and am seldom intimidated, you can read my hidden posts in context if you wish to

understand them, I do not fear transparency, I got half of them arguing against gun violence, the rest for falling for bait intended to get me hidden. But feel free to look, in context, to judge for yourself.

I criticize Obama on this in that he is attacking for no reason, against his word as a candidate, state legal medical dispensaries.

The OP is about his drug war, not the drug war under other administrations, so how can one address the post without addressing his actions?

on edit (forget some of your reply then reread). The DEA agents etc. are not fictitious, the harm being done to them by patients filling out a pot prescription is quite mythical as I thought I stated clearly, I ask again, how are they harmed if someone's wife smokes a bowl and can eat again for the first time in a long time?

They are in no way damaged by the state laws no matter how you may spin it. They are simply not harmed by the act of using a plant as medicine.

[RainDog]

110. This is a morally corrupt argument

It's okay to deny people civil rights because someone might lose a job?

You know, there are other crimes out there to tackle - not just the soft arrests of marijuana charges.

Since the laws are applied in obviously racist manners, as Michelle Alexander, in The New Jim Crow, notes - you are making an argument to continue discrimination.

[Dragonfli]

99. You are claiming that this policy is under duress? the legal defense for doing something at gunpoint

Oddly, usually a defense used by criminals, not federal agencies.
Who, pray tell forced them to do this at gunpoint?

[Romulox]

116. LOL. Yes--where is your compassion for the DEA agents, corporate owners of for-profit prisons, and

those guys who auction off stuff confiscated in drug raids???

They're just trying to make a living--so let them arrest you and confiscate your personal belonging, you MONSTER!

I mean, is post #97 a joke, or some sort of false flag insanity?

PS: Good people may disagree, etc. etc. But the bottom line is: I want your sick wife ARRESTED (did you even think about the prison guards, Mr. I'm-too-busy-worrying-about-cancer???

[Festivito]

101. Thank you for that last addition. I feel that sad story, my condolence.

I look at my life as lucky for having whatever time I have. I'd say your wife was lucky to have her time, and very lucky to have had you in her life.

We may disagree on tactics and timing issues surrounding the eventual repeal of this new prohibition, but we do both want its repeal, at least for pot. During the last repeal of prohibition, people were around who survived the civil war -- another economic intransigence tainted issue that had life and death on both sides.

I hope we manage to repeal it without another such civil conflict. I don't think it would happen over drugs, but it could.

[Dragonfli]

103. We need to at least agree that states that are taking a sane, regulated approach to Medical

use of weed should not be storm trooped to death, it is a priority that could, right now, without bloodshed be chosen or ignored at the Federal level by the DOJ OR his boss the POTUS.

He did actually claim he would do just that, make it a non priority in states that legalize and regulate it, he only needs to keep his word, it would not require congress or bloodshed, it can be done tonight peacefully.

As to the rest, I would like federal Medicinal legalization as my wife or I could have been imprisoned for simply trying a medicine some said would work that could not kill or harm you by trying it. We did so only after the very expensive pharmaceutical version failed to work, this really should have been within our rights but is not, not even remotely, in my state.

If it must begin in steps, in a slow progression, state level MEDICAL legalization should be allowed to be a starting point. I also feel personally that if pot were legal for recreational use, many livers and battered spouses would be spared by those that chose such an option over liquor, but that is after all another discussion.

Thank you for your post.
Her name was Kim, and she was a genius and an artist with a capacity to love everyone and every thing.

[RainDog]

112. Prohibition did not provoke a civil war

http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/future1_final.html

[progressoid]

82. Now now, lets not rock the boat.

It's election time and we don't want to complain!

Tsk tsk tsk.

[RZM]

100. Now that he's come out in favor marriage equality, it's time to get real on pot

I want to see leadership on this issue.

I want the president to make a public statement distinguishing marijuana from other drugs. I want some sort of acknowledgment that people should not be punished for using the drug in moderation for either recreational or medicinal purposes.

Until he does that, I will not strongly support the president. I will vote for him and I will defend him against unwarranted criticism. But I will not register strong support until he comes around on this.

[99th_Monkey]

111. +1000 why not make it a twofer? ~nt

[Romulox]

117. Agreed. Time for more evolution. nt