Pelosi condemns Obama’s continued raids on marijuana dispensaries

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

President Barack Obama’s emphasis on raiding medical marijuana dispensaries drew a rebuke from none other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) this week, who warned in a prepared statement that she has “strong concerns” about her political ally’s policy.

Since President Barack Obama took office, “more than 200" state-approved medical marijuana facilities have been raided, according to Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), who spoke to Raw Story on Thursday.

...............

“I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California, and undermine a policy that has been in place under which the federal government did not pursue individuals whose actions complied with state laws providing for medicinal marijuana,” she said.

“Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions,” she added. “I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medicinal marijuana, including the American Nurses Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, and the AIDS Action Council. Medicinal marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea. The opportunity to ease the suffering of people who are seriously ill or enduring difficult and painful therapies is an opportunity we must not ignore.

.............................



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/

---

Pelosi's Statement HERE:
http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2012/05/pelosi-statement-on-recent-federal-government-actions-threatening-safe-access-to-medicinal-marijuana.shtml

[polichick]

1. Seriously, wtf is his problem when it comes to marijuana?!

[Lawlbringer]

3. He may have gotten high

and forgotten the name of the girl he was seeing at the time, leading to a series of hijinks where he and his friends tried to figure out her name. Eventually, she realized what was happening and left him. Since then, he's had a personal vendetta against that...viiiiiile weeeeeeed.

[patrice]

13. Hypothesis: There is a tactic amongst attornies in which they increase the pressure,

legal and contextual, on aspects of an issue in order to drive the legal traits of the opposition more out into the open. Both sides CAN do this. The objective is to see if there is a will and a MEANS to settle it out of court - OR - to drive it TO court under terms for which they can prepare effective legal strategies.

Yes, it IS survival of the legal fittest, so these processes also drive the best legal talents on both sides to the top, a dicey but good thing for Legalization proponents.

[redqueen]

35. Thanks for this post.

And the rest of your posts on this thread as well.

[patrice]

37. I loved my Libertarian corporate attorney & learned a lot from him, before he passed on.

Best male conversationalist I ever met.

[RainDog]

87. How would you apply this to mmj?

I don't know if you're aware, but one lawyer has made the claim that Washington D.C.'s medical marijuana law (which is supposed to go into effect tomorrow) legalized cannabis for the entire nation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170242

If one prominent attorney is right about the legal ramifications of the District of Columbia's marijuana law -- specifically, that it was approved by the U.S. Congress -- then it could be a game-changer nationwide.

D.C.'s medical marijuana law was the first time that the United States Congress had ever given its explicit assent to any state or local law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana -- and, according to a California attorney who specializes in health care compliance, that is enormously significant under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

​In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.

"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."

So, one lawyer, at least, wants to argue that Congress has already legalized medical marijuana for the entire nation because they cannot give special treatment to D.C. and fund the law they passed while keeping laws on the books that punish every other state.

[Igel]

71. It's a simple problem.

The president's--pretty much any president's--default view, just like that of the DOJ, is that Federal law trumps state law unless there's an explicit, unavoidable requirement to yield to state law.

Few presidents reduce federal power, esp. federal executive-branch power, unless there's something really big in it for them or unless it reflects a really deep-held belief. DOMA doesn't contract this because it's a purely federal-internal wrangle.

MMJ is a state vs. federal issue. To tell the feds to back off, the state's law trumps the federal law, is a red flag for almost any president.

[polichick]

75. Presidents can use the bully pulpit to change outdated laws...

...especially when the people are behind him.

This is just a case of special interests making big bucks - par for the course in the U.$.

[librechik]

112. President could change the substance scheduling of MJ unilaterally. Today.

with an executive order. No need for congressional approval; it's his bailiwick.

Then it would have the same status as say cigarettes and alcohol.

Millions$ would be made by states in taxes and merchants in sales.

WHAT is keeping him from doing that??????

[polichick]

114. I guess he's putting some special interest ahead of justice and sanity...

...very disturbing.

[librechik]

141. indeed it is. n/t

[tru]

134. fed vs state law

No, Obama has a problem with a lot of things most people think are okay (if you believe the polls) - marijuana, gay marriage, etc. I think it's founded in his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or pandering to the Right wing in hopes of votes.

p.s. Nancy Pelosi, a true Democrat - you go girl!

[24601]

158. Fundamentalist isn't a term usually applied to his faith and normally has a RW connotation.

Perhaps under all his personal beliefs (and I'd judge MM is there also) he really does feel some obligation to uphold the laws of the United States. While not explicit, it kinda goes with the oath of office.

[rhett o rick]

136. One of the most powerful of the President's powers is the power to not enthusiastically enforce laws

Granted the federal law overrides the state laws but the resources to prosecute is up to the president. GW Bushy was great for not enforcing environmental laws. Why is Pres Obama spending more resources going after medical marijuana dispensaries than wall street crooks? It's a rhetorical question.

[obxhead]

94. He must pander to the right.

That's where all the votes are apparently.

Yet somehow, on Nov 7th Obama will suddenly make a left turn.

[NorthCarolina]

98. I seriously doubt there will be any "Left Turn"

after Nov. 7th. There will of course be plenty of Liberal Campaign Speak leading up to Nov., but after the 7th it will be back to the rightward march.

[abelenkpe]

109. ONly if congress is still packed with republicans nt

[NorthCarolina]

143. Corporate Dems are hardly much better than Republicans though,

and Obama is certainly no leftist.

[lib2DaBone]

153. Big Pharma wants to market MJ in a pill form.

Big Pharma and Wall Street hate competition.

It's also an election year and Obama can use those donations from the Liquor Lobby.

[polichick]

154. I think you're right - especially big pharma...

The president has always been tight with that lobby - sad as it is.

[boppers]

156. You're 30 years late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

[truebrit71]

2. It continues to baffle me as well...

..but at least for the time being it is one less thing the rethuglicans can use against him..

[Vincardog]

7. Bingo he is more interested in pleasing the Radical right than the LIBERAL left

[Jamaal510]

12. I don't think it's so much that PBO is interested in pleasing the righties.

I think he's intelligent enough to realize they'll never vote for him, especially after what happened last year with the budget ceiling and their refusal to pass his Jobs Plan. My guess is that perhaps he wants to take away the card the GOP likes to play about the D's being soft on drugs and crime.
Still, I disagree 100% with the actions the federal government has taken against 420 under his watch, and think it's past time for it to be legalized. It's insane how 420 has yet to be legal, but alcohol and tobacco are perfectly legal despite being more unhealthy.

[Vincardog]

14. I for one am tired of playing defense, it is time to stand up and be counted.

[Dawgs]

95. So your argument is that he should act like a Republican so they don't have a card to play?

That's a good idea.

[Jamaal510]

113. Certainly not.

I said in my previous post that I, by all means, disagree with PBO's hesitance to legalize it. I was simply making a guess regarding WHY he's so tough on 420 users.

[patrice]

15. Out of the few thousand reasons he could have for doing what he does, that is ONLY one.

Thinking of issues as isolated and discrete from one another is a mistake.

[Vincardog]

24. A reasonable person would note a pattern of his giving more to the right than they asked for and

often demanding NOTHING in return.
Extending W's tax cut?
Agreeing to stay in Afghanistan for another decade?
Single payer?
Torture?
Unconstitutional assassination?
Claiming the power to detain anyone without review?
And targeting MMJ after running on state's rights.
Putting SS on the table at every opportunity?
Constantly letting the right frame the debate?
Yeah it is just one thing.

[patrice]

29. Yes, a reasonable person would & they would also note how quickly and utterly what calls itself

"the Left" not only abandoned him, but also aggressively attacked him FROM DAY ONE practically, at least on this board.

Like it or not, agree with him or not, he's A POLITICIAN and he MUST make up those lost "Left" votes somewhere. That's. the. way. it. works.

The Left appears to continue to make itself ir-relevant and you can see that every day on this board. I am forced to think that they engage in artificially extrapolated, static assumptions about zero-sum ideological politics because they want government failure, no matter how much that hurts anyone else, NOT because they actually intend to succeed with an authentic Left agenda at this point (because they can't do that as they have not taken that risk with one another as yet) and it appears that they want to pretend that WHEN that agenda does manifest itself and WHAT exactly that agenda is, what it's priorities are and how they will achieve them (other than a "destroy-it-all-let-'god'-sort-them-out" strategy) doesn't matter.

That's what it looks like from where this Leftie sits.

[Vincardog]

32. I think that "the Left" was left out because PBO wants to go right. Believe what you want to.

[patrice]

40. And you BELIEVE what you WANT to too.

[tru]

135. patrice

The left abandoned him? It was the opposite. Even us f*ing retards can remember that.

[NorthCarolina]

99. More "interested in pleasing", or simply

common politics?

[patrice]

17. BTW, why should he do anything for a Left that continues to hate him? Hmmmmmm? nt

[patrice]

19. Especially since it is possible that some of that Left is in bed with the Right to take him down.

Ever heart of Citizens' United? Ever wonder where the fuck all of that Ron Paul support is coming from?

[kurtzapril4]

33. How about this:

I don't hate the president. Not at all. But I no longer believe a flipping word he says. I think he's your typical lying politician who would have said the sky was on fire if it would have gotten him elected. I'm sure we can all expect more purty words from him this time, too.

My nephew died of bone cancer that spread to his lungs, last May 17. MM sure as hell made his last months easier. OBama would have denied him that. Tom died a month before OBama's goons raided and closed the local dispensaries.

You might ask yourself, Patrice, why the left "hates" him. I think hate is way too strong a word, BTW. My personal feeling about him is one of profound disappointment. Not hate.

[patrice]

47. Very sorry about your nephew. We have had quite a bit of stuff like that in my family. And I worked

in long-term-care for 3 years, and have personally seen a total of 3 elders into the hereafter, so there are many stories, including things about how and why Single Payer WOULD alleviate a LOT of suffering and even programmed death amongst our elderly.

I agree with you in principle, but You and I are probably different in how each of us perceives **HOW** what can be done, at this point, can be done, about any of this and exactly HOW anything that can be done will or will not survive in the challenges of the future headed at this country, without an authentically aware and committed people's constituency underneath whatever those policies and programs turn out to be.

There's a difference between just doing something to get the political credit for doing it and doing it so that it actually survives politically and grows, especially during times of uncertainty and intense contextual changes.

[girl gone mad]

129. You're making really lame excuses for Obama's crappy, failing neoliberal policies.

Obama is right to harshly punish decent Americans because the left was willing to point out the countless bad choices the President made since taking office?

Good lord.

[frylock]

38. are you fucking shitting me?!

[patrice]

45. uh . . . sissy don't play that game.

[frylock]

46. keep fucking that chicken

[Enrique]

62. don't do it for the Left

do it for the sick people.

[polichick]

67. That's crazy talk - the left "hates" him because they'd like him...

...to do what's right?!

[may3rd]

96. How does this decision play out on the Mexican border?

Lots of ghoulish murders happening every hour due to the power struggle of cartels. Seems they will not solve the drug issue with any sit down direct talks

[markpkessinger]

4. Wait, where's the "President-Obama-Supports-MMJ" chorus?

Sing a little louder, folks, we can't hear you!

Seriously, though, I am glad to finally see a national Democratic figure speaking out on this issue.

[patrice]

31. Look at DODT & DOMA. He's NOT supposed to endorse MMJ. You are supposed to BRING IT.

And what calls itself the Left is too busy running AWAY from him, at minimum, or trying to DESTROY him at worst, instead of doing what it needs to do ride this issue to the table NOW.

My explanation for this is that what calls itself the Left is afraid to work its priorities and strategies out amongst itself, because they are afraid of losing one another, which might just well be a legitimate fear on this issue especially because this particular cohort INCLUDES RIGHT WING Libertarians.

[frylock]

39. your paranoia regarding the left trying to destroy obama is unsettling

[patrice]

43. There's a great deal at stake that a lot of people appear to dangerously oversimplify.

Whether that's their naivete or manipulation, the effect will be the same on me and millions of others if they succeed, because it won't be just about the loss of this President, it will also be about ALL of those who COULD have gotten to this particular table at this particular point in our history, but won't because they intentionally or otherwise bought into a bait-and-switch.

[frylock]

53. the naivete is believing that romney stands a chance in hell in beating obama

[Proletariatprincess]

65. Oh yes!

Romney hasn't a chance in hell of beating Obama. I think that has already been decided because elections are just too important to be left to the will of the voters. Obama for 4 more years then it's the GOP's turn and we will have Jeb Bush for 8 years. Too much is at steak to allow the unespected to happen. The fix is in.

[frylock]

73. i sincerely believe that exact scenario will play out..

i really do.

[truedelphi]

48. We did f___king bring it. For at least a decade.

Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

May I point out to you that the war on Medical Marijuana is a war on the elderly and also on women.

So activists "Brought it" for over a decade. When the proposition was on the ballot, to legalize Medical Marijuana,even the elderly in Marin County Calif. "brought it." Marin County Voters,among the oldest in the country, (demographically speaking), wanted Medical Marijuana at 82% for it!

People like Lynnete Shaw spent their lives and their fortunes seeing to it that here in Calif. jails would no longer be housing little old granmas whose Multiple Sclerosis has put them not only in wheel chairs but in prison.

And remember, each of these women had costs to the state of over 33 K a year. Drug kingpins would actually get lower sentences than granmas did - as the king pins could usually volunteer to be snitches for the cops and the DEA, or else they would offer up their compadres, so their sentences were reduced. It was the granmas who ended up in jail. And often their homes were possessed, as well!

The fact of the matter happens to be that right now the system in our "democracy" is gamed, pure and simple. In November we in this plutocracy have the "choice" between voting for a guy whose "good buddy' has rigged the distribution of wealth from those of us who need to retire, but we can't as good old Good Buddy lil Timmy has helped his buddies over at AIG and at Goldman Sachs. Or we can vote for a guy who is sure to replace Geithner, but will put someone just as bad in his place. Some choice?!?

A mere mortal would be under RICO investigation for his crimes, but due to Tim's ownership of the Obama Presidency, Tim will never be charged with a thing.

Anyway, Obama needs to discuss the situation with Kamela Harris. Harris should have been a shoe-into become the Attorney General of Calif. But her advisors had her write a rather stupid non-endorsement of the total legalization of marijuana. Which gave a lot of people pause. Was Harris signalling that she would aide and abet the Big Money People regarding Marijuana laws. The drug cartels hate marijuana liberalization,. The Big Money people hate medical and normal marijuana use being legalized - do you understand how much money gets laundered through banks every year? That one third of the Mexican economy is related to drugs being illegal?

Harris was not a shoe-in. Instead her words op;posing liberalizing medical marijuana scared people into voting third party. She barely squeaked by in her election efforts agains a VERY VERY unpopular Republican candidate. Does Obama want the voters to vote for him here in California or not??????????? Peopel I know are talking about either staying home or voting third party.

I am waiting for his apology. He is here often enough in both LA and SF, rubbing shoulders with the rich - who benefit from the Big Prison compounds that need to be built, maintained and staffed. He is here often enough rubbing shoulders with the Big Bankers who also are now in bed with the Big Prison industry. It's not too late frr Obama to right this. (Not that I am holding my breath.)

Luckily for voters, many officials who are Democrats are not as either corrupt or as blind as Obama. One of the last things that happened before Ahnold left office - Mark Leno and Ahnold put together legislation that makes it difficult for police to arrest anyone holding small amounts of weed.

BTW I don't even smoke, I just became aware of how absolutely unjust the medical marijauna situation happens to be.

[patrice]

51. Thanks for this info! - and - of course the context changes over time. There appears to be

an opportunity to create more pressure now, but I suspect that the Legalization cohort, whoever it is comprised of, will not be able to bring it successfully all by themselves.

[RainDog]

88. GREAT POST n/t

[markpkessinger]

50. Oh, I see ...

So it's the left's fault that President Obama says one thing and does another. Glad we cleared that up.

[patrice]

54. Nope. It takes two to tangle. It's the Left's fault for expecting him to do it FOR NOTHING or else.

[patrice]

58. And it's his fault for not being in a position where he can just write those votes off, however he

decides, pro or con.

[Dragonfli]

126. It's the left's fault, that makes no sense, you say he refuses to do it for nothing? how much is

his price then?

Why should he "get something" for just keeping his word, do you sell your word? Does any person of character expect something for just doing what they say they will? Sounds more like extortion when you put it that way.

[frylock]

57. why are you hitting yourself?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. The left is "running" because he's showing up with armed federal agents

What would you have "the left" do? And by the way, if I'm "the left", what are you?

[patrice]

60. Aside from the fact that the particular decisions are not his, but DOJ's, please see my post

#13 for the general context in which actions such as this can be viewed.

And I'm an old hippie who has organized and lead Mothers' day events during Viet Nam, anti-nuke marches down the streets of her home town. Been to D.C. and/or NYC a total of 6 times over the years for national demonstrations. Stood on many a street corner with my friends and our homemade signs. Attended dozens of government hearings on the environment. Dozens of visits with various friends to our senators and representative's offices. Published medium-sized newsletters for a total of about 5 years. I'm a VERY LOUD and active Occupier. Raised two authentic cultural revolutionaries of my own and sowed the seeds of free critical thinking amongst 8 years worth of high school seniors.

P.S. that's not the full list.

[Dragonfli]

64. See post #63 to see how far you have fallen down the consetvative path, while supporting GOP views

and vilifying a left you say you once belonged to

[wordpix]

81. disagree, DOJ is exec. branch under O & if he didn't agree with what Holder's doing

He would get Holder to agree with him, or leave the AG position.

[fuddyduddy]

116. Hello. The boss of the DoJ is Attorney General Holder

who has to listen to Obama, so don't give me that bunk that Obama supports legal medical marijuana, because the 2011 Cole memo proves that he does not.

Want to see it? Here it is, in its entireity

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

[Dragonfli]

63. The poster will have to plea the fifth, Conservative views must pretend to be "centrist" or we will

easily see that those conservative views are more in line with big pharma and private prisons and are GOP values.

Much easier to blame the left for them moving right than admit it is about all the money (right wing money) that is more important than those useless eater cancer patients that others (ironically, on the left) wish to help with the pain and the dying and all that not making money stuff.

Remember., the DLC and it's nom de plumes the "New Democrats" and "third way" believe in business and money first and compassion a dead last, they were after all started by the Koch Bros.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

http://www.correntewire.com/why_its_feature_not_bug_koch_family_funds_dlc

[Dr Fate]

139. If stoners/progressives are too lazy to make him keep his promise, that is their fault.

They need to stop running and start writing more letters begging him to keep his promise. (Assuming he really made any promise a all- I have arguements that prove he may not have)

Either way, it is on progressives and the far left to "Make him (not) do it" and or keep his promises.

[kurtzapril4]

36. They're hanging out with the

"the president wants these things to happen, but he doesn't have any power, so he can't make them happen" crowd.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Is weed on the table now, Nancy Pelosi?

I do hope so.

[truedelphi]

49. + me too. But I remember how she feels about really and truly keeping

Things on the table.

[anti-alec]

6. So introduce a friggin bill to reschedule marijuana.

Now.

Words means nothing. Action means something, even if it's just to light Obama's butt on fire to get Holder to stop enforcing outdated laws.

[truedelphi]

52. Activists are people who have tried things like that for decades.

And even when they have major victories, people like Eric Holder and Obama himself, tear their efforts apart.

the only people who seem in sympathy to the legalizing of movement happen to have been pushed out of the Democratic Party. The Big Politicians would rather have money from the cleaned-up drug cartel people, the Big Bankers, (Who happen to love themselves all that drug loot that needs to be laundered) and Big Pharma than do what is ri9ght for and by the people.ar

[RainDog]

92. H.B. 2306 was introduced in June 2011

Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.B. 2306) modeled on the 21st amendment to repeal prohibition, to end the federal govt's prohibition of cannabis. This was the first time such a bill has been entered in the house (June 2011.)

Democratic Reps. John Conyers (MI), Steve Cohen (TN), Jared Polis (CO) and Barbara Lee (CA) are co-sponsors of the bill.

The 'Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act' seeks to federally deregulate the personal possession and use of marijuana by adults. It marks the first time that members of Congress have introduced legislation to eliminate the federal criminalization of marijuana since the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

Language in the act mimics changes enacted by Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of alcohol. Passage of this measure would remove the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those sixteen states that allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physicians' supervision. It would also allow state governments that wish to fully legalize and regulate the responsible use, possession, production, and distribution of marijuana for all adults to be free to do so without federal interference.

The federal criminalization of marijuana has failed to reduce the public's demand or access to cannabis, and it has imposed enormous fiscal and human costs upon the American people. It is time to end this failed public policy and to provide state governments with the freedom to enact alternative strategies -- such as medicalization, decriminalization, and/or legalization -- without running afoul of the federal law.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/end-federal-marijuana-prohibition

You can track the status of the bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2306

It is currently in committee. That's where bills go do die. HR 2306 was sent to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Lamar Smith (R-TX), is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He stated the bill would never get out of his office. Apparently he has the bill bound and gagged and routinely kicks it in the shins before he jerks off to posters of Harry Anslinger... ahem, that was snark.

You can (nicely and rationally) let Lamar Smith know that you would like this bill to go forward by contacting him.

Rep. Lamar Smith
DC Office: 202-225-4236 (8:30 am- 6:00 pm EST)
TX Office: 210-821-5024 (8:00 am- 5:00 pm CT)
Web: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/

Rep. Fred Upton has not indicated his position on the bill.
http://upton.house.gov/Contact/

One person, either ignorant or uninformed, can block consideration of a controversial political issue if he or she wishes to do so. And the ability to do this only increases with time, as the legislator gains seniority and become a committee or subcommittee chairperson.

Rep. Smith, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to press inquiries yesterday about the new federal legalization bill, that will be referred to his committee, saying he had no intention of considering the bill, or even giving it a public hearing. Unfortunately, under current Congressional rules, a committee chairman is given great discretion regarding what bills to consider, and which to ignore, and it is only when another member or members of that committee, or the general public, make a big deal out of it that sometimes one can overcome the stiff opposition of a committee chair.

One promising fact is that the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, JR, is a co-sponsor of HB 2306, and should serve as a counter-balance to the opposition of the chairman.

Smith’s anti-cannabis salvo against the new legalization bill should inspire cannabis consumers and activists to redouble their efforts this year to get as many co-sponsors as possible for HR 2306, and to recruit and elect political candidates to Congress who no longer embrace reefer madness or favor continuing—possibly for another 74 years—the status quo of arresting another cannabis consumer every 35 seconds in America.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/06/24/reefer-madness-alive-and-well-in-the-federal-government/

For a while he disabled his email and fb because he had so many people calling him about his current action.

http://conyers.house.gov/

Tell John Conyers you want the Democrats to push to move this legislation forward and would like him to ask his fellow committee member, Smith, to allow a vote based upon the knowledge that Americans overwhelmingly support legal medical marijuana, based upon every poll conducted.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=000151

[Dr Fate]

121. Obama HAS to order Holder to focus on busting the pot heads until we write more letters.

Sorry Liberals- nothing,nothing,nothing (What part of NOTHING are we not understanding?) more Pelois and Obama can do.

Obama HAS to order Holder to focus on busting the pot heads until we write more letters to all these Republicans and centrists.

[RainDog]

125. Contacting John Conyers would be a really useful thing to do

Since he could use his position on the committee to pressure Smith - but voters need to give him a reason to make this an issue.

However, I don't think you can really make a strong argument that Obama must push this issue because every President makes decisions about what to pay attention to and thus make an issue.

The Clinton administration went after cannabis more than Bush I. Now the Obama administration policies have resulted in more arrests regarding this issue than Shrub. Ashcroft made a big p.r. arrest with Tommy Chong, tho, to kick that dog for the right wing.

The Time magazine article posted here seems to have some pretty good insight - the Obama administration responded to people who were concerned about the proliferation of cannabis-based businesses.

The DoJ worked with state Attns. General to force some federal restraint - to the point of overkill in too many ways, imo,

I would rather see the DoJ and Attns General focus on more substantial issues, rather than trying to shut down something that already has the support of the majority of voters. That's why this doesn't play well - too many people disagree with the federal position. There are several remedies when various branches of the federal govt. do not have the capacity to change bad laws, tho.

[Dr Fate]

128. Obama is forced to order Holder to focus on busting pot heads unless I do (or do not) write letters.

It's all on me and Conyers to "make him (not) do it."

Cool- I'll get working on that.

[Dragonfli]

133. Got it! first thing's first, since Obama is forced to force Holder to bust clinics, who is his boss?

The one forcing him is the one in charge.
If Obama is being forced, we need to name this all powerful executive above the executive branch and seek redress there.

We have to go to the top beyond all these weak middle managers that have no actual power to do anything but go against the wishes of the American people.

Shall we replace the unknown boss of bosses that orders around well meaning but very weak Presidents?

Or is it of with the monarchs head time?

[Dr Fate]

138. If stoners/progressives are too lazy to make him keep his promise, that is their fault.

Maybe they better stop smoking and start writing more letters to centrists.

Obama cannot force Holder to help him keep his campaign promise until we write more letters.

Obama said "Make me do it"- so it is our job to "make him (not) do it."

[RainDog]

145. Not exactly what I said...

in any way.

however, yes, it would be a good thing if people contacted Conyers b/c he's on the judiciary committee with Smith - so give Conyers something to work with to move that bill out of committee.

on the other hand, it is entirely possible for the executive branch to, in effect, decriminalize marijuana, simply by moving it from a Schedule I drug to any other schedule - that's the only one that states there is no medical benefit and, therefore, doctors may not prescribe it.

However, yes, the reality is that when people want to change the laws, the onus is upon them to do something about it.

[treestar]

103. Thank you!

Of all people to complain about this, here is someone who has the ability to DO something about it!

[Dr Fate]

119. No no no no no no no no no no no! Pelosi just needs to SAY things about this, not do things.

Pelosi needs to SAY liberal things but then DO centrist things. That is how we win all of our progressive victories.

[truthisfreedom]

8. It's pretty easy to guess why he's doing it.

He doesn't want to give the repukes anything to call him weak on.

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. RTFO, Nancy, push marijuana legalization

Screw the cia and bush family's illegal drug mafia.

[IamK]

10. you can tell its an election year......... n/t

[Blue_Tires]

61. +1

Man...if only Nancy had the legal power to draft a bill or something...

[rayofreason]

100. He was doing this BEFORE an election year! n/t

[provis99]

11. a case of "do as I say, not as I did" with Obama.

[patrice]

16. Thank You, Nancy!!! We love you and will never forget your support! nt

[Galraedia]

18. I have no problem with ppl using marijuana for medical purposes. However,

I suspect that most of the people eager to see marijuana legalized aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's, chemo-induced nausea ...etc. Many of them just want to get stoned legally.

[Purveyor]

20. I have no problem with minding their own business and not dwelling on what I do in the privacy

of my own home.

[markpkessinger]

21. I don't smoke pot, nor do I have any of the conditions mentioned...

I don't smoke the stuff because I don't care for the way it makes me feel. But I strongly support the legalization of mmj (a) it can alleviate some people's suffering and (b) for all I know, I might one day be afflicted with one of those conditions.

Your argument could have been, and I'm sure probably was, used against the lifting of the alcohol prohibition. But humans have gotten high from ingested substances for thousands upon thousands of years. And I submit it is nothing less than that age-old puritanical streak that pervades American culture that leads folks to be so concerned with others' motivations.

[patrice]

22. Is it okay to get drunk? Why is alcohol legal and canabis not? - and - WHY THE FUCK IS HEMP

ILLEGAL?

I honestly am interested in your answers to these questions.

[obamanut2012]

25. And, if true, so?

What does one have to do with the other? And, why should cannabis be illegal?

[kestrel91316]

26. My medical issues aren't your concern when I exercise my right to

oral contraception and abortion. Nor should they be any of your concern when I am trying to manage a chronic pain issue.

So long as I am doing nothing that threatens YOUR rights or safety, it's really none of your business how I deal with my medical issues.

The attack on MMJ is just a slight variation of the attack on women's reproductive rights.

[Chemisse]

30. So what?

Who the fuck cares what people do in their private lives if it doesn't hurt anyone else?

[may3rd]

34. Most ppl want it placed on the same shelf as alcohol

Another legalized drug that impair motor skills but used responsibly

[frylock]

41. how is that any of your damn business?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

56. Right. Let's imprison those fuckers!

I just hate it when people want to get high. Makes me want to imprison every last one of them.

(did I strike the right tone for you there?)

[Galraedia]

70. O_o ...?

Are you high right now? I said nothing about imprisoning people.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. As a matter of fact, yes, I am high right now

However, that no longer carries the stigma you'd like it to carry (and yes, you'd like for it to carry the weight of stigma, else you wouldn't have used that tired old joke).

On to the point at hand, your post attempted to draw a bright line between recreational and medical users. You attempted to denigrate those who would use the MMJ system for a recreational high (I've just described over 90% of the MMJ users in CA), and in so doing, you're supporting the status quo. And the status quo puts a lot of upstanding citizens in prison. Thank you.

[Galraedia]

74. Riiight.

Actually I support treatment, not imprisonment but whatever.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. Riiiiigh? No, really, I'm high right now.

It's just a little couple-of-puffs after-work sort of buzz, not long lasting, and not deep, but it's there.

By the way, treatment for whom, and for what? We are talking about marijuana here, and about adults using it. Are you saying pot smokers should be "treated"? Fascinating. Why?

[Galraedia]

77. I wasn't disputing that. I really do think your high.

And treatment for who? My best guess would be the following:

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. Take it from a stoner: you meant "you're", not "your", and "whom", not who

As to the Ron Paul stuff, funny, but I was being serious. Who should be "treated" for marijuana, and why?

[Dragonfli]

123. The lunatic is on the grass,

the lunatic is on the grass, remembering games and daisy chains and laughs, got to keep those loonies on the path.

Laughter is pure evil, therefore the grass must be stopped! There will also be no memories of games.



Being Wiccan and out often dancing and chanting beneath a full moon, I imagine I am the loonie smoker that must be treated. A fifth of scotch, that would be fine, but weed is a plant and as such a disease causing agent (much like the salad I just ate). If you were on the path you would know plants are pure evil.

[RainDog]

86. but, you know, that doesn't really matter

because the reality is that marijuana is an effective substance for many afflictions.

Just because we, as a society, have a bias against people who would chose marijuana, rather than alcohol, to take the edge off of a hard day - so what.

The benefits far outweigh any concern that someday, somewhere someone might get to do something legally that he would do illegally anyway.

It's people who do not have access to marijuana (because stoners do) - who suffer from illnesses - primarily women and the elderly - who are subjected to needless suffering because of the current structure of the law.

Some people abuse social safety net programs. Most don't, but some do. The right wing uses this as an argument against all social safety net programs.

To me, the benefits to society from having social safety nets far outweighs my concern that someone, somewhere, might try to cheat the system - especially when you consider how the wealthy are able to purchase laws to cheat the system routinely.

It's a matter or priorities.

[treestar]

104. True. If they want it legal, they will have to get society, via Congress and the states

to agree.

How lazy to use Medical Marijuana as a crutch to advocate that. Come out and do it in the open.

[RainDog]

110. are you trying to support Obama by attacking imaginary stoners?

LOLOL

seems like that's the only argument you're got.

Obama's position does not reflect the position of the majority of Democratic party voters - for medical or recreational marijuana.

His position is to the right of the majority of Americans in poll after poll in every region in the U.S.

Yet you choose to ignore this reality and want to make this about imaginary stoners.... iow, you really have nothing to use to defend Obama's stance on this issue.

[Dr Fate]

131. Yup- the lazy stoners should admit they smoked it just for fun- Like Obama and Al Gore did.

At least Obama is not being a hypocrite about this.

[RainDog]

146. Your attitude is ignorant

but not uncommon.

[mike_c]

115. and that's bad, why?

I got stoned last night after work. Did that harm you in any way?

[rhett o rick]

137. Heaven forbid that someone uses marijuana to get stoned legally. The horrors.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a liberal would rather error on the side of freedom and the conservative would rather error on the side of authoritarian control. Which side would you rather error on? Me I hope people are getting away with misusing the law in this case.

The persecution of marijuana use is a conservative control issue. They think that only liberal hippies use mary jane.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[99th_Monkey]

27. Seriously!! SCOTUS, Jimmy Kimmel, Time Magazine & now Pelosi.

WOOT! The times they are a changin'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=641401

[frylock]

28. i'm sure her staffers hear it all day every day from pissed off constituents..

good on ya for speaking up, Nancy.

[fascisthunter]

42. honesty is not a value in US politics

it's as if everything was a hollywood make believe film in the US.

[teewrex]

44. drugs used to be legal back before prohibition. once they decided

that making everything illegal wasn't working they actually had a debate whether to legalized alcohol or drugs. isn't it time we all grew up and dealt with this like adults. legalize it, then you can control it better. cause the war on drugs is working sooooo well

[felix_numinous]

59. Top 5 special interest groups that lobby to keep marijuana illegal:

Top 3:

--Police unions

--Private prisons corporations

--Alcohol and beer companies


Surprise!!!!


http://truth-out.org/news/item/8854-the-top-five-special-interest-groups-lobbying-to-keep-marijuana-illegal

[Dragonfli]

66. I am only surprised that big pharma isn't among them as we have an administration that

Does whatever Big Pharma wants, starting with the insurance deform that masqueraded as health care reform.
Big pharma wrote the ticket for themselves in that GOP bill, I just assumed they were getting what they want here as well.

[polichick]

68. I've always thought they were part of it too.

[felix_numinous]

85. Big pharma is number 4

and prison guard unions are number 5--your instincts are right on, sadly....

[felix_numinous]

120. The article lists

Big pharma as number 4 and prison guard unions as number 5. You're right.

[Dragonfli]

124. Sorry, I replied as I was out the door and didn't follow the link until I got back.

I wish we were all wrong, but among the axioms I have come to accept, the "follow the money path" to understanding politicians truly is self evident.

All I really need to do to understand why the Justice Dept. has such a cruel and unjust policy against the wishes of the majority of all Americans is ask myself one question.

"Who benefits"?

Once you make a list of who benefits from such bad policy, just look at their donations and you will find who is working for them, Obama sure got a lot of money from these interests, so motives are very clear and easy to follow, they have also hedged their bets, they will use either party as their prohibition puppets.

I do get rather annoyed with people that lie directly to me and claim they are for a sane humane policy when they are not.

[felix_numinous]

140. Hey--you're so right

$$$$$ is the root of all corruption--and this crooked form of the system feeds on the lives of others to sustain itself--it is a diseased manifestation, and must be changed.

[Proletariatprincess]

69. Thank you Nancy!

I am so glad to be your constituent in San Francisco. If only your male collegues had such courage, things would actually get done in congress.

[wordpix]

79. instead of regulating fracking, nukes, et. al, O's raiding med mj sites

Wow, that makes me not want to send him $ for re-election.

[CountAllVotes]

107. same here

The DNC has been calling and a calling and they are not getting a nickel out of me to re-elect this "hope monger" or what the hell ever Mr. President really is!

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

and to Speaker Pelosi, thank you for standing up for the sick and those suffering from chronic debilitating illnesses.

[a2liberal]

80. K&R (n/t)

[FlaGatorJD]

82. The Obama MJ problem keeps growing and growing . . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002253036

I couldn't believe my ears when he used the same lame line on Jimmy Fallon's show . . . . . "We're not gonna legalize it we're gonna treat this as a public health issue. . . WTF

Was that a line from Reefer Madness or something.

[Comrade Grumpy]

83. Check out this DU thread about what's happening to good people because of this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014112792

[RainDog]

84. k&r THANK YOU, NANCY PELOSI!!! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

89. Seconded, of

course I've already kicked and recommended this thread but then I figured, "what the hell."

[Trillo]

90. Oh, this needs a K&R!

Nice discussion up above! Thanks!

[SunSeeker]

91. I'm so sick of this crap. Legalize it already!

I don't smoke, but just about everyone I care about does. And I'm sick of worrying that they'll get thrown in jail for doing something WAY more innocuous that alcohol. The whole situation is just so barbaric.

[joshcryer]

93. At least the Colorado Democratic Party endorsed legalization.

Not all Democrats are as conservative as candidate Obama.

[may3rd]

97. How is the rocky mountain high state going to dispense it?

Seems a tax revenue plan has to be perfected across the nation before states rights will be granted permission by federal regulators to dispense it.

[fuddyduddy]

117. Our marijuana grown in Colorado is appropriately taxed by the state.

I see state tax and county tax on my purchase that I saw yesterday.

Colorado gets their share, and so does Arapahoe County.

Federal doesn't want the tax money, they don't get the tax money.

[Dr Fate]

132. Then again, perhaps Obama is concerned about jobs being taken away from street dealers...

That is one angle that the far left refuses to entertain.

I thought that liberals wanted kids in bad neighborhoods to have jobs.

But noooooo- they want these snooty clinics to have all the action.

Obama knows better-these jobs belong to teen-age street dealers, not taxable businesses.

[RainDog]

149. More African Americans are in jail now than were enslaved

Do you really want to put this forward as an argument?

It's a racist and ignorant argument.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[may3rd]

105. Hows the BBQ sauce these days ?

Hot Sauce Williams Making Marijuana BBQ Sauce

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/02/07/hot-sauce-williams-making-marijuana-bbq-sauce

[yodermon]

101. MONSANTO is eagerly awaiting legalization, so they can do to cannabis what they've done to corn,

soy and the rest.

Hell, they'll patent cannabis and have all the growers rounded up for patent infringement

[TBF]

102. I agree with Ms. Pelosi except for this statement -

"Access to medicinal marijuana for individuals who are ill or enduring difficult and painful therapies is both a medical and a states’ rights issue."

I think we need to get away from the "states' rights" garbage and legalize MJ on a national level. I've got to believe pharma lobbyists (not to mention the for-profit prison system) have a lot to do with the continued criminalization of MJ behind the scenes. Our president has chosen the wrong side on this particular issue in my view.

[polichick]

152. I agree - it should be legalized on a national level and the prez has chosen...

...the status quo for big pharma.

[FightForChange]

106. This post kind of reminds me of this...

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/dea-apologizes-to-college-student-left-in-cell/e325cdf4a51247af99fcebdfc948572d

A crackdown on drugs leads to a student almost dying. Was it worth it?

[abelenkpe]

108. Thank you Nancy Pelosi!

A true leader.

[librechik]

111. thanks again Nancy!

just about my fave rep in the last 8 years!

[Dr Fate]

118. Is she planning on introducing any legislation that would directly counter Obama's raids?

Or is she just going to CYA and play the good cop to Liberals?

She can say all she wants so long as she takes the centrist route and lets Obama do the right thing- bust the druggies.

Face it- Obama/Pelosi cant let these dangerous drugs run rampant just b/c a few tea-heads say they wont vote for him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. President Obama could decapitate Betty White during a Presidential debate and still win CA

He's ding what he feels he needs to do be reelected.

[Dr Fate]

130. So having Holder focus on busting medical clinics is Obama's idea then. And a damn good one too.

I for one have no doubt that swing-conservatives and swing-centrists will be very impressed with Obama's swift brand of justice. Lord knows I am.

Liberals should be happy to go to jail as their sacrifice for helping the cause.

Hopefully they can still vote for Obama from jail, right?

If Obama needs to promise to lay off medical pot to get elected the first time- I am fine with that.

If he needs to break that promise to get re-elected THIS TIME, I am fine with that as well.

[Freddie Stubbs]

150. It may not be Obama's idea, but he certainly isn't stopping it

[Peace Patriot]

127. At first glance, I thought this was an "Onion" article.

Lol! (I really did.)

But then I remembered my own comments here at DU about the RIGHTWING presidents in Latin America who are the ones publicly, visibly pushing for drug legalization. I was, at first, agog about that, too.

That's right, folks! Not the corporate-demonized "Hugo" and his ilk but the corporate (and CIA) vetted and approved Manual Santos, president of Colombia, and the few other rightwing leaders in LatAm, have been touting drug legalization. The only friends of the U.S.--and of the Obama administration--in LatAm are either rightwing or far rightwing, alas--and they are leading the charge on legalization.

It started with right/centrists--former presidents of Mexico--a commission of which said (about a year ago), 'legalize marijuana' and re-think the entire "war on drugs." Then Santos, recently. My jaw dropped on that one--there is nobody on earth who has more profited from the U.S. "war on drugs" than the right and the far right in Colombia! (SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS of U.S. taxpayer money and counting!). Then the rightwing president of Guatemala joined Santos in calling for total legalization of all drugs.

So, what's with this?

And, to bring us to the present moment, and Nancy Pelosi, what can have prompted Pelosi to risk being crucified by war profiteer/police state interests, not to mention the Obama White House? Surely not the wishes of her constituents! (I mean, the voters.)

Is it the same thing that prompted Santos and other rightists in LatAm to risk not getting invited to Secret Service parties?...um...oh forget it, you know what I mean.

WHAT IS BEHIND THIS? I.e., what is behind friends of the Obama administration running this one up the flagpole?

A couple of relevant facts and educated guesses:

1. The Bush Junta was using the U.S. "war on drugs" to consolidate the cocaine trade into fewer hands and better direct its trillion dollar revenue stream to certain beneficiaries (the Bush Cartel, the CIA, U.S./transglobal banksters, etc.) (They flipped the "war on drugs" over into its opposite purpose--a "war" FOR "drugs.&quot

2. Part of that Bushwhack effort was to brutally displace FIVE MILLION peasant farmers from their lands in Colombia--THE worst human displacement crisis on earth--to make way, first of all, for the big illicit drug lords (including the 'mafia' boss they had running Colombia, Alvaro Uribe), and also for transglobal corporate interests (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Drummond Coal, Monsanto, Chiquita, et al). (Note: They also saw to the murder of thousands of trade unionists, teachers, community activists, political leftists and other advocates of the poor, to prep for U.S. "free trade for the rich," which Obama has carried through to completion--the U.S./Colombia 'free trade for the rich" agreement signed, sealed and delivered.)

3. Presidents of U.S. client states, such as Colombia, DON'T TAKE "HOT" POLITICAL POSITIONS (like legalizing drugs) without at least a behind-the-scenes okay from the White House.

4. The White House--whether it's held by a Democrat or a Puke (or a Puke junta)--serves transglobal corporations. Which transglobal corporate interest would benefit the most from legalization? Big Pharma.

My best guess is that Big Pharma had done all its R&D and is ready to take over the market for herbal, recreational and addictive drugs, through legalization. Obama can't yet openly support legalization but has agreed to others getting the ball rolling, from outside the country (LatAm's rightwing leaders) and now from within.

Another best guess: The Fed raids on medical marijuana clinics have the same purpose as the massive displacement of the peasant farmers in Colombia. Many of those peasant farmers grew a few coca plants along with food for their families and communities. Some of those coca leaves were sold to cocaine manufacturers, to eke out poverty incomes; others were for local use (coca leaves are an Indigenous medicine). The Bushwhacks turned the "war on drugs" to the purpose of eliminating these millions of small players to make way for the big players. The medical marijuana clinics are the small players, here. They have to be driven out of business, as a preliminary to Big Pharma taking over the market.

We need to put aside "opinion manipulation"--whether by Democrats or Pukes--to understand what is really going on in the world. Opinion manipulation by Democratic Party leaders and some Democratic Party activists (note: I am a lifelong Democrat and activist) often says or implies that any realistic discussion of, say, who Obama is serving, is somehow disloyal and anti-Democratic and will lose him the election.

Well, I intend to vote for Obama, in an ES&S/Diebold controlled election system that I am sure has rigged elections, even though I disagree with his positions and actions on almost every front, because, a) I don't intend EVER to give up my right to vote--never, ever, EVER, no matter how rigged it is, and b) I'm glad the Bush Junta is out, for whatever reasons they are out (for now)--a few thousand civilians drone-bombed around the world is "better" than hundreds of thousands of innocent people slaughtered for their oil and thousands tortured, with the rule of law gone kaplooey; and, little helps to the poor, here, like extending unemployment, are better than nothing (for those historically-minded, Hoover was better than Coolidge...um, literally, eating is better than starving, no matter what else is happening).

So, believe me, I am not "anti-Obama." (Some of the comments above imply that anyone who criticizes Obama is "anti-Obama" and will be responsible for a Bush Junta comeback.) But I AM a realist. And I have been following developments in LatAm very closely.

This push for legalization coming from the RIGHT in LatAm is totally puzzling, on a superficial political and foreign relations level. Something's up--and I think that this is what it is: Big Pharma is making its move.

This explains both Obama/Holder's actions--driving the small, local, marijuana businesses out, with Fed raids, imprisonment and confiscation--and political "friends" of Obama (rightwing presidents in LatAm and Pelosi) REMARKABLY coming out for legalization. (The rightwing LatAm leaders are saying legalize all drugs; Pelosi, only marijuana, as I understand it, or only medical marijuana--but the legalization move in LatAm also started with marijuana--from the right/center Mexican leaders.)

The LEFT in LatAm (by far the majority) has not said much about it, but, in some ways, has spoken with its actions. Venezuela and Bolivia, for instance, threw the DEA out of their countries. Ecuador evicted the U.S. military base (that had been "justified" as a drug surveillance base). All countries with leftist leaders are opposed to the U.S. military presence in LatAm, which has crept in under the guise of the "war on drugs." They know that its ultimate purpose--as amply demonstrated in Colombia--is to kill peasants and leftists, and to throw civil life into bloody chaos (as in Mexico) as tactics of conquest.

Bolivia legalized the coca leaf (the Indigenous medicine, not cocaine.) But the Left has not been a big promoter of legalization, in general--probably because they have huge, rightwing (fascist) drug gangs to deal with, and probably also because the State Department makes a big propaganda point against leftist governments of their "non-cooperation" in the U.S. "war on drugs" (i.e., non-cooperation in U.S. destruction of their societies). The Left has no chance to counter this propaganda in the Corporate Press (which is as bad in LatAm as it is here). So they have not--visibly, publicly--said that the "war on drugs" is a bunch of shit. The RIGHT can say this (for their own reasons). The Left dare not. There may be consensus, at this point, among all LatAm leaders--but it is the RIGHT that is leading the charge on legalization.

What about the War Profiteers (whom Obama also serves)? That is a difficult question, if my thesis is correct, that Big Pharma is behind the push for legalization.

The "war on drugs" has been the War Profiteers' backup boondoggle--in addition to outright war--and it also greatly profits the "prison-industrial complex" and all sorts of military/police state entities here and elsewhere. I don't have a good guess about this, but I'm thinking that the U.S. and state/local governments were looted and bankrupted by the Bushwhacks, and that Obama could wipe out the federal deficit and put state/local governments back in business by ONE policy: legalization.

There may be a "war" going on between Big Pharma (and associated corporate interests) and the War Profiteers (and associated corporate interests), but these interests are also part of a continuum--for instance, in the case of driving millions of peasants off the land in Colombia. In other words, the War Profiteers know their role--they pave the way for other transglobal business interests--and maybe they have enough to do now, trying to consolidate and extend the oil corps' interest in the Middle East (and the pipeline in Afghanistan). Also, a bankrupt U.S. is less of a milk-cow for war. Think how great it will be for the War Profiteers to see the infusion of major bucks into U.S. government coffers from legalization, both from taxation and from down-sizing of the "prison-industrial complex" and associated interests. Is this (the push for legalization) part of a "war" between competing transglobal corporate interests, or is it part of the "war" continuum?

As I said, I don't have a settled opinion about this yet but the rightwing promotion of legalization in LatAm (and now Pelosi) makes it quite clear, it seems to me, that there IS a big corporate interest involved, on the side of legalization--Big Pharma and associated corporations (like Monsanto) being the obvious candidate. Bear in mind that the rightwing, most especially in Colombia, has hugely profited from "war on drugs" dollars. Why would they give that up? Answer: because the "war on drugs" mission has been "accomplished" and now they are ready to move on to the "laundering" of their biggest economic sector: illicit drugs.

[RainDog]

148. The War on Drugs was a Republican Idea

calls to end the war on drugs have come from people across the political spectrum

...including former President Jimmy Carter, the California NAACP, Kofi Annan, Former Secretary General to the United Nations, liberals around the world - and the most liberal nations in the world are the ones that have enacted the most progressive policy stances regarding the War on Drugs.

The reality is that this issue has broad support from across the political spectrum - in the U.S. those most opposed to drug law reform are conservatives.

Just thought I'd toss that in to the mix.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Kick

[progressivebydesign]

144. Wow, President Obama must be a busy guy raiding all those places by himself. nt/

[IndyJones]

147. I agree with Nancy, but it's another "state" situation where the state votes one way and the feds

say their law enforcement rules the land. This situation really is a shame.

[red dog 1]

151. Thanks kpete for the thread...Thanks Nancy for your "rebuke" of POTUS

The two people most responsible for the criminalization of marijuana are Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst.

Anslinger promoted and read from "Gore Files" -- "wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana.and sex, and...Negroes.".
Here are some quotes that have been attributed to Anslinger and his 'Gore Files':
"There are 100,000 total marijuana users in the US and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use.This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is it's effect on the degenerate races."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

"Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolph Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers.
Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain, and he didn't want to see the development of hemp paper in competition.
Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he REALLY hated Mexicans.
Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich."

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

Obama's attitude on marijuana is totally "in sync" with the racist views of both Anslinger and Hearst; and will possibly cost him millions of votes this November, since the American people overwhelmingly support the use of medicinal pot.

[sarcasmo]

155. Kick!

[boppers]

157. "whose actions complied with state laws"....

Yeah, but lie to the DOL, to the IRS, to OSHA, (etc.) and your ass is grass, so to speak.

As 200+ disreputable operators, out of several thousands, have discovered the hard way.

You have to comply with state *and* federal law. Just because marijuana for medicinal purposes is legal in your state doesn't mean you can lie on tax forms if you dispense it. It doesn't mean that if a customer sells it to a kid down the street that you will not be scrutinized.

It sure as hell doesn't mean you get to ignore state laws, and claim federal persecution, which a great number of the 200+ seem to be (zoning, proper organizational structure, max plants, max amounts, etc.)

[musical_soul]

159. Good for Pelosi.

Shame on Obama. Medical marijuana should be available. Heck, it should be completely legal so we can tax it.

[yurbud]

160. hopefully, this will be his next come to jesus moment

though I would be even more happy if he admitted it was a mistake to recycle economic advisors who pushed the deregulation that killed ur economy or if they were regulators like Geithner, who looked the other way while the bachanal was going on, and announce the indefinite detention of Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, et al AND those advisor and lax regulators pending investigation and trial.