I'll still vote for Obama, but today I was taught an important lesson

[SadPanda]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.To5RGd6Ik8k

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the warnings are part of what appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to curb medical marijuana on multiple fronts and through multiple agencies. A series of dispensary raids in Montana, for example, involved agents from not only the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, but the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

This kind of aggressive attack on Medical Marijuana runs opposite of my viewpoints on social policy. Particularly the harmful effect the drug war has had on our society. I am still baffled that with few exceptions throughout the country someone can go to a store and buy thousands of dollars of alcohol but can't buy $10 dollars of marijuana.

I expected the Obama Administration to simply let the states decide on the issue. Instead he is ramping up the war and threatening property owners with FEDERAL SEIZURES OF PROPERTY.

WTF?

I'm actually not an Obama basher. I understand that legislatively it's been a tough road. I understand he has made a lot of progress.

I'll show up and vote for him. But he's making it really hard for me.

[whistler162]

1. good for the administration!

[Betsy Ross]

3. So 65-year-old cancer patients will have to

trawl the streets looking for MJ?

[cleanhippie]

6. Seriously? Why do you say that?

For what possible purpose do we spend the money to fight pot, and for what possible reason is it illegal?


An intelligent reply will take guts. Do you have any?

[Mr Deltoid]

17. Are you fucking kidding me?

I am undergoing interferon tri-therapy for hepatitis C. I can barely eat without medical marijuana. I can barely sleep without it. If I do not eat a brownie before I go to bed I might get three hours of fitful, toxic sleep.

Fuck Obama's republican assed medical marijuana policy.

[Tom Ripley]

40. If I may ask, how long have you been on the tri-therapy?

How are you feeling?
I did 14 months of the interferon-ribavirin chemo a couple of years, the progress was great, but the Hep C returned after 4 months.
I am scheduled to begin the tri-therapy next month, and I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Good luck and healing to you :)

[COLGATE4]

19. You've got to be kidding!

[paulk]

20. such a compelling argument!

:eyes:

[Hollow Shells]

36. Good for you too, I suspect.

I suspect you enjoy the subtle pleasure of knowing cancer patients in the US are a little worse off now.

[I Have A Dream]

2. I agree. Why he would make this the priority he has is baffling.

:shrug:

I recommended it, but it isn't showing because of unrecommends. I'll kick it to help you though.

[lib2DaBone]

4. Obama can get tough with elderly cancer patients...

but with the Bankers and Repukes.. no backbone at all.

[demosincebirth]

7. Not all are elderly and have cancer. Many buying pot look young and able to me. Just sayin'.

[SadPanda]

9. I will respond to this... At the age of 19 I shattered my left ankle

I had three surgeries to repair the damage. I just turned 36. I have an active lifestyle. Also, my work requires me to be on my feet and athletic for most of the day. Including picking up large/heavy boxes. Within a few years of my injury I found that marijuana was far superior to prescription pain medication. The medication is an all day haze. The marijuana is a nighttime pain killer than lets me relex and sleep. Some days I come home, foot throbbing, and it does what I need to relax and sleep.

BUT, I have yet to see someone explain why its any different than buying a six pack of beer. Even though a six pack is FAR WORSE than a joint. FAR WORSE. I just don't get it.

[Politicalboi]

18. And I've seen many buying

Prescription pills at CVS, who don't look sick either. Maybe the feds should stop them at the door of the CVS and ask what ailment they have. One can't be too sure.

[dana_b]

29. I'm in my 40s, my kid is 21

we both have disc herniations and I am looking at surgery. Narcotics make us both sick to our stomachs (like mother, like daughter). On the outside, we look "able" but the pain can be excruciating both on the lower back and with sciatica down both legs. Why shouldn't we use it when we need relief? Please try not to judge. Younger folks can suffer too.

[demosincebirth]

33. Evidently you didn't read my post or you didn't understand what I was implying.

[pscot]

43. Avoid the surgery

Do your homework. Back surgery is regarded as an experimental procedure. There is no conclusive evidence (none....zero) that it's effective.

[dana_b]

44. I know it's a 50/50 risk that it will actually help

I'm a nurse too and have been going through this for over 7 years. My issue is that I cannot live like this for another 30 years. It is getting worse as time goes by and if I don't at least try now, while I'm still fairly young, then I'll never know. Also I'm too young to be on disability - I WANT to work as a nurse. I am willing to take the risk.

[pscot]

48. My daughter is going through the same thing

In fact, she's your age. Workmen's Comp tried to force her to have surgery. She's trying to work through it with PT, but it's a slow and painful process. Now she's looking into nerve cauterization. Good luck with whatever you decide.





















l

[dana_b]

49. thank you, and the same to your daughter n/t

[ZombieHorde]

35. My brother-in-law looks young and healthy. When in public, he smiles big and seems frisky.

During a family reunion, I accidentally walked in on him crying from his chemo-therapy. He quickly dried his eyes and gave me a big, warm smile.

One of my best friends in town seems young and healthy. You would not know he still suffers from the injuries he received while in the military.

Both of these guys rely on MM. Some people think sick people receiving their medicine is good, and others are freaked out because some healthy looking people may be getting high.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. He also announced that there was not one crime comitted in the

financial meltdown. So the companies who sold what they knew were bogus securities were lamb like innocents and friends of Tim's, so that's all cool, but sick people's natural medicine is a matter for swift action!

[Jakes Progress]

8. That's what they're counting on.

They figure they have you over the bogey-man barrel, so why would they do anything you want. Got you locked in. Now to go after the right wing vote.

[red dog 1]

10. I will still vote for him too, but..........

What choice do we have?
Do we want to see a President Rick Perry or a President Mitt Romney?
I don't think so.

In June, 2007, on the subject of medical marijuana, then Senator Obama said:
"I don't think that should be a top priority of us..raiding people who are using ..
medical marijuana. With all the things we've got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn't be a high priority"
http://www.gazette.com/article/promises-117589-campaign-marijuana.html/

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Federal law trumps state law on marijuana policy. And yet...

... the same guy believes that gay marriage should be left up to the States.

:wtf:

[FedUp_Queer]

12. Unfortunately...

Two different issues. However, given the fact that the federal government can't regulate marriages (as opposed to choosing to recognize them wherever performed or not when it comes to federal benefits), your question DOES make me wonder where in the constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to even have by say on pot?

[The Doctor.]

13. "I'm not an Obama basher"

Well, your track record certainly shows that. Why, for years you and I have laughed and cried together while generally setting people straight on the anti-Obama propaganda that made its way on to the site.

Ahh... those were the days.

Unfortunately, here we are with a serious hiccup in the Obama message. One that I too am quite disappointed over. I'm pretty sure that there is some sort of justification for it, but I really can't see agreeing with this action unless that justification, like the very sound reason for not investigating war crimes (Uh... destruction of the nation), is very compelling. I'm just not seeing it.

Nope, this is, unless I see reason otherwise, an unfortunate and uncharacteristic action for an administration that has an otherwise fine social justice record.

I'm sure that we're together on how otherwise great Obama has been, I'm also certain that the rabid haters will just point and say "SEE! HE'S EVIL! HE'S ALWAYS BEEN EVIL! CORPORATE NEOCON SHILL!", despite the fact that they are entirely ignorant about the man himself and his goals.

This, I'll admit, has me disappointed and baffled.

I look forward to our continued discernment of Obama's moves.

So, how's the fam?

[Honeycombe8]

14. It's Holder/the DOJ. Not sure that comes from Obama. Right?

Or the the President, whoever he is, control the DOJ to that extent?

Remember all the broo-ha-ha over Bush/Cheney, when they fired several Republican DOJ attorneys for not pursuing legal charges against Democrats who, in teh attorneys' estimation, hadn't committed crimes? And when Bush/Cheney were found to have influenced the DOJ to hire Republicans and NOT hire Democrats as attorneys for the DOJ?

The DOJ is separate from the Executive Branch. It is supposed to be "the decider" about certain legal actions taken by its department.

Holder has been a problem from the start.

[JoePhilly]

22. You are correct ... but few will follow your logic.

The DOJ is intended to be independent.

[Vattel]

23. The DOJ is a part of the executive branch.

And although it would be inappropriate for the President to interfere in active cases, or to impose specific legal decisions on the DOJ, presidents have been setting priorities and goals for the DOJ since its creation.

[JoePhilly]

27. Yes, but it is intended to act independently ... which is why many of us screamed

when Bush and Rove used it for political purposes.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The DOJ is not separate from the executive branch

The US Attorneys matter wasn't a scandal because the White House directed the Justice Department to do something. It was a scandal because the White House directed the justice department to do something completely unethical, by telling them to fire US Attorneys for not prosecuting enough Democrats. It wasn't just the White House either. Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling worked for the DOJ and were entirely complicit in the matter. Their actions weren't any less wrong just because they worked for the DOJ and Karl Rove didn't.

[Honeycombe8]

30. Well, this is very confusing. I'll have to research this. It doesn't make sense to me...

that a legal department of the federal government could be directed to do something, or not do something, by another department in its branch of government, since it, the DOJ, IS the expert in that field.

Like Judge Judy says, "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true."

It makes more sense to me that the DOJ would be the one telling the White House and others in its branch what it can and cannot do.

I would think the most the W.H. could do is ask the DOJ to set certain priorities in the things that the DOJ has already determined it will pursue.

I do know that the White House does not control the DOJ. I would think it has some influence. Not sure how much.

I also know that Holder has been a problem from the start.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. The Attorney General (and thus the DOJ) serves at the pleasure of the President

It is true, however, that prosecutors are supposed to bring indictments in a manner that is free from partisan bias and thus too much interference from a political body like the White House will inevitably raise eyebrows and concerns about ethical issues. But just because the White House intervenes in a case (and they do from time to time) doesn't mean that it's partisan or unethical.

If the DOJ had autonomy from the White House, there would be no need for the office of special counsel. The special counsel's office exists precisely because there's a conflict of interest with the regular chain of command in the DOJ investigating misconduct within the executive branch, since that chain of command reports to the head of the executive branch.

[Dr Fate]

32. When Obama appointed him, many liberals whined that he was a pot warrior...

...and opposed his appointment.

LOL! Now they pretend like this is some big surprise or something.

Obama is not involved in this, and even if he was, there would be no way he could stop it or speak out against it.

[bhikkhu]

15. I have to say, I've always been in favor of legalizing marijuana

...though I don't smoke, or drink, or hang out with people who do, and drugs aren't my cup of tea at all. So all that starts out a little complicated - I guess I don't like the Calvinistic tone of the making of laws to prevent people from enjoying themselves, even though I think it would be better for people to learn self-discipline. Perhaps its that a part of the value of self-discipline is making the choice, and you can't make the choice if it is made for you via laws...

So I'm not much in favor of the laws on the books, especially when it comes to prison time and property seizures, but its also hard to see what people want - you don't solve a legal problem by pretending there are no laws, and you just create a mess (and we do have a mess) if you have some laws enforced sometimes, in some places, and not in others, and various contradictory laws from state to state, and conflicts between how different arms of law enforcement view the laws.

Obama certainly didn't create the mess, and its hardly fair to elect him to an office with a primary constitutional role of seeing that laws are enforced, and then hoping that he ignores a bunch of them, or just does a lousy job of it (like most of his predecessors) so that weak enforcement lets things simmer along under the radar, out of the news, and unfixed. (Why bother to legalize if most people can get away with it?)

I'd rather see the whole mess fixed, but congress would have to do that, and what are the odds?

[randome]

28. Nicely put, bhikkhu.

I cannot believe how many threads exist on this one topic alone, which IMHO, is not something to stay awake at night and ponder.

I sympathize with those who have medicinal marijuana needs but if marijuana is an alternative to pain killers, then pain killers are an alternative to marijuana.

There are no easy answers but the one thing we all know will happen is that marijuana will, like any other drug, continue to be sold 'under the counter' no matter how many laws are relaxed.

We have enough drunks and sleep-deprived idiots at the wheel as it is. We don't need to add more inattentive drivers to the mix.

Marijuana will never be made legal. I think society has decided that alcohol and caffeine are okay but nothing else. It may not be fair but that's Life.

Now let's elect more Dems and fewer Repukes. That's what we should be talking about.

[saras]

34. Sorry. Bad logic flaw.

"if marijuana is an alternative to pain killers, then pain killers are an alternative to marijuana."

If medical care is an alternative to a slow painful death, then a slow painful death is an alternative to medical care.

I'll take the marijuana and medical care, you can have the painkillers and the slow painful death. Deal?

[scorpiogirl]

37. Completely different.

My husband, a MMJ patient would beg to differ with you. The main reason he uses MJ is because narcotic pain killers are extremely addictive. He chooses to use the medication that is not. The two are not equal nor interchangeable.

[pscot]

51. Let me give you a clue

I have serious chronic pain from arthritis, but can't use NSAIDs because of kidney damage. I have 2 choices: medical pot or highly addictive but readily available painkillers like oxycontin. So it's fine with DOJ if I'm strung out on synthetic heroin, but god forbid I should use something that actually works, is not addictive but incidentally gives me a buzz. It's a sick policy, and anyone who thinks the president has no control over is is naive or willfully blind.













f

[midnight]

16. They are doing it for big pharma....

[zalinda]

26. Got that right!

It must be that Big Pharma is going to be introducing their own brands of MJ, and don't want the competition from the little guys.

zalinda

[sad sally]

47. And continuing the war on drugs serves the interest of politicians.

By taking a “moral” stand against "bad" drugs, or fighting the evils caused by the illegal drug trade they increase their popularity amongst constituents. "Good" drugs offered by big pharmacuticals, regardless of their need or safety, must be advertised and sold to the masses at great cost.

[Honeycombe8]

53. Oh....well, that does explain things, doesn't it? I couldn't figure it out...

didn't make sense to me, with all the problems facing the country, that they'd make THIS a priority? But I forgot about big pharma. Yes. It makes sense.

[bvar22]

21. Thats our President!!!

Protecting the Profit Margins of Big Pharma and the Privatized Prisons,
and making the World safe for the Global Banks, the Global Resource Extraction Corporations, and the IMF!

Way to Go!!!!
How about some MORE Free Trade!!!
:woohoo:



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mimosa]

24. Law enforcement, social workers, prisons....the industry which can't be outsourced. n/t

[Dr Fate]

31. He is just regulating it, like he regulates BP or Wall Street.

I thought liberals wanted things to be regulated.

So now Obama wants to regulate it and everyone is crying the blues.

Police raids, taking thier property, prison sentences- same stuff Obama did when he regulated BP and Wall St, and none of the liberals complained then.

[Hutzpa]

38. This kind of one issue voter psychology is not helping anyone. n/t

[GreenArrow]

45. It's not "one issue".

The war on drugs is a civil rights issue. It's a health care issue, a crime and justice issue and a social welfare issue. It's a foreign policy issue. It's an environmnental issue, and an economic issue.

[mitchtv]

39. fuck it

my Parkinson's is more important to me than Obama's reelection.I'm leaving the Dem's

[walerosco]

41. This system is rigged

we dont really have a choice in our electoral system. Its either you vote for extreme conservatives or a conservative, either way, the American people get fed in the ass.

[craigmatic]

46. I sewcond your sentiments. The one thing his 08 supporters really wanted other than

universal health care was weed legalization. He's had multiple questions about it and yet still doesn't get it. It's like he's going out of his way to piss people off in his own base.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

50. It's making it tough for me too.

It's just another fucking outrage, added to the ones already perpetrated on us.

I'll vote for him...

But with a lot less enthusiasm than before.

[boppers]

52. Cheat on your taxes, and reap the results.

Just because your product is MMJ doesn't mean you get to ignore tax laws, zoning laws, labor laws, product safety laws, state medical laws, etc.

Turns out that some dealers don't particularly care for the rule of law. Who would have imagined?

:eyes: