U.S. Atty. Claims Obama Didn't Order Med Marijuana Crackdown (hmmm)

[RainDog]

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/10/us_atty_claims_obama_didnt_order_med_marijuana_cra.php

a spokeswoman (Lauren Horwood) for one of the four federal prosecutors involved claims that Obama didn't order the crackdown, and in fact wasn't involved at all.

Are we really to believe that four rogue U.S. Attorneys have actually staged a medical marijuana coup of sorts in California, forging off on their own and writing a new federal policy 180 degrees opposed to the President's previous position?

...An earlier article by Ray Stern at Toke's sister Village Voice Media publication, Phoenix New Times, had reported that Horwood acknowledged California's U.S. Attorneys got "Obama's blessing" for the crackdown. But Horwood distanced herself from that language on Wednesday....Horwood further claimed that Cole wasn't present at any of the California press conferences on the crackdown not because Cole was distancing himself from the action, but because "California is a long way to travel."

California State Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both San Francisco Democrats, have requested meetings with the DOJ and the Internal Revenue Service to discuss the reasons behind the crackdown.

...so far the requests are unanswered.

In response to this claim, DrugWarRant says...

(short version: lame)

http://www.drugwarrant.com/2011/10/who-knew-u-s-attorneys-could-be-so-funny/

So, what's the political reality here? maybe the Attns Gen claim has something to do with this:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2011/10/26/medical-marijuana-protest-draws-200-to-obama-fundraiser

(200 medical marijuana protesters show up outside Obama fundraiser)

Earlier in the day, at the press conference at the Marriott, a roomful of activists couldn't fathom how medical marijuana is polling at 70 percent approval, while political leaders could be so terrified of the issue. Four U.S. Attorneys have used cancer patients as a public punching bag Oct. 7, and since then have gone on to threaten dozens of landlords across the state with forfeiture for harboring a marijuana-related business. Raids on Northstone Organics, threats against Prop 19 author Rich Lee's landlord, and the tax assessment against Harborside Health Center make it clear the government wants examples made of industry voices.

Seems that petition online has gotten the attention of more than just the White House.

from this same link:

On October 18, narcotics cops in Los Angeles used federal drug trafficking interdiction time and resources — tax dollars that could be spent making the streets safer — to try and lobby the White House for a continued drug war.

According to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — who obtained a leaked copy of the e-mail — on Tuesday at 9:36 a.m., the Los Angeles High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area intelligence office called LA CLEAR e-mailed a huge group of cops, asking them to sign a pro-drug war petition. Here's the full email: (actually, you'll have to click on the link to read the full email. please do...

here's a sample:

WE NEED YOUR HELP: The legalizers are totally dominating the White House "We the People" Web site — they have more signatures than every other issue combined.

CADCA's petition, supporting drug prevention and against marijuana legalization, is up to 1,000 signatures but we need every other network in the field to mobilize to help us get as many more signatures as possible in the next two weeks.

That's 1000 signatures against vs. more than 73,000 for legalized marijuana.

Over at StoptheDrugWar, this is the question

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/oct/26/president_obama_responsible_late

This is amazing. Literally, we are being told by presidentially-appointed officials not to blame the president when they do things we find disgusting. I don’t recall ever being handed a ballot with the name Lauren Horwood on it, and the same goes for James Cole, Eric Holder and every other federal prosecutor presently presiding over this massive new war on medical marijuana patients and providers.

When the president’s own appointees defy his campaign promises and dishonor the values of the American public, the president himself is so obviously, thoroughly, and undeniably at fault that it seems silly to argue the point further.

After all, any effort to sugarcoat this mess is indicative of an increasing awareness at DOJ that their approach to medical marijuana is becoming a bit of a political fiasco. Deflecting criticism from the president is a smart strategy for avoiding a scenario in which mounting public outcry forces Obama to revisit the issue. The lesson here for advocates is to apply more pressure on the president, not less.

It's good to see this issue is bothering the Democrats. It's good for them to remember that marijuana got more votes than Bill Clinton. It's good for them to remember that legalization is on the ballot in both CA and CO.

This might be a good time for Obama to start pandering to the voters that put him in office in the first place because he's gonna need their votes in 2012. So... what is it? Does the Obama administration have control over its justice dept or is Obama trying to play both sides of the issue? I dunno. But if he keeps quiet on this issue, that silence will equal consent. Because actions speak louder than words.

[Fumesucker]

1. The "against" petitioners are Real 'Murkins (tm)...

The "for" petitioners are dirty fucking hippies.

QED

[RainDog]

2. it's become a joke

not a funny ha-ha one, however.

it's like the feds are sitting there with their fingers in their ears, saying to the American people (on this and a host of other issues)
"la la la. we can't hear yoooou."

and we're watching them do this.

[Fumesucker]

3. Obama thinks it's funny..

You might recall that he cracked a joke when the question of legalization turned up at the top of a list of questions he solicited from the public.

[RainDog]

5. well, this issue has gotten the attention of the Obama admin

otherwise we wouldn't have this claim from the Attns General that it was all their doing.

That's a good sign - Obama cannot take CA for granted in the general election.

People are upset about this action. CA is already hurting economically and this crackdown is going to cost the state money.

[Fumesucker]

10. Well, he can either look weak.. His AG's have gone rogue against his orders..

He can look venal.. Yes I ordered the AGs to crack down.

Or he can look stupid. Duhhh.. What?

I'm guessing he's going to go for weak, fits his persona perfectly.

[Romulox]

19. Google "good cop/bad cop". It's not a new trick. nt

[musiclawyer]

34. I've been saying for weeks not that CA is in play

if POTUS does not engage on this. Assume his crap advisors are going with the idea of simply allowing the prosecutors to say that it was not POTUS' doing. In that case, he looks weak. Weak = young people not coming out to vote. And that's where CA could come into play. He needs the young people out here too.

This is a crisis and it's not over. POTUS needs to come out and publicly dress down the US attorneys or else ....................CA IS in play.

Those you who don't live hear tell me that's is such a minor issue and can't sway an election. Minor? Oh Really..........? Then come spend some time out here and you will understand the seething rage this is causing. All of us in CA, either know someone who is sick, getting sick, or will get sick one day, including us, who likes cannabis either as medicine or for pleasure.

Everything the administration thinks about cannabis is wrong because the DC bubble has enveloped it.

[krabigirl]

39. Yep. Sad that many in the nation don't see this, but making your own health choices is important.

Pretty much fuck anyone who says otherwise IMO. I would rather use cannabis when I am older to treat pain, if I have it, than big pharma pills that have worse side effects. I probably won't smoke it but luckily I won't have to since there are so many ways to administer it.

[musiclawyer]

52. Yes why smoke? Makes no sense.

The vaporizers as so efficient and cheaper now

[fascisthunter]

66. they are.... only good with the prime stuff

not regs... bleh

[RainDog]

48. Yes. It is a crisis. I agree. This issue has reached a tipping point

when you have an OVERWHELMING majority in favor of legal mmj, when you have a 4 point majority in favor of total legalization IN SPITE OF decades of propaganda - when you have had EVERY state that has voted for mmj laws face opposition from their own legislatures (except CA and CO?) - when you have a state that looks to lose a HUGE portion of potential and actual revenue...

pretending that saying someone else did this is just not going to fly.

[Aryo]

6. Here is the clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg95RiBPsRM

[woo me with science]

7. No, you're right. This pattern is far from funny.

It is extremely, extremely disturbing.

Obama seeks permission to lie about Freedom of Information requests, even to the courts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

Wartime Contracting Panel Seals Records for Next 20 Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2180947

Seventy percent increase in censorship requests to Google by US government or police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/25/google-transparency-report-released

ACLU issues report on Obama and core liberties
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/singleton

Obama freezes reporters out of fundraising event
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2182932&mesg_id=2182932

[robdogbucky]

46. Gotta love all that honesty and transparency, eh?

"Oh, wait, it's an election year." Now this all makes sense.


Again, thanks for the links, Woo.

[Marrah_G]

49. Yeah- I wish we had Campaign Obama for a President.

This other Obama is awful.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. Hey, maybe they are all planning on running for public office as....

republicans.

[RainDog]

11. I only knew a few national Democratic pols who are willing to deal with this issue honestly

and none of them are in the White House.

I'd like to see a rescheduling hearing come out of this mess.

Let's get down to the basics on the reasons for scheduling as it stands.

And why aren't the talking heads in the media asking why Lamar Smith is squatting on that bipartisan decriminalization bill? It's like he's a one man "occupy the legislature" to prevent a fair hearing on this issue.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tridim]

12. It's a lie to deny it. His administration officially supports legal MMJ.

PERIOD.

He doesn't support full legalization, yet, and I'm all over his ass on that issue. We all should be.

[Romulox]

15. But his admin ALSO supports letting "rogue Attorneys General" persecute cancer patients.

"Failure to supervise" is the most generous version of your excuse. :hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

29. These are not AGs...they are Obama appointed United States

Attorneys. They can all be removed at the Presidents word, they serve at his pleasure, upon his appointment. To fire them, he needs no approval from antyone. The President can remove them, the AG names replacements who serve until permanent status is approved bt Congress. Obama and Holder could do this in 20 minutes all by themselves.

[Romulox]

53. Eric Holder has been involved in this escalation virtually since his appointment

The raids on Medical Marijuana facilities never halted, despite Holder's earlier promises.

Colorado raids in early 2010, for example.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EASRKG0.htm

[immoderate]

31. You keep forgetting to add the SARCASM thingy.

Some people think that "officially" means the same thing. :shrug:

--imm

[SomethingFishy]

68. "Officially supports"..

Yeah they do.. "officially". I'm sure the victims of the raids and crackdown are glad for the support.

[hobbit709]

9. The sign says "The buck stops here"

either he's in charge or he isn't.
either answer doesn't bode well.

[RainDog]

14. apparently the unreccing crew doesn't like it that people aren't buying the spin

but, yeah - this isn't an issue where you can play both sides of the fence. it's either/or.

[Romulox]

17. It's a bunch of ridiculous excuses. That's why. The President is a Drug Warrior. So is his AG. nt

[RainDog]

21. maybe you should have read the post

it appears you didn't.

[Romulox]

26. It's just a verbose version of Tridim's schtick. The President supports what his Justice Dep't

is doing.

[RainDog]

28. reading comprehension a problem for you?

or just too lazy to read and understand what's being said?

the post contains links to various people who are keeping track of this issue who are calling out Obama over this.

but it's good to know you didn't actually read the post. at first I thought you were just looney. now I know you're just commenting on something you haven't bothered to read.

[Romulox]

38. Civics a problem for you? The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the Prez. Not "rogue".

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

67. their efforts are futile though

[Romulox]

13. LOL + Unrec. nt

[RainDog]

16. lol. hope you never get cancer! n/t

[Romulox]

18. Right. I don't want to go to jail!

:hi:

[krabigirl]

35. Sad. You won't go to jail in ca or many other states.

Then again, with an unjust law like this, sometimes it is worth it to break the law.

[Romulox]

43. The Obama admin's persecution of cancer patient is a crying shame. Not my calling them on it. nt

[krabigirl]

36. Lame.

[Rex]

37. You unrec a news article?

Sad.

[Romulox]

41. There's half a dozen links up there, plus the OP's excuse for it all. THAT's what I'm unreccing.

[Rex]

44. There are 4 links and some commentary at the end.

Must have rubbed ya the wrong way.

[Romulox]

50. Right. The commentary is an excuse of the Obama's admin crackdown on cancer patients.

"Must have rubbed ya the wrong way."

It's a flat out lie; the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, was appointed by Barack Obama and furthermore serves at the pleasure of the President. That means he can be fired by Barack Obama at any time, for any reason.

In short, Eric Holder's policy of persecuting MMJ patients is this administration's policy. Only those who don't understand the foregoing can be confused on this point.

[RainDog]

69. this person doesn't let reality get in the way of his responses

to things he doesn't bother to read in the first place before he replies.

I have to say that dealing with this inane behavior has been strange, to say the least.

"the sky is blue."

"Oh, so you're saying it's okay for Obama to say the sky is red."

"Uh, no."

"Yes. He said it was purple."

"I don't know what he said. I'm just reporting what others said."

"Oh great, apologize for him"

(shaking head... wtf?!?!?)

[RainDog]

54. again, you didn't read the OP. I didn't make excuses for anything

I noted that DrugWarRant and StopTheDrugWar and CA state legislatures are calling bullshit on this.

I would suggest you read my journal here on DU - it's full of links to information about the failure of the war on drugs, about the war in which this administration has lied about the issue of medical cannabis....

I would suggest, but you've already indicated you can't be bothered with things like...oh, facts.

it's pretty astonishing to me that someone on this forum thinks I am posting an apology for the Obama admin's approach to this issue. but I just assume that's because you don't read what people post. which is kind of stupid. but, whatever.

[Romulox]

55. This part: " Does the Obama administration have control..." Answer is YES, and it invalidates

all other excuses.

And this:

"But if he keeps quiet on this issue, that silence will equal consent. Because actions speak louder than words."

is simply wrong. Eric Holder is an employee of Barack Obama. Eric Holder (and his entire organization's) job is to implement the policies of the President. If, at any time, they fail to do so, the President can fire any one of them.

http://www.presidential-appointments.org/us_attorneys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

So silence isn't consent for the President; US attorneys and the AG are agents of the President, and as such, their actions are his actions.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

60. You don't even understand why what you are posting is wrong. These attorneys serve at the pleasure

of the President. Please process this fact.

[Fumesucker]

20. Net recommendation: +1 votes (Your vote: +1)

[Tsiyu]

22. Americans are very clear where they stand: Legalize

And so are those who make LOTS AND LOTS of $$$$$$$$$$$ off our keeping MMJ illegal.

Does Obama pander to the People or to the Profiteers off of others' misery?

He needs to make the right call here.

Still waiting....

[RainDog]

23. agreed. and especially in the state of CA

this newest twist doesn't resolve the issue. it just creates more questions about who is in charge.

...or creates questions about Obama's ability to honestly deal with the issue. people aren't fooled by this tactic.

[Tsiyu]

33. Time to cut to the chase

Note to politicians:

On every issue, We the People are sick and tired of playing Monkey-In-The-Middle while you all toss the issues back and forth like children on some Playground from Hell.

We need money for schools, firefighting, to combat addiction (not criminalize it), to provide health care, to help veterans, to create jobs, to build affordable housing, to fix roads, bridges and water systems, to vaccinate the public against infectious diseases, to educate our children and adults, to help retirees live with the basics, to protect our environment, to research and implement green energy initiatives, to open businesses that serve the underserved, to have a happy, healthy, productive society, all that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" business.

How does giving money to some unwinnable, sacrificial, destructive, expensive War on a Plant (for gawd's sake, really. A PLANT) provide any of the above? How do you justify the wasted money? How does that expense contribute to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Does it make someone happy when cancer patients are in pain? When veterans are having nightmares and can't eat? When people with MS are stuck in their wheelchairs? If that makes someone happy, does that make the expense worth it?

Grow up, all of you stupid, self-serving, greedy little children.

[RainDog]

42. the feds' position has become unsupportable

there is no rationale reason to continue prohibition of cannabis, other than a willful disregard of the majority of the public's VOTED FOR desire to end prohibition. - not to mention a majority of support nationally, as well.

[Tsiyu]

51. What part about "we ain't got the money for this..."

do they not get, when they are all the time lecturing us about sacrifice and austerity and how the government has no money to waste?

How come they always find money for stupid, unsupportable agencies run by greedy self-serving bureaucrats with weapons?


But no money for health care? None for schools?

What the hell?

[zalinda]

64. You forgot that they can keep anything they seize.

The police departments are in it for the money.

zalinda

[Scuba]

24. Of course he didn't. Big pharma did. n/t

[kestrel91316]

25. Ok. So WHO DID??

[RainDog]

27. That's the question that is not going to go away with this statement

​here's how the California legislatures who actually live there are reacting to this latest bit of news:

"California State Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both San Francisco Democrats, have requested meetings with the DOJ and the Internal Revenue Service to discuss the reasons behind the crackdown.

But those requests have gone unanswered. "They're talking amongst themselves, and really causing tremendous, unnecessary chilling effects," Ammiano said of the U.S. Attorneys.

When asked to respond to the claim that the Obama Administration wasn't to blame for the crackdown, Ammiano got indignant.

"Somebody's going to have to fall on their sword about this," he said. "This is becoming more of a mainstream issue. I mean, this really was a mistake."

[dtexdem]

30. Then why hasn't he stopped it?

[RainDog]

32. advocates have sued the 4 Attns Gen and Holder as of yesterday

http://www.mercurynews.com/medical-marijuana/ci_19207773

Medical marijuana advocates on Thursday sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Northern California's top federal prosecutor, asking a federal court to halt the recent crackdown on dispensaries.

Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access argued that the Justice Department has "instituted a policy to dismantle the medical marijuana laws of the state of California and to coerce its municipalities to pass bans on medical marijuana dispensaries" by means of aggressive raids, criminal prosecutions of medical marijuana patients and providers, and threats to local officials who implement the state's law.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford said that although the Obama administration is entitled to enforce medical marijuana laws, the 10th Amendment forbids it from using coercive tactics to hijack the state's lawmaking functions. "This case is aimed at restoring California's sovereign and constitutional right to establish its own public health laws based on this country's federalist principles," he said.

California's four U.S. attorneys -- including the Northern District's Melinda Haag, who is named as a defendant in this lawsuit -- this month announced a multipronged crackdown on dispensaries across the state. They said they'd be focusing mostly on for-profit, retail-style, large operations that are not protected by state law, but marijuana advocates in recent weeks have said several law-abiding, locally regulated dispensaries have been targeted nonetheless

[Romulox]

45. He asked about the PRESIDENT. Not "advocates". nt

[RainDog]

56. do you have a fucking crystal ball? I don't

I can say that, in answer to this question, advocates have filed suit.

filing a lawsuit is a way to force disclosure of information.

so, in answer to the question, someone who doesn't think it's exactly wise to pretend to mind read - I can only say what action has been taken to force some clarity on the issue.

and, with this, I am sick of dealing with you about this.

you don't even bother to FUCKING READ THE POST. then you assume you know what it says.

so, bye. I've had enough of this worthless bullshit from you.

you're a waste of time.

[Romulox]

57. Honestly, is this about not understanding that the Justice Department is under the EXECUTIVE branch?

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

:shrug:

[Romulox]

40. The argument that the President can't control his Justice Dep't is ridiculous.

It's just a verbose version of Tridim's ridiculous "Obama supports Medical Marijuana" line.

[Marrah_G]

47. So the President can't control his law enforcement departments?

[Trillo]

59. I remember that back in the B*sh-2 administration days

someone posted a graphic of how the executive branch had vastly multiplied the points of connection or contacts between the White House and DOJ. I seem to recall the point being made that DoJustice had become politicized more than it ever was historically. *Perhaps* Obama is attempting to roll that back, to allow The Law and its enforcement to be a bit less political.

It's frustrating to contrast the complicity of the federal government (DEA, etc.) in some localities harassments of dispensaries (because marijuana is schedule 1) , while at the same time the federal government is leaving local police to shoot less-lethals at peaceful, unarmed protesters who are only exercising their rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. It's clear there's some hypocrisy regarding when the feds decide to act vs remain silent.

[RainDog]

61. in this case, however, the 4 feds first claim they ok'd this with the Obama admin

and this statement is a retraction of that first one, basically.

THAT'S the issue here - they claimed they had full support.

so, did they or didn't they? if they didn't, then they lied and should be held accountable.

if they did, then they're lying now and should be held accountable.

[Lyric]

62. It doesn't matter if he "keeps quiet"; silent or not, this is HIS administration.

He is responsible for what his administration does, PERIOD. There is no way to weaken his culpability with vague insinuations that he might not be in charge. He IS in charge, and he is 100% responsible for the actions of the executive branch.

[Romulox]

63. Thank you. +1,000,000. nt

[RainDog]

65. and this post doesn't try to weaken his culpability

tho some people seem to assume that noting the issue as it is at this point equals an attempt to apologize, or, if this post isn't a screaming attack that is an indication of agreement with this move... and, honestly, that's ridiculous if anyone actually reads the post and links.

the entire point of this post is to point out the untenable position this latest move creates for the administration and the ways in which those involved in this situation in CA are dealing with this latest statement.

I don't get how people can read the op and assume it is an apology when it obviously is not. I assumed the headline, with my own little bit of commentary... a "hmmmm" (what's wrong with this statement), would be a signal but, obviously, not.