Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,” he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration’s high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.

But over the past year, the Obama administration has quietly unleashed a multi­agency crackdown on medical cannabis that goes far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush. The feds are busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana. With more than 100 raids on pot dispensaries during his first three years, Obama is now on pace to exceed Bush’s record for medical-marijuana busts. “There’s no question that Obama’s the worst president on medical marijuana,” says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “He’s gone from first to worst.”

Pretty decent article. I had a quick squiz at DEA Position on Marijuana. Since they make a big deal about the startling revelation that there is absolutely NO positive medicinal value in SMOKING pot, its clear that by demonizing the delivery mechanism the administration is inviting the Big Pharmas to come in and replace the medical marijuana industry with ‘safe’ pot derivatives. WIN – WIN for both pharmaceutical and law enforcement industries.

  1. Bud Daily says:

    Over 50% of Americans now favor legalization according to the latest Gallup polling & while the Feds can interfere with our access here in California,but they can’t keep thousands of people from becoming new patients each week ! There are four competing measures for legalization collecting signatures for the November ballot & much like the voters ignored federal laws to the contrary by approving medical marijuana,this time they appear ready to finally repudiate federal policy once & for all ! Interesting story this week about medicinal marijuana & Washington D.C. One attorney speculates that since Congress allowed Washington D.C. voters to approve the use of medical marijuana,that anyone following their own state laws regarding medical marijuana can’t be prosecuted by the Feds under the “equal protection clause” of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever is granted by Congress to some Americans applies to all Americans couldn’t be much clearer. In the meantime if you’re displeased with President Obama’s clear betrayal on this issue you can always vote for Green Party candidate Rosanne Barr in the June primary. The President needs to be reminded that legalizing marijuana got more votes (46%) than Meg Whitman (who spent $160 million) & he needs our votes in November as he can’t get re-elected without California’s electoral votes !!!

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Yaknow==thank you for your thoughtful response. I fast read, now let me parse, then review?

    Yaknow says:
    2/17/2012 at 11:20 am

    bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    “If drugs were LEGAL then only those who do the drugs would get hurt leaving the rest of us alone.”

    “My apartment manager got hit with a crowbar when he happened upon a drug deal going down. ONE MORE INNOCENT PERSON PHYSICALLY INJURED BY THE LAW MAKING DRUGS ILLEGAL.”

    “I had another manager embezzle funds to pay for drugs. I WAS FINANCIALLY INJURED BECAUSE OF THE LAW MAKING DRUGS ILLEGAL.”

    True, drugs that are illegal do generate crime. Many a law to protect the public creates violent and non-violent crime that hurts the public. I term that as localized crime. /// I agree.

    Illegal drugs generated billions, if not trillions of dollars in profits for drug cartels who use the money to make more money thereby promoting and INCREASING other profitable crimes, such as international child pornography, sex trade, illegal gun trades, crime rings, terrorism, embezzlement, fraud, buying arms, and other weapons of war, etc. Crimes I term as global. // I agree==and in private I wonder if you will sum up all the local crime to national crime statistics, global statistics if you will. Lets see if that becomes relevant? Otherwise, right now I see a converse to the crime of CONFLATION which is making distinctions that make no difference?

    Also as the drug cartels gain more money it gives them greater freedoms to promote both localized and global crimes though influence and power over politicians and officials all over the world for their benefit. Which then intensifies competition among cartels. Drug cartels are not a democracy, they are a monarchial tyrant dictatorship. You think Caligula, Machiavelli bad, Hitler, Pol Pot where bad…today drug cartels are the upgrades. /// Well, you are CONFLATING relatively small criminal organization with State Palyers. Very different things. I’m anticipating you do something exciting with this long preamble? ((Note==was Machiavelli bad? I don’t know his personal history, an advisor/aide to some powerful Duke of Venice?==otherwise he is more a reporter/philosopher/analyst of political reality: very much a force for good revealing the mechanisms of political reality for us all to see==just as you plan to do for local/global drug policy? Or will you fall short Advising your Prince?))

    If we really dedicated our efforts on local police and Federal levels to enforce laws against illegal drugs, rather than pay political lip service to it, i.e. “the war on drugs” And society realizing how much harm illegal drugs do to there would be less crime. /// Yes, this hypothetical has been the mantra for 100 years now and the basis for Prohibition.

    But, now it would take short of an iron fist to due that. Too bad some drug users confuse our Rights to mean taking drugs (illegal or not) as a freedom. //// No==ALL drug users take drugs. What you call it after that really is irrelevant. …. Well, addicted drug users can fairly be said not to have a choice? You know: as in having developed a MEDICAL problem that treating as a criminal problem only does no one any good?

    And I had to tell you, what makes you think people would do less localized crime if drugs where legal. /// Our experience with Prohibition. People rob liquor stores and a few will steal liquor once they have burgled your home==but that is so small a problem it is but dust in the air to bring it up.

    Drugs screw up your brain, just like alcohol it impairs your judgment and mental faculties. Just because prohibition ended it didn’t stop people from doing crimes. /// My goodness. Extreme CONFLATION going on. You are equating an intolerable level of crime, with the smallest hardly noticed level of crime???? Why does not are still recent experience with PROHIBITION inform and correct everything you have said so far?

    Liquor store still get robbed, people still drive drunk and kill themselves and others. Drunks still beat their families. People didn’t get any less violent after prohibition. /// No. The point is the violence did go down. Personal/localized crime is one issue subject to dispute and analysis. No one disagrees though that international/global/ORGANIZED crime regarding alcohol is practically ZERO.

    We got more violent. Allot of violent and non violent criminals get high and drink before committing a crime, and are drug addicts, addicted to illegal and or legal pharmaceuticals. Hell, people have been getting high on pharmaceuticals and doing both violent and non violent crimes for decades. //// You are starting to rave off your top now. We can cite crime caused by Priests attacking babies with Bibles. Is that a problem? Add up the instances, follow the statistics, the costs and make an assessment/judgment. Raising single/small group statistics in isolation to the larger body of evidence is in error, completely misleading==I hope you aren’t doing this on purpose, just have lost your way for whatever reasons those may be? For instance, a family member dying from drugs often forms a bias. Only cure is education.

    Why do people do violent crimes because drugs are not legal? /// Mostly to get the money to pay for the drugs or as dealers to enforce there distribution stream
    Why not peacefully protest like a march. /// This is done all the time==like passing Medical MJ propositions or other laws the Feds refuse to honor.

    Why commit crimes hurting other people for it? Why steal, why murder for it? /// Because drugs are what you want and you are not allowed to have them so you do what is necessary to get them. You have now performed a perfect LOOP DE LOOP arguing now exactly why drugs should be legal yet I suspect you maintain the vigor and emotions you now exhibit as reasons to keep drugs illegal? Your argument eats itself and you are making no cogent sense at all.

    Maybe there is a bigger picture than the localize one you see that is escaping your attention? /// Yep, LOOP DE LOOP.

    There is no ideal, no magic bullet, no complete utopia, that isn’t how life works. /// Correct–that is the discussion we should be having and reaching sound social policy base on the conclusions.

    What is the lesser of two evils we as a society choose. /// Correct again.

    Personally, drugs are no good all the way around it, those used for recreation, to get high, to get that fix is the problem. /// So what happened to balancing these “no good” actualities with the no good actualities of the law enforcement approach to the problems?

    Yaknow==please tell us why PROHIBITION does not completely illustrate the problem, its pros and cons, and the most workable/humane/cheapest solution?===or do you think prohibition should be re-instituted for all the issues/analysis you have raised above?

  3. Come On says:

    Medical Marijuana (def.) – a scam front for “give me free weed for life for my chronic back pain that nobody can prove doesn’t really exist. Send all bills to the government. They never run out of money. Now, where’s my log shaker of salt?”

    Please. Take two aspirin and get your ass to work.

    • Dr Spearmint Fur says:

      I bet you’re high right now. Come on, admit it. You’re among friends here.

  4. deowll says:

    It is extremely hard to figure this administration out. Obama has to know that the people who voted to legalize medical marijuana voted for him so why bleep them off?

    To make his Conservative supporters happy? That doesn’t sound real likely does it? Do you think that Obama believes he can win over Ron Paul and his supporters?

    Let’s do an Adam Curry and follow the money.

    Why would sane people do a fast and furious and equip known drug lords with high powered weaponry by the truck load and then nobody can figure out who authorized the project? The Attorney General of the United States can’t figure out who on his staff okayed this operation. Do you really think he’s that incompetent?

    Why block something that many of your supporters want like medical marijuana?

    We know that some of the major financial institutions in this nation have been tagged for money laundering. We know where Obama got many of his staff from including the same or related institutions and that his money raisers, including the DNC, takes money from those institutions. We know that Obama gave back $200,000 because the public learned it looked like it might be tied to drug money.

    That gift would at least suggest that drug dealers and people with ties to organized crime think Obama being President is in their best interest to the point of making major finical contributions to his campaign funds.

    Do the drug dealers of this nation or their associates want medical marijuana to be readily available? I think not. It would reduce their income substantially as well as that of their business associates.

    While not an attractive theory on many levels I’m reluctantly putting forward the hypothesis that the WH is acting to protect the financial interests of many of their most important contributors.

    Please note that I didn’t suggest anything as uncouth as Obama or his aids taking money directly from the drug cartels. I would think Obama would be much more fastidious than that. It would need to pass through a few hands first.

    Y’all have fun now.

  5. NewfornatSux says:

    How about we legalize drugs and ban gambling?

    • Hmeyers2 says:

      Gambling is separating a fool from his money and putting it back into the tax system. Like state lotteries, etc.

  6. Hmeyers2 says:

    Bobbo hit a home run here in his comments.

    Violence affects everyone, but drug use generally affects mostly the user.

    Get rid of the idiotic violence and drug wars by legalizing drugs and let the morons destroy only their own lives instead of negatively impacting the rest of us with senseless violence.

    Most of these drug abusers/drug peddlers are intent on destroying their own lives and that is fine with me. Let them rot themselves away without hurting the rest of us, they are doing this anyway.

    • deowll says:

      Meth makers tend to end up with major burns and major medical bills sooner rather than later. The impact of most drugs on health is a huge negative.

      Are you suggesting that drug users be denied access to medical care unless they can pay for it? If not who is going to cover the bills which will be substantial.

      • Hmeyers2 says:

        I’m not seeking an answer but some lazy checking:,8599,1893946,00.html

        I’m not naive enough to believe one article is “gospel”. But this particular account is saying it worked ok in Portugal.

        • deowll says:

          I suppose it’s worth a shot but I’d like the states to be allowed to do there own thing with the Fed gov staying out of it.

          I think the locals have a much better chance of making this or anything work and if something doesn’t work you haven’t bleeped up the entire nation.

  7. Hmeyers2 says:

    Those meth people are a problem.

  8. Hmeyers2 says:

    I’m not sure about that situation, I guess I’d say we are not stopping them from doing that to themselves currently.

    I wish they had some sort of national debate explaining why the drug policy is what it is and laying down the case for and against legalization of drugs and explaining the negative costs to society that make the current illegalization policy the right thing.

    Perhaps it is in a way that I do not current understand.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    HMyers—I don’t think it is appropriate for you to condense three pages of what I carefully parsed into: “Violence affects everyone, but drug use generally affects mostly the user.”

    Ha, ha. Well done. And thank you. Yes, that is my very point. Do-ill still make the same argument that concise statement is meant to counter: add up all the harm drugs do AND WE MAKE IT WORSE by treating it with criminal law instead of the health system. Do-ill====that includes the medical costs of it.

    Two tangential items I’ll throw off: everybody remember the quote from Steve Jobs that taking LSD was as important to his life experience/understanding as anything else he had ever done?

    some commenter stated that the current Republican Jihad against women having sex was just their good christian conservatism thinking something was wrong/evil/sinfull in experiences joy. You know, a life spent not on your knees fearful of a vengeful god watching ALL you do? I enjoy beer and wine. If drugs were legal, I’d give them a whirl. Could be fun.

  10. Dana Dutchman says:

    Some of you might be interested in this US Patent

    United States Patent 6,630,507: Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

    Patent Owner: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services


    Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.

    See it all posted at the US Patent and Trademark Office:

  11. You provides a very nice post to us. Its really very helpful to me to find result on search engine. Hope to hear more good information related to searching from your side.

    Medical Marijuana



Bad Behavior has blocked 13502 access attempts in the last 7 days.