Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions 526

Posted by timothy
from the maybe-a-little-blow-when-you-could-afford-it dept.
schwit1 writes with news that the Obama administration has released a memo stating that it will not fight liberalized marijuana laws in states like Colorado and Washington, but made that promise conditional on a set of guidelines, such as requiring efforts to dissuade underage use. From the Washington Post's coverage: "Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole detailed the administration's new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Admin Says It Won't Fight Looser Marijuana Laws, With Conditions

Comments Filter:
  • by cold fjord (826450) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:39PM (#44711015)

    Maybe this is why?

    Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse [scienceworldreport.com]

    • by icebike (68054) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:02PM (#44711301)

      There was also a study of New Zealanders. They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38. By comparison, those who never smoked pot had an average increase of one IQ point by the same age.

      A reanalysis of the New Zealand data by Ole Røgeberg of the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Oslo, however, suggested that the IQ difference could be explained by socioeconomic factors. People who start smoking marijuana at an earlier age are often less intelligent to begin with.

      You will find most of the research is similarly tainted.

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:23PM (#44711515)

        The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.

        • by icebike (68054) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:31PM (#44711565)

          The ideal solution to me would be to treat it like tobacco: Keep it legal, but at the same time take measures to very strongly discourage use.

          Except the tobacco scare tactics are unwarranted, with the possible exception for under-age use, or use while driving, as with any intoxicant.
          Beer and wine regulatory mechanisms seem more appropriate. In fact Washington State tasked the Liquor board with the job of managing Marijuana sales and use in the state.

          Yet still feds seem intent on sticking their oar in [theatlanticwire.com].

          • by interval1066 (668936) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:43PM (#44711675) Homepage Journal
            Regulate it like alcohol, including enforcing bans on driving while high, just like alcohol. Now tax the hell out of it, and end of discussion. The "war" on pot was a rediculous waste of fed and state resources, and created a permanant underclass of unemployable criminals who've done nothing more thann get high. The fed needs to get off its high horse and rewrite whatever laws are keeping pot in the "felony" lists (other than, like I said, driving while high that results in killing someone, maybe). Enough is enough. Knock off this sham.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:02PM (#44711853)

              I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive? This seems to be a common assumption among non-smokers, but I can tell you from (daily) experience such is not the case. It requires the consumption of quite a bit of pot to impair one's driving -- usually this means eating it rather than smoking it -- and once a person is that high they don't want to drive. It's just too stressful (as opposed to driving drunk, where alcohol gives one 'liquid courage').

              Even with alcohol, one is considered legally drunk much before they've consumed enough to actually be impaired.

              A person shouldn't be considered impaired just because a particular chemical is in their body. They should be given basic coordination tests -- such as a field sobriety test (but something that's computerized, kind of like a video game, to eliminate bias on the part of the officer). If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're too old, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass it because of a prescribed medication, you shouldn't be able to drive. If you can't pass a field sobriety test because you're just a naturally uncoordinated person, you shouldn't be able to drive. A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.

              • by icebike (68054) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:23PM (#44712027)

                Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.

                Since there is no legally recognized impairment level for Marijuana, and no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests, its hard to prove the extent to which it is present in accident situations. So if there was a car crash, the police have no real way to prove it was even a factor.

                University of Washington cited an Australian study [uw.edu]showing that the research is a total mess in this area. So a local TV station then went out and did their own tests. [huffingtonpost.com]

                • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @08:21PM (#44712791)

                  Marijuana impairs attention. That seems to be the linkage that most people cite. But I find no hard statistics on this either.

                  Well, there's plenty of evidence that Marijuana has effects on response time (like most depressants).

                  For most of us who've smoked pot, we know it definitely affects your faculties to the point where you cant drive safely, more over this is more noticeable to the user than it is with alcohol. Unlike alcohol, pot users tend to avoid taking extreme risks like excessive speed (people driving high tend to be slower than the median, which is still bad) but still have the problems with fine motor control (keeping the wheel straight) as well as reduced response speed and impaired perception.

                  I'm pro-decriminalisation of marijuana, but really it needs to be treated like other legal mind altering drugs (I.E. Alcohol). In Australia we treat driving under the influence of drugs to be the same as driving under the influence of Alcohol but you also get a drug conviction, not just a DUI conviction.

                • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30, 2013 @01:15AM (#44714031)

                  no legally recognized tests, (other than blood draws) either device based tests, or field sobriety tests

                  I've got a field test - just ask them a question, and then ask them the same question 2 minutes later.

                  I'm not sure how to end that joke, but it seemed funny enough (I'm high as fuck right now.)

              • by RabidReindeer (2625839) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:31PM (#44712107)

                I modded you insightful but I'd like to challenge one point of yours: what makes you believe that smoking marijuana impairs one's ability to drive?

                Because the whole point of it is to alter one's mental state?

                Granted, some people drive so badly, that any change is likely for the better. I, of course, am not one of them.

              • by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish@info.gmail@com> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @09:19PM (#44713083)

                And I challenge your statement that

                A person's BAC or THC level is irrelevant, what's important is their ability to control a vehicle.

                Back in the late 70s, Car & Driver magazine did an informal study (with a couple of professional test drivers) which was later reprinted in High Times, IIRC.

                Their results appeared to indicate that small amounts of cannabis actually improved the pros' driving performance slightly and for a very short while, after which performance fell rapidly to much less than normal. They found in addition that using more than a small amount also quickly caused the pros' driving performance to decrease to much less than normal.

            • Regulate it like alcohol, including enforcing bans on driving while high, just like alcohol. Now tax the hell out of it, and end of discussion.

              Question. Would taxing it control it? Unlike tobacco, or even alcohol, I thought weed was supposed to grow just like, um, weed.

              Taxation can control a lot of things, but only until alternatives become less expensive ("expensive" not being solely in dollars and sense). In the case of Marijuana, the bar appears pretty low to me.

              Then again, I never went that route, so I'm just guessing.

              • by Lehk228 (705449)
                growing pot is quite a bit of work. right now it is worth it because it is illegal so a) the price is high and b) the enterprises selling it are shady

                once those issues are cured with legalization, the effort time and legal risk of a tax evasion charge would really not be worth it compared tyo walking down to the gas station and buying a pack of scooby snacks.
              • I don't smoke or grow pot, but I do grow a couple of vegetables and fruits. I get probably twenty lemons a year off my small tree. Jalapeños, maybe thirty over the course of summer per plant. Basil, I get enough for maybe a couple of pints of pesto (and that is bulked up with pine nuts). It's a pleasant hobby and it is tasty, but it's not industrial production.
              • Google seems to think tobacco is pretty easy to grow if you're in the right climate, so I suspect that the same thing that keeps people buying regular cigarettes despite high taxation would come into play with marijuana as well - no one really wants to be bothered with the time and expense of going through the whole process to get a finished product when it's readily available in every corner store, gas station, and convenience mart.

                • by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Friday August 30, 2013 @04:08AM (#44714621) Journal
                  For the first time ever, I've grown tobacco in my greenhouse, in the UK. I've also grown it outside but the size of the plants are about 50% smaller than the greenhouse plants. I'm going to harvest any day now.

                  One of the most simplist plants I've grown. They've needed no TLC.

                  My peers are interested in doing the same next year. Seeds are a penny each. One plant could last a smoker a month. A square metre per plant is not a lot of space for an expensive crop.

                  Um, my point: people will grow both plants if they have a little knowledge (three cheers for the internet).
      • by geekoid (135745)

        tianted? you bias is showing.

        There is a lot of good data the backs that up.
        I would say there is enough evidence to put a over 21 law into effect until it is furthered studied.
        It does seem to happen to upper middle class kids as well.

        Clearly, we need better studies, but sometime we should be prudent.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        They found that people who began using pot earlier in life and used it most frequently over the years experienced an average decline of eight IQ points by the time they turned 38.

        I'm betting most people lose at least eight IQ points by the time they turn 38.

        That's why the mathematicians who do the groundbreaking work mostly are younger than 38. There are still brilliant mathematicians older than that, but they're not the ones who are doing the most important new work.

        • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:47PM (#44712231) Homepage

          I'd lean more towards the explanation that older people have more knowledge and experience which means they're more set in their ways and don't challenge accepted truths like the younger generation does. While it also from time to time produces gems it's also the cause of all the people trying to reinvent the wheel, why go for the new and crazy when you can use the tried and true. It might not be quite as glamorous, but the world needs both highly competent doctors as well as the odd Nobel prize in medicine.

    • by echnaton192 (1118591) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:25PM (#44711527)

      Maybe this is why?

      Is Marijuana a Safe Drug? Teenage Brain at Risk for Drug Abuse [scienceworldreport.com]

      Why modded -1? This study supports other studies that came to similar conclusions:

      Yes. Marijuhana-abuse by minors is a big problem. Not if done once, but an abuse, that does not affect grown ups (from 21 or better, 25 years on) very much has a devastating effect on their brains. The reason, as I understood it, is the rearranging of the whole brain structure while being juvenile. This rearrangement, as new scans showed, is much more fundamental than previously known. And smoking grass fucks that up big time. And it messes with the hormon levels. Those rearrangements possibly can not take place after the normal timeframe. If they were haltet or obfuscated by marihuana abuse, those youngsters have a permanent brain damage.

      But: Abusing any brain affecting drug in that time will possibly do the same, so drinking alcohol instead of smoking is not an option. If I had children, I would insist on limiting marijuhana use to one time pet year, four times max until they are 21 (you are an adult at 18 here, so a bit of cooperation from the other side would be necessary. Any smoking of marihuana under the age of 16 would be completely out of the question.

      Your war on drugs was one big mistake. But inform yourself before letting your kids use it limitless. If those studies are right, they suggest that using marihuana (esp. in a vaporizer) is indeed less dangerous than alcohol for the body. And does not effect grown ups as much as heavy drinking would. Even really heavy abuse does not make you significantly dumber, just a measurable bit and it is possible that the brain could recover, except for some problems with the short time memory, which MAY stay. But for youngsters that use marijuhana heavily, it may be that it really blows their mind away. But they would be DEAD if they drank as much, so demonizing pot is really dumb. Being dead means no brain functions whatsoever, so instead of being less stellar in school, they would rot...

      But: It seems like the dangers to young people were underestimated.

    • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:28PM (#44711549)
      I'm no medicalologist, but I have to imagine that mass consumption of any mind-altering chemical (tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, etc.) while the brain is still developing will have an effect. The question is, is it worth keeping our prisons full of non-violent offenders to discourage their use?
    • by couchslug (175151) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:22PM (#44712017)

      Is MJ safer than jail?

      The laws don't have their intended effect.

  • by intermodal (534361) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:39PM (#44711017) Homepage Journal

    Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.

    Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:47PM (#44711101)

      Actually, that is exactly what it does. If you think the executive has ever enforced all the laws on the book, you are a fool. The resources simply have never existed.

      It's just the highest level of prosecutorial discretion [wikipedia.org].

      • by icebike (68054)

        But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?

        The only prosecutorial discretion being practiced here is the evaluation of the likelihood of obtaining
        a verdict in a state like Washington or Colorado, where juries are simply going to start handing federal prosecutors their hat.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by microbox (704317)

          But a SPECIFIC offense ought to be treated the same in one place as another, don't you think?

          Are you kidding? Do you always drive the speed limit? Do you always cross and sidewalks? Do you always give way to people on crossing the road. (As soon as the foot hits asphalt you are meant to stop.) In Queensland Australia, it is illegal to pass a person on the right side.

          There is a difference between rule and law.

          • by Frobnicator (565869) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:33PM (#44711593) Journal

            In the United States, both selective enforcement and selective prosecution are generally legal.

            You can go back over a century to Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) to see SCOTUS rulings on that. There are probably older rulings than that, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

            Impartial selective enforcement is legal to a degree. On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books. Even if they do intervene, the officer may know there is insufficient evidence for a known violation. Even if they intervene and there is likely sufficient evidence, they may believe a lesser action is appropriate, such as giving an individual a warning for a minor offense. Similarly for selective prosecution, the state is not required to blindly prosecute every offense, but to use prudence in selecting which cases to prosecute. Yes sometimes it is abused, but generally it is to the citizen's favor of dropping a case rather than abuses of prosecuting aggressively.

            Prejudicial selective enforcement is not legal. Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.

        • This directive applies to all states, not just Wa and Co.

          • by Froboz23 (690392) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:35PM (#44712145)
            Establishing drug legislative policy requires a joint effort between the states and the federal government, especially when reefering to marijuana, instead of this state-by-state grass roots effort. It’s high time that they hashed these problems out. Still, it's nice to see that Eric Holder is willing to be blunt about this issue instead of just blowing smoke. He understands that we'ed all be better off with this decision.
    • by zlives (2009072) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:47PM (#44711105)

      what is this constitution you speak off?

      • by gman003 (1693318) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:34PM (#44712131)

        NCC-1700, USS Constitution. First ship in the Constitution class, which included the NCC-1701 Enterprise.

    • by LetterRip (30937) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:51PM (#44711155)

      Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

      The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement. If some laws are so low in priority that there is no enforcement, then congress can increase funding for federal law enforcement officials if they really want those enforced.

      • by KiloByte (825081) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:00PM (#44711261)

        No, this means the amount of laws needs to be cut by a factor of 100 if not 1000.

        • I'd argue that the laws should be decided on their merits or problems, not something purely artificial like "This seems like a good number of laws."

          If we told the government it could do ten things and only ten things, the first thing it would do would be to try to increase the number. The second would be to define however many things it was doing as ten. The third would be taxes. The fourth would be NSA spying. They'd argue about the remaining six slots, and after heated yelling matches on cable news
      • The government has limited resources and it is literally impossible to enforce all of the federal laws to the full extent. Therefore the government must prioritize enforcement.

        No, the government needs to axe the laws. Drives me bananas when governments pass law after law after law, with no mechanism for enforcement. It should be required that the government fund enforcement if a new law is passed, and that enforcement cannot be funded through borrowing.

    • Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce.

      Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?

      As the lead of the federal executive, it's precisely his job to choose what priorities the feds have, amongst those things they are empowered to do.

    • by AdamHaun (43173)

      Every jurisdiction effectively picks and chooses which laws it's going to enforce and when. It's called "prioritizing". And sure enough, that's what the feds are doing:

      The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower.

      The moral and legal value of prioritization is in the results (i.e. who gets targeted and who gets ignored)

    • by multisync (218450)

      Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce

      You seriously believe the office of the Attorney General lacks the authority to give federal prosecutors direction on how they manage their limited resources?

    • by NoKaOi (1415755)

      Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.

      Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.

      Actually, law enforcement is the executive branch's job. It was congress's failure to recognize the constitution that was the failure on this one. Can somebody please explain to me why in 1917 it required a constitutional amendment for the federal government to make alcohol illegal, which would show it was recognized that without the 18th amendment, that making alcohol illegal was a violation of the constitution because the federal government didn't have that power, but now the federal government can make

      • by DaHat (247651)

        You seem to be assuming that constitutional amendments are passed by the federal government alone, and ignoring the fact that 3/4ths of the several states must also ratify a given amendment for it to be adopted.

        As far as it taking an amendment to make alcohol illegal but not pot... talk to the courts. They have (sadly) upheld the federal laws to this effect repeatedly.

        Granted... they did once also say that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own consumption did run afoul of a federal law (Wic

    • by tibit (1762298)

      Must have never heard of prosecutorial discretion, then. Nobody, neither personally nor at any level of government, has any obligation to uniformly enforce all laws. I'd have hoped that people who think otherwise are just happy drug users - to my bewilderment, it turns out not to be the case :(

    • Complete enforcement of every law on the books is impossible. Making choices is inevitable.

      With a hundred quatloos to spend, it is better management to spend a hundred deterring sales to minors than to split it between protecting children and harassing adults.

      Making choices consistent with the will of the people and with states's rights seems like a good idea.

    • by JohnG (93975) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:27PM (#44711537)

      Well, the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to enforce marijuana laws at all. That's why they had to pass an amendment to enforce alcohol prohibition at the federal level. Aside from preventing the sale of marijuana across state lines, the federal government has no constitutional authority to enforce the laws that Obama is saying he will be lenient on. Seems to me this is one of the few times that he actually does understand the restrictions on his power.

    • by jcr (53032) <jcrNO@SPAMmac.com> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @06:06PM (#44711895) Journal

      Federal marijuana prohibition is not a law, it is a usurpation. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no legal authority whatsoever for the federal government to ban a drug.

      -jcr

      • by J053 (673094) <J053 AT shangri-la DOT cx> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @07:16PM (#44712443) Homepage Journal

        Federal marijuana prohibition is not a law, it is a usurpation. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no legal authority whatsoever for the federal government to ban a drug.

        -jcr

        Actually, the basis for present-day prohibition of marijuana is the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [wikipedia.org] of 1961, which updated the Paris Convention [wikipedia.org] of 1931. The Paris Convention was targeted at opioids, while the Single Convention of 1931 added cannabis and other drugs, as well as establishing the "Schedules" of drugs used today. Since the Single Convention is a treaty, it had to be ratified by the US Senate (in 1967), and has the same force as any other law or provision of the Constitution itself (see Art. VI, US Constitution). Thus, no Amendment was required to allow Congress to pass legislation implementing the Convention.

        I don't like it, but it's not unconstitutional.

    • by Artifakt (700173)

      The very same people who told you this, told you Bush 43 could pick and choose any way he wanted simply via a signing statement, under the theory of his having "Unitary Executivehood". The VERY SAME PEOPLE! Why are you letting anyone use you like that without getting angry? Do you not remember these liars telling you the exact opposite when their guy was in power? Are you too young to have noticed what they said only six to ten years ago?

  • Weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fhic (214533) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:44PM (#44711071)
    All of these "conditions" are arbitrary and open to whatever interpretation the feds feel like today. In the meantime, it's still being kept as a Schedule 1 drug. This administration has repeatedly and consistently said one thing and done another. You'll forgive me if I don't believe a word of this, which has no more weight than a touchy-feely press release.
    • by zlives (2009072)

      i almost wish the statute of limitation was long enough that the Last 3 presidents could have been brought up on charges... maybe that would change the thinking.

    • The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office. Right now he's trying to save face and this is a really easy way for him to do it without having to spend more money. As soon as the new boss buys his way into office it'll be his (or hers, but really it'll be his) discretion to prosecute users in those states.

      • The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office.

        That depends. If it's a Republican president, you're probably right. If it's a democrat one, that's unlikely.

        In this day and age, the majority of Democratic voters don't want a war on cannabis users. And there's no strong business case to either (other than the private prisons providers.) That reality applies just as much to the next Democrat president as this one.

    • Agreed. If you have the ability to fix a problem and choose not to, you should not be congratulated for standing on a soapbox and saying it should be fixed.
    • The next few years will demonstrate legal recreational use won't cause the Reefer Madness Armageddon. More people will recognize the stupidity of squandering billions on the prohibition/prison industry and a tipping point will be reached.
    • All of these "conditions" are arbitrary and open to whatever interpretation the feds feel like today.

      Well, Obama has about as much credibility here as his detractors, which is to say, not much. I lost the last of my respect when he issued a memo saying he'd only use drones in the event of an imminent danger to the country. He then went on to redefine imminent in geological terms, and danger as pretty much whatever the Administration thought it was. Your point here is very valid -- what the government says anymore has as much value as a Zimbabwe dollar. What it does, however, can be judged.

      All the people wh

    • by SoupGuru (723634)

      But it's better than Obama saying he's going to double the enforcement of marijuana laws, right? Or do you want the laws enforced? I get confused. It's so hard to understand people when they're more interested in tearing the man down than any discussion.

      The President just said he's not going to enforce federal pot laws in states that want to legalize it. I think that's kind of a big fucking deal. If you're pro-legalization, this should be a big fucking deal. The President himself just legitimized your

      • Lax enforcement of an unjust law allows the law to continue on the books. There is some argument for trying for "perfect" enforcement - it will then affect enough people that the clamor to strike the law from the books will become too great to ignore.

    • by icebike (68054)

      Exactly, given ALL the evidence, and all the studies, the fact that this remains Schedule 1 clearly shows that DEA is driving the law, and not the other way around.

      But as more states follow Colorado and Washington, the whole issue ill eventually resolve itself, as congress will be forced to remove it from the purview of the DEA.

    • Re:Weasel words (Score:4, Informative)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:48PM (#44711721)
      Specifically on this issue too. Obama said he wouldn't spend federal funds fighting state's medical marijuana laws, yet his government has raided more dispensaries in states with medical marijuana laws than Bush's. source. [huffingtonpost.com]

      I don't regret voting for him in the general elections, but I do regret not giving money or volunteering for a better candidate in the primaries.
  • by whoever57 (658626) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:49PM (#44711143) Journal

    a rather crude attempt to get Obama's supporters back on his side.

    "Don't look over there..... look here, shiny!"

  • by 14erCleaner (745600) <FourteenerCleaner@yahoo.com> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:58PM (#44711229) Homepage Journal
    Are the Feds going to stop harassing banks [businessweek.com] that accept marijuana businesses as customers? Currently, medical dispensaries have to operate as cash-only businesses, which leaves them vulnerable to robberies.
  • preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.

    Which is typically how you get pot in the first place, historically. Now you just buy it in the store! :-D

    Meantime, drive down your average Washington metro city's street and you'll see dispenseries every other block. Funny how that industry cropped up so quicklike. (Irony: Voters closed the state liquor stores, so alcohol

  • more money. Use the NSA to spy on drug usage/distribution and use that as evidence http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 [reuters.com]

  • Since there is no rule of law, as is obviously the case given the Constitution grants no powers to the Federal government to regulate intrastate manufacture and use of drugs, what's keeping people in power alive?
    • by rahvin112 (446269)

      The supreme court ruled a long time ago at the start of the war on drugs that the Fed's have the right to restrict intrastate drug production and distribution because it "creates a market". So no such luck there, the Supreme court allowed congress to poke so many holes in states rights that you will have no such luck defending the end of prohibition. As has been said many time, the war on drugs allowed the government far more powers than they ever had in the past or the founders ever intended them to have.

      H

  • Being stoned is a great way to cope with this economy. The government seems to be on something (I'm not quite sure what), so why not the general population?

    Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:49PM (#44711729)
    they let the police ignore wealthy smokers while still using the Federal Law to lock up poor people. It's a great way to keep the poor out of your neighborhood. Odds are if you get a group of lower income people together at least one has pot on him, and Federal law lets you seize everyone's property. Sure, legally you get it back, but if you're working 50+ hours/week at two $7.25/hr jobs who's got time for that (unless you can afford a lawyer, but then wealth rears it's head again).

    So viva la Medical Marijuana, and our two separate legal systems: One for the poors and one for the rich.
  • by PeterM from Berkeley (15510) <petermardahl@NospAm.yahoo.com> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @11:08PM (#44713521) Journal

    MJ has been shown to have legitimate medical uses. It doesn't belong on Schedule 1.

    If it's off Schedule 1 then research to use it SAFELY as a drug can proceed far more easily, and maybe we can use it for things like neuropathic pain and appetite recovery during chemotherapy WITHOUT the potential brain-damaging side effects.

    I've got a friend who has neuropathic pain and none of the legal drugs work for him. And he can't use MJ because he's subject to drug testing.

    Take MJ off Schedule 1 and maybe he can stop living with pain 24/7!

    --PM

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...