Why Are Obama's Drug Cops Already Making Pot Raids?

phr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,649
Location
St. Charles, IL
Marijuana Reform Is Part of the Progressive Agenda, So Why Are Obama's Drug Cops Already Making Pot Raids?
Paul Armentano
AlterNet
1.28.09



This past August, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., during a live interview with CNN, did something quite remarkable. She spoke candidly and openly about her support for marijuana-law reform. But rather than demanding her colleagues in Washington take the necessary steps to end the federal government's seven-decade war on weed, she instead called on the public to act.

"We have important work to do outside the Congress in order for us to have success inside the Congress." Pelosi said. "[W]e need peoples' help to be in touch with their members of Congress to say why this (marijuana law reform) should be the case."

As the saying goes, "Ask and ye shall receive."

In the past few months, the public has expressed its support for marijuana law reform in unprecedented numbers. The election of former pot smoker, Barack "I inhaled frequently; that was the point" Obama, coupled with a sagging economy, has stimulated tens of thousands of Americans to demand their government stop spending its limited state and federal law enforcement resources on efforts targeting, arresting and prosecuting marijuana smokers.

For example, in December the question: "Will (President Obama) consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar-industry right here in the U.S.?" beat over 7,300 public-policy issues to claim the top spot in Change.gov's inaugural "Open for Questions" poll. (Change.gov, now WhiteHouse.gov, was the official Web site of President Obama's transition team.)

The first-place finish was hardly a fluke. The public's demand to "legalize the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana" also finished first in a two-month-long Web poll hosted by the liberal-leaning social-networking Web site Change.org and Washington's Case Foundation -- finishing some 5,000 votes ahead of the next most popular idea.

More recently, 26,000 visitors cast their vote in a CNBC online poll asking, "Do you favor the decriminalization of marijuana use?" More than 97 percent of those who voted said yes.

Perhaps most impressively, in a follow-up poll conducted by the Obama administration -- commissioned under the guise of creating a Citizens' Briefing Book for the new president -- the public's call to "stop imprisoning responsible adult citizens" finished first out of 44,000 policy proposals. But that was far from the only marijuana-related question to resonate with the public. Amazingly, a separate question calling on the new administration to "stop using federal resources to undermine states' medicinal marijuana laws" finished in third place.

Critics of the recent poll results are quick to note that online polls are not scientific and that arguably more Americans are concerned about other pressing social issues -- such as rising unemployment, for instance -- than care about reforming the United States' pot policies. But those who interpret these results so superficially are missing the bigger political picture.

As the popularity of the marijuana issue in these polls indicates, there is a significant, vocal and identifiable minority of American society that wants to see an end to America's archaic and overly punitive marijuana laws. Politicians, particularly progressive politicians, would be well-advised to acknowledge this interest group and respond accordingly.

Further, a majority of the American public is ready and willing to engage in a serious and objective political debate regarding the merits of legalizing the use of cannabis by adults, even if their elected officials are not. One only has to log on to the thousands of public comments, both for and against, marijuana legalization on the message board of Change.gov and Change.org to see that Americans are pining for, if nothing else, an honest review of our nation's so-called war on drugs.

So is the new administration listening? Apparently, not yet.

In response to the Change.gov poll, the administration posted a curt, one-sentence response, "President Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana." The reply, though disappointing to some, was hardly unexpected. In 2004, Obama voiced support for decriminalizing pot (a policy that replaces criminal sanctions with the imposition of fines only), but fell short of endorsing legalization. (Although as a candidate for president, Obama renounced his support for decriminalization.)

Less expected, however, were the actions of the Justice Department last week when U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials raided the office of a California medical marijuana provider, as well as two medical grow houses in Colorado. (The possession of marijuana for medical purposes is legal in both states, and nonprofit organizations may legally dispense marijuana to authorized patients under California law.)

The busts outraged many drug-law-reform advocates, who were quick to point out that the new president had pledged on the campaign trail not to use Justice Department resources to circumvent state medical marijuana laws. Many news outlets also were quick to voice criticism toward the new administration for continuing with the federal raids, noting that these aggressive actions possess little to no public support.

Of course, it is not yet known whether Obama directly authorized the DEA raids. (Both the DOJ and the DEA are staffed, in large part, by holdovers from the Bush regime.) That said, there's also no indication that anyone at DOJ or DEA has been admonished for their behavior either. Obama's silence on the issue so far may be telling. It may also be politically detrimental.

Rather than ignore the public's calls for drug-policy reform, the new administration ought to be embracing it. After all, many of the same voters that put Barack Obama in the White House also voted by wide margins in November to liberalize marijuana laws in two states -- Michigan and Massachusetts -- and in nearly a dozen municipalities nationwide.

In fact, historically, marijuana-law reform has been a proven winner at the polls. Voters in 10 states and the District of Columbia have approved ballot measures legalizing the medical use of marijuana. (By contrast, only once -- in South Dakota in 2006 -- have voters rejected such a measure.)

Municipal ordinances mandating law enforcement to make the prosecution of minor pot offenses its "lowest priority" have enjoyed similar success -- passing in more than a dozen cities across the country, including Denver, Seattle, Oakland, Calif., Santa Barbara, Calif., Missoula, Mont., Colombia, Mo., and Fayetteville, Ark.

These results shouldn't be surprising. According to a national poll commissioned by CNN and Time magazine, 80 percent of Americans support the physician-supervised use of cannabis, and some 3 out of 4 say that adults should be fined, but not jailed, for using pot recreationally.

In short, marijuana-law reform should no longer be viewed by legislators as a political liability. It isn't. Instead, for the new administration and for 111th Congress, it is a political opportunity. The sooner our federally elected leaders recognize this fact, the sooner we, and they, can begin to undo the damage caused by America's longest and costliest war, the so-called war on drugs.

Link!
 
bumpity bump* I feel if Americans force the hand we have a shot at legalization, go team america! Contact politicians & media 2 let them know your outraged.
 
These drug raids are being run by the Bush cronies who still run the DEA. He hasnt gotten around to this IMPORTANT issue. which is sad and dissapointing. Visit The Drug Policy Alliance Centers website to send a letter or better yet call his office and demand that our tax dollars be spent on something other that harrassing cancer patients and the people tying to help them.
 
The latest stimulus/porkulus bill that Obama will sign today includes additional new money of $155 million ($30m plus $125m) for the "war on drugs". There might be more in there, but when you try to search it only looks at the first 255 pages. This was on pages 40 and 41 of the pdf:

18 For an additional amount for "State and Local Law
19 Enforcement Assistance", $40,000,000, for competitive
20 gTants to provide assistance and equipment to local law
21 enforcement along the Southern border and in High-ln-
22 tensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal nar-
23 cotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of
24 which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to "Bureau of Al-
1 cohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Ex-
2 penses" for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
...
15 For an additional amount for "State and Local Law
16 Enforcement Assistance", $125,000,000, for assistance to
17 law enforcement in rural States and rural areas, to pre-
18 vent and combat crime, especially drug-related crime.
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_B.pdf

Don't expect Obama to end prohibition.
 
The gears of any bureaucracy turn very slowly, and Obama may not be able to deliver on some promises for pragmatic reasons, others because he just can't, but who knows, I have faith that the USA and the world are headed in the right direction on this and other issues.

I am sure there are lots of good medical caregivers involved in delivering marijuana in a medically appropriate and therapeutic manner to those who need it and these individuals need to be applauded for their bravery and dedication.

That said, a California weed shop bust doesn't disgust me offhand, myself a proponent of legalization, as many weed shops sell to anyone or animal, breaking the law. Some otherwise shirk the law and I don't know how they could pay income or corporate taxes properly..

There is the 'backdoor problem', of course. The 'backdoor problem' could be tied by the media and politicians to anything, including the ecologically damaging grows often led by foreign nationals that have been ongoing in many National Parks and Forests in California. Or they could just say the 'backdoor problem' funds terrorism and is responsible in large part for the recession.

I don't believe that 'medicinal marijuana' has to come before legalization. Legally regulated marijuana needs to make credible the use of marijuana by responsible adults, augment and strengthen true medical marijuana therapy and providers, unseat a black market, and develop an industry for production and distribution and excise tax.

This would likely get rid of the California weed shops who muddled the real issue and shirked the law as they can't compete with Marlboro or Monsanto or Pfizer or homegrown or whatever.

Of course, I'm skeptical that much will happen to make marijuana legally regulated in the entire USA anytime soon, and have my reservations about many state measures, the Massachusetts one recently a notable hopeful exception.
 
Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16czar.html?_r=2


SEATTLE — Washington State law prohibits the possession of marijuana except for certain medical purposes. Hempfest is not one of them. Yet each summer when the event draws thousands to the Seattle waterfront to call for decriminalizing marijuana, participants light up in clear view of police officers. And they rarely get arrested.

“Police officers patrolling are courteous and respectful,” said Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

One reason for the officers’ approach, said Ms. Holcomb and others who follow law enforcement in Seattle, is the leadership of R. Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Seattle Police Department and, officials in the Obama administration say, the president’s choice to become the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, known as the drug czar.

The anticipated selection of Chief Kerlikowske has given hope to those who want national drug policy to shift from an emphasis on arrest and prosecution to methods more like those employed in Seattle: intervention, treatment and a reduction of problems drug use can cause, a tactic known as harm reduction. Chief Kerlikowske is not necessarily regarded as having forcefully led those efforts, but he has not gotten in the way of them.

“What gives me optimism,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, “is not so much him per se as the fact that he’s been the police chief of Seattle. And Seattle, King County and Washington State have really been at the forefront of harm reduction and other drug policy reform.”

The White House has yet to announce the nomination of Chief Kerlikowske, and a spokesman for the Seattle police said the chief would not discuss the matter. His appointment would require Senate confirmation.

Chief Kerlikowske, 59, became police chief in Seattle in 2000, after serving as a deputy director for community policing at the Justice Department in the Clinton administration. While there he worked with Eric H. Holder Jr., then a deputy attorney general and now the head of the department.

Before going to the Justice Department, Chief Kerlikowske was the police chief in Buffalo and in Fort Myers and Port St. Lucie in Florida. Under John P. Walters, the drug czar during most of the administration of President George W. Bush, the drug office focused on tough enforcement of drug laws, including emphases on marijuana and drug use among youths. The agency pointed to reductions in the use of certain kinds of drugs, but it was criticized by some local law enforcement officials who said its priorities did not reflect local concerns, from the rise of methamphetamine to the fight against drug smuggling at the Mexican border.

“The difference is I’ll be able to call Washington and get ahold of Gil and he’ll answer the phone,” said William Lansdowne, the police chief in San Diego and a member of the board of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Chief Kerlikowske is the president of the association. “He listens. He’s very open to new ideas. He’ll build cooperation.”

Chief Lansdowne added, “He’ll take a look at prevention as much as enforcement.”

But Chief Kerlikowske also has critics.

Norm Stamper, whom Chief Kerlikowske succeeded in Seattle, said he was a “blank slate” on drug policy. Mr. Stamper, who left office not long after the riots that broke out during a 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, supports legalizing marijuana and spoke at Hempfest after leaving the chief’s job. He said Chief Kerlikowske had not been a vocal supporter of some of the city’s drug policies focused on treatment, like a needle exchange program or a 2003 city ballot initiative, overwhelmingly approved by voters, that said enforcing the law against marijuana possession by adults should be the department’s lowest priority.

“The question is, if he were in a much more conservative community, would he attempt to turn that around?” Mr. Stamper said.

Others said that Mr. Kerlikowske’s role as a police chief put him in a delicate political position because he would not want to be accused of being soft on crime. They note that he did not actively oppose the 2003 initiative and that he instructed his staff to comply with it once it passed. They say that Seattle police officers in recent years have kept their distance from the sites of needle exchanges.

Drug arrests are down in the city and overall crime is at a 40-year low, though concerns have increased recently over gang violence.

Chief Kerlikowske has faced plenty of criticism during his time in Seattle. In 2001, a study found that more than half of adults arrested for drug crimes in the city were black, though less than 10 percent of the population was black. The chief vowed to address the disparity, and it has decreased.

In 2002, he received a vote of no confidence from the local police union. The year before, officers had been frustrated by his handling of a Mardi Gras riot in which one person died and dozens were injured. Some officers said they were prevented from intervening soon enough.

In 2007, a special commission found that the department had been too lenient in disciplining officers in certain situations.

In 2004, the chief’s personal weapon, a 9mm Glock pistol, was stolen from his unmarked police car while he and his wife shopped downtown on the day after Christmas. A police spokesman said later that the chief had accidentally left his car unlocked but that he had not violated department policy by leaving his gun in his car.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 17, 2009
Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about speculation that the choice for drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Seattle Police Department, will make changes in national drug policy referred incorrectly to a gun that was stolen from his car in 2004. It was Chief Kerlikowske’s personal weapon, not his duty weapon.


Amazing. I feel this guy has amazing potential.
Now let's just hope he's the one..


As someone else said, change does, sadly, come slowly in politics. It won't be very long :)
 
The latest stimulus/porkulus bill that Obama will sign today includes additional new money of $155 million ($30m plus $125m) for the "war on drugs". There might be more in there, but when you try to search it only looks at the first 255 pages. This was on pages 40 and 41 of the pdf:

18 For an additional amount for "State and Local Law
19 Enforcement Assistance", $40,000,000, for competitive
20 gTants to provide assistance and equipment to local law
21 enforcement along the Southern border and in High-ln-
22 tensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal nar-
23 cotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of
24 which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to "Bureau of Al-
1 cohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Ex-
2 penses" for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
...
15 For an additional amount for "State and Local Law
16 Enforcement Assistance", $125,000,000, for assistance to
17 law enforcement in rural States and rural areas, to pre-
18 vent and combat crime, especially drug-related crime.
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_B.pdf

Don't expect Obama to end prohibition.



They changed the meaning of "change" to "more of the same"
 
wait... what? The first line is kinda shocking considering thats the exact same bullshit this clown pledged against!

View Post
The latest stimulus/porkulus bill that Obama will sign today includes additional new money of $155 million ($30m plus $125m) for the "war on drugs".
 
Top