• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Obama "could have" removed cannabis from scheldge one

FrostyMcFailure

FrostyMcFailure

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
4,524
It seems to bear repeating. Assuming there is a medicinal purpose (see video DOT nytimes, "The Marijuana State"),one can't help but wonder why its advocates are focused on state legislation instead of President Obama. President Obama has long said he sees no reason to prevent its medical availibility. Yet, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, Congress has provided him with a process to remove it from its Schedule I prohibition. Does President Obama lack compassion? Indeed, the President, has to date, seemed both reckless in his approach (will he enforce the law or ignore his duty to implement it) and indifferent to all important interests. Its not just that its a federal crime. Its allowing states to thumb their noses at the Constitution (Supremacy Clause), the Congress (makes the law), and the Supreme Court (interprets the law). This is a bad precedent as it says states can overrule federal law - as with constituional civil rights or gun rights - or reinstate "Jim Crow laws" with impunity. It also places state judges in the untenable position of having to decide whether to uphold the U.S. Constitution or state legislation. And, what does it say about the lawyer-legislators whose duties are to uphold the law. Note most state decisions, except Minnesota, have avoided the issue by attacking standing. Finally, while the F.D.A. is the sole regulator of any production (quality and safety), distribution (to prevent abuse like California) and consumption (to scientifically detemine its proper doseage is appropriate to a particular treatment and actually works), the F.D.A. has worked with the states on many such issues (milk). Only the F.D.A., not big pharma, not 50 states, can insure the best info is availible to patients and doctors decisions. Personal stories are nice, but like the oxygen vitamin and colon detox testimonials, no substitute for science. Nor, as the state bill sadly admits, can they protect users from arrest nor will they be held accountable for any adverse effects. You are on your own. Woefully, the assembly bill is a mess, appeals to compassion are misplaced and everyone is losing.
Click to expand...
link I am amazed this isnt receiving much media attention. His shadowy puppet masters wont let him.
 
You mean you actually believe Obama is a democrat? Obama is not even black my friend....he just plays one on tv. Have you ever wondered why the Republican party didn't hate Obama? Obama is not somehow 'in charge' of the FDA, DEA,, or DOJ. The people that pull the strings even at the executive level of gummitt.....are still there my friend....yes...I'm talking about the Pharms, big oil, military industrial complex. To expect things to change overnight somehow just because there's a new President that 'appears' to be liberal...is a fallacy.
 
sportbikesforlife said:
You mean you actually believe Obama is a democrat?
Click to expand...

He is a democrat, and guess what? Democrats suck just like Republicans suck..

Anyone who is surprised that Obama pays no new attention to the Drug War or marijuana laws is very ignorant to the way this country and our politics work. You people need to wake the fuck up; Obama is garbage, Bush was garbage, the next guy will be garbage too because there are too many idiots in this country voting for the guy with the most money from each major party. They are all paid-off, they all keep promises to lobbyist and not to the citizens and the people that vote for them.

I ended up typing a long-ass political rant here, but decided to delete about 90% of it.. The bottom-line is I can't wrap my head around why people get so surprised and appalled that Obama ignores the marijuana issue in the US. If you have any idea how similar Obama is to every other scum-fuck politician, then you EXPECT this behavior from our president.
 
Last edited:
Obama is a fucking tool, he won't do anything but uphold the status quo, same as it has always been. New boss same as the old boss.
 
I think it's worth realizing that the comment that you quoted at least to me reads very obviously as a social conservative astroturfing the issue and looking to jab at obama instead of really giving a crap about MMJ. While I'm no means an obama apologist, consider:

one can't help but wonder why its advocates are focused on state legislation instead of President Obama.

* It should be obvious but all current MMJ legislation/referendums completed or in progress were started one or two administrations ago.

* Picking the venue. It's a local issue, why struggle to fight red state prejudice to open a dispensary in san francisco?

Assuming there is a medicinal purpose

This guy doesn't actually sound like he's pro-MMJ at all for what it's worth.

President Obama has long said he sees no reason to prevent its medical availibility. Yet, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, Congress has provided him with a process to remove it from its Schedule I prohibition.

Since the president doesn't make laws, nor amend them it's actually a path for congress. While he can lobby strongly for changes, if the support in the legislature isn't there it doesn't matter what he wants. If you take him at face value that the DOJ has been instructed to not interfere with state law on the issue he's actually done what's in his direct power to do about it. And he did that within 60 days or so, no?

Indeed, the President, has to date, seemed both reckless in his approach (will he enforce the law or ignore his duty to implement it)

Reckless seems like a pretty wild exaggeration. There are tons of state and federal laws that aren't enforced for various reasons. Ideal? no. Practical? maybe.

This is a bad precedent as it says states can overrule federal law - as with constituional civil rights or gun rights - or reinstate "Jim Crow laws" with impunity.

Fearmongering. Plenty of state laws conflict with federal laws. Why won't "Jim Crow laws" (pro-segregation laws) pop back up? Because the SCOTUS declared them UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As it turns out, no one believes possession/sale/use of marijuana is unconstitutional.

It also places state judges in the untenable position of having to decide whether to uphold the U.S. Constitution or state legislation.

Dumb. See above. State judges aren't in the business of enforcing federal law (c.f. federal court) and of course, again, the constitution doesn't have anything to do with making drugs illegal.

distribution (to prevent abuse like California)

One man's abuse is another man's freedom.

Only the F.D.A., not big pharma, not 50 states, can insure the best info is availible to patients and doctors decisions.

The FDA is hardly the best resource for doctors or patients in terms of existing prescription medication - why would they be for cannabis?

Woefully, the assembly bill is a mess, appeals to compassion are misplaced and everyone is losing.

Typo there, what he meant to say is "I don't like it".

So, while I agree to an extent with folks saying "Meet the new boss - same as the old boss" as once you go through a few national election cycles you cease to be that surprised - republicans and democrats (politicians) have more in common with each other than they do with you. But practically the president has relatively limited power in the legislature.

While Obama is hardly the poster child for progressive politics some sold him as during the election, consider the fact that he isn't actively working against you here. That may seem like a pretty weak endorsement, but as a disillusioned clinton supporter I wasn't that sad to see him go. Until a few years later we ended up invading iraq to satisfy a personal agenda based on a bunch of fabricated intelligence.

TL;DR - This guy was just looking for a way to bitch about Obama. Medical Marijuana was just a smoke screen

We now return you to discussions about how fucked up you can get on brick weed, already in progress...
 
Its in the pharmaceutical complex's best interest to keep cannabis illegal. Obama is a puppet for special interests but more importantly internationalists who do not have the peoples best interest at heart.

Cannabis cures cancer
 
I'm not saying big pharma money isn't in everyone's pockets, but if it was so black and white why would he have told the DEA to stand down in cali?
 
Only time will really tell if they are honoring what they announced, but:

Since 3/19/2009 when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said:
The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law, to the extent that people do that and try to use medical marijuana laws as a shield for activity that is not designed to comport with what the intention was of the state law. Those are the organizations, the people, that we will target. And that is consistent with what the president said during the campaign.
Click to expand...

The DEA has taken one dispensary door, CCC in San Francisco on 3/25/2009. They claim violations of state law, but assuming that's BS, that's still 1 DEA orchestrated raid in 3 months. Compare that to 26 dispensary raids in socal alone in the 12 months prior to Holder's statement. That's not counting all the 2008 raids in the central valley, bay area and norcal because I didn't have the time to count them all up - the ASA alerts are piled up thick in my mailbox. Just from memory I think the total was well over 40. So that's 10+ every three months versus 1 in the last three months.

You're welcome to think whatever you want, but obviously a 90% drop is pretty significant. Hopefully the trend continues.
 
morphene said:
You're welcome to think whatever you want, but obviously a 90% drop is pretty significant. Hopefully the trend continues.
Click to expand...

amen.

change doesn't happen overnight, especially with issues like marijuana that aren't a priority for the majority of voters. that he's changed the DEA policy in CA and not tried to interfere in other states' decriminalization efforts is a pretty substantial shift by federal government standards.

also, the president changes every 4-8 years, but congress tends to stay the same. so you can't expect a new president to affect huge changes as soon as he steps into office. it's always been my view that marijuana laws would have to be changed on a state-by-state level anyway . . and in that case the best thing obama can do is let the states do as their voters want and keep the federal government's nose out of it.
 
double ewe said:
amen.

change doesn't happen overnight, especially with issues like marijuana that aren't a priority for the majority of voters. that he's changed the DEA policy in CA and not tried to interfere in other states' decriminalization efforts is a pretty substantial shift by federal government standards.

also, the president changes every 4-8 years, but congress tends to stay the same. so you can't expect a new president to affect huge changes as soon as he steps into office. it's always been my view that marijuana laws would have to be changed on a state-by-state level anyway . . and in that case the best thing obama can do is let the states do as their voters want and keep the federal government's nose out of it.
Click to expand...

If that's the case...then Texas is in the dark ages! I don't think MJ legalization is going to happen in this state if in fact it's going to be up to the voters. Texas is too full of religious fanatics and gun nuts that are fiercely conservative basically reactionary. aint gonna happen here!
 
sportbikesforlife said:
If that's the case...then Texas is in the dark ages! I don't think MJ legalization is going to happen in this state if in fact it's going to be up to the voters. Texas is too full of religious fanatics and gun nuts that are fiercely conservative basically reactionary. aint gonna happen here!
Click to expand...

You might be surprised. MMJ has a lot of traction compared to legalization because you can campaign about it being for the benefit of old folks (big voting block) and for things like cancer, aids, etc. Who is against cancer patients feeling better? Montana, Nevada and Arizona are all traditional red states and they have med laws now, don't throw in the towel yet.
 
morphene said:
Montana, Nevada and Arizona are all traditional red states and they have med laws now, don't throw in the towel yet.
Click to expand...

i think the other factor you're looking at in terms of "red states" is that there are two philosophical branches of the republican party. on one side, you have religious social conservatives, who want to enforce their morality through legislation (typically found in the Bible Belt). but on the other side are the small government/pseudo-libertarian republicans who basically believe the government should stay out of their lives as much as possible (west/mid-west).

i know texas is a pretty good mix of both, but there's certainly room for hope. likewise, as drug violence spills over, decriminalization is winning over some unlikely allies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top