Attorney general signals shift in marijuana policy

[GG]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090318/D970N6VO1.html

By DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Medical marijuana advocates in California welcomed the news, but said they still worried about the pending cases of those already in court on drug charges.

California law permits the sale of marijuana for medical purposes, though it still is against federal law.

Holder did not spell out exactly who no longer would face the prospect of raids by the Drug Enforcement Administration. But he was quick to add that law enforcement officers will target anyone who tries to "use medical marijuana laws as a shield" for other illegal activity.

"Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law," the attorney general said.

Advocates and government officials had been waiting since President Barack Obama was sworn into office for a clear signal on what the new president's drug policy would be toward medical marijuana. As a candidate, he repeatedly promised a change in policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Yet shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

Thirteen states have laws permitting medicinal use of marijuana. California is unique among them for the presence of dispensaries, which are businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Legal under California law, such dispensaries are still illegal under federal law.

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for national medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said he welcomed Holder's perspective.

"It signals a new direction and a more reasonable and sensible direction on medical marijuana policy," he said.

Still, Hermes said his Oakland-based organization was concerned about the fate of more than two dozen California medical marijuana cases currently pending in federal court.

"There remains a big question as to what the federal government's position is on those cases," Hermes said. He pointed specifically to the case of Charles Lynch, who was federally convicted for running a medical marijuana dispensary collective in San Luis Obispo County last year.

Hermes said Lynch could face decades in prison when he is sentenced Monday even though his clinic had been compliant with state law.

[FOTD]

Oklahoma better get ready for harvesting taxes.....

[Cats Cats Cats]

Part of the reason for this law is research.  As you could imagine there is a lot of political pressure to not allow this horrible drug that kills millions a year to be found valuable for some medical purposes.  So when somebody you don't want to study it has some, you just raid them and stop their research.  I am all for letting the states decide this one.

[FOTD]

19 already have. Oklahoma should follow suit.

The Blue Dome needs a tea room.....so does Brookside, 18th and Boston, and Cherry Street.

[patric]

Oklahoma's moral superiority insures that we will finish in last place.

There's also a lot of money riding on it continuing to be illegal.  The "war on drugs" is big business.

[cannon_fodder]

A Harvard Professor published a well written piece on the legalization of drugs in the United States:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

Essentially, where governments enable a black market a black market will form.  In black markets there are no safety procedures, so the products are much less safe.  There are no courts to arbitrate disputes so violence is used.  People do not call the police to report an injustice so kidnapping, murder, and other forms of self help step in. 

He mentions that the exact same thing happen with alcohol during prohibition.  But also that it is the case with prostitution - when it is legal it is safer, a tax revenue instead of tax drain, and less prone to violence.  Illegal gambling operations cheat people, extort funds from clients, loan money to fund gamblers, and resort to violence while the instances of casino sponsored violence in Vegas, Atlantic City or Tulsa.  Forbidding access to markets has costs above just law enforcement.

Seems to me history says making it illegal doesn't cure the underlying problem and adds new ones.

[FOTD]

A Harvard Professor published a well written piece on the legalization of drugs in the United States:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

Essentially, where governments enable a black market a black market will form.  In black markets there are no safety procedures, so the products are much less safe.  There are no courts to arbitrate disputes so violence is used.  People do not call the police to report an injustice so kidnapping, murder, and other forms of self help step in. 

He mentions that the exact same thing happen with alcohol during prohibition.  But also that it is the case with prostitution - when it is legal it is safer, a tax revenue instead of tax drain, and less prone to violence.  Illegal gambling operations cheat people, extort funds from clients, loan money to fund gamblers, and resort to violence while the instances of casino sponsored violence in Vegas, Atlantic City or Tulsa.  Forbidding access to markets has costs above just law enforcement.

Seems to me history says making it illegal doesn't cure the underlying problem and adds new ones.

We've done a terrific job educating the masses about the harmful effects....not.
Tobacco and Licker companies are the main opposition.

At least, decrim to free up prison space. Prisons, another anti-decrim group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24marijuana.html?_r=1&th&emc=th