Obama says marijuana ‘no more dangerous than alcohol’

[NightWatcher]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/19/obama-says-marijuana-no-more-dangerous-than-alcohol/

“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol,” Obama told the weekly magazine.

The president said pot was actually less dangerous than alcohol “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

“It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy,” he said.

The states are starting to all fall in line. It looks like medicinal cannabis may make it to the ballot in Florida as a referendum if the State Supreme Court rules that the language is acceptable.

[cthulu2016]

1. Literally true, but off-base. It is vastly LESS dangerous.

Being much less dangerous, it is, indeed, no more dangerous than.

But the implied equivalency of the two in that construction is a bit misleading.

[woo me with science]

26. No kidding. nt

[Vincardog]

115. Right the kids would be fetter off trying alcohol, passing out and being passed around like

a party treat at a pervert's party.


OOOHH remember the childrns

[hrmjustin]

136. hey!

[Luminous Animal]

126. With all the fucked up stuff out there, the least of my worries

[rock]

32. I prefer to say that Obama's statement is false

since weed is not nearly in a class as dangerous as alcohol.

[jmowreader]

116. His statement is a vast improvement over his predecessors

The presidents that came before him, with the possible exception of Clinton, would have rated pot's danger as somewhere between heroin and nerve gas.

Pot is not as dangerous as alcohol. The president's statement that he doesn't think it's as dangerous as alcohol is therefore correct. You can see the shit he's up against: in this age, you still have people like Nancy Grace going on national television claiming weed is more addictive than heroin. Come on...

[rock]

171. True, his statement is not

as ridiculously exaggerated as his predecessors (just mildly misleading).

[yeoman6987]

177. Weird that any President even discusses this

I don't understand why a President needs to comment on such a thing.

[riderinthestorm]

199. Laying the groundwork for decriminalization at least

Perhaps even full legalization.

That's my guess. The country's clearly ready for it and the Dems would be on the winning side here.

[RainDog]

208. Because, as the TPM link notes

Cannabis as an illegal substance is a systemic way that African Americans are targeted for discrimination in this nation. In the TPM link (already here in another post), Obama focuses on the research that Michelle Alexander did for a book called, The New Jim Crow.

During the old Jim Crow era, African Americans (mostly male) were arrested on trumped up charges and put on chain gangs in the south.

The new Jim Crow, our drug laws and our philosophy for dealing with drug abuse, has created a system of private prisons in rural areas where African Americans are relocated, denied the right to vote, and held in bondage - for something that white middle and upper class youth and young adults (the primary age group for those who use marijuana) do without any repercussion.

Obama's focus is on this issue of disparity or injustice within our legal system, and that's why he mentions that alcohol, which is legal and unscheduled, is more dangerous than marijuana.

We currently have an unsustainable situation in which two states have legalized, but the federal govt. has not either legalized or simply decriminalized by removing from the drug schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Democrats in the House have tried to pass legislation to regulate cannabis like alcohol and remove marijuana from the drug schedule.

Obama is indicating support for this legislation.

Cannabis legalization is a big deal. The majority of drug arrests in this nation are for marijuana, and of those, 80% are for simple possession. We've spent TRILLIONS of dollars on a failed drug war, made criminals out of people for ingesting something safer than aspirin, and, by our laws, supported the development of international cartels that murder innocents at will to terrorize nations... like our neighbor, Mexico. We force other nations to keep cannabis illegal - and other nations have decided to ignore this bad policy, just as CO and WA voters have chosen.

So, this is an issue that needs to be resolved, and we're all better off if it's resolved by a Democratic administration.

The lesson of history is that draconian laws can be made worse - as Reagan and Republicans in Congress did - and it's taken all these years to get to the point where we can undo some of that damage - which the Obama administration has already done on other aspects of drug policy.

[SomethingFishy]

229. Perhaps is has something to do with the fact that in Colorado the state took in

$250,000 in taxes on the first day of Marijuana sales. In 24 stores that were open for a total of 9 hours each. By the end of the 4th day the taxes were over a million dollars. In 4 days. In 24 stores.

Food, fuel, fiber, rope, paper, tax dollars. Now add in the reduced costs of prisons, courts, lawyers, judges, cops, and the DEA and you tell me why the president wouldn't talk about it. He'd be a fucking fool not to.

[RainDog]

233. Would you mind posting this is the Drug Policy forum?

With some links to the figures? That would be great, if it's not an inconvenience.

[fredamae]

85. Baby Steps-We're gettin' there n/t

[Champion Jack]

143. bingo

[busterbrown]

97. He knows that but he’s playing it safe..

How many lives are ruined completely by Drunk driving, alcoholism etc. No comparison..
But he always is so measured, for political reasons...Smart when dealing with insane right wing..

[Vattel]

160. His dishonesty doesn't help.

It would be better to tell the whole truth here. But he is too weak to lead on this issue. I am glad he seems to be willing to follow though.

[tavalon]

174. The main problem with smoking pot is the mechanical damage to lungs from smoke of any kind

but not all smoke is equal. From a mechanical injury perspective, they all damage, but tobacco has carcinogens that marijuana lacks. And a house fire, with all of the poisons in carpet, furniture, et al., is the most damaging of all. And you can't ask very many people these days how damaging the smoke was from the Twin Towers. Most are dead, those who aren't probably pray for death.

Now, vaping puts all of that under scrutiny. I wish we could get some good science on whether vaping negates the mechanical injury. Because frankly, Marijuana appears to have high safety, much, much higher than the poison that is alcohol. Of course, GHB has the highest safety profile but it was demonized so Orphan pharmaceuticals could get their hands on it. A totally off topic tangent. Personal, because GHB is the best sleep aid, bar none, and with none of the dangers of Ambien. But it was in the hands of people and people could cook it easily at home, so it needed to be removed. Another topic for another day.

Vaping is the future, not only for cannabis but also for nicotine delivery (replacing smoking the carcinogenic tobacco).

Unfortunately, Obama says these wonderful things and then forgets to direct AG Holder to back the fuck off. It's annoying.

I live in Washington state where we are gearing up to make pot legal and available, albeit with a lot of caveats. But we fight Holder every step of the way. When I say gearing up, there is a lot that has to be figured out. Can marijuana be screened on employment and during employment? And where does medical marijuana come into play?

[MrMickeysMom]

175. +100,000,000

That's about how much money that has also been generated in taxes (I'm guessing) for the forward thinking states of this Union during the time we've considered this comparison…

[grahamhgreen]

216. +1

[Deep13]

2. No, alcohol is genuinely dangerous.

Marijuana, chemically, is only dangerous if use constantly over a long period. It has no lethal dose, unlike alcohol which has a low lethal dose. Of course there is really nothing safe about the delivery system: smoke inhalation.

[NightWatcher]

5. I just swallowed a tab of Gold Caps. No smoking required

I am not goofy but my leg pain has greatly decreased.

[Deep13]

7. Sorry to hear about your leg pain.

Glad you have something non-addictive to take for it.

[NightWatcher]

10. I have peripheral neuropathy from a rare auto-immune neuromuscular disease

You can tell I'm not stoned otherwise there's no way that I could've typed that mouthful

[YOHABLO]

134. Years ago a prescription for Marinol was prescribed for HIV waisting .. >>

It's purpose was primarily to induce eating (the munchies) in order to gain weight. Are gold caps similar, or are they more potent? Marinol use to give me serious paranoia as does regular marijuana. I suppose it wears off after continued use ... or at least when I was in my teens back in the 70s .. it never made me that paranoid. I mean it only took 50 years for people to come to their senses on this .. I suppose Obama had to ''evolve'' on this as well.

[NightWatcher]

140. I had the smallest dose (10mg) and it relaxed my muscles similar to a Flexoril

I hope to be able to try the higher doses sometime soon. It has pure thc and I noticed that it did cause my eyes to look a little stoned.

I hope that we get the chance to vote on medical cannabis this year. As of right now I have lengths to go to in order to obtain. It's ridiculous that sick people are prevented from using something that could help us so much.

[tazkcmo]

214. About 20 years ago

I met an elderly woman on the bus who told me she ate pot to help her with her cancer/chemo and related how difficult it was for her to obtain. For the next 7 years I became her connection.

"It's ridiculous that sick people are prevented from using something that could help us so much."


That's what she said.

[Leopolds Ghost]

219. Everything has a lethal dose, even water.

Dose makes the poison. Of course the inverse is true: you're far more at risk from things like Formaldehyde off-gassing than heavy metals in paint or tap water (unless you are an infant.)

[antiquie]

3. Not very healthy?

His small step is to be commended, too bad he doesn't get the medical uses.

[WatermelonRat]

23. If it's being smoked, no, it's not very healthy.

Not as bad as Tobacco smoking, but still not broccoli (which would also be bad for you if you smoked it).

[antiquie]

28. I regularly vape for pain.

Fast and effective.

[WatermelonRat]

46. It should be fine taken that way.

What I'm saying is that smoking it would still be bad for your lungs, as is the case with the smoke of any substance.

[truedelphi]

87. Smoking it, like by using hand rolled cigs, is so

Very Nineteenth Century.

[Vincardog]

118. Are you anti-smoking? Where is our proof that sparking up is bad for you?

[YOHABLO]

129. A marijuana cigarette has the paper involved .. whereby being carcinogenic .. I would think.

[WatermelonRat]

142. You're being sarcastic, right?

[Vincardog]

144. No I am just saying that you made a statement of fact. What study has been done to prove your "fact"

[WatermelonRat]

172. Quite a few

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/101.full
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/body/healthcare.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5oTeQnBkSvMJ:www.ccsa.ca/2009%2520CCSA%2520Documents/ccsa-11797-2009.pdf+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

THC is largely harmless, but when you smoke you inhale a lot more than that. Since most people don't smoke cannabis at the same rate that they do tobacco, the respiratory effects are greatly lessened, but that doesn't mean it's completely harmless. The smoke still contains carbon monoxide, carcinogens, and irritants.

For the record, I'm not using this as justification to keep cannabis illegal. I certainly think that it should be legalized, but the health risks should be known, just as there should be awareness of the long term health effects of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

[tavalon]

178. Old time science

Cancer is caused by repetitive irritation of a given area. Smoke irritates the lungs so if you are an all day smoker of pot or broccoli, the possibility of irritant caused cancer is a increased but given the demonization of pot, we don't have the studies that we have to have, that we should have. Of course, the numbers of stomach, liver and pancreatic cancer because of alcohol consumption is pretty high. Again, alcohol irritates the stomach, the liver and the pancreas. Chronic irritation leads to cancer.

Carcinogens are important, but mechanical damage can't be ruled out. Does pot paralyze the cilia as cigarettes do? Does vaping eliminate the mechanical damage or limit it? So many questions and little research. Researching an illegal (in most places) drug is not a good way to climb the ladder. And then, there is the free availability of pot, which pisses off the people who want marijuana to be a money maker but it can't be unless it can be captured and marketed. See GHB. Alas, the cat is out of the bag on this one, so demonization just won't work anymore. Reefer madness is just an amusing little show.

I was in on the ground floor with GHB and it was highly enlightening to see what the government in collusion with industry was able to do. Ambien didn't want competition and GHB was all that and more. People don't sleep walk, sleep eat and sleep drive with GHB but pressure was applied to make it appear dangerous and it was quite enlightening to see the steps taken. Date rape drug my ass. Alcohol is the number one date rape drug. But I learned the strength of corporate influence and governmental pressure. My best sleep drug has been replaced grudgingly by Ambien. Sure, I can try to go through Orphan Drugs to get GHB (can't remember what they call it, but it's GHB, suddenly safe!).

[Jesus Malverde]

4. I'm stunned by the momentum.

The federal government is being overwhelmed on all fronts.

Overgrowing the feds...politically.

The Cannabis Criminalizers are becoming the outcasts.

[brewens]

20. I still can't believe the wrong turn we took in the early 80's. One day I'm walking down the street

in my Idaho town and I see a dude sitting out front of his apartment building. I've seen him around but don't know him. He's smoking a joint and offers me a toke. Thanks I say, take a hit and hand it back continuing on my way. I would smoke semi-openly on occasion too back then. A few years later, there was no way I would.

I would have told you back then that we'd be here by 1990. It was right-wing types all over the place getting into positions of authority that hated the 60's and the hippies that I think did it to us. They made us take steps backward in a lot of other ways too.

As things were loosening up in the late 70's, people smoking weed openly, head shops doing business and all that, we were making the rednecks eat some serious shit. Even the cops couldn't do shit about it if you were smart. You could get pulled over reeking of weed and as long as you didn't have anything on you, they couldn't do squat! When they got the upper hand, they came after us with drug testing and all that crap. What a waste.

[skydive forever]

120. Same here

In the 70's I would have sworn that pot would be legal within 10 years nationally. But then Reagan came in and the whole nation changed, and not for the better.

[RainDog]

202. +1000

[Wilms]

6. But did he tell Holder?

Very nice speech. Like during his first campaign. Actions speak, Mr. President, thank you.

[NightWatcher]

8. They say the DOJ will not interfere in CO and WA

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government wouldn't intervene as Colorado and Washington state implement plans for a system of legalized marijuana for adults. The decision opened the floodgates for other states to pursue similar legalization efforts and outraged police groups apparently not excited to see a shift away from the failed war on drugs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.html

Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Let Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws Go Into Effect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html

[Wilms]

72. Thank you. n/t

[tavalon]

179. Finally, he's been a thorn in our side.

We have so many things to work out, we don't need Holder up our asses while we figure it out.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. Has he told all the US attorneys? The US attorneys are all over the map. You have some who

are leaving people alone. There are some who are harassing and arresting people. If Obama and Holder are being truthful then they need to reign in all the US attorneys.

[seattledo]

157. Great point!

I know quite a few people here that are so scared shitless that they say they won't buy from a store after they open here in WA. I don't trust Holder to not put us in prison for buying.

[Throd]

9. oftentimes it is less dangerous.

[kestrel91316]

11. It's far LESS dangerous than alcohol. By orders of magnitude.

He knows he can't come out and say THAT, so he did the next best thing.

[pangaia]

80. Why in the heck can't he say it?

I mean, why can't he at least say SOME stuff that is true and that he knows is true?
Why does he so often (always?) have to wait until he's following instead if leading.

[redqueen]

90. It's politics.

Considering this is a political discussion board, it's surprising to me that so many are so surprised by this.

[truedelphi]

151. Maybe we need Joe Biden to light up, and then

Obama will get on board!

That approach has worked on another important issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Its wishy washy and over cautious, but a big leap forward from the usual rhetoric.

The politicians know the wind has changed, they've all got their fingers in the air.

[Dawgs]

15. +1. It's the best we should expect. I'll take it for now. n/t

[ProSense]

13. The quote

implies that it's not more dangerous:

"I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

Obama: Marijuana Not 'More Dangerous Than Alcohol'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-marijuana-not-more-dangerous-than-alcohol

Leave it to CNN to twist the meaning, no doubt to have people thinking about the effects of achohol.

[Gary 50]

173. It's true...

Marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol and a headache is not more dangerous than a brain tumor.

[L0oniX]

14. Oz of pot = felony ...Oz of alcohol = not even a mild buzz and no DUI.

[dionysus]

63. one of the reasons why i love NY. get busted walking down the street with up to an ounce; $50

citation; not even a misdemeanor. (unless it's bagged up for sale, then you're fucked for intent to distribute.)

[polichick]

16. Just like with gay marriage - when the whole country is cool with it, he "leads."

[progressoid]

31. Yup. +1 n/t

[SidDithers]

35. ODS. You got it bad...nt

Sid

[polichick]

37. Are you going to claim the prez has led on this? He should have.

[ProSense]

49. Thanks, Obama

Thanks, Obama >> updated, Edith Windsor reacts

by kirbybruno

This >>>>>
Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA

and this >>>>>>

Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee

and this >>>>>>

President Obama Nominates Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

has led to this >>>>>
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act.

Thanks Obama!

Barack Obama ✔ @BarackObama

Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove
10:19 AM - 26 Jun 2013

28,525 Retweets 8,313 favorites

<...>

Edith Windsor says thanks, Obama too!

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/edith-windsor-doma-struck-down.html

Just after 11 A.M., the President called. Kaplan picked up the phone and gave it to Windsor. “Hello, who am I talking to?” Windsor said. “Oh, Barack Obama? I wanted to thank you. I think your coming out for us made such a difference throughout the country.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219083/-Thanks-Obama

[polichick]

50. Yeah, thanks for calling off the feds way back in 2009...

and letting all those non-violent offenders out of federal prison! Woohoo!!

[ProSense]

51. Yeah,

"Woohoo!!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post45

Thanks Obama

[polichick]

54. Crumbs before the midterms. Woohoo!!

[ProSense]

57. LOL!

"Crumbs before the midterms. Woohoo!!"

Most of the actions were during his first term.

Denial is a dangerous drug.

[polichick]

59. Psst. I'm referring to this thread, not your usual attempts to distract.

[ProSense]

62. LOL! Wait

"Psst. I'm referring to this thread, not your usual attempts to distract."

...what "attempts to distract"? He's likely going to snatch this issue from the RW libertarians. It has been building.

U.S. Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.

“By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety,” Mr. Holder said. “We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.”

The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html

Background on progress.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.

By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing “a liberal agenda at all costs.”

This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars — big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.

Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.

But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html

Washington Gives Us Something to Get Excited About (No, Really!)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/washington-gives-us-something-get-excited-about-no-really

How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech

By Laura W. Murphy

Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.

What should we make of the nation’s top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?

First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.

The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney General’s speech, including:

1. Developing guidelines to file fewer cases
   
   
2. Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them
   
   
3. Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator
   
   
4. Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry
   
   
5. Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses
   
   
6. Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; and
   
   
7. Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs
   
   
8. Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline
   
   
9. Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

It will make some people (not you) sad.

[polichick]

66. So he did release non-violent offenders from federal prison and...

announce to the nation that the obscene war on drugs was over - in 2009?

[ProSense]

68. Don't you

"So he did release non-violent offenders from federal prison and...announce to the nation that the obscene war on drugs was over - in 2009?"

...read (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post62) :

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

He took office in 2009. I guess this calls for the "better late than never" meme, right?

[polichick]

71. Yeah, he took office in 2009. The idiotic war on drugs would've ended THEN...

if he had been willing to lead on this issue. How many more people have gone to jail since 2009?

[ProSense]

77. It should

"Yeah, he took office in 2009. The idiotic war on drugs would've ended THEN... if he had been willing to lead on this issue. How many more people have gone to jail since 2009?"

...have ended in the 1970s.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post62
Thank, Obama!

[polichick]

81. Should never have been illegal in the first place - which is why it...

was right for the prez to address the injustice asap - instead of allowing more people to go to jail.

[ProSense]

82. Yeah, Obama made Nixon do it.

Thanks Obama.

[polichick]

89. Cute, but still no good reason for this simple statement taking five years.

[ProSense]

92. Well, he said it now. Are you happy that he finally did?

Apparently not.

[polichick]

93. The people unjustly in jail don't think it's as funny as you do.

[ProSense]

94. The people

"The people unjustly in jail don't think it's a funny as you do."

...released are happy (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post62) :

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Thanks, Obama.

[polichick]

98. Always trying to distract. What about the ones in jail this minute for weed?

[ProSense]

102. You think mentioning the people released is "trying to distract"? n/t

[polichick]

104. No - I think a silly statement five years later does not address the issue...

of an obscene war on drugs and thousands of people in jail.

[ProSense]

109. Did you

"No - I think a silly statement five years later does not address the issue..."

...mean to say "silly" or "simple": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post89

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post62

Thanks, Obama

[polichick]

125. Both, as stated.

[truedelphi]

150. And he lies and lies on the issue.

He told Californians repeatedly he would respect our laws and not hassle the dispensaries that helped distribute the marijuana.

Then he goes and sets his goons on us:

http://my.firedoglake.com/elisemattu/2012/09/26/santa-rosa-calif-gets-hit-by-gestapo-today-092612/

[polichick]

161. Yes, glad you mentioned this. I never understood what his was about...

Is it about keeping for-profit prison owners happy? What?

[truedelphi]

113. Yeah, Obama, thanks for appointing

Dickwad Eric Holder.

And thanks for busting through neighborhoods in California, without even providing warrants:

http://my.firedoglake.com/elisemattu/2012/09/26/santa-rosa-calif-gets-hit-by-gestapo-today-092612/

[polichick]

117. It's a process, don't you know. Takes time. Nobody is perfect. Yay Obama!

[Drunken Irishman]

38. The whole country was cool with marriage equality in 2012?

Because I distinctly remember polls from when he announced his support that showed it pretty much 50-50. I'm not good at math - but that's not the whole country.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/growing-public-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

[polichick]

39. He waited until it was around 60 - very safe. The opposite of "leading."

[Drunken Irishman]

44. Bull. Find me a poll from May, 2012, that showed it at 60%.

Hell, the poll I showed you was from February - just a few months before his announcement - that had it at 46% support. I'm calling bullshit that it was able to jump TWENTY POINTS in less than five months.

In fact, here's a similar poll from Gallup done in the wake of Biden's announcement and right before Obama's:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Still basically 50-50 - 48% support, 50% opposed.

Hell, that poll shows only 65% of Democrats at the time supported marriage equality. So, it wasn't even a huge consensus within the party until Obama came out with his support.

Even in July, 2012, a Pew Poll showed only 48% of the country supported it - with 44% in opposition:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/31/2012-opinions-on-for-gay-marriage-unchanged-after-obamas-announcement/

So, it's dishonest to say it wasn't still a divisive issue back when he came out in support of it. It was a 50-50 proposition and most times, politicians stay away from those issues because you have little to gain and a lot to lose. America wasn't behind the idea in 2012 - as most polls didn't even show a majority of the country supporting it.

[polichick]

47. Polls, shmolls. They can read any way the pollsters want. Even at 50-50...

the cost to him was very low. The opposite of leadership is waiting until it's safe.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Love the backtrack...

You really are grasping at straws.

You're so filled with hate toward the President that you'll attack Obama for backing something you probably support. You've gotta be one bitter chick.

[polichick]

58. Yes, it takes a very bitter person to expect the prez to LEAD...

Hint: Looks like you can't make your case when you resort to insults.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. Oh bullshit.

You would have found fault if Obama came out in 2008 supporting marriage equality. That's what bitter people do. I wonder if you think JFK failed to lead on civil rights because of his tepid response - or FDR on lynching? Probably not. You probably look at 'em as heroes and Obama as the fucking goat because, gosh, he couldn't make history fast enough for YOU. Forget that he was the first sitting president EVER to come out in support of marriage equality, in an election year to boot, that's meaningless. He's just a fraud! Right? What utter nonsense.

And if you don't like being called bitter and hate-filled, don't act like someone who holds a political grudge worse than Chris Christie. It's pathetic that you're so angry at Obama that you can't help but make a snide remark when he even supports something you do.

[polichick]

61. Again with the insults. Try again.

[Drunken Irishman]

65. Stop with your bitterness and maybe I'll stop calling you bitter.

If the shoe fits, as they say. You find it insulting - well guess what? I find your utter contempt for the President insulting.

[polichick]

67. All you have is insults. I'm interested in policy.

[Drunken Irishman]

69. No. I provided facts long ago. You dismissed them and took another shot at Obama...

I'll give you credit, though, you were good at steering this away from your overstatements. I think you started out by saying the entire country supported marriage equality, and then had to go down to 60% supported it in 2012, to finally conceding it was 50-50 at best around the time. Yet, throughout it all, it didn't stop you from attacking the President for his historic move. What else am I to think when someone is proven wrong multiple times and they keep standing by their flawed position? You're either stupid or bitter and I don't think you're stupid...

[polichick]

73. Excuse me for not been ecstatic that the prez waited five years to...

say something so simple and safe.

[Drunken Irishman]

76. 'Simple and safe' because the entire country was behind it, right?

Like I said, Obama could have come out in 2008 and you would have hated on him then, too. I'm sure you gave him zero credit for overturning DADT, pushing the repeal of DOMA, the signing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill and other monumental moves he's done to help advance the LGBT causes because he really isn't a leader, right?

Give me a break.

[polichick]

79. Actually, it's you doing the hating. Read your posts.

[Drunken Irishman]

86. I only hated on your misstatements...

You know, saying the entire country backed marriage equality in 2012...

Or was it 60%?

Wait! It didn't matter. Because, even if it was 30%, Obama was too late to the game, right? You moved the fucking goalposts in a matter of minutes to try to prove how awful of a leader Obama is. LAUGH OUT FUCKING LOUD.

[polichick]

91. The point - and you know it - is that he waited until it was safe...

same as he did with gay marriage. Not leadership.

[Drunken Irishman]

101. That wasn't the point...

Because your original intent was to describe 'safe' as the whole country supporting it. A plurality of the country supporting something is not safe - not when nearly the same amount of the country opposed it. But it shouldn't matter when he came out in support of it. The fact he did was monumental and historical, which is often lost on the parsing of whether it was safe or not. Who cares? He did it. Would you rather him not have come out in support of it at all because he apparently only had a small window of opportunity to do so without looking like a political opportunist on some message board?

That's the problem. Instead of giving him credit on something, you turn it around and use it, two years later, as an attack.

The point is that you can't even give him the slightest bit of credit on anything. Even when he does something right.

Hell, I saw more praise for Rob Portman by some DUers when he came out in support of marriage equality than when Obama did it.

[polichick]

106. For me, the point is exactly what I just stated. No need to repeat.

[Drunken Irishman]

108. Right. That in 2012, the whole country supported marriage equality...

Got it.

I even see you in this thread dismissing every other Obama accomplishment when it comes to equality. Basically, he should do everything and can't do nothing. haha

[stevenleser]

112. Backtrack? Heck that was moving the goalposts from the football field to the swimming pool.

As usual, you were being generous!

[polichick]

122. Cute and everything, but don't you think the point is that he waited...

until it was safe - until there was little risk?

To me, leadership is doing what's right in spite of the political risk.

[truedelphi]

75. You give Obama credit for people in the nation

Accepting gay marriage?

It has not been a divisive issue for anyone but Christian Fundies. Unless you are talking about rural Deep South areas, Americans have accepted gay marriage for quite some time.

Prop Eight succeeded, vote wise, because of the totally dishonest situation with voting machinery and dishonest Voting Registrars, here in California.

Many polls came out in mid-2013 that showed Americans throwing their support around for marriage equality. That didn't happen overnight.

And most sociologists would tell you that the reason for the change is that so many families are impacted by the issue. I mean, Dick Cheney has come out for marriage equality!

[Drunken Irishman]

78. Did I say Obama is the reason the country accepted it?

I don't remember saying that...I just said when he came out in support for it, it was, at best, a 50-50 issue - half the country supported it and half the country opposed it.

It certainly was a divisive issue - so much so that it probably cost Kerry the presidential election in 2004.

[ProSense]

88. This thread offers enough

examples of how some will attack the President no matter what he says and doesn't want him to get credit for anything. He's responsible for everything bad, but should get credit for anything good.

[glowing]

96. You kind of have to look at the polling among the 25-45 yr olds.. And support is overwhelming.

Many young people don't understand why it's against the law. Don't believe me, ask a kid what they think the law is?

I was taught back in late 80's, early 90's that families come in all different shapes, that one of our classmates had 2 mommies, that it's ok to be different. And when they got "married" one weekend, I was more shocked at two adults living in "sin", unmarried, than I was that they were 2 women living together and raising children, one of whom was my friend (her brother was in a younger grade.

And as far as "choice", who the hell would choose being gay in this society? Seriously!

[Drunken Irishman]

103. Very true.

Of course, those who oppose it vote more consistently than people in their 20s, unfortunately.

[Luminous Animal]

131. This it would have been a smart political move to advocate

for marriage equality and inspire younger voters it get to the polls. Youth largely dropped out of the process in 2010.

[pangaia]

84. Exactly..

Same thing, over and over..

[SolutionisSolidarity]

127. The whole country isn't cool with it yet.

A bit more than half the country support legalizing it, and more still support decriminalization. But there is still a potent stigma attached to marijuana. It is an intoxicant, so people who use it are still labeled as morally inferior. People are still getting fired for using it in their off hours. People are still being imprisoned for it. Even the supposedly enlightened state of California rejected legalization.

Most Democratic politicians are still "Just Say No" drug warriors; in spite of the fact that the Democratic Party indisputably benefited from marijuana legalization being on the Colorado ballot, the Democratic Governor of Colorado still champions jailing users.

Obama is not the type to stick his neck out too far, and considering what happened during the Carter administration, I suppose caution is prudent. But his administrations hands off approach to the legalization experiment in Colorado and Washington is about the best that can be expected at the federal level until the drug warriors retire.

[RainDog]

17. Thank you, President Obama!

For providing leadership to the Democratic legislators to seek some remedy for current policy by removing cannabis from the controlled substances act.

More and more states are putting marijuana reform on the ballot.

And thank you for acknowledging the talk that so many parents have with their children - marijuana, alcohol, and so on - can wait if someone want to try them. But you don't have to try them, even as an adult. We all want to emphasize healthy choices.

They're not substances for children.

But they are not substances whose possession should put adults into prison.

[NightWatcher]

18. Lead, follow, or just get out of the way and I'm fine

Let people in states decide if they want it decriminalized or completely legalized, or as in some states that just ignore small time possession charges.

It would be great if the DOJ and DEA would scratch cannabis from the Schedule of drugs. Keep going after heroin traffickers and violent kingpins, but leave personal cannabis alone. Let those arrested and in jail for minor possession and use out of jail

[RainDog]

48. Try to think of this as an unfolding political moment

Last edited Mon Jan 20, 2014, 04:29 AM - Edit history (2)

Different "actors" in this process have different parts to play.

OUR PART, as citizens, is to contact our legislators to tell them we support Reid's recent statement on medical marijuana (he has come out in favor.) Call Reid, as well, to indicate support.

But, I think the Democrats have been reading the polls and they know this is a winning issue.

Look at how the end of prohibition of alcohol came about, and its consequences. Supporting the repeal of prohibition created a re-alignment in power in the Democratic party that allowed FDR to gain office and started the Democratic party's rejection of the KKK. That was the impetus for the move from just populism to a philosophy of human rights in FDR's "Four Freedoms."

The Irish and Germans and liberal northern states gained more clout than the Dixiecrat states (tho they were catered too, as well, at that time.) Democratic primaries at the time were knife fights between the Klan and Northerners who despised those bastards, thankfully. The Klan even held a rally in D.C. 'cause they couldn't get no respect for racism. It was a BIG SCHISM.

Maybe this signals the rise of the west for the Democratic party leadership of the future - and the direction of the party as forward-looking, rather than backward. Who knows.

It's exciting to watch a political process unfold related to such an issue, tho.

[Rex]

19. So then what about the thousands of people in jail on non-violent MJ charges?

Maybe you can do something about that too. Thanks.

[woo me with science]

25. +1000000

[RainDog]

55. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not have “retroactive ameliorative relief”

We are one of 22 nations that doesn't offer relief from sentencing if a law changes.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted

In the past 25 years, 210,000 marijuana-related arrests have been made in the state of Colorado alone. Of that number, more than 50,000 took place between 2006 and 2010. So now that Colorado has officially legalized the commercial sale and consumption of marijuana, how many of those people arrested for previous weed crimes will be let out of prison? Or, if they’ve already served their time, how many will have their marijuana crimes expunged from their records, making it easier to get a job?

The answer: Zero on all counts.

“The United States is one of only 22 countries that doesn’t guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing,” says Amanda Solter, Project Director of Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law. “The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean. Even Russia provides this right.”

Though post-conviction relief varies from state-to-state in the U.S., amelioration typically needs to be explicitly specified by lawmakers for it to take effect. In a political system paralyzed by the need of candidates to appear tough on crime, this rarely happens. The Fair Sentencing Act, for instance, which passed the U.S. Congress in 2010, eases penalties for the personal possession of crack cocaine. However, even though this law was explicitly crafted to right the wrong of absurdly high sentences for crack possession in comparison with other drugs, lawmakers made no effort to ease the sentences of those already convicted.

However, I would love to see blanket amnesty for those conviction of possession charges. The bulk of arrests are for simple possession.

[truedelphi]

119. Can that situation be changed?

Of course with Big Privatized Prison and its Unions holding a lot of the cards, probably not.

[RainDog]

123. You'd have to ask a lawyer here

and.. PLEASE DO, because I'd like to think about strategies for sentencing and prison reform.

I know there are lawyers here, but I don't know which ones deal with this sort of thing.

[Rex]

139. Wow, did not know that! Thank you for the information.

I hope there can be some kind of system in place to offer them amnesty once the foolish laws on MJ are changed and it is finally legal again!

[RainDog]

141. Me too

And, even tho people are horribly frustrated that our political changes seem glacial - once the temperature hits a certain spot...

I do think that Democrats see this is an issue they can use to both do some justice and get voters to the polls.

I've learned a lot by following this issue - even tho I cannot follow it as fully as I'd like cause, you know, I also have to do things that earn money...

[Rex]

167. I hear that.

I am always optimistic about the future on this one issue and think finally we might be seeing a turning point in our insane drug laws.

[truedelphi]

149. When my editor at The Coastal Post asked I research just who it was

Sitting in California jail cells due to Marijuana use, I thought the answer would be serious drug dealers. Or even semi-serious drug dealers. I mean this was California and in 1996, we had passed HB 420, which allowed for medicinal use of marijuana.

I was shocked and surprised to find out, circa California prison system, year 2000, that many of the folks in jail were grandmothers with MS and people who never ever even did drugs, but got snitched on!

One of the saddest stories that I read was that of a young African American woman. Her grandmother, who had loved her very much, had died and left her some serious money. The young woman went out and bought a condo, and went to college, with her inheritance.

Bad news for her - a major drug lord was also a condo owner in her neighborhood. He got a crush on her, and started asking her out. She did not like him, and let him know that she was not going to date him.

SO he gets busted, but is told if he snitches, he can plead down. He tells them the young woman's name, and the local police are so cooperative they plant a brick of cocaine in her freezer. She ends up in jail, and of course, she has no one to snitch on, so she will be there til she has served her mandatory 20 years in jail, no possibility of parole.

But the drug pin went back out on the street, and is able to do almost anything he wants to do as he has that "Confidential Informant" privilege. Some of these CI's even kill people, without any consequences!

[RainDog]

155. what a horrible tragedy

That's worse than knowing the majority of arrests are for simple possession - the system itself creates victims.

What kind of sentencing laws does your state have for drug convictions? How do you know the police planted the brick? From her testimony, or were the police caught... tho I suppose not if she's in jail. I assume the police confiscated her assets, too... ugh.

I can't read all the horrible stories of tragedy that appear here on DU all the time. I have to balance some of the misery in the world with the knowledge than sometimes justice occurs, even if belated.

Has anyone taken up her case, ala Reuben Carter?

Three strikes, I know, makes it possible to serve a life in prison for simple possession of a small amt. of mj with Louisiana's laws - a Democrat tried to introduce legislation to reform such egregious injustice... but it failed. Indiana is introducing leg. this year to decrim an ounce, iirc. Indiana has some of the harshest sentencing laws and a private prison corp is a Republican donor. Repubs passed legislation to make sure those convicted serve 75% of their sentences... have to keep those heads in beds...

And in the meantime, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel is one of the richest men in the world - and he thanked Reagan, Bush, and even "El Presidente Obama" for making him so rich.

[truedelphi]

204. I totally hear you about how hard it is to internally process

all the various tragedies that are reported here and on the media and through word of mouth.

The only way anyone "knows" the young woman involved in the drug kingpin case is that no one who knew her had ever seen her so much as smoke a joint. And no one except the kingpin said she had drug involvement.

She was far too busy at her church meetings and her college to have time to secretly distribute cocaine - without anyone in her life stumbling across her doing that.

And she also didn't need any money, except what was provided to her via her grandmother's trust.

[RainDog]

211. You should bring this to the attention of musicians

We all know how people bring attention to such injustices. Beyonce or JayZ could focus attention on her situation - I mention them b/c they're so powerful and popular within the mainstream. And, as noted in this thread, the Obama administration is talking about just such situations in the justice system.

Get someone to video her in jail and post the video on YouTube.

Tell her story to others in a way that can bring national attention to the story.

Please.

Yeah. I was working on a crime story at one point and just had to walk away because the trauma of that person intersected with trauma from my own life. I still have my notes, permissions, etc. if I ever decide to go back to it. Everyone has to protect him/herself when dealing with the misery of life - that cliché about putting on your own oxygen mask before you help others when the plane is headed down...

[Nye Bevan]

21. "so today I am announcing the commutation of all federal prison sentences

for non-violent pot offenders. And I encourage every state to follow the same course".

There, finished it for him.

[polichick]

41. That's what he should have said on Day One.

[tavalon]

180. Nice

Of course that would piss of the for profit prisons but it sure would be nice.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Then he needs to call off his dogs and stop destroying lives.

[woo me with science]

24. Thank you.

[ProSense]

34. Hes's likely going to

snatch this issue from the RW libertarians.

How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech

By Laura W. Murphy

Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.

What should we make of the nation’s top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?

First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.

The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney General’s speech, including:

1. Developing guidelines to file fewer cases
   
   
2. Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them
   
   
3. Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator
   
   
4. Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry
   
   
5. Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses
   
   
6. Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; and
   
   
7. Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs
   
   
8. Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline
   
   
9. Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

[polichick]

95. So it's about snatching the issue from someone? It should be about justice.

[ProSense]

99. Well, it's going to be about both.

And the sad is already on display.

[polichick]

100. Sure is - "the sad" is a "leader" who waits to "snatch the issue" rather than...

do what's right asap.

[ProSense]

105. Evidently,

" Sure is - 'the sad" is a 'leader' who waits to 'snatch the issue' rather than do what's right asap."

...it's possible to do both.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post62

[polichick]

107. Or maybe it's ALL about the libertarians taking this up.

[ProSense]

111. So you're upset that he's snatching this issue away from "libertarians"

Now, I get it.

[SMC22307]

183. Snatching away, hmm. Why not take a strong stand from the start?

You know, show courage, political will, use the bully pulpit to highlight the human and economic costs of prohibition. LEAD.

Libertarians -- and liberals -- have been right about this issue for DECADES. That the Sensible Centrist wing of the Democratic Party is just now catching up -- in 2014 -- is truly pathetic. By just now (tepidly) speaking up, when close to 60% of the entire country supports legalization, Obama comes across as nothing but yet another opportunistic politician. Hell, even Milton fucking Freidman was ahead of Obama on the issues of drug legalization and marriage equality.

[ProSense]

185. Apparently,

You know, show courage, political will, use the bully pulpit to highlight the human and economic costs of prohibition. LEAD.

Libertarians -- and liberals -- have been right about this issue for DECADES. That the Sensible Centrist wing of the Democratic Party is just now catching up -- in 2014 -- is truly pathetic. By just now (tepidly) speaking up, when close to 60% of the entire country supports legalization, Obama comes across as nothing but yet another opportunistic politician. Hell, even Milton fucking Freidman was ahead of Obama on the issues of drug legalization and marriage equality

...you're also upset that he's snatching this issue away from libertarians. Wonder why "Milton fucking Freidman" didn't run for President from 1960 to 1980? (Changed because after 1980, he would have been in his 70s, and then he died in 2006.) Maybe you could get his zombie to run in 2016?

As for the rest, who cares? I mean, think about your point: "show courage, political will, use the bully pulpit...Obama comes across as nothing but yet another opportunistic politician."

He's just did that ("use the bully pulpit) and snatched the issue away from libertarians ("opportunistic," you say). Seems the mark of a skilled politician, huh? Call it whatever, but it's interesting that a statement that will help to move the issue forward seems to have pissed off some people.

The Think Progress piece went viral: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/19/3183431/obama-pot-dangerous/



In any case, welcome to DU, jump right in. LOL!

[SMC22307]

187. Obama is following, not leading.

Spin it however you want. Seems that many on DU aren't buying the spin. And those peddling the spin show contempt towards those not buying it. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Voters in Colorado and Washington deserve most of the credit for moving the issue forward... they're the leaders.

Just curious, do you always assign emotions ("upset," "pissed off&quot to those posting on this site? Take a wild guess... how am I feeling right now?

And now.

Now.

Latah!

[ProSense]

190. You know,

"Obama is following, not leading.

Spin it however you want. Seems that many on DU aren't buying the spin. And those peddling the spin show contempt towards those not buying it. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Voters in Colorado and Washington deserve most of the credit for moving the issue forward... they're the leaders. "

...if you're going to jump right in and designate yourself DU spokesperson, try a little consistency. You're pissed that this is an "opportunistic" move, that it could snatch the issue from libertarians, but you acknowledge that it isn't a "losing issue" and want "Campaign Barack Obama out there."

It's not a losing issue. Get Campaign Barack Obama out there...

talking about the economic and human costs of prohibition, and legalization would be a non-issue (but for the wacko 29% or so that is on the wrong side of EVERY issue). Most in my circle -- folks of ALL political stripes, ages, education levels, blue collar, white collar -- support legalization. It's not a losing issue.

Activists have done their part, and will continue to do so. It's well past time for our elected Democrats to LEAD on this issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357535#post184

It appears that a lot of DUers think it should be a campaign issue:

If Democrats want to win in 2014 ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023460773

[SMC22307]

221. You've really got some bizarre projection thing going on...

I'm no more DU's spokesperson than you, but thanks.

(How am I feeling now, by the way? Still think it's "pissed," I see. Thanks, Dr. Frist!)

It's well past time for our elected Democrats to LEAD on this issue.

And that includes Obama, who I'm told is quite masterful at persuasion. Quite frankly, if older white Southern Republicans are the *big* obstacle, what the hell are Obama and the Democratic Party waiting or? Fuck that voting bloc. Once again, libruls (and the detested libertarians) did all the leg work -- it should be *easy* for those we voted into office to follow the lead, including the risk averse Sensible Centrists.

If it gives you some sort of perverse satisfaction to believe Obama is "snatching" the issue away from libertarians, so be it. He should have "snatched" years ago, rather than let more lives be ruined over unjust pot arrests and convictions. Not doing so is politics at its worst.

Winning 2014 platform: JOBS, protect Social Security, promote economic benefits of legalized weed.

Trust me.

[ProSense]

222. What's

"You've really got some bizarre projection thing going on...I'm no more DU's spokesperson than you, but thanks. "

..."bizarre" is your attempt to speak for others, and then your denial of it.

"Seems that many on DU aren't buying the spin."

That's an obvious sign that your argument needs a crutch.

[SMC22307]

223. LOL

You're adorable, and I'm not playing "defend myself" games against your loopy accusations.

Over and out...

[ProSense]

225. LOL!

"loopy accusations" = "Seems that many on DU aren't buying the spin."

"Bizarre," huh?

You're adorable, and I'm not playing "defend myself" games...

[SMC22307]

226. Nerve = struck?

As Grumpy would say: Good.

Sure Pro, all the pushback you (and others) get is precisely because DUers are buying the spin.

Again, adorable.

[ProSense]

227. LOL!

Sure Pro, all the pushback you (and others) get is precisely because DUers are buying the spin.

Does that position come with official letterhead?

[SMC22307]

228. Niiiice projection.

Well done!

[Luminous Animal]

124. Yeah. It just a fucking power play. How pathetic.

[ProSense]

128. LOL!

"Yeah. It just a fucking power play. How pathetic."

Yeah, one that will benefits those affected. That would not be "pathetic."

Sort of like using an executive order to raise the minimum wage, which Republicans no doube believe is a "power play."

[Scootaloo]

27. I've not seen entire communities ruined by weed

So no, pot's "no more dangerous than alcohol," but that's just not a good comparison.

[Scootaloo]

154. Beg pardon?

Point is, alcohol is WAY worse than weed

[rdharma]

158. Sorry! Misread your post above! nt

[fujiyama]

33. Until he calls for rescheduling at the State of the Union or a similar venue

I remain skeptical. And while I'm glad he made this statement, this means very little. And the fact that he had people like Kevin Sabet in a policy role really makes me wonder what he's thinking.

As our country descends into a police state, where almost every aspect of life is seemingly a criminal matter, it is imperative to reign in the DEA. Only then can they set an example for the local agencies, which are even more corrupt and out of control than their federal counterparts.

We're probably past the tipping point. Between the spying and the completely unaccountable prison industrial complex, the fourth amendment has been basically discarded. It's amazing how such a vital precept of our Constitution has been chipped away without anyone actually noticing or even giving a shit. But as long as there's twitter and reality TV everyone is in a state of controlled apathy.

[MindMover]

137. You are a sage and speak eloqently about this current admin...

Talk for politicians today is cheap, actions on the other hand means more....

This president sometimes speaks loudly, but carries a little stick ...

[truedelphi]

152. A while ago, like ten years back, someone told me that one

Mexican cartel owns owns one Big Party, and the other cartel owns the other one.

At the time,I dismissed this as nonsense.

But it has really started to make sense to me.

The fact that the Obama Admin's DOJ has slammed the California medical marijuana dispensaries into the ground, and has seen to it that those who are activists in the medicinal marijuana struggle are persecuted, and those DOJ, ICE and other police state actions will only strengthen a cartel's pricing schedule, it really has me wondering...

[randome]

36. He has it exactly right. "...on the individual consumer."

And he knows that smoking is the preferred delivery system, not vaping or baking as some want to claim will be done to any great extent.

It is still a vice to be discouraged, however. It is still putting smoke into your lungs, still harming others with second-hand smoke and, after enough usage, giving the user smoker's breath and smoker's skin.

Yuck. Legalize but discourage. Pot is not a solution to anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Schema Thing]

43. It's a great solution to some types of insomnia.

Also, it can make you feel good, which is very important. I shouldn't have to tell you that, randome, you, who have lived these many years.

[randome]

145. Putting a weed in your mouth and setting it on fire is hardly the only way to feel good.

People talk like only marijuana delivers good vibes. There are plenty of good vibes in life. And plenty of ways to deal with insomnia.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Schema Thing]

146. Surely you know that the only reasonable response to what you just said is "duh"?

The particular good vibe delivered by mj is unique to mj. The particular effect mj has on insomnia is unique to mj.


Obviously there are other good vibes and other insomnia remedies. They may or may not be as effective however, depending on the individual.

[randome]

148. I'll concede that in some circumstances, marijuana will be more effective.

I'm no medical expert.

But proponents sometimes act like it's some type of 'nature's gift' that cures all. Last year there was even a thread about how marijuana increased IQ scores in high schoolers so there's the connection to children some other posts on this thread decried.

But I truly doubt that marijuana is 'necessary' for any but a very limited set of specialized medical conditions. If yours is one of them, more power to you.

I was diagnosed with sleep apnea only 7 years ago so I know something about the importance of sleep. (The back of my throat creates a wind tunnel effect.) If only marijuana could have helped me with that, I'm sure I would have a different opinion on its use. But given a choice between marijuana and something else, I'd choose something with more of a track record.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

40. Can you smell midterms coming up?

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2014, 04:24 PM - Edit history (2)

FIVE YEARS into his Presidency, and the best he can do is equate marijuana with alcohol(!) in a speech...just before midterm elections.

FIVE YEARS IN. The Obama Justice Dept. was conducting marijuana raids as recently as *November* in Colorado. They have been all over the map on this issue rhetorically, but their actions have been an embarrassment over and over and over again. There are midterm elections coming up, so of course we hear the old marijuana promises, again. And the promises won't hold. Again. You know why? Because Third Way Democrats are in bed with private prison corporations that depend on these authoritarian policies in order to meet their promises to shareholders.

FIVE YEARS IN. Watch the actions, not the words.

[ProSense]

45. No,

"FIVE YEARS into his Presidency, and the best he can do is equate marijuana with alcohol in a speech...just before midterm elections. "

...he's likely going to snatch this issue from the RW libertarians. It has been building.

U.S. Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.

“By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety,” Mr. Holder said. “We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.”

The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html

Background on progress.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.

By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing “a liberal agenda at all costs.”

This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars — big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.

Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.

But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html

Washington Gives Us Something to Get Excited About (No, Really!)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/washington-gives-us-something-get-excited-about-no-really

How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech

By Laura W. Murphy

Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.

What should we make of the nation’s top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?

First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.

The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney General’s speech, including:

1. Developing guidelines to file fewer cases
   
   
2. Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them
   
   
3. Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator
   
   
4. Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry
   
   
5. Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses
   
   
6. Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; and
   
   
7. Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs
   
   
8. Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline
   
   
9. Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

It will make some people sad.

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. The administration deserves credit for the steps it has taken on criminal justice reform.

But there's plenty more to be done.

[truedelphi]

121. In terms of medicinal marijuana, this Administration hasn't done

Jack shit, except to lie through its teeth whenever the Democratic Party needs votes. And sometimes the Administration doesn't even do that!

http://my.firedoglake.com/elisemattu/2012/09/26/santa-rosa-calif-gets-hit-by-gestapo-today-092612/

[Comrade Grumpy]

200. It has, to a considerable degree, laid off medical marijuana.

There have been raids, there have been prosecutions, but...

Thousands of dispensaries are open in California.

Hundreds are open in Washington state.

Hundreds are open in Colorado.

Oregon is about to legalize dispensaries.

Medical marijuana dispensaries in other states are open and doing business and not being harassed.

Federal prosecutors have tended to act when they thought situations were too "Wild West," i.e out of control, with diversion going on. That's what happened in Montana in 2011, that's what happened with the California raids.

Not so bad, when, after all, marijuana remains a federal crime. Not great, but not so bad.

[truedelphi]

205. ???? You have no idea. Period. n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

206. I follow this very closely. Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm waiting.

[truedelphi]

209. You "follow" the issue closely. Well goody gum drops for you.

How many days, weeks, months or years did you serve as an unpaid activist seeing to it that the signatures were gathered and brought forward through legal mechanisms to get Prop 215 on the California ballot?

How many GOTV days did you work to see to it that the Prop 215 election went down to a majority of people saying, "Let's stop arresting people for using and growing their own pot?"

How many news paper articles did you write and get published, to spread the word on the need to have medicinal marijuana? And how many lettes tot he editor do you write even occasionally on the issue?

Has your Social Securities monies been zeroed out by the Federal government as you were too big a threat to Big Federal Government, the Mexican cartels, Big Privatized Prisons and Big Pharma?

Have you been arrested and convicted of distributing medicinal marijuana to people who live in remote areas of the state of California? Are you facing ten years in jail for the offense?

Links for your further education:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph-sherer/california-medical-marijuana_b_3786648.html

http://www.canorml.org/costs/federal_medical_marijuana_prisoners_and_cases

https://mmjbusinessdaily.com/ca-courts-feds-can-shut-down-mmj-businesses/

Also it has been in the news that while 1,700 dispensaries in L.A. have been sent down "shut down" letters, and fewer than 350 dispensaries will remain open.

Over eight thousand well payuing jobs have been lost, as dispensary after dispensary closed down. Many of these jobs are in rural areas, where the people who held the jobs are now on welfare. (Many of thes e job holders use med marijuana themselves,s o they can't apss a drug test and get a job,even if a job was available.

Anyway the fact of the matter remains - Obama lied through his damn teeth. As "The Press Democrat" Article I linked to in my earlier reply proves.

[RainDog]

215. anytime a big issue is in the midst of transformation

there are going to be jumps forward and staggers backward.

And some politicians will use existing laws for their benefit to make them look tough, not another bleeding heart, blahblah.

But the trend is forward.

But that reality that we have and will experience backlash during this time is why I've said, repeatedly, this is a dangerous time for those at the forefront of the actual fact of legalization - growers, sellers, etc. etc.

I hope CA looks at CO law to see how they've avoided some of the problems of the laissez-faire approach from California - but California was at the front of the forefront, so you see all sorts of attempts to work out the way to legalize.

eta: that person, above, is on your side. maybe you can accept that and be nicer to him. just a thought.

[truedelphi]

218. As I define the issue, that person is NOT on my side.

The drug wars would end tomorrow, in terms of marijuana, if Obama would remove Holder and appoint someone who will re-schedule the marijuana plant and all its byproducts from the nation's Schedule One.

If people are side stepping that reality, they are postponing the ability to make that happen.

[RainDog]

220. okay

however, the reality is that it is happening within the democratic process, so if that's not good enough, well, whatever. I know very well how mj could be rescheduled - but maybe, just maybe, the Democratic Party doesn't want to piss off bureaucratic DC as the Democrats change the entire reason for those folks' existence. Sounds like a much more mature approach that takes into account political realities.

by this approach, however, states, other nations, public figures in medicine, and so on are providing a bulwark against any backlash from these agencies.

nevertheless, we'll all come to our own opinions about the value of this moment.

take care.

[Comrade Grumpy]

232. Go on tilting at windmills. Let me know when Obama dumps Holder to free the weed.

In the meantime, California city councils and county boards of supervisors are banning dispensaries and even gardens left and right. That ain't Obama; that's your local elected officials.

[truedelphi]

234. Five short years ago, tilting at windmills was

Called "Hope and Change." Too bad so many of us who believed got played.

As far as your statement about "In the meantime" The Proposition 215 is very short, simple and clear. It does not give anyone but the individual power. And the power it offers is to grow medicinal pot for oneself if it is needed.

Unfortunately the lawyer who represented our interests in the Riverside case,** made a very weak argument. Some of us are working to see that such weakness won't occur again. It might come down to Natural Law, but one thing is definite: the weak arguments and the lawyer(s) who present them must be pushed aside, as they sure don't win CAlif. Supreme Court Cases for the people.

Referendum time is here, and those same city councils and BOS's are gonna be (if they aren't paying attention) blind sided. I am part of a County wide movement that has gotten the right to have a referendum on the June ballot to counter the probably illegal restrictions our county supervisors recently constructed.

** Case referred to is City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients’ Health and Wellness Center, Inc. - See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/05/06/california-supreme-court-upholds-authority-of-cities-to-prohibit-medical-marijuana-facilities/#sthash.AhLb8LTU.dpuf

[Comrade Grumpy]

217. You don't have the slightest clue about what I have or have not done.

So take your snark and put it in the appropriate place.

The Obama administration has been uneven in its enforcement of federal marijuana laws in medical marijuana states. Some of its most egregious actions have been in Mendocino County, like taking down Northstone Organics and blowing up the county's medical marijuana licensing scheme.

There are also people dealing in weed under the cover of the state's medical marijuana law. The feds have gone after quite a few of them. I think pot ought to be legal, but the people who use medical marijuana to cover shipping loads to red states take their chances.

As far as the LA dispensary situation, that wasn't Obama who shut them down now, was it? It was LA voters and the city council.

In fact, while you're busy railing about how "Obama lied," the biggest threat to dispensaries in California these days is not the feds at all; it's local city councils and county boards of supervisors. They're busy banning dispensaries and even grows all over the state.

[liberal_at_heart]

70. This is what worries me. They are going to promise to do lots of things. The question is

can we trust what they say right before an election. If they want to impress me they need to take action. They need to reschedule marijuana. They need to allocate money towards research. I want ACTION not words. Words will not be enough to get my vote.

[polichick]

114. Exactly. We've heard similar things. Campaign mode.

[ProSense]

188. It appears

"Exactly. We've heard similar things. Campaign mode."

...that people don't mind these becoming campaign issues.

If Democrats want to win in 2014 ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023460773

[polichick]

189. People want action, not just talk. "Campaign mode" suggests talk.

[ProSense]

191. This, "If Democrats want to win in 2014 ... ," suggests "campaign mode"

That's the reality, and everything starts with "talk."

[polichick]

192. Often ends with talk too. Campaign talk is best taken with a...

giant grain of salt.

[ProSense]

193. Still: "If Democrats want to win in 2014 ..."

talk shouldn't be "taken with a giant grain of salt."

That is what the statement implies..."if Democrats want to win in 2014."

So why complain that this is "campaign talk" now that it appears Democrats got the message?

[polichick]

194. So far we know that Democrats got the message to start bullshitting.

[ProSense]

196. Hey,

"So far we know that Democrats got the message to start bullshitting."

...it's "campaign talk," and you even admitted that Dems need to do this in order to win in 2014.

There is at least one tangible action, not "bullshitting."

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

[polichick]

197. Yes, this is good imo.

[CFLDem]

42. This is pretty big because it legitimizes the issue at the highest level of our nation.

And gaining legitimacy is the hardest part of any movement. I predict recreational weed will be mostly legal or decriminalized in all but the old south by 2020.

[liberal_at_heart]

56. it would be more helpful if he would say it is time to reschedule marijuana so

researchers can have better resources for research and so doctors can recommend it for glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, and other illnesses. Saying it is no worse than alcohol but a nasty habit is not helpful.

[woo me with science]

64. Well said. It's a matter of words versus concrete actions.

We always hear lots of pretty liberal words during election years and midterms.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. There are few topics on which his views don't evolve, are there?

Nothing about the world has fundamentally changed since 2008 except public opinion polls.

[polichick]

110. That's coincidental, of course.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

132. Good. A competent politician doesn't pick fights that they will lose.

Being righteous in the face of public sentiment is something for activists. A politician's job is to manage the state through consensus and compromise. A democratic government cannot be better than it's citizens.

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. I would be dissatisfied with "competent politician" as an epitaph. n/t

[Schema Thing]

147. Fortunately for all of us, Obama is in no danger of having that as his epitaph.

[RainDog]

166. Agreed. Citizen Activists lead the way in democracies

and they do themselves no favors to snipe at those who don't yet see the world or a particular issue as they do. It's cause to celebrate when we see positive action on any issue we support.

But look at how the conversation has changed



Here's the most recent survey that found support for legalization has increased since CO enacted their law- http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/01/06/cnn.orc.poll.marijuana.pdf

Fifty-five percent of those questioned nationally said marijuana should be made legal, with 44% disagreeing.

The CNN/ORC findings are similar to a Gallup poll conducted in October.

According to the CNN poll and numbers from General Social Survey polling, support for legalizing marijuana has steadily soared over the past quarter century - from 16% in 1987 to 26% in 1996, 34% in 2002, and 43% two years ago.

..."There are big differences on age, region, party ID, and gender, with senior citizens, Republicans, and Southerners the only major demographic groups who still oppose the legal use of pot," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

[arely staircase]

203. look how the 80s ran contrary to the overall trend

no surprise there

[RainDog]

212. that graphic

reflects the policy of a dick head.

-

(that's supposed to be a visual joke, juries...don't haze me, bro...)

[SMC22307]

184. It's not a losing issue. Get Campaign Barack Obama out there...

talking about the economic and human costs of prohibition, and legalization would be a non-issue (but for the wacko 29% or so that is on the wrong side of EVERY issue). Most in my circle -- folks of ALL political stripes, ages, education levels, blue collar, white collar -- support legalization. It's not a losing issue.

Activists have done their part, and will continue to do so. It's well past time for our elected Democrats to LEAD on this issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

210. I didn't expect any different from "We are the change we've been waiting for"

Never expected Obama would do anything that was unpopular, but I was at least hoping he'd take swift action when the polls showed a majority supported something. Unfortunately he takes painfully slow action months if not years after the polls show a majority supports something.

[RainDog]

230. If you want to get really cynical

GW Pharmaceutical (a British co.) and Bayer, the U.S. outlet for its marijuana medicine, Sativex, has petitioned the DEA to permit the use of Sativex for MS in the U.S. That started a few years ago, iirc.

Sativex™ is a marijuana plant, not a synthetic, medicine. GW grows its own marijuana in a hidden, indoor location (indica, sativa -also recreational varieties- and ruderalis, with little to no THC), grinds up the plants after curing, suspends them in a liquid, and delivers the medicine via a mouth spray.

Since 2010, marijuana as medicine has been legal in the UK via Sativex. It's also legal in Canada, Israel, Spain, Germany, and other western European nations - more are coming. Sativex can be patented because of the processing and delivery method of what is simply marijuana. As noted, since Uruguay legalized marijuana, Canada and Israel have made a trade agreement with that nation to grow marijuana for its medical market.

Sativex is essentially the same thing as "Rick Simpson oil" (the guy comes across as nutty, but an American biotech co. is trying to get trials approved to study the use of cannabis oil for treatment of melanomas).

Former big wigs from the Drug Czar's office in the Bush administration, such as Andrea Barthwell, former Deputy Drug Czar, have worked as lobbyists for GW/Bayer to place Sativex™ on the drug schedule along with the synthetic THC drug marinol, i.e. a substance with medical benefit.

Currently, marijuana is scheduled as a substance with no medical benefit.

Barthwell pretends Sativex isn't simply marijuana, but chemists would challenge that claim. Here's what she said when she was the mouthpiece for drug warriors: Cannabis medicines aren’t compatible with modern science. They do not constitute “a serious line of research.”

If the DEA approves Sativex™ - they are stating that marijuana has medical benefit and, thus, should not be a schedule I substance.

iow, maybe corporate profit has something to do with fast tracking enlightenment in DC.

and maybe seeing the way in which Colorado can collect taxes on a previously underground market has made the scales fall from some eyes...

[NealK]

231. +1 n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

130. face/palm

obviously more education is needed.

[SamKnause]

138. Cannabis

Cannabis is not a product for children. (unless prescribed by a licensed physician for medicinal reasons)

Recreational cannabis has NOTHING to do with children !!!!

When you bring children into the conversation, you have lost that conversation.

No one is promoting the use of cannabis by children !!!!!

Does this country outlaw everything that is hazardous to children ? NO !!!!!

I am sick of the nonsense and stupidity that runs rampant in this country.

[RainDog]

164. He is saying it because it has to be said

Last edited Mon Jan 20, 2014, 02:45 AM - Edit history (2)

for mothers. This group is the one group, under the age of retirement, that is most likely to oppose legalization. The reason, of course, is the idea that they're protecting their children.

The reality, tho, is that it's easier to get pot than alcohol for teenagers.

So, I saw this as a response as a parent, and a president - surely we can all see that the nation's leader cannot ignore concerns of important constituencies, right?

[center]-------------------------------[/center]

November 2012 - CO and WA become the first states to fully legalize marijuana.

Polis and Blumenauer introduce federal legislation to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol and it gets ignored by the House, even with 16 co-sponsors. Later, Leahy calls on Congress to address the issue.

July 2013 - Uruguay becomes the first nation to fully legalize marijuana, despite the U.S-led UN single convention that prohibits this. They cite the example of CO and WA.

In August 2013, DC finally funded/implemented the mmj law that voters had passed more than a decade before (the federal Congress implements the law for DC) and opened the first mmj dispensary there. A lawyer posed a question about this issue. If Congress funded the DC medical marijuana law as a federal entity, then is it unequal application of the law (or a constitutional violation) to make mmj illegal in any state, at least at the federal level? I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to know the answer.

Also in August 2013, Sanjay Gupta, on CNN, publicly disputed the claim of the DEA, FDA, NIDA, and so on that marijuana does not have medicinal value. He presented that staggering story of the child with Dravet syndrome - a form of epilepsy. People saw for themselves that the claims that have been made for things like MS, CP, epilepsy, and so on were not just pie-in-the-sky claims. What mother would not move heaven and earth to provide relief from a life-threatening disorder.

The DEA has to look the American people in the eye and tell them their budget is more important than children whose lives could be changed for the better.

In Oct. 2013, the FDA approved the first clinical trial for marijuana as treatment for Dravet syndrome. That was fast tracked, if you know the history that NO studies that showed any positive value for cannabis were ever likely to get funded. Even PTSD treatment studies for Vets couldn't get funded as of last year.

Winter 2013 - Documents are leaked from the UN committee forming drug policy for the next 10 years. Quite a few nations are no longer willing to participate in a failed "war on drugs" that is making criminals rich and law-abiding citizens at risk. That was a RARE moment to see the consensus was not there for a UN statement. Argentina announced it will reconsider its marijuana laws, after Uruguay's legalization vote.

Israel and Canada announce they will negotiate with Uruguay to grow cannabis for medicine in their nations.

Jan. 2014 - CO opens the first recreational cannabis shops. No hell breaks loose.

- At least 6 state legislatures introduce various marijuana reform bills in the houses in their states.

- Harry Reid indicates support for medical marijuana.

The ground has shifted.

Everybody has to get their balance - and I think this is what Obama is doing...assuaging the fears of some constituents. I'm not gonna complain when good stuff starts happening that it wasn't soon enough.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. People are complaining, but for a sitting POTUS to say this, is huge.

Prohibition's days are numbered, i think.

[RainDog]

165. it'll be sort of like this...

[Liberal Veteran]

168. At least we won't have to modify the constitution this time.

Of course, now that the prez has said this, we can expect the usual blowhards (or buzz kills) to tell us how mj turns people into murdering zombie welfare cases who eat babies. As for the folks in this thread explaining why this is just Obama playing "catch the polls", well, it is just, like, their opinion.

[RainDog]

201. ...

[tritsofme]

156. The most sensible statement ever made by a sitting president on the subject.

[TheSarcastinator]

163. Exactly, and historically important

for just that reason.

[tavalon]

181. Yep, way better than "I didn't inhale"

[Nye Bevan]

186. "I didn't like it and I didn't inhale".

So how did he know he didn't like it?

[morningfog]

195. He ate it and didn't like it.

Not that complicated.

[frwrfpos]

159. pot should be legal

and alcohol and most other drugs should be legal as well.Meth and bath salts crap are the only two that should be illegal imo

[Warren DeMontague]

162. And with that, the moon turned black as sackcloth, rivers ran red with blood, & the sky fell ..twice

[Liberal Veteran]

169. Damn. That must have been some good weed!

[Isoldeblue]

198. I am literally

LOLMBBO!

Even though I'm feeling like crap today, your comment got a huge laugh out of me. Thank you, Liberal Veteran.

[B Calm]

170. Oh come on, we the people say legalize it right fucking now!

[NCTraveler]

176. I love how...

I love how it is seen as leading when he simply states something that is known and has been gaining momentum without him for the last couple of years.

And it is a part of negotiations and he doesn't really mean it when he talks about "fixing" ss.

Politics truly is a display of mental gymnastics.

Either way, I would rather he said this than not have said it.

[ryan_cats]

182. It is far less dangerous than alcohol

Pot is far less dangerous than alcohol. Alcohol destroys life, lives and families. I don't know anyone whose life was destroyed by pot unless they were arrested for it.
I still can't believe it is legal in Washington and Colorado but in California, legalization failed. I wonder if it is California's less than an oz is a ticket law or whether medical mj is what stopped legalization. There was an episode of Cops! in Sacramento where they were chasing a hit and run driver and they went into someone's yard and there were several plants and the cops laughed that it was legal. We are almost there but not quite.

[musical_soul]

207. Good for him.

[tazkcmo]

213. Could be talking about Twinkies

"... I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy,” he said."

[Jamastiene]

224. That's MY President.

I voted for him twice. There have been some things I haven't agreed with, but on this, I agree.

FauxNoize is now claiming he is going to force people to buy pot and that he wants to legalize it nationwide. Usually, they are wrong. In this case, I hope they are right about legalizing it nationwide.

Pot should be legal for anyone over 21 years of age, nationwide, imo.

I'm glad he spoke up. He now has my full undivided attention. OMERGAWD, I wish it was legal nationwide. All those fingerpicking lessons on guitar would come in handy for the inevitable revival of "hippie music." I love that stuff.