I like the new policy. It’s a baby step in the right direction (but at least it’s some progress). Really, what good came out of federal agents shutting down dispensaries when another one would pop up and when local law enforcement did not do anything about it since it was legal on a state level? It was a gigantic waste of time and money and effort.
But I think this potentially leads to a bigger idea. Since the feds aren’t going to interfere, California basically has legal pot. It’s been pointed out that anyone who wants to smoke pot (legally) in California just has to go to a doctor and get a prescription, which has been said to be ridiculously easy. So here we have a state that essentially has legal marijuana and, surprise(!), it’s not self-destructing like all the anti-marijuana advocates say it would. Where are the all the apocalyptic scenarios painted out by the DEA in the event that an illegal narcotic like weed would be legalized? Where is the chaos?!
Oh that’s right. All the stoners are tucked away in their dwellings eating Cheetos. But I guess that scenario isn’t scary enough to get conservatives worked up…
In my view, that’s inappropriate. He’s not allowed to write new law, or erase laws Congress writes, merely because of his differing belief as to what the best policy is.
What’s the mystery? I think anybody who buys a drug recreationally or for prescription reasons would be at a serious risk of getting screwed under the version of “freedom” you laid out.
If a President can simply ignore the law, the what is the point of the Congressional veto override power? Say Congress passes a law against eating ice cream, the President vetos it, and then Congress overrides his veto. Congress wins, right? Not so fast, says the President. He directs the Justice Department not to enforce laws against ice cream.
BTW, isn’t the President required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”?
Well that’s what is mysterious to me. I don’t understand how marijuana should be held to a different standard than tobacco, alcohol, or even lettuce.
I really don’t understand what you are getting at, my first instinct is to assume that you are working with some charicature of drug users as stupid burnouts who can’t read waring labels, but I don’t want to assume, so i am asking.
And tax the bejeebers out of it too, just like with alcohol and tobacco. They’re all body-damaging, mental-function-impairing, and dangerous and therefore costly to others as well as to the users (though much less so in marijuana’s case), so why treat them differently?
That’s pretty much what “prosecutorial discretion” amounts to, isn’t it? Should that be banned?
Let’s be a little more direct: when Bush issued signing statements saying he didn’t feel bound to carry out certain laws, there was quite a chorus here (myself included) saying that the Constitution requires the President to follow the law.
Now that a lot of people like the result of this decision by the Obama Administration, the concerns about the Constitution aren’t nearly as great. So it sounds like the outrage depends on whose ox is being gored.
I’m going to reset this and agree with you: it shouldn’t be regulated more than other products. Of course a lot of those products should probably be regulated more than they are now.
I don’t know where you got that from my post. It had nothing to do with anyone being stupid, it was about the difficulty of getting accurate information on drugs from the companies that advertise them.
Marley23 That’s why I asked you to clarify because I wanted to give you more credit than my initial assumption as I was genuinely baffled by your statement. Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense.
Personally I think that Information age disclosure standards should be different from pre-information age standards as it’s much easier to get access to information. If a company is cagey with it’s info, like that Coca-Cola has a dispensation to use parts of the Coca plant even today, as its secret ingredient, then that can be used by consumer advocacy groups as a black mark against that company.
So, you’re accusing doctors of malpractice in writing prescriptions for unnecessary treatments? No doubt some do, and for Vicodin also, but I doubt I’d get a very positive response if I went to my doctor for marijuana.
Are you aware that state law requires dispensaries to be nonprofit? The proposition passed because the majority of Californians were convinced for whom marijuana restored appetite lost by chemotherapy. From the Times article it sounded like some of the places in LA were out of control, but this article also showed a place in Oakland where no one is allowed in without a prescription, and where the incoming plants are analyzed so that a standard dosage can be given. The owner, btw, backed a new law in Oakland taxing dispensaries.
I’m all for legalization and taxation, but until that happens it is nice for those who need it to get a drug much less harmful than lots sold legally through prescriptions.
Given the various right- and left-wing astroturfing efforts and the number of groups with hidden agendas, do you think that turning over the FDA’s responsibilities to market forces is a way to secure the dissemination of reliable information?
We should not prohibit things and instead rely on access to information to inform on the policy of public safety. Regulation should be more in the vein of making sure that honest disclosure is being maintained rather than just deeming something too dangerous for public consumption. In my opinion, Marijuana, LSD and Cocaine while dangerous are not too dangerous for public consumption. In fact I think a strong case can be made that by reducing the access to information and the access of scientists to do responsible studies on these subjects we have indeed increased the magnitude of danger posed by these chemicals.
Yes, the vagaries of market forces are troubling, but as you point out prohibition does not mitigate these concerns. A cottage industry of chemists can test popular products to see if they do indeed have the chemical composition that people are claiming they do. Shows like Mythbusters do this, why can there not be a consumer advocacy program of a similar persuasion?
Prohibition does not significantly reduce access to these chemicals, and I do not see how legitimate corporate involvement with these drugs makes it any more likely that they’ll be cut with nastiness in the future than today.
Believe it or not, not all drug dealers are the same. Some drug dealers learn how to test their drugs for purity, and one can buy purity testing kits on the market. Those dealers also have a better handle on the line of possession regarding who they buy from. Hallucinogen dealers IME are a lot more principled than dealers of other chemicals.
But that being said, I don’t think that complete elimination of risk is either a desirable or a realistic goal of government.
How would they actually go about doing this? If the current law says that the federal government has to bust these marijuana sellers, what are they going to do? Pass another law that says the same thing, but also “but this time you can’t ignore it!”? If the President has free reign in determing which laws are enforced, how does Congress override him?
I’m not sure where I stand on this issue. On one hand, the federal laws against intrastate marijuana use are clearly unconstitutional and hence invalid. On the other hand, the majority of federal law is unconstititonal and I find it silly that people only invoke constitutional arguments on a few pet issues.
So obviously it’s a good thing that, in itself, the federal government is not going to be enforcing an unconstitutional law. On the other hand, if we freely allow the president to pick and choose the laws we enforce, that’s way too much more given to the executive.
It’s a shame that repealing laws is such a rarity in our system. We just keep building laws on top of laws, and ultimately we end up with less freedom and more government intrusion.
Triage. He is picking his battles. He’s letting California decide for itself thus saving Federal law enforcement a lot of money.
SenorBeef The executive branch has always worked this way via enforcement. They can selectively enforce a lot of things. All things are selectively enforced. Do you think the FBI follows EVERY lead they ever get? No, a choice is always made.
Yes I am. Your doctor might refuse but I’m pretty certain if you shopped around a little and complained of migraines or anxiety you could find one who would prescribe it for you without too much difficulty even if you didn’t actually suffer from either of those. I understand they even go so far as to advertise in the paper making it that much easier.
As far as it’s medical benefits - like I said, maybe it has some (I’m not a doctor or in any other way qualified to say one way or the other). Until there are clinical trials I feel the same way about it as I do about any other miracle herbal cure. But do you really, truly think the debate is about the medical qualities anyway?
For what it’s worth, I do support legalization. I just don’t like the half-assed way they are trying to do it via ‘medical’ marijuana. Just be honest and try and legalize it period instead of trying to sneak it by as a medical drug.
Yep. I know at least three people who have had prescriptions and only one of them was close to legitimate medically. There are a few doctors here in the Santa Barbara area who are either activists or who are making a tidy sum giving out 'scripts at $250 a pop. Just tell them that you have horrible menstrual cramps (this only works for half of the population) or migraines or appetite problems or anxiety that can only be cured by smoking a fattie.
The shops around here will only let you in the back room if you have a card. If you need a card they will supply you with a list of friendly medical doctors. From what I have been told, most shops have several varieties of pot and hash as well as THC infused baked goods. They are pretty subtle in this town and you wouldn’t know what you were passing if you walked by. Sometimes the skunky smell gives it away though. Shops in some areas like San Francisco are a whole 'nother deal. They have big neon marijuana leaves in the window.
