Obama's New Marijuana Policy

[Voyager]

@badlyburnttoast

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.

If every marijuana user could get a prescription to make it legal, I’d expect a lot more dispensaries to be set up. I live in the Bay Area, that Puritan stronghold, and I’m not aware of one on every corner. Plus, I don’t think most of the cops around here give a very high priority to pot busts. Gangs with big farms and armed guards, yes, but not the average user. Getting rid of these dangerous farms is yet another advantage of legalization, as if we needed more.

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?

Actually, yes. From what I’ve seen, the science is pretty clear, since marijuana relieves pain, is fairly cheap, and has few side effects. The real question is whether there would be any opposition to this at all if there weren’t a group of people who think “Reefer Madness” is a documentary.

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.

There has been some movement in this direction here, but that is mostly because of the possible opportunity for getting some taxes from it. Maybe Obama’s decision will be a sign that it might be possible to go to full legalization here.

[Voyager]

@SenorBeef

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?

Given that there is no issue about enforcing laws against non-medical marijuana, this would have to be called “The Let Cancer Patients Suffer in Pain” Act. A few cancer patients testifying should help kill it. In any case, just about anyone my age or younger (which is a lot of people!) knows that there are worse things out there.This is something not constrained by politics, as PJ testifies.

[Voyager]

@marshmallow

Why is Obama doing this? Politically, I mean. It seems like taking on risk for little gain.

Maybe, just maybe, because he knows that using federal resources to hurt sick people is stupid?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@SenorBeef

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?..

Congress still holds the power of the purse. I could see (although I don’t think they would, and if they did the President would surely veto it) Congress passing a bill saying something to the effect of:

*The enforcement of Federal drug law concerning marijuana shall be a top priority of the Justice Department. The President, the Attorney General and their subordinates may not defer to state law as it concerns marijuana or the medical prescription thereof. The Attorney General shall report annually to Congress as to the number of prosecutions for so-called “medical marijuana” use or prescription, comparing it to the number of such prosecutions over the previous ten years. The Justice Department budget shall be cut by $1 million for each prosecution fewer than the average of the preceding ten years. *

Within certain bounds, Congress can change the jurisdiction of the Federal courts as it sees fit. It could certainly - even though it would be foolish micromanaging and arguably unconstitutional - impose requirements upon the Justice Department.

[Honesty]

@badlyburnttoast

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.

Start here.

• Honesty

[erleichda]

Thanks for the link, Honesty. Interesting info.

[gonzomax]

Prohibition does not work. People still get their drugs. The act of drug suppression winds up with the enforcement and the judicial departments being corrupted. Politicians get bought off. Governments get bought off and narco kings get rich and dangerous. What we are doing just does not work. Send your kid out with 20 bucks and ask him if he could score drugs. You might not like the answer.

[MichaelQReilly]

@Ravenman

Actually, yes, I have a problem with it. I think it is wrong for the executive to make a blanket decision not to enforce certain laws passed by Congress.

It is completely understandable that there is not sufficient time and resources for the Federal government to pursue every violation of law. But for the Executive Branch to decide as a policy that it isn’t going to enforce certain laws – whether it be on medical marijuana, or regulation of the financial industry, or the Clean Air Act to certain industries – is a serious constitutional matter. It amounts to an executive veto on laws passed by Congress long after the period that the Constitution allows a proposed law to be opposed by the Executive.

If the Obama Administration wishes to pursue this policy, Congress should pass a law to that effect.

You may be right, but you can’t get rid of the concept of prosecutorial discretion without drastically overhauling our entire criminal justice system. It’s probably a bridge too far.