cannabisnews.com: Under Obama, Drug War Tactics Poised To Shift





Under Obama, Drug War Tactics Poised To Shift
Posted by CN Staff on February 27, 2009 at 09:19:11 PT
By Alex Kingsbury
Source: U.S. News & World Report 
USA -- President Obama couldn't have been clearer about his take on the so-called war on drugs. In 2004, he called decades of get-tough law enforcement "an utter failure." So it doesn't come as much of a surprise that the new attorney general, Eric Holder, hinted this month that the new administration will take a radically new approach to one drug issue in particular—medical marijuana. "What President Obama said during the campaign is now American policy," Holder told a news conference this week.
Despite Obama's well-known views, federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided a few pot dispensaries in California two days after his inauguration, despite a state law permitting limited use and sale of medical marijuana. The raid came before Holder's confirmation, and it seems that no one in the new administration told the DEA to stop raiding some of the state's storefront dispensaries. The DEA has hit a few dozen every year since they began appearing in 2003.This time, the agency was continuing on autopilot under Michele Leonhart, a holdover from the Bush years who remains in charge of DEA until a successor is picked. The White House moved quickly to quiet the nervous uproar from the outraged left. "Federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws," says Nick Shapiro, an Obama spokesman. Holder's latest remarks appear to signal that the raids will end.The approach to states' rights in this case, however, is a notable departure from the one used to desegregate schools, close military bases, prosecute civil rights abuses, and link a drinking age to federal highway funds. "Frankly, it's extremely rare for the federal government to allow the states to say that something is legal when the federal law says the opposite," says Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University.Not enforcing federal law in this instance is perhaps just a more politically palatable way of acknowledging how the political landscape of marijuana has changed in the past few years, says Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, which pushes for more lenient drug laws.Legal experts say whether Obama continues the DEA raids against the dispensaries—which now seems highly unlikely—is beside the point. A dozen states now have laws similar to California's, although often less permissive, and surveys show that the public generally supports some limited relaxation of drug laws for medical marijuana. States with swollen, costly prison populations are rethinking their sentencing policies for all kinds of nonviolent drug offenders. The New York State Legislature is considering revamping the most famous of these codes, the Rockefeller laws, which would be the first such move by the state in a generation.Meanwhile, advocates of revamping the nation's drug laws encourage Obama to take a page from Franklin Roosevelt, who spent his first few days in office fixing the crippled banking industry before overturning Prohibition. They wave economic studies, arguing that ending marijuana prohibition would create billions in tax revenue and allow cops to focus on more serious offenses. Repealing the 18th Amendment sent millions of dollars into government coffers by 1934 when breweries turned on the taps. "We're not there yet, but ending these punitive DEA raids is a very encouraging step," says Piper.But with a vice president who helped create the position of White House drug czar, Obama seems unlikely to take radical steps. Throughout the campaign, he stated clearly that he was not in favor of legalizing marijuana. Yet incremental moves can be powerful.And while the new DEA head hasn't been chosen, Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's police chief, will reportedly be Obama's drug czar. If his record is any indication, the war on drugs may be due for a change in tactics. Since he took over in Seattle in 2000, misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests there have fallen by half.Note: Administration officials are hinting that the DEA's raids on medical marijuana sellers will likely end.Source: U.S. News & World Report (US)Author: Alex KingsburyPublished: February 27, 2009Copyright: 2009 U.S. News & World ReportWebsite: http://www.usnews.com/Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/gfkqitBTURL: http://drugsense.org/url/9BOkixYHRelated Articles: U.S. AG Says Medical Marijuana Raids To Endhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24525.shtmlA New Look at The Drug Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24502.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #35 posted by rchandar on March 05, 2009 at 07:59:28 PT:
Obama
It would be good if the number of arrests would go down some. That's how I see a toning down of the Drug War.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by FoM on February 28, 2009 at 15:19:26 PT
Sam
I guess I don't really understand since people that wouldn't pay in and became disabled could wind up on the streets. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Sam Adams on February 28, 2009 at 12:37:45 PT
FOM - new deal
FOM - I actually am strongly in favor of single-payer national health care, which could include what is now SSDI disability. But I think the disability insurance should be an optional payment and tax.It's the retirement tax that makes up the vast bulk of social security that I can't stand.  If it was up to me I'd expand Medicare to cover all ages and I'd kill the retirement portion of Social Security - or just make it voluntary.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on February 28, 2009 at 08:45:14 PT
Hope
The devil was in the details as I remember.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:36:35 PT
Comment 28
Yes, the small details can make or break what appears to be, overall, a good idea.I remember that being the case in one of decrim or legalization efforts in Nevada a few years ago. While the proposed law was an improvement on the status quo, it had some unreasonably harsh details in it that would have made it hard for me to vote for it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:32:13 PT
National Prohibitions
That interesting. It'll take more research to discover the whys and wherefores, but it's obvious that States Rights have been steadily usurped by the Federal government, trying to form one big state, instead of many allied, but separate entities, as originally intended.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:24:38 PT
"the verge of a national prohibition"
Senate Investigated Mob Influence in Casinos. During the 1950s, the Senate Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce held a number of hearings on criminal influence in the casino industry. The committee was chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver, and the committee is also known by his name. The committee found widespread evidence of skimming, which sheltered gambling profits from taxes. The prevalence of crime left gaming once again on the verge of a national prohibition.25 The result of the committee's findings was a crackdown on criminal influence and a cleansing of the casino industry. Eventually, the mob sold their casino interests to lawful individuals and publicly-traded companies. http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/Chapt2.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on February 28, 2009 at 08:19:17 PT
Hope
That is interesting. Gambling is legal under Federal Law and the states can decide. We voted down a gambling bill again in our state this past November. If they would have built a casino in the middle of the state in some barren farm land and developed that area it would have been fine but the way it was set up it would not have helped my state. That's my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:11:03 PT
Wikipedia
Under US federal law, gambling is legal in the United States, and states are free to regulate or prohibit the practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:06:55 PT
Interstate Commerce Clause
Interesting that the Federales didn't bring that handy, dandy little clause into action.Lots of "sinful" gambling money coming and going across state lines there, looks to me like like. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 08:04:07 PT
The State Legislature did it in 1931.
Found this: In 1931 the Nevada Legislature approved a bill legalizing gambling. This bill was said to be designed to raise the needed taxes for public schools, and today more than 43% of the state fund is fed by the gambling tax revenue, and over 34% of that state fund is given to public education.http://www.helium.com/items/1257889-las-vegas-gambling-history-of-gambling-el-rancho-vegas-hotel-sin-city
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Hope on February 28, 2009 at 07:47:05 PT
Nevada
Where else is prostitution legalized besides Nevada, too?Everything I'm seeing, so far, says "States Rights" and "Laboratory" and such. It's strange. I found this interesting tidbit over at Wikipedia: About 86% of the state's land is owned by the U.S federal government under various jurisdictions both civilian and military.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on February 28, 2009 at 07:19:20 PT
Dankhank
How could they do that you asked. This is what I think. Watching The Godfather years ago puts a little light on the subject. The mafia just morphed into what it is today if that makes sense. There were 3 vices that were called victimless crimes. Two of them they can make money on but marijuana isn't that easy. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by John Tyler on February 28, 2009 at 07:14:58 PT
mykeyb420
You have my condolences on the loss of your cat. Animal companions are very special to our lives and their passing is to be grieved. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on February 28, 2009 at 06:13:32 PT
Dankhank
Does this link help with your question?http://www.helium.com/items/1263850-the-history-of-gambling-in-las-vegas-nevada
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Dankhank on February 27, 2009 at 22:37:20 PT
Maher
Gavin Newsome SF mayor pj o'rourke 
got pot talk ... pj kinda silly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by dankhank on February 27, 2009 at 21:30:28 PT
itsonlyaplant
Yes, the hypocrisy is quite evident when comparing real injures caused by various activities,specifically I want to know why Nevada was allowed to run gambling, from the 30's on, while that activity was not allowed in the rest of the country for many decades.How was it that Nevada could do that?Why did the Feds not bust every card house like they bust med cannabis patients. Why did Nevada get special treatment, why did Nevada get to be that "State laboratory." that exists in much political thought. and why did CA NOT get to be the "state laboratory" for Cannabis?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by itsonlyaplant on February 27, 2009 at 19:41:08 PT
I agree with Dankhank
I too have often pondered that one Dank, when I moved to the west coast from the deep south in the early '90s they had lotto and scratchers. BUT the "numbers" game was still illegal in my home state. NOW almost 20 years later MOST state governments RUN the numbers rackets. This to me seems VERY odd that even in good upstanding morally conscious states legalized gambling, including the numbers (now run by the government) make billions off of these vices that were created by man, HOWEVER, the so-called vice that was created from the void (our beloved cannabis) is such a taboo and morally bankrupt subject these good people are willing to pay out of the nose to support the criminalization of this God given miracle. Now, I'm not one to criticize someone for their views, and I don't like it when they criticize me for mine, but I see just a LITTLE bit of hypocricy in these good folks mind set regarding something they profess they believe so deeply in (god and creationism, remeber this oldie but goodie;) " And the earth began to put forth grass, vegitation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:12. This was the THIRD day god created ALL vegitation for MAN to consume and use. Hmmmm sounds to me a little like they need to read their book. Another passage also seems to address this..."But you men are those leaving Jehova, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of good luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of destiny." Isaiah 65:11. Or this one, "And I will DISTAIN you men to the sword, and you will all of you, bow downto being slaughtered; for the reason I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not listen; you EKPT doing what was BAD IN MY EYES, and the thing in which I took no delight you chose." Isaiah 65:12. Good luck huh, isn't that what they say every time you cash in for chips, or cash out your slot tickets....? Htese are only a couple of examples of peolpes lopsided views on whats morally acceptable. Just observation, again I don't condemn ANYONE for their views, as long as they don't condemn me for mine. Enjoy your books and enjoy the gifts God gave to you ALL of them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on February 27, 2009 at 18:17:39 PT
Mykeyb420
Sorry to hear about George the cat.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 17:28:25 PT
mykeyb420 
I'm sorry for your loss. Pets are like family. Thank you for sharing the pictures. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by mykeyb420 on February 27, 2009 at 16:59:03 PT
Off topic
Sad news:
 George the cat, beloved cat of the cannabis club " Compassion and Care Center # 2 in SF, passed away from a lung infection and old age today. 
 He was named after Curious George, the monkey and he was the greeter at the club. 
 
George's Catster.com page
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 12:25:57 PT
Sam
Can I ask if you would refuse to accept disability payments if you become totally disabled? If you become unisured and get a terminal illness how would you handle that situation? Cancer treatment is very expensive.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sam Adams on February 27, 2009 at 12:19:49 PT
FDR
the big guy did end prohibition, I'll give him points for that, but I will agree to strongly disagree about everything else he did. We are only now seeing the end result of the "New Deal". I say let's wait another 3 years from right now and talk again about Big Government, New Deal "grand society".Personally, I"m not happy about giving 15% of my pay to the federal government to hold for me for 40 years because I'm too dumb to save and invest it myself. That's right, I"m talking about Social Security.Don't forget, "drug" prohibition itself and taking away the right of patients to self-medicate were both hallmarks of the "New Deal"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by paul armentano on February 27, 2009 at 12:11:14 PT
just a question
Pharmaceutical companies do patent their delivery devices. Even GW has patented the device used to spray Sativex.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 11:56:02 PT
JoeCitizen
I agree. I don't even want to think where society would be if FDR hadn't done what he did back then. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by JoeCitizen on February 27, 2009 at 11:45:13 PT
FDR and banks
The banking system is not the whole economy. FDR did fix the banking system. Days before he took office, it almost completely collapsed, and there were runs on banks all across the country. FDR's banking holiday and other measures calmed that panic and restored confidence in banks. Runs were rare after 1933. People put their money back into banks, rather than hiding it in their mattresses. In general, the New Deal did quite a lot to reduce unemployment and increase GDP every year of FDR's first term. It was only when Republicans clamored for a balanced budget in 1937 that the economy fell backwards for a time. When spending was increased again, the economy resumed upward growth, and eventually the war spending pumped it up even further.Those who do not learn the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 11:20:54 PT
Sam
I think this Depression or Crash or whatever it's called these days will run 10 years or more too. You don't break something like a country and fix it just like that. It's going to be a very long haul.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 11:18:00 PT
Dankhank
The mob and capitalists got it done. It's was just a desert and I don't think anyone cared since it seemed isolated in a way. That's just a guess. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on February 27, 2009 at 11:16:45 PT
FDR and banking
FDR "fixed" the banking system in 1932? The depression ran for another 10 years. Great "fix"!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dankhank on February 27, 2009 at 11:10:24 PT
states rights ...
Listening to Ravi Shankar from Monterrey Pop, on Sundance.a question I have never had answered to my satisfaction.How did Nevada allow gambling for ... two decades+? ... while gambling was illegal in the rest of the country?I know the pat answer is likely cause the mob wanted it, so is that the answer ....?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by josephlacerenza on February 27, 2009 at 10:38:06 PT
Just a Question
I was on the internets yesterday. I thought I'd look up the drug scheduling of the CSA. I found that Marinol, a synthetic THC, is a schedule III while cannabis is schedule I. Where are they (DEA, FDA) going to place Sativex if approved? It being a plant extract. Oh, and why do the pharm companies not patent delivery methods, ie inhalers, instead of synthetic cannabinoids? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 10:06:44 PT
dongenero 
It's too late for them to try to stand on smaller government. We're way beyond that wishful time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dongenero on February 27, 2009 at 09:58:38 PT
Federalism
The Republicans used to hang their hat on Federalism, protecting the rights of the states to develop law independent of the Federal government, among other things. I can't think of much of anything that the Republicans can hang their hat on any longer. Ethics and fiscal conservatism sure don't fit any longer. Nor do personal responsibility. Energy plans? Business stimulus? Smaller government?Now they'll all start calling themselves libertarians and whine and crow for small government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 09:31:33 PT
US Attorney General Eric Holder Statement
Ending MMJ Raids Now US Policyhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=kjZeW2fcQHM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on February 27, 2009 at 09:29:10 PT
Barack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization (2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment