New Medical Marijuana Policy To Be Issued

[JasonF]

New medical marijuana policy to be issued

By DEVLIN BARRETT
The Associated Press
Monday, October 19, 2009; 2:26 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries - businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.


The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

Hooray for a step toward sanity.

[Nausicaa]

I think this is a good move (obviously). Still, even though it's good policy in the short term, this isn't really progress if the directive can be reversed with a new administration. I wonder if the DOJ will still be pursuing some high profile marijuana related cases, like Marc Emery's extradition from Canada.

[wildcatlh]

I'll believe it when I see it.

While it wasn't formalized, this has been the stated policy of the Obama administration since around March. Since then, there have still been multiple raids, several of which were for state law issues which were very minor and not related to the sale of marijuana (tax issues).

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by wildcatlh

I'll believe it when I see it.

While it wasn't formalized, this has been the stated policy of the Obama administration since around March. Since then, there have still been multiple raids, several of which were for state law issues which were very minor and not related to the sale of marijuana (tax issues).

That is what I thought as well.

But I also think it is a step towards insanity when we decide that federally illegal activities won't be prosecuted. Get to sanity by going through the steps and making it a state issue rather than take the "turn a blind eye" approach to this, or any similar issue.

[dork]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

But I also think it is a step towards insanity when we decide that federally illegal activities won't be prosecuted. Get to sanity by going through the steps and making it a state issue rather than take the "turn a blind eye" approach to this, or any similar issue.

Dude... you know what's really good for that blind eye of yours?

[kvrdave]

[kenbuzz]

Time to start buying Hostess and Taco Bell (Yum Brands) stock now!

[Venusian]

Isn't this just another abuse of the executive branch's power?

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by wildcatlh

I'll believe it when I see it.

While it wasn't formalized, this has been the stated policy of the Obama administration since around March. Since then, there have still been multiple raids, several of which were for state law issues which were very minor and not related to the sale of marijuana (tax issues).

Same here.

Was the problem before that the "policy" was just verbal and that this new 3-page written policy will be adhered to? I'm wondering what exactly has changed.

[kvrdave]

If the FBI busts some brownie bar in California, can the administration do anything to keep them from pressing charges?

Either change the law or enforce it.

[Venusian]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

If the FBI busts some brownie bar in California, can the administration do anything to keep them from pressing charges?

Either change the law or enforce it.

I'd guess the admin can tell the Justice department not to press charges.

But I agree, change the law or enforce it. And the executive branch's job is enforce it, not change it.

[Rockmjd23]

Those twinkies look moldy.

[kvrdave]

Well, they are 75 years old.

[dick_grayson]

wasn't sure where to post this. I was flipping through last night and caught this interview:



I was going to post this in the media bias thread since O'Reilly's argument doesn't seem to be all that grounded. I wish Stossel had brought up prohibition although I can't imagine it would have steered the discussion into anything meaningful.

Also, I have several news apps on my phone and last night I checked to see what the most shared story was for the nyt app, the ap app....and so on. They were all THIS story (not the Stossel bit but the thread). Doesn't that mean something? Is it that people don't speak up because they're afraid of being labeled a "user" or or associated with drugs.......or even getting them in trouble with work or something?

[Nausicaa]

I hate when O'Reilly interviews like that.

Instead of asking targeted questions that might allow the interviewee to give substantive responses, he asks leading questions that allow him to interrupt almost immediately and go off on his tangents. O'Reilly was the only speaker during the majority of that video. Which is sad, since he makes these outrageous claims with no evidence. Junkies buying pot and selling to children to fund their habit is common? Are you kidding me? It's at least good to know America's youth has so much disposable income, but I wonder why the junkie wouldn't just spend all the money required for a license and the expensive medical grade weed on his junk instead?

Reminds me of his segments on Amsterdam and the Netherlands. They tried to portray it as some stalinist hell-hole where all the men are doped up 24/7 and the women forced into prostitution while they murder disabled children for sport. Total propaganda.

[CRM114]

First, Stossel looked very uncomfortable sitting with THAT pinhead. I wonder if he regrets his move now that he has to do THAT every Tuesday. I've seen O'Reilly "debate" marijuana legalization before and he always comes back to this imagined crisis of the children. It shows what a weak mind O'Reilly is sporting. He wasn't as patronizing and rude to Stossel as he has been with other proponents of legalization though. It's humorous that O'Reilly completely discounts the inclusion of alcohol in the study he cites.

[Dr Mabuse]

That's some of the dopiest crap I've ever heard. (get it?)

'The children!!! Who will protect the children!!!'

What an idiotic, completely irrelevant 'position' to take.

[Nazgul]

I'd imagine Glaucoma cases are going to skyrocket.

[kvrdave]

O'Reilly also believes in Global Warming. He is a loon.

[spainlinx0]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

O'Reilly also believes in Global Warming. He is a loon.

Damn he's like the worst of both parties rolled into one giant bald lump of shit.

[dick_grayson]

in all fairness, he did try weed but didn't like the effect. Here's his assessment:

[funkyryno]

Originally Posted by dick_grayson

Also, I have several news apps on my phone and last night I checked to see what the most shared story was for the nyt app, the ap app....and so on. They were all THIS story (not the Stossel bit but the thread). Doesn't that mean something?

I think it's a sign that younger, more tech-savvy and educated people tend to be in favor of legalization. The reefer-madness logic behind marijuana prohibition is based on myths and half-truths, and, unfortunately, many people are slow to understand this.

Originally Posted by dick_grayson

Is it that people don't speak up because they're afraid of being labeled a "user" or or associated with drugs.......or even getting them in trouble with work or something?

Yes. And it's not just the average person that's afraid. It's the politicians, which is the big problem.

[spainlinx0]

What I don't understand is California's lax marijuana laws, but Draconian attempts to ban smoking.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by spainlinx0

What I don't understand is California's lax marijuana laws, but Draconian attempts to ban smoking.

Ironic ain't it? I've given up on trying to understand California.

[funkyryno]

Colorado ski town votes to legalize marijuana

I predict an influx of snowboarders and gold medal-winning swimmers.