CE Week #7: “U.S. eases stance on medical marijuana” Oct. 20th
Attorney general says prosecuting such cases ‘will not be a priority’
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. directed federal prosecutors Monday to back away from pursuing cases against medical marijuana patients, signaling a broad policy shift that drug reform advocates interpret as the first step toward legalization of the drug.
The government’s top lawyer said that in 14 states with some provisions for medical marijuana use, federal prosecutors should focus only on cases involving higher-level drug traffickers, money launderers or people who use the state laws as a cover.
The Justice Department’s action came days after the Senate’s second-highest-ranking Democrat introduced a bill that would eradicate a two-decade-old sentencing disparity for people caught with cocaine in rock form instead of powder form. Taken together, experts say, the moves represent an approach favored by President Obama and Vice President Biden to put new emphasis on violent crime and the sale of illicit drugs to children. Legislation that would cover a third administration commitment, to support federal funding of needle exchanges, is moving through the House.
The announcement set off waves of support from advocacy groups that have long sought to relax the enforcement of marijuana laws. But some local police and Republican lawmakers criticized the change, saying it could exacerbate the flow of drug money to Mexican cartels, whose violence has spilled over the Southwestern border.
In a statement, Holder asserted that drug traffickers and people who use firearms will continue to be direct targets of federal prosecutors, but that, on his watch, “it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana.”
The turnaround could pave the way for Rhode Island, New Mexico and Michigan to put together marijuana-distribution systems for residents of those states, according to Graham Boyd, director of the Drug Law Reform Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Advocates say marijuana use can help alleviate pain and stimulate appetite in patients suffering from cancer, HIV-AIDS and other ailments. But the American Medical Association since 2001 has held firm to a policy opposing marijuana for medical purposes.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, which is more than three decades old, marijuana remains within the category of drugs most tightly restricted by the government. Donna Lambert, who is awaiting criminal trial in San Diego County Superior Court for allegedly providing medical marijuana to another patient, injected a note of skepticism into Holder’s announcement. In an interview, Lambert noted that senior administration officials had made public comments this year in line with the Justice Department policy, only to have law enforcement agents, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, take part in raids soon afterward.
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he and other advocates will watch closely whether federal agents refuse to participate in raids or send other signals to district attorneys in the states that allow some medical use of marijuana.
Americans for Safe Access, which supports medical marijuana programs nationwide, estimated that during the Bush administration federal authorities conducted 200 raids in California alone. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case made clear that the federal government has the discretion to enforce federal drug laws even in states that had approved some relaxation of marijuana statutes for sick patients.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, at a daily briefing in Washington, declined to address “what states should do” in response to the Justice Department guidance. But Gibbs said that the president since January had outlined his medical marijuana policy and that the Justice Department memo, signed by Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, helped to fill in the details.
The administration stopped far short Monday of endorsing wholesale marijuana legalization, frustrating some activists. At the libertarian Cato Institute, official Tim Lynch described the war on drugs as a “grand failure.” He exhorted the White House to take “much bolder steps to stop the criminalization of drug use more generally.”
In the three-page memo, Ogden made clear that the department is not creating a new legal defense for people who may have violated the Controlled Substances Act. Instead, the memo is intended to guide prosecutors on where to train their scarce investigative resources.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police “strongly believes that the federal government must continue to play a central role in the investigation and prosecution of . . . traffickers, dispensary operators, and growers,” said Meredith Mays, a spokeswoman for the group.
Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Justice Department guidelines “fly in the face of Supreme Court precedent and undermine federal laws that prohibit the distribution and use of marijuana.”
He added: “We cannot hope to eradicate the drug trade if we do not first address the cash cow for most drug-trafficking organizations — marijuana.”
The cocaine bill is still pending in the Senate, although advocates say its prospects are stronger now than over the past decade. The sponsor, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), said in an interview last week that he was working to enlist GOP co-sponsors to ease the bill’s passage.
A. It is interesting following this issue as state’s and the government begin to realize the taxable benefits but also how many of the H.W. Bush drug reforms need to be looked at in more detail.
B. My opinion on this issue agrees with most liberals these days. Especially on the note of crack versus powder cocaine sentences, in which U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott has spun into motion and has finally nearly become a reality. I also think that taxing marijuana would greatly help state deficits, as an MSNBC article states it could bring as much as $1.3 billion in tax revenue each year.
C. I would like to know whose final say it is in this debate. Is it up to the federal government to decide if a substance is legal or is that up to the state governments?
D. Extension: In an article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/217942) Jessica Bennett explains how widespread medicinal marijuana is in Oakland and other California cities, and how doctors prescribe it for ailments as simple as back problems or uneasiness. She also delves a bit deeper in explaining the pros of legalizing, how one analyst believes that legalization could bring in revenue of $1.3 billion, which would help California’s growing deficit. However, Schwarzenegger continues to veto all marijuana related bills. Also in an article (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/bill-cocaine-sentencing-passes-house-panel) I found the disparities between the sentences for possession of crack cocaine and powder cocaine and how badly this bill needed reform.
A. learned
Marijuana is bad for mind and body; the thought never occurred to me that the United States might actually make it legal along with cocaine. Just as I never guessed that the government would get so far in such a topic, truly I’m just flabbergasted.
B. thoughts
Those who use “medical marijuana’ probably don’t have anything wrong with them just as they’re probably ruining whatever brains they have left. But seeing as how so many use it with or without permission then the states should legalize it just so they can tax the stuff. Then there’s the talk that we’d just be financing other drug countries but if we allow marijuana then the US wouldn’t have to outsource. But with everything else there’s pro’s and con’s, in this case too many con’s. Just as in the case of cocaine, way too many con’s with very little (if none) pro’s. There’s no way that cocaine could ever become ‘medical cocaine’ and if it did we’d be better off renaming our selves ‘Amsterdam 2.0′.
C. question
What’s the current state of medical marijuana in Spokane at the moment? Is it legal or illegal?
D. connection/expansion
The other day there was a news story over medical marijuana dispensaries. The funny part about most of this is that it’s allowed in some states, however the selling of it isn’t.
A. In this article, I learned that the government is not persecuting medical marijuana patients in the states that made medical marijuana legal. I had heard before that President Obama was going to stop all prosecuting of state laws in conflict with federal laws to save federal money.
B. I know that many states have made medical marijuana legal, including Washington. California probably gets the most media coverage on this topic though. When it comes to whether or not medical marijuana is helpful in patients or not, I believe that it can help in many cases, including cancer, HIV-AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and severe pain. It is ridiculous to say that marijuana doesn’t help in medical cases, especially because scientists have found that it is far less harmful than most chemical pills being prescribed. You can die from most prescription medications, but no one has ever died from marijuana. Also, I found it funny that local police were criticizing this ruling of the government. For most of them, there jobs are at stake when it comes to this issue, of course they are not going to agree with it. The same goes for the pharmaceutical industry, who don’t want a plant, something you can grow on your own, replacing all of the expensive chemical drugs they are making and jeopardizing their multi-billion dollar industry.
C. I’m curious to whether or not the federal government is just going to stop at saying don’t prosecute medical marijuana patients or are they going to make a formal law to make medical marijuana legal and reevaluate the Controlled Substance Act.
D. This issue seems to be an issue that includes state powers versus federal powers. It seems that this might be the first time that state powers are leaking into federal powers in the marble cake model of federalism.
A. This issue has been becoming more extensive every day, and it is sad to think our country would legalize these drugs in order to receive tax money for the country. We should be able to find other ways to get money, ones that do not lead us into legalizing marijuana. I understand people use marijuana as treatment for cancer, or other illnesses but we cannot rely on it as a support for our national debt problems.
B. If marijuana becomes legal, more violence within the people will occur, and people will become more dependant on it. “…But some local police and Republican lawmakers criticized the change, saying it could exacerbate the flow of drug money to Mexican cartels, whose violence has spilled over the Southwestern border.” I also think that for those medical patients, who desperately need it in order to survive, should get that treatment. But to have it legalized to get money for our national debt it pushing the limits a little too far.
C. Who can determine whether or not states can legalize marijuana? Also, when the Controlled Substances Act is, “The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people,” wouldn’t we be violating it? http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148726.htm
Connection: I found this article, about Don Duncan, and how he organizes marijuana for medical purposes. It includes other stories too, about Californians and their reactions with the government on this issue.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811992,00.html
In this article I learned that they are trying to legalize cocaine. I believe I read that right, or at least legalizing the rock or powder, which I personally don’t know the difference? I think that is completely insane. I have no idea why they would legalize that, I mean what good would that do except make it more accessible to people? I also learned that the issue of marijuana is a lot larger and complex than I had imagined. I personally do not get the whole point of medical marijuana. I mean could a drug really help someone get better? I have reason to say no. However I do not have any medical support to disprove that it does or does not help patients. If people want to get medical marijuana and it helps them eat then so be it, have your weed and be happy. I do not really see the huge issue. Also I think that this whole huge debate on legalizing it shouldn’t be that big of deal. Making it legal and being able to tax it could really help benefit our economy. I know that sounds bad but everyone knows that weed is a very popular thing and even though it’s illegal people still find a way to get it, so why not get to tax it and make us some money? I would like to know how many states in America allow medical marijuana to be distributed. Also what states allow marijuana? Because I think it is in Oregon that you can grow it and smoke it, I believe it’s just that you can’t sell it, so it would be interesting to find out if any other states are this way?
Connection: A little while ago I saw on the news that Gonzaga students were protesting because a building that had distributed medical marijuana had closed down and they were mad because people needed it. I think that is kind of ironic that that would happen in Spokane, I wonder if higher levels of government heard about this.
A. What you learned?
I never knew that there was ever a problem with medical marijuana and the law. I always thought the law already permitted medical patients to receive and use it due to the provided condition. I also never knew that there was a bill towards people caught with cocaine in rock form rather than powder form (well, they are both cocaine, aren`t they?). I also learned that the American Medical Association is in strict opposition against the use of marijuana for patient use. I always thought that the whole reason it is used in the hospitals is because the medical programs were all up for it.
B.
B. What you think?
In my own personal opinion, I believe that easing the tension on the medical marijuana thing is good! In the beginning of this article, it states; “…signaling a broad policy shift that drug reform advocates interpret as the first step toward legalization of the drug.” If this statement is to be true, then good! I honestly think that the marijuana plant (grown straight from the earth by the way and has always been here since the beginning of the earth) is not harmful compared to the other drugs out there (crystal meth, cocaine/crack, even over the counter pills). And I believe that having it being illegal is causing more problems than if it were to be legalized in the first place. If it were to be legalized, I am sure the people that do not do it because they do not think it is right still won`t do it due to their belief on it already. Let me make it clear that I am not an activist or anything of that nature. It is only my opinion of it.
C.
C. What you would like to know?
I would like to know why so many people are against a natural treatment for patients.
I would also like to know what a “money launderer” is exactly.
Almost forgot my extension: An online article (http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100247050) on “Msn.com” states that the George Bush administration was all against marijuana being used as medicine. That explains why this was met with such opposition. It also states that this change is a great mark to wave goodbye to the old administration and in with the new.
What I Learned:
I was not aware of the two decade difference in sentences between powder cocaine and crack. I learned that medical marijuana is legal in 14 states. I also did not know that President Obama had to lift a ban to provide federal funding for needle distribution.
What I Think:
I believe that medicinal-purpose marijuana should be legal in all states. If we can use this natural source to help ease the incomprehensible pain one would suffer from cancer, or other ailments, more power to us. The drug trade is a dangerous business, but I wonder if legalizing marijuana beyond solely medicinal purpose would allow us to take control of this trade. It would definitely take away the profit of smuggling pot and would be something the government could tax us on. The widely accepted gateway drug theory does imply a certain point, but it there a real connection? Those who do not use cannabis were no more likely to develop addiction to hard drugs than those who did. The legalization of marijuana would also benefit the acceptance of hemp. Hemp is one of the fastest growing biomasses known, and requires few pesticides and no herbicides. It could be used in paper, biodegradable plastics, construction, food and fuel.
My Question to All of You:
How can we compare the legality of marijuana to the 18th amendment?
Expansion:
Marijuana wasn’t outlawed until 1937. 9% of pot users developed addictions, in comparison to 15% of drinkers, 23% of heroin users and one-third of tobacco smokers.
No one has ever died due to THC (the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis) poisoning; “a 160 lb person would have to smoke roughly 900 joints in a sitting to reach a lethal dose”. To reach the lethal amount of alcohol poisoning, a 100 lb person would have to have 8-10 drinks in one hour.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003570,00.html
Jeremy Wales- People launder money when they have received a “big chunk of change” from a drug deal, or other illegal activity. The phrase refers to the action taken in order to make their bank account look natural—in other words, they find a way to make the money look like it came from a legal source. Wikipedia says that the term originated during Watergate…surprise, surprise!
In response to Haley Anderson:
You stated, “If marijuana becomes legal, more violence within the people will occur.” I’m going to have to disagree with you. Let’s take for example, the prohibition of alcohol and the violence before and during prohibition. Gangs were practically birthed here in the United States out of the prohibition of alcohol. The amount of violence that was caused because alcohol was made illegal was outrageously large, and this is all violence that started after the 18th Amendment was implemented. The 21st Amendment made alcohol legal again, but gangs and gang violence still carried through, and instead of selling alcohol they started to sell marijuana. Thus, we have high gang violence here in the modern day. If money is the mother’s milk of politics, then marijuana is the mother’s milk of gangs. Gangs need something to sell on the black market to survive, and quite frankly all the other illegal drugs are not used enough here in the United States for the gangs to survive. If marijuana becomes legal, I would expect to see a decrease in the amount of violence and crime, especially from the Mexican border.
Nicole McMurray –
In response to your question at the top of your post: no, no, no, no, no, no. The bill is not for the legalization if cocaine, in either powder or rock form. The bill would make sentencing even for crack and powder cocaine possession. Right now the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of five grams of crack cocaine is five years while the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine is five years. The sentencing was set this way in 1986 because it was believed that crack is more dangerous and makes the users more violent than powder cocaine users. This has since been proven false. All of this has led to a disproportionate number of African American people being arrested for crack possession. Only 25% of crack users are African American while 81% of people convicted for crack offences are African American. The bill would change the minimum mandatory sentence for crack and powder cocaine possession of 500 grams to 5 years, making it a 1:1 ratio instead of the current 100:1 ratio.
durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=318978
What i know:
I know that there are those who want the legalization of marijuana and those who don’t with both sides having good arguments. I know what marijuana is and i know that there is no way or has there ever been a recorded case of a person over dosing on marijuana.
Some states have legalized marijuana for a reason. Marijuana posses benefits that the cannabis drug has on patients suffering from cancer, HIV-AIDS and other sicknesses. Also there are pros to legalization, some include having the federal government regulate the industry to keep it out of the hands of the street drug dealers and probably the most notable being the fact that the government would be able to tax marijuana like they do so many other things, giving the federal government a huge boost to it’s pocket building up another industry for working class America.
I support Legalization.
And no, i don’t smoke.
What i learned:
I have heard rumors about the legalization of marijuana, but now that I’m reading about small steps closer to the legalization of it and it just surprises me.
What i now learned is that there are some states that are trying to prosecute people with medical reasons to use legal medical marijuana. Which i think is totally unfair, because of the fact that some of those people have legitimate reasons for using. But from reading this article i know that there are courts that are stepping in and trying to stop these prosecutions.
What i want to know:
How is this whole thing about prosecuting some medical marijuana for technicalities going to unfold?
Connection:
Reading this article reminded me of last year. Last year when i was told to write an article and express my opinion about drug use, and i found myself conflicted. I did not know what side to should defend, for the use of some drugs or against.
Through research i was able to find a position and firmly defend it. And i wrote a pretty good paper.
In response to Justin Johnson: “I would like to know whose final say it is in this debate. Is it up to the federal government to decide if a substance is legal or is that up to the state governments?” As far as I know, the decision is up to the states, but the request has to go through to the federal agency first to grant the state permission on such things. (At least this is what I know)
A. I learned that the U.S. is, incredibly, easing up on the marijuana stance. I searched up why marijuana was made illegal in the first place, and what I found was quite interesting. I learned that with a mix of yellow journalism and white lies in the government, the marijuana that was previously so depended on in the 1600’s was made illegal. No vote by the people (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/). I learned that those caught with the rock form, let alone the powder form, of cocaine would be eased up on.
B. Easing up on marijuana is definitely a good thing. I’m not so sure about the whole coke deal, but I guess we’ll just have to see what happens. The use of cannabis can be dated back to 7,000 BC. Hemp was the first known source of clothing material. The amount of racism that was involved with the decision making process of illegalizing marijuana is astounding. The war on drugs, in my opinion, was a lost cause as soon as it started. I don’t know much about the specifics, but drugs, especially hemp, have been used on this earth for as long as records have been able to show.
C. I would like to know why it’s okay for marijuana to be used as a medication, but not as a recreational drug. I would like to know why the government is able to fairly abide by the marijuana laws when they were made in such an unjust light.
NO CREDIT: Missing Extension/Connection
Alysa Draper-Dehart –
To start off my response, I would like to share something I find fascinating. In the 1970s, the government funded a study by Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University. The study was conducted to see if marijuana usage killed brain cells in rhesus monkeys. Due to lack of funds and time, the monkeys were forced to inhale large amounts marijuana smoke for five minutes every day over several weeks in order to replicate long term marijuana usage. When the monkeys did eventually die from irreversible brain damage, they concluded that marijuana was to blame. The only problem with this conclusion was the methodology of the test. Brain cells begin to die after four minutes without oxygen; the rhesus monkeys were getting pumped full of smoke for five minutes straight with a gas mask. After weeks of this happening daily, the damage eventually killed the monkeys. This study was considered for a long time to be the definitive proof that marijuana killed brain cells, but once the methods used to conduct the study came out, the results were invalidated. Recent studies have pointed to the conclusion that marijuana does not indeed cause brain damage, but because of the lack of funding for this kind of thing it is still up in the air. Also, marijuana has been proven to help HIV/AIDS and cancer patients regain their appetite and has also be proven to help with glaucoma, arthritis, and can even contribute to shrinking brain tumors. As a side note, neither marijuana nor cocaine is legal in Amsterdam. Marijuana is tolerated by the government and police, who don’t get involved with marijuana coffee shops as long as they behave themselves. If they or any marijuana smokers do anything wrong, the police still have the right to arrest and convict them.
http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/news/20051108/pot-based-drug-promising-for-arthritis
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/17/9561.long
books.google.com/books?id=JvIyVk2IL_sC&pg=PA123#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12965981
Responding to Alysa Draper-Dehart:
Medical marijuana is legal (more or less) is Washington. I wouldn’t say legal rather, but protected. 1-692 is the medical marijuana intuitive passed in late 1998. It still makes the distribution, possession and manufacturing of cannabis illegal and does not protect from arrest or prosecution. This intuitive gives patients an “affirmative defense” in court. Concerning medical marijuana, you can only possess a 60 day supply—which is not specified in 1-692. In Washington, for non-medicinal purpose, possession under a 40 g is a misdemeanor (everything more than 40 g is a felony) where as sales, even of less than 40 g, (in any amount) is a felony.
Hope this helped!
In response to JJ:
“I’m curious to whether or not the federal government is just going to stop at saying don’t prosecute medical marijuana patients or are they going to make a formal law to make medical marijuana legal and reevaluate the Controlled Substance Act.”
I agree the government needs to take a good look at the Controlled Substances Act, since we would be violating it by making marijuana legal. I think medical marijuana should be legal only for those who need the treatment. But legalizing it for the tax money is wrong. Secondly, the violence regarding marijuana will, maybe not increase, but still remain. The world involving drugs will always have some sort of violence. Why should gangs “survive?” They are wrong in the first place, so I don’t think they should even have a ‘black market’ to sell on.
Jeremy Wales~
The way I see it is if they legalize marijuana, then it will have a feel to it that says its ok. Then, I could see our country being represented as “the marijuana country”, where drugs are legal. That probably wouldn’t happen right away, but it would be the first step to maybe legalizing other drugs and sending the message that there is nothing wrong with having or taking drugs. Yes, it will give the government money, but in my opinion, having a body free of marijuana or any other type of drug is much more important.
In response to Haley Anderson:
You said that we, as a country, should be able to find other ways to get money, other than legalizing marijuana. However why wouldn’t we legalize it if we need money? That may sound bad but whether or not marijuana is legal, people are buying, selling and growing this every day. If we were to legalize this the government would be making money off of something that is already happening behind their backs. It’s not that we would legalize it just to make money. Legalizing it would allow the government more control over this substance, as well as tax money.
In Response to Carly Ross:
While many testify of the helpfulness of Marijuana in relation to their illnesses, I think, when it comes to legalizing the drug, the cons outweigh the pros. Marijuana may help some people but there’s a lot of negative affects. Marijuana is addictive and leads to harder drug use, damages the lungs, harms the immune system, injures the brain, impairs driving ability, and sends the wrong message to kids. Andrea Barthwell, former deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, says that “by characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction…. Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that ‘pot is medicine’ and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.” I think we should stop arguing about something that engenders such diverse opinions and work towards creating medicines everyone can agree on.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000141
Well Jeremy Wales, a money launderer is someone who pretends that they have money from actual legal sources, instead of drugs or numerous other illegal sources or else they conceal the source (i.e the identity, location or resource of the money). This is a problem for the IRS and a treat for the media.
In response to Adam Ropp’s comment of my article. But pray tell, how is that test any different from a closed in room in use for an uncounted hours of time? Sure not everyone is so far lost, but still… people start somewhere.
In response to Kelli Davin’s response:
First off i would like to know what you know about Amsterdam.
They have legalized marijuana, and i don’t think you would call Amsterdam the marijuana country. You cannot give a nickname to a country because of one of it’s laws. The country of Amsterdam isn’t going into chaotic anarchy, that is but a assumption most people would think because of it’s legalization but it’s simple false.
This for Haley Anderson and Kelli Davin to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
Alysa Draper-Dehart
Ventilation is the difference. The monkeys were getting no oxygen whatsoever. If the room is ventilated, tainted air is constantly being removed while fresh air is moved into the room. If the room was completely airtight, you would die from asphyxiation eventually anyway because of decreased amounts of oxygen and increased amounts of carbon dioxide. Smoke wouldn’t have to ever be present.