Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
July 2011
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Authors

More evidence of a ratcheted-up federal war on marijuana

Add this data point to the Cole memo, the DEA re-scheduling rejection notice, and the ONDCP diatribe in the National Drug Control Strategy…

Feds Propose Clean-Up Language To Drug Regulations

July 11, 2011—The FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] is proposing new language that will clean up several misconceptions that a driver using a Schedule I controlled substance under a doctors care is allowed to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).

The FMCSA has always considered Sections 382.213, 391.41(b)(12), 391.43(f), and 392.4 to prohibit any and all use of Schedule I drugs by CMV drivers. In fact, Federal law prohibits Schedule I drugs from being prescribed in the United States (75 FR 16237, March 31, 2010). Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and no medically accepted therapeutic use. Currently, Federal law only allows for their use in research, chemical analysis, or manufacture of other drugs.

Unfortunately, some MROs [Medical Review Officers] have misinterpreted FMCSA’s regulations and have permitted drivers to use Schedule I drugs while under the care of a physician and drive a CMV. This action puts the FMCSRs in direct conflict with DOT’s comprehensive drug testing program under 49 CFR, Part 40, which does not permit drivers to use Schedule I drugs. The FMCSA does not believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the regulations.

To avoid any confusion, this rulemaking would harmonize Sections 382.213, 391.41(b)(12), 391.43(f), and 392.4 with DOT-wide regulations and DEA regulations, and make it clear that drivers may not use Schedule I drugs under any circumstances.

It’s really pretty silly how they so carefully avoid even mentioning medical marijuana though that is clearly what they’re addressing (perhaps to fly below the radar?), and how they sidestep the fact that it has nothing to do with impairment or when you’ve used the drug.

They just want to make it flat out prohibited by federal law for any commercial motor vehicle to be driven by someone who uses medical marijuana at all, regardless of state law.

One more piece of the federal war on marijuana.

[Thanks to a reader for the tip.]

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

70 comments to More evidence of a ratcheted-up federal war on marijuana

  • Ben

    Reason why Obama is ratcheting up the drug war NOW: who the hell is reporting anything about the government other than the debt ceiling fiasco?

  • warren

    WHO are these morons? Inbred? These idiots lead us? How big are their kick-backs? Is their brain functioning properly?

  • darkcycle

    This is because they’re having a difficult time getting States to pass “per se” laws. And you’re right, it’s looking like a full fledged “push-back”. But I don’t believe they are going to make much of an impact on the progress of these laws. That toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube.

  • Jake

    Wait, am I missing something:

    In fact, Federal law prohibits Schedule I drugs from being prescribed in the United States (75 FR 16237, March 31, 2010). Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and no medically accepted therapeutic use. Currently, Federal law only allows for their use in research, chemical analysis, or manufacture of other drugs.

    Is that in relation to CMV users only? Or legitimate prescribing of diamorphine or Marinol for medical reasons doesn’t make sense…

    • darkcycle

      Marinol is in Schedule II. Any drug that can be prescribed is II or III, or unscheduled.
      Marinol can be in schedule II because it is synthetic dronabinol, not actually thc, dronabinol is a metabolic precursor of delta 11 THC, the stuff your liver creates from THC when you orally ingest it.

      • Jake

        Thanks darkcycle, does that mean that diamorphine (Heroin) isn’t prescribed in any form in the states..? as it is for legitimate medical reasons here in the UK.. I guess as long as it is the patients who are suffering though hey.. :-(. Do you know what is happening with Sativex in the states as that, obviously, contains ‘real’ THC?

      • darkcycle

        They substitute oxymorphone. Only in severe cases where morphine sulfate has been proven ineffective, and all other options have been exhausted.

      • darkcycle

        Sativex will require whole cannabis extracts to be moved to schedule two. They are trying to find some way, some duplicitous re-definition, to move the extracts made by big pharma into II, while somehow leaving whole cannabis and extracts made by you and me out.

      • strayan

        Fentanyl is FDA approved.

      • darkcycle

        Newest PDR I have on hand is 2000-2001, I’ve been out of the game for a while. But yeah, I guess Fentanyl is stronger…but a synthetic like Methadone I understand.

      • dt

        Wait… are you sure there is a chemical distinction between dronabinol and delta-9-THC? Wikipedia seems to indicate they are the same – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol.

        The schedules are already complete bullshit from a scientific point of view; that won’t be new when they introduce Sativex. I’m pretty sure the Schedule III delta-9-THC (dronabinol/Marinol) is the same chemical found in the Schedule I cannabis plant, but when you consume THC along with the other cannabinoids in the plant it is safer and more enjoyable. Also fentanyl is stronger than heroin and is used in hospitals all the time, but heroin is Schedule I because of cultural demonization.

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .
        DC, they moved synthetic dronabinol to schedule III perhaps 7 or 8 years ago in 1998. I remember the event cause it screwed up a good argument. That was because Marinol was lucky to register $20 million in annual sales while there were individual California dispensaries that had that much in annual sales. (I must have been using old data) The move to schedule III kicked annual sales of Marinol up to around $200 million IIRC.

        Regardless, how many recreational users do you know that have sought out a Rx for Marinol for the purpose of recreational use? I can get that number up to 1 if I count myself. But I wasn’t particularly interested in using it in place of cannabis. Rather I wanted to mitigate the impact of forced urine testing in my life. I had to drive to Boston from DC to find a doctor willing to write me a script too. He wasn’t actually even a practicing doctor, he was a teacher at Harvard. Some old lunatic named Lester Grinspoon IIRC. Man was that guys office was dingy and loud. I really expected more ambiance at Harvard. Anyway, the Marinol didn’t serve either purpose and it was just a waste of time and gas.

        But really, I often wonder why nobody seems to think it relevant that potheads don’t go chasing Marinol scripts the way that heroin users will go after oxycodone/vicodin. Isn’t the fact that there’s no such thing as a pot-in-a-pill mill salient in any way? I think I’d likely become kind of fond of pot-in-a-pill. Oh what am I saying? I do very much enjoy cannabrex. Almost two decades later I’ve still got 4 Marinol gelcaps that I kept as a souvenir. All I need do to prove to anyone that knows me that Marinol is not a substitute for pot is to show them the date on the label of my prescription bottle and the fact that there are still some left. Reasonable doubt flies out the window.

        “In 1998, due to the lack of diversion problems with Marinol, the DEA down-regulated it to Schedule III, meaning it has a lower abuse potential than those under Schedule II. This less restrictive scheduling also allowed physicians to prescribe the medicine for “off label” indications.

        http://www.medicalcannabis.com/Indications-for-Use/indications-for-use

      • darkcycle

        Sure as I can be. Dronabinol is actually DTHC4, a metabolic mid-stage. There are subtle differences between raw D9THC and D9THC4. Here’s a link that points out the distinction, although it’s peripheral to the study. Most web resources don’t distinguish between them, but chemistry and the law do.
        http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/4.2DronabinolCritReview.pdf

      • dt

        This odd BBC documentary explains the Marinol/cannabis distinction – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2cAFRAX3Gs

        Marinol=the pure THC in the video, and, as the video shows, it sucks. The cannabis effects we know and love are caused by THC/Marinol combined with other cannabinoids like CBD (which is what she means in the video when she says “cannabinoid”). That’s why Sativex would be just as good as cannabis, except made by drug companies rather than grown in your garden.

        Duncan, wouldn’t the Marinol prescription give you an excuse to test positive? They shouldn’t be able to distinguish Marinol from cannabis because they don’t test for other cannabinoids.

        Darkcycle: I know the law distinguishes between them, but I still don’t see the chemical distinction. That link says “The primary psychoactive compound in botanical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) is dronabinol ( (-)-trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, Δ9-THC) (Gaoni and Mechoulam, 1964; ElSohly, 2002).”

      • darkcycle

        dt, I’m looking for a link that has the entire sequence of breakdown for raw THC. Haven’t found it yet but I distinctly remember reading the sequence and having a lightbulb “aha!” moment. I’ll find it though, it’s out there….somewhere.

      • darkcycle

        Whoo-Hoo. Here ya go, pay attn. to section “f” of the pdf:
        http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/4.2DronabinolCritReview.pdf

      • dt

        Based on that it looks like this statement on Wikipedia is correct: “Dronabinol is the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) for a pure isomer of THC, (-)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, that is, the main isomer in cannabis. It is sold as Marinol….” The pdf also identifies the (-)-trans-stereo-isomer as dronabinol and as the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. Different isomers are not the same as metabolites; stereoisomers are the same chemical oriented differently in space.

        The point of this is that the same chemical ((-)-trans-delta-9-THC) is currently Schedule III and Schedule I. In that video I linked to she talks about weed that’s closer to pure THC (“skunk”) as scary and worse for you than weed with balanced cannabinoids. That goes against the current distinction made by the law, which says that THC is worse when it comes in the cannabis plant with other cannabinoids. It’s just one more way in which this system is a bunch of bullshit.

        (“Skunk” is a British thing that I think comes up because they get really shitty weed there.)

      • darkcycle

        Yeah that’s it. It’s THC, in a different arrangement than found in the cannabis plant. A large complex molecule has polarities that need to be observed, or it is mainfestly a different molecule , made from the same constituents. I think it was Duncan who observed that the thalidomide that caused horrible birth defects was actually a mirror image of the thalidomide initially tested. The way I understood the piece I read before was they chose that isomer because it actually eliminated one step in the metabolism, and allowed marinol to come on slightly quicker. I may be wrong.

      • dt

        Nothing says that they use a different isomer for Marinol though. This is a bit nit-picky, but it’s kind of important because it points out one of the many ridiculous things about prohibition.

      • darkcycle

        …guess I just don’t know the answer,dt. Maybe somebody will chime in, since I’m mostly just going fron hazy memory….

      • darkcycle

        Further reading reveals: I must have dreamed it. Dronabinol is most definately TCH. In the immortal words of Emily Littella: “Never mind”.

      • Jake

        Sooo.. does that mean that a Schedule I substance is technically both authorised and actually prescribed in the USA?!

  • prp

    No one with sensible views on the Drug War should vote for Obama. If the Republicans nominate someone worse, then go third party or independent or stay home.

  • Lefty Mongtard

    And here I thought the chocojesus would legalize and buy me a pony.

    • Really? You really felt the need to go there? Do you find that using that term helps you convince people?

    • Matthew Meyer

      Gawd, Pete, reminds me of Reason.

      Drugwarrant comments=edifying
      Reason comments=twee snark squared

      Do like some o’ their articles, though.

    • thelberto zapata

      you didn’t get a pony? if you live in the California Republic and have sufficient gumption you can earn your very own pony. the california constitution contains the words “pursuit of happiness”. just grow cannabis, give it to patients for free and they will take up a collection to buy you a pony. that’s how i got mine. all legal as it gets. the drug war is on shakey ground. that’s why their heads are suffering from excess pressure. that and their drinking habits. if you were reading this site attentively you would realize it is legal, but the courts have a view contrary to the tenth amendment. so it’s only legal if you can evade detection. as long as you never go to court it is legal. since the courts and the other two branches of the federal government are clearly disregarding the constitution all the lefty mong tards just like you have a moral and legal duty to disobey the blood purity laws.

      • darkcycle

        Yeah, I got a pony, too. I named mine “StarPrancer” and I’m teaching him to sing Beatles tunes and play the banjo. We play scrabble and stay up late at night having pizza and pillow fights. He’s the BEST pony ever.

      • thelbert b. traven

        now you’re just making me jealous, darkcycle. my pony won’t play scrabble. all he wants to do is eat hay and turn it into drug control policy. that and carry little people around on his back.

      • darkcycle

        laughed at that so hard I think I peed…

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .
        I got ripped off. They told me it was a pony but after a while I realized that it was nothing but a miniature horse.

        http://www.guidehorse.com/images/twink2a_web.jpg

        An ambulance rolled up – a state trooper close behind
        Tweeter took his gun away and messed up his mind
        The undercover cop was left tied up to a tree
        Near the souvenir stand by the old abandoned factory

        Next day the undercover cop was hot in pursuit
        He was taking the whole thing personal
        He didn’t care about the loot
        Jan had told him many times it was you to me who taught
        In Jersey anything’s legal as long as you don’t get caught

        ~Bob Dylan & Tom Petty

      • thelbert straightcowski

        duncan, that is the perfect critter to replace ol’ gil. at least we know that horse will never lie to us. if they are going to have a drug war, where is the drug cavalry. could you see a swat team, mounted on ponies stolen from little girls, storming into houses acting like gengis khan. the ponies being trained to sniff out dope, money and illegal thoughts. i say, laugh the crazy bald heads out of town, they can’t take a joke so fuck ’em. i am in a good mood because the feds are saying that they don’t have the money to stomp on every one of my human rights, just some of ’em, because i’m too small a fish to be worth it. i’m like frisco jeans. can’t bust ’em.

    • dt

      lol this comment makes me want to donate to Obama. People like this are fucking idiots.

  • ezrydn

    I wonder in THIS rulemaking will take another 8-10 years.

    • thelbert

      after 220 years we still have to interpret the constitution, because it was written using such murky abstract terms. such as happiness, commerce, or general welfare. wouldn’t want to slip up and allow the peasants too much slack. only the big giant brains of the aristocracy can decipher it.

  • Servetus

    The sadomorality police will soon be everywhere, packing high tech equipment to ID their next victim. Forget service. Instead it will be, ‘What can we do to you today, Mrs. Smith?’

    The FMCSA/ONDCP legal clarification is one more turn of the screw. American society is fast becoming the place Benjamin Franklin warned us of when people sign off on their freedoms. There will be no security in a police state. No anonymity. No privacy. No freedom. No justice.

    Drug hysterics who fear arbitrary chemicals and who maintain superstitions about way-too-effective herbal medications will continue to be free to inflict their mania on those not so greedy, hysterical or superstitious. More policing will result in ever greater law enforcement failures, prompting more moral panic, and ever greater oppression and intrusive government control into individual lives, with law enforcement driven by hidden motives far removed from drug safety.

    Imaginary drug free societies aren’t worth the infinite cost of an everlasting war on drug users. There is no return on investment in a war on a country’s own citizens. Given the recent policy decisions of the DEA and ONDP, it’s clear that the present threat to freedom posed by prohibitionism compels a decisive and total defeat of the drug war machine. There can be no compromise. The drug war affects everyone.

    • darkcycle

      “…compels a decisive and total defeat of the drug war machine. There can be no compromise.”
      Well said. I second that.

  • Sandhillpam

    Off topic but excellent libertarian themed movie: Guns and Weed; The Road to Freedom
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJSG55jq8LU&feature=feedlik_more

  • Francis

    I’ve been thinking about ways in which the war on drugs is somewhat self-perpetuating, and I would be interested in getting some feedback. By making a particular drug illegal, the WOD would seem to ensure 1) that a higher proportion of that drug’s overall use will be abusive, and even more significantly 2) a much higher proportion of the VISIBLE USE will be abusive. This is then used to justify prohibition by supposedly demonstrating that “hard drugs really are different than alcohol.” With respect to the first point, the fact that a drug is illegal would seem to guarantee that the individuals who begin using it anyway will, on average, have a stronger drive to alter their consciousness, have a higher propensity for risk-taking behavior, and be more likely to have “less to lose” from being caught. So when you see statistics on the percentage of people who begin using, e.g., heroin vs. alcohol who then go on to satisfy some criteria for addiction, it doesn’t seem like that is in any way an apples-to-apples comparison? Because of alcohol’s legal status and cultural acceptance, the people who begin consuming alcohol at some point in their lives are more-or-less a representative cross-sample of America’s population. Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing that the people who begin using heroin are in many ways that matter NOT a representative cross-sample, and that the differences probably all tilt in the direction of making those individuals more susceptible to addiction.

    With respect to the second point, from the perspective of your average non-illicit drug using, pro-WOD, red-blooded American, the vast majority of illicit drug use is simply invisible. The use that is visible generally falls into one of three categories (1) that of an addict (whose addiction has become so severe that their use can no longer be concealed), (2) that of an individual who has been arrested for drug use / sale (which we have to admit is at least somewhat correlated with irresponsible use), or (3) open use by what some call the “counter culture.” None of these give Joe Sixpack a warm and fuzzy. For that reason many Americans simply can’t conceive of “responsible drug use” and thus automatically conflate use with abuse. The one (increasing) exception seems to be marijuana. Others have talked about a “tipping point” which I think is exactly right. As stigma for use decreases, more “responsible, establishment-types” are beginning to be open about their enjoyment of cannabis which in turn helps to decrease stigma further in a feedback loop.

    • dt

      I think this is right on. “Abuse” and “addiction” are just terms for behaviors and people who society has chosen to “otherize.” Visible heroin users are very likely to fall into this category and trigger feelings of disgust in Joe Sixpack, thus perpetuating the WOD.

      You’re right about the tipping point and feedback loop for marijuana. It’s too bad it all comes down to this identity politics BS and not higher principles, but that’s democracy. Identity politics is the reason the government and some businesses think it’s justifiable to test for non-psychoactive metabolites of THC – “this person is one of THEM and can’t be trusted.”

      • Windy

        “but that’s democracy” which is exactly why the Founders tried so very hard to make certain democracy would never happen in this country.

    • darkcycle

      Very salient observations. A student of social behavior theory would have to agree. The attachment of a legal stigma would naturaly create a social conterpart, since now the label ‘criminal’ applies, with all it’s connotations.

    • Matthew Meyer

      Francis, I think your observations are correct about illegality actually producing–which is to say making visible–the worst of drugs’ impacts.

      This same process is likely at work in many areas, including sexual freedom.

      It might be useful to consider the ways stigmatizing drug discourse _differs_ from other kinds of stigma. It is commonly pointed out that the prohibitionist impulse has roots in Protestant Christian morality, but I think we still lack a solid description of what makes “drugs” so objectionable in religious-cultural terms. This kind of description is a necessary complement to historical arguments based on theories of economic cabals quashing cannabic competition and arguments of racist social control.

      There is something about drugs that allows prohibitionists to seize moral authority, and I think it’s got to do with some fundamental cultural categories and the value relations between them. “Drugs are bad because they seek to simulate the divine grace that only God can legitimately deliver.” I think some premise like this is one of the major moral supports of continued drug prohibition. Of course, many people who disapprove of “drugs” have strongly secular identities; for them, we have *specially generated* (ONDCP approved) scientific knowledge proving drugs’ dangers, so they don’t have to acknowledge the religious basis of their stance.

      • Matthew Meyer

        Then again, I sometimes think of the Buddhist bit about the burning house. You don’t stand around asking who set the fire, how the flames are shaped, and what the temperature is.

        You get out of the house!

  • Scott

    The prohibitionists are the hunters, and we are their prey.

    However, given they literally have no sustainable point in their favor (the war on some drugs is unconstitutional, ineffective, and destructive), I think it is safe to say that they are indeed our prey.

    Let them rattle their sabers all they want.

    It only makes our job easier to take away the power they abuse.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .
    Now who in the heck is it that thinks that liberals are our friends? How did the heck did that fairy tale get started?

    http://www.azpm.org/health/story/2011/7/15/60-marijuanas-effects-on-the-brain/?c=1907

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .
      The disconnect between those promoting the lunacy of the war on (some) drugs is quickly turning into a divide on the scope of the Grand Canyon. The Know Nothings really need to retreat, regroup, and reevaluate or their going to find themselves to be public laughing stock. Just look at that comments section on the NPR flapdoodle I linked above.

      I don’t think I’m speaking out of school if I state that my observation is that the only people with triple digit IQs still promoting the war on (some) drugs all have vested financial or authority interests in maintaining the status quo. If they really are smart people they must be working on their exit strategy.

    • dt

      Meth is lipid soluble, not water soluble like the guy says in this article. Too bad that doesn’t help meth users avoid symptoms of addiction like he claims it does for pot… lol how are these people interviewed as if they know what they’re talking about??

  • vickyvampire

    I like everyones comments has usual great, Holy shit Duncan listened to that Link on Pot you Duncan for Arizona spotlight it was hillarious, Pot to me is no different than my daily cup of coffee, I get my caffeine Buzz, only bad side effect a little to much peeing on occasion.
    Oh and one part of story about stoned people driving around geting lost in neighborhood really slow bullcrap, LMAO,this is so funny,I have a friend who has smoked for 28 years or so and my kids are like Mom she drives better than you TOTALLY STONED when you are not on anything.HAHA. I’M normally a Little spacy and ADD Cannabis helps me focus.

    The guys voice in video wants you to stop poisoning yourself with pot and meditate or use fish oil,hello Marijuana is like Fish oil you bloody idiot it heals people,connects to cannabanoids in brain that’s why there there for a reason,it like taking natural celebrex. good grief this was beyond funny. So glad you linked this thank you Duncan damn Funny.Please everyone listen to it for a good laugh.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .
    I suppose most everyone that might read this knows that a common presumption by the Know Nothings is that ‘legalization’ will result in skyrocketing rates of use, particularly among surgeons, police officers, school teachers, and fork lift drivers.

    Most do, but a few might not know that in 1975 The Supreme Court of Alaska ruled in Ravin v State of Alaska that the State Constitution’s very strong protection for the right of privacy rendered the State unable to use evidence seized from a private home as evidence of petty possession or petty cultivation. This rendered the private use or petty cultivation of cannabis de facto legalized in Alaska.

    The Know Nothings managed to get a ballot initiative on the 1990 ballot, and in an off year election in a very red State it massed by the very unimpressive margin of 55-45.

    In 2002 the Alaska Court of Appeals tossed the law created by the ballot initiative, using the precedent set in Ravin v State.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    OK that’s the arguments foundation. The argument consists of 3 res ipso loquitur statements.

    1) SAMHSA data for people “in treatment” only goes back to 1992. In 1992 they reported that there were 451 Alaskans in “treatment” for merrywanna “addiction.”

    2) In 2002 SAMHSA reported that there were 460 Alaskans in “treatment” for merrywanna “addiction.”

    3) In 2010 SAMHSA reported that there were 496 Alaskans in “treatment” for merrywanna “addiction.”

    http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/quicklink/ak92.htm
    http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/quicklink/ak02.htm
    http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/quicklink/ak10.htm

    (Yes indeed, SAMHSA has started posting 2010 data)

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .
      Oh, another interesting tidbit has been dwarfed by the State of California’s statistically significant decrease in the incidence of “drugged” driving while adding so many residents claiming the protection of the CUA and the MMP.

      That tidbit is that the study period for SAMSHA’s analysis of the incidence of “drugged” driving started in 2002, and that Alaska was one of the seven States which enjoyed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of “drugged” driving. That would have been the very same 2002 when the Alaskan Court of Appeals reinstated Ravin and de facto legalization of petty possession and petty cultivation of cannabis.

      http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/205/DruggedDriving.htm

  • Hope

    This is a blatant case of law enforcement making the laws.

  • vickyvampire

    Yeah Jon Doe Nadcp,need to know Facts on Marijuana, So scary a little Yellow Journalism folks YA think.

  • Voltear

    The fact that this piece dealt with commercial driving privileges makes me wonder about the ADA – Americans with Disability Act. Anyone know of any actions that have been brought, in regard to Medical Marijuana, under the ADA? How sweet it would be to beat one Federal law with another, one that protects people rather than attacks and eats them.

  • DdC

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” – Tolstoy

    The dung worriers and Neocon liars are already trying to nullify and place obstacles for presumed Democrat voters. Purely an un-American activity and its nice to know who sides with the degenerate worms. Manipulating districts or Diebold or 24/7 fake news diverting the story and you think we should hide in the closet? This won’t pertain to individuals anymore than using in states with Initiative or Constitutional protections. Outside of the Buyers Clubs covered by GvR. Corporations contracting with the government already pisstaste their employees as part of the contract since Say No Nancy. OK Birthers and Birchers. The Constitution is a fucking regulation so get over this paranoia of regulating Banksters and Moneysluts. All too willing to spew toxins on the public if they can save a buck. Or slash wages, that means more profit on top, nothing more. Obombo has never been pro legalizing. He never made any promises to stop the drug war. The only thing he said, he has been true too and that was leaving individuals alone following the law in states with iniatives. He claims its about resources but its actually the Constitution. The one most GOPerverts burn as they wrap themselves in the flag making Amendments against flag burning and smoking pot. Freedom Phoebes. So as it stands Democrats are the only viable lesser evil. Outside of Libertard Utopia in the clouds voting for third parties with no chance. That would only serve to Perot the GOP giving it to Obombo anyway. It’s going to wind down to those who profit on the Ganjawar vs those who don’t. Investing in corporations pisstasting or profiting on the war can not call themselves Legalizers or reformers and expect anyone hearing them to keep a straight face. It’s still about the money sillies.

    Alobama has done more than anyone since Carter. As any Chicago politician would. Coupled with Clintonian Legalsleeze. They can’t wipe us out. All they can do is manipulate the truth. Flat out Perjury is a reality, with real consequences. So gossip is used, without false statements to come back and haunt them. Every level of Prohibition is the reference to justify the next level. So the FDA can’t test until the HHS requests it after the IOM evaluates previous thousands of tests stating it is a safe, non addictive, non threatening substance unworthy of scheduling. After the DEA request it. As it stands all NIDA tests are for non medicinal purposes. Yet they have patented individual cannabinoids and paved the way for Big Pharma and sublingual Satevex. The smoke bogeyman puttin the fear of gawd in the believers. Comparisons by the IOM were done with cigarette studies, not tobacco. Added chemicals. The IOM never touched a bud, and is still stalled with the HHS. It reiterated previous studies from La Guardia to the Indian Hemp Commission. All of it is Corporate Government suppression, to oppression then depression buying their white powder pills to “treat” the symptoms.

    Is The DEA Legalizing THC?

    NeoCon Flicts of Interest Bush Barthwell & Bayer
    If a pharmaceutical product contains THC extracted from the marijuana plant, that would be a legal commodity.

    He has freed up local researchers for PTSD treatments. The government has had synthetics of various potencies since the 50’s. So blaming Alobama for saying what he never said is weak. Alobama has never been for stoners and that includes in his circles sick stoners. If the 10th Amendment didn’t engage with states having laws authorizing it for individual citizens. He wouldn’t. I think the Cashkowski’s do their schpeil, and the lyingharts follow orders. They are very careful in their wording and whenever its about not busting, its about individual sick people in states with laws authorizing it, not dispensaries that fall under the Commerce SantaClause. (The Feds won’t bust individuals in states without protective laws either, but the state and local cops can. Theoretically in some pig headed counties state and local cops can’t bust individuals in the 16 states and DC with initiatives.

    FDA Approves Study of Cannabis for PTSD

    I don’t even believe Alobama is trying to be true to the 10th amendment. I think its a whole card knowing the republicans regard it as holy. Fuck with the 10th voting, driving and drugs go to DC. Same as taxing local service jobs receiving Fed money. Cops, Nurses, Fire, Teachers. Transferring 30% of the designated funds to kids, patients etc. over to Alobama or whatever marionette takes its slot. Same as why the Feds Inc. get more back from Koch prisoners @ $72k/y than the person working minimum wage. The technicality that puts them in cages is irrelevant. This may be a warning to unprotected states to act quickly and most importantly use Science to enact the laws. Or it will be a hodgepodge of reds and green states. Seems almost inevitable in the Palin oxy Rush Huckabee prehistoric land of doubting Evolution and caging sick people for their medicinal plants. Not to mention the GOPolitical Cowboy’s workin’ up a Number 6 on the young and minority voters where they go a-ridin’ into town, a-whompin’ and a-whumpin’ every livin’ thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course. “We rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.” ~ Gil Kerlikowske

    For those with alobama short term memory loss… smoke better pot. linx

    ELECTION 2008: Your Next President on Drugs

    There are two candidates in the Democratic Party who have very positive cannabis reform platforms. In our opinion, the best Democratic candidate is US Congressman Dennis Kucinich

    Mike Gravel, a former senator from Alaska (1969-1981) is a candidate who wants to legalize possession of marijuana, decriminalize hard drugs and treat addiction, and end the Iraq War immediately.

    Granite Staters ask each candidate where they stand on DEA raids of medical users and what they would do as President. Senators Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards all claim they would end the raids on medical patients in med-pot states, but I am unconvinced. Richardson, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden all favor keeping non-medical marijuana use criminal, and all five Senators voted to authorize The Patriot Act.

    Senator Barack Obama has also smoked pot and calls it a mistake but doesn’t regret it. He has consistently voted to fund the Iraq War, but says he’s against it. On August 21, during a campaign event in Nashua, New Hampshire, Sen. Obama was asked by GSMM volunteer and seriously ill Nashua resident Scott Turner if he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients like him. Sen. Obama replied, “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” But America’s great black hope is short on substance in every department. Obama has no plans to alter the drug war and his lukewarm rhetoric on medical cannabis patients is an untrustworthy committal. “Not good use of resources” is the lamest of all explanations for opposing a policy.

    “Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is a leader in Congress on combating drug use and stopping the flow of drugs from reaching our shores. In an effort to curb drug use, Senator Biden wrote the law creating the nation’s “Drug Czar” who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. To further ‘protect’ our kids from the scourge of drugs, Senator Biden wrote the law that triples penalties for criminals who use kids to sell drugs, toughens penalties for selling drugs near playgrounds and schools, and increases penalties for drug use and drug trafficking in prisons. It also provides millions of dollars to give law enforcement officials the resources they need to combat drug use in communities nationwide.”

    Hillary Clinton‘s husband, Bill Clinton, was the US president who oversaw marijuana arrests go from 380,689 in 1993 to 734,498 in 2000, the last year of Bill’s presidency. In Hillary Clinton’s seven years as Senator from New York State, she never once criticized the federal drug war or the New York State Rockefeller laws (mandating extremely long jail sentences for small time distribution). She only recently agreed she would stop federal raids on medical patients as president, but has no credibility on the drug war or the Iraq War – she votes for both.

    John Edwards said: “What I will do as president is, we will not be going in and raiding the use of marijuana for medical purposes in states that have legalized it.

    Barack Obama Comes Out in Favor of Marijuana Decriminalization
    January 31, 2008

    For the first time since his presidential bid began, the Obama Campaign has clarified the Senator’s position on marijuana: stop arresting people for it.

    “I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004.

    Update: Tragically, the Obama campaign has now reversed its position on decrim. Most of the above can be disregarded entirely.

    Only by reading things into it. He hasn’t changed his position. Only busting those he knows he has jurisdiction over, Buyers Clubs, large grow ops, not individuals.

    Nevermind, Barack Obama Wants to Arrest Marijuana Users After All
    February 01, 2008

    At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had “always” supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct. Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.

    “If you’re convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws,” Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers.

    Decriminalization and Legalization – what do they mean?
    pete@drugwarrant.com

  • Peter

    RE: Jon Doe’s post above, (http://www.nadcp.org/nadcp-home/)

    Just two of the flat-out lies contained in this article:

    “Individuals who have used
    marijuana at least five times have
    a 20 to 30 percent likelihood of
    becoming addicted to the drug,
    and those who use it regularly
    have a 40 percent likelihood of
    becoming addicted.”

    “The
    best estimate from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    is that a person who smokes five marijuana cigarettes per
    week is likely to be inhaling as many cancer-causing chemicals as one who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.”

  • Francis

    Support for prohibition rests on two premises: (1) illicit drug use is a BAD THING; and (2) prohibition is the best policy to deal with that BAD THING. I think most of us who frequent this site agree that BOTH premises are flawed. But it seems to me like almost every time a pundit or politician goes on TV or writes an op-ed against the drug war, he/she feel the need to expressly accept the first premise and say things like “while drug use is a terrible thing, prohibition is worse” or “people should be free to make their own mistakes” or “the drug war has failed [while suggesting that its aims are legitimate].” Don’t get me wrong, I understand how from a practical standpoint making the argument that “EVEN IF you think drugs are terrible, prohibition is still a bad policy” makes sense when talking to someone who’s been brainwashed into believing that “drugs” are “evil.” But it seems to me that you can make that argument without accepting that first premise!

    Yes, there are harms and risks associated with drugs (although they obviously vary widely by drug and by individual – no matter how much the prohibitionists like to paint “drugs” as a monolith.) But there are also BENEFITS. Why is that so hard for people to acknowledge? The medical benefits of marijuana are often brought up, but for some reason the fact that most recreational drugs are simply fun for the user (that’s why they call them “recreational”) doesn’t seem to count as a legitimate benefit in the calculus? Why the hell not? Also, why don’t we point out that the fact that an individual has chosen to use a drug would seem to indicate that THEY think that the benefits outweigh the costs? Now maybe we as a society think that users of illicit drugs are misinformed regarding the costs.* But since the benefit is primarily a subjective human experience, we should at least acknowledge that they are in a MUCH better position to evaluate that.

    *Of course, if we conclude that they ARE misinformed regarding the costs and benefits, I might respectfully suggest that, oh I don’t know, education and/or treatment would be a better policy approach than shooting their dog and locking them in a cage.

    • dt

      I completely agree. The denial of subjective experience is one of the worst things about the prohibitionists and the Mark Kleiman-types. People in the latter group purport to make policy recommendations based on utilitarian (cost/benefit) analyses, but they deny the legitimacy of benefits deemed “recreational.” They also ignore the great irony of their entire enterprise – the fact that drug users, the people whose deviant behavior they want to control with policies prescribed using cost/benefit analysis, are actually in the best position to make the cost/benefit analysis because of the subjective nature of the drug experience. The heroin user probably has a DAMN GOOD REASON for using heroin – if you plugged into his brain you might understand what drove him to make such a “bad decision.” Sitting in the ivory tower saying that the costs of his actions outweigh the benefits is the height of arrogance.

  • darkcycle

    So….has anybody reported an uptick in raids yet? What remains to be seen is just how much of an impact this nonsence will have. If the storm troopers aren’t moving, this is so much hot air.

  • thelberto gonzales esq

    my local gendarmes are quiescent at present. but i happen to know they have itchy trigger fingers. it’s cost my town quite a few shekels to pay off the unjustly tazered and back-shot victims of police zeal.

  • DdC

    Once again… The DEAth are not on this earth to protect children. They are here to stop people from using substances in competition to the non renewables and to rent cages for the dissidents. Those who project future hobgoblins to muddy the waters and maintain the status quo are in it for the money, not the future children’s welfare.
    Liars should be prosecuted, Gossip should be shunned, Fascists should be Boycotted.

    Oh, what a tangled web do parents weave,
    when they think that their children are naive.
    — Ogden Nash

    Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters
    cannot be trusted with important matters.
    — Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

    “At DEA, our mission is to fight drug trafficking in order to make drug abuse the most expensive, unpleasant, risky, and disreputable form of recreation a person could have.”
    – Donnie Marshall, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)

    In later times, some shall … speak lies in hypocrisy…
    commanding to abstain from that which God hath created to be
    received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
    — Paul: 1 Tim. 4:1

    Not only are we here to protect the public from vicious criminals in the street
    but also to protect the public from harmful ideas.
    — Robert Ingersoll,
    then Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
    in a column by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, June 24, 1972,
    p. 31 (Ingersoll became the first director of the DEA in 1974)

    They can do anything we can’t stop them from doing.
    — Joseph Heller, “Catch-22”

    If they can get you to ask the wrong questions,
    then they don’t need to worry about what answers you come up with.
    — Thomas Pynchon,
    “Gravity’s Rainbow”

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .
    Here’s a couple of examples of extremely heavy handed enforcement by the Federal jack boots. If not enough I can recall half a dozen similar examples but I’d have to put more effort into Googling them. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mr. Obama has bent us over and is demanding that we reveal the identity our paternal ancestor.

    Montana:
    /snip/
    The 11-count indictment charging the Flors is the second to be issued since the pot raids in March and April, when federal agents searched more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana businesses, warehouses and residences.
    /snip/

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_8df5d7e2-e22c-5ab0-849b-6aac88191fa6.html?oCampaign=hottopics
    —————————————————————
    Michigan: Dr. Ruth Buck arrested for writing too many medicinal cannabis recommendations. She was also indicted for running a traditional “pill mill”. To the best of my knowledge she is the first medicinal cannabis doctor who has been indicted by the Feds since the SCOTUS declined to hear Conant v Walters in 2003. To me that indicates that it is highly likely that the administration is going to try to get Conant overturned. Conant is only binding in the 9th Circuit and Michigan is in the 6th.
    http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=8074470

    “Marlinga argued that the government’s charge that Buck aided and abetted the distribution of marijuana is wrong. “By certifying people, even if she should, would be incorrect. It’s not the distribution of marijuana. The new charge that the government is attempting to bring, or has brought to complaint, is not well founded. It’s constitutionally deficient.
    ………………………………………………………………………
    “Feds demand Michigan provide records on medical marijuana patients”

    http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=626417
    —————————————————————
    Let’s not forget the IRS audits of dispensaries for being under the authority of section 280-E. I don’t recall Mr. Bush the lesser sending out the IRS jack boots. Who’s your daddy? indeed.

  • palemalemarcher

    I must take notice of the gratuitous violence in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 08 we compromised in the hope of changing 80% of what’s wrong with our nation, at the risk of enabling that filthy episode of brutality in Grand Rapids. It seems now that the audacity of hope has become just yet another empy platitude. Ps. If I could I would lend you my shredder!