The Candidates on Federal Marijuana Club Raids

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today on the presidential candidates and their positions on federal raids of marijuana dispensaries. It gets it somewhat right, but is a little misleading in my view. With the Oregon vote coming up, it paints Barack Obama as the only true friend of the medical marijuana user. (None are a friend to the recreational user,although Obama once said he was.)

Here's what I've found over the past months:

Hillary's views on medical marijuana (at least she's consistent, more evidence for my devil you know theory) are here and here: more research, end the federal raids.

The point is, it's not high on the list of Obama's priorities. Here's a recent quote to an Oregon newspaper:

I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely. What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with." (my emphasis.)

In other words, another drug law issue he's not anxious to spend political capital on fixing.

As for Hillary, in 2007 she said:

Sen. Clinton has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Sen. Clinton also voted against an amendment in the U.S. Senate that was intended to undermine state medical marijuana laws.

and,

With respect to medical marijuana, you know I think that we have had a lot of rhetoric and the federal government has been very intent upon trying to prevent states from being able to offer that as an option for people who are in pain. I think we should be doing medical research on this. We ought to find what are the elements that claim to be existing in marijuana that might help people who are suffering from cancer and nausea-related treatments. We ought to find that out. I don't think we should decriminalize it, but we ought to do research into what, if any, medical benefits it has."

In April, she told an Oregon newspaper she would not have the DEA make marijuana a top priority.

What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Program as legal?

We’ve got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that’s already been done. I don’t think it’s a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.

So you’d stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s raids on medical marijuana grows?

What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There’s a lot of other more important work that needs to be done.

All of the Democratic candidates have endorsed ending federal raids on medical marijuana clinics in the states that have legalized marijuana. Obama was the last of the ten to do so.

Hillary promised to do so directly.

During a Manchester campaign on July 13, Len Epstein, a volunteer for Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (GSMM), told Sen. Clinton, "Twelve states allow medical marijuana, but the Bush administration continues to raid patients," to which she responded, "Yes, I know. It's terrible." Epstein then asked, "Would you stop the federal raids?" Sen. Clinton responded firmly, "Yes, I will."

As for McCain, he's said it's a state issue.

The following day in Claremont, Sen. McCain held a town hall meeting at which he was asked about his stance on medical marijuana. When asked in April about ending the medical marijuana raids, McCain had responded, "I will let states decide that issue."

In short, Obama is a lot like Hillary on the subject of marijuana: Both want more research for medical marijuana, both would end federal raids in states where medical pot is legal, and neither favor decriminalization.

The worst may have been Mitt Romney, see the video of him turning away from a medical marijuana user, who is still mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain.

< WV Poll: Clinton By 36 | Missouri GOP's Voter Suppression Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Candidates on Federal Marijuana Club Raids | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ehhhhhh, I'm torn. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM EST

As a medical marijuana patient myself, I'm very torn.

I live in NorCal. I suffer from chronic pain and a couple of other things. My doctor got me my rec for my medical pot ID and I used it last year.

The problem with the system as it is right now is that there are "pot doctors" that ANYONE can go to to get a rec for the medical pot ID, and then that lying sack can go get their ID. You don't understand how frustrating it was for me, in a crapload of pain, to be standing in a room full of literal kids (18-year-olds) and dealers who didn't really need the stuff who had recs that listed "migraines" on their papers who were going to be able to get their IDs quicker than me (because I lack a current state ID...that's my fault, though). Still. A kid who finds a pot doctor to give them the rec because the pot would "help their migraines" is a bit much. And once I did get into the dispensary, it was quite clear that a majority of these people getting the pot weren't doing it for true medical reasons. I think that's something that the system needs to work on.

As well, if the government just decriminalized it and grew the stuff on their own/partnered up with the drug companies, they could make a ton of money on it. The indica strains are what they would need to grow...these dispensaries sell indica and sativa, and sativa does nothing for body pains, it's just for getting high...which I didn't like at all (ah ha, but before I was learned in the difference, I bought whatever looked good). And even having the indica didn't exactly help my body much. It just put my mind out of commission, and I certainly wouldn't be able to type all of this out if I was still doing it (so now I'm on different meds and let my medical pot ID run out; I can still get one, but eh...I'll do it in the summer).

So I support more studies being done re: the effects of pot on people who really need pot. I do agree that it does work to increase your appetite if you can't eat and it does relieve some pain (depending on what it is), but it's not a cure all. Also, I started getting sick on it (puking) myself, so at times it made me even sicker than I already was. The best form I would be able to take is baked goods (the effects weren't as immediate, they were more of a time-release type and didn't really make me sick).

The issues you mention.... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:33 AM EST

highlight to me why the medical marijuana debate is a total non-starter, we just need to legalize for any type of use (medical and/or recreational) and call it a day. To legalize for only medical use just makes a mockery of medical use (which is legitimate, imo), with all the recreational folks taking advantage of the medical dispensaries. And who can blame them? If I could legally obtain medical marijuana in my state, I'd be at my doctor with a bullsh*t story tomorrow to get a script to get John Law off my back.

This is a supposedly free country, no? Legalize any and all use by adults as an unalienable, fundamental human right.


Surely... (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:15:08 AM EST

...you're not discounting people who might actually be seeking relief from migraines? Do you suffer from them? I do--as well as chronic pain, and I can tell you that an acute migraine attack is worse.

It literally makes me want to cut my head off just to make the pain stop.

I don't believe in judging the pain of others and the methods they might use to deal with it.


I DO suffer from migraines. (none / 0) (#28)
by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:25:01 PM EST

I'm discounting the kids and the dealers who go to doctors with bullsh*t (i.e., they don't REALLY have migraines, they just say they do) who're known to give quick and easy recs for the med pot ID cards just so they can get pot "legally" and get high; migraines are the most common fake medical diagnosis because they're hard to prove, unlike my (and others') clear medical disabilities. And please, if you don't understand that this happens, then you really don't live in an area where this happens all the time. Hell, I even HEAR it happening. "I just told the doctor I suffer from migraines, that's how I got my card! :D" Come on. The ads for these doctors are on the backs of the free Bay Area papers (East Bay Express, Oakland Pot Paper (I forget its name), SF Weekly).


: With all due respect.... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM EST

so what? Can you blame them? Like I said before if medical mj were legal in my state I'd be at my doctor with a bullsh*t story tomorrow.
They use to get high, you use to medicate. Both should be allowed in a free society. Since our society is not free you gotta play games and tell lies. It's the American way...don't be honest, be sneaky.
I don't understand why what the other guy does should bother you.

With All Due Respect (4.00 / 2) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST

To your painful condition, I do not think that it is right to judge others who seek relief from MJ whether legally or illegally. Many of the types of MDs you mention give prozak or whatever the latest anti depressant is, as routinely as you describe. People do all sorts of things to make them feel better, and for all I know those things have a true medical effect whether it be a longer life or mere momentary lessening of stress and tension.

If someone wants to smoke or take a prescription pill so be it. It does not trivialize your situation for others to use the same drugs you use for different reasons.


I judge the abuse of the laws. (none / 0) (#29)
by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:28:43 PM EST

Frankly, I don't give a crap if people want to smoke pot. I think it should be decriminalized, period. But until then, abusing a system in the manner that I described is unlawful and ruins things for the people who do things lawfully/by the book. The dispensary that I went to got raided because of the abuse by people. So please, if you haven't been around this situation and don't know what it's like to see this junk happening all the time, I think you're the one who needs to stop judging.


Maybe You Misunderstood (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM EST

My point. Once a drug is legal, on the state level, it is prescribed. MJ is no different than prozak in that regard in CA. I could go into a prozak MD and get a prescription in ten minutes. It doesn't matter what I say, I will get the scrip. It reasonable for you to decide that someone who has gotten a MJ scrip, is unworthy because you do not think that they qualify as patients whatever they look like, smell like or talk like.

And it is really nuts, imo, for you to think that the Feds care that you are using MJ for pain and raided your clinic because many were from your point of view abusing the system. The Feds do not distinguish between you or anyone else, they want all use stopped period and do not sanction any MJ use. From their point of view MJ is schedule 1 and has zero medical uses, only criminals smoke it.


No, that's absolute b.s. (none / 0) (#32)
by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:29:01 AM EST

Sorry, but I'm deeply entrenched in the medical system as a patient and while this could be true:

I could go into a prozak [sic] MD and get a prescription in ten minutes.

this is NOT true:

MJ is no different than prozak [sic] in that regard in CA.

You don't need to file papers in order to get a specialized identification card in order to be able to go into a dispensary if all you're getting is Prozac. MJ isn't dispensed at Walgreen's, Long's or Rite Aid. It's dispensed at coffeshops/dispensaries, and they operate differently than the pharmacy does. The pharmacy's drugs are regulated and tracked; that's why you need a special paper called a TAR form for certain controlled substances, that's why sometimes it takes a couple of days to order and track morphine. MJ isn't regulated like that, and quality control is only existent so far as the growers' word and past performance/relationship with the dispensary buyer. These dispensaries can STILL get raided, people arrested; i.e., I could still technically be arrested and tried on Federal charges, despite the "legality" of it in California (but I don't do it anymore...my card expired in September) AND despite having the medical marijuana ID card and prescription. Not the same with Prozac; no one with a valid prescription for the drug would/could be taken to jail just for possessing it.

You know nothing about the case with the dispensary here, so really, shut it. Oakland voted to make the cops put pot busts low priority, and that's how it is. Since, I've watched the cops cruise right on by the guys smoking out right on the side of the street, but the dispensary was busted--because of the abuse. Why are you trying to tell me otherwise when you're not even in the know? Please...your pushy attitude loaded with assumptions and just...falsehoods saturates all of your other comments to other people too, and that's why you're always getting downrated.


Been There (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:41 AM EST

Read about it regularly in depth, and I have several friends who are card carrying Medical MJ users who live in SF, Berkeley and Oakland, so you are incorrect about my knowledge. I know how the system works.

Sorry that my analogy was lost on you, but to make it clearer, if a doctor was illegally giving out scrips for prozak he or she would get busted. Same goes for the MJ dispensery in CA by the state.

Not sure what you are describing here:

but the dispensary was busted--because of the abuse.

If the Feds busted the place it had nothing to do with abuse of CA law. Under Fed law you would be busted too with a proper scrip even if you were dying and in a wheelchair. If the state busted the dispensaries it was because they were breaking state law. I am not sure why that would affect you.

It appears that you feel that your symptoms are special and others do not deserve to benefit from MJ medical benefits. Most of my friends in your area have been smoking MJ for years and self medicating. Now they are in the program and buy MJ from the dispensaries. None of them suffer from chronic or severe pain but all of them are just as entitled as you to use MJ as a healing drug for whatever their ailments are. I am sorry to hear that you are suffering and am glad that you are able to ease the pain with MJ rather than something more toxic.

And as for this:

Please...your pushy attitude loaded with assumptions and just...falsehoods saturates all of your other comments to other people too, and that's why you're always getting downrated.

And I have been posting here for years, gotten in heated arguments with GOPers Independents and progressives. I have rarely gotten downratings and only given downratings two or three times in the several years of posting here. But you and several of your fanatic Hillary worshipers downrate at the drop of a hat any comment that is less than Hillary adulation without adding anything to the discussion save for ooozzing Hillary love.

It is hilarious that many of you have fled because the Obamamaniacs have taken over your favorite blogs, well you are no different from the Obamamaniacs whom you have fled from. Your one note cultism and downrating says more about you and your fanboys than any comments I have made. Thin gruel.


: I semi-give up on you. (none / 0) (#34)
by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST

Because this is not what you said in the first place:
if a doctor was illegally giving out scrips for prozak he or she would get busted
That's a freaking no-brainer. But that's not what you said, and it's not what I am arguing, either. So whatever your points are, are moot, particularly since you couldn't get the hint as to what "[sic]" means.
It is hilarious that many of you have fled because the Obamamaniacs have taken over your favorite blogs, well you are no different from the Obamamaniacs whom you have fled from. Your one note cultism and downrating says more about you and your fanboys than any comments I have made. Thin gruel.
For the record, I never fled Dkos. I was never a part of their rantings to begin with. But I'm sure your comment about Clintonites being cultist will earn you big brownie points from Jeralyn.

The Kind... (none / 0) (#10)
by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:58:37 AM EST

...really is more like acid than getting mellow.


I just think (none / 0) (#1)
by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM EST

it should be decriminalized. It doesn't do any more harm than alcohol or tobacco.

But that will never fly with the majority of Americans. Our Puritan backgrounds, you know.

I beg to differ. (none / 0) (#3)
by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM EST

you can smoke a cigarette and drive. You can't really toke and drive normally, so pot is a bit more dangerous than tobacco in that sense.

Also, I know a woman who died from lung cancer. She smoked pot, not cigarettes. :\ I think that an individual's body makeup counts, though (maybe she was sensitive to any/all types of smoke in her lungs). Studies must be done.


The statistics (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:13 AM EST

are not in your favor here, Branding Iron.

Deaths from alcohol
Deaths from cigarettes
Deaths from smoking marijuana

Also, you are not allowed to drink and drive, so you shouldn't be allowed to toke and drive. Just because pot would be legal doesn't mean you should be able to go around lighting up any time you want.


: Pot is illegal and harder to get in the first (none / 0) (#30)
by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST

place, and that's why the studies "don't favor my argument". Pot still has similar effects as alcohol does on your system/reaction time, and if pot were made legal, trust common sense, the deaths from pot via vehicular accidents WILL rise because people are stupid. Your sentiment is very right, I'm not arguing that; I'm arguing that if it's made legal (which I do think it should be, it's GENERALLY not any more harmful than tobacco or alcohol), there will be more dumb people doing dumb things and riving while high.

Sorry about the woman you know.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST

but I must remind you that the # 1 cause of death is birth, with a 100% fatality rate.

If smoking ganja takes 5 years off my life, it's a trade off I'm willing to make for all the joy I get from ganja. I sure as hell don't wanna live forever. This is my choice to make, not the governments.


: Ah ha (none / 0) (#35)
by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:38:47 AM EST

but I must remind you that the # 1 cause of death is birth, with a 100% fatality rate.
Touché.

It's interesting how he's doing this (none / 0) (#8)
by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST

micromarketing if you will. I hear that opposing censoring video games and hinting at decriminalizating hashish are actually ways to get kids to vote--in a primary.

did Kennedy have a special appeal to his own particular age group on any little issues like this?

Did he do well because he stopped wearing hats for instance?


My cynical point of view (none / 0) (#7)
by Plutonium Page on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:37 AM EST

Both want more research for medical marijuana...

IMO, that's code for more foot-dragging and avoiding the issue.

I wish they could meet the people whose horrible chronic pain, or chemo-related nausea (or whatever) is only relieved by cannabis.

Even then, I don't think either would change their mind.

Like I said, I'm a cynic.

Bill (none / 0) (#11)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST

Patient Jacki Rickert caught up with Candidate Bill Clinton in Osseo, Wisconsin on his August, 1992 Mississippi River bus trip. She'd been approved for the Federal Government's tiny medical marijuana program, but not yet admitted, when Bush I closed the program to new admissions in 1989.

She spent 8 minutes with the future President, detailing her experience with the federal process. Bill: "I feel your pain." and "when I'm President, you'll get your medicine.

Come his inauguration, she fired off numerous letters and calls to the White House, seeking fulfillment of that promise, recieving only form letters, "If drugs were legal, my brother Roger would be dead."

During Bill's Administrations, even research on possible medical benefits of cannabis was not allowed, as researchers were denied the needed licenses and supplies. The Bush Administration was actually slightly better, as Tommy Thompson approved research protocols while at HHS.
Back in February, Gary Storck and I stood outside Bill's Madison appearance with signs reading "Where's Jacki's Medicine." The Secret Service "Free Speech Zoned" us into what proved to be a good spot, with a line of sight from Bill's disembarkation. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Joe Wineke confirms that Bill asked him what the sign was about. I'd introduced Joe and Jacki last fall, at the ceremony marking the introduction of the Jacki Rickert Medical Marijuanas Act in the State Legislature, so Joe was able to explain. He says that Bill, who famously remembers every conversation, denied any recollection of his 1992 encounter with Ms Rickert.

I have little doubt the current crop.... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST

of potential leaders would do the same shuck and jive.

My answer to Bill....so, because your brother can't get his sh*t together, you need to tyranize me and millions of other Americans? Gee thanks...thanks a lot.


I know there must be a link for this info (none / 0) (#14)
by jawbone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST

somewhere? Or is this anecdotal? Thanx.


Parts are firsthand (none / 0) (#18)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST

ie my conversation with Wineke 3 weeks ago, first reported here...

Here's Jacki's account of her 1992 meet with Bill.

Eau Claire leader-Telegram
Story on the Wisconsin legislation

Wisconsin State Journal columnist Susan Lampert Smith covering the picket Time Passing Clinton Generation By


I wrote up the 1992 encounter for High Times (none / 0) (#19)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST

for their November 1992 issue, which played a party in the magazine's endorsement of Bill, the only time they've weighed in on a Presidential contest. Not in the online archive.


That last link (none / 0) (#20)
by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST

16 years someone will write a column about the things the Obama administration didn't accomplish, and talk about how time passed him by too. And then I'll probably be the one who defends his legacy saying he was a good president (hopefully, he'll be a good president, right? but he won't accomplish everything, right?)

The perspective of the author in that link. I can be dismissive if I want. It's immature. It's not a function of the accomplishments and the politicians themselves. It's not objective. It's a function of how one regards a politician. Looking at politicians and "falling in love" or "having crushes" on them.


: Agreed, she's pretty subjective. (none / 0) (#21)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST

linked simply for confirmation the picket took place.
Timely, tho, the column appeared the Sunday before the WI Primary, and with the nasty storm we got that day, I imagine more widely read than your average Sunday.

Bill is not running for President (none / 0) (#22)
by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST

Hillary is. And I had the opportunity to ask Bill Clinton directly about his current views on drug laws and sentencing at a meeting at his Harlem office in 2006. He has come a long way since the 90's:

We also talked about America's criminal justice system, how politicians are too afraid to do what's right, about the over-jailing of offenders, particularly those with minor drug offenses, about mandatory minimum sentences and how they haven't worked or promoted fairness. He said former offenders should regain the right to vote.

forgot to include link (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST

about the meeting, it's here.


Bill's pretty good on this whenever (none / 0) (#24)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:26:32 PM EST

he's not President.


: P.S. (none / 0) (#25)
by Ben Masel on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST

If you get another chance to meet with him, please suggest an apolology to Jacki. It'd mean a lot to her.

They don't call him "Slick Willy".... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:53 PM EST

for nothing.

I suspect he was telling you what you wanted to hear, not necessarily being sincere.

He is a politician after all, they sell snake-oil for a living:)


a candidate that is strong on this issue (none / 0) (#13)
by oldnorthstate on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM EST

will score some real political points with me. with strong meaning, they actually believe in personal freedom as opposed to just yapping about freedom not being free.

more pot, less jebus (none / 0) (#15)
by DandyTIger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:14 AM EST

is my firm wish for politicians in this country. And while we're at it, how about what you do with your personal life as a pol (if consenting, etc., etc.) is your business. I can dream can't I. Maybe we'll grow up one day.

The Chronicle (none / 0) (#17)
by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM EST

Is about as objective as MSNBC.