1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Federal Raids Against Medical Marijuana to End If Democrat Elected

  1. rxbandit
    Federal Raids Against Medical Marijuana to End If Democrat Elected

    By Steven Edwards [​IMG]August 10, 2007 | 6:19:30 PMFederal raids of medical marijuana users will end under a Dennis Kucinich administration, implied the Democratic Presidential candidate in last night's LGBT Presidential forum. Competing candidate Mike Gravel went further by saying marijuana should be sold alongside alcohol in liquor stores and that all hard drugs should be decriminalized.

    The answer was prompted by a question from cancer sufferer Melissa Etheridge -- who noted that federal raids still take place in the 11 states have legalized medical marijuana -- as medical marijuana can be used to ease pain by many people in the LGBT community who have "AIDS and HIV, and then many people in general with cancer."
    Every Democratic candidate has taken a similar position, with Barack Obama being the only one who has yet to explicitly state he will end federal raids in states where medical marijuana is legal, according to Granite Staters. Obama did, however, vote against an amendment offered to undermine state medical marijuana laws.

    Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul are the only Republican candidates who agree with this stance -- the majority saying they will not stop the federal raids, as other pain management options need to be researched and explored.
    Update: Republican Tom Tancredo has taken a position similar to Barack Obama's, according to Granite Staters. He has voted against legislation that would undermine state medical marijuana programs, but has yet to state explicitly that he would end federal raids.

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/federal-raids-a.html#more

Comments

  1. Heretic.Ape.
    I'll believe it when I see it. There have been a few presidential candidates in years past who said they would go as far as legalizing marijuana, but this somehow seems to slip their minds once in office.
  2. Broshious
    As far as I know making any sort of legislation is not up to the president at all, but rather Congress. I don't know the exact details on Exective Orders though. That could be a possible route to presidential legalization of cannabis.
  3. Felonious Skunk
    This is the problem with cannabis. It makes you forget things including campaign promises.
  4. Nagognog2
    On that note, only George Bush is likely to legalize marijuana. As stated above, laws must go through Congress and the Senate and be passed before recieving the signature of the President (or veto). Only George Bush, in our Nation's history, has managed to bypass this system of checks & balances and create "Midnight-Laws" all by himself (and henchmen).

    So you might consider petitioning George. He is, after all, a dictator.
  5. El Calico Loco
    A president couldn't (legally) overturn the law by himself, but he could rein in the enforcers, as enforcement falls under the Executive branch. A thoughtful and courageous president could even refuse to enforce drug laws despite the protestations of Congress or the majority. Checks and balances.

    Of course, the Federal drug laws are unconstitutional on their face. Nowhere in that document does it give the FedGov the right to regulate drugs. That power belongs - as stated in the 10th Amendment - to the states, or to the people. That's why it required a Constitutional amendment to enact Prohibition of alcohol.

    Back when American leaders still pretended to care about it. Now they just trot out the interstate commerce clause to justify any and every usurpation of Federalism and liberty. They abuse it for things it was never intended to cover.


    ECL
  6. Bajeda
    More this year.

    2008 Election
  7. senioranon
    Wouldn't the DEA be unconstitutional then? To fight it, you would have to challenge it at the supreme court level, I believe- and I highly doubt the supreme court would throw out the DEA. It'd be great if they did, but it'll never happen.
  8. Broshious
    I'd argue that it is unconstitutional, but then again lots of shit going on these days is. It won't change until people decide they want it to.
  9. El Calico Loco
    The DEA is unconstitutional. Technically, most of what the US Federal government does today is contrary to the Constitution. The whole point was to create a federation of independent states, joined together for the purposes of free movement and trade and common defense. States were supposed to be independent and, most importantly, different from one another. In effect, governments would be subjected to the same sort of competition that businesses experience in the market; those with onerous laws or taxes would lose labor and capital to better ones. Turning the United States into The United State defeats the whole purpose.

    The FedGov was meant to be a government of limited powers as enumerated in the Constitution. It's purposes were (1) to act as a united front to the rest of the world in matters of diplomacy, trade, and defense; (2) to have a peaceful forum to resolve disagreements between individual states. The only crimes listed in the document are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. The FedGov isn't even supposed to keep a standing army in times of peace. Domestic issues were supposed to be the province of individual states, counties, cities, and citizens.

    In fact, it's been argued - persuasively, in my opinion - that the division of power between state and federal was the most important of the checks and balances, far more important than the division of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial.

    The trouble is that nobody cares. The average American citizen has no idea what the Constitution says. The average official doesn't care. We've been sold out by all three branches. Even the Supreme Court, which has often been the last defense against tyranny, ruled that the de facto ban on marihuana (when the government passed a tax on the substance and then refused to issue any tax stamps) was perfectly kosher. Never mind that the same principle could be used to ban anything, should those in power desire it - broccoli, bicycles, or even The Bible.

    Though the vast majority of what the FedGov does is technically illegal, what matters is that it has the power to do it.


    ECL
  10. Heretic.Ape.
    Hegemony is necessary for the true masters continued success... such large scale corporate entities and the excessively rich could not exist if every state was like a little country of its own... people wouldn't all want the same products, wouldn't be under the influence of the same media to mold their minds and desires and realities, there could possibly be issues of shipping product to different states (what a pain, and a whole market population lost!), without a standing army the military indusrial complex would collapse. If you want to be really, really rich you can't settle for just a few states to know who you are, to care about what you're pitching. We need a completely homogenized country for the large scale uneven distribution of wealth that is existent. This also extends outside of the country of course. This is why we set up "democracy" all over the world. This is a keyword meaning we are setting up a capitalistic regime that will honor their american investors interests. True wealth comes when you have the entire world as your consumer base. This can't happen if individualism and cultural difference are allowed to run rampant! God forbid!
  11. El Calico Loco
    Sad but true. Capitalists are the worst enemy of capitalism. Monopolists and oligarchs hate the idea of a genuine free market more than Marxists do. They want a single, global system of laws because its easier to control one huge government than five hundred little ones.

    It was the moneyed interests that did away with the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, with its much stronger national government. American children learn all about the Federalist Papers in public school, but never hear about the Anti-Federalist papers or what people like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine said about this new government. If not for them, there wouldn't even have been a Bill of Rights.

    I suspect there's a certain breed of American businessman who looked upon the Soviet Union with approval and envy, imagining with glee what it must be like to control a single corporation that owns everything in a country.


    ECL
  12. Felonious Skunk
    Aah, but who are the checkers?

    And who are the balancers?

    He's only doing what he can get away with because a population of citizens who doesn't give a shit allows it to happen.

    Much like a similar apathetic crowd in the middle of the last century. And boy, were they surprised...
  13. lulz
    Obama just said the same thing (and he has a hell of a lot better chance of getting the nomination than Kucinich)

    http://www.intosanity.com/?p=28
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!