TheAgitator.com
Obama and the DEA’s Medical Marijuana Raids
Thursday, February 5th, 2009My colleague Jacob Sullum notes that while there have been five DEA raids in California since Obama took office, the administration announced yesterday that it does intend to keep Obama’s promise to call them off, but only after he his drug enforcement team is in place.
That’s somewhat encouraging, I guess. But it still doesn’t make much sense. He could end the raids today with an executive order.
I think Obama will have to go slow when it comes to relaxing the drug war (or risk assassination by its many beneficiaries both in and out of government).
Maybe it is more of a chess game than it seems. He could do it with an executive order but what would it cost him? I think that at least in this area he will move slowly.
So……the DEA does not consider itself accountable to the occupant of the Oval Office? Does this mean that once Obama’s “drug enforcement team is in place” they’ll decide which laws they enforce?
….and how does such selective behavior benefit anyone, besides the users of illegal drugs, pray tell?
The DEA does not consider itself accountable to anyone or anything, because their cause is so righteous. National borders, other countries’ sovereignty, laws, civil rights, the constitution, human lives: All are merely inconvenient obstacles to the DEA as long as someone somewhere is smoking a joint.
“… the administration announced yesterday that it does intend to keep Obama’s promise to call them off, but only after he his drug enforcement team is in place. That’s somewhat encouraging, I guess. But it still doesn’t make much sense. He could end the raids today with an executive order.”
If something makes no sense, check your premises.
Your premise seems to be that politicians mean what they say.
How could this possibly be your default premise, Radley?
P.S. A buddy of mine buys weed at one of the dispensaries raided, I just figured out by reading the LA Times article. It was the one in Playa Del Rey. I think he’s a fool for registering with the state when it’s so damn easy to buy it privately, but wtf do I know.
Now the Feds are the custodians of his purchase records. I bet he feels all warm and fuzzy now.
Radley,
Why does an elected politician want his name on such an executive order? Just put Obama DEA in place and let them “re-balance enforcement priorities.”
Remember Rahm Emanuel is a veteran of the Clinton transition team. RE does not want a “gays in the military” political start for Obama. I’m not taking a stand on the substance of gays in the military. I’m just saying that, as a political matter, calling off the raids will be played as a “gays in the military” political mistake. It is, I think, a political fact (right or wrong): calling off the raids by executive order is a net vote loser for Obama.
Zogby poll says 73% want Obama to end DEA raids on med-mar clinics.
http://stash.norml.org/zogby-poll-72-of-voters-want-obama-to-end-dea-medical-marijuana-raids/
The current head of the DEA is Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee and career DEA veteran who was at the very first press conference regarding DEA busts of medical marijuana. She’s also known for doing whatever it takes (including lying) to get what she wants.
If Obama stepped in now and told her to stop the raids, she might decide (this is just speculation) that since she’s going to be gone soon anyway, she’d like to make a stink about it and publicly complain that Obama is telling her not to enforce federal drug laws.
That would be a P.R. nightmare.
(cough) (cough) pussy! (cough)
73%!!!!! Oh Radley. Here is Zogby’s poll question:
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said he would stop federal raids against medical marijuana providers in the 13 states where medical marijuana has become legal. Should President Obama keep his word to end such raids?
The poll was sponsored by NORML. I cannot tell if it was one of Zogby’s “on line” polls. I cannot tell if it was national. I can tell this: If you let me write the question and control the sample, I can get a result way under 50% on the same “issue”.
Polls miss the question anyway. Politicians care very little about what they promised four years before the next election. They care about the +’s and -’s of today’s options. If today the options are i) stop raids by executive order or ii) stop raids using “a comprehensive” review of “enforcement priorities” by a “blue ribbon commission” comprised of “scientists, stake holders, public health experts and law enforcement.” The politician will use option two because it nets him more votes. If 73% were the “real” number, hell, Rove would have made Bush sign the executive order. In a few months, the raids will stop and the reason given will be: “With limited resources, we decided to double our enforcement efforts around schools.”
God help me. I’ve lived in DC so long–I actually think like these people. I could write this BS “Washington Speak” for a living. Pity me.
I don’t think that question is worded to elicit NORML’s preferred response. Seems pretty straightforward.
In any case, it’s consistent with a host of polling on the medical marijuana issue over the past several years:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3392
Rove was certainly poll-driven, but not on issues where Bush & Co. believed they had to uphold the morally righteous position. Otherwise, we would have pulled out of Iraq a long time ago, no?
“Zogby poll says 73% want Obama to end DEA raids on med-mar clinics.”
Too bad it’s the wrong 73%.
By “wrong” I mean impotent.
When 27% control 73%, you have the tail wagging the dog.
Radley,
Very few poll questions are straightforward. You are a very fair guy, so I am surprised that you think the subject question is not worded to elicit NORML’s prefered response.
Maybe I am more dishonest than the average guy, but, if I am ever to pay Zogby to take a poll, I will be damn certain that the question IS worded to tilt the results. As for the wording itself, beware of any poll question containing a prefatory clause. The NORML purchased question contains such a clause. Beware also of policy polls which ask “should Senator Smith keep his promise to build the bridge.” If I answer “no”, I’m kinda saying that I think Senators should break promises.
The better (not perfect)question is this: Should President Obama stop federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states where state law permits such dispensaries?
Let’s try a similar question with a prefatory clause: The DEA says that some marijuana sold openly in dispensaries is smoked by eight year olds. Should President Obama stop DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states where state law permits such dispensaries?
It is a well recorded thing that President Obama did his own experimenting with illicit / illegal drugs during his own youth. Does he intend to become a hypocrite and continue the stupidity of raiding legitimate state-approved medical marijuana dispenseries? Nope. Obama has quietly told the DEA to become more active in the uncovering of truly illicit and evil drugs (like meth). This will prove to be a significantly more worthy and well meant move. The pot smokers in states with medical marijuana laws can rest easy. The Gestapo (DEA) has called off the dogs and pointed them in a new direction.