Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Washington, D.C. -- The Obama administration would be willing to work with Congress if lawmakers want to take marijuana off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday.

"We'd be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled, as I said there is a great degree of expertise that exists in Congress," Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. "It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made."

Read More...

Link to post
Share on other sites

first congress has to pass a law that says they are allowed to file a lawsuit against obama.

 

this could be a 'cover your donkey' kind of play. 

obama: well we TRIED working with congress on marijuana

obama: in the end we just had to deschedule marijuana because congress inaction was causing harm to 700,000 people every year over a plant.

 

or it could be a 'shutup hippies, i'm not going to do it' kind of play.

 

so many mixed messages. one hand you have ONDCP , DEA, FDA, NIH all against it, then you have obama admin forcing ptsd research, softening? DOJ enforcement in WA and CO, but DEA head still going at it full bore. obama saying he doesnt want to help marijuana but at the same time says he wants to pardon crack cocaine prisoners. how can you ignore marijuana posession prisoners but go for crack cocaine posession prisoners?

 

i guess crack has worse mandatory minimums than marijuana but wow thats stark.

 

obama could be doing the long game

people: why didnt you deschedule marijuana when you first came into office?

obama: well we didnt know what would happen, if crime would increase or DUI or whatever

obama: but after WA and CO and nothing bad happened, we could tell it was the right thing to do.

 

look thats my hope ok, dont ruin my hope :P

 

2 years people, we have 2 years to legalize federally. 2016...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Similar Content

    • By Michael Komorn
      The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association endorses Dana Nessel for Michigan Attorney General. View our Endorsement here. Civil asset forfeiture is a heavily abused police tool created in order to seize assets of drug kingpins. Unfortunately, the majority of civil asset forfeiture is property or cash seized under $1,000. Police aren't tackling drug kingpins and taking $1,000 at a time, they are taking $1,000 or less from regular people. A majority of the time, these people are never charged or convicted of any crime. Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to stop.
      Dem candidates for AG on civil asset forfeiture
      By LESTER GRAHAM • MAR 16, 2018 Stateside   Dana Nessel (l) and Pat Miles (r) are vying for the Democratic party's nomination to be candidate for Michigan Attorney General. LESTER GRAHAM / MICHIGAN RADIO   The Democrats running for state Attorney General represent two wings of the party.
      Dana Nessel is a self-described progressive. Pat Miles is more centrist, but he’s shifted some of his positions on issues as he’s talked to Democrats across the state.
      We asked each of the candidates about asset forfeiture.
      Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property when police think it was bought with illegally gotten money such as drug money.
      But, even if those people are not convicted or even charged with a crime, they have to fight in court to get their assets back.
      “There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren’t even alleged to have done something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup with Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (Hear the complete Stateside interview with Skorup here.)
      Groups as politically disparate as the Mackinac Center and the American Civil Liberties Union-Michigan have argued for legislation to restrict civil asset forfeiture.
      “I’m also one of the few attorneys running for this office that has actually handled dozens of civil asset forfeiture cases,” Dana Nessel said. 
      There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren't even alleged to have done something wrong. -Jarrett Skorup, Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She’s running for the Democratic nomination for Michigan Attorney General. She is best known as being instrumental in the case that legalized gay marriage nationally. She’s also been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. She has strong feelings about civil asset forfeiture.
      “I truly, honestly believe this to be a violation of due process," says Nessel. "What I see all the time is this: people who have never been convicted of a crime, people who have never even been charged with a crime and, you know, the police get a search warrant, they bust down somebody’s door and they take everything. They take all of their cash. They take all of their automobiles. If they have any money in a bank account, they freeze and seize that. (People) have to hire an attorney to basically prove those assets did not come about, did not come into their possession as a result of criminal distribution of narcotics."
      She says if elected Attorney General, her office will not use civil asset forfeiture. But, if someone is found guilty in court…
      “I don’t mind criminal asset forfeiture. When you have proven someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it’s absolutely fair game to go after property that was the result of the narcotics distribution or manufacturing,” Nessel explained.
      Her opponent, Pat Miles, most recently worked as U.S. Attorney in Michigan’s Western District. Prior to that, he was a partner in a Grand Rapids law firm. He specialized in business and cable/telecommunications laws.
      He agrees there are issues with civil asset forfeiture.
      “I believe that really, there’s been abuses of asset forfeiture by the law enforcement agencies and that there have, there are instances, where we should be waiting until there’s been more evidence brought and more of a conviction of when assets should be forfeited,” he stated.
      But, then he added he thinks it’s an important tool for law enforcement.
      Pat Miles: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate, where people are using the proceeds from criminal conduct in terms of, and they should be, that’s what asset forfeiture is about. And so there are instances where it’s appropriate to use asset forfeiture."
      Lester Graham: "Before or after conviction?"
      PM: “Before conviction. There are instances where it’s appropriate.”
      LG: "Can you give me an idea where that would be the case, where due process wouldn’t matter?"
      PM: “Well, due process should always matter, and, so, but there is the instance where assets are forfeited from proceeds of large scale drug trafficking, from proceeds of embezzlement and other types of cases like that.”
      We went on to talk about other issues and at the end of the interview, like I often do, I asked if he had anything to add.
      PM: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better soundbite for you.”
      LG: (laughs) "Okay. That’s fine with me. What do you want us to know about asset forfeiture?"
      PM: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.”
      LG: "That’s a little different from what you were saying before."
      PM: “It is.”
      LG: "This is your position?"
      PM: “That’s my position.”
      Just this month Miles shifted his position on legalization of recreational marijuana, an issue his opponent, Nessel has championed from the start of her campaign.
      It will be up to the members of the Michigan Democratic Party Endorsement Convention to make sense of those shifts. They will meet on April 15th to endorse candidates.
      TAGS:  ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTION 2018
    • By trix
      Washington, D.C. -- If you're going to wage war on drugs, you need to be outfitted like a warrior.
       
      That seems to be the rationale behind hundreds of police department requests for armored trucks submitted to the Pentagon between 2012 and 2014. The requests, unearthed in a FOIA request by Mother Jones magazine, shed light on how the war on drugs has directly contributed to the militarization of local police forces in recent years.

      Read More...
    • By trix
      Washington, D.C. -- State lawmakers are calling on the federal government to change its drug laws to let states experiment with marijuana and hemp policy.
       
      The National Conference of State Legislatures, the de facto bipartisan group of lawmakers, passed a resolution at its annual meeting Thursday calling on the federal government to amend the Controlled Substances Act to authorize state marijuana laws and on the administration to keep its nose out of state pot policies.

      Read More...
    • By trix
      New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® said on Monday that the war on drugs has been a "failure" -- even though he has vowed to enact a federal crackdown on marijuana, a substance that has been a primary target of the drug war for decades.
       
      "This is a disease and the war on drugs has been a failure -- well-intentioned, but a failure," Christie said at a presidential forum in New Hampshire on Monday. He went on to say that the country should "embrace" people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, offering them a chance at rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

      Read More...
    • By trix
      USA -- The war on drugs is over, and weed won. D.A.R.E., the organization designed to plant a deep-seated fear of drugs in the minds of every late-20th-century middle schooler, published an op-ed calling for marijuana legalization.
       
      Written by former deputy sheriff Carlis McDerment in response to a letter in the Columbus Dispatch, the op-ed explains that it's impossible for law enforcement to control the sale of marijuana to minors. "People like me, and other advocates of marijuana legalization, are not totally blind to the harms that drugs pose to children," McDerment writes. "We just happen to know that legalizing and regulating marijuana will actually make everyone safer."

      Read More...


×
×
  • Create New...