|
Xandu posted:I don't think he thinks it's worth a big fight politically, and in the mean time he probably doesn't care enough to exercise much control over the DEA on this stuff, so they're going to continue going after marijuana producers like they're criminals because they are are. Yeah, no: it's more than passively going along and catching the bad guys; it's expanding the scope of criminalization beyond anything the federal government's done before, as he's done incrementally each year since taking office. Who would generate a "big fight" over his not taking these new steps, anyway? It's not like Holder's well-regarded among members of Congress these days, or that members of Congress from decriminalized states are asking for the feds to come in and recriminalize the marijuana trade. *** eta: I guess the sequester's good for something after all:  Obama's still funding the agency at higher levels than Bush ever did, lol. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Aug 27, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
I just think it's wrong to assume there's any top level decision-makers involved in these steps. Obama/Holder are continuing to treat marijuana as criminal in spite of the state legalization, therefore the DEA is continuing to find new ways to go after marijuana producers and sellers based on the current law. We certainly can (and should) hold Obama responsible for that, but it doesn't make it accurate to act as though he is specifically tasking them with "expanding the scope of criminalization." He's just not telling them not to, because he doesn't seem to care about it. edit; Another way to look at that chart is "budget increases as same rate it has for last two decades plus" Xandu fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Obama's still funding the agency at higher levels than Bush ever did, lol. Progress Xandu posted:We certainly can (and should) hold Obama responsible for that, but it doesn't make it accurate to act as though he is specifically tasking them with "expanding the scope of criminalization." He's just not telling them not to, because he doesn't seem to care about it. "he doesn't seem to care" is the most hilarious excuse I've heard a liberal give for Obama's inaction on pot. Do you really think he doesn't understand the drug war? Is he just stupid? Do you think he doesn't know that innocent people are behind bars? His inaction IS support of the status quo. There is no "no action" option for the President when it comes to the DEA. Institutional inertia is a fine excuse when you have the congressional progress, and it's whats thrown out time and time again. This is him making a calculated choice, hopefully he's getting something good for it because I seriously doubt he doesn't understand his actions in the context of the drug war. Xandu posted:I just think it's wrong to assume there's any top level decision-makers involved in these steps. Yeah, just a few bad apples in the DEA? Come on dude, get loving real. Do you say this about the CEO's involved in the mortgage crisis too? quote:edit; Another way to look at that chart is "budget increases as same rate it has for last two decades plus" I prefer "Americans elected Reagan for a fourth term and called it progress" a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
He doesn't care about stopping the war on drugs is a defense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Xandu posted:He doesn't care about stopping the war on drugs is a defense? Yeah, the idea that the President of the United States "doesn't care" about the DEA, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country, and doesn't have any say in it's approaches (although he does appoint the head of the organization, which I guess is just a figurehead in your eyes?) is ludicrous in my eyes. This is borderline "he's a bad negotiator" when he puts forth conservative policy. Who do you think is driving these changes if not the top? If he really just wanted to leave it be, why not call the DEA off? It's not like there's some huge public support for it. It's a calculated political move by a calculating politician who's more interested in serving himself than improving the country. He knows drat well what he's doing and whether or not he's writing executive orders instructing agencies to go after armor cars is beyond the point. Whether or not there's a smoking gun or a paper trail is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Yeah, the idea that the President of the United States "doesn't care" about the DEA, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country, and doesn't have any say in it's approaches (although he does appoint the head of the organization, which I guess is just a figurehead in your eyes?) is ludicrous in my eyes. This is borderline "he's a bad negotiator" when he puts forth conservative policy. Who do you think is driving these changes if not the top? If he really just wanted to leave it be, why not call the DEA off? It's not like there's some huge public support for it. Of course he has say, but the federal government is loving massive and it's a mistake to assume that Obama is necessarily involved in everything (most things) the DEA does beyond setting general policy, which as far as I can tell is essentially the same as it has been. I'm not seeing significant changes in any direction. This is not good, because it means he has no interest in (or intention of) stopping the drug war, which is basically what I've been saying. It's institutional inertia because Obama could change the DEA's policies or directions, but he's not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
The only positive way to spin the situation I can think of is that Obama is not going to wave the magic wand, or indeed even touch it or admit it exists in the case of marijuana and other recreational drugs because the fight genuinely has to come from the people in a way that cannot be ignored or argued against. If he issued an executive order, it would not have the staying power as if every state independently legalizes marijuana one by one until the federal government has no choice but to legalize it as well. It's a 'long game' approach, where rather than even open up the possibility of losing a major battle over legalization, the tide simply pushes and pushes and pushes until it happens without any one person being at the helm. This is happening, and his pushes against the legalization movement are the government struggling to defend their position as best as it can possibly be defended, because if they do that and the dominoes still fall(as they will and are) then it truly becomes a right that cannot be attacked from any angle. Of course, I'm really reaching for this and I'm living in a loving fantasy world if I believed this. Obama is actually just in the pocket of monied interests, as usual. I gave up giving him the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. It happening this way isn't his strategy, it's just the way things are. It's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen without him, and he'll go down as yet another president who happily ruined millions of lives. In 20 years I really don't think I'll see him any other way but as another one of those loving assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:From LA Weekly's coverage of the armored-car ban for dispensaries: This is basically the same info from the article you posted earlier except with an added LEAP quote, an upgrade to an all out "ban" on armored car service, and the exclusion of this quote from the original: quote:Karl Nichols, spokesman for the DEA's San Francisco field office, said he knows of no organized effort by the agency to contact armored car companies and order or advise them to steer clear of marijuana dispensaries. But he said the DEA, if contacted by a company, will point out "the hazards of doing business ... with a business that's violating the (federal drug) law." The DEA denies ordering armored car companies to refuse service to medical marijuana dispensaries. The DEA is complete poo poo but they have no reason to deny something like this if it were true. It looks a lot more like what Heironymous was saying - companies deciding to cover their rear end rather than service quasi-legal businesses. Is the DEA making it clear that pot is still against the law at a federal level and that companies are opening themselves up to potential legal problems by moving money for dispensaries? Probably. But its a huge stretch to take this story and blow it out to some sort of stealth re-prohibition ordered from on high by Obama himself to hamstring legalization. That poo poo is just nuts. If Obama wanted to shut down the mmj/legalization movement, he could do it pretty quickly by ordering the DEA and federal marshals to come down like the hammer of god on dispensaries and there is jack poo poo anyone could do about it. Making it inconvenient to transport money is really far down the list of tools at the feds disposal. As far as Obama being poo poo, yeah, loving duh, he's the President of the United States of America. Of course he's poo poo. No one gets to be President unless they are enormous pieces of poo poo. I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that he didn't immediately crush Washington and Colorado under a mountain of threats, lawsuits and injunctions literally seconds after they voted to legalize. I never thought I would see legalization happen in my life and when it did the response from the feds was silence. That's insane. Should Obama pardon all drug offenders, disband the DEA, and refuse to enforce the CSA? Of course, yes, that's what any human being with a conscience would do. If I could get America to vote me in as president, it's what I would do. Day one, like immediately after swearing in. Then I would spend the rest of my no doubt limited term dealing with the unimaginable political fallout. No one who could or would be elected president will ever be able to do anything to actively change the status quo, at least not right now. It may be within their delineated set of powers but its politically unfeasible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
I reject the idea of it being politically unfeasible as well. It might make re election hard, I guess, but it would enjoy huge support nationwide from a majority of voters. It is more an unknown quantity than it is straight up unfeasible. The reaction would be huge and it is hard to say exactly what would happen and that is different from being unfeasible. I think if we got a president who acted on his conscience instead of his political capital, we'd find out that maybe it's more politically feasible than we think. But that hasn't happened, I think, ever. And it probably never will. We are just talking hypotheticals really, but there's as much reason to believe its be hugely advantageous as to believe it'd be ruinous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This is basically the same info from the article you posted earlier except with an added LEAP quote, an upgrade to an all out "ban" on armored car service, and the exclusion of this quote from the original: Warchicken posted:I reject the idea of it being politically unfeasible as well. It might make re election hard, I guess, but it would enjoy huge support nationwide from a majority of voters. It is more an unknown quantity than it is straight up unfeasible. The reaction would be huge and it is hard to say exactly what would happen and that is different from being unfeasible. Yeah, I don't think it's a political death sentence either, it's just politically risky and among his many other faults Obama doesn't like taking political risks. Twenty years from now, Obama's handling of marijuana legalization is going to end up looking a lot like Bill Clinton's handling of homosexuality in the military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I have a hard time believing somebody as intelligent as Obama is somehow unaware of the staggeringly vast, unfathomable amount of damage that the war on drugs has caused and continues to cause. To say it's not 'worth a big fight politically' would be exactly like saying that nobody gave black people the right to vote until they did for the same reason. If that's not worth a big political fight to him, then he's either an idiot or in the pocket of monied interests, and I'll give you two guesses which one it is. Remember when Eric Holder/Obama went on and on about how much they loved the Wire? And then David Simon said he would make Season 6 just as soon as they ended the drug war? That was a laugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
What, don't you remember the episode where the drug war was shown to be effective, helpful, and good for our country? You know, the one where a bunch of black people died.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
There's movement on the hill:quote:Congress to Hold Hearing on Country's Clashing Marijuana Laws quote:Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy will hold a hearing on marijuana policy after the Senate returns and said Monday that state laws legalizing the drug “should be respected.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I don't think he thinks it's worth a big fight politically, and in the mean time he probably doesn't care enough to exercise much control over the DEA on this stuff, so they're going to continue going after marijuana producers like they're criminals because they are are. I'm not convinced that the president unilaterally deescalating federal anti-marijuana efforts would even result in much of a political fight at this point. The Republicans will do their typical kneejerk condemnation, but I don't think that they would continue pushing it over whatever other scandal du jour they have latched onto. The broad popular support just isn't there for them to make it a major theme of their messaging. Even Holder's announcement about mandatory minimums, which was like a dog whistle handout since crack was involved, didn't create a ton of noise. The will to continue the war on drugs is not there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Also why are the Democrats even paying lip service to republicans at this point? They are an insolvent party that will never be president again. They have waning support all over the country, and once Texas goes purple in 2016 or 2020, they won't even have a bastion. They are a political boogie man and shouldn't be used as an excuse for doing or not doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I reject the idea of it being politically unfeasible as well. It might make re election hard, I guess, but it would enjoy huge support nationwide from a majority of voters. It is more an unknown quantity than it is straight up unfeasible. The reaction would be huge and it is hard to say exactly what would happen and that is different from being unfeasible. If it were just a matter of polling numbers, I think you'd be right. Obama was able to shift on marriage equality the minute the polls showed majority support because there isn't a multi-billion dollar anti gay marriage industry. Unfortunately, the drug war has a deeply entrenched bureaucracy and a huge private industry that depends on putting lots of people in prison in order to make money. There is a lot of political power tied up in the prison industry that can be brought to bear if Obama were to unilaterally legalize drugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Also why are the Democrats even paying lip service to republicans at this point? They are an insolvent party that will never be president again. They have waning support all over the country, and once Texas goes purple in 2016 or 2020, they won't even have a bastion. They are a political boogie man and shouldn't be used as an excuse for doing or not doing anything.  both parties are funded by the same groups and focus on the same agendaDon't be fooled by the rhetoric, a democrat resigned the Patriot act, a democrat re-signed the Bush tax cuts, a democrat oversaw the NSA spying program, etc The GOP (to the Democrats) and the Democrats (to the GOP) are precisely just political boogeymen. Don't look at where the parties disagree to find the dirt, look where they agree. 800peepee51doodoo posted:If it were just a matter of polling numbers, I think you'd be right. Obama was able to shift on marriage equality the minute the polls showed majority support because there isn't a multi-billion dollar anti gay marriage industry. Unfortunately, the drug war has a deeply entrenched bureaucracy and a huge private industry that depends on putting lots of people in prison in order to make money. There is a lot of political power tied up in the prison industry that can be brought to bear if Obama were to unilaterally legalize drugs. I don't think anyone is asking him to unilaterally legalize drugs. Beyond that, be more specific than "can be brought to bear". What can they do? a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
KingEup posted:There's movement on the hill: Everytime I click on this loving thread, I furiously scroll through pages of circular arguments to look for something that's actually loving relevant. Thanks for this, hopefully it doesn't end too badly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Everytime I click on this loving thread, I furiously scroll through pages of circular arguments to look for something that's actually loving relevant. Thanks for this, hopefully it doesn't end too badly. That's a pretty optimistic quote in the article. I could definitely see them modifying/clarifying the law to give more power to the states, based on the lack of strong outcry from either side in opposition to what's been happening so far. This may be the moment we've been waiting for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Questions: Wouldn't the defense of a state's rights to choose if marijuana should be legal or not, fall under the purview of the Republican party? Wouldn't the rights of the individual to choose what and how much of a substance, e.g. coffee, fall under individual's rights, thereby being under the purview of the Democratic party? Would introducing the arguments as such, help to bolster bipartisan support for the decriminalization? VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:
No, but it'd probably increase arguments for nullification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, but it'd probably increase arguments for nullification. The courts have to get on the side of legalization, for that play to work. I was thinking more along the lines, for Republicans, of a political campaign they are already familiar with. I believe in this last election there were many shouts of the Federal government was attempting to subvert states rights and they got a lot of votes for themselves. Along the Democrats line, well, if they are going to argue pro-choice. Why not pro-choice, marijuana? Their constituents, for the most part, already support it. In summation, the Democrats get something they want, the republicans get to stick it to the Feds and we all get Marijuana. Get the right politicians, I'd bet money it would work. As an addendum, imagine the amount of work force, literally, freed up from the release of prison sentences. Also, the amount of tax revenue. How many more people would there be, trying to get work and then paying into the system? This is all just speculation and theory of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:
They wouldn't be getting any jobs thanks to their prison history
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
etalian posted:They wouldn't be getting any jobs thanks to their prison history Point. So, we start a "half way" program. Give businesses an incentive to hire the recently paroled. Tax breaks, state and federal job offers, any of the deals that basically get carried out anyway. Imagine a construction company that got a substantial tax break for a, mostly, recently paroled crew. Ok now put them to work fixing bridges, roads, dams and infrastructure. In return for their faithful service, pick an arbitrary number of years and then expunge their record. Literal work release amnesty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Questions: Wouldn't the defense of a state's rights to choose if marijuana should be legal or not, fall under the purview of the Republican party? Why even bother speculating about what politicians would or should do if they were acting in good faith? There's money in weed being illegal, ergo weed will remain illegal, it's as simple as that. It's always been as simple as that. Most likely this stuff happening on the hill will be a repeat of the time a congressman begged the head of the DEA to at least open the folder and glance momentarily at the data regarding marijuana and she flatly refused. They're not going to do poo poo unless it's to crack down harder. Necc0 posted:That's a pretty optimistic quote in the article. I could definitely see them modifying/clarifying the law to give more power to the states, based on the lack of strong outcry from either side in opposition to what's been happening so far. This may be the moment we've been waiting for. yeah right empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:I was thinking more along the lines, for Republicans, of a political campaign they are already familiar with. I believe in this last election there were many shouts of the Federal government was attempting to subvert states rights and they got a lot of votes for themselves. It works for a certain variety of Republican, the rare individual who at least attempts to have an internally consistent world view. Most don't really care though because they believe the government should leave them alone but still gently caress with people they don't like, like moochers and hippies and black people. VendaGoat posted:So, we start a "half way" program. Give businesses an incentive to hire the recently paroled. Tax breaks, state and federal job offers, any of the deals that basically get carried out anyway. Wait are you suggesting that we reward these drug dealing gangster criminals with good paying jobs?!?! Taking those jobs away from honest, law-abiding Americans, I bet. Now, if we just build some new prisons, that's jobs for real Americans and those criminal scum can stay where they belong, away from our kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:To those of you that think this is purely cold political calculation from Obama, why has he been willing to go strongly in favor of gay marriage and other gay issues while refusing to make even the most tepid steps on reforming the drug war? Obama has never been willing to go strongly in favor of gay marriage and other gay issues. He's willing to say the words when it's beneficial for him, but his policy stances are tepid at best. I don't want to turn this into the gay marriage thread, but his actions more than likely don't match up to your conceptions. National marijuana legalization would be an outcome on the same order of magnitude as national gay marriage, which is a stance Obama has steadfastly opposed. Ending the War on Drugs altogether is about as fanciful an outcome as Obama coming out in support for polyamory and writing an executive order requiring health insurance to cover gender transition. (Although it's worth noting that unlike gay marriage, the DEA maintains the drugs schedules and Obama could unilaterally do anything including legalizing everything with one executive order). What has been done for gay rights is really "a little progress around the edges in some areas, a little foot-dragging in others" (which looks great when you compare it to the active regression that a Republican would cause). Which pretty much describes the progress in drug war reform too. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=352760 quote:WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government says it will not sue to stop the states of Colorado and Washington from allowing recreational marijuana use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
This is good news but my butt is clinched for "The federal government says it will not sue..." with after the ellipse "but it'll perform high altitude saturation bombing".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:This is good news but my butt is clinched for "The federal government says it will not sue..." with after the ellipse "but it'll perform high altitude saturation bombing". Or more relevantly, ". . . until the administration changes." This situation is a great way to force pot users to vote Democratic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Apologies for the Huff Post link, but this was the first article I found that actually lists the 8 priorities. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html quote:The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Well that's about the best outcome short of actually descheduling marijuana altogether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Or more relevantly, ". . . until the administration changes." This situation is a great way to force pot users to vote Democratic. You realize that could also be said about descheduling?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
They won't sue, but will they still arrest people that are compliant under state laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
As long as what you're doing doesn't break the eight precepts they've outlined it doesn't look like they're going to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:They won't sue, but will they still arrest people that are compliant under state laws? Justice Dept. doesn't arrest people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You realize that could also be said about descheduling? Not really. If something's descheduled, it's not a crime to use it or sell it. If the government is merely refraining from prosecuting, I believe (could be wrong) that they could simply change their minds and prosecute when they feel like it, retroactively. In other words, descheduling would protect current users from future liability, while simply refusing to prosecute or sue doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
It's still a bit vague though. Are they going to give banks and other financial institutions the go ahead to work with these state-compliant businesses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not really. If something's descheduled, it's not a crime to use it or sell it. If the government is merely refraining from prosecuting, I believe (could be wrong) that they could simply change their minds and prosecute when they feel like it, retroactively. In other words, descheduling would protect current users from future liability, while simply refusing to prosecute or sue doesn't. No, I mean if another administration comes to power they can reschedule it and then do what they like. Also confessing that you did weed is almost never prosecutable or half of all comedians would be in jail now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
bawfuls posted:It's still a bit vague though. Are they going to give banks and other financial institutions the go ahead to work with these state-compliant businesses? This article from CNN has an admittedly vague paragraph on that topic: quote:The new guidelines don't change federal money laundering rules, meaning that some large banks may still be leery of doing business with marijuana producers and sellers. However, Justice Department officials said there is some leeway for banks to provide services to such businesses, so long as they don't violate the eight priorities being assigned to federal prosecutors. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:19
|
|