Why Doesn't the DEA Just Crack Down on Medical Marijuana?
Ever wonder why the federal government doesn't just go ahead and raid every medical marijuana dispensary in California? The DEA seems to conduct only enough raids to create the perception of risk, while completely failing to prevent widespread medical access. In an online chat, someone asked the Drug Czar about this, and you know what he said? Nothing. He may be afraid to answer, but I'm not.
First check out his lengthy response and note that it doesn't answer the main question:
Patrick, from San Francisco, CA writes:
Mr. Walters-- My son is a high school junior here in San Francisco, CA. A large percentage of high school students in San Francisco smoke pot on campus several times a day. Teachers and school administrators are powerless to stop it and simply look the other way, all due to state and local laws which make it almost impossible to control pot and thereby keep it out of the hands of kids. How serious is the federal government in its attempts to shut down the phony "medical marijuana" industry, which is really just an underhanded way to make it easy for people to use pot recreationally. Raiding pot clubs could be stepped up easily (with very few people), couldn't they? --PatrickJohn Walters
I’m glad you raised this concern, Patrick. We’re hearing the same thing from many other communities dealing with the same issue.We believe that if there are elements of marijuana that can be applied to modern medicine, they should undergo the same FDA-approval process any other medicine goes through to make sure it’s safe and effective. In absence of that approval, the Federal position is clear: the smoked form of medical marijuana is against Federal law and we will continue to enforce the law.
Last year, the FDA issued an advisory reinforcing the fact that no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use. This statement adds to the already substantial list of national public health organizations that have already spoken out on this issue, including the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society – all of which do not support the smoked form of marijuana as medicine. So who’s pushing for the smoked form of medical marijuana then?
Funded by millions of dollars from those whose goal it is to legalize marijuana outright, marijuana lobbyists have been deployed to Capitol Hill and to States across the Nation to employ their favored tactic of using Americans' natural compassion for the sick to garner support for a far different agenda. These modern-day snake oil proponents cite testimonials—not science—that smoked marijuana helps patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other painful diseases “feel better.” While smoking marijuana may allow patients to temporarily feel better, the medical community makes an important distinction between inebriation and the controlled delivery of pure pharmaceutical medication. If you want to learn more about this, we have information available that shows how medical marijuana laws increase drug-related crime and protect drug dealers. Hopefully you can help us educate more of our citizens about this fraud.
So it's clear that the Drug Czar opposes medical marijuana, but what about the raids? Well, I can think of a few reasons why a full-blown attack on medical access in California would be highly problematic:
1. Simultaneously raiding California's several hundred dispensaries would provoke aggressive protests and widespread bad publicity. The ensuing press coverage would highlight marijuana's well-known medical applications.2. DEA's tactic of suppressing evidence in court that the marijuana is for medical use wouldn’t work if they raided all the providers at once. Jurors would figure it out and vote to acquit, wasting federal law enforcement and prosecutorial resources.
3. Black market violence would erupt immediately as criminals rush in to meet demand. This would prove to everyone that the medical marijuana industry actually made California safer.
4. Anti-medical marijuana statements from Republican presidential hopefuls have already jeopardized their chance at winning California's 54 electoral votes. An aggressive DEA campaign at this time would ensure a democratic victory there. Bush's Drug Czar knows better than to help democrats win California.
I suppose it's not very surprising that the Drug Czar declined to elaborate on this. He certainly wouldn't want to put ideas in anyone's head.
The point here isn't that providing medical marijuana carries no legal risks. It clearly does. But it's important for everyone to understand how hollow most of the DEA's threats really are. DEA's ongoing efforts against medical marijuana providers in California are designed to create the appearance of chaos, which is then cited as evidence that the medical marijuana industry is inherently harmful. This is purely political.
The Drug Czar's failure to answer this simple and common question reveals a great deal about his own reluctance to interfere with the will of California voters.
Whenever you mention Republicans...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 3:38pmyou MUST mention Ron Paul! Whether or not it relates to the overall point you're making in your post. Sorry, Scott, it's the rules of the internets.
For more on Dr. Ron Paul, click here.
Ron Paul!!!
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 4:32pmThere I said it. I like Ron Paul, he just didn't really fit into my point here. And I blogged a good video of him on Monday, so ya'll cut me some slack.
"Whenever you mention Republicans you MUST mention Ron Paul! Whether or not it relates to the overall point you're making in your post. Sorry, Scott, it's the rules of the internets."
What a perfect encapsulation of the rule you folks have been enforcing. Thanks for clarifying. I can't promise to adhere to it though. For one thing, it's clearly not necessary due to the commitment and diligence of Ron Paul supporters who always show up to make sure he gets a nod.
I'll set, you spike. Deal?
Ron Paul
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 6:13amvote ron paul! he is A DOCTOR!! I think he knows what's up!
Ron has no chance among
Comment posted by M Simon on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 6:24amRon has no chance among Republicans.
I voted for him in '88. Once was enough.
If he would focus on the problems that opium prohibition is creating for us in Afghanistan he might get more traction. Republicans feel that winning the war in Afghanistan is important.
Simon - Paul's support is growing, and a vote for him this time
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:57amaround would be far more meaningful than your vote for him in '88. Do the right thing, and trust your conscience. Vote Ron Paul.
- Adam
Poppy for Medicine
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 2:44pmActually, getting out of Afghanistan will solve the opium problem. The US is the one preventing a proven solution from being implemented. The political hacks in Washington don't want the war to end; it's too profitable for the defense industry.
Why Doesn't The DEA Just Crack Down on Medical Marijuana
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 7:10amBecause it is a state law that must be enforced on the state & Federal level. The Federal Government must not deny States Rights to create their own laws? This is a basic fundamental right found in the Constitution. If you are against marijuana don't smoke it, but do not open our states doors to violent criminals, like in the mid west, where pataients are forced to buy off the street at higher prices and much lower quality and the black market reigns supreme. Federal laws have not stopped the use of marijuana, and never will, anywhere in the U.S. Where it is illegal or has outrages penealties for a benign drug/non violent crime with so many theraputic values, it is the height of hypocrisy to have it be illegal and to actually imprison humans for using this SAFEST DRUG EVER IN THE KNOWN WORLD!
Walters is an idiot!
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:23amI'm from Oregon,I find it strange that the DEA has so little activity here.
(Believe me I'm GLAD though!)
We don't have dispenceries here and growers are limited to 4 patients,keeping the plant count under 100.
That means DEA has to go after patients and their growers directly and since these are sick,ailing,dying people with bonafide medical problems it makes for REALLY BAD PRESS!!
Astorias DA almost got jailed by the State Attny Gen for busting legitimate medical users after busting a QUADRAPLEGIC because his GROWER was one plant over count,they put him in JAIL !!
His screw ups cost Clatsup County so much money they pulled his funding,that's why he was campaigning for more funds,the public in the know simply said "SCREW YOU!".
Anyone who supports the war on medical marijuana is ignorant and uninformed,if NOT then they are criminaly bigoted and have no business in politics or law enforcement.The OMMP is a division of DHS and is a STATE program,legally voted in by Oregonians ( who seem to have more common sense and compassion by far than the feds!!)
Seasider ,Pres.North Coast Chap. OregonGreenFree
Non-answer
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:01amI bet Walters's response the question is his canned answer for any question that mentions medical cannabis.
Scott the formatting of the
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:49amScott the formatting of the post makes it look like the list of four reasons was something Walters said, which is not, I think, what you're trying to suggest.
Also, I'm a little confused by the lines "The point here isn't that providing medical marijuana is fundamentally safe. It clearly isn't" ... I think you mean "safe from federal prosecution" but I'm not sure.
Thanks
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 12:17pmGood points. I made minor edits to clarify these things.
It' the delivery system....
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:56amNow that Andrea Barthwell ( former DEA) is a rep for Sativex (GW Pharm.),the game seems obvious... DO NOT INHALE. You must ATOMIZEorTAKEaPILL Corp-USA has finally figured out a plan of decrim-(sorta)-taxation. But you must get doctor permission and ,of course, PAY. This will still leave unanswered, the question of ,why can't a person grow his own medicine? And then make tea or cake. If Walters can figure out a rational answer to this, then he may not be a total idiot. I can't wait for SATIVEX LIGHT. REDGREEN
Some clarifications Scott?
Comment posted by Matt Potter on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 1:46pmScott, could you elaborate on your second point, about DEA covering up that seized marijuana was for legal medical purposes?
Thanks man, good post. h
---
Matt Potter
North Carolina State University
Chair, Student Senate Campus Community Committee
President, Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Federal MMJ Prosecutions
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 4:44pmMedical marijuana defendants in federal court have not been permitted to inform the jury that the marijuana was intended for medical use and legal under state law. This is because there is no federal mmj law, so the CA law is considered irrelevant in federal court.
Imagine that. A bunch of mmj providers going to trial without being permitted to say that they were providing to licensed patients. As in the case of Ed Rosenthal, juries have often been disgusted to learn that they reached a guilty verdict without knowing the whole story.
So...if they raid all the dispensaries at once, their secret will be exposed. Word will get out that every marijuana trial in federal court on the west coast is actually medical. Their trick has worked with a few cases here and there, but would it work if they flooded the courts with hundred of cases that all depend on the same lie?
All it takes is one juror concluding that this must be a medical case and deciding to acquit.
seems overlooked
Comment posted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 5:56pmThat the question asked of mr. Walters was posed in a way as to suggest that medical marijuana laws actually increase underage availability and lend to lax enforcement of underage recreational use ( on school property no less!). Not that I have a problem with that, but the questioner sure seemed to. Just seems like scott is actually siding with the concerned in that the DEA isn't raiding enough, though I'm sure that's not the case. Peace.
Fair enough
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 6:47pmI could have taken some time to refute those points, but that wasn't really where I was trying to go with this.
To be clear, I absolutely don't want the DEA raiding anyone for medical marijuana ever.
Sam ol' ,same ol'
Comment posted by mlang52 on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 10:07pmLooks like Patrick is just another one of those people who have not used their head in thinking out the legalization group's reasoning. Maybe the reason it is being ignored is the fact that busting the kids for mistakes like this can ruin their entire lives and the teachers have taken on themselves to do a little harm control. At least, the parents should be notified and the students reprimanded by the school, just short of calling in the thugs, we call police, now-a-days. I agree their young brains' develpment does not need to be hindered in any way, including alcohol and drugs, while they are in school!
If his school administrators and teachers are not doing anything about the weed, then are they busting anyone for having alcohol on school property? And how does Patrick feel about that? But, kids can't really get booze as easy as drugs. The regulation of alcohol prevents most underage drinking. Although, like drug use, we cannot stop it all.
Blaming the dispensaries is just a stab in the dark, since most of the kids are likely still getting their weed from dealers. And lest we should forget, DEALERS DON'T CARD!!! The act of prohibition actually makes it easier for the kids to get their "weed" than booze!
If the industry was regulated, the dealers would go out of business, because they would lose a big proportion of their business. Those, who cry about "the kids" then want to continue a miserably failing attack on the public called the "drug war", are just handing the kids to the dealers on a silver platter. Ask kids the difference in buying drugs as compared to alcoholic beverages! It is, all too, common that it is easier for them to find dealers to get drugs from than to get access to booze!
They obviously have not learned form the last attempt at prohibition! Ignorance is rampant among the public sector! The sad thing is, people, like Walters, have promoted their propaganda and lies, through the government, all the while, censoring most anything else that would point to their mistakes.
Ther are so many reasons to change the status quo in the "drug war" that it would take pages to describe them. Too bad the American public does not care to read about it. They are brainwashed.
Patrick's Question
Comment posted by Giordano on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 3:24amPatrick’s question looks like a prop, a staged question.
Patrick calls the medical marijuana industry “phony” just as the Drug Czar does. His assumption that medical marijuana facilities contribute to the availability of marijuana in San Francisco shows that he doesn’t know squat about the marijuana black market. Does Patrick really think marijuana was less available in S.F. before Prop 215 took effect? Give me a break.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Patrick doesn’t even live in San Francisco. Also, the timing on this is a bit suspicious. Landlords leasing property to medical marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco have just recently received threatening letters from the DEA informing them that their property may be subject to seizure for hosting the medical outlets. A “concerned citizen complaint” from what is obviously a very atypical San Francisco resident is too much of a coincidence.
Giordano
Patrick the shill...
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 10:02amAn embarassed FEMA was recently caught faking a news release. Certainly ONDCP is capable of the same. Actually the entire government is capable . I now see that most of what the goverment says is one big corporate lie. Why can't others see? Must be that patriotic goo in their eyes.Just say baaaaah...
Patrick sounds like a plant....
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 4:44pmand much of what Walters said is simply not true...a study done in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/) essentially concludes cannabis is really no worse than coffee...numerous studies between then and now have confirmed this...why didn't Patrick offer a follow up question to Walters asking why the DEA and the FDA have refused to allow the appropriate testing? is it because big PhRMA hasn't been able to create an expensive patented version? I notice too that Walters comments specifically say "smoked marijuana" this is a subtle - but important - change from 5 years ago when I researched my bachelor's thesis...
Furthermore, big PhRMA essentially uses anecdotal evidence to "prove" the efficacy of its drugs...relying on human studies where patients evaluate whether or not they "feel better"...big PhRMA is also the reason none of those "associations" will endorse medical cannabis - they are funded by big PhRMA who specifically target their members to purchase their drugs (call it niche marketing)...
I'd like to know why the media in the SF area takes the old tired line of the drug czar, rather then question why the federal government is infringing on state law, they take the DEA line hook line and sinker - channel 5 even went as far as to say medical cannabis patients might give out cannabis food stuffs to trick or treaters on Halloween...
Vote Paul or Kucinich!
undrgrndgirl@aol.com
John Walters says legal distribution is SAFER
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 11:24pm3. Black market violence would erupt immediately as criminals rush in to meet demand. This would prove to everyone that the medical marijuana industry actually made California safer.
Am I the only one who picked up on this? Did he really say this? I would love to see this on one of SAFER's billboards or maybe NORML could run with it. This is even better than the "pete's couch" bullshit.
No.
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Sun, 12/16/2007 - 10:49pmSorry, I shouldn't have indented the bullet points. Those are my theories, not Walters's. The point is that he wouldn't answer the question, and these are some of the possible answers he wanted to avoid having to give.
Two of a Kind
Comment posted by Anonymous on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 7:26pmBaghdad Bob
"There are no US troops in Baghdad."
Drug Czar
"No credible medical organization supports so-called "medical" marijuana."
The Republican Ron Paul Supports Ending the Drug War
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 12/12/2007 - 11:34pmNot all Republicans are against using marijuana for medical applications. Case in point, the Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul. The reason is not surprising: he is also a medical doctor, receiving his medical degree from Duke University. Furthermore, while his specialty is OB/GYN (he is an obstetrician), he feels that it is a state issue, not a Federal issue. This includes the rest of the Controlled Substance Act of 1972 as well. Thus, I am surprised that you did not mention Ron Paul because he is truly someone who can really, potentially, make an impact in ending the drug war.
VOTE FOR the Republican RON PAUL in 2008 during California primaries!!!! (www.ronpaul2008.com to learn more)