Mark Halperin was right.

The medical marijuana community has been holding its collective breath waiting for the Obama Justice Department's clarification of the 2009 Ogden memo. You may remember all the talk the President made during his candidacy about not harassing medical marijuana patients and respecting state's rights? Well it turned out to be just that, talk.

The clarification memo was leaked on wednesday. Written by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, the new policy is quite a departure from both the words of the President elect and his Attorney General Eric Holder.

It is designed to strike fear and terrorize not just medical marijuana patients and consumers but prosecute any state or municipal official who deigns to help them or enforce state or local laws.

Two years ago Deputy Attorney General David Ogden declared that federal law-enforcement officials shouldn't expend resources going after people who are in "clear and unambiguous compliance" with their state's medical-marijuana laws.

Cole's memo clarifies that Ogden was referring to "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses," not to dispensaries or other commercial marijuana businesses. In other words, marijuana can be used, but good luck trying to procure or grow it legally.

“The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.”

Let us look back at some of the administration and President's past statements on the cannabis scourge:

October 19, 2009 - "It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."  Eric Holder


Spring 2008, Candidate Obama - “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”


“For those organizations that are doing so sanctioned by state law, and doing it in a way that is consistent with state law, and given the limited resources that we have, that will not be an emphasis for this administration.” Eric Holder, 2009

It is obvious to me that the President is once again alienating a huge population of his base, a base that is crying out for an end to this senseless war on this harmless herb and the draconian punishment he metes out for its use. He exhibits a stunning lack of intellectual integrity when he allows his administration to send such conflicting signals to the American people. We have missed a great opportunity for change in this administration, we were fooled into thinking that Barack Obama stood for something besides getting re-elected. Many people of the liberal persuasion will have a hard time making that mistake again.



June 29, 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: James M. Cole Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use
Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department's assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department's position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana (the "Ogden Memo").
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term "caregiver" as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department's view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC
Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations

Green War at the Club of Disaffection

Quotes from Barack Obama:

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecutin­g and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.­” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

“You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.­” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

“The Justice Department going after sick individual­s using [marijuana­] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester­, New Hampshire


California's in a heap of trouble. William Kennedy, the mercurial swing vote on the Supreme Court of the United States, took a rare excursion with the liberal wing this week. He decided that California's prison system is so overcrowded that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and joined his liberal cronies in a 5 to 4 decision. And we have to rid ourselves of 33,000 prisoners in California over the next two years.

"Overcrowding has overtaken the limited resources of prison staff; imposed demands well beyond the capacity of medical and mental health facilities; and created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that make progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority.

We currently have 130,000 prisons incarcerated in prisons in the golden state. 33 prisons that were designed for a maximum of 80,000 people. I have an idea. Why not free the approximately 17,000 people that are stewing in California's prison and jail system for marijuana related offenses? California still arrests around 60,000 people yearly for marijuana offenses, according to the Department of Justice.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Professor Miron earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chaired the economics department at Boston University prior to joining the Harvard faculty. Miron wrote a white paper last year that explored the financial benefits to ending the drug war.

State and federal governments in the United States face massive looming fiscal deficits. One policy change that can reduce deficits is ending the drug war. Legalization means reduced expenditure on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales.This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government.Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs.The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.

Unfortunately, our President, Barack Obama, an admitted former pot smoker, has not been forthright with the American people in regards to marijuana. Before becoming president, then-Senator Obama campaigned on the promise that he would not use "Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws." His Attorney General, Eric Holder sent initial signals that the administration would respect state laws regarding medical marijuana. In 2009 he sent out the famous Ogden Memo to U.S. Attorneys:

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.

Contrast that with this letter sent to the Arizona Department of Health Services May 2, 2011:

 "The United States Attorneys Office ... will vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in the unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law."

...U.S. Attorneys Jenny Durkan of Seattle and Michael Ormsby of Spokane, recently threatened "civil and criminal legal remedies" (read: sanctions) against Washington state citizens, including state employees, who assist with or engage in the production or distribution of medical cannabis, "even if such activities are permitted under state law."

The Department of Justice has been involved in a similar pattern of harassment of State Marijuana programs across the country recently. Letters have been sent to local and state officials in at least 9 different medical marijuana states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

According to the Colorado Independent, in a Nixonian twist, ...the IRS is thought to have begun audits on at least 12 medical marijuana dispensaries in California under the determination that past business deductions are invalid because of a clause in the federal tax code prohibiting any business that traffics in Schedule I or II drugs from making business deductions on their tax returns. The move could bankrupt every dispensary that it targets. The first dispensary to receive a final audit decision from the IRS is the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) in Fairfax, Calif.

Rather than easing draconian laws that penalize marijuana users like heroin users, the drug war has gotten worse during the Obama Administration. There were over 835,000 Americans jailed for marijuana in the first year of the Obama presidency, higher even than his predecessor. There have been at least 90 DEA SWAT-style raids since Obama took office.

It has been nine years and the Federal Government  has still failed to answer a request to reclassify the drug from Schedule 1 to a drug with medical benefits.

A coalition of public interest advocacy groups filed suit today in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to respond to a nine-year-old petition to reclassify marijuana under federal law.
The suit was filed by attorneys Joe Elford of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and Michael Kennedy of the NORML Legal Committee on behalf of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC). The Coalition, which includes NORML and California NORML, filed a comprehensive rescheduling petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on October 9, 2002 challenging marijuana’s Schedule I classification as a controlled substance with “no currently accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse.” The agency formally accepted the petition for filing on April 3, 2003, and per the provisions of the United States Controlled Substances Act (CSA) referred the petition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in July 2004 for a full scientific and medical evaluation.
To date, the federal government has not publicly responded to the petition.
Today’s lawsuit petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus “directing the DEA and the Attorney General to issue a full and final determination on petitioners’ Petition to reschedule marijuana, or, alternatively, state whether it will initiate rule making proceedings, within 60 days.”
It states:
“The DEA’s delay here of more than eight years since the rescheduling Petition was filed — and more than four years since it received HHS’ binding evaluation and recommendations — is inexcusable. … [T]his agency delay in acting on the rescheduling Petition is unreasonable, requiring this Court to intervene.”
Under the CSA, the Attorney General has the authority to reschedule a drug if he finds that it does not meet the criteria for the schedule to which it has been assigned. The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, presently Michelle Leonhart.
The 2002 CRC petition seeks to reschedule cannabis from its Schedule I designation to a less restrictive class under the CSA “on the grounds that: (1) marijuana does have accepted medical uses in the United States; (2) it is safe for use under medical supervision and has an abuse potential lower than Schedule I and II drugs; and (3) it has a dependence liability that is also lower than Schedule I or II drugs.”
NORML filed a similar rescheduling petition with the DEA in 1972, but was not granted a federal hearing on the issue until 1986. In 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young’s determination, a decision the D.C. Court of Appeals eventually affirmed in 1994.

Nine years is plenty of time. I read the other day about a little girl suffering from a rare form of cancer who died recently whose family could not procure the drug legally for her. As a medical marijuana user and patient who went through multiple bouts of cancer and heart surgery, I can tell you from personal experience how marijuana kept me off addictive painkillers and eased my discomfort during my long struggle. Yes, some people are gaming the medical system but I still run into many elderly people that don't know how to score and are suffering for their inability to procure a benign substance that can deliver necessary relief without any harmful side effects.

The people who still have their head in the sand are law enforcement who use drug war booty to enrich their departments and the criminal cartels who stand to lose money if reefer is legalized or decriminalized.

President Obama has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. We have a never ending war in Afghanistan and the middle east, a continuation of Bush era warrantless Patriot Act/ Wiretap behavior, complete backtracking on mountaintop coal removal and oil drilling. Now he gets heavy with the pot heads. I am starting to wonder how long it will take before my liberal friends figure out that he is actually a priggish, prevaricating hypocrite.

United Nogoodniks

Murderer's Row - Assad, Amin, Qadaffi

I am not an apologist for Israel. As I have written on many occasions, their settlement policy and their ceding of power to the ultra religious right (sounds familiar?) is problematic for me. They have turned a blind eye to the squalor in Gaza and to the near impossibility of living conditions there. Yet I admit that I am continually dismayed by the constant buffeting and condemnation they endure internationally while so many really bad actors escape censure.

With the constant homegrown violence that occurs daily in the Islamic world, be it Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Britain and all the other provinces of Muhammed's reach, it is almost laughable that little Israel is the epicenter for all the teeth gnashing. Any punishment they have meted out is dwarfed by daily atrocities in the arab world that get little or no scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the complexion of the United Nations is changing and Israel is finding itself even more ostracized, but this time with the seeming complicity of the Obama Administration. Obama wants Israel to continue its building moratorium on West Bank land that it kept and occupied after being simultaneously attacked by and defeating its neighbors on all sides in the 1967 War. Bloodthirsty Liberal has had some interesting posts recently in regard to Israel and the Obama Administration, some of which I borrow here.

From Anne Bayefsky's Oped 9/16/10:

Wednesday in Geneva during the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the U.N.’s imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite the promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state.Israel is the only U.N. state not permitted to be a full member of any of the U.N.’s five regional groups. Throughout the Human Rights Council sessions, these groups hold key planning meetings in which countries negotiate and share important information behind closed doors. Even the Palestinian Authority, though not a state, is permitted into the Asian regional group. Israelis are allowed into the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) in some parts of the U.N. But WEOG members have chosen to exclude them totally in all of their meetings associated with the Human Rights Council. Rather than refusing to participate until such outrageous discrimination comes to an end, Obama administration representatives walked through the door slammed in the face of Israelis and made themselves comfortable. While Israelis are left standing in the hall during the Council’s regional group meetings, this week for the first time Libya took its seat as a full-fledged Council member. Other full voting members of the U.N.’s lead human rights body include such model citizens as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia and Kyrgyzstan. 

On Monday, writing in The New York Times, Ambassador Donahoe repeated the claim that U.S. engagement filled “a vacuum of leadership” and alleged that “the council is engaged in a serious self-reflection exercise for the purpose of improving its work and functioning with respect to its core mandate of protecting human rights.”

On the very same day as Donahoe’s op-ed appeared, the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) put the president in his place on any notion of reform. The OIC holds the balance of power at the Council, because the Council majority is composed of members from the African and Asian regional groups, and OIC countries form the majority in both the African and Asian groups.

Speaking Monday on behalf of the OIC, Pakistan declared: “the OIC…has always stressed that this is…not a ‘reform’ exercise. It is our considered view that this intergovernmental process…should not reopen the lnstitution-building package [the June 2007 agreement which governs Council operations and adopted the agenda singling out Israel]…The Council is mandated to [do] nothing more but to fine-tune where required.” 

I was also alerted to an article in the New York Sun 10/12/10 by Benny Avni talking about how Canada is getting shuffled out of the U.N. mix.

Canada’s increasing ties with Israel and its defense of Jerusalem have cost it a seat on the United Nations Security Council, diplomats here are saying after days of maneuvering by Arab countries, Brazil, and Cuba in which the United States had nearly disappeared.

Canada’s failure to capture a seat on next year’s Security Council will break a tradition in which America’s northern neighbor has been elected to the most prestigious United Nations body in every decade since 1948. Diplomats here say Brazil was instrumental in handing defeat to Prime Minister Harper in an international contest that pitted Canada, a traditional U.N. power house, against one of the European Union’s least powerful countries – Portugal.

Canada withdrew its candidacy in today’s election for five available council slots after it realized that Portugal had sewn up enough General Assembly votes in the secret ballot to win the only contested seat. Several sources told me that members of a powerful voting bloc in the 192-member assembly – the 57 countries of the Organizations of Islamic Conference – were united in voting for Portugal over Canada, mostly because of Mr. Harper’s record of supporting Israel.

In addition to the OIC, anti-Western countries like Cuba and Venezuela have been active in opposing Canada’s candidacy.While blocs that included the African and Latin American countries were largely thought to have split their vote on the contested seat, the Arab countries and the OIC were largely believed to have voted en-bloc to bar Canada entry to the council.

Mr. Harper’s government has become one of Israel’s more forthright defenders in organizations like the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, where members like Cuba and Libya often single Israel out and garner enough votes to condemn its human rights record.

Only a few years ago, the American ambassador here would have made a public issue in defense of Canada. But in the maneuvering leading to today’s vote, American diplomats were all but absent.

Conversely, Israeli diplomats who habitually count heads before the votes at international bodies do not see Portugal as a reliable ally among the members of the European Union, which often joins the majorities or abstains after attempting to “soften” anti-Israel votes. 

And from Richard Grenell 10/13/10:

In fact, U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest. With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve. That gives the EU more than 25% control of the body and a strong voting block to ensure EU priorities become global priorities. -- This was the second time a high profile ally could have used U.S. help yet Rice chose to stay silent.Israel was left to defend itself against a full-out assault from the U.N. after it captured a flotilla aid ship headed to the Gaza Strip on May 31. Susan Rice never showed up for the marathon emergency U.N. meeting and left Israel without its most powerful friend. “It was a crucial moment for Israel and for the top American Ambassador to not even show up to the meeting where Israel was being attacked by hypocritical dictatorships was a powerful sign to others,” one current U.N. diplomat said.  Instead she instructed colleagues to steer clear, effectively abandoning Canada. By contrast, when Venezuela wanted a seat on the Security Council over U.S. objections in 2006, then-U.S. Ambassador John Bolton aggressively campaigned for Guatemala instead. Bolton met with a plethora of U.N. diplomats and publicly pushed the U.N. to vote 48 times over 3 weeks until Venezuela finally gave up its campaign and was denied a seat. Rice’s actions also differ greatly from the words she used during the 2008 presidential campaign when she promised that the Obama administration would “lead our friends and allies.”

And Caroline Glick from the JPost 10/15/10:

On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked, “Do you [i.e. the administration] recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it? As Rick Richman at Commentary’s blog noted, Crowley repeatedly tried to evade answering the question. Reporters were forced to repeat the question six times before Crowley managed to say, “We recognize that Israel is a – as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes.”As for whether or not the administration will try to convince the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state, Crowley could not bring himself to give a simple affirmative answer.Crowley’s refusal to give straight answers to straight questions about US recognition of Israel as a Jewish state shows that Israel has never faced a more unfriendly US administration. After all, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means recognizing that the Jewish people are a nation, and as a nation, the Jews have a right to self-determination in our national homeland. So recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is recognizing Israel’s right to exist.Crowley’s unwillingness to state flat out that the US recognizes Israel as a Jewish state and expects Israel’s supposed Palestinian peace partners to do so as well means that the Obama administration’s basic hostility to Israel is so salient that no amount of appeasing on any specific issue will alter its position.

Some 93.5 percent of Americans believe that the US should be concerned about Israel’s security. Whereas the Obama administration is unconvinced that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, 77% of Americans believe that they must do so. Only 6% of Americans believe the Palestinians shouldn’t recognize Israel. And not only do Americans support Israel, they expect their leaders to support Israel as well. Some 50.9% of Americans are more likely to vote for a staunchly pro-Israel candidate, and only 25.2% are less likely to do so. Fifty-three percent of Americans say they could not vote for an anti- Israel candidate even if they agreed with the candidate’s positions on most other issues. As for Obama’s treatment of Israel, some 42.7% of Americans believe that the president’s Middle East policies harm Israel’s security, and only 29.6% believe that they are improving Israel’s security situation. Some 51.6% of Americans believe that Obama is less friendly towards Israel than his predecessors have been. Only 35.4% believe that he is as friendly towards Israel as his predecessors were.

The United Nations is an official mockery. We now have Daffy Qaddafi on the United Nations Human Rights Council, a dictator responsible for all sorts of murder and chicanery, while Israel becomes the new international pariah. Forget the Congo rape, the lopping of of noses, honor killing and genital mutilation rampant in the arab world, we all know who the real enemy is. The little country trying to protect itself from a huge enemy that refuses to recognize it's right to exist. Forget China and its human rights record. They hold the mortgage. And our once steadfast ally Israel is marginalized and left on its own to battle the entire world. With the blessings of the Obama Administration, I guess. Honestly I don't know where they really stand. If I was Netanyahu, I would be spending more than a few sleepless nights wondering about the reliability of my american "friend." Because talk is cheap with this administration.

Mr. President?

Our president has disappointed me on several fronts. Nothing terminal yet but I think he has mishandled a few things. Continuing Bush era policies on civil liberties, including warrantless wiretapping. Backtracking on some environmental issues. Not repealing "Don't ask, don't tell." Several other matters that I don't need to broach.

He's still my guy and I support him, but I think he has kowtowed to an opposition that means to dismember him and he is playing their game.  Guess he won't get one republican house vote on health care.

Anyway, I salute him for trying to institute change in our inertial society. Can't be easy. But he does seem to be a bit of a pussy at times.

I have taken this president at his word on several issues.  I want to believe that he will treat Israel and the Palestinians in an even handed fashion. I hope that he will protect the sanctity of our environment and National Parks. One thing that the president stated early on was that the federal government would respect the state's marijuana laws including Proposition 215 in California.

Unfortunately there appears to be a disconnect between word and deed. The head of the DEA, in a turf guarding statement last week, said that law enforcement must be a player in any drug policy scenario or shift. Last week, James Dean Stacy, a marijuana cooperative owner in Vista, was federally indicted after conducting his business in a way that was precisely outlined in state's propositions 215 and 420.  Donna Lambert, Eugene Davidovich and many other innocent victims are facing draconian penalties while seemingly following state law in a letter perfect way.

Now Steve Cooley, District Attorney of Los Angeles, has joined the San Diego D.A., Bonnie Dumanis, in trying to outlaw cooperatives. The city of Fresno is also undertaking similar actions. The law says that cooperative owners can reasonably charge to recoup their costs. The D.A.'s say that any money exchanged is illegal. They are trying to zone  dispensaries out of existence. Dumanis says that patients need to grow their own. Who can take them at their word?

Now as a proud marijuana user who has been helped through kidney cancer, bladder cancer, ureter cancer, open heart surgery, etc. by the evil weed, which allowed me not to use any narcotics post surgery, I have to cry foul. I can't believe their intention is merely to lower the price of grass, which I agree is too high. Somehow, I don't think they care.

I smoked pot prior to being sick and I am honest enough to admit it. If Obama wants to do something positive and get his constituency engaged again, he will push for legalization now and stop this silly drug war. There was an article in the New York Times this week about how Mexican cartels are suffering financially because domestic marijuana growers are cutting into their turf. Time to BUY AMERICAN! If the president does not call off his dogs and turns out to be prevaricating on his intentions to respect state's rights on this issue, he will lose me. He needs to have the balls to set policy and to see it followed through by the ranks.

Californians need to draft a new proposition that these troglodytes can't dismember.  And they need to take names and remember during the next elections.  These tin horn sheriffs care about one thing and that is their own power. Time they start looking for new jobs.