• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijuana

Lerxst

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijuana

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the policy of the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Medical marijuana advocates in California welcomed the news, but said they still worried about the pending cases of those already in court on drug charges.

California law permits the sale of marijuana for medical purposes, though it still is against federal law.

Holder did not spell out exactly who no longer would face the prospect of raids by the Drug Enforcement Administration. But he was quick to add that law enforcement officers will target anyone who tries to "use medical marijuana laws as a shield" for other illegal activity.

"Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law," the attorney general said.

Advocates and government officials had been waiting since President Barack Obama was sworn into office for a clear signal on what the new president's drug policy would be toward medical marijuana. As a candidate, he repeatedly promised a change in policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Yet shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

Thirteen states have laws permitting medicinal use of marijuana. California is unique among them for the presence of dispensaries, which are businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Legal under California law, such dispensaries are still illegal under federal law.
Click to expand...

Now they just need to keep the momentum on this and hammer out in black and white. One can only hope that this will serve as a catalyst for many more states to relax their own laws and we can move towards fixing this archaic, inefficient, and ineffective modern day prohibition.

:applaud:2grouphug:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Its a not a good start but its not a bad one either. It seems that Holder is trying to keep this low on the radar and chip at it little by little.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

And so it begins:drink
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Nice to see him coming out officially on record with this stance. He alluded to not interfering where state law differs from fed on the issue a few weeks back during a press conference, but this is much more concrete.

I hope this policy will continue if and when Ca passes AB 390, I see no reason why not. After that my fear is whether a future administration decides to do a 180 back to fed. interference in states business.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Goldenboy219 said:
And so it begins:drink
Click to expand...

allow me to join you.

:drink
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

marduc said:
Nice to see him coming out officially on record with this stance. He alluded to not interfering where state law differs from fed on the issue a few weeks back during a press conference, but this is much more concrete.

I hope this policy will continue if and when Ca passes AB 390, I see no reason why not. After that my fear is whether a future administration decides to do a 180 back to fed. interference in states business.
Click to expand...

As I said in my OP, I really hope the movement towards legalization gets some momentum from this. Serious, open debate in the MSM is needed now I think. More states need to seriously use this an opportunity to open the door for breaking the legalization taboo.
 
Last edited:
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

The water is starting to seep through the cracks, lets hope in the next 4 or ideally 8 years we get some massive chunks eroding from that wall.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
As I said in my OP, I really hope the movement towards legalization gets some momentum from this. Serious, open debate in the MSM is needed now I think. More states need to seriously use this an opportunity to open the door for breaking the legalization taboo.
Click to expand...

This was last week, but valid all the less.

YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Stephen Baldwin on Legalizing Marijuana on CNN March 13, 2009
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Baldwin was all but dismissed in that "debate" and R. Paul got free reign to speak his piece. I enjoyed watching that, I was just hoping they would have devoted more time that night to the debate.

The more Ron Paul speaks on the subject the better IMO. hopefully some more politicians will warm up more to taking hold of that "third rail", it has lost a lot of its lethality (admittedly for some districts this is not true).

Rep. Sanchez (Ca) is another one that needs to step up with her position.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

marduc said:
Baldwin was all but dismissed in that "debate" and R. Paul got free reign to speak his piece. I enjoyed watching that, I was just hoping they would have devoted more time that night to the debate.

The more Ron Paul speaks on the subject the better IMO. hopefully some more politicians will warm up more to taking hold of that "third rail", it has lost a lot of its lethality (admittedly for some districts this is not true).

Rep. Sanchez (Ca) is another one that needs to step up with her position.
Click to expand...

LOL, well as he did say, he was in Bio-Dome and Half Baked...
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Baldwin should feel lucky that he didn't get to say much more. He sounded like the board up his ass was about to break into several pieces. Paul hit it square on the head. The only thing I saw wrong with Paul's speech was his denial of marijuana being an issue with driving. I've arresed several impaired drivers who were on marijuana. There are field sobriety tests and vertical nystagmus tests that you can do to establish additional probable cause (assuming you have a driving case or some other reason for the stop). Then you ask for blood or urine.
 
Last edited:
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
Baldwin should feel lucky that he didn't get to say much more. He sounded like the board up his ass was about to break into several pieces. Paul hit it square on the head. The only thing I saw wrong with Paul's speech was his denial of marijuana being an issue with driving. I've arresed several impaired drivers who were on marijuana. There are field sobriety tests and vertical nystagmus tests that you can do to establish additional probable cause (assuming you have a driving case or some other reason for the stop). Then you ask for blood or urine.
Click to expand...

agreed.. I kind of groaned a little when he was rebutting the DUI position. I did laugh my ass off when Baldwin opened with the gateway defense though,

On a side note.. vertical nystagmus tests?? That is referring to eye movement and the old "follow the pen" test right? What ever became of a device known as EYECHECK, are you familiar with that?
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

I'd like to point out to you libertarians that it was a liberal, not a libertarian or republican, that made this crucial step.

if you'd only vote for liberals weed would be legalized a hundred times faster. But instead you waste your votes on the right.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Who in god's name was that awful woman on the far-left? It is easy to identify someone who is high....

Baldwin recommended other pain relieving medications and (i guess) methods over Marijuana. Is this the best the faith-based anti-legalization community can produce?
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

marduc said:
agreed.. I kind of groaned a little when he was rebutting the DUI position. I did laugh my ass off when Baldwin opened with the gateway defense though,

On a side note.. vertical nystagmus tests?? That is referring to eye movement and the old "follow the pen" test right? What ever became of a device known as EYECHECK, are you familiar with that?
Click to expand...

Vertical gaze nystagmus is the "follow the pen" test only going up and down instead of left to right. It has been argued that it can be an indicator of possible narcotics usage. It's also been argued against, however it's still officially accepted as a standard field sobriety test to help determine if there is probable cause. It's only one of many tools that can be used.

The Eyecheck Pupilometer is fairly interesting but I've never known of anyone actually using it. It's just a "breathalyzer" for the eyes only it doesn't actually indicate what or how much of a certain drug is present. Plus it's not very handy to use on the street if you ask me. It's supposed to be pretty accurate but like I said, I don't know who really uses them.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Arch Enemy said:
Who in god's name was that awful woman on the far-left? It is easy to identify someone who is high....

Baldwin recommended other pain relieving medications and (i guess) methods over Marijuana. Is this the best the faith-based anti-legalization community can produce?
Click to expand...

I know, nothing says "moral responsibility" like downing Vicodin, Oxycontin, or suffering horribly from chronic pain and nausea because it's just the right thing to do.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Beat me to it Lerxst.

"Don't smoke that, God will hate you...Here, take these highly addictive pain-killers instead."

You know big pharma doesn't want legalization:

"Got back pain, nausea, glaucoma, insomnia, joint aches, anger management/stress level issues, or any other of a myriad or symptoms?

You could buy all these pills, or...

smoke a bowl!"
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
Baldwin should feel lucky that he didn't get to say much more. He sounded like the board up his ass was about to break into several pieces. Paul hit it square on the head. The only thing I saw wrong with Paul's speech was his denial of marijuana being an issue with driving. I've arresed several impaired drivers who were on marijuana. There are field sobriety tests and vertical nystagmus tests that you can do to establish additional probable cause (assuming you have a driving case or some other reason for the stop). Then you ask for blood or urine.
Click to expand...





excellent post. This highlights my issue with Paul, he goes a bit too far often.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
Baldwin should feel lucky that he didn't get to say much more. He sounded like the board up his ass was about to break into several pieces. Paul hit it square on the head. The only thing I saw wrong with Paul's speech was his denial of marijuana being an issue with driving. I've arresed several impaired drivers who were on marijuana. There are field sobriety tests and vertical nystagmus tests that you can do to establish additional probable cause (assuming you have a driving case or some other reason for the stop). Then you ask for blood or urine.
Click to expand...

Blood or urine won't tell you when they smoked and if they are currently high. It's a flaw in the system. If I smoke regularly for a month, and then stop for a couple days, I would still test positive without being high.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

independent_thinker2002 said:
Blood or urine won't tell you when they smoked and if they are currently high. It's a flaw in the system. If I smoke regularly for a month, and then stop for a couple days, I would still test positive without being high.
Click to expand...

Good point there, which is why I said you had to already have a driving case or some other probable cause, then you ask for blood or urine. Combined with the other PC, the presence of drugs in the system reinforces the officers case. There should be documented evidence of impairment before the the urine or blood is asked for. You never make your case on the drug test results for the very reason you cited. :mrgreen:
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
Good point there, which is why I said you had to already have a driving case or some other probable cause, then you ask for blood or urine. Combined with the other PC, the presence of drugs in the system reinforces the officers case. There should be documented evidence of impairment before the the urine or blood is asked for. You never make your case on the drug test results for the very reason you cited. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why you pay a lawyer to get it knocked down to reckless driving. Or you take the statuatory suspension when you refuse to give evidence against yourself. I know a guy who beat a DUI because he plead the fifth with the officer. The officer testified this which caused the case to be dismissed because in Illinois (at least at the time), the officer can't testify that he took the fifth amendment. It tainted the jury or something like that.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

independent_thinker2002 said:
Yeah, that's why you pay a lawyer to get it knocked down to reckless driving. Or you take the statuatory suspension when you refuse to give evidence against yourself. I know a guy who beat a DUI because he plead the fifth with the officer. The officer testified this which caused the case to be dismissed because in Illinois (at least at the time), the officer can't testify that he took the fifth amendment. It tainted the jury or something like that.
Click to expand...

In Missouri we have what is called "implied consent." When you get your drivers license you agree to provide, on demand, a breath, urine, or blood sample to the requesting officer to test for the presence of intoxicants. Failure to comply is an immediate one year administrative suspension of your driving privileges.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

Lerxst said:
In Missouri we have what is called "implied consent." When you get your drivers license you agree to provide, on demand, a breath, urine, or blood sample to the requesting officer to test for the presence of intoxicants. Failure to comply is an immediate one year administrative suspension of your driving privileges.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Illinois has implied consent too. I don't know how long the suspension is now, it used to be six months. But, if you are guilty, you will lose it that long anyway. You might as well deny them evidence and hope for a legal technicality.
 
Re: AG Holder Signals Administration Will Relax Enforcement Policy on Medical Marijua

new coup for you said:
that sounds really compatible with civil liberties
Click to expand...

Operating a motor vehicle on roads, streets, and highways is a regulated privilege. Not a right. If you want to play you have to play by the rules. This happens to be a really good rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom