4 ms·

I think Obama's against those policies, that's just a really tough political battle for him without a lot of payoff. I mean, given the current lines of public

by jbooth 16y ago

I think Obama's against those policies, that's just a really tough political battle for him without a lot of payoff. I mean, given the current lines of public rhetoric, how is "Obama wants to reduce drug offense sentences" going to go over?

Alex3917 16y ago
"I think Obama's against those policies, that's just a really tough political battle for him without a lot of payoff." The fact is that he went out of his way to block scientific research by appointing Leonhart as DEA administrator. He goes out and claims he supports scientific integrity, but his actions show this is completely false. Nominating someone who supported science wouldn't be controversial or cost him any political capital, but he nominated her anyway just to stall progress and create a climate of fear. No one is claiming it would be politically feasible for Obama to pass laws allowing heroin in the checkout lines of Wal-Mart, but the fact is that he's rejected every opportunity for change, even the ones with zero political cost.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Nominating someone who supported science wouldn't be controversial or cost him any political capital, That'd be nice.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Fact is the federal gov't has not been harrasing people in states that have legalized pot nearly as much in the previous administartion. But congress might actually be changing in a way that is more condusive to change becuase the tea party/libertarian types are more open to this than the socially conservative republicans a lot of them are replacing. We'll see. But even I think it is a lower level priority for the federal government and comes down to state and local government. The cops in this story are local, not the FBI.
  - nowarninglabel 16y ago
    False. You don't just make up something and call it a fact. http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jul/13/medical_marijuana_raids_continue http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jul/13/medical_mari... http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/marijuana_index.html http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/marijuana_index.htm... http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13589480 http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13589480 http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Your link to the DEA shows a total 9 news releases relating to marijuana enforcement actions for 2009-2010. This compares with 15 for 2008, 15 for 2007, 16 for 2006, and so on. Your CBS link quotes the DEA's 'record number of pot seizures' but the actual story makes clear that the record is set by the number of seized plants rather than the number of enforcement actions. The grandparent post observed that that the federal government was 'not harassing people...nearly as much as the previous administration.' It did not make any claims that federal enforcement had halted. Indeed, your linkage seems to support rather than refute the claim that was made. I don't support drug prohibition, but I have to take the outraged complaints about the federal government with a pinch of salt; California voters had the opportunity to legalize the growing, possession and sale of pot 6 weeks ago and decided not to do so. I have heard numerous people mentioning that they voted against it or didn't want it to pass because it would have impacted the business of someone they know in the trade, since legalization would probably have led to a price collapse, at least in the short term. Whether this perspective was held by enough people to alter the outcome of the voting I do not know, but it seems the police are not the only ones invested in the status quo.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "The federal gov't has not been harrasing people in states that have legalized pot nearly as much in the previous administartion." This is mostly true. Unfortunately that has been the extent of the progress. And the administration still routinely makes threats against states that are thinking about reforming their drug laws. "The cops in this story are local, not the FBI." * Many local police departments get funding from the feds if they to spend it on drug enforcement. The vast majority of cities that get offered this money can't afford to turn it down, because it also gets used to keep the rest of the town afloat. * The fact that drugs are illegal on the federal level strongly discourages local governments from legalizing drugs. Many citizens are afraid that the feds will start conducting raids in their town or find a way to cut off their highway funds or otherwise penalize them. Elected officials are afraid of getting sent to jail if they legalize drugs in their towns, even though technically it's perfectly legal.

by jbooth 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"I think Obama's against those policies, that's just a really tough political battle for him without a lot of payoff." The fact is that he went out of his way to block scientific research by appointing Leonhart as DEA administrator. He goes out and claims he supports scientific integrity, but his actions show this is completely false. Nominating someone who supported science wouldn't be controversial or cost him any political capital, but he nominated her anyway just to stall progress and create a climate of fear. No one is claiming it would be politically feasible for Obama to pass laws allowing heroin in the checkout lines of Wal-Mart, but the fact is that he's rejected every opportunity for change, even the ones with zero political cost.

jbooth 16y ago
Nominating someone who supported science wouldn't be controversial or cost him any political capital, That'd be nice.
krschultz 16y ago
Fact is the federal gov't has not been harrasing people in states that have legalized pot nearly as much in the previous administartion. But congress might actually be changing in a way that is more condusive to change becuase the tea party/libertarian types are more open to this than the socially conservative republicans a lot of them are replacing. We'll see. But even I think it is a lower level priority for the federal government and comes down to state and local government. The cops in this story are local, not the FBI.
- nowarninglabel 16y ago
  False. You don't just make up something and call it a fact. http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jul/13/medical_marijuana_raids_continue http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jul/13/medical_mari... http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/marijuana_index.html http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/marijuana_index.htm... http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13589480 http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13589480 http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Your link to the DEA shows a total 9 news releases relating to marijuana enforcement actions for 2009-2010. This compares with 15 for 2008, 15 for 2007, 16 for 2006, and so on. Your CBS link quotes the DEA's 'record number of pot seizures' but the actual story makes clear that the record is set by the number of seized plants rather than the number of enforcement actions. The grandparent post observed that that the federal government was 'not harassing people...nearly as much as the previous administration.' It did not make any claims that federal enforcement had halted. Indeed, your linkage seems to support rather than refute the claim that was made. I don't support drug prohibition, but I have to take the outraged complaints about the federal government with a pinch of salt; California voters had the opportunity to legalize the growing, possession and sale of pot 6 weeks ago and decided not to do so. I have heard numerous people mentioning that they voted against it or didn't want it to pass because it would have impacted the business of someone they know in the trade, since legalization would probably have led to a price collapse, at least in the short term. Whether this perspective was held by enough people to alter the outcome of the voting I do not know, but it seems the police are not the only ones invested in the status quo.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "The federal gov't has not been harrasing people in states that have legalized pot nearly as much in the previous administartion." This is mostly true. Unfortunately that has been the extent of the progress. And the administration still routinely makes threats against states that are thinking about reforming their drug laws. "The cops in this story are local, not the FBI." * Many local police departments get funding from the feds if they to spend it on drug enforcement. The vast majority of cities that get offered this money can't afford to turn it down, because it also gets used to keep the rest of the town afloat. * The fact that drugs are illegal on the federal level strongly discourages local governments from legalizing drugs. Many citizens are afraid that the feds will start conducting raids in their town or find a way to cut off their highway funds or otherwise penalize them. Elected officials are afraid of getting sent to jail if they legalize drugs in their towns, even though technically it's perfectly legal.