Associated Press
Law enforcement officials in Chicago held a news conference last week after a major drug bust.
When Barack Obama sought the presidency four years ago, his to-do list was as ambitious as any agenda voters had seen in a long while. As he seeks another term, the president can at least say he's had enormous success in racking up historic accomplishments.
But what does he do for an encore? Or more accurately, what is it the president can offer the electorate in terms of campaign promises for a second term, beyond simply vowing to protect the gains and progress we've seen since January 2009?
Obviously, immigration policy remains a top Obama priority, along with systemic changes to U.S. energy policy. Marc Ambinder, however, reports on another issue of significance to the president, which generally doesn't get as much national attention.
According to ongoing discussions with Obama aides and associates, if the president wins a second term, he plans to tackle another American war that has so far been successful only in perpetuating more misery: the four decades of The Drug War.
Don't expect miracles. There is very little the president can do by himself. And pot-smokers shouldn't expect the president to come out in favor of legalizing marijuana. But from his days as a state senator in Illinois, Obama has considered the Drug War to be a failure, a conflict that has exacerbated the problem of drug abuse, devastated entire communities, changed policing practices for the worse, and has led to a generation of young children, disproportionately black and minority, to grow up in dislocated homes, or in none at all.
Not too long ago, policymakers were afraid to touch this issue, fearing that any changes to the "drug war" would necessarily lead to the typical partisan attacks.
But it's clear that the political landscape has changed as American attitudes have evolved, and elected leaders with reform ideas have far less reason to be afraid of pushback.
In 2009, for example, Obama's choice to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, said the whole concept of a "war on drugs" is misguided, and called for a massive shift in emphasis away from incarceration and towards treatment. And Kerlikowske, despite this progressive perspective, was confirmed easily.
Ambinder added that "a consensus is emerging among academics, police officers, lawyers, and even some politicians about what not to do" -- which is to say, rejecting the status quo of the last few decades.
I realize that whatever Obama wants Republicans must reject with knee-jerk vitriol, regardless of merit or common sense, but it's nevertheless good to hear that, if the president does get a second term, reforming ineffective and unproductive drug laws will at least be a top priority.
Leave a Comment:
And after saying that the " whole concept of a "war on drugs" is misguided, " he went and targeted the people who were growing and selling legal marihuana in states that had legalized the use of marihuana for medical purposes. Somehow I don't think that Obama is going to change anything in the war on drug, nor does he want to, which is a shame.
Obama has gone further than any president to ruin the lives of marijuana offenders. He said he would not go after (use valuable resource) marijuana offenses in states that have protective medical marijuana state law. As a result, many medical marijuana dispensaries opened over the last several years in California. Then, even though Obama and AG Holder had said otherwise, the DOJ proceeded to shut every MMJ collective down. Holder even went before Congress June 7 and testified he was only going after “individuals or organizations acting out of conformity with state law.” Actually he had by that time closed hundreds of dispensaries, denying safe access to MMJ as prescribed by state law, that were not proved to be acting outside the state law. Are Obama and Holder lying, just not telling the truth, or ignorant of their own organizational action?
To my understanding only the clinics that were within 1000 feet of a School were shut down, or given notice of violation and a threat of shut down. None of the other clinics were given notice. In my humble opinion I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. Don't get me wrong I support the cause, I just don't think asking for people to open up shop away from schools is asking to much.
yes they shut down a lot of the mmj as they were selling to places that were not within the law like to children personally they need to shut them all down and only have it dispensed through the drugstores with a valid prescription and any doctor that prescribes it for just the general public should be fined 1 million dollars and 1 year in jail and their license revoked permanently this would stop a lot of the illegal use and sale of pot
Daniel and Twinkles: Unfortunately for the truth, your input is example of being misinformed. Every known collective is being processed and shut down, regardless of distance to anything, but for one that I know of. You are both repeating falsehood. Collectives in California were organized under State law as non-profit mutual benefit corporation under guidelines issued by the State AG and as prescribed by the most applicable state law, the 1996 California Compassionate Use Act, which provides safe access to MMJ ("safe" by definition of that law meaning non-intervention by the authorities). The Feds, the State and Local authorities have not yet given evidence otherwise that has held up in the most salient court cases, both State and US Supreme Court (See Colvin v. California AG and Bond v. US, and Lake Forest v. Evergreen). Instead, they have closed down hundreds of collectives that served as safe distribution of MMJ to patients who have been pushed onto the street, where crime and safety is of greater concern and makes MMJ easily available to children.
I clarified my statement with "To My Understanding", never once did I say that understanding was fact, so thanks for the info. However my position stands regarding distance from schools.
The "distance to school" limit is a matter of community sensitivity not supported by any data, to my understanding (thanks for pointing to your clarification), but not objected to by anyone on either side, that I've heard, all of which can be accomplished through local regulation and still provide safe access while just the opposite is what's happening, being regulation that bans collectives, again not holding up in court [see yesterday's ruling in California Appeals Court County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC)].
That's funny, on my drive to work I can see clearly advertised no less than 4 medical marijuana dispensaries within the 12 mile distance in San Jose, CA. At least here, I find it difficult to believe that there are access issues for MMJ consumers or an especially aggresive shut down in effect.
Trollop: I doubt that those open are considered OK by the Feds. They will be found out and processed as promised by the Feds in earlier public statement. So, there is a bit of "whack-amo" going on with dispensaries popping up in a few places. Still, there is only one collective in California I know of that has not received any warning from the Fed, State or Local authorities. You can believe what you want about what constitutes access based on your anecdotal drive-by, but the courts have most recently held that limiting dispensaries, to a location or size is a limit on access and thus an intervention to access under Prop 215 Compassionate Use Act (see Colvin v. Ca. AG Harris).
I know of no one in the cannabis community who believes Obummer's lies at this point... he has so thoroughly burned every possible bridge to the cannabis community with his War on Medical Cannabis, the harshest since 1937.
I would not trust the man any further than I, unaided, could shot put the Sun.
Fool me once, shame on YOU. Fool me twice shame on ME.
Using cannibus for paper and cloth is an extremely smart enviromental move that seems to have zero traction.
Forget cloth. Here is a much more environmentally friendly move.
http://inhabitat.com/hemcrete-carbon-negative-hemp-walls-7x-stronger-than-concrete/
And actually this has little to do with the subject under question because hemp and marihuana are as alike as cherries and peaches. The hemp still growing in the Iowan roadside ditches, the offspring of WWII hemp fiber production, are no more chemically active than sawdust.
The war on drugs is misguided if they are going to focus on marijuana. The growing problem on the west coast and even in our University town is heroin. Marijuana is not in the same class as heroin. Our new drug zar must be replaced if we are to make any progress.
This isn't at the top of my list of priorities, but I wish President Obama would hold off on empty promises. Despite everything he's done right, the failure to close Guantanamo is on the top of the list for many people, especially younger voters. It's a problem for him. And I guess we can kiss goodbye any effort to fight global warming. Remember that? Is your state on fire, or suffering from big storms lately? Gee. Too bad we can't do a thing about that.
He closed Gitmo...do some reading,Congress defunded him closing it
Also, you're kidding yourself if you think "Guantanamo" is "on the top of the list for many people, especially younger voters." Let me tell you, old man. As one of those "younger voters," I can honestly say: I had forgotten about gitmo until you just brought it up, sorry.
Too much war, economy, healthcare, othermorepimportantissues.
Then he did not close it, did he?
I have zero interest in seeing this become an issue in this election. This is a lose-lose proposition for Obama. No matter what he does (or doesn't do) here, it's going to piss off wide swaths of the electorate. He can't afford that right now.
The two biggest never ending wars that the US has failed at repeatedly and always will is the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism.
Don't forget the "War on Poverty," which the current crop of Congressional Republicans is interpreting as a war on poor people. If Republicans win a Congressional majority in both houses come November, I wouldn't be surprised if they took steps to napalm Harlem.
Right, because he really followed through on that 2008 pledge to stop federal medical marijuana attacks... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100310213252094&set=a.971871634434.2352814.14310710
Right, because he didn't follow his 2008 "pledges" to: pass healthcare reform, do something about immigration, wall street reform, turn the economy around, prevent us from going into a depression, pa--oh wait, he did do these things. Drat!
tl;dr: Your analogy is just bad.
Sorry but he promised a public option then caved even before negotiations began.
As to Wall Street reform, please do tell me how many of the Wall Street crooks that wrecked this country have been convicted for their crimes. Tell me how many have even been charged and arrested.
A depression is three or more quarters in recession... so regardless of how desperately the media wants to avoid the D-word, we are still in the Great Depression II.
And on immigration he did an Amnesty, and the vast majority of US voters strongly oppose amnesty for illegals.
But on the topic of the article, Obummer has so thoroughly burned all bridges to the cannabis community if his people think they will get any traction with us they must be smoking meth.
With the stoke of a pen the President could move Marijuana off Schedule 1 where it does not and never has belonged, but was put there by the Nixon Administration who, according to John Erlichmann, knew they were (his word) "lying" about its harmfulness
Cannabis should be completely removed from the CSA schedules based on the rules of the CSA schedules. He does not even need an executive order... a simple memo to the DEA to do so is all that is required. Easiest thing in the world,. But he won't.
What a lying hypocrite Obummer is!
He does run a huge risk with this (not to mention delivering another empty promise... à la Guantanamo Bay). But efficient government requires an efficient Congress and it seems like we're paying salaries for Senators and Legislators to do absolutely nothing and get away with it. Republican or Democrat, the fractured, ideologically-split, unwilling-to- compromise factions do no good to anyone. The War on Drugs is a failure, the War on Terror hasn't been won. Time to call it a day on both.
I was about to say. The guy who promised to protect whistle-blowers and close Gitmo in his first term now offers, through deniable off-the-record surrogates, to wind down the drug war if he gets a second?
I'd settle for him keeping his first term promises, instead.
I'd really like to believe this. But, honestly, I just don't think so. Here's why. Back towards the beginning of his time in the White House they had this internet chat sort of thing. Where they had people send in questions for him and the reporters would pick some to ask him. Chuck TOdd, I believe asked POTUS what he said was the number one question that was sent in by ordinary people....it was about legalizing marijuana. Obama's reaction made all my hope on that subject dissolve. He actually rolled his eyes and laughed. He made light of it. Said something to the effect that he'd like a more serious question. Really? It's the main thing I disagree with with POTUS. I'm thinking this is just hype.
I agree.
This appears to be a really small pivot to get the marijuana legalization supporters on board with his campaign.
It's so frustrating and demoralizing to see nothing being done on an issue that shouldn't be an issue! Sure it's not as bad as health care reform, financial reform, etc, but if this is one of the most popular questions he's getting, and we live in a democracy, and we have such a limited time alive, why not just take some of the money you're spending on this issue and just make life a little more enjoyable for the people in your country?
If Obama is going to use this issue as a lure to secure my vote, I'm both insulted and repulsed.
If you're really single issue like that, then ask yourself what Romney, who has a moral(personal religious) objection to Starbucks lattes is going to do with MMJ. I submit that he's not even going to give it the slightest benefit.
Rmoney did not make the promises... Obummer did.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Vote Jill Stein Green Party 2012!!
If he is reelected there is no downside to calling for the legalization of pot. It is very simple to lay out the dollars and cents arguments for the war on drugs. But that only deals with the most common drug. If pot is legalized then the savings can be put into treatment for other drug addictions. The right is going to scream no matter what Obama does, but the argument against legalization is no better than Prohibition. Once the furor dies down and people hear the rationale, I think the legalization would be approved. But that is going to depend on the specific details when it is legalized.
I think you guys are wrong. I just have a gut feeling he's going to go for it. I've been predicting for some time he would turn his attention to the issue in his second term. The "eye-rolling" and the chuckle he gave during that Chuck Todd interview were a smokescreen. He didn't have to react that dismissively. I think he did so to quell any reaction from the right.
Mark my words, he's going for it. Marijuana, the Drug War, the whole nine yards.
I'd like to share your convictions but can't. Prior to his first presidential campaign he had advocated for the decriminalization of marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA). During his term, raids on medical marijuana dispensaries has gone up compared to Bush. The people that thought he would be an advocate for legalization (or at least decriminalization) and also voted for him, had their vote completely ignored on this issue. Because this issue has not progressed during his first term, why should we believe that he will do anything the next time? Why did he suggest that the legal dispensaries should not be raided and sat back as the people he chose decided to ramp up their efforts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw)?
For me, actions speak louder than words.
Sorry, Jim, but he was dismissive, insulting and offensive. Every poll they do cannabis issues top virtually every category, yet he ignores us as he viciousloy violates his promise re: medical cannabis.
Obummer has burned every bridge to the cannabis community.
Fool me once, shame on YOU. Fool me twice, shame on ME!
Vote Jill Stein Green Party 2012!
too bad the republicans hate him so much; they will surly delay something overdue
Don't blame both Democrats and Republicans. Like Rachel said, it is the Republicans who must reject with "knee-jerk vitriol" anything President Obama wants.
One major difficulty in formulating rational drug policy lies in the fact the war on drugs (sic), began like Prohibition. There was an attempt by moralistic and sanctimonious groups to deal with a social problem by having the laws of the United States reflect their moralistic (not necessarily moral) and sanctimonious (holier-than-thou posturing) views. What might, or might not, help the social problem was secondary. What counted most was taking a righteous, absolutist position. Of course, when the sanctimonious "solution" created bigger problems than it solved (think Al Capone or the drug cartels), anyone suggesting change was labeled a degenerate by all those who got the most satisfaction from moralistic posturing. (Righteousness is the cocaine of the unimaginative, and phony righteousness works just fine.)
The evidence of the drug war's dysfunction has been mounting for decades, but our political leaders are afraid to lead, fearing the wrath of the congenitally wrathful, who are well organized and active. The only way real change will come about is for some very blue states to make incrementally small changes in their drug laws, and establish that they work well over time ("over time" means nothing good will happen fast). That success can be picked up by medium-blue states, and with luck, the enlightenment will spread, but will always be opposed by theocratic legislators, or opportunistic legislators who are beholden to theocrats. (No, I will not tangent off on the anti-choice absolutists. It might lend them legitimacy by linking them to an established American trend.)
I absolutely adore the "They're selling to the chil'rens" argument.
Have any of you actually smoked pot since the 1960s? That @!$%# is EXPENSIVE. When I was still using as a teenager back in the 90's it cost $50+ for ONE QUARTER OF AN OUNCE. I have heard it's gone up since then.
Where exactly do you think elementary school kids are getting this kind of money.
And what makes you think proximity of these dispensaries to a high school inhibits the "kids" from getting drugs? CHances are their High School is the best place to score pot in the whole town ANYWAY. I can't tell you how hard it was to make better connections after I graduated! And I didn't go to a poorly funded school who was lax on the issue. We had ROUTINE drug dog inspections in our high school.
This is a bunch of bogus crap and a waste of national resources in an age of crippling debt. I don't even smoke anymore and am slowly edging towards thinking it's unethical. But there is no denying drug policy in this country is wrecking us and god help poor Mexico. (If you think the drug policy and immigration are not linked, look harder. I promise you there is no way to stop the refugees crossing the border until we stop the laws that empower the murderous cartels and paid off politicians they're actually fleeing from)