Anytime the president answers a question about marijuana and federal marijuana policy, as he did in a recent interview with ABC's Barbara Walters that airs tonight, it makes sense to parse his words.
Four things stand out in ABC's press release about the president's comments.
The first is that he responded in a serious and substantive tone, which contrasted with the jokingly dismissive ways in which he answered questions about marijuana legalization just a few years ago. The ballot initiative victories in Colorado and Washington gave him no choice this time. Marijuana legalization is now a political reality.
The second was his comment -- highlighted by ABC in its news release -- that recreational users of marijuana in states that have legalized the substance should not be a "top priority" of federal law enforcement officials prosecuting the war on drugs. "We've got bigger fish to fry," he said. That statement is not news. Federal law enforcement officials have never prioritized going after users of marijuana. Obama has said much the same regarding medical consumers of marijuana, but that begs the question of whether consumers will be able to make their purchases from legal or only illegal sources.
The third was when Obama told Walters he does not -- "at this point" -- support widespread legalization of marijuana. The caveat "at this point" sounds a lot like how he responded to questions about legalizing gay marriage - until he finally decided it was time to publicly support it. Obama cited shifting public opinion and essentially made clear that this is not an issue on which he wants to provide leadership so long as public opinion is split and Congress unlikely to do anything constructive.
The fourth, and most substantive, comment was the following: "This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?" What stands out here are the words about the "need to have... a conversation" and the fact that he is framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved as opposed to one in which it is simply assumed that federal marijuana prohibition trumps all.
What remains unclear is whom the president sees as the participants in that conversation. Earlier this week Attorney General Holder said, in response to questions after a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, "I would expect the policy pronouncement that we're going to make will be done relatively soon." All indications suggest that deliberations about the administration's position are being conducted primarily by and among federal law enforcement officials, many of whom appear most comfortable reciting the mantra that "it's all illegal under federal law" as grounds for dismissing any further conversation.
That is why the letter sent last week by Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is especially significant. "What assurance can and will the administration give to state officials involved in the licensing of marijuana retailers that they will not face Federal criminal penalties for carrying out duties assigned to them under state law?" he asked, and then stated that "legislative options exist to resolve the differences between federal and state law in this area and end the uncertainty that residents of Colorado and Washington now face."
Voters in Washington and Colorado did more than just make history last month by voting to end their states' marijuana prohibition laws and attempt instead to regulate marijuana as a legal commodity. They performed a national service by catapulting the national conversation about marijuana policy to a new level of urgency and political significance. President Obama is right about the need for a conversation. He needs to ensure that federal officials engage in good faith and with due deference to the fiscal, moral and public safety and health arguments in favor of legally regulating marijuana rather than persisting with a costly and ineffective prohibitionist policy.
Follow Ethan Nadelmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EthanNadelmann
Obama: Marijuana Users Not High Priority
Obama: Prosecuting Marijuana Users In Washington, Colorado 'Not A Top Priority'
There has been much more than way too much conversation. Polar revaluation is needed -- now. In reality, Cannabis is essential, and has never been truly illegal. In reality, Cannabis is too valuable to be within the rightful jurisdiction of any court, so conversation just continues to legitimize the authority of an outlaw regime. Since 'time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival, we are compelled by increasingly urgent necessity to end Cannabis prohibition, not have another flaccid conversation about it.
Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications Committee on Homeland Security: "Essential Civilian Demand"
http://californiacannabisministry.blogspot.com/2012/04/emergency-preparedness-response-and.html
http://bigbudsmag.com/news/article/marijuana-legalization-big-news-cannabis-growers-november-2012
Current enforcement against that underground system virtually demands the assistance of state and local law officers. The Feds do not have the staff to acquire local intelligence and rarely perform a raid without local officers to provide muscle and to file local charges.
The locals are rightly protective of their turf. The first time that DEA officers arrest and charge one of our citizens for minor possession or sale under Federal law without the knowledge or assistance of state and local officials may well be the last time those officials work with the Feds on any DEA enforcement.
Without local assistance, the DEA may not be able to enforce the law with respect to ANY drug. Withdrawal of local assistance by states that had individually legalized alcohol was what ended prohibition. It left the Federal officers ridiculed, spat on and demoralized.
The Feds must choose between regulated traffic in small quantities of one drug and virtually unregulated traffic in EVERY drug. They rightly fear that such an admission would trigger marijuana legalization campaigns in all of the remaining states.
In fact, commerce will decide MJ in the long term and will not be involved at all in the State's Gay issues.
Since Billions are made from prohibition including by the Primary Dealers to the Federal Reserve(three fined SEVERAL BILLION,, just the last 4 years) for washing drug money, it will always be a 'priority', of the Drug Policy group in the White House under any President of either party to maintain the status quo via a drug war.
But do not take offense people because if the Politicians could be capable of making honest open statement they would assure you, "The Drug War? Don't take it personal...it's only buisness".
Someone with a pedestal, please help make this happen.
Because police, prosecutors and politicians build their careers and empires on it. Because industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. Because other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood. Because many shaky corporations couldn't exist without the laundered money. And because government uses marijuana prohibition as a means of controlling minorities and the poor, and as a pretext for meddling in other countries' affairs.
The trillions of dollars made by the drug gangs have not been buried in the ground. They have been invested in legitimate business, causing another huge support of this persecution of millions of innocent people.
For a good view underneath the iceburg, see Catherine Austin Fitts' excellent article: "Narco Dollars For Beginners." - keeping in mind that while Fitts employs cocaine because it best suits her metaphor, FBI statistics show marijuana sales comprise 80 percent of all "illegal" drug transactions.
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/narcoDollars.html
It's time to dismantle the marijuana-prohibition-industrial-criminal-complex!
which is a safe, gentle herbal medicine and a mild intoxicant,
the police could spend their and our resources to
Do Background Checks on Gun Owners.
Drug warriors have no shame and no reluctance to mouth lies and false statistics to advance their positions, and they all have some financial or political agenda that propels their insincere and nefarious lies about the herb. Remember that in past centuries many notable perosnages defended slavery, even to the Supreme Court level, certain that they were on the side of justice, and it took decades to show the utter insanity of their positions before they were shown to be amoral and craven cowards and profiteers.
It sickens the sound mind to realize that in this day and age we are still caging human beings for the use of a natural and beneficial plant; there is no excuse and no justification, and anyone that supports matijuana prohibition has proven they possess an infirior morality and not a shred of decency and honesty...and these people are able to influence the laws? utterly shameful...
Anyone know if/when it was be aired?
Surely he understands the destruction of life brought on by this senseless War on the American People!!! And every single year that goes by continues to add 800,000+ arrests and the subsequent Police, Courts & Prison costs that go along with the destruction of lives and the taxes that could be collected from otherwise law-abiding citizens.......(?)
WTFU!!! (wake UP!!!)
Then we would have seen the same institutionalized corruption, destabilization of other countries, and millions of lives destroyed, just like the monstrously destructive marijuana prohibition has caused.
You people are aware that they used to tell us in the late 60's that Cocaine wasn't addictive, aren't you?
It has nothing to do with cannabis.