The recent multi-agency federal raid of Oaksterdam University, a respected medical marijuana trade school in Oakland, has many people struggling to understand the Obama Administration's escalating campaign against medical cannabis. Most pernicious among these theories is an idea I've heard repeatedly from medical marijuana supporters in recent weeks: that Obama needs to take a tough stance as he gears up for the general election.
It's an easy enough thing to say, but it's wrong, and people who want to change our marijuana laws would be wise to stop talking this way. The truth is that the American people don't want a war on medical marijuana at all, and we're steering our leaders in the wrong direction -- both morally and politically -- when we suggest that voters support the reckless drug war posturing of the past.
Sure, there was a time when politicians fanned the flames of anti-drug hysteria to powerful political effect. Knowing this history is important, but equally critical is the recognition that history, by definition, lies behind us. The "crack epidemic" of the '80s, the death of Len Bias, the "soft on crime" attack ads that ravaged democratic nominee Mike Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign; these were events of political significance, but they're a terrible measure by which to assess the implications of an issue like medical marijuana in an election nearly a quarter century later.
In fact, the question of whether Obama can safely stand up for medical marijuana is incredibly easy to answer. He already did. The president was elected on a platform that included pulling the plug on federal interference with state medical marijuana laws. Everyone knew that was his position, many supported it vigorously and perhaps more significantly, no one criticized him for it.
To even suggest that Obama has to appear "tough on drugs" in order to deflect political attacks is preposterous. What political attacks? When have we ever heard him criticized for any such thing? There is literally no constituency in the American electorate that is pressuring Obama to wage war against medical marijuana. The president could, in all likelihood, speak passionately in favor of medical marijuana from now until November without losing a single vote (and picking up more than a few for his trouble). To explain this, one need only look to the polls showing that eight out of 10 Americans support medical marijuana.
If anyone in the Obama Administration actually believes they're scoring political points by waging war on voter-approved medical marijuana laws, they've got another thing coming. In 2012, the smart political approach to marijuana policy is to look at today's polling, not yesterday's posturing.
Follow Scott Morgan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drugblogger
Steph Sherer: Why We Fight for Medical Cannabis - and How Congress Can Help Us Win
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Pot should be legal with the money spent on educating youth at the High School level to the counter affects of excessive drinking and pot use. There is very little difference between the two other than keeping pot illegal. It is prevalent in American society and needs to be decriminalized.
He did it with DADT. The growing public support of its repeal reached the tipping point for politicians wanting reelection.
Many of the Reefer Madness believers who've railed against cannabis for 40yrs are learning, from their peers, the benefits of medical cannabis. Obama's crackdown is negatively impacting their health and well-being.
This group tends to be politically active and outspoken. They are also active contributors of campaign funds. With the congressional approval numbers at record lows will they continue to believe that the Feds continue to crackdown on medical cannabis in states whose voters have legalized it?
Their dilemma now is deciding to listen to their constituents or continue to protect the interests of the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC's concerns about legalized cannabis. Cannabis is seen as a threat to several industries: Pharms, pulp and paper mills, the textile, plastics, and even those that produce fine machine oils. I think they see medical cannabis setting off a domino effect leading to the legalization and regulation as alcohol is now.
I really don't understand how you can assume that the demographic you are basing on. Most of the patients I know are mainstream law abiding citizens. As to your claim regarding potency and funny names? The effects of cannabis vary by strain. Patients want a strain that best addresses their diagnosis. Naming them allows classifying them by their palliative effects.
This from a self proclaimed star wars geek. I hope this is a feeble attempt at humor. If you really base your opinion about this serious topic on something as shallow as your perception of what medical cannabis users look like then you have serious reality issues & I hope you're not a registered voter.
Then they will get on a stump and scream about the evil Republicans and how evil they are while they all cast their vote for Obama who may be one of the worst Presidents of recent memory when it comes to civil liberties. This is why the "Progressive movement" is just as much AstroTurf at the Tea flunkies.
As a Libertarian I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Ohio primary and would possibly cast my ballot for Bernie Sanders if he were to run for President but I refuse to vote for a 70's Republican like Obama.
It's good to see that there are others who see things as I do. It really is annoying to see how many progressives can't seem to break the link with the D party, even though Obama has been farther right than Bush on some issues. If tomorrow were election day I would vote for former NM gov Johnson who's running as the Libertarian candidate. I know he won't win but I have to tell the Rs & Ds that they don't deserve my vote. I want to see 33% of the voters vote for someone other than Obama or Romney. Break the evil laissez faire duopoly!
The fact that Ron Paul is being ignored by this site should be enough to convince everyone that he is truely for the people.
We are in a race between the masses waking up and the elite completing their control grid.
But as for the overall article, I can only conclude that Obama doesn't feel that he needs the votes. In his jobs speech he advocated reducing the burdens of securities law. Translation: he advocated deregulating Wall Street. After that, of course, he signed into law the single largest deregulation of Wall Street since the Great Depression. This is even bigger than when Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Stegal. So deregulating Wall Street. Evidently he doesnt think he can get the OWS vote or he doesn't care. Medical marijuana: he feels like he doesn't have to run even the appearance of such a campaign because we have no better choice.
I think it's time we vote third party and say clearly "you can't take our votes for granted. If you do you will be a one term president and we will vote you out just so we can have real primaries and select someone we like a few years earlier."