September 20, 2014
Obama Administration’s War on Pot in California
Posted on Nov 13, 2011
One of the most striking inconsistencies of President Obama’s administration is its odd stand on the use of marijuana to relieve the suffering of those stricken with cancer, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, migraines and many other debilitating and painful ailments.
In 1996 California voters approved a law permitting the growth, sale and possession of marijuana for such conditions on the recommendation of a physician. Oregon and Washington state, also by popular vote, legalized medical marijuana. In the past 15 years, a total of 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws. Ten of them were by popular vote.
But in October, four federal prosecutors in California announced a crackdown on the growers and dispensaries that distribute marijuana in the state. Laura Duffy, the U.S. attorney in San Diego, said she and her colleagues acted because the medical marijuana business was “turning more and more into a retail for-profit industry.” Andre Birotte Jr., the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said, “Marijuana sales—most often to individuals who have obtained sham doctors’ recommendations for no purpose other than to engage in recreational marijuana use—are the basis of a massive commercial industry.”
The U.S. attorneys, the legal arms of Obama’s Justice Department, have gone far beyond that. Despite state and local laws authorizing growers and distributors, they have sent letters to local officials and to owners of properties which house the marijuana distributors, warning they are violating federal law. Letters have been sent to more than a dozen dispensaries and their landlords, as well as to city officials approving or contemplating approval of such operations.
No matter what Duffy, Birotte and the other U.S. attorneys said at their news conference, their letters do not acknowledge the state’s stand for medical marijuana. To them, it seems that marijuana is marijuana—all bad.
Square, Site wide
“When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else,” candidate Obama said. “My attitude is if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to roll their own or start setting up mom-and-pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.”
The Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Health and Human Services weren’t listening. Despite Obama’s words, his administration’s real policy is spelled out in a ruling by the Justice Department’s DEA recorded in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 131, July 8, 2011. It was a decision made deep in the bureaucracy, revealed in a publication unknown to most people.
Marijuana is regulated by the DEA as a Schedule 1 drug, along with codeine, heroin, LSD and several others. Some medical marijuana advocates asked that it be made a Schedule 2 drug. These are drugs that, while they may cause dependency, are accepted for medical use. Methadone is such a drug.
The medical literature is full of research by physicians from prominent medical schools showing its value for certain conditions. But basing its decision on a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, the DEA said there was not enough evidence that marijuana had a medical use.
I am only a layman, but I didn’t find that argument convincing. The two government agencies provided no evidence that marijuana was any more harmful than gin. The Health and Human Services report agreed with other research that marijuana use didn’t lead to ingestion of heroin or other drugs, and was no more addictive than cigarettes. But the HHS report rejected the published studies of physicians and other researchers who found benefits in marijuana. The report was full of bureaucratic gobbledygook, designed to make it unreadable, hidden away in the Federal Register, not a well-read publication.
It’s a complicated matter. Some medical marijuana advocates say that big-time growers want to use medical marijuana as a foot in the door for complete legalization. Professor Gerald Uelmen of the Santa Clara University Law School, who has defended medical marijuana distributors, told me, “I felt it was a legitimate medicine, miraculous in the relief it gives to people who are suffering peripheral pain, and undergoing chemo. ...” But he feels many advocates regard medical marijuana as “a camel’s nose in the tent, a way to soften up the opposition and achieve total legalization.” This, he said, jeopardizes the medical marijuana movement.
Money is an important factor in the debate. There is plenty of it in the business. On a recent Sunday, I saw several dispensaries side by side on Venice Beach in Los Angeles, charging $100 for a doctor’s consultation for a laundry list of conditions listed outside the “offices,” plus an introduction to a nearby dispensary.
Any ailment, actual or fictitious, was good enough for a doctor’s prescription. The sleazy beachside booths, manned by fringe characters, were probably not what leaders of the medical marijuana movement had in mind when they wrote the ballot measure that changed the law.
“We have strayed away from what is allowed by state law,” said Jane Usher of the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, which is trying to close down such operations.
New and Improved Comments