From StopTheDrugWar.com (posted Thu, 11/06/2008)

This is the Obama campaign’s response to emails about medical marijuana:


Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Obama for America to inquire about the Senator's position on allowing severely ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes.

Many states have laws that condone medical marijuana, but the Bush Administration is using federal drug enforcement agents to raid these facilities and arrest seriously ill people. Focusing scarce law enforcement resources on these patients who pose no threat while many violent and highly dangerous drug traffickers are at large makes no sense. Senator Obama will not continue the Bush policy when he is president.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Obama for America

Obama has a lot on his plate so I don't think you can expect a lot of action on this issue at the federal level. However, if he fulfills his promise, that alone will be a big step forward.

__________________
Grower's Bookshelf

This is how I think it will go down:
Obama puts some reasonable supreme court justices in place
Fed's raid a care clinic
High Times or some other advocacy group pays for a hell of a lawyer
The case goes infront of the supreme court
The supreme court decides in favor of state's rights on the issue and sets a precedent protecting care givers.

__________________
OutGrowBigBro.org"It's not about the salary, it's all about reality"-NWA

Ok, what you say comes the closest to what I envision taking place, ultimately. But, let's say it falls down like this... will the Supreme Court be making a ruling for said state only, or will their decision guarantee protection for all states? I know this is all hypothetical anyway, but I live on hyptheticals.

Now then, do you think the Supreme Court would favor more restrictions on what constitutes a "true, deserving" medical marijuana patient? I mean, if they give in one sense, do you think they taketh in another sense?

__________________
"You know, it takes more energy to frown than it does to smile?"

"Really? Did you know it takes more energy for you to tell me that than it does for you to shut the fuck up and leave me alone?" ~ Bill Hicks

depends on how the case i believe. not positive. i guess it also depends on how the case is presented to. i may be wrong.

i think he will cut the fed raids as him helping the economy. Waits of funds

__________________
Raoul Duke: Look, there's two women fucking a polar bear!
Dr. Gonzo: Don't tell me these things. Not now man.

CrackerJax absolutely right. Obama isn't going to touch the issue of marijuana. I think we would be lucky if he did anything by the 3rd or 4th year. We have so much other shit going on with the country, that marijauan is probably the last thing on his mind. depending on what he decides to do with the economy we could only be waiting a few years, or nothing might happen durring his term.

Supreme court is the highest law in the land, once they decide on a topic thats it as long as it pertains to FEDERAL law. State supreme court decides in the case of state law. If the 2 bodies are in opposition the federal ruling wins the day ni theory. Of course states can opt no to change their laws so they are consistent with federal law which is largely a symolic gesture.

No I don't think it will happen like this at all. Their is nothing to contest if the feds take a clinic because they are in compliance with FEDERAL law. The state may not like it but oh well. What is required is a directive from the executive level of the DEA to not enforce federal law in the cases of medical MJ in states where state law allows it. No one is going to actually change the federal laws because that is a very hot potato. It would be difficult to get re-elected inmost states when your opponent hammers you on being soft on crime because you voted to legalize dope.

I think everyone saying the economy will slow down the legalization of pot is dead wrong. First off we have an "open minded" president(elect). Second, I beleive that americas #1 cash crop for the past several years will figure into his plans. The money possible from not only regulating marijuana, but not having to dole out the millions and millions to fight it as well. You save and make more. Now knock off the bill for the millions of inmates rotting in jails and prisons. Coming from a economic standpoint and getting pressure from an evergrowing open minded community, i dont think it is a bullet he can afford to dodge. Trust me. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you remember, alcohol prohibition was repealed only 4 years into the Great Depression(1933).

__________________
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy."

First, I don't know if having an "open" mind is a positive thing. All it really means is you don't have your own foundational knowledge or judgment and can be easily swayed. Like say the millions of folks who voted for Obama without a whit of actual knowledge about him.
Secondly, weed is a LARGE cash crop only because it is illegal and can achieve profit rates of 5000%. I wonder what would be your reaction if Big Oil was able to knock down a paltry 1000-5000% as opposed to their now 8% (obscene amount right?).
Third, desperate measures will only hasten the demise of his Presidency, and I'm pretty sure he wants two terms. These are not desperate times .. yet. You have just been told that over and over again. And in keeping with your appeal of an open mind, you have taken the repeated message of doom and now accept it.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Yes, I can forsee that if all goes well in the first term, Obama may take a whack at decrimmin weed. Only if things are going swell will weed be an issue, not the other way around. However, I give the odds for a great first term at 3-1 against.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised, I'll keep an open mind .



out.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)