General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIsn't DEA Chief Michelle Leonhart a piece of work? Time to call for her scalp, methinks!
Not only has she refused to answer, when asked directly by Rep. Polis, whether or not heroin is more harmful than marijuana, but she has actively suppressed marijuana research into its medical benefits - her signature is on orders killing scientific research proposals about medical applications for cannibis, and her agency has refused to even consider changing cannibis from its current status as a Federally Verboten Schedule 1 drug.
Anyone who believes in liberty should be demanding her firing!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)that evolution is a fact.
It would eliminate most, if not all, of their entire Raison D'etre.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)He was asking for a toxicity and public health ranking between two substances. Big difference.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)in the words of DEA judge Francis Young, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man"... THAT would be akin to creationists acknowledging that evolution is a fact.
So, actually, there is NOT a "big difference" between those two statements, one is just shorthand for the other.
intheflow
(28,476 posts)He was asking her to rank toxicity. For instance, aspirin can be toxic if taken to excess, that's why it's regulated by the government. But in comparison to prescription painkillers, aspirin has a low toxicity. Certainly similar toxicity rankings can be made about Schedule 1 drugs.
RainbowSuperfund
(110 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)some huge corporation in the prison-industrial complex or Big Pharma.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)If the medication involved were a typical blood pressure pill or arthritis treatment, this sort of pronouncement would come from the Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with determining whether medications are safe and effective. But the drug is cannabis, and the ruling came from the Drug Enforcement Agency.
...The DEA’s website contains plenty of pages explaining why marijuana is so bad. On one, it claims that marijuana is harmful because it “contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke.” If harmful side effects disqualified pharmaceuticals from medical use, we would not see many of the warning-laden advertisements that populate prime-time network television.
On another page, the DEA says marijuana actually does have a medical use, but that the smoked form of the drug does not need to be legal because the active ingredient, THC, has already been isolated and replicated in the synthetic prescription drug Marinol. So, according to the DEA, marijuana needs to be kept away from people because it is harmful in the same ways as cigarettes – which are excluded from the Controlled Substances Act – but marijuana is also different because it is medically useful, while cigarettes are not. Screwy logic, but that is not the DEA’s fault. It is not in the business of writing laws; it is in the business of enforcing them. Why ask cops to play doctor?
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)possible irreversible nerve damage
spontaneous tendon rupture
muscle weakness
breathing problems that could cause the use of breathing assistance.
Yet, Pot is bad!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)that the part of cannabis that is most medically beneficial is the part that's NOT a euphoric. Cannabidiol, IIRC, is the best part.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)whether the DEA likes it or not, people have taken it upon themselves to ignore bad law. that's why it's bad law - because people recognize it as invalid based upon evidence, not hysteria or propaganda.
I think it's really interesting that the medical marijuana movement grew out of the health care crisis with HIV - people saw something that helped to keep others alive - wasting, a side effect of some very powerful drugs - can kill and nausea can make it impossible for some to keep down the drugs that can save or prolong their lives.
At the time, Reagan never said a word about this health crisis. It wasn't even on his radar. Well, he "indirectly" spoke about this when he pandered to the religious right and their desire to deny sex education, including how to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, b/c, please, let us make sure teenagers don't know about what to avoid so that they don't hear about, you know, icky stuff.
What was on his radar was ramping up the drug war because war propaganda is why people think Reagan was a great president - not because of his actual actions regarding many issues.
How can the DEA continue to claim that cannabis is a schedule 1 substance when we've seen, for more than half a century, that cannabis has medical benefits. It can continue that claim because no one challenges them who can change this disgraceful legacy.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)It's a huge industry built on lies. How these people sleep at night I will never know. When they know good and well that everything they are saying is a lie, or deceptive or suppressing or just out right immoral. I hope all these people choke on the bribes they get.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Oldenuff
(582 posts)To me she exemplifies what a bureaucrat is.She sickens me,and the whole "I will continue to dance around that question as long as I hold this position,because my career depends on it" attitude is why we will never make any headway changing our government for the better.
I am embarrassed for her,because she makes herself look like a fool.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Oh wait....she *was* appointed by George W. Bush.
bupkus
(1,981 posts)Nominated to head the DEA by President Obama. Another addition for the other list. What the hell was the point of Obama nominating Leonhart, a Bush administration holdover?
Very disappointing.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)Wednesday, November 7.
Calling for the scalp of ANY Obama Administration member's scalp prior to that date makes you a Republican, IMO.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)bupkus
(1,981 posts)You lost me there.
The bigger question is, why would a Democratic president nominate someone like Republican Leonhart? And if calling for her head makes someone a Republican then what does nominating her to head the DEA make someone?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)And her testimony indicates that Obama sure could score a lot of political points with non Republicans if he replaced her with someone who is not part of the drug warrior "waiting-to-get-a-gig-with-Bayer-to-lobby-for-Sativex crew like two other former Republican appointees from the Drug Czar's office.
Maybe Norm Stamper (former FBI/pro legalization). Joseph McNamara (Former San Jose Chief of Police/pro legalization) may not have the federal-level cred. No one within the DEA is going to deal with this rationally. Obama needs to appoint a rational law enforcement person to talk down the DEA from its decades of reefer madness.
Her logic: "medical marijuana is between a patient and his doctor but it should remain illegal."
So, something that has medical value should be illegal because...
Bayer wants to introduce Sativex onto the American market? Or is she so ideologically blind she can't see what more than 70% of the population has seen for more than a decade?
I don't know - all I know is there is no science behind her stance and Obama could shake up the DEA to get our nation past this bureaucratic waste of an agency. Hey, he could even score points with libertarians with a twofer - less govt. waste/spending and less govt. regulation of issues that are really about civil liberties and the right to seek health care in the way someone and her/his doctor see best.
This would be a great time for him to do this, in fact.
Not that I think it will happen.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Truth is still important to a few around here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)intheflow
(28,476 posts)Does that make Obama a Republican because he supports her as head of the DEA? Geesh, try thinking before posting.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Republicans already are after the "scalp" of the Attorney General. Help give them ANY one Cabinetmember's scalp and they'll be emboldened to seek the scalp of EVERY member of President Obama's Cabinet. And that will only help Mitt Romney get the chance to replace everybody, and appoint clones of Reberts and Alito tho the USSC.
There's a time and a place for everything, and months before a Presidential re-election is NO time to replace an incumbent Cabinet member. If President Obama is re-elected, he'll quietly get rid of this DEA fool.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Leonhart are not approved by the WH. Pres Obama knew fully well these people when he appointed them.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Do you want BOTH "scalps", during the President's re-election campaign?
How would that help keep Romney from getting to appoint Ginsburg's replacement on the USSC, devastating Medicare, ending Pell Grants and Headstart, etc.?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I support the reelection of the President. Now is not the time to get rid of either. I was simply pointing out how foolish for anyone to think that these two are operating w/o the presidents knowledge. If you trust the Pres you will trust them.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Glad to see you post that statement.
But you DID seem to be singing a different tune in earlier posts, seeming to agree with the OP and most other posts in this thread that calling for Leonhart's 'scalp'.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)In fact, the entire agency should be disbanded.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bupkus
(1,981 posts)And has kept her on all this time. Why should we believe he will he get rid of the fool he himself nominated? Why didn't he nominate someone else to begin with? Is this more multi-dimentional chess? Because if it is this was a very bad move.
This was one nomination that really pissed me off. Google Leonhart and read a little about her and you'll see why. A class "AAA+" corrupt, incompetent Bush lackey.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and Obama appointed someone better - that would send a big message to liberals.
Since CO and other states have various ballot measures related to cannabis up for vote, and since state after state Democratic Party is adopting legalize or decriminalize platforms - his replacement of her with a less right wing person would align him more with the grassroots of the party he heads.
Fast and Furious is yet more "show me the birth certificate because the commie nazi muslim guy with the middle name like you-know-who wants to arm Mexico, take away our guns, and force us to sit through episodes of the Ellen show to gayify us" nonsense.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)The President already has the grassroots vote. IMO this is the time to avoid distractions like Leonhart, traps like Rubio's call for Holder's resignation, and other openings in Democratic Party unity that Republicans gladly will enlarge.
IMO, if you want to purge the Cabinet, wait until at least the day after the election in November. Or else you may be helping Republicans purge EVERY Obama appointee.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Give Republicans a chance to purge the Obama cabinet?
Don't bureaucrats make decisions to "resign" all the time - some because they are encouraged to decide to resign? Is there a "magic cut-off date" that means no one may resign until after the election?
afaik, someone tendering a resignation doesn't make it open season.
I didn't say Obama should call for her resignation. I said she should "choose" to resign.
It's not a question of whether or not he has the grassroot vote. It's a question of representing the stance of the party - isn't the federal-level Democratic party composed of those who came up from state-level politics?
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)and lead them to demand 'scalps' from numerous other Obama appointees on any other "controversy" Fox "News" could manufacture.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I'm not asking for her scalp.
however, after I thought about this - I think an even better tactic would be to move cannabis to another schedule in compliance with the overwhelming scientific data that demonstrates cannabis is safer than most pharmaceutical drugs, is less addictive than caffeine, has HUGE benefits for people with epilepsy, MS, CP, people taking chemo and HIV drugs, and does not match any rational metric for its schedule 1 classification.
Obama has already demonstrated he's willing to crack down on those who go outside of state laws (and some who didn't, ahem), so he doesn't have to prove himself in that way.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Uh, no, no he doesn't. He has the die-hard, yellow-dog Democrats and that's ALL he has.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)platforms ...."
Now THAT's sensible politics IMO. I sure hope decriminalization REFERENDA are getting on the November ballot. Such referenda could turn out hundreds of thousands of younp people and have the same kind of "coattails" for Democrats as did minimum wage hike referenda in 2008.
It's not the Feds who are imprisoning kids for dedades for possessing small amounts of weed. In a time when teaching jobs and firehouses are on the chopping block, even some middle-aged voters may lean toward Democrats who are running against wasting lives and tax revenues on senseless prison expansion for marijuana convicts.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2012, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002798314Poll: Colorado Wants Marijuana Legalized, Regulated Like Booze and Smokes
Sixty-one percent of those surveyed supported legalizing marijuana if it were regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002836403
Texas, Iowa and North Carolina Democratic Parties: Decriminalize Marijuana
56% of Americans support FULL legalization of marijuana - newest Rasmussen poll (May 23rd)
Four States have requested federal reclassification of marijuana:
Colorado, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
A third of the states already have medical marijuana laws, in contradiction to federal law. Some of those states have large populations. The states are asking for the federal-level Democrats to deal with their end of this issue - because the teapublicans are certainly not going to do it. If it doesn't involve some religious proscription, they have no interest in Americans.
And, yes, state-level law enforcement and for-profit prisons that are most definitely the New Jim Crow, as Michelle Alexander notes, definitely need some federal-level encouragement to find other ways to provide jobs for rural whites other than locking up urban blacks. Different dog, same sh--.
The problem is that the states are far enough along for this issue to matter - state-level Democrats would not be supporting this issue so strongly if their constituents didn't want it. Why do you think Cohen and Solis are questioning Leonhart at this time? Why did Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or) call on Congress to repeal ban on hemp and attempt an amendment to the ag bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734411
But the problem is that those states have to butt heads, still, with the DEA.
That's why, in an historic request, 42 Members of WA legislature request cannabis rescheduling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170197
Because, as Holder noted: The Executive Branch Could Remove MMJ from DEA Hands
So, maybe the better option to bring the federal-level Democratic Party in line with the rest of the nation on this issue would be to move cannabis from the DEA to the FDA - iow- let medical practitioners and scientists, rather than police, decide policy on medicine. The way to do this is to simply move cannabis out of the hands of the DEA.
With all these endorsements - http://www.democraticunderground.com/117052
I think it would encourage voters.
“That’s right,” Holder said.
After Kimmel’s speech, a Holder deputy told HuffPost that there was no coordinated war on medical marijuana, but that some individual clinics were breaking both state and federal laws.
In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama provided a factually wrong answer that radically distorted the nature of federal law in an attempt to deflect criticism for the federal crackdown on medical marijuana. Obama claimed he “can’t nullify Congressional law” when it comes to medical marijuana, even though the Controlled Substance Act actually gives the Executive branch the authority to “reschedule” (reclassify) marijuana without Congressional action. By simply moving marijuana to a lower schedule the Obama administration could make medical marijuana legal under federal law. Obama would not need to nullify this Congressional law, because Congress already gave him the authority to change marijuana’s legal status.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)to attract hundreds of thousands more tossup-state young people to the polls in November?
And why is it one or the other?
In light of the witchhunt for Holder's "scalp", there are good reasons to avoid any changes in the Cabinet and any major changes in Justice policy now. But what is the political argument against state decriminalization referenda?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)And they are asking the federal govt to respond.
And polls indicate it is not a scary thing to respond because the American people overwhelmingly support moving cannabis to a "medical use" scheduling so that the elderly undergoing chemo, for a BIG example, have access to a medicine that has shown a better outcome than any other legal option available.
Cannabis has saved lives.
The current law has also killed people - Peter McWilliams, for one, who was targeted by the DEA for MEDICAL USE and, when he no longer used cannabis to help him keep down his chemo and HIV drugs - he drowned in his own vomit because it was MORE important for the corrupt politicians and self-serving bureaucrats to claim cannabis has no medical value than it was to admit they had been and are lying.
The current attitude and action destroys faith in the govt because it is either too corrupt or too uncaring about real suffering to do the right thing. The current stance is unscientific. It is based upon religious and racist bullshit.
Obama was supposed to be the president who didn't pander to this constituency - unlike a Bush or Romney.
This is a moral issue - is the federal govt so beholden to money that it cannot do the right thing for the citizens of this nation?
It's not just about votes. Although if all someone cares about is an election, it's just about votes, I suppose.
stevedeshazer
(21,653 posts)Really?
Disagree, sure. But don't publicly ask for someone to be "scalped".
You know what that really means, right?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Literal and figurative language is a distinction in traditional systems for analyzing language. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. Figurative language may involve analogy to similar concepts or other contexts, and may involve exaggerations. These alterations result in figures of speech.
alp227
(32,026 posts)
johnnyplankton
(351 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)God forbid that the prez do the right thing.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)That about sums it up.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The DEA thugs would lose their jobs if MJ were decriminalized, they have a vested interest in keeping it illegal.
hempoilworks
(6 posts)why doesn't someone ask her why the Feds own a patent on the use of cannabinoids?
http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
Is it because so called "reporters" are too stupid to do some research?
The patent proves they are lying.
It's only a matter of time before someone that knows how to do some research brings it up.
The patent is being used to prevent research, so that big pharma gets rewards.
That's the bottom line.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)wouldn't say anything substantially different.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to affirm the policies of the Pres re. marijuana.
If someone should resign, maybe Bernanke or Immelt.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)But this is the President's policy, without question.
"It appeared to me that her answers were carefully crafted to affirm the policies of the Pres re. marijuana. "
Exactly. As if the policy makes sense, and just wasn't explained correctly. 
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)sucked when Obama left her in place, along with Gates and far too many Bushies. Those who are defending her are defending the choice of GW Bush, and must be part of the 'look forward, not back' crowd that spent the last 3 years trying to convince us the GOP is a great bipartisan partner, in short, Republicans defend Republicans, she is a Republican and I will not defend her. Let the so called 'centrists' who are closer to Republicans than I am defend GW's picks, that sure is not my role in this Party.
She's repeating lies and ignorance in the grand Republican/Centrist Tradition....it's what they do.
randr
(12,412 posts)she is one reason I will not be contributing money or energy this time around.
Rex
(65,616 posts)living off of the taxpayer and helping 'for profit' prisons. Fuck them all...may they rot in hell. FEMA can go as well.
bupkus
(1,981 posts)RICHARD NIXON CREATED THE DEA BY EXECUTIVE ORDER SO PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN END THE DEA BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.
No excuses. Just do it. End the DEA. End this insane war on drugs and cannabis prohibition.
No excuses.
