Reefer Madness (New York Times)

[RainDog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/reefer-madness.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-RMO-110711-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

"MARIJUANA is now legal under state law for medical purposes in 16 states and the District of Columbia, encompassing nearly one-third of the American population. More than 1,000 dispensaries provide medical marijuana; many are well regulated by state and local law and pay substantial taxes. But though more than 70 percent of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana, any use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

President Obama has not publicly announced a shift in his views on medical marijuana, but his administration seems to be declaring one by fiat. The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele M. Leonhart, a Bush appointee re-nominated by Mr. Obama, has exercised her discretionary authority to retain marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” And the pronouncements on marijuana, medical and otherwise, from Mr. Obama’s top drug policy adviser, R. Gil Kerlikowske, have been indistinguishable from those of Mr. Bush’s.

None of this makes any sense in terms of public safety, health or fiscal policy. Apart from its value to patients, medical marijuana plays an increasingly important role in local economies, transforming previously illegal jobs into legal ones and creating many new jobs as well, contributing to local tax bases and stimulating new economic activity. Federal crackdowns will not stop the trade in marijuana; they will only push it back underground and hurt those patients least able to navigate illicit markets.

At the federal level, there have been few voices of protest. Senior Democrats on Capitol Hill shy away from speaking out. Republicans mostly ignore the extent to which anti-marijuana zealotry threatens core conservative values like states rights, property rights and gun ownership."

[democrat_patriot]

1. Medical MJ takes money from big pharma.

That's why.

Big Pharma recently struck a deal with the administration to lower prices. In return for what? This may be one of the deals brokered.

[RainDog]

2. Big Pharma has willing allies with people like Michelle Leonhart

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/45

Working for the DEA can be very profitable, as a 2003 report from the DrugWarRant noted. Leonhart had a long and (at least for him) profitable relationship with serial perjurer Andrew Chambers - a man who made more than 2 million dollars while lying under oath to obtain drug convictions for the DEA. He was found guilty of perjury in 1993 in California - a ruling with which a St. Louis court agreed in 1995. When the St. Louis Dispatch investigated Chambers, Leonhart was quoted as saying,

“The only criticism (of Chambers) I’ve ever heard is what defense attorneys will characterize as perjury or a lie on the stand.”

Of course, that was enough to get a president impeached, but why should the DEA let that stand in the way of a little "justice?" It's sort of like that WMD lie from Bush - who cares if the evidence is there or not - you want something... what's a little perjury among friends?

[yurbud]

7. maybe if pharma could genetically modify it a bit and patent the modified version, they

would back legalization.

[musiclawyer]

3. That the old gray lady even published this is significant

Me thinks the Administration overreached. The pushback won't be minimal. It will be ginormous. Watch CA anbd COL full on legalize cannabis in 2012

[RainDog]

4. I agree. They have given a forum to a reformer.

And a platform to the entire nation because the NYTimes is, basically, the paper of record, still, for the United States, and the world.

I think rational minds are winning this one.

[Scuba]

5. It makes perfect sense from fiscal policy. Big pharma wants all the MMJ money....

...and is lining the coffers of politicians to make sure they get what they want.

[RainDog]

6. well, there's payoffs and there's fiscal policy

but, yeah, obviously the profits and job benefits for the few outweigh the legal and fiscal concerns of the many in this case.

[yurbud]

8. there's another constituency for keeping it illegal: drug dealers and money laundering banks

It would be a lot less profitable if it were legal, and they would have to pay taxes, and if it did any real harm, they would be liable to lawsuits.

Banks love drug money because it's the one time someone pays interest to make a deposit.