Feds harsh our mellow

LA Times:

Federal government says marijuana has no accepted medical use

Marijuana has been approved by California, many other states and the nation’s capital to treat a range of illnesses, but in a decision announced Friday the federal government ruled that it has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a dangerous drug like heroin.

The decision comes almost nine years after medical marijuana supporters asked the government to reclassify cannabis to take into account a growing body of worldwide research that shows its effectiveness in treating certain diseases, such as glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

Advocates for the medical use of the drug criticized the ruling but were elated that the Obama administration had finally acted, which allows them to appeal to the federal courts, where they believe they can get a fairer hearing. The decision to deny the request was made by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and comes less than two months after advocates asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to force the administration to respond to their petition.

“We have foiled the government’s strategy of delay, and we can now go head-to-head on the merits, that marijuana really does have therapeutic value,” said Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access and the lead counsel on the recently filed lawsuit.

Marijuana is a dangerous drug like heroin? Puh-leeze.

Back in 2008 Candidate Obama promised to end federal raids on California cannabis clubs which are legal under state law.

Guess what? The raids continue.

What a dick.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Feds harsh our mellow

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I was at my mom’s Friday night kegger and I told her about this. She said “Good! If they legalize it prices will go down and I’ll have to start cooking meth again.”

    • JeanLouise says:

      I don’t induge but the way we deal with the drug problem (and I do believe that it’s a problem like alcoholism) in this country is really stupid. It really is a waste of tax dollars.

  2. WMCB says:

    Sarah, on the other hand, while not talking about legalizing, said she saw no point in having cops bust potheads.

    She’d probably do more to stop the damn raids than the “liberal” Obama has.

  3. WMCB says:

    Jay Cost at the Weekly Standard (yeah, I know, but he’s speaking the truth here)notices what has happened to the Dem party, and what they did to Hillary:

    As an exclamation point, it’s worth noting that the left has been expressing its discontent with Clintonian moderation for over a decade.. In 2000 Bill Bradley challenged Al Gore from the left, and fell just 6,000 votes short in New Hampshire — a Bradley victory there would have made for an interesting primary race. Nine months later, Ralph Nader played the spoiler, winning about 3 percent of the popular vote, most of which came from the left wing of the Democratic party that was attracted to Nader’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” attack on Gore and Bush. In Florida Nader won 97,488 votes – and it’s a sure bet that, had he not run (or if the left had not been looking for an alternative that year), Gore would have won 538 more Nader votes than Bush. And then of course Obama won the nomination in 2008 not just by running against George W. Bush, but against the Bush and Clinton years. Importantly, the number of delegates Obama won from the primaries and caucuses was not enough to secure the nomination – he needed the help of the party establishment (the so-called “Super Delegates”) to defeat Hillary Clinton. That they backed Obama over the wife of the former president says a lot about where today’s Democratic party is.


    Yep. The only successful president the Dems have had in my lifetime, and they spent all their time shitting all over him, and his wife.

    Fucking idiots.

  4. WMCB says:

    What didn’t they like – the peace or the prosperity?

    Obama’s No Bill Clinton
    Peter Wehner

    The Wall Street Journal editorial page does us the favor of quoting Bill Clinton’s comments last Saturday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, when the former president made the case for cutting corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent and, as a trade off, “eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount [in revenues], and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.”

    That’s quite a good idea, and Clinton’s remarks are a reminder that whatever his other failures, he was in many respects a constructive intellectual force in the Democratic Party. He moved it toward the center, much as his friend Tony Blair moved the British Labour Party toward the middle, making it not only politically viable but politically successful.

    Both Clinton and Blair achieved impressive political track records. They made their parties stronger, not weaker; and more, not less, appealing.
    Barack Obama, so far at least, has had the opposite effect. His party was thoroughly repudiated in the first mid-term election of his presidency. The same thing happened to Clinton in 1994, though not on the scale that Democrats were defeated in 2010. But by this point in the Clinton presidency the prospects for Democrats were looking up, and in fact, Clinton was well on his way to winning a comfortable re-election. That doesn’t appear to be the case for Obama, who is turning the Democratic Party into a pre-Clinton party, one characterized by unalloyed liberalism.

    It turns out that in almost every respect, Clinton was a more formidable political figure than Obama, and certainly more competent. And as we get closer to 2012, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear Democrats speak longingly of the Clinton Era, as glory days compared to the dangerous, even ruinous, prospects they now face.


    I hope someone reads that line I bolded to Obama, and it eats at him, and eats at him, and eats at him……little narcissistic prick.

    Hey, President Dick: You are going to have to live the rest of your life knowing what a fucking failure you are, and how all that your backstabbing of Hillary and Bill got you is decades of the American public comparing you unfavorably to Big Dawg. You didn’t, don’t, and never will measure up, manchild. I hope you choke on it.

    • angienc says:

      Well, since you moved this to this thread, I’m moving my response too. 😉

      Bill Clinton a “more formidable political figure than Obama” and “more competent” to boot? Who could have seen that?

      Oh yeah, US.

      I do feel the need to mention — as ALL of us here know — that loses during the the Clinton first term mid-terms were mainly due to the rash of corruption scandals among Congressional Dems AND not due to a repudiation by the people of Bill Clinton himself (as was the case with the Obama mid-terms — the people were definitely repudiating Obama).

    • angienc says:

      Oh, and while I join you in your wishes for Dick, I doubt it will happen. Narcissists are like vampires — they can’t see their own reflection in the mirror. You can stand there & tell them point blank about how they failed at something, how something they didn’t wasn’t good & it will simply just not register. They’ll always be able to rationalize/excuse/point the blame elsewhere.

      • WMCB says:

        Narcissists need the approval of others like crack. They will never admit they are wrong, true – but it eats at them like acid to have large numbers of people spurn them, especially if that spurning is connected to comparison with someone whom they’ve obsessively both hated and tried futilely to emulate.

        • Dario says:

          especially if that spurning is connected to comparison with someone whom they’ve obsessively both hated and tried futilely to emulate.

          I like your reasoning. Dick must be comparing himself to Hillary, his nemesis. Every time he compares, he sees how much better she is, so he hates her.

        • djmm says:

          That is a particularly insightful comment, WMCB: “…especially if that spurning is connected to comparison with someone whom they’ve obsessively both hated and tried futilely to emulate.”

          I have seen this happen, time and again. Narcissists often try to destroy the people they hate/emulate, but it often backfires on them.


      • djmm says:

        I like your comment, angienc. Narcissists are like vampires because they try to suck the blood out of everyone they meet. But I disagree that narcissists can’t see their own reflection in the mirror. Actually, I think that’s all they can see. While you are trying to talk sense to a narcissist, he/she is not listening. All they can see is their own reflection in your eyes and they are telling themselves, “Wow — I look good!”


  5. Jadzia says:

    I simply do not indulge either (for reasons that are about to become very clear), but have some experience in these matters by virtue of being a child of a bunch of dirty hippies who did pretty much every substance known to man. Pot was by FAR the most benign. I recall seeing no violence as a result of their pot-smoking, nor did anybody ever OD at our house on pot.

    I wish the ‘rents were still smoking pot. Their current drug of choice is fentanyl (chewing the patches) and it is scary as hell. Bring back the ’70s!

  6. Three Wickets says:

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, if we are going to the hippy dippy psychedelic place, this one is my favorite Donovan

      “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is…”

  7. Sandress says:

    No legitimate uses, my pink puckered anus. The research is out and has been for decades, and punishing the chronically and terminally ill because people can’t admit they were in error and because of the unsavory fringe benefits of the war on drugs is unconscionable. Oh, and BTW, one more benefit of reducing the legal consequences for marijuana use is that it will free up restrictions on researchers who are looking for other medicinal benefits of marijuana and the neuroscience researchers who are looking into endocannabinoids. And that research could end up being game-changing.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Meanwhile there is a legal drug that is highly addictive and kills more people each year than all illegal drugs combined.

      That drug is tobacco

  8. myiq2xu says:

    Violet Socks:

    Shorter blogosphere: We have to let Obama cut Social Security because otherwise Michele Bachmann will take away our porn

    Well, the shitstorm over Obama cutting Social Security lasted about a day. One day. That’s how long it took for everyone’s attention to be completely distracted by another, much more important shitstorm: porn! Ohmygod, PORN! The conservatives will take away our PORN! Anything is better than that, anything! Please, take our Social Security, take our Medicare, take every fucking thing—just leave us our porn!

    Maybe the lesson here is that we need to rename our major benefit programs. Instead of “Social Security,” it could be “Money to buy porn when you’re old or disabled.” Instead of “Medicare,” it could be “Money to buy porn when you’re sick.”

    • Dario says:

      I think people are getting to accept the inevitable. I have. Pelosi and the Democrats were in their usual theater when they said they were shocked that Dick didn’t tell them about the Social Security proposals.

      Pelosi, Dems signal openness to Social Security changes

    • WMCB says:

      All you have to do to scare the doodbros is threaten their porn, cheetos, or HotPockets. Everything else like GDP, unemployment rate, SS, Medicare, is negotiable. It’s like ewwwww! Old people stuff!

      Never mind that half the doobros are 40-something, They are 16 in their heads.

    • Sandress says:

      Meh. I have nothing against porn, and I think left-feminists hurt their own credibility when they rail against it. The pledge is idiotic for a number of reasons, including its opposition to porn.

      • WMCB says:

        I don’t think the point of Violet’s article was pro or anti porn. I think it was the priorities of the doodbros, and the level of coverage and indignation aroused by that vs. cutting SS.

      • angienc says:

        Well, it is my understanding that the pledge was about banning child porn. I’m sure you have plenty against that.

        • angienc says:

          Although, granted, the doodbros missed that part & focused on the “porn” part & are reporting on that accordingly (and misleadingly).

        • Dario says:

          Banning something that’s already illegal, like child porn, is pointless.

        • angienc says:

          Yeah, because since child porn is already illegal absolutely none exists, so why should anyone pledge to take steps to stop it. Jesus Effing Christ.

      • angienc says:

        Oh, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on the porn issue — and I don’t intend to discuss it — because I do respect you Sandress & find most of your positions in total sync with mine. But, IMO, it is the feminist who have nothing against porn who are hurting their own credibility.

        • Sandress says:

          I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree. I just think women benefit from freedom of speech (even icky speech) more than they benefit from attempts to make sexual expression illegal. Women being the sex class is not a made up thing, and it is absolutely bad for women. That said, women are not asexual, and there has never in the history of the world been a culture wherein sexual attractiveness was irrelevant (even if it was judged on vastly different criteria). The problem is the double-standard and the consequences and the economic disparities between men and women, not that people get off on looking at dirty pictures. IMHO.

        • votermom says:

          I agree with angie – I consider myself a feminist and I am against porn.

        • angienc says:

          Sandress — I’ll assume that there is some porn — in theory — where it is about “women expressing their sexuality.” But this so-called “expression of their sexuality” in the vast majority of porn is absolutely through the prism of the male POV. That is, all the porn I’ve seen is about women being objectified by men. Giving it the guise of “female empowerment” is just the Patriarchy wrapped in a big pink bow, to steal a phrase from Violet Socks. I mean — that is the MAIN purpose of porn — presenting women as fuckdolls for men & I think even the barest perusal of the vast majority of porn proves that point. In other words, it is not so much “women expressing their sexuality” as it is women fulfilling male fantasies and re-enforcing their status as “objects” for men to play with. IMO, women who think otherwise are just fooling themselves because I guarantee you any woman who “expresses her sexuality” through porn is going to find her opportunities in later life if/when she wants to leave porn are going to be severely hindered because of her participation in porn at one point in her life. The Patriarchy will forever see her & define her by porn. That kind of consequence cannot be “empowering” for any woman.

        • Sandress says:

          Well, while a tiny fraction of porn IS by and for women, I never said it was about Women’s sexual expression. It’s about sexual expression in general (and yes, in our culture, the default person is male thus porn is about male sexuality). And yes, most women who go into sex work of any kind end up there due to economic hardship (just as most women who go into telemarketing, housekeeping, etc. are generally motivated by economic reasons). And the fact that some women find sex work empowering is about their personal reframing of their bodies and sexualities and livelihoods, which I’m not going to attack. And yes, they may be punished by the patriarchy for having participated in sex work, but that’s hardly a mark against them- blame the patriarchy and the sexists, rather than the women who made unpopular choices.

          But sexuality is an inherent part of being a human, and all of our sexualities are influenced by the culture we live in, including men’s sexuality. Which is why porn is misogynistic. It isn’t because consuming sexual media for sexual gratification is Inherently sexist, its just because our culture is deeply sexist. So what I oppose is not pornography, but sexism. Men get off on porn videos (and actually so do a lot of women), and women commonly get off on explicit erotic writing. Nobody is saying that we should get rid of romance novels, despite the fact that they’re often reprehensibly sexist and full of rigid gender roles (meaning they’re also influenced by the patriarchy).

          My point being that vilification of porn misses the point. There will always be sexuality, and there will always be both artistic and crass representations of that. In my opinion, the way to attack sexist representations of women (in porn, advertising, YA novels, jokes, etc) is to attack sexist ideas by BROADENING how women are viewed. In the parlance of Dr. Sandra Bem, to turn down the volume on gender, not to blow it up. Otherwise we risk endlessly swinging from Madonna to Whore to Madonna, without ever exploring the idea of women as whole, multifaceted people.

  9. Dario says:

    After experiencing Dubya’s disaster, I have the satisfaction that he knows he was a failure, and that history will see him as one of the worst presidents ever. I think that if Obama loses in 2012, he won’t see himself as a failure, instead he’ll blame his luck, the Republicans, the voters and the Clintons. Unlike Carter that picked up the pieces and has done his best to change how history grades him, if not as president, his whole life, I think that Dick will sulk for the rest of his life if he loses in 2012.

  10. Three Wickets says:

  11. angienc says:

    Another good article on Obama asking what was the point of his Rose Garden speech. He certainly does seem to be losing his “media darling” status:

    • angienc says:

      Best part is in the comments:

      He should ask Bill Clinton.

    • Dario says:

      Here is what I think. ADP had just come out on Thursday with a good job report, 157K jobs created, better than what Wall Street expected. But ADP only looks at a section of the job market and does not take into account job losses or created in government. Nevertheless, Wall Street analysts on Thursday changed their projection for the report that came out today to 125,000 jobs. Dick took the expectation and decided he would crow when the BLS report came out. Instead, the report was a dismal 18K jobs created, with no silver lining. All he could do, since he had already scheduled the address, he came out with his stupid statement.

      • Dario says:

        All he could do, since he had already scheduled the address, is to come out with his stupid statement.

        • djmm says:

          Because the speech was already written and he can’t think for himself.

          He is in way over his head.


  12. Three Wickets says:

  13. Three Wickets says:

  14. Three Wickets says:

  15. Three Wickets says:

  16. WMCB says:

    I didn’t watch the NBC piece on Gunwalker/Fast and Furious scandal, but evidently they are BLATANTLY trying to cover for Holder and Obama. They managed to do the entire segment with NO mention of any govt involvement, or Issa’s investigation at all, no mention that ATF/DEA sold them the guns, no mention of whistleblowers – nada. According to a poster at AoS:

    oh my fucking gad fuck FUCK.

    Just watched the local NBC news report on Operation Fast and Furious. It was TOTALLY “about” the illegal trafficking of guns into Mexico by . . . criminals. The ol’ drug/gun exchange. All the evil American guns that go down there and kill innocent Mexicans. All the American criminals that deal with the cartels.

    This god damned lying bitch reporterette did this whole damn report and not once revealed that Op F&F is a U.S. government fail. She actually included a clip of that Mexican official on Fox News who was expressing his outrage about Operation F&F but gave no context, so the impression was that he was simply talking about ordinary criminal gun smugglers!!!!! Did not even show that he was referring to Op F&F!!!!!!

    • myiq2xu says:

      The media didn’t want to report the US attorney scandal either. Josh Marshall did the digging and the progressive blogosphere raised a big enough stink that the DEMOCRATIC Congress had to hold hearings.

      NOBODY went to jail. The DEMOCRATIC Congress let Bush stonewall them. The media kept saying nobody cared.

  17. Three Wickets says:

  18. westcoaster says:

    Jane Hamsher talks about the “death of the Democratic party” – is she a PUMA now?

    • angienc says:

      Only took her 3 years to know what we knew back in May 2008.

    • Dario says:

      Which means we’re watching another casualty here: Democracy. Or at least, the illusion that we live in a democratic society.

      Oh, Jane, I used to like you and your stupid blog.

      Now you talk about democracy. Didn’t you participate in the destruction of democracy during the 2008 Democratic Convention? Did you expect that the same superdelegates that ignored the votes of 18 million voters in 2008 would turn around and pay attention what the voters want in 2009 – 2012?

      • angienc says:

        Oh, Jane, I used to like you and your stupid blog.

        Yeah, me too. I took myself off the FDL mailing list in ’08.

      • WMCB says:

        Jane and her ilk already gave the Dems permission to ignore them, when they gave them permission to ignore us.

        Which is what they were too thick-headed to see when we tried to explain that what was going on should matter to you, even if you were not a Hillary supporter. Once you destroy accountability to the voters, you have destroyed it for yourself as well, going forward.

  19. Dario says:

    As much as I dislike Dick, my dislike of Pelosi, 2×4 Schumer and Reid is 10 times. I just want Pelosi to go away with her faux smile and faux liberalism.

  20. djmm says:

    I don’t have a stake in the issue, but here’s my thought anyway. States, like Colorado, are beginning to enjoy tax revenue for the sale of medical marijuana. People who do not use such drugs and would be against legalization begin to notice friends and relatives, such as those under treatment for cancer, who are helped by the drug. Doctors get used to prescribing it, when they might have had to prescribe something more harsh.

    That makes it more difficult for the feds to make a ban stick. And the more tax revenue the states see, the more attractive legalization looks.


Comments are closed.