Barack Obama and rest of dems pledge to end medical marijuana raids.

[SublimeStylez]

From New Hampshire
AUGUST 22, 2007

Obama to End Federal Medical Marijuana Raids; Democratic Candidates Now Unanimous

CONTACT: Stuart Cooper, Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana campaign manager, (603) 703-1411

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE — In his first public statement on the subject, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged to end medical marijuana raids in the 12 states that have medical marijuana laws Tuesday at a campaign event during a Nashua Pride minor league baseball game.

The Illinois senator's statement means all eight Democratic candidates have now voiced support for the 12 states with medical marijuana laws. Republican candidates Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson have all vowed to end medical marijuana raids as well.

On Friday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who signed legislation in April making his the 12th medical marijuana state, wrote to President Bush asking him to end federal raids in medical marijuana states.

"Respected physicians and government officials should not fear going to jail for acting compassionately and caring for our most vulnerable citizens," Richardson wrote. "Nor should those most vulnerable of citizens fear their government because they take the medicine they need."

Obama's pledge came as a response to a question from Nashua resident and Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana volunteer Scott Turner, who asked the senator what he would do to stop the federal government from putting seriously ill people like Turner in prison in states where medical marijuana is legal.

"I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users," Obama said. "It's not a good use of our resources."

"For the first time in history, the leaders of one of our nation’s major parties have unanimously called for an end to the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients," GSMM campaign manager Stuart Cooper, from Manchester, said. "New Hampshire voters and medical professionals effectively sent a clear message that we would not support a candidate who would arrest – rather than protect – our nation's most seriously ill citizens. Compassion and reason are finally overcoming politics and propaganda."

Federal intrusion into medical marijuana states has been on the rise this summer, with DEA raids taking place in several counties in California and Oregon. Recently, the DEA also began threatening landlords who lease space to medical marijuana dispensaries – legal under state law – with seizure of their property, a move condemned in a Los Angeles Times editorial as "a deplorable new bullying tactic."

Based in Manchester, New Hampshire, Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana is a grassroots coalition of New Hampshire patients, medical professionals and activists. GSMM is organizing during the New Hampshire presidential primary campaign to raise awareness of the need for federal action to protect medical marijuana patients. For further information, please see Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana.

that is a nice step in the right direction*if we hold them to it* now if we could only nudge the GOP out of the closet on this huge states rights issue

[kushBurnSlow]

vote or die

[Hostile]

That's the best they can do? To stop unfounded raids against medical facilities? Where's the legalisation candidates?!

And to think that these people constitute the "liberals" of the American two-party system. What a fucking crock.

[MarijuanaRadio]

I think it's a good sign that some things are moving in the right direction.

I want to see it recreationally legalized.

But this is really good news for legit medical users. I want to see the gov get off the backs of medical growers. I'd love to be a grower if I had confidence the law wasn't going to come and ruin my life.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by MarijuanaRadio

I think it's a good sign that some things are moving in the right direction.

I want to see it recreationally legalized.

But this is really good news for legit medical users. I want to see the gov get off the backs of medical growers. I'd love to be a grower if I had confidence the law wasn't going to come and ruin my life.

Recreational legalisation is the only logical future. It's amazing to see the limits which members of society will allow their governments to place upon them.

[SublimeStylez]

Originally Posted by Hostile

Recreational legalisation is the only logical future. It's amazing to see the limits which members of society will allow their governments to place upon them.

Always fucking naysaying. Its a step in the right direction. It takes a long stairway to reach legalization it doesn't just take place over night. Especially in america.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by SublimeStylez

Always fucking naysaying. Its a step in the right direction. It takes a long stairway to reach legalization it doesn't just take place over night. Especially in america.

I understand that, I just think you might find that the stairway you're heading up is actually a travellator running against you. It's been 70 years of American prohibition now, and if one lying politician promising to stop unconstitutional attacks is "progress", then I think that puts this whole political struggle in perspective. You're being fobbed off with empty promises while the prohibitionists engineer more talking points and questionable evidence to support their war on drugs. Obama is an agent of the status quo just like the rest of the Democratic front-runners, and pussy-footing rhetoric like this proves it.

[badgoalie85]

hostile you make some good points there...if it is a bit pessimistic. i think it might be a little difficult right now to tell which of the candidates are agents of the status quo (as you so eloquently put) because there are a lot of other issues right now that they're facing. one thing is certain: there is going to be a drastic change in our military policy if a democrat gets elected.

domestic (although you could also consider it international) issues such as the wasteful war on drugs won't get attention in the american system until a major change occurs in the middle east. most of the next administration's work (assuming a democrat is elected) will be concerned with international politics and attempting to rectify mistakes in iraq and in other places.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by badgoalie85

hostile you make some good points there...if it is a bit pessimistic. i think it might be a little difficult right now to tell which of the candidates are agents of the status quo (as you so eloquently put) because there are a lot of other issues right now that they're facing. one thing is certain: there is going to be a drastic change in our military policy if a democrat gets elected.

Is that really the case, though? The forerunners for the Democrats are Obama and Clinton, right? Clinton said just two months ago that the war on terror has made America "safer", and even after Iraq she continues to envision America as a world police force. Hell, she was all for the war until it stopped being fashionable last year. She won't promise a full withdrawal and she supports the Zionist terror state Israel. Where's the drastic change?

Obama, unsurprisingly, believes in the war on terror, believes that America should use it's power to "project American values around the globe", shares Hillary's Zionist bias, supports the Patriot Act, will not support a full withdrawal from Iraq and considers Iran to be a threat. Drastic change?

I'll say it plain: the only difference between the typical Republican POV and the typical Democrat POV is on just how the world should be policed. They suggest cosmetic changes to the status quo in order to create the illusion of difference, but really their only aim is to maintain the current path of America: toward fascism, toward war, toward plutocracy.

ending federal raids against legit medical suppliers / growers and users would be progress(i didnt read the article close enough, seems there are a few republicans on board too(though none of the the top tier candidates) exluding ron paul

they would never be able to once elected... to say they would is just political bs... but whatever. at least they are paying lip service to this issue for once.... maybe 20 years from now theyll actually give a fuck about the issue itself and not just the extra votes.....

[Prophet Saddam]

How hard would it logically be for a PoUS to tell the DEA to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities in states that have medical marijuana laws?

I see this as more than lip service and a true step in the right direction. When you look at the 'opposite' side where if anything they'd advocate harsher penalties and mandatory sentences, vowing to stop the illegal raids on dispensaries and sick patients is certainly putting a foot in the right direction.

The fact that even some of us don't agree with the message seems to be pretty telling of the debate that needs to be had in our society.

Enough is enough. We need to stop criminalizing sick people for using doctor-prescribed medicine.

[LetsPlayYourWay]

Originally Posted by j-wonder

they would never be able to once elected... to say they would is just political bs...

explain yourself as its been the White House who has been driving the WoD.

[Prophet Saddam]

Originally Posted by LetsPlayYourWay

explain yourself as its been the White House who has been driving the WoD.

Exactly.

sure they could, but it doesnt address the problem of federal power ursurping the will of the people in those states that have medical marijuana provisions, or even wish to decriminalize the herb

..and let's not forget about hemp..there's really no rational reason laws should be so tight against this extremely useful plant..and yet they still are

[OldMan&TheWeed]

Does anyone else remember Bush's comments regarding his opposition to "nation building" in the debates leading up to the 2000 election?
No candidate can foresee the future.

Moeover will any candidate EVER get elected if they were pro-legalization or pro-gay marriage. The best they can do is declare a "hands off" policy and say that they will leave it up to the states.

leaving it up to the states would be a HUGE victory

[ninfan77]

Too much federal funding is still tied up in the war on drugs. Imagine the lobbying power that law enforcement has in Washington DC... do you really think for one minute that a candidate saying "i'll end the raids" will come to fruition in the next 4 years?

I think not.