If you've been following the politics of the cannabis prohibition, you should have heard by now that the Obama administration has issued a written policy on medical marijuana recently. You can read it here on the Department Of Justice web site. It has received much praise from advocates of marijuana's legalization. However I see it as an empty gesture that changes nothing, and I'll show you why.

Here is the memo....

October 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the

Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

* unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
* violence;
* sales to minors;
* financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
* amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
* illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
* ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Now lets take a look at what this policy says.

"...As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources..."

It seems this is where so many people stop reading and start praising. Understandably so. But the rest of the memo is in complete contradiction to this statement, as I will show you now...

"...Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted..."

Which means there can be any number of factors, of any variation, for federal prosecution.

"...Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations..."

NOT expected to PROVE or ESTABLISH state law violations. So they can prosecute, even if an establishment or person is in compliance with state law. This is nothing new, they've been prosecuting patients and providers in compliance with state law for 13 years. So this memo changes nothing in this aspect, because marijuana is prohibited by the controlled substances act.

"...This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter..."

So when they do, and they will, decide to prosecute, compliance with state law is not accepted as a legal defense. This is already the case in patients and providers who've been prosecuted in the last 13 years. Patients and providers have no legal ground to stand on when it comes to federal court on the subject of marijuana.

"...Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests..."

So this guidance means nothing. They can investigate and prosecute, even if you are clearly in compliance with state law. Such as it has been for the last 13 years.

If real change is to be made, marijuana needs to be rescheduled in the controlled substances act. However, if you've read my previous blog you'd know, this is VERY unlikely to happen. All this memo has done is fool ignorant marijuana advocates into thinking there has been progress in the movement... one step forward, one step back, one more to the side, bullet dodged....well done Obama, well done indeed.

The Food and Drug Administration was formed back in 1906, and is charged with the responsibility of protecting and promoting the nation's public health. It seems to me that they've gone astray on this course. I've come to question the FDA's intent, and I'll show you why...I will also show resources where I feel important/can, so you can see for your self. I aint BSin' you, its the gov that is.

A.) First I'll start with cannabis. Cannabis over the recent years has been a major source of debate, concerning its use as medicine. This is in part due to the FDA's position on "marijuana." (note: Marijuana is a Mexican slang term from the early 1900's, and NOT the scientific name I would expect a scientific community to use) The FDA's most recent statement on cannabis can be seen here ( FDA's statement on marijuana ). As you can see, the FDA supports cannabis' schedule 1 status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), stateing "marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision."

 Now let me apply some logic to this statement, and show you why this is total BS. 1.) "marijuana has a high potential for abuse".... Maybe so, but certinly no more potential than; caffeine, tobacco, sugar, and above all alcohol. All of which are freely available with little to no regulation regarding their purchase by the public. 2.) "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"...There are currently 13 states with medical marijuana legislation in place. In California alone 1500 physicians have recommended medical marijuana under Prop. 215. CA NORML, and over 100,000 patients have registerd for medical marijuana between 1996 and 2004, Drug Polocy Alliance fact sheet. I think this shows an accepted medical use in treatment.    3.) "[marijuana] has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision".... What constitutes safety, mortality rate? The LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of tested population) of cannabis has not been established in humans, but is estimated at 1500lbs smoked within 15min. Further more, there has not been ONE recorded human death from cannabis in over 5000 years of recorded history on marijuana (Marijuana vs some FDA approved substances). Sounds fairly safe, especially under medical supervision.

On top of this total BS scheduling of cannabis, there are laws in place to keep it that way (National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225) so long as the FDA stands by its aforementioned statement . I am referring to Sec 704 paragraph 12. It says the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy(ONDCP) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the ONDCP shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that is listed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration.... In other words the federal government cannot fund a study that would show support for cannabis as medicine, and MUST oppose any attempt to do so.

While we here in the United States are busy preventing the study of cannabis for use as medicine. Other countries around the world are finding some amazing things. Cannabis has been found to slow, stop, and even reverse the growth of cancer (Dr. Manual Guzman's work, i believe done in Spain.). Cannabis has been shown to be a powerful antibiotic, useful in fighting a riseing problem with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in hospitals and clinics across America (Study done in Italy). In fact there are a host of diseases and illnesses where cannabis has shown positive results; Addiction, Arthritis, Appetite Loss, Nausea, AIDS Wasting Syndrome, Nausea From Cancer Chemotherapy, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, Depression, Parkinson’s Disease, Movement Disorders, Dystonia, Asthma, Brain Injury/Stroke, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Depression, Mental Illness, Epilepsy, Fibromyalgia, High Blood Pressure/Hypertension, Migraine, Nail Patella Syndrome, Schizophrenia, Tourette's Syndrome. (Medical Uses of Cannabis).

I think the FDA's suppression of such a widely useful medicine with such minimal side effects, and safety falls far short of promoting public health.

B.) On the subject of promoting public health. Lets look at some of the garbage the FDA has approved.

Have you ever actually listened to some of these advertisements for new medications? Listen to some of the "possible" side effects of these drugs... some times the side effects worsen the reason for taking the drug (usualy in the case for depression/mental illness drugs). Other times death is one of the possible side effects...Death? Sounds safe, right? Keep in mind, these drugs have been approved by the FDA because they are "safe."



What about all the recalls from the FDA. Usually these come after thousands of cases of heart problems, and death. As was the case for FenPhen, hydroxycut, and ephedra. Remember, if it was re-called, it was approved first.

How about the more recent increase of vaccinations approved by the FDA? I don't know nearly as much about them as I do about cannabis, so here are a few clips related to them....











sounds safe enough....

So far, it seems to me that if any thing is safe it sure aint the FDA's agenda.

sTuTz

----feel free to re-post this blog where ever you can. Its more important to me, that the message is spread, than I get credit for it.