timiscute

From Obama, sanity on marijuana policy
10/22/09 | Chicago Tribune | Steve Chapman

In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn't matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a "medical necessity."

It was a far-fetched argument -- but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall's favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a "compassionate use" program.

The compassion didn't go very far. President George H.W. Bush stopped the acceptance of new patients into the program in 1992 rather than admit all those annoying AIDS victims, insisting that it sent a dangerous message to young people.

The real danger, of course, was the message that government policy on cannabis was ignorant and irrational. But since then, one president and one drug czar after another has furiously resisted efforts to allow therapeutic use of the drug no matter how helpful it may be to the sick and dying.

Until now. This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."

The change is not only historic but humane and intelligent, two adjectives rarely applied to federal drug policy. Science has established that cannabis has useful properties for the treatment of various diseases, countless physicians have endorsed it, and 14 states have allowed sick people access to marijuana. But for three decades, the people in charge of drug policy in the federal government didn't give a rat's bottom.

In 1996, after California voters approved a medical marijuana law, President Bill Clinton's administration fought it every step of the way -- filing lawsuits to close cannabis buyers clubs, threatening to strip the licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to patients and denouncing the entire program as "a Cheech and Chong show."

President George W. Bush's administration stuck to the same course. It raided California dispensaries and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a successful effort to crush the notion -- the conservative notion, come to think of it -- that states should have the power to set their own policy on pot.

But before long, the idea had caught on not just in hippy-dippy California but in less fashionable places like Alaska, Maine, Michigan and Montana. Some 75 percent of Americans think doctors should be permitted to prescribe cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws reports that in 33 state referendums since 1992, voters have embraced liberalization 30 times.

Most of the time, the two major parties are about as different as Coke and Pepsi. But last year, they presented a stark contrast on this issue. Republicans denounced the use of marijuana as medicine, while Democrats lined up to criticize the prevailing federal policy. Obama took a clear position, declaring it "entirely appropriate" for physicians to prescribe cannabis and pledging, "What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

But as opponents of the Iraq war, "don't ask don't tell" and Guantanamo know, a promise made by Obama is not exactly money in the bank. This time, though, he deserves full credit for doing what he said he would do, repudiating a bipartisan legacy of pigheaded stupidity.

What's more, Obama may not stop there. Some reformers expect the administration to agree to let a scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst grow cannabis for research on its medical potential -- something the Bush administration opposed, lest the research contradict its ideology.

During the campaign, Obama also indicated he favors scrapping a 21-year-old policy that forbids cities from using federal money to finance needle-exchange programs to block the spread of AIDS, and the House voted last summer to lift the ban. The White House drug czar has even solicited advice from critics of the drug war, whom previous drug czars saw as deranged.

Robert Randall, who died in 2001, might have been surprised to hear the federal government admit the possibility that it was wrong about marijuana. He probably wouldn't have been surprised that it took 33 years.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman

__________________

claygooding

Until marijuana is removed from schedule 1 thare is no real change. As long as it is schedule 1 the ONDCP must contradict or refute any study showing medical properties for cannibus. And we already know they are willling too lie or provide contradicting studies too keep marijuana illegal. They are not only required by congressional mandate to do so,but since marijuana is their justification for over 1/2 their budget,they do so without batting an eye or even in the face of scientific evidence.With the ONDCP in charge of and with final approval of any study,how will the U of M get permission too do this study? And if congress approves any study that bypasses ONDCP,does this not give lawyers a chance too litigate for removal of cannibus from schedule 1?

Dreau Preau

I don't know what kind of sanity USA is writing about.

Marijuana is still a Schedule I drug by federal law, and that still doesn't make sense.

Kushy

Lighten up guys!

This is a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it's a very good indication of good things to come! Sure, we as a nation, and even as a world are still fucked up when it comes to common sense regarding the "War on Drugs", but people: change does not come over night! It happens step by step, and the way I see it, this is a very good step in the right direction.

__________________
Finally de' herbs come around

troublemaker_42

I'd have more faith in the gesture had the document not clearly spelled out that they reserve the right to raid anyone legally operating under state (but not federal) law at any time they so choose. What kind of protection is that? None....so long as marijuana remians illegal under federal law and remain scheduled as a schedule 1 substance, anyone who uses it medicaly or otherwise is open to prosecution any time the govt feels like doing so. That, in reality, is NO DIFFERENT from what was happening BEFORE this announcement. You're safe, so long as the government doesn't decide you aren't. Policies can be changed in seconds....laws are where the RERAL protections come from. Until this is written into law and passed by congress, its essentially meaningless as currently written.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

Kushy

Well, let's give it some time... Now we play the waiting game.
If in, say, 6 months, the feds have not raided a single club following state laws, then you owe me a bowl TM

To be honest though, I see it very unlikely that feds will sweep in even after they've been told not to. I KNOW that the government is un-trustworthy, etc etc... But I just don't see it as very likely.. But as I said, now is the waiting game (to see if Obama/feds/DEA hold up their end of the new 'memo'

troublemaker_42

Thats the thing though...they've been told "not to" by a memo that expressly states that at any given time, even those following state laws CAN be raided at any point. I'm not worried about the feds ignoring the memo, I'm worried by the language of the memo itself. Why include a porvision that basically states the whole premise is up to the whims and discretion of the government at any time? If this was sincerely meant to protect people, why include a statement that says that they reserve the right to arrest medical users/providers at any time even if following state law? Thats like me hanging a sign on my prperty line "Trespassers won't be shot....unless I decide they will be" I'd like to be optimisitc, but given the current track record, I have no reason to trust anyone in a positon of pwer in the federal government.

stoneygreenbud

I strongly have to agree with TM on this one! although the memo gives the impression that patients are safe on the surface, it's the wording itself that is deceptive. The Feds have/make their own rules when it comes to marijuana, "THE MEMO" is nothing more than an idea written on a piece of paper! if Obama was truely sincere with reguards to having "compassion" for patients there would be more than just a memo, Obama would be taking steps to have marijuana removed from its current schedule 1 status.
as long as marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug, no one is safe from the fed. Govt. speaking of the Govt. they have absolutely no compassion for the sick,dying or severly disabled. So keep this in mind, when thinking about the Fed. Govt. "THE ONLY PREDICTION FOR FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS PAST BEHAVIOR" Nuff said!

Stoney