Obama to stop prosecutions of state-sanctioned medical marijuana use

[Peephole]

The Obama administration delivered new guidance on medical marijuana to federal prosecutors Monday, signaling a broad policy shift that will mean fewer crackdowns against dispensaries and the people who use them.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. instructed government lawyers that in 14 states where medical marijuana use is legal, federal prosecutors should focus only on cases involving higher level drug traffickers or people who use the state laws as a cover story.

"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, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," Holder said. "This balanced policy formalizes a sensible approach that the Department has been following since January: effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws."

The Justice Department action is the latest in a series of developments in President Obama's approach to drug policy. It follows by only a few days the introduction of a Senate bill that would eliminate the disparity between sentences for cocaine possession in powder versus rock form, a change long sought by drug reform advocates, judges and civil rights activists.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802756.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Finally some progress on the drugs front, decriminalisation is still a long way off, but at least this one horrible policy is being ended. A big victory for state's rights advocates as well.

[Whiplash]

I'm for decriminalization as well. But I'm curious, why do you speak about it as though you are an American citizen weighing in on the subject? Is your "location" some kind of joke?

ETA: I have assumed for some time that you are not an American citizen, but European. If that's wrong, I apologize.

[Praktik]

I'm for decriminalization as well. But I'm curious, why do you speak about it as though you are an American citizen weighing in on the subject? Is your "location" some kind of joke?

Are you surprised that non-Americans are interested in American politics?

As a Canadian it might seem that I don't have a dog in this fight either, but that supposition would be wrong. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918725,00.html) Mexico recently decriminalized drugs and the reaction of the Obama admin was refreshing:

In 2006, Mexico's Congress approved a bill with almost exactly the same provisions. However, the Administration of George W. Bush immediately complained about the measure and then President Vicente Fox refused to sign it into law. In contrast, officials of the Obama Administration have been decidedly guarded in commenting on the new legislation. When asked about it in his visit to Mexico last month, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said he would "wait and see." Many view such a change as evidence that Washington is finally reconsidering its confrontational war on drugs, four decades after Richard Nixon declared it. "There is a growing opinion that the use of force has simply failed to destroy the drug trade and other measures are needed," says Mexican political analyst José Antonio Crespo. "It appears that the White House may be starting to adjust its approach."When Jean Crouton was in power there was a move to decriminalize marijuana possession so that you could have up to an ounce for personal use and only get a ticket if caught.

The Bush admin screamed like a spoiled baby and the legislation was sent back to committee and they ended up coming out with a bill that halved the amount considered "ok" for personal use, and bizarrely, reduced the hash exception to something like a gram or two.

Eventually it died when Crouton wanted to go to summer early (all pending bills die and must be reintroduced).

How much would I love an America that let us do our thing without crying bloody murder when we decide (within our soveriegn power) to treat marijuana possession more sensibly?

A lot.

The point is that America has swung its weight around not only against recalcitrant states who had the temerity to vote through medical marijuana - but also against other nations as well.

[Darth Rotor]

How much would I love an America that let us do our thing without crying bloody murder when we decide (within our soveriegn power) to treat marijuana possession more sensibly?

If your political lot had any balls, they'd have advised W to mind his own business. QED.

As to the OP, this is good news. My brother lives in CA and had to do some work for the state when the Feds got all over that doctor in Oakland who was under CA law selling dope for medical patients. CA did not prosecute, the Feds did.

Pay attention, folks: what AG Holder just pronounced was a very small win for States' Rights. ;)

DR

[Juniversal]

Hmm you would think this would be a pretty big deal on these forums. Clove cigarettes "banned"?? My rights are being taken away!!! More lenient policy on medical maurijuana? Barely a word. Very interesting.

[WildCat]

Finally some progress on the drugs front, decriminalisation is still a long way off, but at least this one horrible policy is being ended. A big victory for state's rights advocates as well.

I'm for decriminalization as well.
Frankly, I'm for legalization. Simply decriminalizing it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, the LA County DA is going hard after marijuana dispensaries at the moment.

Just legalize it, end the charade.

[fuelair]

Yaaaaay!!!:)

[GreNME]

Frankly, I'm for legalization. Simply decriminalizing it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, the LA County DA is going hard after marijuana dispensaries at the moment.

Just legalize it, end the charade.

Damned right. At least get the tax revenue out of it, for cryin' out loud.

[Drudgewire]

Great. Now I'm going to catch glaucoma. :(

[SezMe]

Frankly, I'm for legalization. Simply decriminalizing it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, the LA County DA is going hard after marijuana dispensaries at the moment.

Just legalize it, end the charade.
Theoretically I agree. Practically, I don't. We both know that pols at the state and federal level simply will not vote to legalize drugs. Its a death vote for their careers. So the most practical move is to go for decriminalization and let time lead to legalization. Sadly, it's the best we can do.

[portlandatheist]

A step in the right direction

[linusrichard]

I was kind of thinking since the federal and state governments have more money than they know what to do with, it might be a really great idea to take a lot of people who aren't doing anyone any harm, many of whom are productive and otherwise-law abiding, and spend a lot of government money investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing them for smoking a plant that you can't OD on or get physically addicted to. It would have the added bonuses of driving up the price of the plant, making it impossible to regulate the quality of it, making it impossible to tax transactions in it, and increasing the violence associated with its commerce.

And Obama wants to get rid of all some of that? What could he possibly be thinking?

[Peephole]

I'm for decriminalization as well. But I'm curious, why do you speak about it as though you are an American citizen weighing in on the subject? Is your "location" some kind of joke?
Well, I'm just someone who's interested in American politics and besides that drug policy is very much a worldwide issue.

[Praktik]

Well, I'm just someone who's interested in American politics and besides that drug policy is very much a worldwide issue.

Indeed - and that policy's biggest cheerleader as been America, who has used a mixture of incentives and coercion to bring other nations in-line.

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed - and that policy's biggest cheerleader as been America, who has used a mixture of incentives and coercion to bring other nations in-line.

Looks around for the world's smallest violin ...

[oldhat]

Looks around for the world's smallest violin ...

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/elsal-AndJesuitPriests12.jpg

Jesuits murdered by US trained and funded Contras in El Salvador.

[SezMe]

Looks around for the world's smallest violin ...
I have no doubt America is Columbia's best friend.

[Praktik]

^^

ya! lol..;)

[Darth Rotor]

I have no doubt America is Columbia's best friend.
Based on what criterion? :confused:

[Darth Rotor]

Jesuits murdered by US trained and funded Contras in El Salvador.
Do you have a point, or is this your standard, ranting, Pete Segar moment? Are you aware that people die in civil wars?

DR

[NWO Sentryman]

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/elsal-AndJesuitPriests12.jpg

Jesuits murdered by US trained and funded Contras in El Salvador.

Em, it was nicaragua, not el salvador.

[Skeptic]

Good! Some common sense.

[Skeptic]

Em, it was nicaragua, not el salvador.

Hmph! Details, details. The IMPORTANT THING is that the USA is blamed for something.

[oldhat]

Em, it was nicaragua, not el salvador.

The Salvadorans military and political establishment had their hands in drug running during the Civil War, too, it wasn't just the Nicaraguans (and by extension the CIA). I've read far more about this subject than you.

[SezMe]

Based on what criterion? :confused:
I was being sarcastic - sorry about the missing smilie.

First off, we are, by far, the largest market for Columbia grown drugs. This multi-hundreds of millions market has so warped the Columbia society because of the corruption, violence and greed.

Second, we spend millions of dollars in Columbia fighting the very drug trade that we cause. How insane is that? We spray herbicides, get involved with gangs and police and generally muck about.

All for what? Drugs are just as available today as they were 30 years ago. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem, this is a stupid problem.

If I was a native Columbian and witnessed the carnage, I'd hate the USA.

*Ducks if this is too off topic*

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Based on what criterion? :confused:


They're always having sleepovers. And Columbia lets the United States borrow their Bay City Rollers records.

[Blue Mountain]

If your political lot had any balls, they'd have advised W to mind his own business. QED.
Easy for you to say. When a man built like a tank and armed with a baseball bat asks you for your wallet, do you listen to your wife when she says, "Grow a set of balls and don't hand over the wallet?"

When our Liberal government talked about decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, officials in the Bush administration called for a tightening of the border between Canada and the US. For a country that does nearly $2 billion of trade every day with the US, the prospect of having our trucks and tourists waiting hours at the border while officials searched them for marijuana was scary.

There was also the potential of other types of sanctions; for example, the US could have just decided to put a tariff on certain goods and raw materials coming into the United States from Canada. Officially the reason would be something other than American displeasure that the Canadian action on marijuana, but there would be enough comments in the media by lower ranking officials that there would be no doubt as to why it was really done.

Of course, such an action would probably be illegal under NAFTA, but what the hell? It would take years for our complaint to be heard by the commission, and the US could still stall a decision in Canada's favour by appealing it. Or removing that tariff and setting up another one, starting the whole complaints procedure all over again.

[roger]

We both know that pols at the state and federal level simply will not vote to legalize drugs. Its a death vote for their careers. This is rapidly changing. For example, look at this quote from the Colorado House Speaker:
"The people of Colorado have clearly spoken on this issue and have decided that medicinal uses of marijuana are appropriate and legal in Colorado," said House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver. "When the legislature reconvenes in January, I will be asking the House to keep our focus on bolstering the economy, creating jobs and balancing the budget."

cite (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13598051?source=pop).

And outside of the boulder/denver corridor CO is deeply conservative. Others are undoubtedly more in tune with CO politics and could comment on this better than I could, but here we have a very conservative state voting for medical marijuana, and a state level politician is willing to go on record supporting that position.

[Puppycow]

A step in the right direction

A very teensy weensy step.

[SezMe]

This is rapidly changing.
I completely agree. Just today I read about a poll that said now a majority of people support legalization and regulation of weed. (It's not important enough to try to dig up the reference.) I think a substantial change in the drug war will occur in the next 5-10 years.

[Puppycow]

Is this really anything to get excited about?

Medical-pot backers react to new Obama policy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/MNO01A7S79.DTL)

(10-19) 18:21 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Medical marijuana advocates in California said the Obama administration's announcement of new guidelines for pot prosecutions Monday contained some hopeful signs, but lacked the specifics needed to keep patients and their suppliers out of court.

"It's an extremely welcome rhetorical de-escalation of the federal government's long-standing war on medical marijuana patients," said Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Dale Gieringer, California coordinator of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the administration's advice to U.S. attorneys that they respect state law - such as California's Proposition 215, the 1996 measure legalizing medicinal use of the drug - was encouraging.

However, he added, "the policy has major loopholes that give prosecutors broad discretion to determine what they think is legal."

A Justice Department memo, sent Monday to federal prosecutors in California and 13 other states whose laws allow medical use of marijuana, provides guidelines to implement the policy Attorney General Eric Holder announced in March: that federal authorities should refrain from arresting or prosecuting people who are complying with their state's laws.

Federal prosecutors should focus on major drug traffickers and networks, rather than on those who "are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws" on medical marijuana, said Deputy Attorney General David Ogden.

But he added some qualifications: Prosecutors can go after those who sell marijuana for profit, a category that federal authorities have commonly invoked in charging growers and sellers of medicinal pot.

San Francisco's U.S. attorney, Joseph Russoniello, asserted in August that most of California's 300 marijuana dispensaries make profits, in violation of state guidelines, and are therefore open to federal prosecution.

Ogden also said the Justice Department would fight any effort by people now charged with marijuana-related crimes in federal court to claim that they were simply following state law. And even those who are clearly complying with a state's law can be investigated and prosecuted, he said, in the pursuit of "important federal interests."
'Lot of discretion'

"It leaves a lot of discretion up to the U.S. attorneys," said Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group for patients who use marijuana. "We hope that these guidelines rein in rogue prosecutors like Russoniello. There's no guarantee that's going to happen."

Russoniello's office is prosecuting owners of two Hayward-area medical marijuana dispensaries that were licensed by local governments. In March, after Holder's announcement, federal agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic in San Francisco, which had a city permit. No charges were filed.

Russoniello's office referred inquiries Monday to the Justice Department, where spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Ogden's memo was intended to provide "guidance and clarification" to prosecutors and does not change administration policy.
So it's not an order, just advice, which they can choose to ignore if they are so inclined. Russoniello's spokeswoman has already said in effect that they are going to ignore it.

He seems to be moving with the same lack of alacrity as he is on DADT. So libertarians have been thrown a small crumb. If a crumb is enough to make you happy, great. I'm not going to be satisfied unless more changes follow.

[applecorped]

He seems to be moving with the same lack of alacrity as he is on DADT. So libertarians have been thrown a small crumb. If a crumb is enough to make you happy, great. I'm not going to be satisfied unless more changes follow.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=120&pictureid=1699

[SezMe]

He seems to be moving with the same lack of alacrity as he is on DADT.
An emerging characteristic of the Obama Administration.

[Darth Rotor]

Easy for you to say.
There is a Beatles song that goes with your post. I find your "tank driver demanding your wallet" a pathetic, and grossly dishonest, characterization of US Canadian relationships. Care to try again?

@ SezMe

Why not blame the drug problem on the advocates of recreational drug use, which fuels demand. :D Won't that make the Colombians happy? They'll have somebody new to blame.

[WildCat]

They're always having sleepovers. And Columbia lets the United States borrow their Bay City Rollers records.
I can't take it any more! There is no country called "Columbia". It's Colombia. With an "o".

/pedant

[Praktik]

There is a Beatles song that goes with your post. I find your "tank driver demanding your wallet" a pathetic, and grossly dishonest, characterization of US Canadian relationships.

I know you got better stuff than this. Even if you thought the analogy was poor, the drawing out of the trade relationship and the economic threats to Canada was accurate.

Maybe he could "try again" on the analogy score, but the rest of the post does not warrant a do-over.

[Praktik]

Why not blame the drug problem on the advocates of recreational drug use, which fuels demand. :D Won't that make the Colombians happy? They'll have somebody new to blame.

Care to demonstrate how advocates of legalization "fuel" demand? I turned to legalization orgs after I had already begun experimentation with various illicit substances, not before.

[Darth Rotor]

I noticed what you did there, and it was somewhat dishonest:

advocates of recreational drug use

is what I said.

You tried to turn that into an equivalent "advocates for legalization" and those are not identical, indeed, barely similar. NORML didn't, as far as I know, support cocaine legalization for recreational use. It focused mostly on dope.
Care to demonstrate how advocates of legalization "fuel" demand? I turned to legalization orgs after I had already begun experimentation with various illicit substances, not before.
Did you not note the smiley?

Are you my age, older perhaps? I'm 50.

I grew up in an era where I was immersed in a continuing stream of social encouragement to try or use recreational drugs. Heck, in my high school, we had authorized cigarette smoking areas, for those sixteen and older. (People getting stoned in the parking lot was commonplace, and mostly ignored. Not a few of my friends got pulled over for speeding, or other small problems, and when the officer smelled the dope smell in the car, were subjected to ... being told to empty the dime bag out on the grass to avoid arrest. ) Is that sort of interaction common now? Not where I live.

Grass was all over popular literature and cluture, in stories and movies. Advocacy for it's legalization (NORML among others) were taken seriously. You went to rock concerts and while the whiskey bottles were left outside in bins, the smoke filled the concert hall. Contact high? Not sure if that was myth or fact, but I know what the smell was.

While the law and Establishment were pretty much anti, many of our teachers smoked dope in college, and people's parents were having a few hits off of joints with their older teenaged kids. There was no question then, not now, that recreational drug use was encouraged and condoned. Informal norms, formal norms, organizational behavior 101, at work in a larger sense.

For about two decades, the informal norm was "get stoned, it's OK" (That norm still has some currency, it seems, but that dime bag now gets you into hot water).

Casual cocaine use took off in the seventies. Did the momentum of informal norms increase opportunity and predilection for recreational drug use? I think so.

Risks? Meh. Just gettin' the latest rush. (Even though heroin addicts were dying of OD's at the same time).

Would legalizing dope have led to different controls on other substances? No idea, as cocaine, for example, was related to medicinal compounds in the first place, while pot at the time wasn't.

Demand for recreational drugs went up. Someone made a buck. That it was mostly illicit surely isn't handy, but I suspect that even with dope being legal, cocaine would have remained illegal.

Informal norms in Columbia? What do you think they were? "Turn a blind eye, lads." That worked for a while, until it didn't. :p

DR

[Praktik]

I noticed what you did there, and it was somewhat dishonest:

advocates of recreational drug use

is what I said.

If you ascribe the wording of my post to a malicious intent, then yes, maybe I was being dishonest. But really that's what I thought you meant. I didn't realize you were talking more broadly about what you laid out in more detail in the body of your post.


Are you my age, older perhaps? I'm 50..

Younger, 29 actually. My dad turned 60 in the spring. When my youngest brother was out of high school we all finally could feel comfortable sharing a joint at the kitchen table after a meal. They stopped smoking once they had kids but I assume there were a few times a year when they indulged.

It was all in the closet for a while but of course, with experienced parents, I lasted about 1 month in my experimentation stage at age 16 before they found out.

They knew there wasn't much they could do.

The neighbour and family friend across the street ended up with a liver issue, turned to her son for pot. And now trips back home usually include at least a few smoke downs with my parents and my friend's parents across the street.

its kind of our beer I guess.

Grass was all over popular literature and cluture, in stories and movies. ..

...and still is. But is this art reflecting life or life reflecting art? Guess you don't watch much HBO or any of the string of stoner comedies coming out these days?

Advocacy for it's legalization (NORML among others) were taken seriously. You went to rock concerts and while the whiskey bottles were left outside in bins, the smoke filled the concert hall. Contact high? Not sure if that was myth or fact, but I know what the smell was

While the law and Establishment were pretty much anti, many of our teachers smoked dope in college, and people's parents were having a few hits off of joints with their older teenaged kids. There was no question then, not now, that recreational drug use was encouraged and condoned. Informal norms, formal norms, organizational behavior 101, at work in a larger sense.

For about two decades, the informal norm was "get stoned, it's OK" (That norm still has some currency, it seems, but that dime bag now gets you into hot water).

Not so much here in Canada, where enforcement is spotty but generally lax.

Interesting post and I enjoyed your perspective on things I expect our disagreement stemmed from my misinterpretation of your words.

But I still wonder about the causative effect of the "advocates" you mention - its a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma and I fall on the side of drug use being an inherent part of human nature that our art and social fabric will reflect, just as it does for sex, violence and the "better angels" of our nature as well. As such, I don't really think the numbers of drug use would be all that different if we were back in the pre-60s closet. It would just be even more underground.

[Cobalt]

A good start. I hope this means much more progress towards legalization.

[SezMe]

@ SezMe

Why not blame the drug problem on the advocates of recreational drug use, which fuels demand. :D Won't that make the Colombians happy? They'll have somebody new to blame.

I grew up in an era ...<snip of a good discussion>
In you discussion which I fully agree with you have answered your own question. The advocates of recreational drug use are nearly the whole culture. So your suggesting we blame our society for its advocacy of recreational drug use. Yep, pretty much.

I don't know of a society/culture that has not had some form of mind/mood altering drug to turn to. We're no different.

[Darth Rotor]

If you ascribe the wording of my post to a malicious intent, then yes, maybe I was being dishonest. But really that's what I thought you meant. I didn't realize you were talking more broadly about what you laid out in more detail in the body of your post.
Thanks, and lack of malicious intent accepted.
but is this art reflecting life or life reflecting art? Guess you don't watch much HBO or any of the string of stoner comedies coming out these days?
So it continues? I don't get HBO, don't feel like paying for it. Maybe art and life are in a dynamic feedback loop. :confused:

But I still wonder about the causative effect of the "advocates" you mention - its a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma and I fall on the side of drug use being an inherent part of human nature that our art and social fabric will reflect, just as it does for sex, violence and the "better angels" of our nature as well.
Influence, rather than causation, as the core American recreational drug, whiskey, was already with us. But Colombia and Mexico can't try to blame us for their problems due to whiskey, can they? ;)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know of a society/culture that has not had some form of mind/mood altering drug to turn to. We're no different.
Go back to XIXth century America and whiskey is the recreational drug of choice. It's evils are much commented upon. Such commentary leads to the temprance movement, among other things, which leads to the Prohibition, which is evidence of the following: if enough do gooders try hard enough, they can screw up pretty much anything.

DR

[Praktik]

Go back to XIXth century America and whiskey is the recreational drug of choice. It's evils are much commented upon. Such commentary leads to the temprance movement...

And the following anecdote that explains the lack of religion in my family.

Grandpa was on a Navy Corvette for all of WWII. He never partook in rum rations.

Then, on V-E day, he finally decides to join in and he takes a drink. Unfortunately, he neglected to exclude this from his letter home. His firebreathing, tea-totalling grandma replied:

"I would have rather heard that you had died, than that you took a drink"

Cause obviously, in so doing he had consigned his soul to hell.

So I guess he never really felt like taking up the hard-core religious angle, and let my dad believe as he would.

[Darth Rotor]

And the following anecdote that explains the lack of religion in my family.

Grandpa was on a Navy Corvette for all of WWII. He never partook in rum rations.

Then, on V-E day, he finally decides to join in and he takes a drink. Unfortunately, he neglected to exclude this from his letter home. His firebreathing, tea-totalling grandma replied:

"I would have rather heard that you had died, than that you took a drink"

Cause obviously, in so doing he had consigned his soul to hell.

So I guess he never really felt like taking up the hard-core religious angle, and let my dad believe as he would.
My grandpa was a Gunner's Mate at one point in his life. He liked his tipple, now and again, which over the years caused a bit of friction between him and grandma ... but she was no temprance nanny.

DR

[Praktik]

Interesting: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

[T]he shift toward a more sensible national policy is no longer confined to the left. Nor is the long-haired stoner the face of the pro-pot lobby. Today's activist, more likely, doesn't have facial hair, but she does have kids. Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be "freedom fighter of the month" in High Times magazine.

[Darth Rotor]

Interesting: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

[T]he shift toward a more sensible national policy is no longer confined to the left. Nor is the long-haired stoner the face of the pro-pot lobby. Today's activist, more likely, doesn't have facial hair, but she does have kids. Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be "freedom fighter of the month" in High Times magazine.
When one looks at how Prohibition worked out, the "War on Drugs" approach to pot (not gonna comment on uppers/coke) seems a bad case of failing to learn the lessons of our own history. I also disagree with raising the drinking age to 21, but that's another story.

DR

[Praktik]

I also disagree with raising the drinking age to 21, but that's another story.

DR

Ya how retarded is THAT?

I remember visiting my aunt and uncle in California at age 19 and realizing I couldnt drink at the restaurants.

I was really quite amazed and immediately started thinking of how frustrating it must be for people who lived in the state.

[Praktik]

another crack in the wall? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8319950.stm)

A US newspaper says it has received well over 100 applicants for the post of marijuana critic - many of whom have offered to work for free.

The alternative Denver newspaper, Westword, is seeking a writer for its weekly review of Colorado's booming medical marijuana dispensaries.

But there is a catch - candidates must have a medical ailment allowing them to enter a dispensary and use marijuana.

[Puppycow]

They're still doing it (http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/15/we-wont-raid-medical-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+ Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Last Friday, the DEA raided a medical marijuana producer in Colorado. The story needs some fleshing out, but at the moment it appears that Chris Bartkowicz wasn't violating any state law. Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado. His offense appears to have been boasting about how much money he makes growing the drug for patients.

DEA agents converged on the house Friday afternoon and, before leaving several hours later, removed dozens of marijuana plants in black plastic trash bags as well as numerous high-powered growing lights.

On Thursday night, 9News promoted a story about Bartkowicz's operation, and on Friday morning, Bartkowicz was featured in a 9News story posted to its website and published in The Denver Post. The story was to air on television Friday night. He told the station he serves as a caregiver to a number of medical-marijuana patients and hoped to turn a profit this year in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"I'm definitely living the dream now," Bartkowicz told 9News.


I guess the moral of the story is don't talk about it if this is your livelihood.

This seems rather arbitrary and capricious.

[Beerina]

I will assume for the sake of argument they think his profits are out of line with a "legitimate" grower and that he's horking a ton out the side.

Let's see how it plays out.