Industrial Hemp

Now that Kentucky has become the latest state to embrace industrial hemp, President Obama should seize the moment to endorse the concept. It would be a bipartisan move to improve the country.

The federal government continued opposition to allowing American farmers to grow industrial hemp is an illogical and outdated relic from our insane drug war. The sole reason hemp is prohibited is that it technically is the same species as marijuana, but only in the way a gray wolf is technically the same species as a Shih Tzu. Hemp can’t get people high. It is purely a useful agricultural product that serves as a source of fiber, food and oil.

The fact that industrial hemp has been cultivated for years in countries like Canada, France, UK, and Germany proves it can easily be grown without interfering with laws prohibiting marijuana use.

Previously, it may not have made sense for a Democratic President to back industrial hemp because the issue would have gone nowhere or opened them to idiotic attacks about being “soft on drugs.” However, the political dynamics around this issue have changed dramatically in the last few months.

Recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has thrown his support behind helping local farmers gain access to this useful crop. McConnell is arguably the most powerful Republican in Washington. Now that hemp has his support, it can simply be seen as non-controversial and as a bipartisan step to helping family farmers.

Obama has been focused on trying to get bipartisan agreement on big issues like immigration and gun control, but that doesn’t mean he should ignore the smaller issues that would have a positive impact. This is one issue where the Republican leadership clearly has a good idea. Obama should change his position to join with McConnell in a bipartisan move to adopt this smart policy.

 Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Homegrown.

Among Colorado voters marijuana legalization is more popular than President Obama or Mitt Romney. This Tuesday the voters in the state approved Amendment 64, which legalizes marijuana under state law, by a remarkably large margin. With most of the vote now counted, Amendment 64 was approved 54.92 percent yes to 45.08 percent no.

As it currently stands 1,307,288 people in Colorado went to the polls and voted to legalize marijuana. By comparison, only 1,252,269 people in the state cast a ballot for Barack Obama for President and just 1,135,165 voted for Mitt Romney. More voters in Colorado want marijuana to be legalized than believe Obama should serve a second term.

This is not just an interesting factoid but could have real political implications at both a local and national level. Unlikely Washington State, which also legalized marijuana this year, Colorado is not some liberal bastion. In 2010 Colorado featured one of the most competitive Senate races, and for the past several presidential elections it has been one of the most heavily contested swing states. Colorado is a place both major parties are competitive statewide.

Amendment 64′s strong victory shows that marijuana legalization is not just a winning issue in heavily Democratic areas, but is a position that is now popular in the so-called purple states. If as a politician you oppose marijuana legalization in a place like Colorado you now risk alienating the majority of the electorate. Publicly endorsing marijuana legalization should now be viewed as a politically smart move in large segments of the country.

The fact that marijuana legalization has noticeably more support than Obama in Colorado may also have an impact on the law’s implementation in the state. If there are showdowns with federal agencies over marijuana being legal under state law the fact that it is more popular than the President could encourage local officials to side against the feds.

Photo by lookcatalog under Creative Commons license.

The video might be funny if it was not so appallingly cynical. Despite the “being cool” image Obama is trying to sell with this video, when it comes to marijuana policy, he is the worst recent president; Obama is worse than Clinton or Bush on medical marijuana.

The Obama administration has waged an aggressive multi-agency war on medical marijuana. Under Obama agencies including DEA, IRS, ATF and DOJ have harassed patients, raided dispensaries and even openly threatened public employees to impede their state’s medical marijuana program.

If Obama actually wants to appeal to voters who care about marijuana, instead of appearing in a stupid video, maybe he should try simply being less horrible on the issue. For example Obama could take up the petition several governors have signed to have marijuana rescheduled. At a bare minimum Obama could publicly endorse the idea of medical marijuana. This would be a real symbolic move that should carry zero political risk, since 81 percent of Americans already support medical marijuana.

It would be remarkably easy for Obama to take actions that would prove he would at least be less awful than Mitt Romney on the issue of marijuana, but so far his administration’s behavior has been so bad Obama has failed to even clear that low bar.

(photo: Steve Rhodes / flickr)

Yesterday President Obama took part in a Reddit “ask me anything” but it would be better to describe it as an ask me anything, expect about drug policy. Every time President Obama has tried to engage in a question and answer session directly with regular Americans via the Internet the questions are dominated by issues related to drug policy in general and marijuana specifically. Obama tends to either quickly dismiss or, more often, completely ignore the subject even though the thousands of people who take the time to be part of the online forum constantly make it clear it is one of the issue they care most about.

Despite several of the most upvoted questions being about the drug war and marijuana prohibition, the President again chose to ignore the subject. Instead, he decided to answer important questions about the White House beer recipe and who his favorite basketball player is.

I’ve seen the Internet dismissively described as obsessed with pot questions, but personally I think this is primarily a byproduct of how completely the issue is ignored in the traditional political discourse. As a result, public forums become the only hope of raising the topic. Drug policy is a serious issue that directly affects the 1.6 million Americans arrested on drug charges every year and costs billions of dollars, but you rarely hear it even mentioned in interviews or in national debates.

Polls have found that 81 percent of the country supports medical marijuana and 74 percent want the federal government to respect state’s medical marijuana laws. This means the Obama administration’s aggressive actions against state medical marijuana programs is radically out of step with the desires of regular voters. When a democratically elected politician acts in a manner so contrary to the clear will of the electorate on a policy, it is not unreasonable for many to want him to at least face serious questions about his conduct.

The bulk of these states are either so reliably blue, like Washington, or reliably red, like Arkansas, that they will be effectively ignored by the major presidential candidates this year, but that is not true of Colorado. Colorado is among the swingest of the presidential swing states. It is possible that Colorado could end up being the decisive state this election. That is why it was selected to hold the first of the Presidential debates, which will be about domestic issues.

As a result President Obama and Mitt Romney are going to be spending a lot of time and money in the state. While they could relatively easily ignore the marijuana initiatives in the other states, it won’t be easy for them to ignore Amendment 64, which would legalize cannabis in Colorado.

Even if amendment 64 wasn’t on the ballot in Colorado, the candidates would still have a tough time avoiding questions about marijuana in that state. Back in 2000 voters in the state approved medical marijuana. Since then the state has developed one of the largest and best run medical marijuana industries. Already this cycle Colorado is where the media forced Romney to face questions about his stance against medical marijuana. With the state potentially taking a leading role in what could be a small wave of marijuana legalization efforts this year, the stakes are significantly higher now.

A final factor that will make it even harder for both Obama and Romney to ignore the issue of marijuana while in Colorado is former New Mexico governor and Libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson. With his socially liberal and fiscally conservative position, he potentially  could draw supporters away from Obama or Romney.  Johnson knows marijuana legalization is one of his most popular stances that distinguishes him for the major candidates, both of whom have taken very unpopular positions in opposition to even medical marijuana. Johnson also knows that Colorado, a swing state that directly neighbors his home state, with legalization on the ballot, gives him one of his best openings. It is one of his big selling points in the state.

So far this election both Obama and Romney have been very reluctant to discuss marijuana policy, but the need for them to campaign in Colorado may force them to talk about it anyway. It has already had the effect before this cycle, and things should only get more intense as the election day nears.

End the war on medical marijuana (photo: Steven Pepple/shutterstock.com)

When President Obama comes to Oakland on July 23rd to raise money for his re-election campaign he will be greeted by a large number of protesters who support medical marijuana. Harborside Health Center, along with Americans For Safe Access, are organizing a protest against the Obama administration’s aggressive war against medical marijuana. The most recent of many developments in Obama’s offensive against medical marijuana was the local U.S. Attorney’s office threatening to seize the property used by Harborside. From Harborside’s call for a protest:

The federal attacks on the medical cannabis community keep coming. Recently, the Department of Justice announced their intention to confiscate two buildings operated by Harborside Health Center in Oakland, CA and in San Jose, CA. This latest attack comes on the heels of other raids, audits, and other intimidation around the state.

Can you please join us on Monday, July 23, to tell President Obama to stop attacking California’s medical cannabis patients, cultivators, and providers when he visits the Fox Theater in downtown Oakland?

During the 2008 campaign then candidate Obama promised to respect the states’ medical marijuana laws.  But since taking office the Obama administration has been worse on this issue than even George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

The Obama administration has not just gone after medical marijuana dispensaries that are in compliance with state law. They have threatened financial institutions to prevent them from working with dispensaries. They have issued threats to state officials to prevent some states from adopting or implementing pro-medical marijuana policies. The administration has even harassed medical marijuana patients; for example the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives declared it illegal for medical marijuana patients to own firearms.

(Photo: Steven Pepple/shutterstock.com)

Mason-Dixon 5/10-14
Do you feel President Obama should: (ORDER ROTATED)
- Respect the medical marijuana laws in these states, or
- Use federal resources to arrest and prosecute individuals who  are acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws?
74% Respect State Laws
15% Prosecute Fed Law
11% Not Sure

The desire for the federal government to leave states alone when it comes to medical marijuana is strong across the political spectrum, with a solid majority of Democrats (75%), Independents (79%) and Republicans (67%) all feeling President Obama should respect state laws.  In addition, a solid majority of every age group, race and gender think state medical marijuana laws should be respected by the federal government.

Not surprisingly, national support for the federal government leaving state medical marijuana programs alone closely matches the national support for medical marijuana in general. Clearly the American people think medical marijuana has value and the government shouldn’t stop sick people from obtaining it.

Unfortunately since Obama took office the executive branch has waged an aggressive multi-agency war on medical marijuana. Most observers have concluded that the federal crackdown on state medical marijuana programs under Obama has been worse than any other recent president, including George W. Bush.

Obama has claimed that his administration must go after any state medical marijuana system because it is against federal law.  But in reality the Controlled Substance Act gives the executive branch the authority to unilaterally reschedule cannabis to make it legal for medical purposes. This action would not require Congressional approval and would finally bring federal law on medical marijuana in accordance with the overwhelming wishes of the electorate.

It was, after all, only 16 years ago that the Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which codifies the federal non-recognition of same-sex marriage. The law easily won approval in Congress with broad bipartisan support. At the time Gallup found only 27% of Americans thought same-sex marriage should be valid while 68% of the country opposed it.

Same-sex marriage was once a fringe idea supported by only a tiny minority of the population and almost no politicians, yet in less than a generation things have completely changed. It now has the support of half the population and the de facto leader of one of the two major political parties.

Marriage equality is a fascinating example of how a country can rather quickly undergo a paradigm shift — an example of how, through activists, efforts to build public acceptance in the popular culture and demographic changes a fringe idea can become part of the political mainstream.

It is a particularly useful example for the marijuana legalization movement, which is experiencing an almost identical trend of rapidly growing support driven by a younger generation. As with marriage equality, less than 20 years ago marijuana legalization was an incredibly fringe issue with little popular or political support. In 1995, just 25% of Americans thought it should be legal, with 73% thinking it should be illegal.

Yet just 16 years later in 2011, Gallup found 50% thought marijuana should be legal and only 46% thought it should be illegal — putting popular support for marijuana legalization right on par with that for same-sex marriage

As with both marriage equality and marijuana legalization, much of the change in popular support is generational, thanks to a young, highly accepting generation replacing an older more conservative one. In 2011, 62% of adults under 30 thought marijuana should be legal but just 31% of those over 65 thought it should. An almost equal generational divide exists for marriage equality. That same year 68% of those under 30 supported it but only 33% of senior citizens thought that it should be allowed. For both issues, the nature of demographics should continue to push public support up for years to come.

The support of a sitting president for marriage equality is a powerful tipping point for the issue. It clearly signaled that this once highly fringe position is now firmly in the political mainstream. Looking at the similar polling and demographic trends for marijuana legalization, it might not be long before it experiences a similar symbolic victory publicly signaling its emergence as a mainstream political stance.

Attorney General Eric Holder was a guest of The Huffington Post at the correspondents’ dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama’s reference to “congressional law” was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its “schedule one” designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.

“That’s right,” Holder said.

After Kimmel’s speech, a Holder deputy told HuffPost that there was no coordinated war on medical marijuana, but that some individual clinics were breaking both state and federal laws.

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama provided a factually wrong answer that radically distorted the nature of federal law in an attempt to deflect criticism for the federal crackdown on medical marijuana. Obama claimed he “can’t nullify Congressional law” when it comes to medical marijuana, even though the Controlled Substance Act actually gives the Executive branch the authority to “reschedule” (reclassify) marijuana without Congressional action. By simply moving marijuana to a lower schedule the Obama administration could make medical marijuana legal under federal law. Obama would not need to nullify this Congressional law, because Congress already gave him the authority to change marijuana’s legal status.

It is very important that Attorney General Holder himself admits that Obama’s “can’t nullify Congressional law” statement is completely misleading, because the relevant section of the Controlled Substance Act specifically gives him, the Attorney General, the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.

Even Obama’s Attorney General admits there is nothing forcing the administration to wage a war on medical marijuana and nothing stopping the administration from making medical marijuana legal under federal law. This is an active choice the administration is making.

Facing calls at a regional summit to consider decriminalization, Obama said he is open to a debate about drug policy, but he believes that legalization could lead to greater problems in countries hardest hit by drug-fueled violence.

“Legalization is not the answer,” Obama told other hemispheric leaders at the two-day Summit of the Americas.

“The capacity of a large-scale drug trade to dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint could be just as corrupting, if not more corrupting, than the status quo,” he said.

This is simply an absurd defense of prohibition. If drugs were legalized and regulated like any other product, the business running them would be operate like any other legal business such as beer breweries, pharmaceutical makers, car manufacturers, alcohol distillers, dairies, etc. While corporations can and sometimes do have a corrupting influence over a nation’s politics, the idea that the level of corruption and violence from a legal business would ever be on the scale that we see with the cartels in the illicit drug trade doesn’t pass the laugh test.

I’ve never seen stories about Grupo Medelo, the brewer of Corona, offering local politicians the choice of the “silver or the lead.” Legal breweries simply don’t assassinate dozens of local politicians, police officers and reporters to get their way. Rival Tequila distillers compete with each other for market share using advertising and sometimes lobbying to get a tax or regulatory advantage, but they don’t use armed gangs to fight for market control in a bloody war that cost 50,000 Mexicans their lives. Legal car manufacturers don’t employ criminals to dissolve hundreds of their enemies in acid.

Just as the end of alcohol prohibition in America caused legal and law abiding businesses to replace the deeply corrupt and violent mafia in the American alcohol trade, ending the prohibition against other drugs, like marijuana, would result in law abiding businesses replacing the cartels.

If this pathetic defense is the best President Obama can offer to justify the continuation of a policy that is literally killing thousand of people a year, that is truly sad.

The one positive note is that the growing push for ending the failed “war on . . .” approach, both domestically and internationally, is forcing the federal government to continue to confront and address calls for reform.