Federal Interference In MMJ Laws Is Low Priority

function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Federal Interference In MMJ Laws Is Low Priority');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

  Federal Interference In MMJ Laws Is Low Priority

Posted by CN Staff on December 08, 2011 at 19:41:42 PT
By Lucia Graves 
Source: Huffington Post  

Washington, D.C. -- Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday reiterated the Justice Department's support for the Ogden memo, which in 2009 declared that the sale and use of medical marijuana in states where it's legal are a low priority for federal prosecutors."What we said in the memo we still intend, which is that given the limited resources that we have, and if there are states that have medical marijuana provisions ... if in fact people are not using the policy decision that we have made to use marijuana in a way that's not consistent with the state statute, we will not use our limited resources in that way," Holder said.
The comments came in response to a question from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) during a hearing on the Justice Department's flawed and discredited gun-sting program. Polis also asked about the recent federal crackdown on medical marijuana shops in California, where U.S. attorneys have closed hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in just two months' time. She questioned whether Colorado could expect to get different treatment."It's my understanding," Polis said, "[California] did not have a functional state-level regulatory authority. Colorado does have an extensive state regulatory and licensing system for medical marijuana, and I'd like to ask whether our thoughtful state regulation ... provides any additional protection to Colorado from federal intervention."Holder's response, though vague, offered Polis some assurance, while seeming to suggest that state-level regulation in California is inadequate."Where a state has taken a position, has passed a law and people are acting in conformity with the law -- not abusing the law -- that would not be a priority with the limited resources of our Justice Department," Holder said.Steve DeAngelo, executive director of the Oakland, Calif., medical cannabis club Harborside Health Center, doesn't buy the argument."Federal prosecutors are not trying to clean up the regulated medical cannabis industry, they are trying to destroy it," he said at a San Francisco press conference in October, shortly after the crackdown was announced. "Their real target is not criminal gangs, but rather the systems of licensing and regulation implemented by dozens of communities state-wide. This is destroying tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of tax dollars in local, state and federal tax revenue."Watch Polis question Holder on medical marijuana: mykeyb420Source: Huffington Post (NY)Author: Lucia GravesPublished: December 8, 2011Copyright: 2011, LLC Contact: scoop huffingtonpost.comWebsite:  Medical Marijuana Archives

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    

Comment #27 posted by HempWorld on December 12, 2011 at 09:15:00 PT
OT Hello dear friends, (kids Cancer goes up 1% py)
I really got on the prohibition train last week and dug up new facts while doing some research, see my recent posts and additions to my websites. Then, my websites disappeared over the weekend, don't know what happened, don't know when it will be back up. Coincidence?Now I have my hands full trying to restore it all, I came upon an article on my website and thought it merits re-posting here:Cancer rate rises in children; new toxins suspected
N.Y. Times News ServiceWASHINGTON -- The rate of cancer among American children has been rising for decades. Although the reasons remain unclear, many experts suspect the increase may be partly the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment.That suspicion, while still unproved, is beginning to shape federal research priorities and environmental strategies.Depending on which types of cancer are counted, and in what age groups among the nation's youth, the rate of increase has amounted to nearly 1 percent a year, according to the National Cancer Institute.Over a few decades, that has meant striking double-digit increases.Childhood cancer is still far less common than cancer in adults, and its very rarity makes it especially hard to discern what might be causing the increase. Its creeping spread has also been masked by better news, as recent medical gains have made it much more likely that a child with cancer will survive.But childhood cancer, even when its young victims are cured, can inflict wrenching costs on children and their families, whether its toll is measured in financial, emotional or physical terms. Patients can suffer permanently from brain damage, stunted growth or secondary cancers later in life, partly as a result of radiation and chemical therapies.And today, according to experts in the field, a newborn child faces a risk of about 1 in 600 of contracting cancer by age 10.In the United States, cancer is diagnosed each year in an estimated 8,000 children below the age of 15. Cancer, although it kills fewer children than accidents do, is the most common form of fatal childhood disease, accounting for about 10 percent of all deaths in childhood.The increases surprise even people who are predisposed to think the worst about the ill effects of chemical pollution.``I had not realized that the numbers were going up that way,'' said Karen Florini, a lawyer specializing in health issues at the Environmental Defense Fund. ``I think it indicates a very disturbing trend that we had better get to the bottom of.''Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in boys and girls increased 27 percent between 1973 and 1990; since then, the rate in boys has declined, but it is still rising in girls. Brain cancer, or glioma, increased nearly 40 percent from 1973 to 1994. These two forms of cancer account for most of the disease in children.Other forms of cancer, such as the form of bone cancer called osteogenic sarcoma and the kidney cancer known as Wilms' tumor, have also been rising, although the numbers of cases remain so small that the trends may not be statistically significant.The increases are big enough that better diagnosis and reporting of the diseases are unlikely to be the principal explanation, experts say; childhood cancer is such a serious ailment that it is usually detected.Although the causes are not known and are probably many, some experts say, toxins in the air, food, dust, soil and drinking water are prime suspects.So with the Clinton administration putting a high priority on issues of children's health and the environment, and with Congress last year overwhelmingly approving new laws taking children's exposures into account when setting standards for pesticide residues in food and contaminants in drinking water, federal authorities are moving to review the epidemiological data much more closely and to review environmental regulations that may help fight the trend.At a meeting in Washington two weeks ago, a team assembled by the Environmental Protection Agency drafted a research plan that could steer millions of dollars toward better understanding the problem, beginning next year.``The increases are too rapid to reflect genetic changes, and better diagnostic detection is not a likely explanation,'' said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who directs the division of environmental medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City and who is the senior adviser to a new office of children's health at the EPA ``The strong probability exists that environmental factors are playing a role.''Not all environmental factors involve pollution. Landrigan said that changes in life style, especially diet, must also be considered and may play some role. Viruses may be implicated in some cancers, but there is scant evidence.Instead, he and many other experts are inclined to examine the estimated 75,000 new synthetic chemicals introduced in the last half century, the emissions from cars, the pesticides in foods and in neighborhoods, the runoffs in drinking water -- the whole collection of chemicals out there, mostly untested for toxicity to humans, let alone for possible cancerous effects in children.If their suspicions prove to be well founded -- and that could take many years to determine -- it could usher in a new generation of tighter controls on pesticides, toxic wastes and other chemicals based on the theory that it may take less of a carcinogen to afflict a child or a fetus, that their health may be affected by combinations of chemicals and that their needs ought to come first in dictating pollution controls.But first, an expansion of federally supported research is likely.``I'm talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides and their effects on children,'' said Carol Browner, the administrator of the EPA, ``and new testing guidelines that routinely incorporate children's issues into EPA's risk assessments. I'm talking about moving beyond the chemical-by-chemical approaches of the past, and instead looking at a child's total cumulative risk from all exposures to toxic chemicals.''This story © San Jose Mercury News 1997
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by museman on December 11, 2011 at 13:24:16 PT
GCW #22
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by runruff on December 11, 2011 at 08:20:55 PT
How do we know when things go awry?
Is it when our public servants think they are somehow better than those whom they serve?Is it when it appears that they are working an agenda that does not favor our welfare?Maybe things are not quite right in our relationship with our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats when we the people make it clear that they are wrong-doing and they ignore us and continue?Is it intelligent to continue to employ servants that waste and steal our monies, then tell us we need to give them even more in order to do the jobs intended?Are we self-actuated beings or are we destined to be told what to do and how to live even how to treat our own bodies by those who serve us?How is it that in our case the servant has become the master?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Canis420 on December 10, 2011 at 21:02:39 PT:
Big Bro
This is F'd up...a camera spying on our local hydro store
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Oleg the Tumor on December 10, 2011 at 20:30:46 PT:
The limited resources of our Justice Dept . . .
The best example being its own head, the most limited, resourceless loser since Spiro Agnew!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by The GCW on December 10, 2011 at 15:28:47 PT
Off topic but beautiful
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by museman on December 10, 2011 at 13:39:05 PT
Eric the Fed
"...the limited resources of our Justice Department,"well, he certainly isn't referring to the recent major increase in the numbers of police suddenly appearing since the 'new' administration took over.or the similar increase in brand new, state-of-the-art vehicles and accessory, or the high tech weaponry that turns them into an 'unconstitutional' "standing army."so, he must be referring to their'#1. Intelligence -there sure seems to be great limitation there.#2. Lack of Humanity and a 'limitation' of recognition of basic human rights and liberties.#3. Having to rein in their maniacal patterns of violent and destructive behavior to 'conform' with the appearance 'following the law.'#4. Justice -not having any is certainly a limiting factor.#5. Accountability -the limitation on that in the ranks of 'law enforcement' is more than that of their puppet-bosses; the politicians. -meaning they are less accountable.Yes Eric, nobody is fooled this time.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on December 10, 2011 at 10:23:19 PT
All Fixed. Carry on!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by museman on December 10, 2011 at 08:54:34 PT

and this one

We are the cops of Amerika, the special elite,Better do what we say,‘cause we’re the kings of the street. 
We got a mandate from hell, to secure Satan’s reign,And though the people have spoken,And it causes us pain,
To witness any liberty other than our own,we think the concept of freedomis way over blown.
 Better pay attention to the rules of our game.‘cause once we get you in our system,your life will never be the same. 
We’re the cops of Amerika, you better watch out,We’re gonna shoot you down,If you dare to speak out. 
We just love this war, that ‘ol Ronnie created,It gave us such power,we are over-inflated.
 And thanks to bushy criminals, we got more rights than you,Unless you got lots of money,Then to you we are true blue. 
The economy may be busted, but we’re stocked up for the war,With guns, cars, and armor,And lots of money for more. 
We had to close the libraries, so we could hoard the funds,And cut short education,Gotta buy more guns. 
We’re the cops of Amerika, the people just don’t rate,We’re better than you,And so is the state. 
We built lots of prisons, to put the people in,Though the premise we use,Might get a little thin. 
You have no constitution, its just paper to us,Of course most of us can barely read,What’s all the fuss? 
All you liberals be damned, it doesn’t matter who you elect,We’re Lucifers chosen,It will have no effect.
 We’re the cops of Amerika, and we are never wrong.We’ll murder old ladiesCause the neighbors smoked a bong. 
We’re the cops of Amerika, do your hear that sound.It’s our siren of terroras we race trough your town. 
No matter what we do, we will always be cop,We’re the cops of Amerika,’Who’ll make us stop?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by museman on December 10, 2011 at 08:42:45 PT

double post
Damn,FoM, would you please fix it? I don't get how it happened, but it did.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by museman on December 10, 2011 at 08:40:51 PT

HempWorld #15
That made me think of a poem I wrote about another cop, a sheriff, who was a pot cop. Had to change the name because I was threatened by the cops son, and I thought that the dead cops grandchildren should have the right to have fond memories of their grand dad even if he was a jerk.Some here may remember it."So children be hopeful, children be brave,The only reward for carrying the sword,Is a sure and certain grave."
The Ballad of Vernon Krype
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by HempWorld on December 10, 2011 at 07:17:03 PT

Thanks musman, GCW, here is some irony:
"SHERIFF LANGUISHES IN EPONYMOUS JAIL This is such a sad story. Not exactly tragic, but capable of promoting apparently deep thoughts about the meaning of life. Patrick J. Sullivan Jr. is now 68. Before he retired, he was one of the most decorated sheriffs in the nation. He was voted sheriff of the year by the National Sheriffs' Association. He was praised in Congress. He was a legend in Centennial, Colo. On Tuesday, he was arrested in a case in which he was charged with offering methamphetamine in exchange for sex with someone described as "a male acquaintance." He was taken away and now resides in the building named after him, the Patrick J. Sullivan Jr. Detention Facility."No it is not tragic it is hilarious and one more evidence the drug war is comletely over the top! THE MOST DECORATED SHERIFF IN THE NATION IS SITTING IN HIS OWN JAIL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by The GCW on December 10, 2011 at 06:37:50 PT

A good one printed in Nebraska
US NE: In War On Drugs, Dissent 'Unpatriotic'
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on December 10, 2011 at 06:36:22 PT

Denver Post also
US CO: Polis questions Holder over medical marijuanaWebpage:
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by museman on December 09, 2011 at 15:35:26 PT

"created by the same people and interests"Allow me to reiterate the historical lines of 'same people, same interest' -The conquest of planet earth by the 'same people with the same interests' Started in the deep past, with very little record remaining, with (historically) Sumeria. -all part of a great weave of lies and deception that has had us collectively enthralled since Rome, and notably since the "Holy (lol) Roman Empire" finished up the task of conquering all the free tribes.What was left of free thinking peoples came here to america. 
Fought and died for liberty. But their 'political leaders' who were predominantly wealthy English aristocrats, notably did not fire a shot, or take many hits -if any, yet they 
'legislated' power in the form of a deliberately obscure language format ("legaleze") that required 'special schooling' as in "Law" school to create the elite 'interpreters' known as 'lawyers.' -modeled after the English version with only a few slight changes -like not having to wear wigs.So, English law, which was essentially the 'Kings Law' with a small token allowance for human rights established with the Magna Carta, was rewritten as the US Constitution, which is all about division of power amongst the wealthy -not liberty, justice, or freedom for ordinary people.The 'hi-jacking' of America, began before Amerigo Vespucci was even a gleam in his fathers eye.Hitler also attempted to rid the world of contrary free thinkers with the "Final Solution" -which numerous american aristocratic 'elite' assisted with, financially, and politically. And the list of crimes against humanity, the earth, and the Creator is as long as the list of generations.One comes eventually to understand the nature, existence, and identification of adversity in the quest for truth. And once we know who the 'enemy' truly is, that 'intelligence' is an invaluable asset in defending humanity, and the earth from the dominion of error that has plagued us for millennia.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by HempWorld on December 09, 2011 at 11:55:48 PT

The Rockefellers
Supported, Idiolized and Admired Hitler! As Hitler Learned from American Eugenics, so did the Rockefellers from Hitler. In fact they also co-experimented working together with Josef Mengele.The drug war was started in 1900 by the Rockefellers to ensnare minorities so they could be jailed and killed, lose their right to vote!The Rockefellers owned IG Farben, maker of Zyklon-B that was used to gas the undesired in the chambers. This solution originated in New York in 1911 from the propagators of Eugenics.This is where we are; the war on drugs is the American Holocaust, created by the same people and interests.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by runruff on December 09, 2011 at 11:52:52 PT

It is their green monster.
Those who are holding on to prohibition like it was their lifeline, Do so for selfish reasons.The corporations that created this prohibition with the help of a puppet congress, only care about hemp. Hemp is the green monster to them and they more than anyone are acutely aware of this.Safety, public health, ect...bull excrement! They will, decriminalize to save legalization from happening. They will promise to make mmj their lowest priority. Anything but let go of control, that would mean loosing control of hemp and their eventual demise.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by HempWorld on December 09, 2011 at 11:47:19 PT

From the same page, Nixon:
"The Shafer report said that marijuana was safe to use and should be decriminalized. Nixon did not like this conclusion, so he disbanded the committee and threw away their report. Richard Nixon then turned around and escalated the drug war. Nixon also created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) which is an agency designed to serve the interests of the Rockefeller pharmaceutical companies."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by HempWorld on December 09, 2011 at 11:42:35 PT

OT I'm now actually inclined to believe that JFK
was killed over Marijuana/Canabis/Hemp when he collided with Anslinger, the Rockefeller protege:No president ever stood up to Harry Anslinger except President John Kennedy (1917 to 1963). One report I read said that when Kennedy first became president, he heard a tape recording of Harry ranting and raving over marijuana, and Kennedy said this guy has to go.There are a number of reports that state that President Kennedy was using Marijuana for the painful muscle spasms in his bad back.According to reports, Kennedy planned to legalize marijuana as soon as he started his second term.Of course that never happened because President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 before he could act. When Kennedy retired Anslinger in 1962 from his job in the federal government, Harry was able to obtain the political power needed to get the United States to officially join the United Nations. When Harry was able to get the U.S to join the U.N., he was then able to get the U.S. to sign the Single Convention on Narcotics and other Drugs treaty. This treaty binds the United States to fight the worldwide war on drugs as the United Nations dictates. When the treaty was signed, it was reported that Harry gloated and said that now no one would ever be able to legalize marijuana.
Middle of This Page!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by museman on December 09, 2011 at 09:43:35 PT

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by HempWorld on December 09, 2011 at 09:23:06 PT

Here it is...
The purpose of taking over the medical schools was so that the Rockefellers could now insist that physicians be trained to only prescribe the use of chemical pharmaceutical drugs for their patients. Any teaching of naturopathy, the use of medicinal plants to treat illnesses, was to be viewed as quackery. Any teaching of nutrition, holistic medicine, or the prescribing of healing and medicinal herbs/plants was not allowed. The ultimate goal of this strategy was to be able to control what physicians were allowed to do, or not do.If a physician stepped out of line and did anything that was not approved by the Rockefeller medical doctrine, the physician lost his license to practice medicine. If the physician followed the Rockefeller rules, they would be financially rewarded through money.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by HempWorld on December 09, 2011 at 09:06:16 PT

From my recent research on the Rockefellers...
Most people are not aware that John D. Rockefeller Junior (1874 to 1960) was the man directly responsible for creating and instigating the destructive war on drugs.The war on drugs which has continued for many decades since it was started in the early 1900s was carefully planned and orchestrated to protect the family ownership of a chemically-based pharmaceutical monopoly. The war was first begun by Rockefeller Junior, with the help of his father, John D. Rockefeller Senior (1839 to 1937), taking over the control of all legal narcotics. A few years after Rockefeller Junior had taken over the narcotics business market, they then set their sights on eliminating medicinal marijuana (known as cannabis), because it was a competitive threat to their chemically-based pharmaceutical sales. 
In addition to the control on narcotics, Rockefeller Junior was also directly responsible for the prohibition of marijuana back during the 1930s, and he was the real reason behind the government-sponsored Reefer-Madness propaganda campaign designed to scare people about marijuana. Rockefeller Junior used as a business tactic the strategy of controlling narcotics by using political influence to get laws passed.  He also used the strategy of prohibiting certain medicines, in order to control the entire medical system, which he, with the help of his father was able to accomplish. This was done to insure that the Rockefeller-owned pharmaceutical companies would remain the powerful monopolies that they had become. Hemp/marijuana made plentiful ethanol when distilled and was good for running car engines, generators etc. Hemp/marijuana had many industrial uses such as cloth, paper, ropes, and many, many other uses. Because it made plentiful ethanol it therefore was seen as a competitive threat to the Rockefeller petroleum monopolies, as was the fact that cannabis/marijuana was an excellent natural medicine which presented a serious threat to the Rockefeller monopoly on chemically-based pharmaceutical sales.SnippedRead:
Thank the Rockefellers!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by John Tyler on December 09, 2011 at 07:54:55 PT

whats going on?
This is confusing. First there was the backoff policy and “a thousand flower bloomed”, then they clamped down again, and tried to cut the flowers down. Are they going back to the backoff policy again?  There needs to be more clarification.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Oleg the Tumor on December 09, 2011 at 06:19:25 PT:

An Off-Topic Question?
I wonder if he had to change armbands before answering.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by CropReport on December 09, 2011 at 05:18:59 PT

Thank You Rep. Polis!
I'm sure Holder was thrilled to get an off-topic question during the Fast and Furious hearings :)You're the man, Jared!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by HempWorld on December 08, 2011 at 20:51:35 PT

Eric Holder is the Heinrich Himmler of our time!
The likeness with nazi Germany is striking and more so each day!
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment