Ads Target Members Of Congress Who Opposed MMJ 
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Ads Target Members Of Congress Who Opposed MMJ ');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Ads Target Members Of Congress Who Opposed MMJ 
Posted by CN Staff on June 06, 2014 at 04:30:04 PT
By Matt Ferner,  The Huffington Post 
Source: Huffington Post
Washington, D.C. -- Medical marijuana advocates are turning up the heat on House lawmakers who last week voted against an amendment to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from cracking down on state-legal medical marijuana shops and patients.The appropriations measure prohibiting the DEA from spending funds to arrest state-licensed medical marijuana patients and providers, which was sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), still passed 219-189. But reform group Americans for Safe Access is targeting ads against some lawmakers who voted no, beginning with Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
"The reason for these two particular members of Congress has to do with their especially outspoken opposition to medical marijuana, despite its popular support in their districts," said Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access. "Although the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was passed with a solid majority, the influence of these two elected officials is significant, and their efforts to derail a measure supported by the vast majority of Americans is troubling and must be confronted."The Harris and Wasserman Schultz spots will appear on MSNBC in Maryland and Florida over the next several days.A total of 17 Democrats joined 172 Republicans in voting against the amendment.Harris spoke on the House floor last week in opposition to the amendment. He insisted that there are no medical benefits to marijuana (despite much evidence to the contrary) and that medical marijuana laws are a step toward legalizing recreational pot."It's the camel's nose under the tent," said Harris. He cited an anti-marijuana report just published by the DEA that also claims medical marijuana is just "a means to an end" -- which is the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes. The taxpayer-funded report uses scare quotes around the word "medical."Harris' state, Maryland, became the 21st to legalize marijuana for medical use in April, but he has continued his opposition.So far, 22 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. Three more states, including Wasserman Schultz's Florida, are considering it this year. Florida legislators passed the very limited Compassionate Cannabis Act of 2014 just last month, and state voters will decide on a more comprehensive medical marijuana law in November. Though Wasserman Schultz, who chairs the Democratic National Committee, was not the only member of her party to vote against the House amendment, she was the only member of the Democratic leadership to do so.Meanwhile, nearly 90 percent of Florida voters support the legalization of marijuana for medical use, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.Hermes, the Americans for Safe Access spokesman, told HuffPost that no ads against other members of Congress have been produced at this time, but that the group is working to place more in the lead-up to the November elections. "Elected officials should definitely expect to see more ads appear over the coming weeks and months," Hermes said.Source: Huffington Post (NY)Author: Matt Ferner,  The Huffington Post Published: June 5, 2014Copyright: 2014, LLC Contact: scoop huffingtonpost.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #17 posted by Hope on June 10, 2014 at 19:20:45 PT
Thanks, Kap.
I appreciate the effort.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on June 09, 2014 at 08:52:33 PT:
Hope, my BS-to-English translator is busted
But I'll try, anyway. To put it bluntly, she's a Statist, someone who believes that regardless of the morality of the situation (namely, that prohibition is immoral) because she will always serve Power, Power must always be allowed to do what it wants.It's prettied up with reasonable-sounding verbiage, but when shorn of that verbiage, in the end, that's what she really means. She does not want the people to take back that power - as they have with what happened in WA and CO. She wants that power to remain with the Executive...which historically, in this issue, has used that power to mess with the people.In her mind, we're too ignorant to be trusted with that power, and everything must go through 'proper channels'(namely, be run through the gauntlet of the officially, politically-protected corporate 'special interests' and their bureaucratic allies hostile to re-legalization and MMJ) who've until very recently, stonewalled progress for so long.In short, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is no different than what the old Soviets used to call an apparatchik, a cog in the mechanism of the political machine that has gotten fat and happy from prohibition. And now she's being targeted for having supported that machine, and catering to its interests instead of that of her constituents.So, no, she is not saying that the power must be preserved so Obama will call off his rabid dogs (as she makes it clear, she knows they are his rabid dogs) attacking the dispensaries. She's saying the power must be preserved so he can send even more rabid dogs to attack.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Hope on June 09, 2014 at 08:05:14 PT
What exactly does this statement mean?
“I voted against the Farr-Rohrabacher amendment because I do not believe, regardless of the issue, that it is appropriate to limit the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce current federal law at their discretion."It sounds like so much political double talk. It sounds like she is saying that the President should do it... call of the DEA.It's weird. It makes me feel like chemo-brain again. Can anyone tell me what the heck she is saying with this statement?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on June 08, 2014 at 08:03:17 PT:
The wonderful thing about this latest dust-up
It's showing us who in the national government are the true friends of freedom. And it's showing us who are not.They're being flushed out like a bird-dog does quail. Flap, flap, squawk, be shortly followed by bang! bang! as we take aim at their political careers. Even the sneaky ones who tried to sound like us while still supporting prohibition are getting their cover blown. How very accommodating of them. (Wolf's grin).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by runruff on June 07, 2014 at 20:35:32 PT
Debbie Does Dallience!
So Debbie the democrat is really Debbie downer in disguise. Wha wha whaaaah!This is the new trend in politics, get on the hemp wagon or we leave your butt dragin'!Loose those reins driver, we now own the road!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 07, 2014 at 19:07:05 PT
No Place To Hide
No place to run, no place to hide with the Internet! I hope she changes her views.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 07, 2014 at 19:05:24 PT
I liked her and it is sad to me that she can be so misinformed but she is. She better realize how out of step she is with Democrats in her state. I told my nephew that lives in Florida, who also is a Democrat, and he got angry.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on June 07, 2014 at 16:59:34 PT:
Someone DID read the memo; she's in big trouble
Major Democratic donor bashes DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman- Schultz's really ticked off a major campaign donor. Who almost certainly knows how important this issue is to the young voters the Dems so desperately need to replace the older ones dying off. With a big-name donor so ticked off at her he's very publicly calling her 'despised' and 'irrelevant', she either recants or she's toast. The phone lines between her office and the Dem Big Money Boyz must be white-hot and dripping molten copper on the wall ends. Maybe even the fiber optics in between will slag from the glass melting.In anticipation of her continued stupidity and intransigence, I say: Buh-bye Debbie; it was nice not knowing you...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 07, 2014 at 10:16:41 PT
We have to get what we are going to get done while Obama is still President. The pressure is really on. No one but Hillary stands a chance to win in 2016 as far as I can see. She is like Debbie Wasserman Schultz I believe.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on June 07, 2014 at 10:11:54 PT
I have lost respect for her over her statement. We are way past her explanation. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Hope on June 07, 2014 at 10:06:45 PT
Excuse me.
I forgot the Schultz.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Hope on June 07, 2014 at 10:05:50 PT
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 06, 2014 at 14:35:43 PT
I had a lot of respect for her but lost it over this.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Vincent on June 06, 2014 at 12:02:56 PT:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Do you mean to tell me that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is AGAINST Medical Marijuana?!!!!!!! I thought that she was a Liberal (intelligent).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on June 06, 2014 at 09:29:03 PT
recent study
no medical value? there are now over 20,000 studies documenting the medical benefits. This one is amazing, just saw it for the first time:>>>A paper published by the British Journal of Pharmacology suggests that the chemical compounds in marijuana likely prevent the onset of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and age-related dementia.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on June 06, 2014 at 07:38:16 PT:
They got the memo; they just refuse to read it
The massive demographic shift predicted in the book The Fourth Turning is having its effect. As the old saying went, "We'll legalize when Grandma dies." The cannabis-naive portion of the population who could always be counted on to believe the Gub'mint (even when you provided them proof they'd been lied to by that same Gub'mint) is literally dying off. Which means two very important things: They can't vote and they can't pay taxes.They can't vote for prohibition-supporting pols who would then reflect their ignorance (and prejudices) by voting to spend their tax money on the DrugWar. So, guess who now pays the taxes? You see them every morning in the bathroom mirror.Do you want your taxpayer dollars spent on the DrugWar? Obviously not.So, you start by pointing out to your Reps and Senators that since Grandma and Grandpa aren't paying the taxes anymore, and you are, and that you don't want your tax money being spent on this fraud and waste, then you don't want your Reps and Senators doing so, either. And if it isn't clear enough to them, come Election Day, they may find themselves staring at a pink slip, as Dwight Holton and a few others have since 2012.We have the numbers. Well over half the country is with us. Let me rephrase that: Well over half the country IS us. And we have the economic power of the purse, now. We are the majority, now. It's long past time to make it clear that the 'majority' does indeed 'rule'.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by runruff on June 06, 2014 at 07:06:44 PT
Don't it just get ya?
How worried some people are about what I do with my physical person?Prohibitionist no doubt have something odd or strange or verboten in their closet. How do I know this? simple, they are human. Humans do things that seem untenable, even unsavory to someone else. "My sin, not your sin".These so called "law makers" are behaving no better than your run of the mill busy body. They are sailing in unfriendly waters where they do not belong. To torpedo their self serving careers is the least we can do. I say jail time for a myriad of constitutional transgressions and another ten years for aggressive stupidity, your Honor! 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment