White House Won't Say If Obama's Medical Marijuana Stance May Be Swayed By Sanjay Gupta

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- The White House declined to weigh in Tuesday on whether President Barack Obama has changed his position on medical marijuana use after the president's onetime choice for surgeon general, Sanjay Gupta, reversed his stance and apologized for misleading the public on the drug's effects.

During the daily press briefing, CQ-Roll Call reporter Steve Dennis asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest if the administration had any reaction to Gupta's Aug. 9 column, "Why I changed my mind on weed," in which Gupta explores the discrepancy between the Drug Enforcement Administration's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug and scientific research demonstrating its benefits. Gupta, who serves as CNN's chief medical expert, not only apologized for dismissing the evidence from medical marijuana patients, but said he had concluded that marijuana has a low potential for abuse and "very legitimate medical applications."

Dennis also asked if Obama had personally been looking at the issue, given that national polls show rising support for marijuana legalization since he took office. Earnest ducked the question, responding, "I have to confess I did not see the Sanjay Gupta column you're referring to, so it's hard for me to comment at this point."

The Obama administration has cracked down hard on medical marijuana, even in states that have legalized its use. A recent report found that this administration spent nearly $300 million on medical marijuana intervention through lawsuits, indictments and asset forfeiture attempts by the Justice Department. Over the past few years, the Internal Revenue Service has also targeted medical marijuana dispensaries, forcing many of them to the brink of closure, and largely ignoring the fact that many such businesses were in compliance with state laws.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/obama-medical-marijuana_n_3786350.html

[KamaAina]

1. Gupta's original anti-MMJ stance was likely an attempt to suck up to the Administration

to get the Surgeon General job.

[JI7]

16. he turned down the SG job , it was his if he wanted it

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Holy shit this is dumb.

I support legalization but if the White House isn't swayed by science and compassion but IS swayed by a corporate celebrity doctor we're in trouble.

[olddad56]

3. do you think that all of the republician members of the house are swayed .....

on every issue before them by the lobbyists for any corporation that stands to gain from the reps vote?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. Probably 99 percent.

I'll give them 1 percent worth of credit.

[Doctor_J]

14. This is a political issue, not a medical or public health issue

And the president has all of the political courage of a mouse when the light comes on

[awoke_in_2003]

15. as soon as big Pharma can patent something...

that works like marijuana, you can bet that stuff will be legal.

[Doctor_J]

23. They already have it

IMO the main reason that pot is still illegal is because when it DOES become legal, the demand for oxy will drop like a stone. PHARMA is making millions (maybe billions) off of oxy, and legal mj will cut off that revenue stream

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. What if Gupta AND Dr. Phil wrote a letter to the White House?

Nevermind the millions who have been clamoring for reformed drug laws. If we can just get celebrity doctors (and celebrity fake doctors, in the case of Dr. Phil), maybe the White House will listen.

[bobclark86]

5. Still illegal...

Like it or not, smoking this particular plant is still illegal. Too many big interest groups donate too many millions to both nominees every election cycle, and too many of the Drug Enforcement "crookedest motherfucker on this plane" Administration agents would be on the breadlines. So how anyone is surprised about crackdowns on businesses openly violating federal law (and advertising online and in the phone book) just baffles me.

By the looks of it, the only way to change that law is to ally with people like Rand Paul... >kack<

[Gore1FL]

8. They didn't have to do that in CO or WA.

Why is Rand Paul necessary on a National level?

[bobclark86]

10. First off...

Let me spell this out: MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW. States like Colorado and Washington are NULLIFYING federal law with these laws. I support state nullification of marijuana laws the same as I support state nullification of firearms laws, voting rights and anti-discrimination laws. That is to say, I DON'T. It's the same thing, and it's unconstitutional.

I don't like a law that doesn't let me get intoxicated by smoking a plant? Well, I don't do it because it's illegal, but I try to change the law — rather than ignoring it and starting in with the pissing and moaning when I get in trouble.

Which brings us to my second point: Because the main heavyweights from both parties don't want it. It will take a coalition of people most of us don't like to get it passed. That means people like Rand Paul. Now, is being able to smoke a plant for recreation (since we're talking about WA and CO which you brought up, and NOT medical marijuana) worth making a deal with Teabagging John Birch groups like that (because he and others will want something in return, that's how it works)?

I dunno. That's up to you.

(Oh, and please don't compare marijuana to Jim Crow, anti-sodomy laws or other such shit. It's a strawman argument and you know it. Smoking a plant ain't exactly the same as voting, marrying outside your race or having consensual sex with a legal-aged partner. I can't kill a carload of friends by voting beforehand.)

[Gore1FL]

12. Wow

Did you mean to come off so hostile?

If so, I understand marijuana can be relaxing.

Edited to add:

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post. Let me rephrase:

Why did CO and WA get marijuana legalized without a state-wide "Rand Paul," but the nation would need a "Rand Paul" to accomplish this on a national scale?

[bobclark86]

19. To answer your qestion...

Because Republicans actually exist in large quantities (i.e.: a majority or enough to filibuster the crap out of it) in both houses of the federal legislative branch, plus there are a number of House and Senate Democrats who won't go along with it. And unlike in Washington or Colorado, there's no national system for a public referendum on the topic, which is how those laws were put in place.

[Katashi_itto]

18. Are you like not getting your munchies?

DUdeeee!

[obama2terms]

26. Rand Paul only supports legalizing pot

Because he wants to attract young voters. In fact, my nephew who turned 18 about a month ago was telling me that he was going to register to vote soon, and for some reason Rand Paul came up in our conversation. And I asked him if given the chance, would he vote for him because of his pot stance, and he said "Are you kidding? He just says that so people my age will vote for him!" Even he gets it! hahahahaha

[George II]

7. Now Obama has to answer to Sanjay f-ing Gupta? Aren't there more important things to worry about?

[FreeBC]

11. Not really

Ending the war on drugs is the most important issue of our time. Obama has a chance to be great here, if he has the courage to stand up to those profiting from prohibition.

I don't see how anyone can claim to give a damn about civil rights and social justice and not understand how many people and their families are destroyed by this horrible policy. It could only be ignorance.. but ignorance is not a lack of intelligence so do something about it and educate yourself.

[grahampuba]

9. Intelligence network?

Wouldnt hold my breath on that one seeing as how they spend untold billions on an intelligence network, and they still cant draw distinctions between industrial hemp and cannabis sativa.

They are pretty willfully ignorant about anything related to Cannabis in general.

[Doctor_J]

13. That's our leader

waiting for the prevailing wind/poll to make a decision.

[JoePhilly]

20. So Obama is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing

by having this WH spoke's person NOT read the Gupta article.

Sure, that makes sense.

[Doctor_J]

21. Why in the world would the recent opinion of a TV doctor be relevant to the president's opinion?

Are you seriously telling me that he is still mulling over this issue? If he is, he is desperately in need of a spine. If he's not, meaning that he DOES have an opinion, why is he hiding it? Where is the leadership?

[JoePhilly]

24. Given the President doesn't appear to have made any statement

about the opinion of a TV doctor, why in the world are you jumping up and down as if he did.

And are you seriously telling me that by not commenting on something a TV doctor wrote, Obama is avoiding the issue, while at the same time you are also complaining that Obama might have a statement to make about the same Doctor's opinion?

Is Obama supposed to say something right now because of what Gupta said, or not? You seem to be upset either way.

Here's an idea ... perhaps the President has considered this topic (with no regard for Gupta's position) and decided that he has other more important issues to deal with.

Na, can't be that.

[SCVDem]

17. MJ is a Schedule 1 drug

I would like to see the justification for that based on 2013 data and not Reefer Maddness era bullshit.

[RussBLib]

22. amen! n/t

[Jesus Malverde]

25. Since the TPP talks about tobacco, love to see what it says about cannabis...nt