.png){kind=logo}
October 17, 2011 at 11:28 am 
Ed Brayton Apparently not satisfied with completely breaking the promise not to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers who comply with state law, now the Obama administration has set its sights on the First Amendment as well by prosecuting media outlets that accept advertising from medical marijuana businesses.
Federal prosecutors are preparing to target newspapers, radio stations and other media outlets that advertise medical marijuana dispensaries in California, another escalation in the Obama administration’s newly invigorated war against the state’s pot industry.
This month, U.S. attorneys representing four districts in California announced that the government would single out landlords and property owners who rent buildings or land where dispensaries sell or cultivators grow marijuana. Now, newspapers and other media outlets could be next.
U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy, whose district includes Imperial and San Diego counties, said marijuana advertising is the next area she’s “going to be moving onto as part of the enforcement efforts in Southern California.” Duffy said she could not speak for the three other U.S. attorneys covering the state but noted their efforts have been coordinated so far.
“I’m not just seeing print advertising,” Duffy said in an interview with California Watch and KQED. “I’m actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It’s gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we’re sending to our children – it’s against the law.”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: When it comes to civil liberties, Obama hasn’t just been bad, he’s been an absolute disaster.
Posted in 
Looks like I might need to start setting up the grow room I’ve been thinking about. Prices could be going up.
There is no end to my disappointment in Obama. I really should consider moving out of the country once I’ve got my master’s degree and some savings.
I hear that pharmaceutical lobby paying, er, yelling, loud and clear!
What won’t Obama cave on next?
Ed writes:
My positions on civil rights issues are near-equivalent to what you assert in your blog posts. However I can’t make the leap this president is, “an absolute disaster” when his positions are in line with current law and holdings, including holdings with which I disagree like Raich, and when I look at his record in its totality. Certainly he’s demonstrating hypocrisy here as you rightly point out.
What I also find troubling is that the media doesn’t question him on the sort of positions he takes which you most criticize, e.g., the state secrets doctrine, while also recognizing that an authentic disaster is the appointment of conservative legislators, presidents, and federal judges who defend onerous laws and create the holding rulings we both find unconstitutional. In this regard past moderates are also like culpable like President Clinton on DOMA and then-Senator Obama on the Patriot Act.
I do respect that from a certain standard, President Obama’s been a failure on some aspects of civil rights, but certainly not all. I think we must also balance those failures by conceding he’s positively contributing to the increased exercise and protection of other rights both legislatively, DADT, and by the type of judges he’s appointed. Though he certainly doesn’t get an A even on this aspect nor do the Democrats in the Senate given their collective unwillingness to fight to get Obama’s judicial and other legal nominees confirmed.
What exactly does the law say in regards to medical marijuana advertising? It’s against the law to advertize cigarettes on TV. It used to be against the law to advertize liquor on TV. It’s pretty well established that 1st amendment rights don’t extend to advertizements over the public airwaves, or in any situation where you’re advertizing something illegal.
I think the Obama administration’s behavior with medical marijuana has been disappointing, but even if pot were fully legalized, it would almost certainly be the case that you couldn’t advertize it in broadcast and print media.
“Apparently not satisfied with summarily executing an American citizen without judicial review, let alone due process…”
ftfy
Re Area Man @ #5
Excuse me, it is perfectly legal to advertise tobacco and alcohol products in print media and presumably would be legal to advertise pot if it were legalized therein. Television and radio are distinct from print media as they must obtain a license from the government to operate.
That may be the case. But since marijuana is not legal at the federal level, not even for medicinal purposes, it’s rather moot. The point is that this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
It is, at best, a matter of the Justice Department enforcing a law that is probably stupid. The real solution is to change the law.
For me, this is a purely but powerfully emotional issue.
I don’t currently use marijuana, medical or otherwise (I don’t strongly abstain but don’t care much about it and don’t seek it out). Obviously I think it is idiotic that it is illegal.
But medical marijuana crackdowns just make my blood boil. At least some substantial proportion of medical marijuana users are people with significant – often severe and tragic – health problems.
I’ve seen it stated inaccurately that medical marijuana isn’t documented to be helpful. As a skeptical, evidence-based trained pathologist, I perceive that as at best a half truth. When a drug is predominantly about symptom relief, patient preference is a strong factor. If people were saying that medical marijuana cured diseases, there would be a problem. If it made patients feel better but had high overdose risk or the like, there would be a problem. If it were replacing better therapy because charlatans persuaded patients that it was superior there would be a problem. But none of those are the case. It is supposed to make patients feel better, vast numbers of them say it does, its abuse potential is moderate at best, and it is very safe in terms of overdose or side effects, even for the frail.
Although it is technically legal to “crack down” on medical marijuana, in practice, doing so, against local legislation, is authoritarianism for the sake of authoritarianism.
Recently, organized crime figure/buddy of FBI agents Whitey Bulger was apprehended – and the identity of the woman who ID’ed him was widely publicized, putting her in grave danger. Misdemeanor domestic violence was decriminalized in Topeka.
As is characteristic of the most corrupt authoritarian societies, violent criminals and corrupt wealthy individuals run rampant while the government looks the other way. But brutal authoritarian punishment of people who do things like use medical marijuana, publish leaked material arbitrarily designated as “secret”, etc, is the rule of the day. This is not a good state of affairs.
Clarification –
I realize that some crackpots claim that marijuana cures or prevents just about anything (*THC may be protective against some cancers, but the evidence is not yet definitive*).
But mainstream medical marijuana is prescribed and issued for symptom relief.
It’s not that it’s “technically legal” to crack down on medical marijuana, as if the law says that prosecutors can, if they happen to feel like it, go after pot dispensaries. They are required to do so.
Now it happens that the Executive Branch has a lot of leeway in how they enforce the law. And individual prosecutors and agencies have a fair amount of leeway too. And sometimes the law changes simply because laws are no longer enforced when they fail to make sense to the people doing the enforcing. That’s part of what “law” is. But it’s very dangerous for the Executive Branch to selectively ignore laws that they happen to disagree with. I certainly wouldn’t want a Republican president refusing the enforce health care law (as they’ve all annoyingly pledged to do) just because their idiot supporters think it’s tyranny. It would be a clear breech of the separation of powers.
None of this is to say that the Obama administration’s behavior on this issue has been correct. They said they were going to depriortize medical marijuana arrests, which is a perfectly valid enforcement tactic. And it appears, in a vain effort to appease law-and-order types, that Obama has reneged on that pledge. And that’s disappointing. But there’s a fine line between deprioritizing something and violating the will of Congress, something Obama does not have the power to do.
Area Man –
You made some valid points, but now you’ve degenerated into pure silliness.
They are equally required to enforce laws against parking violations, prostitution, and inclusion of recyclable material in regular garbage (where illegal).
They have limited resources. They prioritize.
Priorities that protect the public against serious threats and are in line with public opinion indicate responsibility, and an attitude of understanding both the spirit and letter of the law.
Priorities that do not serve to protect the public are irresponsible, and, although technically legal in some cases, reflect an authoritarian, arbitrary attitude.
Area Man –
Well, I see that we are actually making some of the same points.
At the end of the day, I think that responsible law enforcement implicitly prioritizes protecting the public from actual physical or economic harm.
I will vote for Obama versus a Republican, of course, but his administration has not shown what I consider reasonable prioritization with regard to federal law enforcement.
Instead, he is repeatedly noted to persevere in unpopular, harmful Bush policies.
Here’s one for the conspiracy-minded amongst the readers;
How much of this anti-marijuana enforcement is due to those Republican, Liberty Law School types who switched from political to civil-service positions just before Obama was inaugurated? Could this be an attempt to turn more Obama supporters away from voting for him in 2012?
This isn’t even a good political move:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/record-high-50-percent-of-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana-use.html?track=icymi
If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily take this and spin it as Obama waging a war on business, but since the Repubs are also generally anti-drug, they are probably not going to do this.
Sort of an “Only Nixon could go to China” thing, isn’t it? Only a black Democratic president could trample American rights without an uproar from the professional Left.
I’ve got a LONG history of being skeptical of marijuana legalization, and even I see the current moves of the government as being well over the line. I don’t think that marijuana is harmless, or that doing drugs is a great idea, but I am even more sure that criminalizing advertising for state-sanctioned drug sales, or going after the landlords of these places, is just going too far. Don’t we have better things to do with limited resources?
1) What is the “professional left”? Any reply except explicit examples of people who make their living directly by being “left” and who never complain about Obama administration’s rights record will be meaningless. 2) Are you seriously suggesting that progressives don’t complain about the Obama administration’s rights record (on a fairly progressive blog, under a post complaining about Obama)? Seriously? 3) Almost all Obama abuses seem to be perseverance of Bush abuses. None of it seems to be very original. But I still complain.
(Prediction – rather than being good humored and reasonable and admitting your error, you’ll keep insisting, without reasonable evidence, that some imaginary “professional left” doesn’t criticize Obama.)
1) Did you see the actions of the Bush administration as equally over the line?
This part I completely agree with, with the caveat that marijuana seems to be even less harmful than I would have thought twenty years ago.
schoenen outlet…
[...]Obama Finds New Right to Trample On | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…
plymouth estate agent…
[...]Obama Finds New Right to Trample On | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…