Obama vs. Clinton on Medical Marijuana
Saturday April 12, 2008
Civil Liberties Platforms: Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | John McCain
Earlier this week, in my roundup of the remaining major-party 2008 presidential candidates, I characterized the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as more or less equal on the issue of medical marijuana. Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project rightly questions my assessment:
1. Both candidates favor a "lowest law enforcement priority" approach to medical marijuana.
Both candidates agree that using federal law enforcement agents to arrest providers of medical marijuana is an unwise use of resources. This distinguishes both Obama and Clinton from George W. Bush and John McCain, but it is not indicative of any long-term policy reform.
2. Mirken is right: Obama is the only candidate who seems interested in reforming federal policy on medical marijuana.
Despite being asked several leading questions, Clinton never indicates any willingness to revisit federal law on medical marijuana; her progressive position on the issue is limited to what she would do during her administration. This is not a huge difference between the two candidates--would either of them veto a federal medical marijuana decriminalization bill if it passed Congress?--but it does indicate that Obama is willing to make medical marijuana part of his policy platform.
3. Neither candidate has indicated that they believe medical marijuana should be covered by insurance.
Clinton backed out of the question; as far as I know, Obama has never been asked.
4. Neither candidate is willing to protect marijuana grown in the patient's own home.
Both are very clear that they would support medical marijuana legalization only in cases where the drug is provided under medical supervision.
5. Neither candidate is particularly well-versed on the issue of medical marijuana.
Obama admits to not knowing much about Oregon's medical marijuana statutes; Clinton does not appear to be aware of any research dealing with marijuana and pain relief, and admits that she doesn't know enough about the issue of medical marijuana to decide whether or not insurance should cover it.
So I would say that Mirken is right; my original assessment of Obama and Clinton, which characterized the two candidates as being essentially tied on the issue of medical marijuana, was incorrect. Obama's willingness to actually revise federal drug policy as it pertains to medical marijuana gives him a leg up on Clinton, whose reform initiatives would be limited to the duration of her presidency. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
See also:
|
Personally, I'm not so sure it's a tie:Let's break this down a little bit and see if we can determine what, exactly, the two candidates are saying.
Asked by Willamette Week in Oregon, Hillary gives an answer with miles of wiggle room:
http://wweek.com/editorial/3422/10767/
What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Program as legal?
We’ve got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that’s already been done. I don’t think it’s a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.
So you’d stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s raids on medical marijuana grows?
What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There’s a lot of other more important work that needs to be done.
Should medical marijuana be covered by insurance?
I don’t have enough information to know anything about that.
---------
In contrast, Barack Obama has been much clearer:
http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/candidateviews.htm#obama
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator (D-IL), stated in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Gary Nelson, Editorial page editor for the Oregon newspaper Mail Tribune:
"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.
I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate.
I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely. What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with."
1. Both candidates favor a "lowest law enforcement priority" approach to medical marijuana.
Both candidates agree that using federal law enforcement agents to arrest providers of medical marijuana is an unwise use of resources. This distinguishes both Obama and Clinton from George W. Bush and John McCain, but it is not indicative of any long-term policy reform.
2. Mirken is right: Obama is the only candidate who seems interested in reforming federal policy on medical marijuana.
Despite being asked several leading questions, Clinton never indicates any willingness to revisit federal law on medical marijuana; her progressive position on the issue is limited to what she would do during her administration. This is not a huge difference between the two candidates--would either of them veto a federal medical marijuana decriminalization bill if it passed Congress?--but it does indicate that Obama is willing to make medical marijuana part of his policy platform.
3. Neither candidate has indicated that they believe medical marijuana should be covered by insurance.
Clinton backed out of the question; as far as I know, Obama has never been asked.
4. Neither candidate is willing to protect marijuana grown in the patient's own home.
Both are very clear that they would support medical marijuana legalization only in cases where the drug is provided under medical supervision.
5. Neither candidate is particularly well-versed on the issue of medical marijuana.
Obama admits to not knowing much about Oregon's medical marijuana statutes; Clinton does not appear to be aware of any research dealing with marijuana and pain relief, and admits that she doesn't know enough about the issue of medical marijuana to decide whether or not insurance should cover it.
So I would say that Mirken is right; my original assessment of Obama and Clinton, which characterized the two candidates as being essentially tied on the issue of medical marijuana, was incorrect. Obama's willingness to actually revise federal drug policy as it pertains to medical marijuana gives him a leg up on Clinton, whose reform initiatives would be limited to the duration of her presidency. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
See also:
Comments
lets take a look at number 4. there was nothing communicated from either dem that even mentioned home grown. this looks like eli lilly et al supplied this question and answer here. WRONG.
oregon state medical marijuana laws insist on a working patient/doctor relationship. do your homework tom
ikemay, see the last sentence of the first paragraph in Obama’s response: “I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.”
Did you really think Hitlary would give a clear answer? After all, she is queen of triangulators.
Tom,
Thank you for this very good comparison of Clinton and Obama on this issue.
Regarding point 4 on protecting marijuana grown in the home: While it is correct that Obama stated that he has concerns about this because it’d be difficult to regulate, he also says, “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue…” Oregon, like the 11 states with effective medical marijuana laws, allow patients and caregivers to grow marijuana in their homes (some allow it to be grown outside too). California’s law allows “mom and pop shops” to sell it. Currently, the Justice Department, particularly the DEA, is expending resources to raid these shops in California, thus circumventing state law. Obama explicitly states that he will not circumvent state laws on medical marijuana.
Obama’s position goes beyond just saying that it wouldn’t be a high priority; he is saying that it won’t happen if he’s president. Clinton’s position leaves open the possibility that the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California could continue.
Thanks again for addressing this subject.
Hillary is a LIAR.
While meeting with members of the audience at a July 13 campaign rally held at Victory Park in Manchester, a GSMM (Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana), a volunteer told Sen. Clinton, “Twelve states allow medical marijuana but the Bush administration continues to raids patients,” to which Hillary responded, “Yes, I know, it’s terrible.”
When the volunteer asked, “Would you stop the federal raids?” Sen. Clinton responded, “Yes, I will.”
YES. I. WILL.
But Hillary is now dodging the raid question with this “understanding the workings of pain/need for research” bull sh*t.
Of course this is deliberate. Her pharma friends most have gotten to her, which means she would continue to use our tax $ and law enforcement to target, RAID (possibly hurt and/or kill), prosecute, and possibly INCARCERATE people for following a doctor’s recommendation, if elected.
Real Great Platform. And while sick people are dying in jail, Hillary will be “looking into” her Merck stock and helping the FDA pass another VIOXX.
In other words, Hillary is all “thumbs up” with the pharmaceutical companies & cops deciding MEDICINE. Another reason not to go to Medical school.
Another reason not to vote for her.
If Hillary can’t keep her word & doesn’t have the spine to END THE RAIDS, then she definitely doesn’t have the spine and INTEGRITY to run our country.
What a lying @$#%! She’s not even in office and she’s already lying through her teeth DAILY!
Obama also has stated he would end the raids, but also has wiggled a little bit.
He needs to take back the B.S. about not letting legitimate patients grow their own; that’s scary. Even if the FEDS reopened their medical marijuana program to new applicants, their federally grown stuff is some of the worst stuff on the planet. Of course legitimate patients should be able to grow their own!
We definitely don’t need to pay the government to do what they have proven to do very poorly…and the people have proven to do MUCH better.
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have been quite informed and fearless on this MEDICAL MARIJUANA issue; and it won them a LOT of followers.
Hillary AND Obama are missing an opportunity to emerge as COURAGEOUS, INTELLIGENT, AND COMPASSIONATE by not speaking more decisively about the insanity of warring on patients, physicians, and non-lethal medicine. They could use all the medical support (ACP, IOM, NEJM, APHA, etc…) to tell the truth, for once.
Attacking sick people is wrong for a million reasons. Why is so hard to muster up the courage simply to say it?
Obama and Hillary’s lack of conviction & clarity on this issue make it very hard to believe either one has any real integrity or compassion.
mmj, I’m glad to address this subject–it’s a very important one. While I avoid all intoxicants (and this includes anything beyond a small amount of alcohol), I’m proud to live in a state (Mississippi, I kid you not) where possession of a small amount of marijuana is not generally punishable by arrest on a first offense. You get a fine, sort of like for a parking ticket but a little more expensive–$180 to $250, I think.
menolikehillary, Inolikehillary either but I should take this opportunity to say that she does mention, later in the interview, that she does not consider the raids “a good use of law enforcement resources.” She later says that medical marijuana raids would “not be a high [DEA] priority.”
The “priority” language is important because it’s the only area over which the president can effect legitimate control without congressional approval. Prior to 2003, for example, sodomy was illegal in many states but was de facto decriminalized because it was an extremely low law enforcement priority. The City of San Francisco has an ordinance on the books declaring low-quantity marijuana possession arrests to be the “lowest law enforcement priority.” Until Congress actually gets rid of or modifies the dopey statutes that criminalize medical marijuana, this is the central question a prospective presidential candidate needs to answer–will the raids actually be performed, or will they not be performed. All a president can do is decide how much relative effort to put into enforcing specific federal laws; the actual long-term policy change will have to happen in Congress.
But the benefit of Obama’s more comprehensive position is that if you got Clinton in the White House followed by a Republican, it could be right back to the Bushian raids–where Obama, who has said that he favors actual policy revision, might actually push Congress to revise drug law guidelines to make an exception for medical marijuana so that the next Republican president can’t order the raids without having the law changed. So for this reason, Obama is certainly a better candidate on medical marijuana–but on the central issue of law enforcement priority, which is the issue most directly relevant to the president’s authority, they seem to be on the same page.
“The “priority” language is important because it’s the only area over which the president can effect legitimate control without congressional approval.”
Not true.
The new President could issue an Executive Order upon taking office that would end federal raids and other interference in medical marijuana legal states.
An Executive Order also could deny funds to the Department of Justice for federal enforcement efforts against patients and providers in states that have adopted medical marijuana laws.
This is why Obama and Clinton need to say they will END the raids.
Anything short of “ENDING THE RAIDS” is indefensible and unacceptable.
The way to end the raids by executive order would be to issue an Executive Order establishing that the raids are such a low law enforcement priority that the DEA would not be able to effect them, which is exactly what “low priority” means. But the next president could then issue a new Executive Order overturning the previous Executive Order, which is why this approach is not adequate as a long-term policy solution.
Medical marijuana would still be illegal at the federal level, with or without an Executive Order. The president can’t make medical marijuana legal at the federal level (only Congress can do that), but the president can make enforcement of laws against medical marijuana such a low priority that they are essentially legal for the duration of the presidency.
Executive Orders and signing statements are essentially examples of the president saying “here’s how I will enforce/interpret Congress’ laws within the limits of my power,” but an Executive Order can’t make something legal if Congress has made it illegal, or make something illegal if Congress has made it legal. This is why the Bushian Executive Orders vis-a-vis terrorist and insurgency groups cite the federal code so extensively–because the president must classify everything as an executive interpretation of existing federal statutes.
There are two entities that can actually make permanent revisions to federal law to prevent the raids on a long-term basis: Congress and the Supreme Court. All the president can do is say “Well, the law exists, but I’m not going to bother to enforce it”–and whether the president does this via an Executive Order or by less formal means, it is not a long-term solution (unless every subsequent president happens to agree with the Executive Order).
This is what I kept trying to explain to the Ron Paul people: In order to actually change federal law to create an exemption for medical marijuana, you need Congress. Anything else would be a temporary policy that can be changed with a presidential signature at any time.
Now, it’s my hope that the Democratic Congress will in fact revise federal drug law in this manner–and I think Obama is more likely to encourage Congress to do this than Clinton would, given his statement of support for actual policy revision. But if Congress does pass such a bill, I wouldn’t expect either Democratic candidate to actually veto it.
Personally, I would not be surprised if Hillary allowed the raids to continue. While she has said that they would be a low priority, she has given no indication that they would stop completely. Obama has said that he would not circumvent the state laws, so I would be surprised if the raids continued, because that most assuredly would be circumventing California’s state law.
Speaking of Congressional action, the best hope in the near future to completely end the raids in California or any other medical marijuana state, is to pass the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment. This would amend the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice to prevent them from spending any money to investigate, raid, arrest, prosecute, etc. medical marijuana patients or dispensaries in the states which have laws protecting these individuals.
Sadly, the Democrats are so scared of looking soft on drugs, they won’t even take this one small step. It only received 165 votes last year (it needs 218 to pass); under the Republican-controlled House in 2006, it received 163 votes. And apparently for Republicans, states’ rights don’t apply to compassion for the sick and dying.