Government To Issue Medical Marijuana Guidelines

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113924395
October 19, 2009

Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Soon after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

US missile rethink a huge shift

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260406.stm

From September 19th, 2009

by Paul Reynolds

The decision by the Obama administration to drop plans to base an anti-ballistic missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic is a huge shift in American foreign and defence policy.

There are several immediate implications.

First, it is a major signal, which has followed a number of others, that the United States is adopting a far more cautious and flexible foreign policy under President Obama than it did under President Bush.

President Bush was determined on the European-based system and agreements had been reached with Poland to base 10 anti-missile interceptors there and with the Czechs for them to house the system's radar.

President Obama ordered a review when he came into office. He has now been told that Iran is concentrating less on long-range ballistic missiles that might one day reach the United States and more on shorter range one that could reach parts of Europe.

This has given him a technological reason to change and he will use this to fend off criticism that he has given in to Moscow. He was careful to say that his military chiefs agreed with him.

Relations with Moscow

The second effect will be on US relations with Russia. Here the picture will be mixed. The Russians will be pleased and therefore relations will be eased. The Russians had claimed the system might be a threat to them, though the US said it would not. The US felt that the Russians were simply making an excuse to meddle in the affairs of their near neighbours.

But the Russians might also feel triumphant and conclude that their tough approach is one that brings respect and results.

The US might hope for spin-offs from more relaxed relations - in that the Russians might be more willing to agree to increased sanctions against Iran and might show greater flexibility in nuclear weapons and anti missile talks. But neither is certain.

The decision has drawn both praise and blame. Ted Galen Carpenter, head of defence and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington said: "Not only was that system an over-reaction to a hypothetical Iranian nuclear and missile threat to Europe, but it had poisoned relations with Russia. This move is the first tangible manifestation of President Obama's stated objective to 'hit the re-set' button regarding US-Russian relations.

However Republican Senator Trent Franks said: "The president has disgraced this nation by breaking his word to loyal and courageous allies... "

Technology

Third, this indicates that the Obama team is looking closely at the claims for technology. The experts have been having some doubts about the whole shield system.

Shorter range anti-missiles have proved promising. Perhaps this means he will also be looking sceptically at claims that Iran is developing an actual nuclear weapon. That could mean a reluctance to attack Iranian nuclear plants without rock-solid information, though this would not necessarily stop the Israelis from doing so.

Not that the president wishes to be seen as soft on Iran. He states that his new proposals will be smarter and better in countering any threat from Iranian missiles.

Supporters 'let down'

Fourth, the Polish and Czech governments might have mixed feelings. They had invested considerable capital in agreeing to the system. Some US supporters in Eastern Europe might feel let down.

Others might be relieved. There will be debates about the long-term US commitment to Europe. That is why the president mentioned Nato's article 5 in his announcement - an attack on one will still be an attack on all.

Fifth, on the military side, this heralds a shift of emphasis in the whole US anti-missile defence strategy. It is not an end to it but it is a change to it.

The emphasis will now be on regional and shorter-range defence. The Israeli example might be a good one. The US is co-operating with the Israelis on the Arrow anti-missile missile and on a shorter range missile interceptor known as David's Sling.

Such methods will now come to the fore. And the existing Aegis ship-based defence, already deployed near Japan, will also have renewed importance.

Some US experts have been calling for this decision since President Obama took office. Dr Sean Kay of the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University wrote in a paper back in February: "These systems are not tested or proven and many European NATO allies are skeptical of the benefits. Even if these systems did eventually work they would not address the spectrum of related threats. Furthermore, they have damaged the NATO-Russia relationship in ways that risk undermining the existing balance of power in the European area."

Obama: U.S. 'Determined To Act' On Climate Change

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113058298

by Scott Neuman

President Obama warned the United Nations on Tuesday that there is no time to waste in addressing the problem of climate change, and that a lack of global action now would be judged harshly by history.

The president, addressing a U.N. summit on climate change in New York, said his administration has made the "largest ever" American investment in renewable energy and urged other nations, both rich and poor, to rise to the challenge.

"The journey is hard, and we don't have much time left to make it," Obama said. "Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history."

Obama acknowledged that pursuing costly environmental cleanup is difficult at a time when the world is trying to recover from a recession, but he said it has to be done.

"All of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge," he said. "But difficulty is no excuse for complacency."

Obama's speech comes ahead of crucial talks in Copenhagen in December, where nations will try to reach a new global climate change treaty.

"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act," Obama said. "And we will meet our responsibility to future generations."

The president spoke after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admonished leaders to put aside differences and move more quickly.

As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States is being closely watched by nations such as China and India to see if it will push through clean-energy mandates at home.

The U.S. House passed a bill this summer that would set the first mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, but it has gotten bogged down in the Senate.

Heat waves, droughts, melting glaciers, loss of the Greenland ice sheet and other dangers are fast approaching, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007.

"The science leaves us with no room for inaction now," he said.

In the past, developing nations such as India have been reluctant to sign on to caps on greenhouse gas emissions, saying they should not be forced to curb their growth because of a problem that started with the U.S. and other economic giants.

Obama said the world "cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the debate."

His speech was the beginning of a marathon day of international diplomacy, including a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, a luncheon for sub-Saharan African leaders and a key address to former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative.

On the sidelines of the U.N. meeting, Obama also met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, presiding over a symbolic handshake between the two leaders. Following their late morning meeting, the U.S. president said it was "past time to start talking about starting negotiations" on an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Obama said the Israelis "need to translate discussions into real action" on the issue of Jewish settlements and for the Palestinians to do more to insure security and end violence.

Later this week, climate change will again be on the agenda at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.

White House says no decision on more troops for Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/21/nato-afghanistan-mission-failure-warning

The White House says it has made no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan despite a call for reinforcements from the Nato commander, General Stanley McChrystal.

The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said the president had received no formal request for additional troops, although he had reviewed a report in which McChrystal warns of possible "mission failure" unless more Nato forces are deployed immediately and new tactics are adopted to win local support.

Gibbs said the White House did not expect a formal request for more troops just yet. Gibbs's comments came in response to a blunt assessment that McChrystal prepared for the US defence secretary, Robert Gates. A copy has been obtained by the Washington Post.

McChrystal was scathing about corruption within the Afghan government and the tactics used by the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops he took command of in June.

"Failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and, ultimately, a critical loss of political support," he wrote in the 66-page document. "Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

According to the Washington Post, McChrystal has prepared a separate detailed request for additional troops and other resources, but defence officials told the newspaper he was awaiting instructions before sending it to the Pentagon. Obama has been forced to fend off accusations that the administration ordered McChrystal to hold back this formal request.

In the leaked report, McChrystal wrote that "Isaf requires more forces", mentioning "previously validated, yet unsourced, requirements" ‑ seemingly a reference to a request for 10,000 extra troops by his predecessor, General David McKiernan.

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) ‑ while Afghan security capacity matures ‑ risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," he said.

Coupled with this was a requirement for new tactics, like training more Nato troops in local languages so they would be "seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army".

"Preoccupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us ‑ physically and psychologically ‑ from the people we seek to protect ... the insurgents cannot defeat us militarily, but we can defeat ourselves."

McChrystal said Nato forces should spend "as little time as possible in armoured vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases", warning that in the short term this meant it was "realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase".

In a series of television interviews broadcast , the US president, Barack Obama, said he was still considering whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.

"I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don't make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready," he said on ABC's This Week programme.

Obama told NBC's Meet the Press it was a difficult decision to send more US forces into a conflict zone. "I'm the one who's answerable to their parents if they don't come home," he said. "So I have to ask some very hard questions any time I send our troops in."

Nato sources told the Guardian last week that any extra troops for Afghanistan would have to come from the UK or other European nations because the US military remained heavily committed in Iraq. "The Germans have more capacity, as do the French, the Italians and the United Kingdom," one Nato source said.

In his report, McChrystal warned that a combination of muddled Nato tactics and corruption within Afghanistan's government and officialdom had left Afghans "reluctant to align with us against the insurgents".

"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of powerbrokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and Isaf's own errors have given Afghans little reason to support their government. Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. Isaf does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, powerbrokers and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."

In a separate section, he warned that the Afghan prison system had been turned into "a sanctuary and base" for insurgents to plan and to recruit among criminals. He identified three main insurgent groups, saying they were "clearly supported from Pakistan. The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of Isaf presence."

Senior Afghan police officials told the Associated Press more troops could make things worse. "It is very hard for local people to accept any foreigners who come to our country and say they are fighting for our freedom," said General Azizudin Wardak, the police chief in Paktia province. "To give the idea that they are not invaders, that they are not occupiers, is very difficult."

Mohammad Pashtun, who heads the criminal investigation unit in southern Kandahar, the Taliban's heartland, said the money would be better off going to Afghan forces. "Increasing international troops is not useful," he said. "For the expense of one American soldier, we can pay for 15 Afghan soldiers or police."