Comment: Here is more from

(See in situ)

Here is more from

on past statements from both Obama and Holder contradicting the policy set out in the new memo:

The reversal in policy is even clearer when you consider public statements by Obama and Holder that contradict the position the administration is now taking. In a March 2008 interview with Oregon’s Mail Tribune, Obama said, "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue." Two months later, when another Oregon paper, Willamette Week, asked Obama whether he would "stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers," he replied, "I would, because I think our federal agents have better things to do."

Here is how Holder described the administration's policy during a March 2009 question-and-answer session in Washington:

The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law. Our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law.

Jacob Sullum also gives his take on Obama policy toward medical marijuana compared to the previous Bush administration:

Finally, as I've said before, the position that Obama is now taking on medical marijuana—go after producers and sellers but leave patients alone—is no different from the position his predecessor took. In fact, Obama's crackdown on medical marijuana is, if anything, more aggressive than Bush's, with more frequent raids, IRS audits that threaten to put dispensaries out of business, forfeiture threats to dispensaries' landlords, and direct interference in the legislative process by U.S. attorneys. This is certainly not what voters thought they were getting when they heard Obama repeatedly promise to change course on this issue.

Here is with another quote from Holder testifying on video at a House Judiciary Committe hearing in direct contradication to the new policy set out:

Well, again, if the entity is, in fact, operating consistent with state law, and is not—does not have any of those factors involved that are contained in that deputy attorney general memo, and given, again, the limited resources that we have and our determination to focus on major traffickers, that would be inconsistent with...the policy as we have set it out.