Holder: US will enforce marijuana laws despite how Californians may vote

[asdjrocky]

Less than three weeks before California voters hit the polls, the Justice Department issued a preemptive message concerning a ballot measure making worldwide headlines.

"Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if the state's voters approve a ballot measure to legalize the drug," Pete Yost reports for the Associated Press.

edited for link-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/holder-enforce-marijuana-laws-californians-vote/

Can someone remind me again why I volunteered for, and sent money to President Obama's campaign? I'm thinking and thinking and for the life of me, I can't remember why.

[JonLP24]

1. This is one area

where change is needed. Cannabis legalization. Now I realize the President can't make it legal all across the US, however in nearly every statement about the topic he opposes legalization. I really think change just meant change from Bush, not necessarily real change that is needed in not only this area but many others.

[asdjrocky]

4. Too true.

It's like the boat is sinking and he's using a thimble to bail.

[JonLP24]

9. Sorry to ask

I was wondering if you had a link? I'd like to read the whole article. :)

[asdjrocky]

18. So sorry, forgot the link.

It's there now.

[JonLP24]

20. Thanks!

[tularetom]

2. Try this

[asdjrocky]

5. No thank you, I don't do fear.

Hope it keeps you warm at night though.

[SargeUNN]

76. what is fear in your words.

Just to see if we are talking the same thing here.

[Subdivisions]

62. What the goddamned fuck is that supposed to mean? n/t

[arbusto_baboso]

3. What have I been saying? Doesn't matter how we vote in Cali...

The Fed will NOT allow this law to stand, and will continue the "war on drugs".

Until federal law changes, we're just shit out of luck.

[asdjrocky]

7. It's a step, the first one. nt

[Uncle Joe]

13. I agree, this change is coming from the ground up and at some point the federal govt. will change as

well.

They will end up either leading, following or getting out of the way.

[arbusto_baboso]

15. Like the fed is changing its stance based on public opinion about same-sex marriage and DADT?

Sorry, but this is another "third rail" issue with "values voters" and therefore, it doesn't matter what public opinion is untuil we get some new people in office.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Yes, the fed is changing on those issues as well, just not as fast as the grass roots.

The fed is more resistant to change because their concern about job security breeds timidity, sometimes the people have to lead.

As more states disengage from he insanity of waging war against its' own citizens, the feds will gain the courage to change as it will also become more expensive for them to keep up a highly destructive, dysfunctional drug policy without the states' participation from both a financial and political cost perspective.

[villager]

42. Eventually, the collapse of national infrastructure, and lack of budget

...to enforce such stupid, restrictive laws, will see this phony "war" crumble.

Too bad someone who fed us a line about "change" can't do it, though...

[villager]

43. An odd day for repeating oneself...

...thanks to the unknown glitch here...!

[Mz Pip]

8. It's true

but it will never happen if we just sit around and wait for the Feds to do something about it. Prop 19 is a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the Federal laws.

[WinkyDink]

6. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Another boondoggle.

[joe black]

10. Meet the new boss.

Holder is such an ass. Don't go after war criminals go after the potheads.

[robdogbucky]

16. And don't forget

Persecute and prosecute the whistleblowers.

Change?


US out of California

[joe black]

32. And...

Let the former Govenor of Alabama swing in the wind while KKKarl gets a walk.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Which means the state won't be able to collect any tax revenue from this

[asdjrocky]

12. The state is collecting revenue right now, lots of it.

Under prop 215 medical patients pay local tax, sometimes with a point or two added. Of course, this money now goes to the city and the county that are smart enough to collect.

[robdogbucky]

14. How is this not totalitarian?

Have they seen the polls?

Really, does the lobby money from the energy industry, the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the cotton industry, etc. trump the will of the people? Wasn't this supposed to be a democracy? You know, will of the majority rules and all that? Fuck the feds.

This can only lose them votes, and I fear it will be across the board. Crap, I was told by a union honcho that the thinking is that there is no gain in endorsing Prop 19, so no Dem will do it. This cowardly 4-dimensional chess or whatever it is will be the undoing of what is left of our so-called representative democracy.

What can a populace do when their leaders intentionally harm them instead of doing what they were elected/hired to do?

I think it is time to stand up to this ass-hat disingenuous bit of demogoguery.



US out of California

[Renew Deal]

17. Maybe you forgot that Obama was against legalization in his campaign.

So you got what you voted for.

[asdjrocky]

21. He alos said he'd close Gitmo-

end DADT, have a public option in the health care bill and real financial reform. That's not working out so well either.

[Renew Deal]

34. Half of that stuff is done or in the works

The Obameter Scorecard

Promise Kept 122
Compromise 41
Promise Broken 22
Stalled 82
In the Works 236
Not yet rated 3
PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

Promises kept or in the works 358. Promises Broken 22. That's a pretty good score. Add being against legalization. That's 123 promises kept. DADT will be 124. I look forward to seeing you working for Obama in 2012. :D

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[asdjrocky]

38. You won't see me doing anything unless he starts doing something

about the issues important to me and the liberal base. He's nearly lost me already with this phony health care and spineless financial reform.

[Renew Deal]

41. Sounds like you're moving the goalposts.

Obama is mostly doing what he promised, including in this case. Besides, it's going to take more than Obama to change the federal drug laws. I just wonder if the entire state of California will be put under arrest if this thing passes.

[asdjrocky]

47. No goalpost moving here.

He promised to close Gitmo. He promised a public option. What goalpost did I move?

[robdogbucky]

36. Is this the best argument you have to defend ignoring the will

of the people? Just go away now, little person, you voted for him, even though you had to hold your nose to do so.

Now you are telling me what I voted for?

Not so fast my friend. I thought I voted for honesty and justice and fair play.

I voted for Public Option. Didn't get it

I voted for restored full constitutional rights. Didn't get it

I voted for a responsive government, beholding to the will of the people, not to the dollars of business lobbies. Didn't get it

Now, when there is clear line drawn in the sand, about does one govern from the perspective of implementing the will of the majority?

All you have is he campaigned against legalization? Does this mean he nor his admin can ignore the will of the people because the money would be cut off from the timber lobby, the pharma lobby, the energy lobby, the cotton lobby, the alcohol lobby?

Ignore the people. All hail the donors, whether they are against the will of the people or not.

We have seen a lot of campaign rhetoric not followed, so your hallowed refrain of "You got what you voted for," does not hit home.

Not by a long shot. If you think keeping people found guilty under unjust and dishonest laws locked up in prison with violent criminals is democracy, then welcome to totalitarianism. Rubicon, you've just been crossed.



US out of California

[robdogbucky]

37. Oooops! Sorry, Duplicate post

[shanti]

40. what was our choice??

get real. :eyes:

[librechik]

19. Yep. 10th amendment

how ironic

[jdlh8894]

30. Is there a Fort Sumter in CA?

[dkofos]

22. I forsee Prop 49.

Should California secede from the US??

[CrownPrinceBandar]

23. I've been saying this for months........

The Feds were never going to let this fly.

[bemildred]

24. Good luck with the jury trials. nt

[villager]

44. Yes, but citizens are deliberately *not* taught about "jury nullification"

Still -- it'd be a good place to start...

[villager]

45. Evidently, a point so important DU's software decided to post it twice!

;-)

[bemildred]

73. It's like voting, more is better. nt

[walldude]

26. Well that's ok because despite what he says

Holder is an asshole.

[asdjrocky]

39. Just perfect.

You really made me laugh. Of course, I'm a 6.5 right now.

[Javaman]

27. You are still under the odd belief that the voice of the people still matters. nt

[flamingdem]

28. HOlder needs to smoke a doobie

Just kidding, I'm wondering if the pot thing is really going to improve anything..

[robdogbucky]

53. I'm not sure what you mean

By "I'm wondering if the pot thing is really going to improve anything.."

but if anything could bring about the end of hundreds of thousands incarcerated for what is essentially a victimless crime, simple possession, then I would consider your comment. As it stands, no one apparently but those behind bars doing the time care about this massive mis-carriage of justice.


US out of California

[flamingdem]

65. Thanks. I need to brush up on the issues

it's about more the substance.

[Johonny]

29. L O L significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts to target drug traffickers

Yeah it's been 30+ years how's that working out. You know what's a impediment to efforts to target drug traffickers. The fact Americans take these drugs no matter if they are legal or not. In no way do I believe the federal government makes a significant impact on drug trafficking other than driving up the cost, no collecting the taxes and driving up the violence.

Oh well it's a empty threat because the FEDs barely can do anything now against medical POT and this prop is going to mean even less action.

[Poll_Blind]

31. This is a states-rights versus federal-rights issue at heart and it's a very interesting one.

If this somehow winds up before the SCOTUS in any flavor it could lead to a ruling which has sweeping repercussions.

For instance: If the federal government permits states to go against federal drug laws, does that mean that states which create laws (like making homosexuality a crime punishable by jailtime, as an odious example) could claim independence from Federal review under a hypothetical marijuana precedent?

All sorts of interesting, sometimes troubling, not-related-to-marijuana-at-all questions related to this.

PB

[Uncle Joe]

50. In the case of criminalizing homosexuality, those states would be violating the XIV Amendment, but

I see no such violation in regards to states enacting laws; which increase liberty for its' own citizens.

[shimmergal]

66. Or, could a state ignore the

bar in "Health Care Reform" legislation and create a single-payer medical care plan for its citizens?

That's the best way to tackle the cost-and-access issues, and probably the only way it'll get done, now.

[Nordmadr]

33. They won't have the manpower. N/T

[shanti]

35. yeah well

let's see him try to arrest 10 million people!

Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence. In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.

Proposition 19 changes state law by legalizing the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana for personal use by individuals age 21 or older, and authorizing various commercial marijuana related activities under certain conditions. Nonetheless, these marijuana related activities would continue to be prohibited under federal law and it is not known to what extent the federal government would continue to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana- related activities for non-medical purposes.

Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other “non public place.”

The smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is prohibited.

The measure also sustains existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on school grounds. Any person age 21 or older who knowingly gives marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
Prop 19 allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana related activities including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales.
However it does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country nor permit sales to persons under 21.

Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana.

The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper.

Prop 19 requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses.

In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana related activities.

The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
In addition, the state could impose similar charges.Prop 19 could result in savings to the state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision. These savings could reach several tens of millions of dollars annually.
The measure would result in a reduction in costs for enforcement of marijuana related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system.
Proposition 19 is carefully crafted to decriminalize personal marijuana use and production so those over 21 years of age may decide if it is something they wish to consume.
By so doing it enhances freedom of choice, engenders respect for the law, protects children, regulates marijuana use and production, and significantly reduces burdens on our police, justice, and correctional systems.

Vote YES on Prop 19 to halt victimless crimes.

[unblock]

46. lbj: us will enforce civil rights laws despite alabama vote

if a federal law unconstitutionally intrudes on a state's rights, the state can challenge it in court.

however, no state can, by state referendum, state constitutional amendment, or state law void federal law within its borders.

NO MATTER WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION IS ON MARIJUANA, it simply can't say "ok" to the idea of letting federal law be voided by a state in this fashion.

california is welcome to void its own STATE laws about marijuana, but the federal government can't have a policy that it will enforce FEDERAL law in all 50 states except california.




personally, i think our current drug laws are incredibly stupid, especially regarding less harmful ones like marijuana, and that the government could control things better through taxes and regulation rather than criminalization. however, i understand holder's view on needing to enforce federal law equally and agree with it (even while i wish for vastly more reasonable federal laws to being with).

[JonLP24]

48. Well..

The Justice Department said they won't raid medical marijuana facilities in accordance to state laws when cannabis is flat out illegal under Federal law, medical or otherwise.

[robdogbucky]

54. And yet

they are doing just that every day



US out of California

[Soral]

49. When prop 19 passes, they will have no choice but to make it a national issue in 2012

Holder and the rest of them can say whatever they want, but when prop 19 passes, things will be forced to change.

It is the equivalent to (if this happened) having just New York allow alcohol during prohibition, it just wouldn't work.

It will become a national hot topic by force after prop 19 passes, IMO.

[cbdo2007]

51. Good, that's the point of the Justice Dept. is to enforce the laws.

It's up to congress to change the laws. Don't get distracted here people and blame the Justice Dept.

[Yavapai]

60. Then let the god damned Justice Department take the Bush crime family

to trial for their war crimes. Or is that up to Congress also?

The Obama administration is starting to stink, just like every other administration we have had since Reagan!!!

Wish we had a set of balls like the french people. A national strike would be a good start. So much for "the home of the brave", "land of the free".

[robdogbucky]

63. +1,000,000 n/t

[glitch]

52. Yet another campaign issue trashed. Letter of law for DADT and cannabis, Habeas Corpus not so much.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

[Gold Metal Flake]

55. And the Feds will have to go it alone.

As their good buddies in the WOD, the state and local law enforcement agencies, will be ordered to stand down.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Well you probably never volunteered or sent money to Obama

Call it a hunch :hi:

[asdjrocky]

57. Well, you don't know what you are talking about.

That's not a hunch.

[slackmaster]

58. We have a Castle Doctrine law here.

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

59. What is that?

I guess I could just use the google, but since you brought it up?

[JonLP24]

61. "Make my day law"

As I've heard it otherwise described. It basically means you can use deadly force if someone is breaking into your home.

[asdjrocky]

75. Now I get it, thanks. nt

[slackmaster]

68. Use of deadly force against someone who unlawfully breaks into your home is protected

From criminal prosecution.

[Swamp Rat]

64. This attitude may affect my vote in 2012.

I hope you are you paying attention, President Obama, because marijuana is a BIG ISSUE for some Americans.

If Eric Holder is not replaced, this may also affect my vote in 2012.

[asdjrocky]

74. It's a major issue for me too Swamp.

I've been very disappointed at the reaction of most of my Dem reps to prop 19.

[Scuba]

67. Eric, the real criminals work on Wall Street and ....

... in the Fox studios, not in gardens.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I smell panic.

The drug war gravy train can't continue forever, folks. Find a new line of work.

[Lucian]

70. So Holder will continue prosecuting marijuana users, but...

allows bigger lawbreakers like corporations and GWB/Cheney to walk free.

I see where their priorities lie. :grr: :eyes:

[Hepburn]

71. Yep...

...change? Where?

[Lilith Velkor]

72. Deja Bush all over again.

:grr:

[TexasObserver]

77. Let's hope Holder is fired in the next few months.

The president needs an Attorney General who isn't a complete failure.

If the president doesn't change his AG's approach about states with such laws, he might as well plan on not running again in 2012. He can't win without California and the other progressive states that will abandon him if he continues Bush policies on things like this.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

78. Well.... at least Holder's consistent

He'll uphold ALL the stupid fucked up regressive federal laws regardless of what the people want. Not just some of them. :eyes:

[asdjrocky]

79. You make a good point.

And that is just too sad.