PDA

View Full Version : AG Holder: Feds will enforce marijuana laws in CA even if voters legalize




devil21
10-15-2010, 04:40 PM
Some of that good ol Obama Change comin right up!

Oh wait....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101015/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice



SAN FRANCISCO Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if voters next month make the state the first in the nation to legalize the drug.

The Justice Department strongly opposes California's Proposition 19 and remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder wrote in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," Holder wrote.

The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

He said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

The ex-DEA chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Proposition 19 passes. They said legalizing pot presented the same threat to federal authority as Arizona's recent immigration law that spurred a federal lawsuit.

If California voters approve the ballot measure, the state would become the first to legalize and regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales of the drug.

The state has clashed with federal authorities over marijuana since 1996, when voters approved a first-of-its-kind ballot measure that allowed people to grow and use pot for medical purposes. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana.

Under federal law, marijuana is still strictly illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to enforce its ban regardless of state law.

During the Bush administration, retail pot dispensaries across the state faced regular raids from federal anti-drug agents. Their owners were sometimes sentenced to decades in prison for drug trafficking.

Yet the medical marijuana industry still grew, and has expanded even more since Holder said last year that federal law enforcement would defer to state laws on using it for medicinal purposes.

Some legal scholars and policy analysts have questioned how much the Justice Department could really do on the ground to halt a state-sanctioned recreational pot trade.

Nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

Los Angeles County's top law enforcers said Friday the federal government would still have help from them regardless of the vote's outcome on Proposition 19.

County Sheriff Lee Baca and District Attorney Steve Cooley said at a news conference that the law would be unenforceable because it is trumped by federal laws that prohibit marijuana cultivation and possession.

"We will continue as we are today regardless of whether it passes or doesn't pass," Baca said. His deputies don't and won't go after users in their homes, but public use of the drug will be targeted, he said.

A spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to comment on how the Democratic gubernatorial candidate would respond as governor to a federal crackdown if Proposition 19 passes.

"We have to win and it has to pass before we get to answering that question," spokesman Sterling Clifford said. Brown is opposed to Proposition 19.

Meg Whitman's campaign did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. During a recent debate, the Republican candidate for governor reiterated her strong stance against legalizing pot.

"I think this is not the right thing for our young people. It's not the right thing for our community of citizens of California, but don't ask me. Ask law enforcement."

10th Amendment ftw.

squarepusher
10-15-2010, 04:43 PM
wow, since i think prop 19 is a sham i say good for them

devil21
10-15-2010, 04:45 PM
wow, since i think prop 19 is a sham i say good for them

Good for who?

specsaregood
10-15-2010, 04:46 PM
10th Amendment ftw.

My view on it is that if prop 19 passes and the state of CA collects sales taxes on weed, then they are obligated to protect the taxpayer. Otherwise they are admitting it is illegal and willfully acting as a participant in the illegal transaction. And just like others, they would have to turn over their ill-gotten gains to the govt: in this case the federal government.

FrankRep
10-15-2010, 04:47 PM
California, Fight! Lets see that Courageous American Spirit!


Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/nullification.html)

http://www.shopjbs.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/n/u/nullification.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/nullification.html)


"Nullification" is an indispensable book about what could become the most effective means of stopping an out-of-control federal government. "Nullification" is simply an act by states (and occasionally individuals) to resist unconstitutional federal laws. (2010ed, 309pp, hb)

torchbearer
10-15-2010, 04:47 PM
CSA, Confederate States of America.
YouTube - If The South Woulda Won (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCu8H6RbbI)

squarepusher
10-15-2010, 04:47 PM
Good for who?

fedz. Wonder it they will stop giving us welfare money and other money things would change.

oyarde
10-15-2010, 04:47 PM
So that sneaky little Holder finally found a law he likes and wants to enforce. Must be white people smoking the weed .

Stary Hickory
10-15-2010, 04:49 PM
CA needs to pass prop 19. the feds must be challenged we all know that the feds have ZERO authority to regulate this. When alchohol prohibition happened it was only possible due to a constitutional amendment.

We ought to lock Holder up in prison for abusing his position of authority to blatantly break the law.

devil21
10-15-2010, 04:50 PM
fedz. Wonder it they will stop giving us welfare money and other money things would change.

I didn't peg you for a drug warrior but good to know.

mczerone
10-15-2010, 05:56 PM
The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

He said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

The ex-DEA chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Proposition 19 passes. They said legalizing pot presented the same threat to federal authority as Arizona's recent immigration law that spurred a federal lawsuit.

If the federal govt were a person, he'd have an IQ of about 23. The only reason "drug smugglers" deal in "marijuana, ... cocaine, and other drugs" is because they are all illegal! If cannabis is made legal, why in the hell would anyone go to a drug smuggler for it!?!

The next paragraph then says that legalizing cannabis would make communities unsafe? What the hell are they smoking, and is it legal? The only reason crime is associated with cannabis is because it is illegal!

And then the last paragraph just lays bare what the real concern is: not safety, not health, not productivity, not liberty, not security. THE APPEARANCE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY. That is the only thing the fed govt is worried about - losing the presumptions of the people that their are authorized to do anything that they say they can do. The only reason that they worry about cannabis is because they've said it's "illegal" - they can't let a State try to legalize it because they can't stand not people not listening to them.

I've been undecided about if the bill should pass based on how it's written and the concessions it makes, but now I'm 100% for it to pass - just to see D.C. squirm, those insecure sociopaths.

Noob
10-15-2010, 09:54 PM
I guest we now know what the Du Pont family thinks about making it legal.

FrankRep
10-15-2010, 10:01 PM
I guest we now know what the Du Pont family thinks about making it legal.
Why would the DuPont family want to legalize their competition?

Wikipedia: DuPont > Controversies > Hemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Hemp)


Hemp paper threatened DuPont's monopoly on the necessary chemicals for manufacturing paper from trees and hemp fiber cloth would compete with Nylon, a synthetic fibre, that was patented in 1938, the year hemp was made illegal. It is often asserted in pro-cannabis publications that DuPont actively supported the criminalization of the production of hemp in the US in 1937 through private and government intermediates, and alleged that this was done to eliminate hemp as a source of fiber—one of DuPont's biggest markets at the time. DuPont denies allegations that it influenced hemp regulation.

Madly_Sane
10-15-2010, 10:03 PM
anyone think this could lead to any big upcoming civil uprisings in cali?

phill4paul
10-15-2010, 10:38 PM
anyone think this could lead to any big upcoming civil uprisings in cal?i

No more so than a BART shooting.;)

Anti Federalist
10-15-2010, 10:45 PM
Never have been able to get a coherent answer from anybody on this question:

Why did banning alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment but the banning of a plant that is native to North America and grows naturally, can be accomplished by federal fiat?

phill4paul
10-15-2010, 10:48 PM
Never have been able to get a coherent answer from anybody on this question:

Why did banning alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment but the banning of a plant that is native to North America and grows naturally, can be accomplished by federal fiat?

Yeah that was always my question. The idiot answer was that it was a "war."

Humanae Libertas
10-15-2010, 10:52 PM
More tyranny from the Federal Government. Not surprised...

FrankRep
10-15-2010, 10:53 PM
Why did banning alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment but the banning of a plant that is native to North America and grows naturally, can be accomplished by federal fiat?

Read this:

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259125)

Very Interesting.

Bruno
10-15-2010, 10:53 PM
Never have been able to get a coherent answer from anybody on this question:

Why did banning alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment but the banning of a plant that is native to North America and grows naturally, can be accomplished by federal fiat?

First, to be considered unconstitutional, a case has to actually be brought before the Supreme Court. They would never let a good case get that far.

In a nutshell, from how I understand, it, they "banned" it first by making a huge tax against its use, distribution, and growing it, requiring a fee that made it unreasonable that anyone would do so. They patterned this off of the machine gun tax that had been found to be constitutional (I believe). Justification for making it illegal was that blacks were sleeping with white women who smoked it, as it made them supposedly crazy for the black man. Mexicans also smoked it, so that was fine to make it illegal so we could go after them, too. Most white Americans who used cannabis used it under that name or hashish, and had no idea what this "evil marijuana" was that these Mexicans and blacks smoked. You could order Hash candy out of the Montgomery Wards catalog at the time. Heart had a huge interest in the timber industry at the time, and stood to lose vast sums of money if hemp could be used for paper instead of his timber. DuPont had just produced nylon, and plastics, and needed to destroy the competition.

Lies spun by Hearst himself and put in his own newspapers were delivered as fact as evidence that it should be illegal.

When it was realized that this might not hold, the moved it under the DEA's jurisdiction, calling it a "Schedule I Narcotic", right up there with heroin, which has no medicinal value and a high likelyhood for addiction. That disallowed any doctors to prescribe it and meant they also didn't allow any testing to be done on it for decades, unless it was to "prove" how bad it was for you. All other results were ignored. Throw in a lot of demonizing of marijuana, how it is a "scourge", gateway drug, etc., and 8 years of "just say no", Clinton who comes off like someone who might legalize it then does a 180 and expands the Drug War, enter Bush, 'nuff said, and here we are.

Noob
10-15-2010, 10:53 PM
Never have been able to get a coherent answer from anybody on this question:

Why did banning alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment but the banning of a plant that is native to North America and grows naturally, can be accomplished by federal fiat?
John D Rockefeller wanted to proctect his Oil from cheep alcohol that people could use in cars at the time.

FrankRep
10-15-2010, 10:58 PM
John D Rockefeller wanted to proctect his Oil from cheep alcohol that people could use in cars at the time.

Wikipedia: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937)



Background

Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-0)][2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-1)][3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-under-influence-55-2)] largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon), Randolph Hearst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Hearst), and the Du Pont family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont_family).[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-0)][3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-under-influence-55-2)] With the invention of the decorticator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorticator), hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pulp) that was used in the newspaper industry.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-0)][4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-3)] Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont families new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was also being outcompeted by hemp.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-nafta-neocolonialism-129-0)]

The bill was passed over the last-minute objections of the American Medical Association. Dr. William Woodward, legislative counsel for the A.M.A. objected to the bill on the grounds that the bill had been prepared in secret without giving proper time to prepare their opposition to the bill.[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-ReferenceA-4)] He doubted their claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage; he further asserted that because the word Marijuana was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis. "Marijuana is not the correct term... Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country." [5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#cite_note-ReferenceA-4)]

Kregisen
10-15-2010, 11:04 PM
When this passes I'm gonna grab a bag of popcorn and hope the feds get put in their place.....fuck yeah go cali! We need more states to do this. (even though the law is far from perfect, and in a freedom sense not a WHOLE lot better)

Reason
10-15-2010, 11:41 PM
I dream of when state cops arrest and deport federal agents.

devil21
10-16-2010, 04:18 AM
The Sheriffs in CA need to step up and do their jobs once this passes.

Hallamaat
10-16-2010, 05:59 AM
The Sheriffs in CA need to step up and do their jobs once this passes.

It'll be interesting to see the number of Sheriffs that will follow state law before federal versus the Sheriffs like Pat Hedges in San Luis Obispo, who actually take it upon themselves to invite the DEA into their counties to raid dispensaries that they seek to eliminate.

YouTube - Raiding California: Medical Marijuana and Minors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMRjBauvPI)

Acala
10-16-2010, 06:42 AM
I've been undecided about if the bill should pass based on how it's written and the concessions it makes, but now I'm 100% for it to pass - just to see D.C. squirm, those insecure sociopaths.

Absolutely! This is my position on Arizona's immigration law as well. I think illegal immigrants are scapegoats. But the Arizona law challenges Federal authority and THAT is a very good thing. Notice how the ex-drug storm troopers cited the Arizona immigration law when urging the Federal government to fight California's legalization of MJ?

Federal law is all about power and the use of that power to enrich the puppet masters. It has nothing to do with the safety of communities. They don't give a rat's ass about the safety of communities. In fact, the less safe the community the more likely the people will be to ask for government "help" - and pay for it with money and freedom.

Nullification and, if necessary, secession, is the best hope for restoring liberty on this continent. We need as many states as possible to challenge as many Federal laws as possible. This battle will be won by swarming and stretching the resources of the central authority.

Working Poor
10-16-2010, 07:27 AM
the DEA even think they belong in Canada here's a little link I found:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/195/bcmarijuana.shtml

Dr.3D
10-16-2010, 07:32 AM
The Federal government has been using the so called 'war on drugs' as a way to throw it's weight around the entire world. Mexico has been challenged by the U.S. government for years because of it. This is why Mexico is now calling the U.S. hypocritical, if they allow some states to legalize pot.

The entire 'war on drugs' has been an excuse to infringe upon the liberties of people all over the world, and the federal government doesn't want to lose that excuse, nor it's unchallenged power to do so.

Stary Hickory
10-16-2010, 09:52 AM
try and enforce the law is was I say. A unconstituional law...go for it. CA is a big state, are you going to roll in there with tanks? Do you think America will let you? Screw the AG and Holder.

AGRP
10-16-2010, 11:00 AM
But we need funds to sustain the police state :(

surf
10-16-2010, 11:54 AM
it seems to me that there are laws forbidding the federal gov't from participating in or trying to influence local elections - aren't there?

perhaps we should get Holder to investigate....

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 11:59 AM
An excellent summary of the "how", thanks for posting that.

But that still does not explain the "why".

My point being that the only legitimate and legal way that the fedgov could outright ban a substance is by the amendment process.

Anything else is an illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power.


First, to be considered unconstitutional, a case has to actually be brought before the Supreme Court. They would never let a good case get that far.

In a nutshell, from how I understand, it, they "banned" it first by making a huge tax against its use, distribution, and growing it, requiring a fee that made it unreasonable that anyone would do so. They patterned this off of the machine gun tax that had been found to be constitutional (I believe). Justification for making it illegal was that blacks were sleeping with white women who smoked it, as it made them supposedly crazy for the black man. Mexicans also smoked it, so that was fine to make it illegal so we could go after them, too. Most white Americans who used cannabis used it under that name or hashish, and had no idea what this "evil marijuana" was that these Mexicans and blacks smoked. You could order Hash candy out of the Montgomery Wards catalog at the time. Heart had a huge interest in the timber industry at the time, and stood to lose vast sums of money if hemp could be used for paper instead of his timber. DuPont had just produced nylon, and plastics, and needed to destroy the competition.

Lies spun by Hearst himself and put in his own newspapers were delivered as fact as evidence that it should be illegal.

When it was realized that this might not hold, the moved it under the DEA's jurisdiction, calling it a "Schedule I Narcotic", right up there with heroin, which has no medicinal value and a high likelyhood for addiction. That disallowed any doctors to prescribe it and meant they also didn't allow any testing to be done on it for decades, unless it was to "prove" how bad it was for you. All other results were ignored. Throw in a lot of demonizing of marijuana, how it is a "scourge", gateway drug, etc., and 8 years of "just say no", Clinton who comes off like someone who might legalize it then does a 180 and expands the Drug War, enter Bush, 'nuff said, and here we are.

JohnGalt23g
10-16-2010, 12:23 PM
My view on it is that if prop 19 passes and the state of CA collects sales taxes on weed, then they are obligated to protect the taxpayer. Otherwise they are admitting it is illegal and willfully acting as a participant in the illegal transaction. And just like others, they would have to turn over their ill-gotten gains to the govt: in this case the federal government.

The state of California can do that very easily. They simply have to say to the Feds: "You want laws prohibiting possession, transportation, manufacturing, or distribution of cannabis? Fine. Go ahead and enforce your laws."

I'm sure that there are US Attorneys and Federal Courts who grow sick at the idea of the backlog their offices will face trying to prosecute an additional half a million cases a year.

CUnknown
10-16-2010, 03:19 PM
This is so wrong it's hard to process.

But look, Cali is definitely not going to interfere with the Feds arresting people. But as long as the State law enforcement stops enforcing the marijuana laws, there will be a lot less pot arrests, so that's a good thing. But some people will still get arrested, and Cali is not going to stand in the way.

This might lead to some interesting trials though, as the defendants bring up that what they did isn't illegal in CA.

devil21
10-16-2010, 05:40 PM
This might lead to some interesting trials though, as the defendants bring up that what they did isn't illegal in CA.

The judges will do exactly what they've already done in this sort of thing. They'll prevent the defense from even mentioning that it is legal under state law. This is how the feds have prosecuted medical marijuana cases in Cali and other states already. You simply can't say it's legal under state law in the courtroom.

Acala
10-16-2010, 06:10 PM
The state of California can do that very easily. They simply have to say to the Feds: "You want laws prohibiting possession, transportation, manufacturing, or distribution of cannabis? Fine. Go ahead and enforce your laws."

I'm sure that there are US Attorneys and Federal Courts who grow sick at the idea of the backlog their offices will face trying to prosecute an additional half a million cases a year.

A very good point. The State can prohibit any state official, agent, LE officer, court officer, or member of the state bar from assisting in any way the prosecution of any law in conflict with the state MJ law.

The only real movement by the Federal courts towards breathing life back into a real limitation on the commerce power have been cases that I would characterize as attempts by the court to prevent the "Federalizing" of crimes normally prosecuted under state law. They are simply trying to keep their dockets manageable. Forcing the Federalization of drug crime prosecution would be a huge burden on the Federal courts.

MozoVote
10-16-2010, 09:17 PM
This is all such a nothingburger. You really think Obama will want to piss off the grab bag of electoral votes he would normally receive from CA in 2012? Puh-leeze.

Anti Federalist
10-16-2010, 09:39 PM
This is all such a nothingburger. You really think Obama will want to piss off the grab bag of electoral votes he would normally receive from CA in 2012? Puh-leeze.

What?

Are you saying the feds will sit on their hands and do nothing?

I think you may not understand who is really running the show here.

The feds will roll tanks into Kalifornia to enforce this.

MozoVote
10-16-2010, 09:45 PM
What?

Are you saying the feds will sit on their hands and do nothing?

I think you may not understand who is really running the show here.

The feds will roll tanks into Kalifornia to enforce this.

The Feds left New York alone when it repealed prohibition several years ahead of the rest of the country.

I think politics will trump legalese for the most part. The Feds may do a few raids to show they still have the power to enter the state and make trouble. There will be back channel discussions with the new governor. I think it's likely an accomodation could be reached... especially before the 2012 election heats up.