Holder: Prop 19 irrelevant

[30ashopper]

"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.

washingtonpost.com

I thought the Obama administration was committed to respecting state laws on this matter?

 

[wrobert]

I thought it was just me, but it seems that the message coming out of the Obama administration is confusing at best. I was happy to see that he promised DADT would be eliminated by the time his term ends in two years.

 

[LuciferSam]

It never made sense to me that federal law prohibits the use of a substance yet the feds have always left it up to the states to decide on penalties, what amount constitutes a felony etc.. Do the feds have their own guidelines if they decide they want to storm in and start busting people for possession of a joint? Would the feds actually hold criminal trials and decide on sentencing? I know it sounds absurd. What I'm getting at is it seems the feds keep their nose out of this as long as the states continue to consider possession to be a crime. They don't seem to be too concerned about penalities imposed by the states. It seems to me that the states could very easily consider possession to be a criminal offense but at the same time impose no penalties whatsoever and ensure that this so-called "crime" does not result in a criminal record. That would seem to be enough to keep the fed's noses out of all this, at least I think.

 

[30ashopper]

It never made sense to me that federal law prohibits the use of a substance yet the feds have always left it up to the states to decide on penalties, what amount constitutes a felony etc.. Do the feds have their own guidelines if they decide they want to storm in and start busting people for possession of a joint? Would the feds actually hold criminal trials and decide on sentencing? I know it sounds absurd. What I'm getting at is it seems the feds keep their nose out of this as long as the states continue to consider possession to be a crime. They don't seem to be too concerned about penalities imposed by the states. It seems to me that the states could very easily consider possession to be a criminal offense but at the same time impose no penalties whatsoever and ensure that this so-called "crime" does not result in a criminal record. That would seem to be enough to keep the fed's noses out of all this, at least I think.

What frustrates me: the few commitments Obama made in his campaign I agreed with turned out to be hollow promises in his presidency. I guess maybe I'm in the same club as the liberals on this.

 

[LuciferSam]

What frustrates me: the few commitments Obama made in his campaign I agreed with turned out to be hollow promises in his presidency. I guess maybe I'm in the same club as the liberals on this.

I think there are issues of law that supersede anything that the executive branch can do. Why hasn't the US supreme court ever gotten involved in drug cases?

US drug law makes very little sense. It looks to me like the feds want to be involved but they expect all the leg work to be done at the state level. Of course if the state doesn't handle things to their satisfaction, it gives the feds an opportunity to do some work and get some revenue. It looks to mee like a road to hell without good intentions.

 

[sunspotbaby]

The government doesn't want you to use YOUR drugs. The government wants you to use THEIR drugs. ~ Chris Rock :roll:

 

[Matt J]

The government doesn't want you to use YOUR drugs. The government wants you to use THEIR drugs. ~ Chris Rock :roll:

It's not even that, it's simply that the government is owned (regardless of political affiliation) by corporations that make money off of getting you high. Whether that be direct alcohol and tobacco, or not so direct like drug companies. No corporation wants you to be able to grow your pain killer for free in your backyard.

 

[futurebeachbum]

It's not even that, it's simply that the government is owned (regardless of political affiliation) by corporations that make money off of getting you high. Whether that be direct alcohol and tobacco, or not so direct like drug companies. No corporation wants you to be able to grow your pain killer for free in your backyard.

Its been amazing how consistently all administrations (both Dem and Rep) have been on keeping drugs illegal and prosecuting the 'war on drugs'. There has to be serious money behind that level of irrational consistency.

Who's to say that the Drug Cartels haven't also invested seriously in shares of the politicians. After all, the last thing they want is legalized and taxed drugs. What's a few tens of millions invested in the right politicos compared to losing a multibillion dollar business?

 

[Bobby J]

It looks to me that prop 19 will surely pass.

 

[sunspotbaby]

It looks to me that prop 19 will surely pass.

Send us some pics of that legal Cali stuff BobbyJ You know just if you happen to see any.