Drug czar: Calif. pot law could spark court action

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press


Federal officials haven't ruled out taking legal action if California voters approve a ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana use in the state, President Barack Obama's drug czar said Wednesday.

In a phone interview with The Associated Press, Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske said Justice Department officials are "looking at all their options" for responding to the measure, which would conflict with federal laws classifying marijuana as an illegal drug.

Among them, he said, is following the recommendation nine of the nation's former Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs made last month in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder: having Obama sue to overturn Proposition 19 as an affront to federal authority.

... Holder told the former DEA heads last week that that the U.S. government plans to "vigorously enforce" federal laws outlawing marijuana possession and distribution even if the activities are allowed under state law. But the attorney general did not respond directly to their suggestion that the administration should go to court if California passes the first-of-its-kind measure aimed at treating marijuana the same as alcohol.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/10/20/national/a084551D99.DTL&tsp=1

[golddigger]

1. With this and DADT he is starting to lose me

and my family members.

[pattmarty]

19. He LOST me about six months ago.

[ProudDad]

38. He lost me when he tried to justify war

while picking up the Nobel Peace Prize...

Fuckin' schmuck...

[asdjrocky]

2. Bye now.

Have a nice election.

[defendandprotect]

3. ... but prosecuting TORTURERS is out of their domain .... ????

Let's keep attacking the little folks - especially the ill among us !!!

Wow -- this is disgusting!!

[RZM]

4. What would the administration have to gain by doing this?

I don't get it. Maybe as a means of asserting federal power, but I'm confused because politicking usually lies beneath the surface in most presidential decisions. The pot controversy isn't like abortion or gay rights, where people are incredibly passionate on opposing sides. It's just weed, folks. I would venture to say that even many people who don't approve of legalizing it aren't particularly passionate about it. My guess is that this is bluster and they wouldn't do a whole lot if Prop 19 passes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. Pandering to the same people who hate them no matter what?

:shrug:

[RZM]

7. Who knows?

The Dem establishment in California is against Prop 19 and the Obama administration IS the Dem establishment so they back their people no matter what. Perhaps it's that.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

10. Good point, but in a broader sense the party establishment as a whole is pandering to fanatics and

puritans whose ideas are as outdated as the megaphone player.

[RZM]

13. Could be

But I wonder if they are really pandering. I think a lot of them generally believe it. Establishment politicos often tend to be go-getter business and legal types who take a dim view of recreational drug use (despite often doing it themselves in their youth). I've never quite understood parents who ran wild as teenagers and then get righteous in their 40s-50s and pretend their own pasts didn't happen. I think what we see with the political establishment is that phenomenon writ large.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

16. There's some of that I'm sure. On the other hand politicians are notorious for pushing shit

they don't believe in because they think that it'll hurt them politically. After all one of the largest voting constituencies is senior citizens.Not to mention that there's a powerful anti hemp lobby.

[librechik]

21. Republican votes? The ghost votes they thought they'd get by selling out to the corps?

Ha ha haa.....

[SteveM]

31. What would they have to gain? The same thing by supporting...

gun-control/prohibition: Nothing. But AG Holder still wants both kinds (and I don't mean the buds, either).

[pscot]

5. The war on drugs is an affront

to intelligence and common sense.

[RZM]

9. I say lefties and right libertarians put aside their differences for 11 seconds

and come together to aggressively push reform of our drug laws. Then, once that's over, everybody can get back to hating each other :)

[ProudDad]

40. I've been doing this for years

Some of my best friends are "libertarians" and we work together to end prohibition...

I find that except for their blind spots concerning capitalism and the mythical "free market", we have more in common with one another than not.

[Bragi]

20. Sadly, that's what makes it politically appealing /nt

[Vincardog]

8. Where in the constitution does it give the Fed the right to overrule the States on Herbs?

[SteveM]

33. You may find this site useful in explaining how the Feds got that "right..."

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Drugs_and_Narcotics

Most of the laws at the federal level are a 20th Century phenomenon founded in large measure on what once was the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Harrison Act, and the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Pretty thin gruel upon which to build a powerful, often corrupt law enforcement empire, but there it is.

BTW, I support complete legalization and regulation of all drugs. However, I am not at all sympathetic that these laws/regulations came about because of some half-assed economic determinism: The history of drug laws is saturated by racist/cultural hatred and the political hay which can be made from such. In the late 1800s, it was the "Chinese Hordes" using opium (we didn't "need" 'em anymore after the railroads were built), in the early 1900s, it was the "Cocaine-crazed Negro brain," as befitting the rise in racism and lynchings; in the 1930s it was "Knife-wielding Mexicans;" and in the 1970s, it was the "counter-culture values of the anti-war types." Far-right GOPers made vast gains by using these culture war techniques, esp. Newt Ginghrich and his cronies during the early 1990s.

This war far, far more "profitable" to the far-right than some newspaper tycoon worried about hemp substituting for paper, or what some mysterious cabal was getting from some pay-offs.

[AngryAmish]

11. If they can do it to Arizona....

[ProudDad]

39. There's a significant difference between Prop 19

and what the bat-shit crazy republicans are doing here in Arizona...

In California, they are trying to RESTORE RIGHTS...

In fucked up Arizona they're doing everything they can to LIMIT RIGHTS...

Substantive difference...

[AngryAmish]

44. It is a preemption-based argument

Restore rights? There is no right to smoke dope, despite your expert use of all caps. I think Prop 19 should pass and should be the law of the land. But we have unleashed the hounds with this preemption argument and we will not like it when the Rethugs ever get in power again.

[ProudDad]

45. But aren't the republicans "Strict Constitutionalist"?

Back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, all drugs were legal, as was abortion.

Won't the tea-baggers just restore the country to its "roots"? :sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

47. Seriously, I moved here to Arizona from California

It's like night and day...

Even most of the "good people" here are severely self-censored and paranoid within the miasma of fascism that permeates this state.

It's fucking Kafka-land here...scary beyond belief...

[slackmaster]

12. LOL!

Train wreck a-comin!

[frylock]

46. mmmmmmmmmm.... trainwreck

[unblock]

14. i don't see a conflict or need for the federal gov't to sue. the feds can still enforce federal law

california can remove any state laws it wants without impacting federal law.
the federal government can always enforce federal law within each state (provided the federal law is constitutional, of course).

in short, california saying it's no longer against state law to possess a small amount of marijuana does not make possessing a small amount of marijuana under federal law. all it does is possibly change which law you would get prosecuted under.

[slackmaster]

18. Interesting point, but 19 would authorize local .govs within CA to regulate and tax cannabis

That is in direct conflict with federal law; although removing state restrictions against cultivation, possession, use, etc. would not create such a conflict.

[pattmarty]

22. The Feds would have to police it too. They don't have the "troops" or......

.......the resources anymore to cover the whole state of Calif to stop it. If they don't get "locals" help, they are fucked as far as trying to contain it. Remember with prohibition that some states passed laws legalizing booze before the Feds repealed it. I don't see how they can enforce w/o local police Dept's help.

[slackmaster]

24. The Chief of the Los Angeles PD has stated he would instruct his officers to cooperate with feds

The train wreck is going to be major.

[herbm]

27. Oh yeah, great idea, clog Federal Courts with California potheads. Sounds like a plan. YUK YUK YUK!

[ProudDad]

42. And that dildo will be removed so fast by the L.A. City Council! (n/t)

[droidamus2]

25. Just remember

I grew up in Humboldt County the prime pot growing area in California. In the early 1970's when growing higher and higher quality pot really took off the Federal Government came in and said they wanted to start a program called 'The Campaign Against Marijuana Plantations (or was it Planting)' or CAMP. The Board of Supervisors turned down the money that would have been necessary to implement CAMP not wanting a bunch of Feds running around in the hills harassing people. The government's reaction was to declare that if they didn't accept the money and allow federal agencies to run the show that they would deny Humboldt County all federal highway money slated for projects in the county. I would bet that is the approach they would take. Not come in and try to bust 'pot stores' or 'pot farms' or individual users but to threaten California as a whole with removal of all Federal support until they changed the law.

[unblock]

30. correct, threatening to withhold highway funds has been the fed's yoke around the states' necks

[unblock]

29. local & state police have always enforced federal laws as well as state laws

they don't call the fbi to make an arrest for a federal hate crime, for instance.
they arrest first and then turn them over to the "proper authorities".

[ProudDad]

41. Exactly! The "troops" are all running around like Keystone Kops

here at the border between Mexico and Arizona...

Trying to find those last few Mexican immigrants who haven't got the word yet that their economy is probably in better shape than the USAmerikan Ponzi scheme, house of cards joke we call an "economy"!

[PJPhreak]

15. Dear Eric Holder,

You can kiss my "I wanna a sack of Legal Weed" Hippie Ass!

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

17. ibid.

[SteveM]

34. He can also...

sniff my pot-smoking, gun-toting butt.

[droidamus2]

23. They better think twice

This is a dangerous area for the Obama administration to get into for a couple of reasons. First, the obvious that this kind of high handed 'our way or no way' approach will definitely even more alienate the left wing of the Democratic Party. Second, if they were to challenge this law and lose, not likely but always a possibility, then Federal control over illegal drugs as a whole may be endangered. Do they really want to take the chance that the DEA would become useless (okay they are sort of useless now) and control over the legality and illegality of drugs would revert to the states. I think these statements are mostly an attempt to effect the vote in California and they would think twice about actually going through with it. Another thing to think about Obama absolutely has to have California to win a second term. If he pisses of the voters in California by sending the Federal government after people operating legally under California law he could very easily lose California. Think about it you would have the people that voted for Prop 19 pissed because their desires are being ignored by Obama and the people that voted against it (probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway) would resent the governments intrusion into a state electorate supported decision. Tread softly Obama because the job you lose may be yours.

[herbm]

26. Wonder how the Tea Bagged feel about this threat of Federal intervention into state's rights?

[GreenTea]

28. They are trying to scare away the "YES" voters making it seem like what's the use

of voting when the federal government will probably get it over-turned - VOTE ANYWAY!

There are also many other candidates and issues that need our progressive Democratic voices & votes.

[EFerrari]

53. Yep, exactly.

I don't think I've ever seen such destructive messaging ahead of an election.

[mike_c]

32. watch how fast california rejects Obama in 2012....

What a stupid trial balloon, if that's what this is.

[musiclawyer]

35. Oh yeah

If the Feds even lift a finger to stop the will of the people after Prop 19 passes, POTUS puts cobalt blue CA in play in 2012. I know POTUS chose crap advisers, but following such advice would border on the insane. POTUS would thus not deserve a second term and will get primaried. I really dont think POTUS is crazy. So I call BS when I smell it.

[ArcticFox]

36. Just one more reason to vote "yes"

I'd love to see this court action.

Haven't the feds already lost the "Schedule 1" battle when they've tacitly admitted the medical value of marijuana?

According to 21 United States Code Sec. 812, "a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision."

Now, I've never thought marijuana fit any of those requirements. However, I believe there are now something like 24 states that explicitly recognize and accept its medical use in treatment.

Can't wait to see the United States try to come down on California.

(edited to add close parens)

[ProudDad]

37. I can't wait for the shootouts

between the DEA and the California State Police!

More candidates for the Darwin award...


Isn't it an amazing irony that a half-black pResident and a black Attorney General are defending racist laws?

"When marijuana was popularized in the 20s and 30s in the American jazz scene, Blacks and Whites sat down as equals and smoked together. The racist anti-marijuana propaganda of the time used this crumbling of racial barriers as an example of the degradation caused by marijuana. Harry Anslinger, head of the newly formed federal narcotics division, warned middle-class leaders about Blacks and Whites dancing together in "teahouses," using blatant prejudice to sell prohibition.(7) In 1931 New Orleans officials attributed many of the region's crimes to marijuana, which they believed was also a dangerous sexual stimulant.

"During the Great Depression, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into law, again using racism as its chief selling point. The same Mexicans who were vying with out of work Americans for the few agricultural jobs available, it was said, engaged in marijuana induced violence against Americans."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-gutwillig7-2009sep07,0,1308672.story

[ProudDad]

43. Isn't it an amazing irony that a half-black pResident and a black Attorney General are defending rac

"When marijuana was popularized in the 20s and 30s in the American jazz scene, Blacks and Whites sat down as equals and smoked together. The racist anti-marijuana propaganda of the time used this crumbling of racial barriers as an example of the degradation caused by marijuana. Harry Anslinger, head of the newly formed federal narcotics division, warned middle-class leaders about Blacks and Whites dancing together in "teahouses," using blatant prejudice to sell prohibition.(7) In 1931 New Orleans officials attributed many of the region's crimes to marijuana, which they believed was also a dangerous sexual stimulant.

"During the Great Depression, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into law, again using racism as its chief selling point. The same Mexicans who were vying with out of work Americans for the few agricultural jobs available, it was said, engaged in marijuana induced violence against Americans."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-gutwillig7-2009sep07,0,1308672.story


(This one deserved to be "in the clear")...

[frylock]

48. keep up the good work, numbnuts..

are these idiots really so tone deaf as to believe that this won't have a negative effect on 2012?!

[Peace Patriot]

49. Eric Holder, as a private attorney, was Chiquita International's lawyer, who got Chiquita execs off

the hook after they ADMITTED hiring rightwing death squads who took care of their "labor problems" on Chiquita farms in Colombia. Hundreds of trade unionists were murdered. I have no respect for this hypocritical, corporate-run, scofflaw Attorney General. Chiquita can KILL people, but California voters cannot have a sane drug law!?

This is all about WAR PROFITEERING and it is about NOTHING ELSE. Big, privatized contracts for billions of dollars worth of guns, bullets, armored vehicles, helicopters, high tech surveillance, helmets, boots, nightsticks, tasers, pepper spray, tear gas, handcuffs, bombs, rockets, uniforms, water bottles, cop cars, tanks, prisons, prison buildings, prison food, prison medical care, prison guards, prison orange suits, shackles, courts, judges, prosecutors, lots of paper, more surveillance, and on and on and on and on, in the entire, disgraceful, anti-democratic, filthily corrupt "prison-industrial complex."

It has NOTHING TO DO with what's right, or what's sane, or what makes common sense, or what is humanitarian, or even what is cost effective. It is a war on PEOPLE by the RICH WAR PROFITEERS.

The U.S. is larding Colombia with $7 BILLION in military aid, using the excuse of the "war on drugs" with the Bushwhacks adding the excuse of the "war on terror" to arm Colombia's lawless military and its rich fascist elite against leftist guerrillas in a civil war that has been going on for SEVENTY years. According to Amnesty International, the Colombian military itself has committed HALF of the murders of trade unionists in Colombia, and its closely tied rightwing death squads have committed the other half. The Colombian military has also displaced 5 MILLION peasant farmers from their lands--the second worst human displacement crisis on earth--with state terror.

THIS is what is being done with huge portions of our "war on drugs" money--making a few people rich and making a whole lot of poor people DEAD. And that is not to mention the ruination of lives that occurs when people are imprisoned for 10, 20 years on minor drug charges. The human cost of the US "war on drugs" is MIND-BOGGLING.

Eric Holder got on the WRONG SIDE of this "war" when he arranged a handslap for Chiquita execs for MURDER, and made the lawsuit of the victims' families go away. And he has not changed.

And I really don't care what the politics of this are. It is WRONG. It is "Prohibition" on steroids. It is murderous. It is ruinous. It is an abomination. The US "war on drugs" is worse than the war on Iraq! FOUR DECADES OF IT! Millions of victims. Trillions of dollars in costs. It IS the "Forever War"--the wet dream of every war profiteer and every militarist and fascist among us--and every war profiteer, militarist and fascist in foreign lands where our U.S. war profiteers have gotten a boot in. And I haven't even begun to tell you of the DANGER of having the U.S. military ensconced in Colombia, as well as in Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica and the Caribbean. The US is turning Latin America into a war zone, and, believe me, this has done NOTHING to do with stopping drug traffic--because it wasn't meant to--and has everything to do with creating client states who will do our corporate rulers' and war profiteers' bidding--as Colombia has done with its killing of trade unionists.

This is MADNESS.

[Yavapai]

50. Why vote for democrats when you get Republican like representation anyway???

Eric Holder fights the Federal Judge's ruling on Don't ask don't tell.

Eric Holder is going to vigorously enforce federal marijuana laws even if California prop 19 passes.

Los Angeles (Democrat)County Sheriff Lee Baca says "he will vigorously enforce federal marijuana laws even if prop 19 pass with a vote of 100%."

Obama doesn't even consider Medicare for all (single payer), and we end up with an insurance industry welfare plan that we all will be forced to pay into with little real
benifits to us.

We put Clinton in and got that wonderful little gem called NAFTA. We now are struggling to survive all the job losses from an agreement that could NEVER have been
implemented by a republican President.

Please tell me again why we are voting democrat, it is getting really hard to remember...

[Poll_Blind]

51. Is Obama TRYING to piss away the California vote in 2012? WTF?

This is just bullshit.

PB

[maxsolomon]

52. Let's see what they say AFTER it passes.

right now, this sounds like politics. if Obama's Drug Czar DOESN'T campaign against legalization, it gives the GOP yet another club - the won't-someone-think-of-the-children club - to batter Obama with in 2012.

no politician is going to be out in front of this one. but once there's cover (in the form of a SCOTUS decision?), they'll have been for it all along.

[Kievan Rus]

54. War on Drugs = Prohibition 2.0

[Dawson Leery]

55. The DEA is garbage. They have done nothing to keep me safe.

Just a bunch of overpaid bimbos with oppressive authority.
The "War on Drugs" is nothing but prohibition. Recall how well that worked out the last time.