Holder: Prop 19 irrelevant

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

It looks to me that prop 19 will surely pass.

It looks to me that prop 19 will surely pass.

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

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

Ha! Its been a long time for me but it actually has my curiosity up. I would love to grow a big plant in my back yard. Not sure what I would do with it but I could probably figure something out. ;-)

I have yet to meet anyone out here against prop 19. FYI.

Thought this was interesting:

(CNN) -- Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told CNN Sunday she supports legalizing marijuana.
The trend-setting state of California is voting next month on a ballot initiative to legalize pot, also known as Proposition 19. The measure would legalize recreational use in the state, though federal officials have said they would continue to enforce drug laws in California if the initiative is approved.
"What I think is horrible about all of this, is that we criminalize young people. And we use so many of our excellent resources ... for things that aren't really causing any problems," said Elders. "It's not a toxic substance."


Former surgeon general calls for marijuana legalization - CNN.com

Thought this was interesting:

(CNN) -- Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told CNN Sunday she supports legalizing marijuana.
The trend-setting state of California is voting next month on a ballot initiative to legalize pot, also known as Proposition 19. The measure would legalize recreational use in the state, though federal officials have said they would continue to enforce drug laws in California if the initiative is approved.
"What I think is horrible about all of this, is that we criminalize young people. And we use so many of our excellent resources ... for things that aren't really causing any problems," said Elders. "It's not a toxic substance."


Former surgeon general calls for marijuana legalization - CNN.com

Oh lordy...

Thought this was interesting:

(CNN) -- Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told CNN Sunday she supports legalizing marijuana.
The trend-setting state of California is voting next month on a ballot initiative to legalize pot, also known as Proposition 19. The measure would legalize recreational use in the state, though federal officials have said they would continue to enforce drug laws in California if the initiative is approved.
"What I think is horrible about all of this, is that we criminalize young people. And we use so many of our excellent resources ... for things that aren't really causing any problems," said Elders. "It's not a toxic substance."

Former surgeon general calls for marijuana legalization - CNN.com

Marijuana and masturbation. She's a regular Captain Jack.

Speaking of..

Marijuana - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Speaking of..

Marijuana - The Big Picture - Boston.com

.

pictures #17 & 18 :(

He doesn't want federal immigration laws enforced, but he does want federal pot laws enforced? Am I hearing that right? How does he get to decide what he wants enforced?

The constitution is clear about the things not granted control by the feds goes to the states and people. Pot control isn't covered in the constitution is it?

I googled the women's marijuana movement. Interesting.... :scratch:

Crystal Guess | Women's Marijuana Movement

If states allow marijuana, but feds don't, Obama will create more fed drug jobs to enforce since local and state law enforcement cannot. My guess is that the local and state law enforcement makes more small busts than the feds, currently. Gotta grow those jobs don't we?

He doesn't want federal immigration laws enforced, but he does want federal pot laws enforced? Am I hearing that right? How does he get to decide what he wants enforced?

The constitution is clear about the things not granted control by the feds goes to the states and people. Pot control isn't covered in the constitution is it?

According the Supreme Court it is, but the rulings have been widely criticized. One of the most notable was Gonzales v. Raich:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate?and prohibit?such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be.

That's a lot of weed. :shock:

Mexican Authorities Seize 105 Tons of Marijuana

Thanks for posting that Supreme Court case, 30ashopper. It won't be long before they are regulating your backyard garden, based on that case. If you grow a vegetable garden, you eat less produce from Mexico, Chile and California, and that would affect the marketplace, right? Our government is so great at trying to get money that it steps on the true greatness of our government.

This is why I think Prop 19 will pass. I see all kinds of this literature everywhere. We also live in the most conservative town in Orange county(Huntington beach).

It seems that those that are against it out here have something to lose like they have a clinic or are already a grower.

Run into any of the house wives?

Run into any of the house wives?

Not yet... But, I don't really look for things like that. ;-)

This is why I think Prop 19 will pass. I see all kinds of this literature everywhere. We also live in the most conservative town in Orange county(Huntington beach).

It seems that those that are against it out here have something to lose like they have a clinic or are already a grower.

What are some of the reasons people are voting against it?

Recent polls seem to indicate the tide is turning -

Proposition 19, a ballot initiative in California that would give local authorities the ability to legalize and tax marijuana for personal consumption, appears to have lost ground in the polls.

Is Proposition 19 Going Up in Smoke? - NYTimes.com