Obama votes NO on prop 19

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/15/MNJS1FTFKC.DTL


Obama administration blasts state's pot measure


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle October 15, 2010 06:23 PM Copyright San Francisco Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, October 15, 2010



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/15/MNJS1FTFKC.DTL#ixzz12V7vXZta





(10-15) 18:23 PDT WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has denounced Proposition 19, which would legalize personal use of marijuana in California, and promises to "vigorously enforce" the federal ban on possessing, growing or selling the drug if voters approve the ballot measure Nov. 2.
The pledge came Thursday from Attorney General Eric Holder, who oversees the government's anti-narcotics operations. Prop. 19 would "greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our nation," he said in a letter to former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Holder announced in February 2009 that the administration would not single out medical marijuana users and suppliers who complied with laws in states such as California, where voters legalized pot for therapeutic purposes in 1996.
The administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, by contrast, moved aggressively to shut down medical marijuana collectives and raid growers, and won two U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding their authority.
But the Obama administration has been less receptive to the prospect of a state repealing all criminal penalties for marijuana use by adults.
'Ill-considered scheme'

Gil Kerlikowske, director of President Obama's Office of National Drug Control Policy, co-wrote a newspaper column in August calling Prop. 19 an "ill-considered scheme" that would increase marijuana use and add to health problems and traffic deaths, without delivering the tax revenue that its backers promise.
Holder said Thursday that California, by restricting the authority of state and local officers to seize marijuana, would interfere with efforts to "target drug traffickers who frequently distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other controlled substances."
"We will vigorously enforce the (federal law) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," the attorney general said.
Hints at lawsuit

He also suggested the federal government might sue to overturn Prop. 19 if it passed, saying the Justice Department "is considering all available legal and policy options."
Obama was more restrained when asked about marijuana enforcement Thursday at a town hall meeting at Howard University in Washington.
The president said the government's resources are limited and suggested that decisions would have to be made between "prosecuting drug kingpins versus somebody with some small amount in terms of possession."
Obama said federal authorities would make that call "based on how we can best enforce the laws that are on the books."
Backers angry

His administration's emphatic opposition to Prop. 19 drew strong reactions from the ballot measure's supporters.
In a statement released by the Yes on 19 campaign, Joseph McNamara, former San Jose police chief, said:
"If the federal government wants to keep fighting the nation's failed 'war on marijuana' while we're in the midst of a sagging economic recovery and two wars, it just proves that the establishment politicians' priorities are wrongly focused on maintaining the status quo."
Any federal crackdown will be just as futile as the government's attempt to stamp out medical marijuana after Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996, said Dale Gieringer, state director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Despite numerous raids and arrests, he said, "the federal government showed itself incapable of halting the spread of medical marijuana, which is now legally recognized in 14 states and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of legal patients."
Gieringer added, "The federal government similarly lacks the manpower and resources to pursue California's 3 million marijuana users."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/15/MNJS1FTFKC.DTL#ixzz12V7qG0Ul
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
people WILL be arrested under prop 19.

:fire:
people will be arrested without prop 19 as well.

been tossing this around in the old noggin for the day. first thing that i came to realize is that this is an empty threat. they promised to do the same after 215 passed. i wonder, were you there leading the charge and saying 'vote no, people WILL be arrested under prop 215'?

Any federal crackdown will be just as futile as the government's attempt to stamp out medical marijuana after Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996, said Dale Gieringer, state director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Despite numerous raids and arrests, he said, "the federal government showed itself incapable of halting the spread of medical marijuana, which is now legally recognized in 14 states and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of legal patients."
do you really think that with several million more cannabis users to patrol they wil have any chance at success? clinton and dubya tried and failed to monitor far fewer users.

furthermore, obama hints at how he is not interested in prosecuting the small fish, but rather the big fish...

The president said the government's resources are limited and suggested that decisions would have to be made between "prosecuting drug kingpins versus somebody with some small amount in terms of possession."
Obama said federal authorities would make that call "based on how we can best enforce the laws that are on the books."
in other words, they ain't looking for the stoner in apartment 4a supplying himself out of a 25 sq ft space in compliance with state law.

like you said, people will be arrested under prop 19, but they would be arrested just the same without prop 19.

[SARCASM]but you're right, it is probably a good idea to vote against expanding our personal freedoms and ending prohibition, because god forbid the drug kingpin gets arrested[/SARCASM]
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
i don't think i said anything about which way i was voting. you are starting your own argument. i'm just reporting facts.

i see everyone else is simply IGNORING this story.


bongsmilie
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i don't think i said anything about which way i was voting.
so was the "is voting no" under your user name part of a fantastical pot related hallucination i had for months at a time?

i don't want an argument, i am simply pointing out facts. maybe throwing a little jab your way. but if you diss it out, you better take it as well (<----that's what she said?)
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
so was the "is voting no" under your user name part of a fantastical pot related hallucination i had for months at a time?

i don't want an argument, i am simply pointing out facts. maybe throwing a little jab your way. but if you diss it out, you better take it as well (<----that's what she said?)
where are you seeing that? :?

i started this thread about Obama, not me. if you have nothing to say on the subject and only seek to attack me then i will simply delete your posts. :)
 

Dirty Harry

Well-Known Member
Possibly a setting of a new civil war. A lot of people are not happy with the fed govt. I know this will never happen, but it is possible due to state law...
A state Governor can call out it's national guard to protect the state. Cali passes prop 19, Feds go bat shit insane. National Guard called to protect the state and state laws. Other medical states see the injustice from the feds and decide to protect their own selves...
Yea, I know damn near improbable, but when the people feel oppressed by the govt. via economy, drug laws, or both combined...Well, wasn't this country formed from a group of people who told a past government to, "Fuck off?"...?
 

FuZZyBUDz

Well-Known Member
naw just a couple pennies to the pot. but i sure hope its just for a rize. but theres a couple threads about this type of subject right now, they will figure some way out to hault it, or just screw with the vote of the legalization, H&S, Obama, wats next? another Bush move, RE-COUNT!


Guess it wanst just for a rize.
 

fitch303

Well-Known Member
It's good to see that people from both sides of the isle are now realizing how intrusive the feds are becoming. It's like hey, let the fucking people decide it for themselves.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
just another battle in the war on states' rights and the liberties of the individual. arizona cannot enforce the federal immigration laws, but california must enforce federal prohibition laws. more hypocrisy from a bloated federal bureaucracy.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
just another battle in the war on states' rights and the liberties of the individual. arizona cannot enforce the federal immigration laws, but california must enforce federal prohibition laws. more hypocrisy from a bloated federal bureaucracy.

^^ this right here. :clap:
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
just another battle in the war on states' rights and the liberties of the individual. arizona cannot enforce the federal immigration laws, but california must enforce federal prohibition laws. more hypocrisy from a bloated federal bureaucracy.
not exactly. you can compel local leo's to not do something, but you can't compel them to do something.

Experts say the two situations are not the same.

If Arizona wants to crack down on illegal immigration more strictly than the federal government, the U.S. can act to prevent police in the state from enforcing the law, said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who studies the conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws.


If California prevents police from enforcing the stricter federal ban on marijuana, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to act, he said.


It "is a very tough-sounding statement that the attorney general has issued, but it's more bark than bite," Mikos said.


"The same factors that limited the federal government's influence over medical marijuana would probably have an even bigger influence over its impact on recreational marijuana," Mikos said, citing not enough agents to focus on small-time violators.


Federal drug agents have long concentrated on big-time drug traffickers and left street-level dealers and users to local and state law enforcement. As police departments began enforcing California's medical marijuana law, the DEA only sporadically jumped in to bust medical users and sellers that local law enforcement was no longer targeting.


Allen Hopper, a drug law reform expert at the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California, predicted that federal agents would selectively crack down on marijuana growers and merchants instead of going after every Californian who uses pot.


"They don't have the resources to flood the state with DEA agents to be drug cops," he said.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
^^ this right here. :clap:
agreed. How well is that going to play in TX, AZ, San Diego, etc? They are begging the feds to help protect the boarder from the drug cartels and Obama is going to tell them all to fuck off so he can go round up US citizens for growing bud instead.
 
The federal government has lost sight of why it exist. Government is suppose to serve the people! We are not suppose to serve the government! More than 50% of the citizens in 14 states have said YES to medical marijuana and the federal government sees it as an assault upon its authority. Well where the hell do they get that authority if not from you and I? It's about time our elected officials got their head out of their ass and started listening to the people who put them there! Just my opinion of course ----- LTT -----
 
Top