.
Last edited:
Feds reply to Cali Prop 19
- Thread starter Grendelkhan
- Start date
No, not at all-- It is about the US Government, thinking they can go throughout the World...pushing their weight around to get other Countries to "Think and Act" like we want them to--
Now they are doing it more and more within our Borders...they are out of control...corrupt...and the General Public is finally starting to recognize this fact--
Do I think Cali is going to succeed?? lol..no, not at all-- But is the US Gov anymore immune to a Revolution than any of the many Countries that are doing it all the time?? Well...we will just have to wait and see--
But no...this is not all just about "Weed"-- Weed is just one of the ways that it is becoming apparent for all to see...just how little the Constitution means today, and the depths of the corruption on every level of Government and Law Enforcement--
Fuck I was only kidding....I'm amazed any of you took that seriously.
Haha..I knew you were...but DD wasn't-- Yeah, that ain't going to happen-- But, a Revolution on a Nationwide level...I can see that happening...not over all this, but because I don't think the Gov is going to be able to keep corruption in check...and when corruption encompasses the whole of the Government...History shows that Revolution is not far behind--
Ehhhh...what else would ya expect from crankypoodle?
lol....
I am up for the night...on Security status out here-- Drinking a bit...smoking my ass off!! I think finger hash makes me think too much--
I am up for the night...on Security status out here-- Drinking a bit...smoking my ass off!! I think finger hash makes me think too much--
Me too kmk. Pizzel in one hand. AR-15 in the other. Only kidding. Pizzel is on the table. It's too hot to hold.
Hahaha...I thought I knew what you meant by Pizzel...but then I looked it up, and maybe I was wrong!! 
It doesn't matter if you are for prop 19 or against it the real issue is where the hell are we living? Certainly not in a democracy anymore. The issue here is that when we go to the ballot box and cast our vote does it even matter when the feds can override our vote? They might not be cutting off our dyed digits for voting but its outright intimidation like nazi's or the taliban. That my friends is scary! Does our voice matter even when its clearly heard?? Does our vote count for anything?
That's the case that will need to be made if Feds come in. then again all the anti-mj people won't see it that way and will just think "good, fuck California and those welfare loving pussy liberal dopeheads."
The US is not, and was never a democracy.
Our votes usually count, just depends on the situation. For props, and prop19, they will count. But as you said the Fed will try and turn it over. Its unconstitutional of them to do so. Doesn't mean they wont try. They threatened with the same thing at the end of alcohol prohibition. Look at what they are doing to Arizona. US citizens are being murdered on US soil, ranchers are having their homes burnt, drug cartels sneaking by trafficing drugs and women in the middle of the night. What does Obama do? Has the justice department file a lawsuit against Arizona, instead of upholding Arizonas law and upholding THEIR OWN federal obligations. The fed has failed severely, and it needs to be readjusted, severely. It will happen.
Hahaha...I thought I knew what you meant by Pizzel...but then I looked it up, and maybe I was wrong!!
LOL a cow penis or a meth pipe? I was thinking pizza but if BHT likes cow penis, be my guest
I think that it depends on their response to 19, if it is passed and they really start cracking down I think we will see DEA cars getting burned and property destroyed, agents harassed, their families harassed, their homes vandalized, personal property destroyed... In short.... it could get very very ugly. Ironically a fairly left leaning group of the population may be seeing the return to constitutional rights based conservativism.
I would love to see some push back against these pigs. I hope ABx9 (or whatever) that makes it ILLEGAL for CA cops to work with the DEA or others to enforce federal laws that conflict with CA19, gets signed into law.
It would make me very happy if after every federal raid the people of CA destroyed 10x as much FEDERAL property and equipment as the PIGS confiscate from law abiding Californians.
Maybe then we'd have a cool Molotov cocktail photo thread
♥Mo♥
Member
I would love to see some push back against these pigs. I hope ABx9 (or whatever) that makes it ILLEGAL for CA cops to work with the DEA or others to enforce federal laws that conflict with CA19, gets signed into law.
It would make me very happy if after every federal raid the people of CA destroyed 10x as much FEDERAL property and equipment as the PIGS confiscate from law abiding Californians.
Maybe then we'd have a cool Molotov cocktail photo thread
I too would like to see civil resistance to the feds if 19 passes. Although I don't condone violence once 19 becomes law I am all in favor of protecting my property by any means necessary. I can see many lawsuits against the feds once 19 passes. I'm guessing that is the reason for abx6-9, to curtail at least a few lawsuits.
I
In~Plain~Site
I think you guys are all missing the point here:
Federal law trumps state...period, and they've already reversed(if it was ever really true) their position on the issue.
If you don't believe me, just have a look at what they did in Arizona, with resources pushed to the max...supposedly.
They will create jobs, expand budgets and whatever else THEY deem necessary to do "what's good for us", on on OUR dime.
Fuck them
Federal law trumps state...period, and they've already reversed(if it was ever really true) their position on the issue.
If you don't believe me, just have a look at what they did in Arizona, with resources pushed to the max...supposedly.
They will create jobs, expand budgets and whatever else THEY deem necessary to do "what's good for us", on on OUR dime.
Fuck them
I think you guys are all missing the point here:
Federal law trumps state...period, and they've already reversed(if it was ever really true) their position on the issue.
Fuck them
Thats not true.
I suggest you read the 10th amendment. They may try little tricks to exert their power here and there, but its not legal.
And what position did they reverse? I've heard the Obama admin say they will defer medical MJ cases to state authorities as long as it falls under state law. Holder said nothing of medical use, just recreational use.
I agree with the bolded red
LA Times said:
He knows he has to enforce State law..all this talk is just pre-vote fear mongering bullshit. So he says he would go out of the way to bust a person with a 5x5...well a State Judge will toss it out and soon Baca will be sent a directive from the courts. Oh and they will have to pay for the plants and any equipment they took or damaged just like Medical.
I agree, when all is said and done, he will back down. What do people expect someone with his previous/current mindset/behavoir towards medical/recreational cannabis use.
Oh ok, its only been state law for 14 years, but now its another state law so I'll follow it this time even though it still "conflicts with federal law". Of course he isn't going to say that. He is going to beat it to hell as best he can and threaten people. But, unless he is really really stupid, he wont touch a garden; unless its over 25sqft. But how will he know (unless there is a fire, criminal break in, you know, the current ways.)
Just fear mongering.
Here is the full article...19 is Golden baby!
HOLDER VOWS FIGHT OVER PROP. 19
U.S. Will Enforce Drug Laws Even If State Measure Passes, Attorney General Says.
Stepping up the Obama administration's opposition to Proposition 19, the nation's top law enforcement official promised to "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws against Californians who grow or sell marijuana for recreational use even if voters pass the legalization measure.
U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder's response to the initiative comes as the administration has been under pressure to campaign against it more forcefully. Last week, Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, chided the Obama administration for not doing enough to defeat it. And last month, nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration publicly urged Holder to speak out.
In a letter sent Wednesday to the former DEA administrators, Holder wrote, "Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens."
Holder's letter underscores that a period of turmoil, pitting the federal government against pot legalization backers, will ensue if voters approve Proposition 19. After California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 the DEA launched numerous raids against dispensaries and growers.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.
"He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue," Baca said. "You can't make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival."
Proponents of the measure on the Nov. 2 ballot assailed the attorney general's one-page letter, denouncing his intention to disregard the will of California voters and his defense of a failed war on drugs. "We're not necessarily surprised that the establishment is coming down on the side of the status quo," said Dale Sky Jones, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 19 campaign.
The initiative would allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them. Several cities, including Oakland, appear to be poised to do so if the law passes. Polls have consistently shown that about half of the state's electorate favors legalizing marijuana.
"It takes the smoke right out of their hookah," said Robert Salazar, a spokesman for the No on 19 campaign. He noted that Californians could not count on seeing any of the promised tax revenues if the federal government arrests anyone who engages in commercial pot sales.
In an Aug. 24 letter and a Sept. 13 news conference in Washington, the former DEA chiefs asked Holder to make it clear that the initiative would be preempted by federal law and would put the United States in violation of international drug treaties, warning about "the unfortunate message that this silence conveys." Holder, responding two months later, did not mention either issue.
Instead, he noted that prosecutions under the federal Controlled Substances Act remain a "core priority" and wrote, "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." He did not say how he intends to do that, but said the department "is considering all available legal and policy options."
Baca, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and the other law enforcement officials insisted the initiative is unconstitutional because it conflicts with federal law. Baca also said he would not uphold the measure, if it passes, and would arrest anyone with a 25-square-foot plot.
Alex Kreit, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and an initiative supporter, said Baca would be arresting people for acts that are no longer illegal under state law. "If he does that, he's inviting lawsuits left and right for unlawful arrest," he said.
Cooley predicted that the federal government would sue and a court would issue an injunction. "He didn't quite come out and say, 'We're going to sue you, California,' but it was close enough," said Cooley, who is also the Republican candidate for attorney general.
The initiative's proponents, reading a different implication between the lines, said Holder's decision not to mention a lawsuit suggests the department has concluded it has no grounds to challenge the law. Department lawyers have been meeting to discuss the issue. "It's almost as if they acquiesced that they're not going to challenge Prop. 19," said Jeff Jones, a co-sponsor of Proposition 19 whose Oakland cannabis club closed after the federal government sued.
Robert Raich, a lawyer who has handled two medical marijuana cases that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and supports Proposition 19, said the initiative does not violate federal law because it changes only state law, not federal law. "Simply because California and the federal government choose to punish an act differently does not mean they have a conflict," he said. He said it is no different than the state's medical marijuana laws, which have been upheld in court.
But he said DEA agents could still enforce federal drug laws. "If the federal government wanted to waste its limited resources trying to prosecute some marijuana facility in Oakland, then nothing would stop them from doing that," he said.
The measure's proponents noted that Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law, drew a similar federal reaction. "This is 1996 all over again," said Stephen Gutwillig, the state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. But he noted that, besides California, 13 states and the District of Columbia now allow medical marijuana. "All that happened without a single change in federal law."
Gutwillig criticized the Obama administration for continuing a costly war on drugs that has failed. But Peter Bensinger, who headed the DEA between 1976 and 1981 and was at the news conference, described it as a success because drug use is substantially lower now than at its peak in 1978.
President Obama has said he opposes legalizing marijuana, but last year his administration ended prosecutions of medical marijuana collectives and patients that abide by state laws, in effect choosing to ignore activities that violate the Controlled Substances Act.
Until Holder released his letter Friday, the Obama administration's fight against the initiative was largely being carried out by the drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske. The White House press office, calling it a "sensitive issue," referred questions on the president's role to the Justice Department, which did not respond to a request for information or for an interview with Holder.
