I've largely stayed out of the Obama flame wars here. Prop 19 may change that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

I'm from the liberal wing of the party. I haven't been happy with everything Obama has done, nor have I been altogether displeased with his administration thus far. He's gotten a lot done. He's irked me on several counts, but I'm aware that things are about 600x better than they were under dumbass43.

But I live in California, and my mail-in ballot is sitting at home. I'll fill the ballot out this weekend, marking Yes on Prop 19. I'm aware that Feinstein, Boxer, and Brown have all come out against Prop 19, and I consider it posturing just before an election (with the exception of Feinstein--it's not posturing on her part--she's just a bad person). And while I wish at least one of them had the guts to go with the MAJORITY of voters in this state, I can grudgingly understand that they're afraid of that old third rail.

But President Obama isn't up for reelection this year, and Eric Holder isn't subject to elections. Therefore, it's really galling to hear Holder say he'll crack down on the possession of marijuana in California if the citizens of the state opt to legalize it. Back up, Eric Holder. You just made a few million enemies you really didn't need. As a practical matter, Holder will need to deputize a few hundred thousand 'baggers if he expects anything approaching efficacy in the enforcement of his jack-booted pronouncement. As a political matter, President Obama will have me actively fighting against him. Sure, I'm a nobody, but I somehow feel like there are a great many kindred souls in this state who feel the same way I do about this. Reply with all the Palin-as-President scare tactics you want, I don't care. There's nothing in the world that will make me vote for this guy if he goes on some heavy-handed anti-California, anti-pot crusade. I want to think better of the President. I hope he'll reconsider.


(edited so as not to use the word 'largely' twice in the same post)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

2. Holder needs to go.

He steps on his dick everything he opens his mouth. You are not getting me to oppose Obama unless you got something better on offer.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. I'm not trying to get you to oppose Obama

You do what you need to do for whatever your own reasons are, and I'll do the same. I was trying to explain that this issue (especially given its straw-that-might-break-the-camel's-back position in line) presents a real problem for me. I'm not trying to recruit anyone for some movement or other, even if I do suspect such groups would be formed in the wake of draconian enforcement by DOJ.

[bemildred]

21. OK.

Just trying to share. I can see your point of view.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

24. all good....and thanks

I was mainly coming from a place where I'm trying to convey that I'm angry with Holder, and by extension, I'm angry with Obama, and that I hope they change their approach, because I still support the president and would like to keep doing so. Anyway, thanks for sending the note, and for seeing where I'm coming from.

[bemildred]

26. Well, I'm hoping Obama will stop being a chump.

But you never know until it happens. In any case, it seems clear that Palin or McCain or whatever Bozo they trot out for us next is not going to improve the situation. We got rid or Rahm, there is hope, scope for further improvement.

But yeah, Holder is a dick, a bad choice, he will have to be replaced, and he is full of shit too, the Feds do not have the wherewhithal to do more than annoy a few people when it comes to this issue, they have never made more than the smallest dent in pot production and consumption in all of the history of the "Drug War".

[awoke_in_2003]

89. very nice exchange...

two differing opinions, both expressed calmly. Rare thing these day here.

[Irishonly]

127. I See Your Point

I pitched a fit when Holder was appointed because of his stance on cannabis. I didn't have a temper tantrum but I never did buy the statements the DOJ made about leaving medical patients alone. I live in the IE which can be very red and prudish. I have watched dispensaries be closed with trumped up federal charges and patients being taken to jail for 72 hours. No charges were filed.

I talked to a cancer patient and cried when I was told about his medical cannabis being taken away and the lecture about using old school medication. The San Bernardino Sheriff has a marijuana eradication unit (they are very proud of it) which is federally funded. When the cops bust they charge federally. You cannot use a medical defense if you have federal charges. I have heard the blathering of idiots saying you can't make money from medical marijuana. When you hear the whole story you usually learn the large amount of money taken was money to pay rent, and business expenses. People hear what they want to about marijuana. They see money totals and assume patients are being ripped off. In some cases there may be jerks taking advantage of patients but I have never met any.

The federal government has continued to fund anti marijuana programs and enforcement while telling patients they were safe. It never did compute. I have always said all hell would break loose before November and we are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg.

I still support Obama even though I am really furious about the lack of progress in too many issues that are important to me. I have written enough emails about what has happened with civil rights for our gay brothers and sisters and the double speak about medical patients I have been kicked off the WH email list. I still voted for Democrats albeit voting with a heavy heart.

[FredStembottom]

140. I'm no marijuana legalizer

... the whole issue is just not on my radar.

But..... the subversion of democracy and the will of the people aspect of this is quite troubling.

Especially when nothing about marijuana use warrants the full roll-the-tanks-in response. To so casually dismiss several aspects of the Bill of Rights just to appear Conservo-manly on an issue is offensive as hell.

[ooglymoogly]

193. + 1...It is NOT about Maryjane.

It is; that our government could and did declare war on us; its own people over so ridiculous a pretext and keep it propped up with nothing but lies and propaganda. The deleterious effects on our democracy over this policy is the key to pug authoritarianism and its jackboot power over all of us.

[ooglymoogly]

191. The camels back broke long ago....I will not fight for him as

I once did...I will of course vote for him in the final election if he is the D on the ballot.

Not prosecuting war crimes, and trampling carelessly on the Constitution were the final straws for me; that which put us in the critical situation we now face; this state of no confidence; an ignorant tea-party congress and the last piece in the puzzle of completing the corporate takeover of our government; to then face complete fascism.

The gutless legislation who's worst will not be felt for years; the turning over of public schools to religious interests; continuing on the war path, plus too many to name; were just more mountains of straws lain on the broken back of our party, crippling it for the foreseeable future; and as this op proves, they just keep coming.

The argument that his way of pug light "governance" is the lesser of two evils is a sad and pusillanimous statement of the dilemma we face; but is the only thing we have as Progressives, to lay our battered heads.

If that is our only option; most all of us I believe will go to the polls and vote a straight Democratic ticket; then go home and take a bath, knowing full well that after the grandstanding; the hollow promises; that by the actions of this president, no real corrections have, or will be made to the worsening disasters facing us.

[atreides1]

6. And how will that happen?

Because you know that he won't get fired by his boss!

[bemildred]

22. Oh I expect he will eventually, they often do. nt

[TBF]

9. You know what, we've had this long list of assholes who need to go -

from Gibbs to Rahm to Duncan to Holder to "it's a lifestyle choice" lady Valerie ...

At some point here, folks, we gotta focus on who is in charge and why things are going the way they are.

[bemildred]

23. One down, a bunch more to go?

I'm just saying that I'm not voting for somebody worse than Obama, I don't see why that's controversial, I can deal with primary challenges if it comes to that, as long as they are to his left.

[TBF]

29. Well I wasn't referring to voting, but do what you have to. nt

[bemildred]

34. You too. nt

[Hekate]

92. What exactly are you referring to regarding "who's in charge"?

A primary challenge sure to split the party?
Impeachment, which the Repubs will be only too happy to oblige you with?
or what?

Just curious.

Hekate

[glitch]

122. Primary challenge. If you don't want the party to split stop supporting triangulation to the right.

[defendandprotect]

175. Interesting ..... agree --

Also looks like DLC pressure to SPLIT the party -- sidelining and ousting

liberals/progressives. Looks like Pelosi has been worried about that.

[TBF]

196. No I was talking about systemic change -

I don't believe in the "bad actor" theory.

[MadMaddie]

36. Rahm is gone! Much to our relief!

I think he was a huge part of the problem.

[femrap]

132. You forgot Geithner....

thankfully Summers left on his own....probably so he won't be blamed when SHTF.

[Mz Pip]

4. The war on drugs is a dismal failure

Spending tax dollars going after marijuana users is just stupid.

I don't smoke pot but certainly don't care if someone else does. Doesn't affect me one way or another.

[Tesha]

39. It's not a dismal failure if you're profiting from the Prison-Industrial Complex.

Prisons, Police, and many ancillary industries have become
rich from the War on Drugs.

Tesha

[pscot]

149. The WOD is the perfect foil

for the national security state. It offers an amorphous and vaguely defined internal enemy that can never be defeated. The possibilities for beurocratic empire building are limitless. DEA: kicking down doors all over America.

[defendandprotect]

178. +1000% --- see what happened to "Fly by Night" ... we can't afford MEDICARE FOR ALL....

but we can afford helicopters and pilots to patrol FARMS and GARDENS to check

for anyone growing a bit of marijuana!!!

Sickening!!!

And confiscation of his property -- !!! 25 acres--!!!

[Tesha]

195. It's kind'a surprising there isn't a drug nicknamed "Goldstein". (NT)

[defendandprotect]

177. Exactly .... shiny new prison industrial complex .... plus corruption of government which

profits the right wing corruptors -- criminals --

Lot of money and industries built around this -- our imperialism: 7,500 troops and

45 battle ships now sitting on Costa Rica's coast to monitor drugs there!

And similar plans for other nations!

Fairly recently, I talked with a woman about ending Drug War and legalizing --

we were both on jury duty -- she said it would never happen because she was working

in services connected to drug rehabilitation and she pointed out how extensive it

is -- and her FEARS and FEARS of others re kids and drugs!

Too much on the other side of this FEAR isn't being discussed, however --

the things we should really FEAR!!

[abelenkpe]

5. Isn't it already de-criminalized in CA?

CA is going to legalize pot. The government has much bigger fish to fry than to try and prosecute people in CA for pot. The global economy is still collapsing and the on going wars are a serious mess. But they are threatening to go after pot smokers?
:crazy:

edited for spelling....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. Yes. Arnold The S just signed it into law

Simple possession is now a ticketable offense. You cannot be arrested for possession alone. You cannot be placed on probation for simple possession.

[defendandprotect]

179. Governors in every state should be doing this -- cheers to Arnold -- !!

[shanti]

197. whoa whoa there

don't be so quick to pat GAS on the back! he's still an asshole!

[defendandprotect]

200. Schwartzenegger is an idiot -- except in this one instance --- !!!

Detest him, actually!!

[shanti]

241. just checking!

:hi:

[treestar]

7. Talk about one issue and this sounds like a matter of state law

If there are still federal laws, then the feds may try to enforce them; interesting state/federal legal questions.

And where has Holder said this?

[Ignis]

27. For those of us who've watched a friend/family member die slowly...

While trying desperately to find anything that will help them them to work up even the smallest appetite or help them to sleep through the night...

Yeah, compassion is a pretty fucking big "single issue."

[glitch]

120. +infinity. nt

[treestar]

130. All out of proportion to the issue at hand

You could support nothing if you do that. Lots of people suffer a lot because someone killed their loved one - maybe we should do away with trial and just allow vigilantism? That would make them feel better right away.

OP gives me the feeling people have discovered the DOJ as a method to use for bashing Obama to liberals. The DOJ must operate according to the law.

The rule of law has its value; it is does not respond immediately to people's immediate needs, that is a price we all pay for that, and it's been worth it for centuries.

[Kajsa]

147. What?

You are equating revenge killing with
chronic, acute pain relief?

Is that what you stated?

[Lilith Velkor]

217. Yup.

[Kajsa]

226. That's what I thought.

Words fail me now!

:eyes:

[Ignis]

227. MM = revenge killing? You've jumped the shark.

I don't know what you're smoking, but please find a new dealer.

But hey, thanks for your compassionate words! :hi: Heavens forbid someone care about easing the suffering of a dying family member more than they do about cheerleading for Obama.

We voted to allow MM for compassionate use in California. That's the fucking rule of law, right there.

[defendandprotect]

201. +1000% .... as though people haven't been using these plants for millennia ...!!!

The crap that we only began to survive when Big Pharma came on the scene

is ludicrous -- and we should all wake up from that propaganda!!

Humans survived using plants -- before drug industry began processing for profit.

There is no medicine without plants!!

Much of the plants have been destroyed before we even knew what they were or could do!!

Mother Nature is also pro-choice -- having supplied myriad ways for women to control

pregnancy, discontinue pregnancy -- end fertility if they wished. All destroyed by patriarchy!

Along with much of the knowledge of the plants.

[Ignis]

235. I'm not a Person of the Book, but ...

I'll happily quote Genesis 1:12 if it helps get them on the right side of this issue. ;)

[unapatriciated]

72. I consider it a matter of Federal Law.

because of our insane laws regarding medical mj, my son can not come home. His doctor just confirmed (what he suspected for awhile) that his dermatomyositis is no longer in remission. It would be easier if he could come home so I could help care for him but he can't (he lives in California and I in Georgia). Mj has helped him cope with the daily pain and is even more necessary now that his disease is once again active. He will again be put on high doses of prednisone, methotrexate and cyclosporin and Mj also helps with the many side effects of those medications.

[jgraz]

138. Ah. I guess this is the new talking point: "single issue"

War on Pot => single issue

LGBT persecution => single issue

Warrantless wiretaps => single issue

Health Insurance Deform => single issue

Continued torture of detainees => single issue

More war => single issue

Backdoor bankster bailouts => single issue

Protecting war criminals => single issue

Losing the House => single issue


Yep, I guess we're all just "single issue" whiners. :eyes:

[WillyT]

180. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

210. +1000%

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, more money wasted going after pot users. What a ridiculous law, policy and

enforcers. It's just damn dumb, and a tragic waste of lives, also money, and does such a great job of increasing drug trafficking. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

[defendandprotect]

213. "Science, common sense and compassion" 'Fly by Night' .....

We can't afford MEDICARE FOR ALL, but we can afford to have helicopters and pilots

flying the skies in little towns checking for gardens with marijuana!!

Dumb -- and sickening!!


War on Drugs is too much about military --

and too little about common sense discussions.

[Unvanguard]

10. It's bullshit, but it isn't likely to get any better under anyone else.

Mystifyingly, it seems to be the sort of thing establishment politicians must not endorse--even though it polls quite decently and probably (not sure though) is favored disproportionately by the highly-educated.

I know that is not much comfort. Prop. 19 needs to pass. That will set off a national debate, and maybe break the bipartisan consensus on this issue enough to move national policy in the right direction sooner or later.

[musiclawyer]

11. Obama needs to feel the heat for what Holder says

Write the House NOW and prepare them.............. because Prop 19 is passing. It's already at 52% approval and only 36 % firm against. Their best response should be " The People of CA have spoken, and the Federal Government will not waste precious resources attempting to bring citizens abiding by the laws of their state into the Federal Criminal Justice system."

[Mimosa]

41. ^ ITA ^ n/t

[defendandprotect]

216. Trust you will be right ..... who can defend attacking sick people who need marijuana?

I don't get it -- at all --

How much of DOJ is still Bush's I'm not sure -- bad situation there!

But, Holder is wrong --

And, if Obama can say that the SC's corporate decsion is wrong -- he can also say

that Prop 19 is right! And that DADT is wrong! etal ....


Will take your suggestion to contact WH -- thanks!

:)

[ecstatic]

12. Was there a presidential candidate who was for legalization?

:shrug: I must have missed it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. not one with any chance of winning, no

Where did you infer that there was a candidate in favor of legalization?

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Yes. Chris Dodd.

As a matter of fact.

[Romulox]

28. Actually, Obama was for decriminalization before he was against it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA

Isn't "triangulation" (read: pandering to the right) grand? :hi:

[glitch]

121. Ayup. Short memories. His administration was going to back off enforcing on cannabis.

Apparently the people making money on the WOD process objected.

[femrap]

133. As far as I am concerned....

the worst drug around is alcohol.

[krabigirl]

59. Democratic? Mike Gravel, maybe Kucinich.

Republican, Ron Paul.

[_ed_]

135. Obama was in favor of legalization

when he was smoking pot and doing coke as a young man. I wonder what would have happened if the young Obama had been arrested and incarcerated as a young man instead of going to Harvard, etc. Can he really not see this?

I can't even imagine the hypocrisy of locking people up for something you once did, and admitted to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. This will fall under 10th amendment too

For the record I am also voting for it in November.

[Upton]

16. They're all on the drug war gravy train..

doesn't matter what letter is after their name. Sometimes it gets me so pissed, I have to burn one to relax and keep things in perspective..

[girl gone mad]

35. Money is one hell of a drug, huh?

Look at all the lives that have been destroyed by that addiction.

[Hekate]

93. What do you mean by that? "Gravy train" usually means bribes and such. Is that your charge?

Do you think Obama is taking bribes in some fashion?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

108. The reference is more likely about campaign donations. nt

[glitch]

123. From big money in private prisons and other "private justice" companies that get enforcement gigs.

You know, like Xe (Blackwater) or one of it's holdings.

[bvar22]

156. Oh...You mean Legalized Bribery.

Yep.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

187. I support our current system.

:patriot:

[robdogbucky]

172. No, I don't think Obama is taking bribes, silly....

but I do think that the WOD is big dishonest profit center for a wide variety of opportunists, not to mention the industries that flood money into opposing things like Prop 19, such as the alcohol industry, the energy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical insurance industry, the timber industry, the private corrections industry, etc., etc., etc.

He has also flipped on this issue due to something, what could that be?

Anyway, here is what his AG is up to and why and with whom. Isn't investigative journalism wonderful? Remember what that was?


Holder to DEA Chiefs: DOJ Will Oppose Prop 19, Protect Their Fat Private Contracts
By: Jane Hamsher Friday October 15, 2010 1:15 pm



In September, former DEA Chiefs sent a letter to Eric Holder, informing him that it was the obligation of the Department of Justice to oppose Prop 19 if it passes just as they opposed the Arizona immigration law.

In response, Eric Holder is assuring them that they don’t need to worry, because the Department of Justice will “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws even if Prop 19 passes,

That’s no doubt good news for former DEA Chief Robert Bonner, one of the authors of the original letter to Holder, and who has since worked himself into an anti-pot frenzy about what will happen with the drug cartels and the border situation if Prop 19 passes.

Just Say Now can exclusively report the ties between Bonner’s anti-Prop 19 Reefer Madness and nearly $500,000 in federal contracts to “consult” with the Department of Homeland Security about our ever-growing border war.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/holder-to-dea-chiefs-doj-will-oppose-prop-19-protect-their-fat-private-contracts/


Read more if you DARE!


Bonner is the most shining example of the lying, profiteering opportunists to profit from government policy.

Go ahead, read the whole thing. Get a clue as to whom and what is running this country.




rdb

[readmoreoften]

204. Yes. They're called "campaign contributions."

[Ignis]

228. So, did you disagree with the responses you received below?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

238. LBJ took bribes in the White House -- cash in envelopes .... !!!

I know nothing about Obama --

but do you really think that the Drug War could be such an alleged "failure"

without corruption of government? Think back to prohibition.

MIC now has 7,500 of our troops off Costa Rica -- and 46 battle ships -- to monitor

drug trade there -- and plans to expand that to other nations!

Quite a little money maker!!

[femrap]

134. Afghanistan produces what?

80 to 90% of the heroin in the world....and gee, who has planes coming and going from there? I thought it was well known that the CIA gets its operating capital from drugs.

The Super Rich of this world make lots of tax-free funds from the drug and human trade. It's the little dealers on the street that go to jail.

Legalize it...then the gang territory wars will be over....of course that would piss off TPTB cuz they enjoy watching all the blood and deaths of 'the little people.'

Then we can focus of human slavery and all the money that this generates. Remember once a drug is consumed, it's over. But with women, they are sold over and over and over and over and over. It's beyond heartbreaking to me that this gets so little coverage. The Rothchilds hate women....they're only good for one thing.

I wish I had one to burn.

[defendandprotect]

237. Quite some time back . . . .

and this info I recall came via idle comments on C-span --

There were rumors that some retired members of the CIA gained access to

Swiss bank accounts connected to some members of Congress. Allegedly they

presented them with the info and forced their resignations. Money tied to drugs,

presumably.

Don't want to say that journalist Sarah McClendon reported anything like this --

buy she and a former Rep in House were trying to get info out about corruption of

elected officials. The Rep's name might have been something Clark? Jack Clark?

Obviously, I agree with you on Drug War corrupting government and our agencies --

Customs, whatever -- as well as elected officials. Drug trafficking couldn't go on

with that corruption!

[Warren DeMontague]

18. They can only hold back the tide for so long.

If it passes, I don't think we're going to see the FBI going door-to-door in CA busting pot smokers. Sooner or later, the drug war idiocy will pass. The fact that the govenrment is running out of money doesn't help, esp. given that the drug war budget is something like $40 Billion a year.

[ecstatic]

19. Asked in another thread: If a state banned abortion

Would you want the fed. government to step in to protect the national laws?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Yes, I'd want them to enforce Roe v. Wade

I realize that I'm in a logical trap, but I started the thread, so I want to answer your question forthrightly.

Honestly, I don't know what legal standard would apply, but I do know this: denying legal and safe abortions will hurt women, and by the same token, continuing to arrest people who smoke marijuana will continue to ruin their lives, and there are millions who smoke. Millions. Marijuana itself is not harmful. But banning marijuana and imposing federal criminal punishment on smokers is harmful, and so is banning abortions that will happen anyway. I come down firmly on the side of terminating pregnancies in safe and sterile environments, not in back alleys. I also come down on the side of getting experienced and professional retail assistance at a marijuana dispensary, rather than illegally buying from a dealer who may or may not try to rip me off.

[Jamastiene]

47. Just to add to your excellent points...

Legalizing marijuana would also cut into gang profits somewhat and I am of the firm belief that every little bit helps. If people, in general, are buying marijuana at a pharmacist instead of having to buy from other people, who may be involved in gang violence, it will help in the fight against gang violence. Of course, gangs will sell other drugs, but if at least marijuana is legal, that is one tiny tad bit less money in the pockets of people who hurt others.

If anything, the "war on drugs" is responsible for so much violence that it is a detriment and works against the citizens of this country, not for us.

[defendandprotect]

240. De-criminalize all drugs .... let's criminalize warmongering and warmaking!!!

[defendandprotect]

239. Agree -- BOTH are issues of human rights ... access to plants ... ironically in both!!

Nature is pro-choice ...

All of our medicines are based on plants ---

Nature provided many ways for women to exercise reproductive freedom --

as birth control, to terminate pregnancies -- and to end fertility if they wished!

Many means -- and patriarchy has destroyed much of those plants and the information

about them.

Legalizing abortion -- or legalizing marijuana is simply giving humans access to what

nature intended -- means of controlling pain for the ill. Means of improving health!



Basically, the same issue in BOTH cases!!

:)

[Romulox]

30. That analogy is not, as they say in the legal profession, on all fours. nt

[grahamhgreen]

64. I'd want them to take OUR side.

[ProudDad]

85. Yes, because that state banning abortion would be LIMITING rights

Lifting the prohibition (the phony war on drugs) would be recognizing rights.

The Feds cracking down on California for recognizing a right would be an act limiting rights.

I'm against limiting rights.

And it's no goddamn business of ANY level government to be limiting the right to either an abortion or a joint!

[TexasObserver]

25. If it passes, and his AG follows up on this threat, I will support someone else in the primaries.

And that's for practical reasons. If Holder does that, the president has zero chance of carrying California and other states he must carry to win re-election.

Holder was a terrible choice, to begin with. I hope the president will dump him following this year's election and get someone who isn't an embarrassment.

[NorthCarolina]

124. If a true progressive challenges in the primaries, that candidate will already have my vote. eom

[pscot]

150. +1

[readmoreoften]

205. +1

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scuba]

31. Real criminals are not found in gardens. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

32. Holder's actions regarding Prop 19, etc. will impact how I vote in 2012.

A few million enemies + 1: This kindred soul lives far away from California.

[mitchtv]

55. you betcha

obama will regret it more than me

[Radical Activist]

33. Stupid thing for Holder to say.

I doubt the Justice Department can just ignore a law that's on the books. They should at least decide to not expend resources going after recreational users.

The articles I read said this was a letter to former DEA officials. I'd be interested in knowning if the Justice Dept sent this to the press. If not, then who did? Was this sent by Holder to influence voting on the proposition, or is there someone else who decided to make it public for their own reasons?

[robdogbucky]

173. Here you go, now you can draw your anti-progressive swords again...

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/10/15/holder-to-dea-chiefs-doj-will-oppose-prop-19-protect-their-fat-private-contracts/




Idjits

[Canuckistanian]

37. Could Holder's message be construed as trying to influence voting on Prop. 19?

If so, it's entirely improper for a federal official to try to sway public votes on a STATE issue.

Back off, Holder.

[Mimosa]

42. That's how I read it. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

109. I'm thinking it's going to have

exactly the opposite affect. He just pissed off a WHOLE lot of people in this state. Fifty-five electoral college votes -- they had it in the bag, until now.

[BzaDem]

38. You say "scare tactic" as if such a "tactic" is somehow misleading or untrue in any way.

For me, the problem is that not enough people are discussing the potential of a Palin presidency, not that too many people are. If the facts are true, why not spread them far and wide?

Of course, we could certainly wait to see how a Palin presidency works, after which you will be RUNNING to the polls to elect the even most anti-Pot Democrat running in the general election. But wouldn't it be better for you if we could prevent a Palin presidency in the first place, rather than have you only come to your senses after the damage is done?

[frylock]

44. get some new material already..

JFC i really am beginning to think you WANT a palin presidency. it's all you fucking yap about.

[BzaDem]

46. I'm just responding to an OP that yapps about it.

Perhaps the OP should stop threatening to enable Republicans if they don't get ebery wittle thing they want.

[Swamp Rat]

57. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!??!?!

This is EXACTLY the attitude that will hurt Obama's chance for re-election.

[Ignis]

229. I don't ignore many, and I flush the list every few months, but ...

That poster made it there early and keeps renewing its subscription to the Ignored newsletter.

[Bette Noir]

71. How many people do you win over with that baby talk?

Or is that your Christine O'Donnell impression?

[unapatriciated]

77. I'm getting very weary of this tactic

Many of us have seen first hand how medical mj has helped our loved ones survive the pain of debilitating illnesses.
It seems like every issue that is important such as equal rights and real health care reform has become "ebery wittle thing" we wanted and didn't get.
Keep chipping away and pretty soon there will be nothing left of the dem party.

I'm so sick of the "enable Republicans" meme.

[BzaDem]

86. Just because you're sick of it doesn't mean it isn't entirely true.

I could say that you wouldn't be enabling Republicans, but then I'd be lying.

[unapatriciated]

111. Just because it is constantly used doesn't make it fact.

since I early voted a straight D ticket last tuesday, I can safely say you would not be lying if you did say....

I could say that you wouldn't be enabling Republicans

But hey whatever makes it easier for you.

"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln





[BzaDem]

184. I was referring to the threat in the OP to not vote for Obama.

Obviously, if you vote straight D, you personally are not enabling Republicans. The issue was the threat in the OP NOT to vote straight D.

[readmoreoften]

207. A vote is something you EARN not something you DEMAND.

You goddamn bully.

[BzaDem]

221. Not really. That might be true in an IRV or proportional representation system

where voting for a third party is not a vote to enable the right.

But in our winner-take-all system, not voting for what you might consider "the lesser of two evils" is simply enabling the greater of two evils. It's pretty straightforward.

You of course have your right to enable the greater of two evils if you don't feel like your vote has been sufficiently "earned." But that's all you have the right to do, no matter how much you dislike or deny it. Wishing or hoping or screaming or yelling or stomping on the floor doesn't change that reality.

[G_j]

45. they' are (inadvertently?) laying the ground for a primary challenge

which, I'd support.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. r.e. inadvertancy

Hi, I'm the OP. If I'm laying groundwork for a primary challenge, then yes, it's inadvertent, not at all my purpose. However, depending on how all of this plays out, I would definitely consider voting in the primary for a progressive candidate who pledged not to be so draconian on the issue.

thanks.

[dgibby]

112. I took that post to mean that "they"

referred to Holder, Obama,et al, not you. By chest thumping and posturing, Holder is inadvertently facilitating a primary challenge to Obama. It's the law of unintented consequences.

[G_j]

141. yep, that is what it meant

sorry if that wasn't clear

[readmoreoften]

208. +1

[nashville_brook]

48. a vote for Prop 19 is a vote for Palin. you've outdone yourself.

[BzaDem]

49. I'm not advocating voting against prop 19. I'm simply responding to the OP's threat to enable Palin

if Obama's attorney general's actions don't thrill him.

[Bluebear]

84. What kind of idiot would even imply that?

(I have them on ignore. Good thing!) :rofl:

[readmoreoften]

209. One that is total.

[BzaDem]

223. And one that is imaginary.

I never said anything equating a vote for prop 19 as a vote for Palin. I said a vote against Obama for his administration's stance on prop 19 is a vote for Palin (and that is unambiguously true).

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. thank you for your condescension

Wouldn't it be better for all if Eric Holder wasn't threatening to enforce federal marijuana possession laws against the will of California citizens? Thanks for replying, but I'm not swayed.

[BzaDem]

52. I'm not trying to sway you now -- a Palin presidency will sway you quite easily. I'm just pointing

out that you would be better off if you came to your senses now, as opposed to after it was too late.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. I've thought about what you've said here

You're trying to modify my beliefs, or at least what I'll settle for. This isn't surprising. I've been here since 2001, and I've seen all the exhortations to vote for the Democrat no matter how tepid, because the Republican was worse. Frankly, this is not only tiresome, it's also offensive. Who on earth do you think you are to tell me I should modify my behavior, beliefs, and expectations? Moreover, why do you think you have a rational point in telling me I need to move off the spot? It seems much more rational to me that if a clear majority of Californians votes to legalize recreational marijuana, then Barack Obama had damned well better come around to our way of thinking. If you think that chiding me and other Californians about the way we should behave and vote is a winning strategy, it's going to be a long ride down for you. If President Obama thinks the same way you do, he won't have a second term.

It's incumbent on our leaders to adhere to the will of the people, even if no one seems to remember that. I'd direct you to the SF Chronicle's reader comments on their version of this story. If you don't like the Chron, pick any other California paper. Read the comments at the end of the story, then tell me Obama can be re-elected without changing this disastrous course.

We are 38 million people. We are 55 electoral votes.
That makes us the trump suit, in case there was any confusion.

Thanks again--I require nothing further from you.

[frylock]

82. well stated

[BzaDem]

88. You're the trump suit in that you can enable Republicans, but thats it. In case there was confusion.

I believe I have a rational point in telling you that you need to move off the spot, because eventually you WILL move. It isn't really much of an option -- you can only inflict so much political pain on yourself before your survival instinct kicks in. I'm just simply pointing out that you will be better off if that happens BEFORE a Republican wins due to your actions, rather than after.

The fact that you may be uncomfortable hearing this truth doesn't make it somehow not the truth.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. ok, you win.

Well, not win in the sense of winning back disenchanted voters--I can't get you to listen to that line of reasoning. But you win insofar as I don't think we have anything useful left to say to one another, so I'm bowing out. It looks like you'll have a full enough schedule making your scolding rounds in the thread. Have a nice evening.

[readmoreoften]

212. You've enabled Republicans more: by destroying the only existing opposition party. I blame you.

You are as much to blame as any Tea Partier.

[BzaDem]

222. Well the funny thing is that people who vote third party are BY DEFINITION as much to blame as any

tea partier.

So you seem to be projecting.

I happen to vote for the Democrat in the general, and the most progressive Democrat in the primary who is viable in the general. If you think that is "destroying the only existing opposition party," that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

[pecwae]

101. Excellent response.

This scare tactic has become nothing more than belittlement and condescension. Too many here constantly use this boogeyman approach to justify personal attacks. They're the ones smugly tell you that you're "voting against your own best interests" or "demanding your pet issues". No one looks out for our own best interests better than ourselves. To imply we can't implies we are infantile and the accuser loses all credibility.

[BzaDem]

185. "No one looks out for our own best interests better than ourselves."

Well, that isn't necessary true. For example, if you vote against Obama in the general election (as the OP threatened), you are enabling the Republican, and NOT voting in your best interest. This would be true even if you THINK you are voting in your best interest. Something doesn't become true just because you THINK it is true. The Sun didn't revolve around the Earth just because people a few hundred years ago THOUGHT it did.

"To imply we can't implies we are infantile and the accuser loses all credibility."

I'm not the one implying the OP can't -- the OP is implying that they can't (by threatening to vote against Obama). If they vote against Obama, the OP WOULD BE infantile. Rather than lose all credibility, I would be absolutely correct. The vast majority of Nader voters in Florida realize today that they certainly were not voting in their best interests in 2000 (which is why Nader lost 90% of his vote share in 2004). This is not rocket science.

[Le Taz Hot]

110. You speak for this Californian

+1

[mike_c]

155. + 100000000000000000000000000 and all the zeros EVAH!

Thank you. I wish I could rec that response all by itself.

[readmoreoften]

211. +100000

[gateley]

40. Was this in response to a question? If so, he has to say that because it's a federal

law, but I'm hoping the Feds don't really expend any energy over this. They'd be crazy to and Holder knows what that would do to the WH.

[Hekate]

95. I know that and you know that

I wish others could get it.

I agree with you on the Feds -- I hope they don't expend much energy on it. But being a separate branch of government (the law enforcement branch), they may be required by law to just roll along with the federal laws as they exist. When they do, ideally they would target folks like the Mexican cartels, some of whom just got busted for a big grow in the nearby national forest. Those operations are not benign, as I am sure you know.

I'm voting for Prop 19 mostly to send a message to Washington, the same as I did when I voted for medical marijuana. 14 states and D.C. have done so, and I think that the people of this country are trying to change this stupid Prohibition state by state by state.

I don't even smoke the stuff, but long ago realized that putting this herb in the same category as heroin and meth is rock-bottom stupid.

Hekate

[gateley]

199. I don't smoke it either, but I know from my drug days

that if you're going to use, you're going to use regardless of whether or not it's legal. It's not stopping anybody. This is such a waste of time and money and lives, tossing people into jail for something that is essentially no more hazardous than alcohol. :grr:

[G_j]

43. not just kindred souls in California who feel the same

kindred souls in every state.

[Hawkeye-X]

51. We tried to decriminalize statewide in Colorado (it was a close vote though)

It didn't pass, but there are plans in 2011 for a legalization IF California manages to pass Prop 19, Colorado and the other MMJ states will follow suit and put it up for legalization. Then the feds will have zero dollars to spend everywhere where it suddenly becomes legal, and the Congress get the big message that pot isn't harmful at all, and needs to be removed from Schedule II and into the category where alcohol and tobacco are taxed and sold.

[tsuki]

53. You know what this sounds like...2004 and the anti-abortion amendments.

Single issue movement politics. The Republicons have been using it for years.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. But the idea with single-issue politics isn't to use the issue against oneself

I think the idea with single issue movement politics is to sling mud about a single issue at your opponent, not at yourself.

Eric Holder (that would be President Obama's Attorney General) said he wants Californians charged with federal crimes for simple marijuana possession. Which Republican made him say this?

[G_j]

56. the inner one nt

[Iggo]

62. oh snap

:fistbump:

[krabigirl]

58. Who hasn't this administration alienated? Besides the bankers, I mean.

[asdjrocky]

60. This matters a great deal to many of us in Ca.

This could really, honestly, finally be the very last of last straws for me.

[Swamp Rat]

68. Aw! You didn't get a pony? WAAAAH!!!

Boo hoo one-issue voters! Might as well vote for Palin because you support her by demanding a pot pony!!



Oh, and you support Mexican drug cartels and decapitation!1! .... THINK OF THE CHILLREN'!!1!!1!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6XXutOu1Dpw/TDncnwZOLGI/AAAAAAAAD8o/f8chzm8gqDg/s1600/sad+face.jpg

[asdjrocky]

69. LOL!

If that pony is a card holder I am so blazing it out.

[Swamp Rat]

74. Pass the pot pony pon da lef' hand side...

I'm hot
And when I'm not
I'm cold as ice
Get out of my way
Just step aside
Or pay the price
What I want I take
What I don't I break
And I don't want you
With a flick of my knife
I can change your life
There's nothing you can do

'Cause I'm a problem child

Make my stand
No man's land
On my own
Man in blue
It's up to you
The seed is sown
What I want I stash
What I don't I smash
And you're on my list
Dead or alive
Got a .45
An' I never miss

I'm a problem child

Every night
Street light
I drink my booze
Some run
Some fight
When I win they lose
What I need I like
What I don't I fight
And I don't like you
So say bye bye
While your still alive
Cause your time is due

'Cause I'm a problem child

I'm a problem child

Problem child

:headbang: :smoke:

[KansasVoter]

61. Proud to be the 100th rec!

[grahamhgreen]

63. Administration: torture is OK, pot is not.

[mistertrickster]

67. Don't worry . . . if Prop 19 passes, Obama won't fight it. He doesn't seem to fight anything. nt

[readmoreoften]

214. Well, except when he has to prove himself to the right-wing. As Shirley Sherrod...

Then he comes out swinging.

[mistertrickster]

220. Good point. I forgot that. nt

[4lbs]

70. You do realize that the DOJ didn't say they would bust ALL marijuana possessors in CA?

They would go only after the following:

1.) Anyone that possesses more than an ounce of marijuana without a prescription.

2.) Anyone under 21 that possesses marijuana without a medical reason.

3.) Anyone that gives marijuana to someone under 21

4.) Any seller of marijuana that sells more than an ounce at a time to a person, or to anyone under 21 years of age.

5.) Any seller of marijuana that doesn't follow DEA regulations.


Prop 19 doesn't give cover to any of the above, so anyone that falls into those will still be considered as possessing or selling marijuana illegally.

When Prop 19 passes, the following, and only the following, is legal:

1.) People at least 21 years of age may possess up to one ounce of marijuana.

2.) Shops and sellers/growers of marijuana MUST follow government regulations and allow regular inspections of their establishment.

That's it. If you are under 21, you can't have it.

If you are over 21, you can only have up to one ounce at any given time.

Just like a bar, store, or restaurant that sells alcohol is strictly regulated and inspected by the ATF and must have a liquor license to sell it, sellers/growers of marijuana in California will be strictly regulated and inspected by the DEA, and must have a marijuana license.

Just as bars and restaurants are busted for selling to people under 21, with the police conducting 'stings' from time to time to verify that they card people, marijuana sellers and growers will be busted for selling to people under 21 or too much to any one individual, with the feds and/or local police conducting similar 'sting' operations.

That's what the DOJ and Eric Holder meant they said they would still conduct raids and busts in CA even if Prop 19 passes.

Prop 19 doesn't give everyone carte blanche to grow and have as much marijuana as they want without government supervision.

If you give marijuana to a 16-year old, you are subject to being arrested, just as if you gave alcohol to a 16-year old. It's "contributing to the deliquency of a minor" in both cases.


I support Prop 19 and will vote YES for it, because I believe marijuana should be legal, not only in California, but everywhere. Nevertheless, I also feel there should be restrictions on it's use. Restrictions on who can have it and how much they can have at any time.

I would actually lower the legal limit to 18, not 21, and up the amount limit to two ounces. However, I can live with 21 years and one ounce for now.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. Holder did say he would vigorously enforce possession

If you have 2 joints in your possession, that would be legal under California law if Prop 19 passed. Eric Holder said he'd enforce federal law anyway. Now of course, it's absurd to think the feds could go around busting everyone with 2 joints in their pocket. But yeah, Holder did say he would not honor Prop 19, and that DOJ would vigorously enforce. If he's telling the truth, it means he'll be sending federal goons to bust a few Californians for having less than an ounce of pot. So as to your question, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see any place in this thread where people seem to be confused about the limits set and the parameters of the proposed law.

[NBachers]

168. What about Fed cops busting large-scale grow operations? Or small ones?

There are occasional waves of Fed cops busting clinics or grow operations. We're in the middle of one of those waves now.

Oakland is talking about expanding its dispensaries and large-scale grow operations with the passage of Prop 19. Pot growers in Oakland have already joined the Teamsters Union.

Target raids on these new facilities could devastate the ability to fulfill Prop 19's promise.

[Enthusiast]

73. Holder should get his priorities straight.

I mean, come on. White collar crime is rampant yet the laws go unenforced. Which crime is more damaging to the nation, marijuana or all the malfeasance on Wall Street? Jebus!

[inna]

78. precisely.

Unfortunately, it could not be clearer what the Administration's priorities are. They are not even trying to hide it.

[inna]

76. Agreed. The Administration is looking more and more reactionary, I'm so sick of this.

[farmboxer]

79. Pot should have been legal long ago.............

I voted for change and am so disappointed. Obama would have lost nothing if he would just leave things alone. Is he trying to harm Dems chances of re-election?

[leftstreet]

80. K&R

[iamthebandfanman]

81. if it passes, itll be unstoppable..

california will slowly become the source of pot for the surrounding states(as if its not already) and slowly but surely those states will hafta adopt laws(or take away laws in this case) to deal with it..

the wave will start on the west coast and end on the east coast... just gotta get the wave going ;)

[martymar64]

136. It'll also cause an increase of tourism to CA, Oaksterdam will be an even bigger reality

What could be more fun than legally smoking a joint in Golden Gate Park or at the Hollywood Bowl?

It'll also likely cause a drop in retail prices once prohibition is lifted.

Go Prop 19! If I still lived there, I'd vote for it!

[California Griz]

83. I sympathize but there is something you need to understand

The President takes an oath to uphold the law of the land. Intentional failure to do so would be grounds for impeachment. They really have no choice but to at least make the statement they did. Whether they actually do it only time will tell. Compare it to Bush defunding the enforcement division of the EPA. He couldn't just change the law he couldn't close the division so he did what was in his power to do. He reduced funding to next to nothing. Maybe you would prefer we lose the Senate or House to the Republicans. Everything is not always as it appears on the surface. They are fighting for the ability to get more done.

Remember under Bush 215 patients were still being prosecuted by the feds in counties where the locals were more than happy to continue working with the feds. To the best of my knowledge that has changed since Obama took office. Would you like to return to Bush days? That's what's at stake.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. Holder was under no compulsion to say anything at this juncture

And he clearly understood this would have a chilling effect. There's no doubt that he could have taken a much less aggressive and confrontational opening stance for an issue that he will undeniably have to deal with.

As to returning to Bush days, you can look upthread if you'd care to and see why I no longer find validity in arguments like that, but I understand where you're coming from.

Thanks

[California Griz]

97. The psychology of politics can be tricky and risky...

I lived in Arizona when the MLK holiday was coming up for a vote. The polls had it passing by double digits with only 3 days before the election. Then that idiot Pete Rozelle came on TV for a halftime interview. He declared if Arizona didn’t pass the holiday he would take the super bowl away from Phoenix. I’m sure he thought it would seal the election. Well the next day I heard the same line repeated over and over by people “Nobody is going to blackmail my vote” The measure went down in flames. I still voted for it but I’m about as far left as you can get.

I had a conversation with my sister before the 2008 election. I said I almost regret that we are about to elect a black President. Bush has fouled things up so bad that Obama is going to be facing a monumental task comparable to the civil war and the great depression. The racists are going to come out of the woodwork and he is going to face an opposition unlike any President before him.

Let’s be honest this may be a popular law and may pass here in California. It is unlikely it would pass in the majority of our states. I believe it would have no chance of passing in the states where Democrats are facing the toughest opposition. I may be wrong but I believe the Holder comments were made to try and bolster Democratic support by the indies in these swing states. This is the only explanation I can think of for the timing of this announcement. I hope I am right and I hope it works.

[Tsiyu]

114. "It is unlikely it would pass in the majority of our states"

Just not true. IMHO.


Most polls show strong support for decriminalization and/or legalization across the nation.
The Administrations's stance is a corporate one with two components:

1.Lots of money is made controlling the Little Person via cannabis prohibition; this means fewer campaign donations for Dems if that source of revenue is lost to corporations (and law enforcement).


2.What are they going to do with all the folks now incarcerated/on probation/paying fines, etc. for simple possession? They are legion.


I agree with the OP, and this is more like the last straw for me than it is a one-issue opinion.

[California Griz]

164. Please state your source for a national poll showing support

Support for medical use is high but the only national polls I have seen has opposition over 50% for legalization. There is even an October 5th California poll that shows the proposition not passing. It's been close in most of the California polls I've seen. I'm in favor of legalization I even have a link to LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) on the front page of my companies website. I'm a creature of logic. I never take things on face value I look for the underlying reasoning. Ask yourself why they would make this statement now. Can you give me a logical reason for the timing. It's unlikely it would have any impact on voters who plan on voting yes.

[Tsiyu]

225. Sorry, had to go to work

You are correct in stating that eight in ten favor legalizing for medical purposes.

You would be wrong in assuming that heretofore unpolled numbers of people wouldn't come out of the woodwork to support any ballot initiative legalizing cannabis.

When their family members are incarcerated and/or paying heavy fines for its criminalization?

When they, themselves use it?

When they are aware of the cost to society of the continued War on a Plant?

Wake up, dear pragmatist. I appreciate your sincere desire to appear "reasonable" but on this issue most "pragmatists" are way out of the loop.


This poll shows higher numbers for than against, but most of these polls are not reaching the people who would vote solely on this issue.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/07/polls-show-legalize-pot-support-growing-higher-higher/

[glitch]

125. I believe the system has been gamed to move us ever rightward.

Put up freakish right against solid right (neo-liberal), solid right gets the vote. They did it with Clinton, he got a lot more popular support when the freaks started their investigations and impeachment. Everybody comes together behind the unfairly attacked, meanwhile the unfairly attacked keeps up the steady movement to the right. Not really gaming the ref, more like gaming the stands.
I think they're hoping for a successful rerun.

[dionysus]

202. FWIW, i doubt anyone in CA is trembling at what holder says, and is going to change their vote over

it.

[Hekate]

96. Good points

Good luck getting them across

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ctwayne]

94. What About Presidential Drug Use?

Barack Obama indicated that he used drugs when he was younger-as did Bill Clinton. George Bush never indicated any such thing, but there are persistent, credible reports that he used drugs (cocaine is often mentioned) when he was young. If any of these presidents had been arrested and convicted in the War on Drugs, they probably never would have been president. If any of these presidents had been convicted of a felony, they probably wouldn't even be allowed to vote.

We have approximately 2.3 million drug arrests each year in this country. Around 700,000 of them are marijuana related. At a time of tremendous budget cutbacks, with teachers and police being fired, we can't afford this waste of taxpayer money. I hope Prop 19 passes in California.

[Capitalocracy]

100. Seriously, if he's so sure pot smokers belong in jail, shouldn't he volunteer

to do a little time for the drugs he's admitted to using? Anyone who committed the crime and believes other people, not them, should do the time is a goddamn hypocrite.

[bobburgster]

98. They're all owned by the law enforcement industrial complex.

:thumbsdown:

[meow mix]

enemy making issue for me too

[meow mix]

99. enemy making issue for me too

[FlyByNight]

102. Pot legalization would potentially mean...

...less profits for big PhRMA and the alcohol industry, thus the federal hostility.

Holder is a corporate shill and, pretty much, a waste of time. He'll go after pot smokers but not war criminals. Embarrassing.

:eyes:

[Fly by night]

103. Now that's weird. Having someone use my handle here without any profile.

It is also weird to see that you have 1,000+ posts on DU and I've never seen you here before. Seems a bit confusing to have two people here with the same nickname (capitols excluded.) Since I've been here since 2004 (and I can't tell how long you've been here), might I suggest that you find a new nickname so as not to confuse my posts with your own (unless that is the intention).

Thanks.

[FlyByNight]

104. Hi

To be honest, I don't quite remember how long I've been a member here (I think about as long as you have - probably a few less posts though) and I don't recall seeing your handle here either.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. I'll see what I can do about changing my handle.

[Fly by night]

107. Thanks.

It's interesting to hear that you haven't seen my handle here before, since it is on three OPs on the "Greatest" page in the past 24 hours.

Another BTW: If you want to know how long you've been at DU and how many posts you've made, look at your profile -- it includes that information. If you enable your profile (as mine is, as most DUers are), the rest of us could see that information also. Just a suggestion.

It is interesting that you haven't seen my handle here before. Yours jumped out at me like a sore thumb the first time I saw it (this morning). I tried to find other posts of yours here, but Google cannot tell the difference between "Fly by night" and "FlyByNight". That's interesting and good to know (I think).

Thanks again. It is easy to change your nickname here. If you don't know how, contact a moderator or administrator.

[droidamus2]

105. I just wish

That people like Holder in the federal government would show at least some understanding of 1) Why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place (racism, chemical companies wanting to stop hemp production, Forest owners wanting to stop hemp paper production, Harry Anslinger making a name for himself, etc) 2) The cultural underpinnings of the War on Drugs. When it comes to pot there are many conservative people who see pot as a big symbol of the liberal 'hippies' of the 1960's and they are still fighting those battles. They resented the liberals of those days rejecting 'american values' and saw marijuana as a big symbol of this rejection so they pushed the War on Drug Users to get back at the 'dirty pot smokin hippies' and still do. 3) The failure of the War on Drugs to accomplish any of its goals and the failure of prohibition in general.

Holder sounds like somebody that has ego problems. He can't stand it that something he sees as 'in his jurisdiction' might be overridden by the citizens of a particular state. I acknowledge that the federal/state law question is very tricky. There are times, civil rights being a good example, where an overarching federal law is appropriate and all efforts to enforce those laws are appropriate. There are other times where the need is not so obvious or as I believe in the case of marijuana not needed. At the least the national move to legalize marijuana, which is gaining momentum with Prop 19, should move the DEA and DOJ to reexamine having marijuana on Schedule 1 of the drug classifications. If it is moved to a lower classification then there would be less reason to be so adamant about pursuing marijuana producers, sellers and users.

Finally, my personal pet theory is the following. The War on Drugs is based on the idea of a 'drug epidemic'. To support this idea they always throw out the numbers of millions of 'drug users'. It is estimated that somewhere between 25-40 million people in the US have at least tried marijuana (wouldn't surprise me if it was much higher - no pun intended). If the government had to remove those millions of users from their 'drug epidemic' statistics the problem, while still substantial, would not look nearly as bad and thus they would loss a lot of their support for spending huge amounts of money on this failure of a 'war'.

[The Uncola]

106. Yet another way..

.. the Obama Administration is out of touch with regular people. Color me, unsurprised.

[Dinger]

113. Kick & Rec #166 (nt)

[slay]

115. I stand with you

and against anyone - Dems or repub - who thinks it's OK to support the alcohol and tobacco industries while putting pot smokers in jail. If the Dems keep this shit up, they WILL lose liberals like me for good.

[bertman]

116. I climbed over the UNwreckage and Recced this. nt

[RKP5637]

117. Recommend!!! n/t

[obxhead]

118. While I agree our pot laws are insane, he lost me with the

Health insurance/pharmaceutical stimulus package of 2010.

I'm turning into a single issue voter. You're either with the people and get my vote, or with the corporations and lose my vote.

[bvar22]

159. THAT....

...is indeed the Biggest Single Issue!

[obxhead]

170. Thanks.

I feel so strongly about that issue. It was time for a sig line change anyway.

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

215. +1

[glitch]

119. Plus we really don't need more expense and pollution and police state tactics from increasing WOD.

And it's yet another campaign promise broken. :thumbsdown:

[anachro1]

128. Why do we bother to vote for anything?

When the powers that be defy our votes every time?

[TicketyBoo]

129. I was thinkin' this over…

[femrap]

131. k and r....

I'm with you. Maybe the Admin is just being paid to stand up for the Booze Dudes. Who knows? But if they do come after 'consumers,' it's simply a total waste of Homeland Security/police funds.

W walks all over the Constitution and Eric Holder does nothing....but he wants to go after pot smokers. Shit.

I'd give anything if my stupid state of Ohio would just legalize hemp....think of the sustainable industries that could flourish.

I'm so tired of going backwards.

I hope Prop 19 passes!

[WildEyedLiberal]

137. The highest recced post on DU today is about weed?

Good God, aren't there more important things out there? You're pissed off at Obama not because of health care, or the war, or his handling of LGBT rights, but about your right to smoke a bowl?

I'd just as soon see marijuana legalized for public policy reasons, but it's pretty goddamn low on my list of things I want Obama to change.

[jgraz]

139. Next time, we'll check with you before we voice an opinion on an issue.

:eyes:

[G_j]

142. it's not really about weed, it's all about Holder. nt

[asdjrocky]

143. Maybe you, or a family member, has never been sick or needed it.

I'm straight, but DADT is still a major issue to me, as is DOMA. I'm not in Gitmo, but it matters to me that it is still open.

Believe me, for some of us in Ca, this is a MAJOR issue.

[WildEyedLiberal]

189. I really doubt Holder's statement applies to medical marijuana, which is already legal. nt

[Ignis]

232. Are you confessing your ignorance to the Feds' continued raids of MM growers?

Oh my. That's ... well, that's a lot of ignorance to admit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

146. I'm not happy with him about those things either

If I had mentioned LGBT, healthcare, or the war, I would have rightly been accused of painting with too broad a brush. This was a post about marijuana. I didn't bring it up; Eric Holder brought it up. You also don't seem to like the number of replies this thread has received. I didn't create this negative reaction to Eric Holder's words. He did that on his own. My working conclusion is that I can't do much about the complaints you have. You're unhappy that the issue upsets so many people, but that's the effect it's having, and denying the effect won't do much in the way of budging the reality of the situation.

[WildEyedLiberal]

190. Fair enough - my comment was more about DU than you specifically

I just can't find it in my heart to give all that much of a damn about marijuana policy - not when there are so many other major things out there. And yes, it dismays me to see this receiving such a vehement response on DU when a lot of OPs about life or death issues get maybe 20 replies. You're right; that's not your fault. It's just yet another sign, IMO, that DU is jumping the shark.

[mike_c]

152. it's apparently not a daily issue for you...

...but it certainly is for me. First, pot is the absolute backbone of my county's economy. It's not just a contributor-- it is the economy. Increased federal pressure on marijuana growers and sales will have a direct, immediate, and terrible impact on life where I live (Northern California).

Second, I am a daily marijuana user. I use pot recreationally, because I'd rather have a mellow, creative, and mind-focusing buzz than get wasted on alcohol. In that sense I use it for stress management, an effect that also carries over into the third reason I use marijuana EVERY DAY of my life. It helps me hold depression at bay, which is at least partly a stress management issue for me. My partner does the same.

Marijuana legalization is at the TOP of my priority list, up there with ending the wars, choking the evil out of U.S. foreign policy, kicking the legs out from under the military and it's MIC toadies, and protecting the environment before protecting the profits of rich corporations.

Californians: vote YES on Proposition 19!

[shanti]

198. absolutely!

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

158. Oh, I'm pissed off at Obama about all those things and more.

This is just one more insult added to the pile.
and, YES, it is appropriate to talk about this TODAY since it is a Current Event precipitated BY the White House.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

165. They'll be plenty of time for rolling doobies......

....when the House flips to the Rethugs and these people crying that they can't get stoned suddenly realize this country and Obama's hard work are about to be set back to Dumbya-era levels.

[dionysus]

203. DING DING DING

[Ignis]

231. Do you practice saying callous things in the mirror before you type them?

Because you win the prize for this post. :thumbsup:

Not everyone interested in preventing the Feds from rolling roughshod over California law is a stoner looking for a buzz, duuuuuuude.

When was the last time you had to listen to one of your cancer-riddled relatives beg you to kill them because they couldn't eat, couldn't sleep, couldn't think because of the pain?

:shrug:

I'll go out on a limb here and guess the answer is "never," and that you're simply unwilling or unable to flex your compassion muscle for anything outside your own personal experience.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

233. Cut the histrionics

There's even less chance (which is none to start) the Feds are kicking in doors or lifting fingers going after people using medical marijuana. But you knew that already.

[Ignis]

234. Feds under Obama continue to pursue MM growers, but I'm sure you knew that.

Or perhaps you just don't give a fuck about any interests other than your own. :shrug: It's hard to tell behind the thick veneer of insensitivity in your post.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

236. I give a fuck about jobs for the unemployed and people being able to pay for their health care

....even though I have a good job and can more than afford my health insurance through my employer. So you fail trying to figure my self-interests.

[Ignis]

244. ...But the chronically ill can sit and spin, eh?

Mmm, you can smell the compassion over TCP/IP!

[asdjrocky]

245. Then why do I know people in jail.

To say the feds are not kicking in doors and taking people to jail for cannabis is just dishonest. Yes it still happens. Yes it happens even here in Ca.

[Ignis]

230. Thanks for your compassion for our chronically ill friends & relatives!

You've sure got a big heart. :hi:

[SHRED]

144. Addicted to the War on Drugs

Law enforcement, privatized prisons, Lawyers, growers, and the Cartels.

"We the people" pay dearly with our lives, property, and tax dollars for their addiction.

----

[niceypoo]

145. Why do the Dems still cling the false morality of the 'old boy' system?

It gets them ZERO republican votes and drives away Democrats. It's a lose, lose tactic.

[Dappleganger]

148. k&r

Welcome to the Light. ;)

[mike_c]

151. I (and just about everyone I know) will be with you on the barricades....

With a big spliff in hand! :smoke:

[placton]

153. nah - go ahead now - Obama needs opposing

he is opposed to us, so it's only fair

[placton]

154. nah - go ahead now - Obama needs opposing

he is opposed to us, so it's only fair

[DirkGently]

157. A baffling comment by Holder. Why go out of your way? More conservative appeasement?

[WillyT]

160. HUGE K & R !!!

:banghead::wtf::banghead:

:kick:

[MindPilot]

161. It is things like this that awaken my inner Libertarian.

I'm not a single-issue voter as much as I am a disenfranchised voter.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

162. It's a non-issue.....

....you said so yourself.....the government isn't going to waste time sending people to California to bust people with dimebags. It's just the Feds covering their ass saying they don't like it.

But I'm glad y'all be getting high soon even if you can't quite go so far as to give gays the right to get married.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

181. It's not a non-issue, no matter your view of how the world should be

It's a very large issue. I won't waste my time trying to convince you of this. You'll be made to understand in the fullness of time.

Also, your attempted smearing of Prop 19 proponents in California as stereotypical stoners looking for government dispensation to get high displays fundamental ignorance about how California works. I would welcome you to visit our state sometime and learn a few things about how it functions while you take in the scenery.

[redixdoragon]

163. Panem et Circenses

"..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon..."

I'm afraid for the possiblities the elite may be given by a very drugged up populace. With marijuana restricting blood flow to the frontal lobe of the brain, a center for critical thought and learning, those in power gain an additional tool to pacify us.
I don't like what marijuana causes to people or what its illegality causes to people, but before we can be freely handed this thing without consequence we need to get a control of ourselves and learn moderation.

And before anyone says, "You're too concerned about this, smoke a bowl"...

"you do look glum! What you need is a gramme of soma."

[MisterP]

167. if you're going to take a Chomskyesque stance (even if one based on frank pseudoscience)

it can't by an anti-pot one; it's like citing Abby Hoffman against becoming a psychonaut

[redixdoragon]

192. I don't think that any science...

Or scientific findings will be deamed credible by most because if the findings show something they like to be harmful or dangerous the science is rejected as bogus, for it takes from us what we want. Scientists warn of global warming, but that would take money and business away from business leaders so they deny it. The same can happen for those supporting pot.

Also, love your quote. "Unanimity is almost always an indication of servitude." I see a lot of unanimous consent here concerning pot.

[xxqqqzme]

166. I'm w/ you.

My vote by mail is sitting right here on my desk. Prop 19 is getting a big 'YES' from me. I don't know anyone voting 'no' but then most of my friends are under 70.

[davidwparker]

169. Oh, don't worry. They are not going to nominate Sarah

Palin. The GOP wants to win and the Palin just wants fame and money.

But, 2012 is easy for me. Obama carried this swing state the last time. He won't in 2012. So, even if I vote for Obama in 2012, he won't get the electoral college votes. Not even he goes with the gimmick: Obama/Clinton.

After the midterms .... and I still hold out hope (call me a hope monger) ... the party had better consider running a serious contender in a presidential primary if it wants to retain the WH past Jan 2013.

[chaska]

171. I haven't given this any thought, but I'm not sure it's a good idea...

to legalize it. The sellers are against it. Why? Wal mart will take over the market. Little guy gets screwed, run out of business. Investors make out like a bandit ... as usual.

[defendandprotect]

174. Holder -- or anyone else -- attacking those using pot for Medical needs should get a boot -- !!

And, if Californians can do this they may be helping save the nation

from the huge corruption of government this fake Drug War has brought us -- !!

We should all be joining CA -- not getting read to club them!

Boxer might have been one to talk about the positives if this happened --

unfortunately, evidently she hasn't done that --

Too bad!

[kestrel91316]

176. The feds are gonna have to hunt down pot smokers in Los Angeles

all by their lonesomes. LAPD does NOT consider private possession and minor use to be ANY sort of priority and hasn't for years.

[dionysus]

206. i know someone in SF and they said ppl would light J's coming out of office buildings after work

sometimes. how cool is that?

[kestrel91316]

224. I see it being smoked openly by some people here, they may look like

street bums, they may BE street bums, but I bet they have medical MJ cards. I'd rather they toke up than get drunk in public.

[SHRED]

182. "Holder can't prosecute the Bush cabal...

...the torturers, the banksters, or BP... but by golly he can sure bust someone for smoking a joint. Another fine official from our Feral Gubmint."

From the comments section over at Raw Story.

[OneBlueSky]

183. Obama presents a real enigma for me . . .

on the one hand, I genuinely like the guy and am glad he's representing this country on the world stage (as opposed to, say, his predecessor) . . .

on the other hand, I feel he had a golden opportunity to make some real, fundamental changes in how this country operates by redressing the imbalance between the corporations and the people, but he didn't even try . . . you'd think that someone who was a community organizer in Chicago would side with the people rather than with corporate interests, but he seems to bend over backwards to make sure that the corporate apple cart is not only not overturned, but not even jiggled . . .

Obama, to me, is a paradigm of blown opportunity . . . he coulda been a contendah for one of the great presidents of all time, but chose not to bother . . .

[Ozymanithrax]

186. I am voting for prop 19.

I would not allow it to be used in my home or on my property. I will never allow my children to use it in my home or on my property. I support changing state law because banning hasn't worked.

It doesn't bother me, however, that the government will continue to follow federal laws, just as it doesn't surprise me that the Democratic Party does not support it.

I also would like to see pot changed on a Federal level to the equivalent of alcohol, because its ban has not worked.

But it would still never be used in my home.

And the worst possible Democrat in a race is better than the best possible Republican, and no one else has a chance to win.

[pnorman]

188. Well, I for one, will do WHATEVER may be within my feebe power

to ensure that Obama gets the STRONGEST possible validation in next month's mid-term election. And I'm pretty certain of a positive outcome. (Sorry abut that; feel free to cry over my shoulder)

From the NON-Peacock Left since the '50s

[colsohlibgal]

194. Not too Smart

Way to go Holder. Just another example that the Obama administration in many respects is maybe even right of republican lite. Another has to do with detentions camps and rendition, I heard two experts, on Hartmann's show yesterday, say that Obama has done more of it than Bush, it just gets no press.

None of this is what I worked for in 2008.

[okieinpain]

218. yeah it's a pretty stupid team obama has assembled. the

country isn't doing as bad as it could. and I honestly believe he saved not only this country but the other rest of the world as well. god only knows what would have happened if the stimulus had not been passed.

but the other side of the coin is this group is pretty stupid when it comes to taking care of their base, pretty freakin stupid.

[California Griz]

219. Holder didn't bring this up, it was not made public by him

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 was pressured for a response from the anti prop 19 people they are the ones who made his response public.

The large majority of police officers in California have not enforced small amount possession of marijuana for at least 25 years. Most of them just make you dump your stash. Some of you are blowing this way out of proportion. Kick back smoke a bowl and relax.

[ooglymoogly]

242. Yeah....I'm sure all those innocent kids

and folks seeking relief from their debilitating illness now languishing in prison would agree with you.

Who pays you for this clap trap?

[CommonSensePLZ]

243. What a waste of energy

All these emotions over a damn drug that's supposedly non-addictive though all the pro-pot threads seem to indicate otherwise.

Of all the other things humanity could care about it's sad that the only thing people of all races, gender, social class and national origin can agree on is how much they like getting high. =\

I know it's not as bad as crack or heroin, but most of the people that use it don't need it, and they're the ones to blame for its trafficking, not the fact that it's illegal.