Prop. 19: Former Police Chief Strikes Back At U.S. Attorney General

[laughingliberal]

Former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara said Friday that "Californians are not going to let politicians in Washington, DC tell them how to vote."

McNamara's statement, released by "Yes on 19," comes in response to Attorney General Eric Holder's comments that the DOJ will "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws even if Proposition 19 passes in California on November 2.

"As we saw with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, it takes action from the states to push the federal government to change its policies," said McNamara. <snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/prop-19-advocate-former-p_n_764757.html?ir=Los%20Angeles

Really, really want to see this pass!

[TexasObserver]

1. Holder can remain as AG no more than two more years.

Less, if the president wants to be reelected. He'll never be reelected if he can't win California.

[laughingliberal]

2. True. I see no where the Democratic candidate for President could make up 55 electoral votes. nt

[TexasObserver]

3. I'm not trying to be divisive of the 2012 effort for the party.

But I know if they continue on this path, they will lose enough states to lose the presidency in 2012.

Sometimes I wonder why the president makes so many bone headed political blunders. This is a perfect example for him and his AG to say "we will address this if and when such a proposition passes." There's no upside to their starting this kind of political mess. It's a rookie mistake.

He seems to have lost his political compass, and doesn't know how to make good political decisions any more. He will NEVER get votes he didn't get last time, and he'd better stop deluding himself with that fantasy.

[indepat]

10. If only Holder would prosecute known/admitted war criminal with the vigor aimed at cannabis

:shrug:

[RainDog]

4. whoop! there it is!

yes we cannabis.

[EFerrari]

5. LOL

[nashville_brook]

6. me too -- k and r!

[RKP5637]

7. Should be States Rights IMO! n/t

[SlipperySlope]

8. Good luck with that.

I'm a thousand miles away, but I wish you luck in the polls.

[Heywood J]

9. Unfortunately, I doubt the state of California has the money to sue over that.

Then again, they stand to make money if prohibition fails. Holder needs to be told to stuff it and reminded that he won't be welcome in California.

[RainDog]

11. I'm guessing that Holder is making a statement at this time

because of the DEA request. Holder, however, did not provide any concrete examples of ways he would enforce federal law.

there are two guys in Oakland who want to have large-scale recreational cannabis operations - Richard Lee and Jeff Wilcox.

I would guess that, if Holder wants to make a political gesture, he would seek to arrest those two if they file papers to grow cannabis.

However, it appears that the law in CA does not require someone to be very specific about their business - so small and mid-size growers would and could continue to operate, even if Lee and Wilcox are used as scapegoats.

It would be a monumentally stupid thing to do in the case of Lee, tho. He has a work-related spinal cord (iirc) injury that has left him confined to a wheelchair. He started cultivating cannabis b/c it relieved muscle spasms caused by that accident.

So, the federal govt is going to put someone in jail who is in a wheelchair who uses pot for pain relief related to the accident that put him in the wheelchair? This is a guy who wears polo shirts and khakis, who runs a successful business... who is also wheelchair bound - and they're going to toss him in jail for doing something the state of California voted to put into law?!?!

How much bad publicity can the Democrats stand?

ALL ACROSS THE NATION people would see Lee put under arrest for something that 70% of the American population believes should be legal at least for medicinal use - and this number has stayed within this OVERWHELMING MAJORITY for over a decade.

We have reached the tipping point, imo. Even if this measure does not pass at this time, this entire experience has brought the issue to the attention of the American public and people are simply tired of the b.s. People know cannabis has medical use. People know cannabis is not more harmful than alcohol. People do not want to have someone arrested who makes cannabis available to cancer patients.

Smart politicians will get behind legislation that is geared toward harm reduction, reduction of tax-payer monies and law enforcement time going toward this issue when the majority of the public does not want our govt to continue this bad law.

Those who side with the religious right will, again, be on the wrong side of history, as they have been on every issue since the 1950s.

[amiga de la gente]

12. Prop 19 is not legalization nor decrimialization

FOR CLARITY"S SAKE

Prop 19 is NOT legalization nor decriminalization, it doesn't decriminalize any misdemeanors or felonies now except one ( that is growing in a 5'x5' space - which is patently ridiculous because if you look at who is going to prison for pot growing almost none of the people that have gone to prison for pot went for growing in such a small space) Also those who do choose to take advantage of the 5x5 space will almost all do it indoors since 5x5 space isn't big enough for an outdoor garden, one plant gets much larger than that, so the effect will be more pollution and huge polluting indoor grows are already being planned by the authors of this bill in Oakland. . It will still be a felony crime to sell a joint on the street or even to buy one, you will be required to buy from a licensed dispensary and the tax money from that is ear-marked in the bill to enforce against unlicensed growers and dealers. This bill will make it's authors richer and some corporations too, but it will not free marijuana from high prices or high prison rates. They are simply lying about what this bill does. VOTE NO.

In support of real legalization and REAL DECRIMINALIZATION - not prop 19 cronyism.