Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Archives

Authors

A question for California Sheriffs

It’s a simple one.

If Proposition 19 passes, will you obey the law?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

14 comments to A question for California Sheriffs

  • Just me.

    *(crickets)*

  • Nick

    Great question!
    Thanks again Pete.

  • Paul

    Lol!

    Some will, some won’t. Some will get their counties sued and cost their communities lots of money.

    Some cities will probably start passing local ordinances in opposition to the law, which their police will enforce vigorously. Some cities will support the law and adapt.

    Bottom line is we will see a patchwork of support and opposition to the law. Don’t light up in Bakersfield, but San Francisco will be OK. In the end, they’ll all come around and we’ll achieve a new normal, but that will take a few years.

    We have to remember the Federal government will probably mess with California for awhile, too. There will be raids, hassles, lawsuits, false promises from the Obama administration, etc.

    A victory in November will mean the start of adjustment to Federal policy. It will take time, because we’ll need other states to get on board and normalize their own MJ laws before people finally accept it and congress officially lets states go their own way. But that is probably many years away.

  • vicky vampire

    Yup totally agree Paul some will some won’t.

  • ezrydn

    Even after passage, we’ll still be confronted by the “my way or no way” type of mentalities. They well probably continue to think they know more than doctors and others assoiated with the substance. As I understand it, Prop 19 gives counties control over “sales,” not private usage.

    One has to remember that these people have years of indoctrination which won’t fade away suddenly, over night. I would think trial lawyers would be salivating at the prospect of the numerous county law suits that might pop up. Plus, you know sheriffs will fall back on the “but it’s federal law” position. County boards are going to have to lay it out to their sheriffs what their job descriptions include and don’t include.

  • Just me.

    A victory in November will mean the start of adjustment to Federal policy. It will take time, because we’ll need other states to get on board and normalize their own MJ laws before people finally accept it and congress officially lets states go their own way. But that is probably many years away.

    This is what irritates me. The states dont have to have federal permission. The states give federal gov its power..and can remove it. We dont need thier approval to do anything….we are the people, we are the government, we are America. Government is NOT a country, a state, a city. It is a group of people WE send to do OUR bidding.

    Maybe on day we will realise this.

  • claygooding

    Just me,realizing it and doing anything about it are two different games.

    And it could be years or months away,depending on the Nov elections. If enough incumbents are voted out of office in Nov we may actually see the ones that will be voted on in the next vote actually start listening to the voters,if they want to keep their jobs.

    And then there is the economy,and winter is coming on. The next bill to extend unemployment is going to really bring out the cutting shears on budgets.

    Obama is already gearing up for refusing to extend unemployment benefits and while it might be uncomfortable living in a tent in the summer,winter will be a killer,especially in the northern part of the country. We already have a large group of people living in tents and under bridges now and if the government cuts unemployment while there are still no jobs,there will be many more.

    The tax collections are down so much that they are even considering letting the tax cuts for the rich expire and that speaks volumes about just how bad our economy really is.

  • Seems like a question for the police and those opposed to Prop. 19 ;o)

  • Ben Mann

    I wouldn’t worry about this. If Prop 19 passes, cops will have no ability to harass smokers. It may be illegal under federal law, but that means you have to charge the perp at a federal courthouse, and that’s not feasible for more than a few cases.

    Cops will not have much of a leg to stand on if they have no state statute under which to charge someone.

  • ezrydn

    Can someone re-enlighten me? What was the case name that said local authorities were NOT required to uphold Federal Laws? Could one of you post a link to it? Thanks.

    • ezrydn… I think the relevant case law comes from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion in Conant v. Walters, which stated, in part, “Applied to our situation, this means that, much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal, it cannot force the state to do so.”

      See Link as well as the discussion re: County of Santa Cruz v. Mukasey.

      None of these cases have reached the Supreme Court (I believe they were rejected by the Supremes). Fact is, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the federal government can compel state employees to help it enforce federal laws, and such a ruling would be extremely controversial.

  • kaptinemo

    The real problem has always been the Fed’s ability to temporarily ‘deputize’ local LEO’s (via task forces) to do their dirty work for them. This is where that crap about the local LEO’s mouthing parrot-like the usual DEA claptrap about Fed suzerainty trumping State law comes from.

    Make the law so that the local police cannot and will not be allowed to engage in that practice, and the DEA lose their local ‘muscle’. This will create the necessity for the Feds hiring more goons locally, or giving up on States that pass such laws. And given the moribund economy, the former is not very likely.

  • ezrydn

    Thanks, Pete. I’m hearing this argument more and more and just wanted to add the decision to my phone to have it with me for debate. I knew about it but couldn’t find the case name.

  • Duncan20903

    Pete, you need to specify which law you are talking about. The question as it stands now is too complicated for a LEO to understand. He might say ‘yes, we plan to obey the law. The Federal law.’

    I’ve noticed that one of the peculiar things that people do is that when they suspect they’re being conned by a confidence man they will ask him point blank “Are you trying to con me?” as if a con man would say, “oh shucks why did you have to ask that for? Yes, I admit I was trying to take your money.” I’ve met a lot of people that to this day believe the police have to identify themselves if they are called out. Frazier v. Cupp? Who the heck is that? Isn’t that the psychiatrist from Cheers? I must admit I liked him better in his role as Sideshow Bob.
    ———————————————————
    @Ben Mann,

    I wouldn’t worry about this. If Prop 19 passes, cops will have no ability to harass smokers. It may be illegal under federal law, but that means you have to charge the perp at a federal courthouse, and that’s not feasible for more than a few cases.

    Cops will not have much of a leg to stand on if they have no state statute under which to charge someone.

    Not much of s leg? Try no leg to stand on at all. The California Constitution specifically says that California authorities are not allowed to enforce Federal law over a State statute, unless the state law has been declared unconstitutional by an appellate court.

    Hmmm, I wonder if the SCOTUS could toss the California Constitution for having that protection.

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
    (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
    (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
    (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statuteunless an appellate court has made a
    determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited byfederal law or federal regulations.

    To all the know nothings: Read’em and weep. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3