Neither CA Attorney General candidate willing to publicly agree to obey the law.

So if they’re not so sure they should accept the vote of the people, then, as Paul notes, where is the validity in their election?

Heck, with Prop 19, voters are given a real choice. They can accept the proposition or reject it. With the Attorney General race, they only have a fake choice — they have to pick one of the candidates and aren’t allowed to reject them (I’ve always been a big fan of adding “none of the above” to ballots). That means that if Prop 19 passes, it is more likely the will of the people than the Attorney General’s victory.

At the end of the article, Paul Armentano asks:

Which ultimately brings up the question: If a government’s legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California’s next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.

Oo, oo, I know the answer. Pick me! Pick me!

We done passed that point a long time ago…

It’s no longer in the rear view mirror…

We passed it so long ago it’s in a different time zone….

That point’s so old its clothes have gone out of style…

Oh, look! There it goes again — we just lapped it!…

I looked back with my telescope for it, but all I could see was the redshift….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Neither CA Attorney General candidate willing to publicly agree to obey the law.

  1. Just me. says:

    Red shift blue shift, red shift blue shift. Really, how many times we gonna go round this?

    Government seriously needs a reality call and cleaned out. When was our ablitiy to have our will followed negated?

    How is it if we lie to congress its a felony. If they lie to us its just politics. I call bullshit.

    Do your damned jobs, other wise get out!

  2. Ben Mann says:

    As far as this ballot initiative, it does not matter what any politician says about it. Everyone in California will be forced to obey the will of the people… With one exception.

    Barack Obama. Only he can frustrate the will of the people by unleashing the hounds at the DEA, and instructing them to bust any business that opens up selling pot.

  3. Pete says:

    Ben — basically true, although a rebellious criminal justice system in the state could make it unpleasant for a while. When medical marijuana was passed, there was a period of wide-spread harassment by some state and local LEOs that basically was a arrest-first-see-if-they’re-legal-later policy that was, if not supported, certainly not condemned by the AG.

  4. darkcycle says:

    RE: legitimacy and elections in the United States of America, see Bush v. Gore.
    I got nuthin more to say.

  5. claygooding says:

    I would love for voters in every state to have a good candidate for any political election because these two candidates are a perfect example of why our country is failing,it is what happens when we are repeatedly forced to vote for the one that sucks the least.

  6. darkcycle says:

    I agree, Pete, LE is likely to fight prop 19 by continueing arrests. The courts will have to step in and tell them to lay off, just like 215. And the way they had to in Washington.
    LEO’s will scramble and fight for every little scrap of power they can get. It is always the job of the courts to make sure they don’t go too far. Too bad so many Judges see their jobs as facilitators of law enforcement instead of as the leash-holders.

  7. darkcycle says:

    To any and all owners of SWAT killed pets: I apologize for the dog reference above.

  8. malcolmkyle says:

    Hopefully for him, Rubin may think twice before writing such crap ever again.

  9. kaptinemo says:

    Malcolm, it looks like Mr. Navarette is already feeling the heat; the comment section is overwhelmingly against him. More proof the cannabists rule the Internet.

    Dinosaurs like Navarette are only publicly bellowing their pathetic obsolescence when they write tripe like that…

  10. ezrydn says:

    Sue the bastards, personally, in civil court!!!

  11. malcolmkyle says:

    Thousands of lawyers looking for work, and millions of the disenfranchised looking for retribution may well get you that wish ezzy!

  12. Ripmeupacuppa says:

    Sure thing Kaptin’- he’s been strung up by his nads!

  13. garrettt says:

    I hope bill hicks was wrong when it comes to state power…

    “The message they want to convey to you is: “State Power will always win, …., we will say any lie we want over our propaganda machine the main stream media …. So you just be apathetic America, you stay Docile, and just remember you are free to do as we tell you”…
    — Bill Hicks

    Yes SIR Mr. GOV Whatever you say SIR! Pot is Bad and harmful got IT! I’m going to go put on my boy scout uniform now. PFFFtttt.

  14. kpj says:

    For supporters of drug law reform and marijuana legalization the only real choice for AG in California is Kamala Harris. While she is formally against Prop 19, this is hardly surprising: she is a prosecutor. But, she is a far more progressive prosecutor than her opponent, and really the most progressive candidate to make a serious run for AG in California EVER. Based on her record in San Francisco, I very seriously doubt that Kamala will make any moves against Prop 19 if it passes.

    None of this is to forgive her stance on the issue, which is cowardly and wrong. But, if you support Prop 19 she is clearly the better vote.

  15. Dano says:

    Cooley has actively been campaigning against medical marijuana, calling all dispensaries illegal. His goal in Los Angeles County has been publicly stated to get all of the dispensaries in the county closed permanently. He loves the 3 strikes laws we have, and loves to bump up misdemeanors to felony level even decades later just to get the third strike needed to guarantee at least 25 years in prison. (One guys third “felony” was theft of a piece of pizza!)

    He tells public officials that they need to declare and generally reject gifts from anyone, including friends, while in office as a means to deal with corruption issues we’ve had. At the same time he considers himself exempted from those same rules, as his friends are “just friends”. He’s great at double standards.

    I don’t know Harris, but she seems to make more sense than he does, although that’s not really saying much is it?

  16. Duncan20903 says:

    Pete, I’ve written in ‘Libertarian’ for a number of elections. I’m sure that I could have written in ‘none of the above’ instead.

  17. undrgrndgirl says:

    there is no reason you have to vote for something in every race…just don’t vote for either candidate…in essence you are saying “none of the above”…your ballot will be counted for everything else, and will be counted in the total # of ballots cast in the election as a whole…i think if enough of us did that we’d start showing up as anomalies in voting (or non-voting) trends, and its a far better idea than not exercising your right to vote…

  18. undrgrndgirl says:

    here are the other candidates:

    Peter Allen, Green
    Robert J. Evans, Peace and Freedom
    Timothy J. Hannan, Libertarian
    Diane Beall Templin, American Independent

    don’t get trapped in the false dichotomy…

  19. Duncan20903 says:

    I really wish that a movement would start among voters that are going to the polls to vote specifically because Prop 19 is on the ballot. Whitman? Brown? What a Hobson’s choice. Write in Tommy Chong for Governor. If we could get him 3-4% of the vote we’d all of a sudden have a voting block that the poli-tards can easily identify. We’re not visible to them right now because they think we’re too lazy to go out and vote. It’s why Senator Feinstien is so vocal. She doesn’t expect potheads to show up in 2012 when she’s up for re-election but she does expect the drug war sycophants to show up.
    Are there any other laws in the US which enjoy having almost 50% support for repeal? I think not since SCOTUS ruled that we have a right to enjoy oral sex and struck those laws. Not even the income tax has that much support for repeal. In 2008 Massachusetts voted on ballot initiatives including one to repeal the income tax and one to decriminalize petty possession of cannabis.

    Decriminalization of petty possession of cannabis won 65% of the vote. The repeal of the state income taxes only won 30% support. Wow, we’re more popular than evading income taxes! Now that’s a statement.

    I swear I can not figure out how oral sex became criminalized. It’s hard for me to imagine that there are people that don’t like oral sex, much less think it a criminal . The SCOTUS vote also wasn’t unanimous! Well it still left us with the 14th amendment protection for our god given right to enjoy oral sex.

    Well for the love of god…the Texas GOP is lobbying against oral sex currently. If a guy enjoys giving other guys blowjobs, is sending him to prison actually a penalty?

  20. malcolmkyle says:

    Thanks for link Duncan

    Some great comments there:
    “The part about oral sex being considered sodomy is taken from the now-downstruck Texas sodomy law, which defined any sexual contact other than heterosexual genital intercourse as sodomy.

    I suspect that any heterosexual genital intercourse where the man neglects to beat the woman will also be considered sodomy.

  21. B-roll says:

    Thanks for bringing that up Duncan, I live in Arkansas so I’m one state away from that nonsense. But how could a party that’s supposed to be for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS even stand up for this. That platform is outrageous, we the people do live in a land known for its freedom (currently being restricted mind you). Good thing the supreme court is on the side of those who love blow jobs.

Comments are closed.