Obama administration has so much money sitting around, they’ve decided to bust every pot smoker in California

Eric Holder To Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will “vigorously enforce” against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.

This is an open thread.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Obama administration has so much money sitting around, they’ve decided to bust every pot smoker in California

  1. David Marsh says:

    Darkcycle, I agree, at this time, the feds do not have the physical ability or political will to enforce federal cannabis law in Cali or any other state that would make recreational cannabis legal. However, the passage of 19 and a indiscreet exuberance on the part of a less than super-majority of voters could well change the political climate. Again the phrases “significant impediment” and “significantly undermine” lay not only legal but political ground work for federal intervention.

    I think possession would be low priority but it could get very ugly on the distribution and manufacture side because of forfeiture statute income to pay for additional foot soldiers to quell the “civil disturbance”. Much like federal intervention in the turbulent 60’s and 70’s.

    You are right about the flanks and with barely more than 50% support the 49%ers may demand action. It is a dangerous game and Holders letter is a warning shot across the bow so he can say “I told you” when they begin their high profile strategic enforcement.

    You are right they do not need to establish president to enforce the CSA, however he can strategically effect other states in their ballot initiative process until SCOTUS responds. Not to mention the effect on state cannabis legislative activity.

    In Title 21 USC 811 (b).. To remove a substance form the CSA the AG and the Secretary of HHS apply an eight part test.

    (1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
    (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
    3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
    (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
    (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
    (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
    (7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
    (8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

    The Ag requests a scientific and medical evaluation from the Secretary on(2),(3),(6),(7), and (8) and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1),(4), and (5). The Secretary decides where it goes and the AG enforces it.

    An interesting potential administrative law conflict considering GONZALES v. OREGON.

  2. Bruce says:

    The cunning new Hun will emplace and fortify every obstacle regarding herb use but whoa when it comes to the trickery of the financial cons …

  3. darkcycle says:

    Bruce, he has shown his intention to do just that. No justice department action on torture. No JD actions against bankers or banks (continue unabated the forclosures on ordinary schmoes). Hands off BP, and by the way, he’s helping cover up the continueing disaster in the gulf.
    But the pot heads can expect an iron fist. I say go ahead and f**king go for it, Barry you shit-heel. I’ll work just as hard for your defeat in 2012 as I did for Bush’s in ’04 and McCain’s in ’08. And I gotta give Old Shrubbie one thing that I can’t say for Barry, at LEAST you KNEW where that illiterate inbred halfwit stood. Barry would have been the punk who ratted out his best friend to save his own ass, then did a controlled buy to bury him forever.

  4. darkcycle says:

    So where’s their endgame? The removal from schedule 1, they’ve been fighting that all along. It just makes no sense to delay it by fomenting a virtual revolutionin the State of Cali, a State they need badly in ’12.
    What they are doing is shooting themselves in the head to cure a case of hiccups.
    With an election looming, and two years remaining in his first term…..starting a fire in California that is likely to burn for a decade or more…
    Can you say Phyrric victory?

  5. darkcycle says:

    Oh, that post above was for you, David, any clues?

  6. Paul says:

    I’m glad Holder threated action. The Federal government and this administration are not particularly popular right now. More people are likely to pull the lever to stick it to feds than to be scared by Holder’s threats.

    And if they do come in force to bust people, it will make them even less popular in California than they already are. So come on down and let’s party, Mr. Holder, and start packing for 2013. If your boss had kept his word and left medical pot alone, perhaps 19 would have not been about to pass.

  7. Bruce says:

    Anyone heard of Death Watch Beetles? Believe it or not I have them. Folklore tells it is the teeny snapping sounds heard while at the bedside of a loved one while waiting for them to die. Wierdest looking itsy bitsy things, big heads. Awesome in their ominousness and I thought relative to the subject at hand, waiting for this monster, Prohibition, to die.

  8. Ned says:

    The disconnect between the public office holders and the reality on the ground is vast. I spent the afternoon speaking with a cannabis professional. The underground cannabis market is huge and entrenched in northern California. IT WILL NEVER BE ERADICATED.The prohibition creates and supports the values that attract and motivate the players. There exists now enough legal cover from the medical exception, and enough economic reality power fueled by the boost the trade gives certain parts of the state that to continue prohibition for them is foolhardy. In just 6 years he has become very affluent and employs 20 people mostly full time.

    Yet on the other side Wash DC is distant, they have no idea what really is going on as a daily reality for tens of thousands of Californians. They have created an equally deeply entrenched culture and bureaucracy of prohibition. One one side the pure power of capitalism drives the market, on the other side the sheer power of institutional and bureaucratic status quo drives the policy makers. It is very very difficult to create the kind of bottom up force that overcomes the status quo, for many reasons. Not only do we have to be right but we have to defeat the Corporate media megaphone and decades of framing. Prop 19 is very likely to come up just a bit short and yet it will be getting millions of yes votes.

  9. DdC says:

    What Do Marijuana and Catnip Have in Common?
    By Julie Holland, MD and Michael Pollan
    CN Source: AlterNet October 16, 2010
    Interview: In a wide-ranging interview from a new book on pot, Pollan says, ‘The idea that the government can tell you what you can grow in your garden strikes me in a visceral way as wrong.’
    Excerpt from The Pot Book edited by Julie Holland, M.D.
    (Park Street Press, 2010)

    Cannabis, the Importance of Forgetting by Michael Pollan
    Pollan: Yes, Raphael Mechoulam keyed me in to that idea. We understand the evolutionary utility of memory, but we don’t often think about the utility of forgetting. And it was that comment by him that made me realize that it’s almost as important to be able to forget as it is to remember.


    Holder To Enforce US Drug Laws if Prop. 19 Passes

    Marijuana Laws Will Be Enforced, State Law or Not

    Holder Says U.S. Would Enforce Ban on Pot in CA

    Feds Oppose Calif. Prop 19 To Legalize Marijuana



  10. kaptinemo says:

    If the Feds, led by a Democratic Party-controlled Legislature and Executive Branch, truly want a court case that will cause the sordid, racially bigoted origins of cannabis prohibition to be rubbed in the faces of a (largely) socially liberal and racially-mixed electorate (as California mainly is), during a critical election year, then fine. Bring it on.

    How effin’ stupid can they get?

  11. kaptinemo says:

    And as for pols who are pandering to LE ‘special interests’ by promising not to cut LE pensions in favor of political endorsements, well, the taxpayers might have something to say about that, too. Pols simply don’t understand: the world has changed, and the old ways of doing things no longer apply. There is no vast taxpayer-funded pool of revenue to power the DrugWar any more…as if there ever was, with the US National Debt being propped up by foreign countries and their banks.

    Everyone, everyone will have to tighten their belts, and that means that LE has to, as well, for just about everyone else has suffered losses with their retirements being sucked into the greedy laws of the banksters. Standing out like that is a sure way to draw taxpayer ire, and in a time where you have people bringing guns to political rallies, that might not be such a good idea…

  12. jackl says:

    There are plenty of reasons to vote for or against Obama in 2012, but with the economy still in free fall and no real idea or will how to put Humpty Dumpty together again, this nuanced policy of Holder with respect to California and cannabis is **not** one of them, IMHO. I agree with them basically that it’s a marginal issue and a distraction, in a tea party nation where we have already so many distracting “issues” which are poorly framed and shouldn’t be issues.

    People who are getting all het up about Prop 19 are missing the point I think. It doesn’t really matter whether the thing wins or loses. We all know it’s going to be close, but it’s contentious: about half of the populace is going to be pissed off on Nov. 3 either way. So perhaps with a marginal victory at the polls (or vice versa) neither side really has a mandate right now, although we all know time is on our side and prohibition is ultimately doomed.

    I don’t think the industry is “ready” for full legalization right now and it is both unnecessary and foolhardy to risk the industry structure that has grown up in California by a period of widespread price and production uncertainty.

    This is why Holders threat, and drawing the line at medical cannabis in California is both politically brilliant and will be the salvation of the industry. It means that clandestine production which can obviously meet today’s levels of demand for quasi-legal cannabis will endure, while everyone whos’ been sitting on the sidelines waiting to set up legal commercial grows in warehouses on a Phillip Morris industrial model will just have to wait, because no bank, VC or investors are going to give them money on November 3 to make half of Oakland into indoor growing space.

    I’ve spent a career working as an environmental consultant for industry, for places that make two billion cans for Budweiser and run almost 24/7/365 to make and warehouse cans so that everyone who wants to buy beer on the fourth of July can get his six pack. Does anyone not think that the mom and pop grows in Humboldt and Oakland warehouses can’t supply everyone that wants to get pot in California with pot?

    Does any adult in California who wants to get pot have any trouble getting great weed? Oh it costs $150 for a recommendation from a physician, but the legal standards are loose: who doesn’t have insomnia, headaches or dystopia? And you might have to go to a dispensary two towns over because the scolds in your town won’t allow that? This easterner isn’t shedding any tears for you. And you may have that if Prop. 19 passes anyway.

    What this seems about to me is that someone thinks that $400 is too much for clandestinely grown pot, and there’s this idea that if you make it legal like Budweiser, it costs $40 and the government gets $10 in new tax revenue. Win win, supposedly? Well, yes if you believe the economics and believe this will work. And believe that the price will go down to $40. Or more importantly, the price “should” crash. After all, it’s “just a weed” and supposedly “easy to grow” as the myth goes.

    I don’t really, and I think to replace the Mendicino growers with venture capitalists producing the cheapest possible product in warehouses may not ultimately be in anyone’s interest, as quality plummets.

    So, as imperfect as the situation is, the best possible outcome is at hand, which is that 52% of the populace goes on record as “pro”, Holder clamps down so a commercial non medical market can’t develop, and the status quo continues in California with even less threat of law enforcement intervention.

    To me that seems like the best compomise available at the time and one which will preserve the small growers until they can someday compete on a winery model like in Napa or Sonoma where people recognize the difference (and superiority of) a nice pinot noir and don’t say “why you can buy a bottle of Gallo on my corner, so the price of a bottle of wine should be $5”.

  13. Dan Kanna says:

    If you want to know exactly what went wrong with our republic, find the answers here:


  14. Servetus says:

    I think the feds will make small numbers of random, isolated busts in California just to keep the marijuana industry on edge, because there’s little more they can do. Instilling fear is all the DEA has left in its bag of tricks as far as California is concerned. As usual, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

    Another problem facing federal prohibition in California is jury selection. Legalization is going to have a sweeping impact on people presently uncommitted and unfamiliar with cannabis issues. Cannabis prohibition will have collapsed. For many Californians it won’t matter from a local, legal standpoint if a grow-op is for medical or recreational use. That attitude will be highly corrosive to a federal trial.

    BTW, when selecting jurors, always pick secular humanists, agnostics and atheists. Non-believers have consistently ranked in the 60-70th percentile among those who favor eliminating drug prohibition.

  15. David Marsh says:

    Yes there are many reasons to vote for or against Obama in 2012, and while the economy may be in disarray I believe it is not accurate to describe it as a “free fall”. Global reallocation of resources is what one British economist called it. The economy is another subject, germain in regards to the CSA only with respect to SCOTUS findings in Gonzalez v Raich concerning Congress’s authorities under the Commerce Clause.

    Gonzalez v Raich – pp. 13 – JUSTICE STEVENS “‘Cases decided during that “new era,” which now spans more than a century, have identified three general catego¬ries of regulation in which Congress is authorized to en¬gage under its commerce power. First, Congress canregulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 150 (1971). Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Ibid. Third, Congress has the power to regu¬late activities that substantially affect interstate com¬merce. Ibid.; NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937).”

    Gonzalez v Raich – pp 1 of JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

    What is their end game? History may provide some clue, in times of extream turbulence governments treat individual issues “de minimis”. Anyone remember 1968? The assassination of MLK and RFK? The riots in 115 cities and the Democratic National Convention? What about USSR invading Czechoslovakia, or the beginning of “The troubles” in Ireland.

    How about President Johnson fundamentally reorganized the federal drug control agencies at the end of his term. The Bureau of Narcotics, then housed in the Department of Treasury, merged with the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, then housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), to create the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, currently housed in the Department of Justice.

    And the kicker Nixon was elected by a landslide as a result of what? McCarthy’s ineptitude when he quit campaigning When RFK was shot,as a result of the chaos at the convention, or he didn’t want to be known as a three letter abbreviation.

    In 69 Nixon took office and Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 (1969),held certain provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act and other narcotics legislation unconstitutional.

    In 70 Nixon declaired war on druggs and the Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.19, Title II of that Act, the CSA. Marihuana was “temporarily” placed in Schedule I pending the results of “certain studies now underway” The soon to be known DEA immediately hires 300 agents.

    March 22, 1972 the “certain studies now underway” ie: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse report known as the Shafer Report is delivered and ignored.

    Nixon while in office wages war not only on “drugs” he systematically engages the democratic “enemies” using “dirty tricks”. Nixon is re-elected but “Deep Throat” and a two journalists bring down the woud be king. The war in Vietnam ends with chaos in 75 but the “war on drugs” continues.

    Fast forward.. we elect a black man to be president and take us to the promised land MLK promised was there. However an economic meltdown begins and the dream becomes a nightmare.

    The “War on Drugs” continues even when the government commission engaged to evaluate the issues finds that the total prohibition model is “Philosophically Inappropriate” and “Constitutionally Suspect”.

    The war on drugs is not about the drugs. It is about the management of large groups of humans. From the Shafer Report,”The hypothesis that widespread irresponsibility would attend freer availability of marihuana suggests not that a restrictive policy is in order but rather that a basic premise of our free society is in doubt. We note that the escalation thesis, used as an argument against marihuana rather than as a tool for understanding individual behavior, is really a manifestation of skepticism about individual vulnerabilities.”

    Their end game? Keep us safe, because we cannot keep our selves safe. If they have to arrest one million a year to keep two hundred million safe, they will. The million is “de minimis”, so is Obama’s re-election,and un-employment at 10%.

    Here is a question. What’s our end game? Are we going to continue the government bashing? Or maybe start teaching a little restraint and self dissiplin to our kids, our friends, family co-workers, ect…”Social control is most effectively guaranteed by the exercise of individual self-discipline. Elementary social psychology teaches us that restraint generated within is infinitely more effective and tenacious than restraint imposed from without” again from the Shafer Report. Freedom isn’t free. There are those of you here I owe big time. For you sacrifice, your service and your valuable opinions. This evaluation is one small piece of payback to all who have gone before.

    This is only my opinion. Its worth what you paid for it. Nada.

  16. swansong says:

    Holder also said legalizing recreational marijuana would be a “significant impediment” to the government’s joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute pot alongside cocaine and other drugs.

    Holder went on to say…”And if we have it our way that’s exactly the way it will stay.”

  17. Duncan20903 says:

    clay said “How long do you think they could keep marijuana illegal if it was not schedule 1?”

    What do I look like, a freakin’ psychic palm reader? Those people are frauds. I’ve never once had one call me when I was ready to engage their services. No I didn’t call them. They’re psychics. They should know when I’m ready and call me. They should also know my credit card info without my help.

    Our friend Mark Kleiman said something positively insightful in one of his earlier diatribes in the last couple of weeks. The US can only stop lab research in the US. He was attempting to show that potheads are against research because they haven’t go to other countries and sponsored the research needed which is completely specious reasoning, but only because he thinks not coughing up millions of dollars is equal to thinking the money shouldn’t have been spent to do the research. But in ways outside the scope of his use of the example he did raise questions in my mind. So why is Dr. Craker unable or unwilling to pack up his lab and go across the street into Canada to do the research he wants to do? Just playing diablo advocati here. It was a curve ball that got me thinking. I’d agree that, it’s unreasonable to require him to do it. So since when has it been logical to expect the idiots on the other side of the table to be reasonable? Let’s pack up a lab and a couple of research scientists and take them to whatever foreign country is needed and get the friggin’ work done. If we wait for the dawn of reason from the ONDCPists our great grandchildren will be lucky if they get to usher it in.

  18. Duncan20903 says:

    Oh clay, how does the State of Oregon moving cannabis to their state’s schedule 2 change things? How the heck can it be maintained in schedule 1 Federal and 49 states if Oregon recognizes that it is a valid medicine?

    Seriously, then there’s the Iowa Board of Pharmacy who were ethical enough to vote to move it to schedule 2 but went weenie and called the State lawmakers to actually do it. The way that it was initially presented I thought they didn’t have that authority but then they slapped JWH-018 into schedule 1 without so much as a ‘heads up’. They still get a tip of the pin for being ethical enough to recognize the truth when forced to look for it.

    So how can something be medicine in Oregon and Iowa but not in Washington DC?

  19. claygooding says:

    I had already stated that Prop 19 does not violate the CSA because states can classify drugs differently than the federal classifications because the CSA has a paragraph in it that stating the policy does not control the field,thus,states can classify drugs differently than the feds.

    I have wondered how we could have 14 states and our nations capitol with m/m laws,hundreds of doctors recommending marijuana to thousands of patients and it still be a schedule 1 drug.

    Prohibitionism at it’s finest.

  20. claygooding says:

    This was my post at Opposing Views on this article:

    More of the same please

    Nothing unexpected here,any other response would make people think our government had some common sense.

    This will mean thousands of small commercial growers and higher prices than the Rand estimates,but still possibly cheaper than today’s green market price. It will allow the cartels to continue to operate and therefore continue the prohibition machine on down the tracks.

    Now all the Justice Department has to do is come up with the money for jailing,feeding,clothing,Judicial actions and imprisoning all those nasty marijuana growers and users.
    All it costs is tax dollars.

    This is a win/win situation for some.
    The ONDCP gets more tax dollars added to his budget.
    The prohibition machine continues.

    The cartels continue taking billions out of our country untaxed.

    The kids get to have dealers on every corner selling them marijuana and any other pharmaceutical,illicit or self manufactured drug he has,.

    The prison industry gets to build more prisons,,,,oops,no money for that so they will have to hire more probation officers and gear up for taking in cash on probation fees and fill the rehab centers with people that are not addicted.
    All it costs is tax dollars.

    And this will certainly go a long ways towards reinstalling trust for our government and it’s laws or law enforcement agencies.

    PS: The cartels are toasting pictures of Holder and Obama for preserving their empires.

  21. ezrydn says:


    We start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, we hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

    As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another Monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

    Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

    To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the snot out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

    Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

    The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

    Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs OR even why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally, after replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

    Why not?

    Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

    And that, my fellow monkeys, is how Congress operates – And precisely why weneed to REPLACE all the original monkeys this November.

  22. Duncan20903 says:

    I find the claim of potheads being nothing but Cheetos consuming layabouts amusing as hell when someone uses that argument against Prop 19. Oh, ok, well we wouldn’t want to increase the number of people that spend a million and a half dollars of their own money to gather 700,000 signatures to get a vote on a ballot initiative on the ballot and start a nationwide dialog. Yeah, Richard Lee is a lazy good for nothing slug-a-bed. Shit, if you’ve seen him on TV you’d know he’s to flipping lazy to even walk on his own two feet. I mean seriously, how lazy do you have to be to put wheels on a chair so you don’t have to walk from here to there?

    I suppose I should stop listing ‘layabout’ as my occupation on my 1040. It probably just encourages that thinking among the know nothings. So far the list is
    3 countries, 14 States and the District of Columbia, Bayer Shering Pharmaceuticals, the Boards of Pharmacy of 2 states (so far), a couple of dozen associations of medical professionals, the University of California, and 75-80% of the voters that we potheads have ‘scammed’ into believing that cannabis is medicine. That’s a pretty good trick for people living on a couch in Mom’s basement, eating cheetos, and watching reruns of Cheech & Chong movies over and over. Not only did we scam Rhode Island into passing a medical cannabis law, we got the to go back and add dispensaries later on. Oh for the love of christ, if I had a rocket launcher…

    fixitman said: “…prohibitionist “arguments” that keeps showing up in comments sections that has really begun to bother me is “legalization will reduce productivity”. I personally am not a poster child for a cannabis user that gets things done. It seems possible to make the case that there will be some loss of individual productivity with the use of cannabis. But to make the case for a loss in general productivity,,,”

    First thing you need to call it a loss is an entitlement to it in the first place. No one has the right to claim the fruits of another person’s work. PS the IRS will take a percentage of your dough but they don’t worry if you don’t send them any if you didn’t make any, and they don’t count it as a ‘loss’ if you decide to live in an old van down by the river. Aside from that having a government that protects property rights and creates the needed means for productivity definitely is a benefit if you do decide to produce. Honest to god I regard the US Government as a partner in my business dealings. If I lived in most parts of Africa and I created something of value it’s not bloody likely that the local ‘strong man’ would let me keep it. So why would I put forth the effort? If I were to try to do business in Iran or Iraq I shouldn’t be surprised if it gets blown off the face of the earth by a car bomb. Both situations are antagonistic to a flourishing business economy. I’d think a great percentage, perhaps approaching 100% of people who think of the government as the enemy of their business dealings haven’t taken into account the obstacles that are not in their way because of the rule of law.
    It seems Sheriff Boca is unfamiliar with an arcane document called the Constitution of the State of California. Frankly I hope that he does decide to help the Feds over the objections of his employer. Not many seem aware that choosing Federal over State law is specifically forbidden in that rarely inspected document and this would put that Constitutional requirement of California employees front and center.
    David Marsh, I don’t understand your logic. I understand the train of thought but think that Raich derailed it.

    The UN’s 1961 Single Convention’s forbidding legal cannabis is red herring. The US can withdraw from that treaty at its whim. But it’s a vital part of the prohibitionists’ circle jerk. The circle jerk is: California can’t re-legalize cannabis as long as Federal law forbids it. The Federales can’t change their law because of the UN treaty. The UN treaty can’t be changed because every non European government would have conniption fits. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    You are correct that the treaty exempts medical uses of the drugs on the naughty list. But it also requires that any country that decides to allow patients access, making the ‘dangerous’ drugs legal for medical use requires that the drugs be produced and distributed by the gov’t. But here’s a monkey wrench in the gears of that thought. The US Constitution specifically bars the various states from entering into treaties with foreign governments. I don’t see how someone forbidden to make a treaty with foreign governments can be held to the requirements of the treaty. But I’m sure that the powers that be have come up some kind of hogwash to shoehorn them into compliance.

    How did the word hogwash become synonymous with a ‘fiction spun from whole cloth’? Is it because nobody would ever wash a pig so there’s no such thing as hogwash? There are so many compulsive neurotics in the world that I am skeptical that there isn’t a cohort of people that do wash their pigs. There are people that think that ‘cow tipping’ is just good fun. If you’ll tip a cow you most certainly are inclined to washing hogs.


  23. ezrydn says:

    You gotta read this for yourselves:

    Plus, Soros just threw in another $250,000 and
    Rush Limbaugh handed over $50,000.

    So, $209,005 + $250,000 + $50,000 = $509,005 in donations to cover the remaining two weeks, not to mention what we all “little people” donate.

    Guess Eric’s threat didn’t work so well, huh? LOL

  24. DdC says:

    Mexico Closely Watches California Marijuana Vote
    By Randal C. Archibold
    CN Source: New York Times October 17, 2010
    Mexico City — In two weeks, Californians will decide whether to legalize small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, in a vote that polls show could be close. Now, for a change in the drug war, it is Mexico wondering about the possible spillover, this time of an idea. Will such a bold step by its neighbor to the north add momentum to a burgeoning movement here for broad drug legalization?

    As We See It: No on Proposition 19
    Santa Cruz Sentinel endorsements

    California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legalization Initiative Poll

    Yes – 994 – 73%
    No – 347 – 25%
    Other (explain below) – 12 – 0%
    Current Total – 1,353

  25. darkcycle says:

    So David. I really think you are almost there with your reasoning. IMO: When Nixon ignored Scheaffer and the commission, he did it precisely for the reasons you delineate. But the end game can’t be “to keep us safe” it inverts the scale. No, while “TKUS” is the public face of the policy, SOCIAL CONTROL is the truth at it’s core. Nixon knew what Anslinger knew, and what Reagan and Bush knew. The war on drugs started as a method to control outlying groups. Mexicans in the Southwest. African Americans in the south and the inner cities. Later, Nixon ignored Schaeffer to go after the hippies and war protestors.
    Over the years it became clear that this policy had a second, unexpected effect: As marijuana crossed class and economic barriers, more and more people found themselves involved with it. Those people, it was discovered tend to avoid being politically active, and lay low. If you are involved with illegal activities, it is a good policy not to draw undue attention to yourself. A person could rightly see being involved in their community and in politics as a risk; if their drug use is uncovered they stand to lose their jobs, their freedom and their family. Why stick your neck out for other people when your neck is already hyperextended? Also, on the LE side, if you wanted to go after someone for say holding protests against a war, or organizing a church civil rights group, you can’t. But if that person is involved with drugs, its a different ballgame.
    But all of this doesn’t give us their end game. The Cannabis laws are falling, a study of prohibition of alcohol find remarkably similar sets of circumstances. I assume they want to preserve the status quo (or close) until after a hypothetical 2012 Obama victory, after which, they are free to turn on a dime and legalize for all, or advance the police state to the logical outcome.
    No. The question that really bugs me is what is their gain in announcing two weeks before the election their intent to send in the storm troopers? This will end his chances in California. The Obama guy only wins this game if he’s re-elected in ’12. How the hell is he gonna do that when he’s in check, and one move from mate?
    There has to be some angle that they see that I’m missing. He’s setting himself up for a Phyrric Victory; perserve the status quo temporarily and lose the election and his seat in the game.

  26. darkcycle says:

    David, it’s the law that’s de minimus. Obama and Holder have continued in the recent tradition that says if it is politically inconveinient to prosecute or investigate, look the other way. Holder is an appointee. He took an oath to prosecute crimes where he found them true, But he also uses the politician’s version of prosecutorial discretion. No bank fraud cases after the meltdown, shielding torturers from the JD. No. Your lawyers training tells you it’s the institution of law and the courts that will drive this. Once there’s litigation on whatever action the feds take in Cali, that’s true. But now, it’s being driven by politicians, politicians whose every policy move is carefully adjusted to help them do what they need to do to be politicians; win the next election. So: What the fuck were they thinking?

  27. libtard kool-aid says:

    We don’t need prop 19 or marijuana we have elected the jesus messiah the obamessiah to make us feel high.

  28. strayan says:

    Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told CNN Sunday she supports legalizing marijuana:


  29. Just me. says:

    Legalization is a game changer, period. It ends their ablility to meddle in the affairs of not only the people of this country but, the people and governments of the world. A power play .What they cant buy thier way into in the form of aid to various countries, they have legislated their way into via the UN. Prohibition is a handy world domination tool. Now some people in Cali are going against them,threatening thier use of this tool.

    Too bad. Its time to end their ‘end game’.

  30. claygooding says:

    Agreed ezrydn on replacing the monkeys. But they out thought us on doing that,we only get to vote on 1/2
    of the monkeys each election,that way there is always a core of trained monkeys to beat up the new ones.
    Oh well,lets change them out anyway and continue changing them out for the next 40 years with no one serving but one
    term,it could induce new training.
    Lottsa big donations coming in,Rush Limbaugh gave $50 grand
    and that just tickles me pink but I still think he is a punk.

  31. Duncan20903 says:

    Rush Limbaugh? The Rush Limbaugh with that long winded radio program? Watchoo talkin’ about Willis? Dude, if we got Rush there’s no doubt we win. No doubt at all. I mean the whole fucking fiasco not just Prop 19. You may be clueless about the size of the cult of personality that worships Mr. Limbaugh. You know how the talking heads maintain that he has an army of devoted sycophants? Well not only is it huge it maybe the largest bloc of voters on the other side of the table.

    If Mr. Limbaugh really made such a substantial contribution I will have to take under advisement and seriously consider that I am actually dead and this is the after life, or possibly just in a long term vegetative state.
    clay, the cannabis medical laws 14 States + DC only enables doctors to decide. No doctor has written a prescription for cannabis. Doctors in Oregon are now able to legally write prescriptions for cannabis under state law. Yes, I understand that its still a Federal faux pas and that no scripts will be written until/unless the Fed changes their regulations. I certainly do question whether the politards in those states actually believe that it’s medicine. They get bent out of shape about the 32 or 33 patients that are under 18 (21). So since when do people wait until age 18 (21) to get sick? Nevada doesn’t allow felons to get in their program. As if the guy who robbed a bank 20 years ago can’t get sick and need medicine. The sales tax thing gets under my skin because a large percentage of, if not all of the states don’t impose sales & use tax on medicine. The politards try to wiggle out of this one by saying that it’s because cannabis can’t be prescribed. IMO that doesn’t pass the laugh test because in every state in which I’m familiar with the state’s sale & use tax also excludes OTC remedies from sales tax. So I can walk to the CVS and buy a jar of vaseline and a box of medicated condoms but pay no sales tax because both are considered medical. Hopefully the clerk will point out that using both at the same time and on the same application would not be a good idea.

  32. Duncan20903 says:

    I’m not seeing any confirmation anywhere that Rush coughed up money for Prop 19. This is a case of I’ll believe it when I see it. Gosh, just the idea of it makes me think of how many people with borderline personalities will have their sense of reality challenged. I really am having trouble thinking he could do this and not have it spattered all over the media.

  33. claygooding says:

    LOL,I am searching for proof also,it is as if the drug czar lit a joint at congressional hearing or something

  34. Duncan20903 says:

    I guess I wouldn’t find it a significant statistically outlier if someone would give the Yes on 19 outfit a donation and to claim it was from Mr. Limbaugh. The size of the donation claimed would make that subterfuge a lot less likely.

  35. darkcycle says:

    Rush ‘with the largest block of voters..’? his show only reaches 3 million people, re-runs included. Duncan you gotta get out more…

  36. ezrydn says:

    Scott, over at Stop the Drug War, had a good opinion piece you all should read about Eric, the Fickle.

    Thanks, Scott. I totally agree with you on this one.

  37. Duncan20903 says:

    What I said was “The largest bloc of voters on the the other side of the table,” without the qualifier is laughable, but arguable with it. OK so I engaged in a little puffery. What of it? Regardless I’m as skeptical of the 3 million number as I am about Rush’s claim of 20 million. He also does podcasts so people aren’t required to listen to the radio to be under his influence. Similar to the inert metabolite THC-cooh produced as a result of consuming cannabis, Rush is fat soluble. Rush’s pablum persists in the bodies of the members of his cult of personality but unlike THC-cooh but is certainly psycho active if not an active psycho. Members of Rush’s audience relate the intense physical illness that his sycophants often suffer called the dittos. Extreme cases are called the mega-dittos. Rush may well be the gateway to sieg heiling and goose stepping. I personally have never met a person doing either of those two things that wasn’t also a fan of Mr. Limbaugh’s. That’s what got every single one of them started down the road to being authoritarian patsies. To top it off he sends his broadcasts out during of the school day which puts the chilled wrens at risk of being assimilated into his deranged cult. It is possible for every elementary school pupil to be exposed to Mr. Limbaugh and suffer from the mega-dittos or even worse. What more evidence do we need?

    I’ve decided that I would prefer the vote on Prop 19 to be a tie vote/actual 50/50 split/dead heat. That would result in chaos that will make the days of Gore v Bush look like a walk in the park.

    Yeah, I’m one of the few people in the world who realizes that ‘sides’ as a valid possibility when one engages in the act of coin flipping. I’d like to see that at the Super Bowl. Do you realize the Super Bowl coin flips are scripted and that’s a 2 headed coin the referee is flipping? Back when I actually still followed pro football I used to sucker someone into betting on the outcome of the coin flip, never once lost. It’s not like it’s ‘fixed’, they really do have a legitimate coin flip previous to the pro forma coin flip. But they have to do that long winded introduction of each and every player from each team’s offense or defense and they always announce the offense from the team that’s going to receive the kick off, and the defense from the team that actually does the kicking.

  38. Duncan20903 says:

    An ounce of processed cannabis, andcultivation of 25 square feet being legal means that the police aren’t going to be able to use the smell of growing cannabis or the smell of burnt cannabis as probable cause of anything. It all but disables the ‘knock & talk’ as investigative SOP. Back in the 20s there were a couple of gung ho cops from the New York state police who tried to bust a guy subsequent to New York’s repeal of their state laws against liquor production and distribution and the case was tossed out because the state police had no probable cause under state law. The majority opinion in that case was written by Justice Brandeis.

Comments are closed.