Home > marijuana > Obama to crack down if Prop. 19 passes

Obama to crack down if Prop. 19 passes

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The Obama administration has denounced Proposition 19, which would legalize personal use of marijuana in California, and promises to “vigorously enforce” the federal ban on possessing, growing or selling the drug if voters approve the ballot measure Nov. 2.

The pledge came Thursday from Attorney General Eric Holder, who oversees the government’s anti-narcotics operations. Prop. 19 would “greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our nation,” he said in a letter to former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration…

“We will vigorously enforce the (federal law) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law,” the attorney general said.


    October 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm


    Title says “of”. Is it “if”?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

    October 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm


    I guess Mr. Eric “The Fed Scolder” Holder has his big guns ready. Good thing he is in the medical marijuana patient’s ring corner. Segregation of users – gotta unionize first, lola.


  3. October 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Thanks for the correction, Hench.

  4. Hank Sims
    October 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm


  5. Goldie
    October 15, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Like Arizona but different.

  6. October 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Don’t you just love those Regressive types and their closet Republican President? The jokes on everyone that voted for “hope”.

  7. Plain Jane
    October 15, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    Better than “dope” John McCain.

  8. capdiamont
    October 15, 2010 at 9:13 pm


  9. Anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    This is extremely hard for me to say, but I approve of this action.

    October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Good Point Goldie,

    some similarities.


  11. 69er
    October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Anonymous 9:30 is not anonymous, it is me. Don’t know how this happened?????

  12. 69er
    October 15, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Not at all like Arizona. Arizona is attempting to enforce federal law and California will, if it should pass, attempt to violate federal law.

    October 15, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Or Coca Bush Jr. and Lead Shot Partyin’ Drunkard Bush Senior. Or, No Inhale Clinton, just erection. Lycene tolerant Carter…. Whee does it stop? Jefferson and his farm?


  14. humboldturtle
    October 15, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Humboldt’s Economy Saved!

    October 15, 2010 at 9:40 pm


    Or, a peoples of a state is trying to get the Feds to recognize State law (since the AZ State Law is dupilcitive in many respects and different too). Some similarities it seems.


  16. Another anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    Bring it, Holder.

    Scalia has the 10th amendment in suppository form just for you.

  17. Eric Kirk
    October 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    Scalia has the 10th amendment in suppository form just for you.

    Scalia sold out the 10th Amendment on the issue already, breaking with his fellow conservatives. Being a perennial cop was more important than his federalist ideology.

    The liberals all voted against pot, in favor of the broad interpretation of the commerce clause.


  18. the reasonable anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Of course the feds don’t have even a fraction of the law enforcement resources they would need in order to make even a small dent in the growers, much less to enforce possession laws. In other words they will “vigorously enforce” the law against maybe one one-millionth of the pot users and growers in California, nowhere near enough to make any difference whatsoever, but plenty enough for some photo ops. If it wasn’t such a waste of resources, it would be laughable.

  19. humboldturtle
    October 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    The US Army isn’t a law enforcement resource?

    It’s been done before. Would Obama bring it?

  20. Eric Kirk
    October 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    No, he’d probably just nail a few high profile users.

  21. Harold h. Greene
    October 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    violation of posse comitatus for marijuana farmers, and smokers, and eaters ? I hope not.

  22. the reasonable anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    “It’s been done before.”

    And didn’t work then, either.

  23. Harold h. Greene
    October 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    It has not been not been done on marijuana smokers, lol.

  24. Big Al
    October 15, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    blowing smoke? can’t get all of us…

  25. mresquan
    October 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    “And didn’t work then, either.”

    It depends on how you look at it.There were some Shelter Cove residents not involved in pot growing who were taken for a hell of a ride,and took a while to get reimbursements.I don’t know that CLMP would be as largely important an asset that it is if it wasn’t for that raid.

  26. Anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    Okay, Quiz Time, Mateys!

    In what way does this picture of President Obama with the cigarette in his mouth resemble the infamous Time Magazine cover picture of O.J. Simpson?

  27. digital dupes
    October 15, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    In what way does this picture of President Obama with the cigarette in his mouth resemble the infamous Time Magazine cover picture of O.J. Simpson?


  28. Anonymous
    October 15, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Nope! It’s the choice to show the skin color darker than it really is. (Of course, the picture MAY have been taken after Obama had been on vacation in a sunny clime.) Dark-skinned human beings DO tan in the sun, after all.

  29. Mitch
    October 16, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Obama is nothing if not consistent. Not only will he enforce laws he wants repealed, he will defend them in court even after they’ve been ruled unconstitutional and despite his assertions that they are morally wrong.

    Unless, that is, the law pertains to banks. That’s different.

  30. Just a Thought
    October 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I am wondering if this will actually help Humboldt County stay afloat economically if 19 passes? Big tobacco companies who would love to have a piece of mj productions in California may not grow as they would be an easy federal target. That means if Humboldt growers remain small enough to stay off of the federal radar, Humboldt County can still have its cash economy and not be taken over by the big tobacco companies who would love a huge piece of this economic pie.

  31. the reasonable anonymous
    October 16, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Interesting point.

  32. the reasonable anonymous
    October 16, 2010 at 8:53 am

    I suppose it might also throw a damper on plans for huge non-medical commercial grows in Oakland (and elsewhere) that many Humboldt growers cite as their reason for opposing Prop 19. So I suppose that might be the silver lining from a strictly local, strictly economic point of view…

    Obama’s planned “crackdown” is still an idiotic policy approach, of course, but I can see how it might actually be welcome idiocy from the point of view of smallish local growers.

  33. Un-Named
    October 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    let me clear my throat…”I toldja so!”

    My next…How much you wanna bet the proprietors of prop. 19 will magically do their multimillion (billion?) dollar business relatively scott free while everybody else still gets criminalized? You throw enough money at the person holding your leash, they might give you another foot of slack.

    This election is the year of money buying power more blatantly en masse than I’ve ever seen.

  34. Un-Named
    October 16, 2010 at 9:12 am

    …also, it’s no casual matter of fact that the feds waited until less than three weeks before the election to remind everybody that they’re on their own side. They had to study how california’s playground game would develop itself first…who and how people organize etc…for any future references.

  35. skippy
    October 16, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Any legal minds or attorneys like to comment? I’d like to hear their cogent views of both the history and law in this regard. As a layman my thoughts are less informed than those of historians and Constitutional scholars.

    Reschedule cannabis on a federal level, let the California voters decide, and bring it to the Supreme Court for review rather than the Attorney General.

    We might think ‘State’s rights trump Federal rights’, well, unfortunately, they don’t. That was settled after the Civil War deciding the Union (or Feds) trumped all rights of individual states.

    As far as Fed/State rights – California repealed alcohol prohibition a full year before the Feds repealed it. During that time California was in conflict with Federal law and the sky didn’t fall and the Feds didn’t come in with guns blazing.

    Bottom line is that the Feds do not appear to have the resources to enforce this failed prohibition of cannabis if we pass Prop. 19. Or do they? There is no way they can cover every town in this state and since cannabis would be legal under state law our state/local law enforcement would be bound to uphold it, wouldn’t they?

    And what happened to Holder’s proclamation earlier this year that the Justice Dept. wouldn’t pursue cases against medical cannabis dispensaries who were operating within state law? You can’t have it both ways – it’s cannabis that’s prohibited by Federal law, not how people *use* cannabis.

    Perhaps the bottom line is that the Feds can withold Federal fundng dollars as a financial strangehold for compliance?

    Am I misguided here? Love to hear the thoughts of informed legal minds on these Prop 19 issues.

    October 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Ah Skippy,

    but Constitutionalists would disagree that the Feds have total, autonomous control over The People. Medical MJ is proof of a court system and judges that are running corrupt and lossely trying to create laws to enforce.

    Bang back as a laymanesque-type.


  37. Angel
    October 16, 2010 at 10:05 am

    So the Feds might come in? Then pro-legalization folks can join in with the gay rioters. Change may have to come from the streets!

  38. Anthony T
    October 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Skippy, here’s my take: Federal Law supercedes or trumps state law. The Supremacy Clause is clear.

    That’s why the the Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights and was ratified on December 15, 1791 — almost 200 years before the Controlled Substance Act — is so important here because the Tenth Amendment is a fundamental PART OF our “Supreme Federal Law” and cannot be side-stepped, even when discussing the Controlled Sunstances Act.

    We should realize it’s the very US Constitution that allows marijuana to be criminalized.

    First of all, fighting the 10th Amendment will NEVER work. Why? Article 6, Clause 2, also known as the Supremacy Clause. When put together, it completely defines the role of Nation vs State such that the laws of the nation will always supersede the laws of states. Therefore ANY laws created by the US government automatically trump state law.

    The MOST important part of Article VI is this line: “…and all Treaties made….” In simple terms, all treaties made with foreign entities will ALSO be considered the supreme law of the land. Why is this important?

    Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. How many people even know about it? For starters, IT’S A TREATY WITH THE UNITED NATIONS (a foreign entity).

    Educate yourselves about that treaty, then compare it to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970!! See any similarities?

    Go back in time with me. Remember the US needed an amendment to the US Constitution to ban alcohol. Right? (18th Amendment) RIGHT! It also needed an amendment to repeal alcohol prohibition. Right? (23rd Amendment) RIGHT! So, why did the US not need an Amendment to ban marijuana and other drugs?? Let’s go back to 1961. By agreeing to a foreign treaty with the United Nations, politicians were able to circumvent the Amendment process altogether to get various substances, including marijuana, banned. Fast forward to today.

    Where is this going? We have got to change the way we are trying to legalize marijuana. A direct vote will not work. Trying to pit states’ rights vs the federal government will NOT work. Begging the DEA to remove marijuana from the schedules will NOT work. So, what will work? TWO things..

    1) Withdraw from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as well as the other two related treaties.


    2) Change the way the US complies with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

    California legalization efforts will be overturned in the Supreme Court. Expect it. That’s my take, Skippy.

  39. October 16, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Very interesting times we live in . . .

  40. Decline to State
    October 16, 2010 at 10:36 am

    As was pointed out in a previous posting if the Feds do indeed plan to…

    “vigorously enforce” the federal ban on possessing, growing or selling the drug

    …they haven’t the resources to enfoce it. It will be the high profilers that will take the heat. That pretty much insures people like Phillip Morris and such will stay away which leaves the small, local Humboldt growers in a much better position.

  41. Un-Named
    October 16, 2010 at 10:48 am

    decline to state…right…what sucks is it was a false lead to begin with. The only people growing and distributing large volumes (for heavy profit) relative to today’s undersupplied “market” will be those that just stuffed state and federal lawmakers’ pockets full of money and great publicity. Those people are laughing all the way to the bank right now. A new phillip morris is forming right before our very eyes…legitimate federal criminals, getting away with what nobody else can, right in front of everybody’s face. I predict they’ll disappear from the spotlight early next year, and won’t return for a very long time.

  42. pro voter
    October 16, 2010 at 11:08 am

    On a happier note…

    “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

    — Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

  43. Not A Native
    October 16, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Skippy, the executive is the sole authority to enforce laws. It consequently has the discretion to decide how and when to do that.

    I’d guess the Federal Government could easily stop prop 19 permitted business if it chooses, simply because regulation and taxation is a large part of prop 19. And from that, information of who, what, and where will be readily available. Storefront pot trading is especially simple to sanction. Simply arresting the participants and confiscating their merchandise is sufficient to deter those with a profit motive.

  44. treesnstuff
    October 16, 2010 at 11:36 am

    two things:

    1. the feds always talk big about stuff like this insisting they will vigorously enforce the federal law and then when push comes to shove they make a couple of high profile busts and call it a day.

    2. funny how the state’s rights argument only holds true when politicians agree with the law the state institutes. this is especially true for republicans. they are all for state’s rights until a state law they don’t like comes along.

  45. Un-Named
    October 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    The only federal resources required to shut down any sized operation is a single representative to deliver the bad news to a single key individual. They’re not naive to the money chain.

    treesnstuff…about the feds always talking big…even a couple of high profile busts will involve at least a few dozen people’s lives getting wrecked. Also, it has a negative effect on all the friendly aspects of the plant. Also also…on the smallest levels of crime, marijuana is highly picked on and will continue to be an easy excuse for criminals and authorities alike to wreck somebody’s day…puns intended.

  46. hysteriatrics
    October 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Would readers enjoy a current cannabis medical update by Dr. Leo Krivitsky, an authority on the subject? Relating to medical marijuana, it has applications to this thread and Mr. Holder:

    Leonard Krivitsky, MD:

    “Those who oppose Medicinal Cannabis should be really ashamed of themselves. There were several scientific studies published just recently that confirmed Cannabis effectiveness in such diverse conditions as chronic pain, muscle spasms, malnutrition and glaucoma. Just a couple of days ago the media, including “USA Today”, published a study that Cannabis may relieve chronic pain even when other drugs don’t. This is extremely important for our wounded veterans, many of whom have chronic pain, and even chronic “neuropathic” pain, for which Medicinal Cannabis was found to be especially effective!

    Cannabis is also being shown by the most current addiction medicine research as a potential “exit” substance for former alcoholics, hard drug or even prescription drug abusers to help them stay off those substances. A very recent study just published called the so-called “gateway drug” theory “half-baked”.

    Both the American Medical Association and the Institute of Medicine are in favor of Medicinal Cannabis, and the Canadian Government even pays for this natural remedy for their veterans! There is growing evidence that Cannabis may help prevent such disastrous conditions as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, and a very recent study just published denies any connection between smoking Cannabis and the risk for lung cancer!

    According to the prestigious Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook, 4-th Edition, Cannabis use suppresses violent behavior and “only the unsophisticated” think otherwise. Everybody agrees as well that Cannabis is much safer than alcohol! It is also much safer than many dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, such as opiates or benzodiazepines.

    What we all need to do is reject baseless, anti-scientific scare tactics of the “opponents” and pass the Medicinal Cannabis legislation all across the Nation, and on the Federal level. This will require giving up certain “dogmas”, but this is how progress is made.”

    Someone should tell Mr. Holder.

  47. treesnstuff
    October 16, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    un-named: yes, a couple of high profile busts will wreck some people’s lives, no doubt. that said, my point is that the feds have to talk big. what are they going to say, “we’ll just roll over to the state law and not enforce the federal statue.” of course they are going to talk big with a lot of bravado. just like with 215, there have been busts and lots of harassment and other bs. but, in the end, medical mj is here to stay and now the feds are pretty much hands off.

  48. Bible Thumper
    October 16, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    In all the rhetoric about what is legal or not legal the most important aspect is always left out.

    What is the cost to society from all this marijuana use? Don’t we already have enough gooney eyed individuals? Crime of every degree permeates our land, high and low. Alcohol and drug use is a dirge to our society. Hell to pay friends…. Hell to pay. Look out. The hour of God’s judgment is come.

  49. Mitch
    October 16, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Bible Thumper,

    There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if our society’s alcohol use was replaced by twice as much pot use, our society would be better off.

    Ask any doctor.

  50. anonymous
    October 16, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    just as every alcoholic is certain that “the world would be a better place if everyone just had another drink” the poto-holic is similarly certain and just as wrong. Alcohol and pot have at least one thing in common, their influence stunts people’s ability to think.

  51. the reasonable anonymous
    October 16, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    What really stunts people’s ability to think is dogma and ideology.

  52. Harold h. Greene
    October 16, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    and too much television viewing.

  53. anonymous
    October 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    only by being inebriated or high does the dogmatic ideology that the condition is beneficial seem reasonable, anonymous. everyone else sees just a drunk or stoner.

  54. Mr. Nice
    October 16, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Mmm hmm like 400 agents parked all their shiny SUVs in the Red Lion, saddled up and went out to chop 10,000 fucking plants and cuff a gang of paid Okies living in Buddhaville tryna call that a successful multi-year operation.

    The only way these motherfuckers are ever going to stop weed from hitting the street is to buy it all themselves. That may sound nuts but India has been doing that with opium for years.

  55. hysteriatrics
    October 16, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Would the reader enjoy more current and surprising medical research on cannabis? The following is an excerpt from Dr. Andrew Weil’s article in the Huffington Post of 09/12/10:

    If an American doctor of the late 19th century stepped into a time warp and emerged in 2010, he would be shocked by the multitude of pharmaceuticals that today’s physicians use. But as he pondered this array (and wondered, as I do, whether most are really necessary), he would soon notice an equally surprising omission, and exclaim, “Where’s my Cannabis indica?”

    No wonder — the poor fellow would feel nearly helpless without it. In his day, labor pains, asthma, nervous disorders and even colicky babies were treated with a fluid extract of Cannabis indica, also known as “Indian hemp.” At least 100 scientific papers published in the 19th century backed up such uses.

    “…as a medical doctor and botanist, my aim has always been to filter out the cultural noise surrounding the genus Cannabis and see it dispassionately: as a plant with bioactivity in human beings that may have therapeutic value. From this perspective, what can it offer us?

    As it turns out, a great deal. Research into possible medical uses of Cannabis is enjoying a renaissance. In recent years, studies have shown potential for treating nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, insomnia, migraines, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, alcohol abuse, collagen-induced arthritis, asthma, atherosclerosis, bipolar disorder, depression, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, sickle-cell disease, sleep apnea, Alzheimer’s disease and anorexia nervosa.

    But perhaps most exciting, cannabinoids (chemical constituents of Cannabis, the best known being tetrahydrocannabinol or THC) may have a primary role in cancer treatment and prevention. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animal models. In part, this is achieved by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels that tumors need in order to grow. What’s more, cannabinoids seem to kill tumor cells without affecting surrounding normal cells. If these findings hold true as research progresses, cannabinoids would demonstrate a huge advantage over conventional chemotherapy agents, which too often destroy normal cells as well as cancer cells.

    As long ago as 1975, researchers reported that cannabinoids inhibited the growth of a certain type of lung cancer cell in test tubes and in mice. Since then, laboratory studies have shown that cannabinoids have effects against tumor cells from glioblastoma (a deadly type of brain cancer) as well as those from thyroid cancer¸ leukemia/lymphoma, and skin, uterus, breast, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

    So far, the only human test of cannabinoids against cancer was performed in Spain, and was designed to determine if treatment was safe, not whether it was effective. (In studies on humans, such “phase one trials,” are focused on establishing the safety of a new drug, as well as the right dosage.) In the Spanish study, reported in 2006, the dose was administered intracranially, directly into the tumors of patients with recurrent brain cancer. The investigation established the safety of the dose and showed that the compound used decreased cell proliferation in at least two of nine patients studied.

    It is not clear that smoking marijuana achieves blood levels high enough to have these anticancer effects. We need more human research, including well-designed studies to find the best mode of administration…

    If you want to learn more about this subject, I recommend an excellent documentary film, “What If Cannabis Cured Cancer,” by Len Richmond, which summarizes the remarkable research findings of recent years. Most medical doctors are not aware of this information and its implications for cancer prevention and treatment. Another reliable source of information is the chapter on cannabinoids and cancer in “Integrative Oncology” (Oxford University Press, 2009), a textbook I edited with integrative oncologist Donald I. Abrams, M.D. (Learn more about integrative cancer treatment from Dr. Abrams.)

    After more than 70 years of misinformation about this botanical remedy, I am delighted that we are finally gaining a mature understanding of its immense therapeutic potential.”

    ~Sorry if too long but hopefully it was a suprising read even for Heraldo’s informed readers.

    Somone should tell Mr. Holder.

  56. Mr. Nice
    October 16, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    he would soon notice an equally surprising omission, and exclaim, “Where’s my Cannabis indica?”

    I say that all the time.

  57. Un-Named
    October 16, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    In the wake of prop. 19 is an assortment of weeders vs. weeders that didn’t exist prior. The idea of divisions within the movement to free marijuana wasn’t on my radar until after 215. There’s these new paranoias about marijuana formed by various sects of marijuanoisseurs themselves. Crazy stuff.

    also…that quote by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is a smack in everybody’s face. “Ha ha, silly people. Did you think you could do what you wanted without our permission? what do you think this is, a free country?”

    anonymous 6:33, for certain there’s people who see you as a complacent drone…no offense intended, sincerely.

  58. Mr. Nice
    October 17, 2010 at 12:45 am

    There’s these new paranoias about marijuana formed by various sects of marijuanoisseurs themselves. Crazy stuff.

    It’s just like tea. There are hella people who drink bammer tea like Celestial Seasonings, Lipton, Tazo, Stash… all the wack name brands that no connoisseur likes. Nobody is paranoid that you won’t be able to get hella good import tea just because most people sip on the tea equivalent of schwag.

    The medical folks now all think that some tobacco company or some shit will come out with artificially flavored weed and the demand for whatever new diesel bullshit they got running will vanish. I don’t think that will happen. Everybody who will buy commercial bammer already smokes bammer currently.

    Or wine, same thing. The market for Peter Vella Modesto swill wine is not making life hard for folks in Napa.

  59. Mitch
    October 17, 2010 at 6:32 am

    anonymous 6:33,

    “only by being inebriated or high does the dogmatic ideology that the condition is beneficial seem reasonable, anonymous. everyone else sees just a drunk or stoner.”

    Ever see two stoners get into a fist-fight?

  60. the reasonable anonymous
    October 17, 2010 at 7:44 am

    I wonder if it’s dogma, ideology, or simple stupidity that is interfering with 6:33’s ability to think? Mitch made no claim that “everyone” should get stoned, or that the condition was “beneficial” compared to complete sobriety.

    In fact, what Mitch was pointing out was that if all *alcohol drinkers* instead used cannabis, that would be an improvement. Given how many alcohol-related deaths, crimes, fights, and how much alcohol-related domestic violence there is, and how little (if any) with cannabis, this doesn’t seem like a very controversial argument…except to those blinded by ideology, dogma, stupidity, or a combination of those factors.

    And the overall point, in case there is anyone biased or dense enough to miss is, is that given these facts, it’s really quite ridiculous that alcohol is legal and cannabis is illegal. Got it?

  61. Bolithio
    October 17, 2010 at 8:38 am

    So if this passes, are they going to slack off on MJ? Its kind of funny, because their press release sounds like they are threatening the voters of CA. I also remember a previous press release, that came out soon after they took office, that they would respect state laws governing medical MJ…

  62. Bolithio
    October 17, 2010 at 8:39 am

    I meant “If it fails , ….

  63. Rickee
    October 17, 2010 at 9:08 am

    This is an interesting read! All the remarks present some interesting facets for this topic especially in light of the good viewpoints, amusing insights, great medical information, and varying opinions about prop 19.

    I wonder where the Tea Party stands on this issue? Seriously! Think about it for a second…

    Isn’t the Tea Party in favor of less regulation, less government, a free marketplace, less taxes, looking out for the little guy (Mom ‘n Pop growers?), a ‘Free America’, and being pro-business? Sounds like a perfect fit for the Tea Partiers… unless hypocritical and prefering to flip-flop in beliefs.

    Yet I just don’t see the Tea Party turning into the Tea Pot anytime soon… though it might do them some good.

    October 17, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Anthony T.,

    nice take, but don’t forget the 14th Amendment either. The 10th Amendment argument is really about how far the Supreme Court will allow the Feds to stretch language in order to dictate power and control. Simple stuff really, just takes legal time, money and energy because we all know simple people are simply too little and not powerful enough to make constitutional changes, barring failure at peace priming the pump for another civil period of unrest and war – for which many fascist supporters will be held to answer for their abuses. This is what this country is breeding – its own demise. The expansion of government IS the calculated stockpiling of domestic human troop (jobs) support when the public/private battle becomes much worse than it is now. Stool pigeons deserve their future.

    Not sorry for the upfront negativity because probabilities are too accurate right now.


    October 17, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Bible Thumper,

    I bet you are brave enough to say that to all the little boys (and girls) who felt the penile stabbing in their rear hineys by those priests, pastors and who knows, maybe even the Popes! Ya, as if consenting children like foreign objects placed inside their rectums.

    Typical looney tune faither.


    October 17, 2010 at 9:22 am

    anonymous @ 5:42,

    states the exact opposite of critical and analytical thinking skills.

    The reason pot is illegal is because it allows people to critically and analytically think and understand reality – exactly what pyramid schemers of all makes and models don’t want (hence the consistent drugee style claims that are really acting in place of civil torts because of inflicting injurious defamations, slander and libels upon those for which establishment applications are rendered indefensible).

    More and more local elitists and power groupee participants are being exposed everyday in many locals (Bell, CA). More is yet to come in California where the People really do run this state – into the ground or not, via election votes.


    October 17, 2010 at 9:29 am

    anonymous @ 6:33,

    do you mean like compulsive consumers who compulsively spend money they don’t have on price-fixed products that are already over-priced due to over-valuation schemes that are the elitists answers to profit mark-ups and marginalizations because of non-drugee money diseases? Aren’t you just a prophetic saint, lola.

    Ding Dong, Ding Dong, wannabe elitist alert!


    October 17, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Bolithio makes a good recognition about threats on voters.

    Why would Obama administration threaten CA voters over a Prop 19 vote that has not happened yet; but, allow citizens to stand outside polling places with bats and abusive rhetoric, in some instance turning people away from voting because of the physical and mental intimidation?

    The United States of Hypocrisy!


  69. Robert Zimmerman
    October 17, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Eric Holder and the DOJ? You only have to worry if you are white. Their actions, statements, and policies already prove that this racist administration will not enforce laws violated by black americans. Unless of course they are registered republicans.

  70. Plain Jane
    October 17, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    There was absolutely no evidence that anyone was turned away from the polling place because of the New Black Panther member standing in front of it. In fact, the videographer who made the ONLY complaint certainly wasn’t intimidated and his video clearly shows people entering and exiting the polls without any apparent fear. Your charge of racism on the part of the DOJ are obviously due to your own racism, your belief that if charges are brought against a black man he must be guilty.

  71. Eric Kirk
    October 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    Ever see two stoners get into a fist-fight?


  72. Mitch
    October 17, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    While stoned?

  73. Harold h. Greene
    October 17, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    It’s nothing pretty to look at.

  74. Plain Jane
    October 17, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    I’ve never seen someone just stoned on pot even get aggressive, only when combined with other drugs like alcohol, speed or cocaine.

  75. Funnygirl
    October 17, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Who you hanging out with, Plain Jane? Inivite the !
    rest of us for the show!

  76. Anonymous
    October 17, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Seems like this thread has missed some of the key implications of this story.

    1. The feds will not condone tax collection from weed sales, since they don’t view it as legal.
    2. There will be no “commercial (e.g., Phillip Morris) production in the central valley. That’s the kind of operation the feds can shut down.
    3. Likewise, there will be no “name brand” pot or “Napa” style companies operating out in the open. Again, the feds can shut down a commercially.
    advertised and marketed product.
    4. If 19 passes, there will likely be more personal and illegal grows, and the underground economy will be stronger, rather than undercut by out-in-the-open commercial grows.
    5. 19 will likely reduce some of the local law enforcement, but crime related to an underground economy (thefts, illegal wiring, untaxed income, etc) will continue to occupy law enforcement time.

    Bottom Line: Prop 19 will not change much, other than recreational users won’t have to pretend that they are using “medicine” and get 215 cards.

  77. Un-Named
    October 17, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    The “crime related to the underground economy” refered above is a false concern. Consider how many corner stores are goint to be ripped off at gun point tomorrow. Shoplifting is crime…unrelated to an black market underground industry of criminals. My point is, people steal stuff that’s valuable to them regardless of legalities. Under the same scrutiny, every corner of commercialism OTHER than “black market” marijuana is severeley plagued with crime, and I’d wager moreso.

    If it’s been recognized that to simply eliminate the written word of a crime will reduce that crime…likewise, just because it’s a crime in writing doesn’t mean it’s a criminal act. Legal gardens in residential neighborhoods would be ripped off left and right just the same…just like cars are indiscriminantly broken into and robbed. Friendly barters would go sour, just like bum deals through the craigslist classifieds. Marijuana is not a crime.

  78. Bible Thumper
    October 17, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    I’m glad the Hench of Justice recognizes that marijuana users are in the same class as sodomite practicing clergy and will also be condemned in the judgment. But don’t you actually think there is more hope for the poor marijuana user than for the profligate priest? After all the Babylonian sodomite has to premeditate his abuse of victims and has developed his practice over many years to the point to where it has become an ingrained part of his character (think demonic possession here). Where as the marijuana user, unless part of a great system of debauchery could conceivable break from the spell and infatuation of it’s use and recover themselves. You be the judge.

  79. humboldturtle
    October 17, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    It’s medicine and should be okay over-the-counter. I wish 19 were written differently, but the paradigm must change so vote YES.

  80. Not A Native
    October 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Ever see two people who just injected heroin or sniffed glue in a fist fight. No? Well that proves that people would be better off taking heroin and sniffing glue than drinking alcohol.

    BTW, ever see two people on pot do little for hours/days/weeks/months/years except smoke, talk up bowl fantasies, resent other people for having things they don’t, and expect everyone they see to give them food/shelter/clothing/transportation? I have.

  81. Mr. Nice
    October 17, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Difference is pot heads get into fights on Halo.

  82. Big Al
    October 17, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    you play halo Nice? glad to hook up and shoot some stoners with you…

  83. Big Al
    October 17, 2010 at 11:02 pm
  84. Dogenpony
    October 18, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Yay for pot! Yay for Halo!

  85. Mitch
    October 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Not a Native,

    The comparison was between two widely used recreational drugs — pot and alcohol — and the damage each imposes on non-users. Alcohol clearly causes people to become aggressive. Pot for the most part does not. Alcohol is known to cause liver damage; pot, as far as is known, does not.

    It is easy to say that if one of the drugs should be illegal at all, it is alcohol. That is not a recommendation for pot use.

    To compare pot with heroin is just stupid. And if people want to become demotivated layabouts, there are plenty of other paths to choose than being a pothead.

  86. Harold h. Greene
    October 18, 2010 at 10:24 am

    some people will sit and push the buttons on a casino game for hours. Do nothing for hours but push those silly buttons, for hours. I know it to be true because I’ve seen it.

    Many of those kind of people, who for hours will do that, I bet don’t even know that Louis Armstrong used to sing with Billie Holliday.

  87. Un-Named
    October 18, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Everybody on the street and everybody reading this knows, as an undeniable fact, that the worst drugs are the ones produced by the boatload in pill form and handed out like candy by trillion dollar pharmaceutical companies. All the drug plagues have been and continue to be pharmaceutical related.

    Nobody who knows the slightest real thing about marijuana complains about the worst-case “potheads” you describe because, rest assured, the pothead could come out of the fog and be back on his feet in no time, if and when it has to happen. That’s not the case at all with government gifted pill candy. This has long been ancient knowledge.

    …point is, if you’re fighting a war against drugs, go after the source of the worst drugs…they’re on display everywhere. They’re winning bigtime. Please go after them, they’re intentionally ruining lives every day. They’re even ruining the lives of potheads, for cryin out loud.

  88. October 18, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    I agree with MITCH. This is a BETRAYAL of what President Obama led US to think when he said the Obama Administration would not bust Medicinal Marijuana clinics.

    Not only is this announcement historically regressive. According to a recent television documentary last week by (Alex Jones? and others), myriad law enforcement agencies are not only busting Medicinal Marijuana clinics in Oakland, etc. in a brutal manner, they are placing only about half of the $100,000 they confiscate in the evidence locker, for example, STEALING THE OTHER HALF!??!

    Such conduct by “LAW ENFORCEMENT” is repugnant, opprobrious, repulsive, UNCONSCIONABLE! And to youth, it has to be disquieting and demoralizing!

    President Obama always seems to have a reason to drag his feet — about installing SINGLE PAYER! about rescinding “DON’T ASK! DON’T TELL!” TORTURE! RAW WAR!

    Isn’t that what Mitch means when he avers Obama is inconsistent::—

    “Mitch says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:32 am

    “Obama is nothing if not consistent. Not only will he ENFORCE laws he wants repealed, he will DEFEND them in court even after they’ve been RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL and despite his assertions that they are MORALLY WRONG.

    “Unless, that is, the law pertains to banks. That’s different.” [Highlighting added.]

    That has to be worrisome and dispiriting!

  89. fuck Dea
    October 29, 2010 at 9:42 am

    This is bull shit it is not right that the goverment will still lock people up for growing a plant that will never harm anyone it is the persons desisition if they want to smoke it go find bin laden hes still runing around somewere.

  90. September 21, 2014 at 7:18 am

    Exceolent post. I waas checking consxtantly this blog and
    I’m impressed! Very useful info particularly the closing part :) I deal with such information a lot.

    I used to be looking ffor this particular information for a ver loong time.
    Thank you and good luck.

  91. September 29, 2014 at 6:45 am

    You will have to consider even though that discretion have to even now be practiced facebook poker cheat in every last recreation or hand which you will perform.
    The chips that you’ve won at this time are buy zynga poker chips the chips that you simply can make the most
    of to intimidate other people facebook poker cheat and obtain the
    win. In line with a fashionable belief, facebook poker chips was 1st played
    from the Chinese way back again during the 10th

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: