LA COUNTY Sheriff says he will enforce Federal Marijuana laws even if Prop19 passes

[HappyPuppy]

You guyz are teh funnay! If Prop. 19 passes and teh fed want to retaliate they don't have to mobilize their forces, all they have to do is make a few keystrokes on they computerize keyboards that cut off all federal aid to California.

If you think this is a small thing then go ahead and vote for weed/pot/smoke/dope. The joke will be on you.

 

[nonlnear]

I see the Federal Law as controlling law regarding 'Pot'. The fact that Ca does not have a law on the books (or won't if Prop 19 passes) does not remove Federal Law from the picture.

Take an extreme example... Bank Robbery... Seems that is a Federal crime and a State one... IF Ca eliminated that law would it still be a crime in Ca to rob a bank?

Yes, a federal one. The state and local police would look the other way, and if the feds happened to be in town they would hunt the perps down. If there were laws which authorized federal commandeering of local or state police resources or mandated other forms of cooperation, then they would cooperate as far as required by law and bid adios to the suits when they left. What's so complicated about that?

 

[nonlnear]

You guyz are teh funnay! If Prop. 19 passes and teh fed want to retaliate they don't have to mobilize their forces, all they have to do is make a few keystrokes on they computerize keyboards that cut off all federal aid to California.

If you think this is a small thing then go ahead and vote for weed/pot/smoke/dope. The joke will be on you.

Your knowledge of the federal budget is truly astonishing. I bask in the glow of your wisdom.

edit: To be fair, this could hypothetically happen (although it wouldn't be as procedurally or politically simple as I think you suspect it would be), but it would probably be the end of the union.

 

[Bateluer]

Asked if he's ever consumed alcohol, he whips out a flask of whiskey from his back pocket.

Please, who doesn't carry a flash in their pocket?

 

[shira]

How would prop 19 be "unconstitutional"?

Just what I was wondering. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level wouldn't be unconstitutional, since it took acts of Congress to criminalize MJ use in the first place. So how can legalizing MJ at the state level be unconstitutional?

 

[nonlnear]

Just what I was wondering. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level wouldn't be unconstitutional, since it took acts of Congress to criminalize MJ use in the first place. So how can legalizing MJ at the state level be unconstitutional?

Legalizing it definitely would not be unconstitutional. I suspect there is a case that taxing it somehow abets violation of the federal law, but I don't know what actual cases are being prepared on this.

Although I did think of a rather comical solution quite different from my earlier post: if California were to rename the marijuana tax a "fine", then the feds would have some serious egg on their face!

 

[LunarRay]

But the state of California failing to impose sanctions on marijuana in no way conflicts with federal law which does impose such sanctions. As I was saying there is a legitimate contention that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law. (Again not commenting on the verdict, merely that it can legitimately be argued and thus deserves to be heard.) There is no way that a state's choice to provide liberty from state prosecution for a particular act could possibly be construed as conflicting with a federal law against that same act.

And please mention the cases if you don't mind. That's the meat of a good legal discussion!

edit: There is a good case to be made that by allowing regulation and taxation Prop 19 conflicts with federal policy, but there is a simple defense against this - one I'm not sure California will employ if it comes to it, but I hope they would. Simply this: allow jurisdictions to follow prop 19 to the letter, but not impede the feds from accessing whatever data they want to (at their own expense) to make whatever federal arrests they can. Essentially allow the feds to use the tax records to wage total war on California. If prop 19 passes, this is in fact the sequence of events I hope unfolds, as it would be the quickest path to sanity - eventually.

You're fast... heheheheh ok I'll take a bite of this first before dinner...

The state can deny a right if it has a compelling reason to do so... a Rational one... or if a suspect class and or a fundamental right is involved at least intermediate scrutiny must be met.. Strict Scrutiny usually..

Allowing a right presumes a right exists... My contention is that no such right exists... The Feds took it away if it ever did exist.

BUT, I'm not saying it would be illegal under State Law... not at all... but under Federal Law... IOW, as you said, all state agencies must comply with Federal Authorities in their pursuit of 'justice'.

I voted for prop 19 via my mail in ballot... I hope it passes... Why? Cuz I cannot deny another their perceived rights... even if I disagree.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Your knowledge of the federal budget is truly astonishing. I bask in the glow of your wisdom.

The federal budget is a black hole that I know little about and you probably know less.

My statement was in reference to the fact that the feds can withhold funds for highways, schools and many other things that are important to the impoverished CA state. They can also negate all existing federal contracts with California businesses and disqualify all future contrats from bidding California companies.

Federal law requires drug free workplaces and Prop. 19 can not guarantee such workplaces, just as it can not guarantee that potheads aren't driving stoned.

I am a child of the 60's and have smoked my share of weed. I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but this proposition is loosely worded and full of holes.

Federal law always supercedes state law. If you don't like it then change the federal law.

 

[shira]

You guyz are teh funnay! If Prop. 19 passes and teh fed want to retaliate they don't have to mobilize their forces, all they have to do is make a few keystrokes on they computerize keyboards that cut off all federal aid to California.

If you think this is a small thing then go ahead and vote for weed/pot/smoke/dope. The joke will be on you.

I hope prop 19 passes. Not because I think it will immediately lead to unfettered MJ usage at the state level, but because - if the Feds start acting heavy handed toward Californians - it's going to inspire a lot of people who probably have never given the matter much thought to start asking how the continued illegality of the drug can possibly be justified.

 

[LunarRay]

Yes, a federal one. The state and local police would look the other way, and if the feds happened to be in town they would hunt the perps down. If there were laws which authorized federal commandeering of local or state police resources or mandated other forms of cooperation, then they would cooperate as far as required by law and bid adios to the suits when they left. What's so complicated about that?

WEll... They'd be in Federal Court for one thing... and IF they were tried in State court the State Court MUST abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court. Once arrested the bloke is charged under US Code ... not CA penal code if there is no law on the CA books to use.. Seems to me..

 

[LunarRay]

I hope prop 19 passes. Not because I think it will immediately lead to unfettered MJ usage at the state level, but because - if the Feds start acting heavy handed toward Californians - it's going to inspire a lot of people who probably have never given the matter much thought to start asking how the continued illegality of the drug can possibly be justified.

Yes, this makes sense to me... Booze seems at least an equal of Pot... to me I'd say Booze is worse.. but that is me..

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The Federal Government should not have the authority to regulate personal consumption, anyway - only the sale of narcotics.

 

[nonlnear]

The federal budget is a black hole that I know little about and you probably know less.

My statement was in reference to the fact that the feds can withhold funds for highways, schools and many other things that are important to the impoverished CA state. They can also negate all existing federal contracts with California businesses and disqualify all future contrats from bidding California companies.

Federal law requires drug free workplaces and Prop. 19 can not guarantee such workplaces, just as it can not guarantee that potheads aren't driving stoned.

Can you be more specific on what statutory requirements exist at the federal level, and precisely how Prop 19 would impede California's continued compliance? Alcohol is legal in California, and yet the feds dont' seem to be defunding their projects because of it - despite alcohol being one of the major target substances of the drug free workplace guidelines.

I am a child of the 60's and have smoked my share of weed. I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but this proposition is loosely worded and full of holes.

That can cut both ways. There is enough wiggle room for a good SAG to evade a facial challenge. If it comes down to an as applied challenge, there is plenty of room for California to be fully compliant if they want to.

Federal law always supercedes state law. If you don't like it then change the federal law.

Shorter sentences may be easier to parse, but that doesn't make them more relevant. Occam's razor is not always the best tool - especially with topics as subtle as law.

 

[nonlnear]

WEll... They'd be in Federal Court for one thing... and IF they were tried in State court the State Court MUST abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court. Once arrested the bloke is charged under US Code ... not CA penal code if there is no law on the CA books to use.. Seems to me..

AFAIK the SAG can decline to prosecute and punt it back to the feds. The feds DP tons of cases for lack of funds, and even for political expediency. It would be ludicrous to argue that the states don't have the same discretion. Then again ludicrousness isn't enough to prevent an argument from being made (and won) in front of SCOTUS, so who knows!

 

[LunarRay]

AFAIK the SAG can decline to prosecute and punt it back to the feds. The feds DP tons of cases for lack of funds, and even for political expediency. It would be ludicrous to argue that the states don't have the same discretion. Then again ludicrousness isn't enough to prevent an argument from being made (and won) in front of SCOTUS, so who knows!

God, if she exists, is the only one who'd know what the USSC might do in a given situtation... Its current crop of silk may be thought to be predictable but I've a suspicion they might surprise us..

I figure any prosecution would be done by the US Attorney's office. That is, failing some method to induce local DA's to do it.

The 'idiot' who calls himself Attorney General has some weird ideas about where to prosecute folks so I'll be interested to see... Probably Gitmo... given some of the folks there are going to be done in the States... hehehehehe

I'm actually a Social Liberal... (Fiscal Conservative) but these folks in office are beyond my idea of reasonable thinkers..
I might vote for Palin come 2012.. well... not her... but not Obama either.

 

[nonlnear]

God, if she exists, is the only one who'd know what the USSC might do in a given situtation... Its current crop of silk may be thought to be predictable but I've a suspicion they might surprise us..

I figure any prosecution would be done by the US Attorney's office. That is, failing some method to induce local DA's to do it.

I would have no problem with that. IMHO that falls perfectly in line with the feds running their own investigations. If they want to use California courts, but provide their own prosecution then they can go right ahead. A comical twist would be if California stepped up their legal aid funding for such defenses. That's one way of hampering the federal conviction rate that the feds really couldn't do a thing about. Just for fun, take it a step further and imagine state prosecutors assisting the defenses. Oh the fun I would have in government - except for the other 99% of the time when there are more mundane things to attend to!

The 'idiot' who calls himself Attorney General has some weird ideas about where to prosecute folks so I'll be interested to see... Probably Gitmo... given some of the folks there are going to be done in the States... hehehehehe

I'm actually a Social Liberal... (Fiscal Conservative) but these folks in office are beyond my idea of reasonable thinkers..
I might vote for Palin come 2012.. well... not her... but not Obama either.

It's a strange crop of politicians we have before us these days, that's for sure!

 

[LunarRay]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/GonzalesvOregon.html


I think this is sorta on point regarding this issue of Medical Pot among other physician issued med's... it is a 2006 case with Kennedy writing for the majority.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

really now. I think its pretty clear that law enforcement loves this welfare.

Yep, they won't just roll over and let their cash cow be slaughtered without a fight. I suspect if prop 19 passes it will be just the beginning of a long drawn out battle, and I can't wait :sneaky:

 

[OCGuy]

They Federalis nor the sherriff dont have the resources to bust everyone and thier 25 plants.

California is already a pot-haven that can't be stopped.

 

[bfdd]

The federal budget is a black hole that I know little about and you probably know less.

My statement was in reference to the fact that the feds can withhold funds for highways, schools and many other things that are important to the impoverished CA state. They can also negate all existing federal contracts with California businesses and disqualify all future contrats from bidding California companies.

Federal law requires drug free workplaces and Prop. 19 can not guarantee such workplaces, just as it can not guarantee that potheads aren't driving stoned.

I am a child of the 60's and have smoked my share of weed. I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but this proposition is loosely worded and full of holes.

Federal law always supercedes state law. If you don't like it then change the federal law.

what federal aid would the feds cut off from california exactly? california pays more in taxes than it receives so... if we just stopped giving the feds all our money then we'd be sweet.

 

[DangerAardvark]

The police department did the exact same thing in Hawaii county when we voted to make Marijuana the "lowest enforcement priority". Police basically gave us all the finger and did exactly what they were doing before.

 

[Thump553]

Gee, you think federal forfeiture laws and the cash grab for law enforcement agencies that is a central part of our (federal) drug enforcement laws have anything to do with the sheriff's pronouncement.

In the early 70's I could not see how pot wouldn't be legalized within a decade, but that was before forfeiture laws and the vast economy that has grown up living off of drug enforcement.

In my view whether or not prop 19 may ultimately be declared invalid is irrelevant-a popular vote in favor of legalization by one of the most populous states cannot be ignored. Much like Prohibition (which the outlawing of pot in the 1930's essentially replaced) this is a policy doomed to eventual failure. How many lives must be adversely affected and how many billions of OUR dollars must be wasted in the meantime?

 

[PokerGuy]

Makes perfect sense, the Sheriff is right.

 

[actuarial]

Makes perfect sense, the Sheriff is right.

Depends on your definition of right.

Right in the legal sense? Maybe.

Right in the fact that he will arrest people for a law that a democracy has struck down by referendum? Definitely not.

What's the point of living in a democracy if voting for INCREASED freedom is simply ignored?

 

[PokerGuy]

Depends on your definition of right.

Right in the legal sense? Maybe.

Right in the fact that he will arrest people for a law that a democracy has struck down by referendum? Definitely not.

Federal law was not struck down by referendum, and should still be enforced, whether or not the people of Caleefoooniah like it.

What's the point of living in a democracy if voting for INCREASED freedom is simply ignored?

As soon as the federal laws are removed, then there will be no enforcement. The voters are considering getting rid of a California law, but that doesn't change the federal laws.