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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
It's actually federal drug laws that ought to be struck down. If you transport marijuana across state lines then I see why the feds would get involved, but as long as pot is grown, purchased and consumed within one state's borders then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to criminalize it.
 
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
JSt0rm said:
Yup to the feds a ounce has a street value of 23k and is a 4th degree felony that will put you behind bars for 3 years.
Click to expand...

errr what? $23,000 for an ounce of pot? where do they get that kind of number? An 8th of medical pot from a dispensary in Colorado is about 40-50 bucks. and from what i hear is very good stuff.
 
Last edited:
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
PokerGuy said:
Federal law was not struck down by referendum, and should still be enforced, whether or not the people of Caleefoooniah like it.



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.
Click to expand...

the guy is a local sheriff not a US DEA agent or US Marshal.
 
GuitarDaddy

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
PokerGuy said:
Federal law was not struck down by referendum, and should still be enforced, whether or not the people of Caleefoooniah like it.



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.
Click to expand...


Fine, let the Feds come enforce their laws. But some local yokel sheriff paid by the state of California or some city therin needs to lose his job if he goes against his constituency and ignores the mandate of the people of California, it is NOT his jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
 
B

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I think this is a problem at the federal level because way to many people years ago lost sight of what a State is and what the Federal Government is supposed to do. Since when did we become Americans first, fuck your state. Why even have states any longer if we're just always going to bow to federal law. I'm a Californian and I want what is best for myself, California, and other Californian citizens. If the Union is going to fuck that off, then the Union can fuck off.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
PokerGuy said:
Federal law was not struck down by referendum, and should still be enforced, whether or not the people of Caleefoooniah like it.



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.
Click to expand...

The Feds clearly have a right to enforce federal law within the state of California. But a local law enforcement officer is NOT a federal agent and has no authority to enforce federal law unless deputized to do so; doing so would probably be grounds for dismissal.

I hope we see examples of CA law enforcement overstepping their authority and then getting canned. That would send a useful message.
 
ConstipatedVigilante

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
PokerGuy said:
Federal law was not struck down by referendum, and should still be enforced, whether or not the people of Caleefoooniah like it.
Click to expand...
True, but IMO any democratic vote by the people of a state should trump federal law, and definitely state law. However, acts by a state's congress obviously do not trump federal congress.
 
Fern

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
nonlnear said:
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.
-snip-
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

Drug profits are already taxable (income tax), both at the federal and state level.

There are no exemptions from income tax for illegal activites and their profits.

Fern
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Fern said:
I doubt it.

Drug profits are already taxable (income tax), both at the federal and state level.

There are no exemptions from income tax for illegal activites and their profits.

Fern
Click to expand...

OK even has a form for it!
 
BoberFett

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
GuitarDaddy said:
Fine, let the Feds come enforce their laws. But some local yokel sheriff paid by the state of California or some city therin needs to lose his job if he goes against his constituency and ignores the mandate of the people of California, it is NOT his jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
Click to expand...

In other words, states rights? What are you, some kind of Klan member?
 
Fern

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
The people of LA county can just vote him out of office if they want. Sherrif is an elected position.

Fern
 
sactoking

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,651
2,933
136
Fern said:
I doubt it.

Drug profits are already taxable (income tax), both at the federal and state level.

There are no exemptions from income tax for illegal activites and their profits.

Fern
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the good ol' Line 21 Catch-All!
 
LunarRay

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
shira said:
The Feds clearly have a right to enforce federal law within the state of California. But a local law enforcement officer is NOT a federal agent and has no authority to enforce federal law unless deputized to do so; doing so would probably be grounds for dismissal.

I hope we see examples of CA law enforcement overstepping their authority and then getting canned. That would send a useful message.
Click to expand...

I think we have like 53 or so Congress people and Senators in Ca... Seems to me that if 19 passes they should be bound to speak the will of Ca in Congress..

The CSA was intended to classify 'drugs' according to the perpensity of their being abused... I think there are 5 levels and Oxycodone and Pot are classed in the same level... I understand the law mandates the Attorney General to abide by the Secretary of Health regarding just how or where drugs are classified otherwise he must make a finding... or like that. Therefore, I think the first step is to lower 'Pot' to like a level 5 or 4 in the CSA portfolio... By getting the AMA to generally say that 'Pot' is like booze we can adopt a universal move to decontrol 'Pot'.. That move makes moot any law regarding criminal use/possession of 'Pot'. But States can still adopt laws to the contrary... I'd opine.
While it is in the CSA portfolio a physician must Rx it... That is what gives the Feds their control... The Supreme Law of the land... grrrrrrrr
 
Freshgeardude

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
bamacre said:
He probably is. If one state can legalize pot, another can legalize slavery.
Click to expand...


your logic is retarded.

the constitution bans slavery. the 13th amendment.

the constitution does not ban the consumption of a plant, weed, controlled substances, anything.
 
nonlnear

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Fern said:
I doubt it.

Drug profits are already taxable (income tax), both at the federal and state level.

There are no exemptions from income tax for illegal activites and their profits.

Fern
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying I agree with that line of reasoning for invoking supremacy, but I can imagine it. Taxing income generically might be construed as fundamentally different from explicitly regulating and taxing a specific behavior. Might being the operative word. That's all I meant.
 
A

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
pcgeek11 said:
In your opinion maybe, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

As I said: in the technical legal sense maybe.

But a group of 30M people decided that they want the right to do something, which is not against the constitution, and an official THEY elected said he is going to disregard that, for the purposes of enforcing a law outside of his jurisdiction.

Basically, he is enforcing the will of others on his own constituents.

Will it still be right when the attorney general wants to enforce UN law in supremacy over US law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom