Both of the California Attorney General Candidates are Against Prop 19

[stonedmetalhead1]

SACRAMENTO – Public Safety First, the campaign to defeat the legalization of Marijuana in California, today announced that San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, and California State Firefighters’ Association (CSFA) President Kevin Nida have submitted the rebuttal arguments on behalf of No on Proposition 19.
Harris, a Democrat and Cooley, a Republican, are their respective party nominees for California Attorney General, but have come together to oppose Proposition 19.
The California State Firefighters’ Association represents more than 24,000 career, volunteer, tribal, military and industrial firefighters in every county in California. It is the state’s largest and oldest firefighters’ association.
Below is the text of the rebuttal arguments submitted to the California Secretary of State:
“As California public safety leaders, we agree that Proposition 19 is flawed public policy and would compromise the safety of our roadways, workplaces, and communities. Before voting on this proposition, please take a few minutes to read it.
“Proponents claim, ‘Proposition 19 maintains strict criminal penalties for driving under the influence.’ That statement is false. In fact, Proposition 19 gives drivers the ‘right’ to use marijuana right up to the point when they climb behind the wheel, but unlike as with drunk driving, Proposition 19 fails to provide the Highway Patrol with any tests or objective standards for determining what constitutes ‘driving under the influence.’ That’s why Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) strongly opposes Proposition 19.
“Proponents claim Proposition 19 is ‘preserving the right of employers to maintain a drug-free workplace.’ This is also false. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, the facts are that Proposition 19 creates special rights for employees to possess marijuana on the job, and that means no company in California can meet federal drug-free workplace standards, or qualify for federal contracts. The California State Firefighters’ Association warns this one drafting mistake alone could cost thousands of Californians to lose their jobs.
“Again, contrary to what proponents say, the statewide organizations representing police, sheriffs and drug court judges are all urging you to vote ‘No’ on Proposition 19. Passage of Proposition 19 seriously compromises the safety of our communities, roadways, and workplaces.”
Signed,
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Los Angeles County
Kamala Harris, District Attorney, San Francisco County
Kevin Nida, President, California State Firefighters’ Association

This should be interesting if Prop 19 passes. Almost all law enforcement and elected officials are against legalization. Law enforcement has already said they would do everything they can to enforce federal law and would target who ever they were told to target. With both of the attorney general candidates being against it I can definitely see that people are going to have to do some serious fighting to actually have the rights that get voted into law by prop 19.

 

[potroast]

Let's vote it in first, and then worry about the prohibitionists. State law enforcement is sworn to uphold state law, and our courts have stated that state officials cannot enforce federal law if it conflicts with state law.

Of course, someone running for election is not going to endorse something that is new and different. If they did, they would not get elected. But once they are in office, then they don't follow what they said during the campaign. Kamala Harris is the DA of San Francisco, and she will support our marijuana laws, like she does now with the medical laws in San Francisco.

I already voted yes.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

Let's vote it in first, and then worry about the prohibitionists. State law enforcement is sworn to uphold state law, and our courts have stated that state officials cannot enforce federal law if it conflicts with state law.
I already voted yes.

I think the Supremacy Clause might say otherwise.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[desert dude]

I think the Supremacy Clause might say otherwise.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That's funny. Now you're a constitutional lawyer.

 

[Dan Kone]

. With both of the attorney general candidates being against it I can definitely see that people are going to have to do some serious fighting to actually have the rights that get voted into law by prop 19.

They may both be against it but there is a pretty big difference between Harris and Cooley. Cooley will try and shut down every dispensary in California medical or otherwise while Harris will enforce state law letting them stay open. Cooley has made his career on shutting down dispensaries, Harris has let San Francisco's free market dispensary system thrive.

In my opinion voting for Harris for AG is more important than prop 19.

 

[desert dude]

They may both be against it but there is a pretty big difference between Harris and Cooley. Cooley will try and shut down every dispensary in California medical or otherwise while Harris will enforce state law letting them stay open. Cooley has made his career on shutting down dispensaries, Harris has let San Francisco's free market dispensary system thrive.

In my opinion voting for Harris for AG is more important than prop 19.

I voted for Harris for precisely the reasons you stated. I disagree about the AG importance vs P19, though, but I understand your position.

 

[desert dude]

I voted for Harris for precisely the reasons you stated. I disagree about the AG importance vs P19, though, but I understand your position.

And I should add: I voted for Harris....... and I despise democrats, and republicans for that matter.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

That's funny. Now you're a constitutional lawyer.

No but I can read. How is it funny? The only thing that keeps the federal government from going after medical marijuana is because of the medical status. If they challenged medical marijuana in a court of law they would have to explain why they say there is no medicinal value of marijuana and yet they hold a patent on it (cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants). This could backfire on the feds to make them have to reschedule marijuana and that's the last thing they want.

 

[desert dude]

No but I can read. How is it funny? The only thing that keeps the federal government from going after medical marijuana is because of the medical status. If they took medical marijuana to court they would have to explain why they say there is no medicinal value of marijuana and yet they hold a patent on it.

First of all, you are wrong on both counts. Medical Marijuana is illegal. It is a schedule 1 drug, hence it has no medicinal value, by definition; don't believe me, just look up schedule 1 drugs.

The feds can not override P19 if it passes; no state is required to enforce federal laws, that is up to the feds. The only recourse the feds will have if P19 passes is to go it alone. P19 will protect recreational and medical users because P19 makes it illegal for CA law enforcement to confiscate or threaten to confiscate MJ as long as the limits are followed. If P19 fails, the state and feds will be all over your MMJ ass. Good luck.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

First of all, you are wrong on both counts. Medical Marijuana is illegal. It is a schedule 1 drug, hence it has no medicinal value, by definition; don't believe me, just look up schedule 1 drugs.

No shit. That's why I said they don't want to challenge states with medical marijuana laws in a court of law. The federal government holds a patent that directly says marijuana has medicinal value. If they went to court this would definitely come up and prove medical applications for marijuana hence the forced rescheduling.

The feds can not override P19 if it passes; no state is required to enforce federal laws, that is up to the feds. The only recourse the feds will have if P19 passes is to go it alone. P19 will protect recreational and medical users because P19 makes it illegal for CA law enforcement to confiscate or threaten to confiscate MJ as long as the limits are followed.

You keep thinking that. The feds will do whatever they want.

If P19 fails, the state and feds will be all over your MMJ ass. Good luck.

That's just blatant misinformation.

 

[Dan Kone]

I voted for Harris for precisely the reasons you stated. I disagree about the AG importance vs P19, though, but I understand your position.

If you're a libertarian, that makes sense. Harris will enforce state law, Cooley federal law and will enforce his own personal moral compass over state law.

 

[desert dude]

No shit. That's why I said they don't want to challenge states with medical marijuana laws in a court of law. The federal government holds a patent that directly says marijuana has medicinal value. If they went to court this would definitely come up and prove medical applications for marijuana hence the forced rescheduling.

You keep thinking that. The feds will do whatever they want.

That's just blatant misinformation.

We are not yet in a dictatorship, although I grant that we seem headed that way, the feds can not do whatever they want. They can certainly threaten, hoping to make the spineless vote against P19, they have already done that, but they have no legal way to make the state enforce federal laws that are contradictory to state laws. States have no right to make laws that violate the US Constitution, but P19 doesn't do that.

 

[desert dude]

If you're a libertarian, that makes sense. Harris will enforce state law, Cooley federal law and will enforce his own personal moral compass over state law.

I held my nose and voted for Harris because I think there is SMALL chance that she will be better on the issue of cannabis, but it would not surprise me in the least to see her hold hands with the DEA and rampage through the MJ culture of California. She might turn out to be just as bad as Cooley. If you believe the polls, Cooley looks set to win.

 

[stonedmetalhead1]

I held my nose and voted for Harris because I think there is SMALL chance that she will be better on the issue of cannabis, but it would not surprise me in the least to see her hold hands with the DEA and rampage through the MJ culture of California. She might turn out to be just as bad as Cooley. If you believe the polls, Cooley looks set to win.

Harris won't mess with medical marijuana. She has relatives that have benefited from it and knows how much it can help. On the other hand the Obama administration is against prop19 and Harris headed the campaign office in SF when Obama ran for president. She's likely to side with his administration on the issue.

 

[desert dude]

removed

I think you are wrong about the feds withhold funds if P19 passes. Here is why: P19 will amend the CA constitution. The motivation for the feds to withhold funds would be to brow beat the CA legislature into submission. The CA legislature cannot over ride the CA constitution though, so their hands are tied if P19 passes. Feds withholding funds would simply be retaliation against CA voters for not voting the way we are told. CA is a Democrat state, Obama is a Democrat and he is up for reelection in 2012, he won't antagonize CA voters.

The card the feds ARE playing is preemptive intimidation to get spineless people, such as yourself, to vote against P19.

 

[veggiegardener]

I think you are wrong about the feds withhold funds if P19 passes. Here is why: P19 will amend the CA constitution. The motivation for the feds to withhold funds would be to brow beat the CA legislature into submission. The CA legislature cannot over ride the CA constitution though, so their hands are tied if P19 passes. Feds withholding funds would simply be retaliation against CA voters for not voting the way we are told. CA is a Democrat state, Obama is a Democrat and he is up for reelection in 2012, he won't antagonize CA voters.

The card the feds ARE playing is preemptive intimidation to get spineless people, such as yourself, to vote against P19.

You just preved your ignorance. You just went on my "ignore" list.

Why? Because retaliation is precisely what the Feds will do. How many voters will support the Feds if they bitch slap people who won't play by the rules? P19 will be overthrown a dozen different ways.

I figure most of them will be based on local jurisdictions passing ridiculously unConstitutional ordinances.

C'ya.(not).

 

[desert dude]

You just preved your ignorance. You just went on my "ignore" list.

Why? Because retaliation is precisely what the Feds will do. How many voters will support the Feds if they bitch slap people who won't play by the rules? P19 will be overthrown a dozen different ways.

I figure most of them will be based on local jurisdictions passing ridiculously unConstitutional ordinances.

C'ya.(not).

Oh no, please don't ignore me...