A federal-state law inconsistency shouldn't stop Californians from legalizing marijuana

[bemildred]

The law is the law. If we unquestioningly accepted that maxim, imagine where we would be today. Jim Crow would be alive and well, rivers and skies would be polluted, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

---

Let's think this through. If Proposition 19 passes, two important balls roll into the feds' court. The first is that the sole responsibility and expense of enforcing marijuana prohibition will be shifted to them. After Nov. 2, marijuana "offenders" could be arrested only by federal agents, prosecuted only under federal law, and sentenced only to federal detention.

If the feds undertook this, cases involving simple possession cases and small-time marijuana businesspeople, usually relegated to state courts, would flood federal courthouses. But even with a drastic increase in funding for federal enforcement, such activity would barely put a dent in California's marijuana trade, and would fail to stifle California's policy change, as the federal government has failed to do since the first medical marijuana laws were passed 14 years ago. Moreover, justifying the invasion into a state's province to undermine the will of the voters at such great expense to taxpayers would be highly questionable, especially in the current economic climate, not to mention a political climate that is at best lukewarm on prohibitionist policies.

The second ball is even more significant. Voter approval of Proposition 19 would shift to the feds the responsibility and burden of justifying marijuana prohibition in the first place. Now, the Washingtonians who have never questioned decades of anti-pot propaganda can explain to the people of California why we cannot be trusted to determine our state's marijuana policies. Let them endorse the prohibition laws' usefulness as a tool of oppressing minorities. Let them celebrate how minor marijuana violations cost people their jobs, their housing, custody of their kids, and entrap them permanently in vast criminal justice databases. Let them justify the utter hypocrisy of the legal treatment of alcohol and tobacco, as compared with the illegal treatment of marijuana. Let them tell us how many more people will have to be prosecuted and punished before marijuana is eradicated, how much that will cost, and where the money will come from.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-dershowitz-20100728,0,527914.story

[musiclawyer]

1. I thought guy marriage would pass in CA

I can hope, but am concerend that not enough people on the left and moderate republicans who know that this is good for business will show up. The draconians are ALWAYS mobilized.

[bemildred]

2. It's always iffy here, which way things will go.

To echo a cliche: "a lot depends on turnout."

This particular issue, however, has been heating up on the burner for a long time, and there are already large portions of the the state where pot for personal use is de facto legal. Like it was back in the 1970s. I am hopeful that we will get a "good turnout" in November.

[Mopar151]

3. Be sure to go to the popup ad!

The Say No on 19 PAC. Who is funding them? (Is your child's teacher STONED?)Who are these fearmongers?