Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"the ballot measure would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe."
October 16, 2010 1:02 AM   Subscribe

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," -- Eric Holder on prop 19.
posted by delmoi (169 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
I fully expected this. Years passed before the Obama admin came along and stopped enforcing prohibition against medical marijuana. This will be a very slow change.
posted by IvoShandor at 1:11 AM on October 16, 2010


Well, the administration is required to enforce the law, and the law is on the books. But that doesn't mean Prop 19 is meaningless, since it will relieve California of the effort and expense of having to enforce a ridiculous law.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 2:05 AM on October 16, 2010 [19 favorites]


But really though, this is pretty obviously BS. Are they planning on prosecuting and imprisoning 1/6 California's population? (my own lowball guess of Cannabis users in CA) That's 6 million people. And good luck finding 12 jurors willing to convict someone of something that at least half the voting population has voted to legalize.

They're just trying to avoid a political black eye over this.
posted by Locobot at 2:09 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


I've been thinking that it was unlikely that Prop 19 would pass - but I think the Feds just insured its passage. Go ahead guys, lock the entire state of California up. Note to Feds: don't write checks that your ass can't cash.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 2:22 AM on October 16, 2010 [13 favorites]


Watching the video I kept thinking the Church could use some of this aggressive style in communication... I would certainly pay for the shirt just to see the result!
posted by Vanifriss at 2:39 AM on October 16, 2010


Jacob Sullum, also of Reason states the obvious:
It certainly can make trouble, but it simply does not have the resources to bust a significant percentage of the state's marijuana offenders now, let alone after every adult is allowed to grow his own pot. If the DEA could not block access to medical marijuana under Bush or Obama, what chance will it have after the drug is legal for recreational purposes as well?
I predict if passed Prop. 19 will be an economic boon for California, even if the taxes from the pot don't add up to as much as lawmakers hope for. Some substantial number of people, I'm going to go with millions, are going to move there soon after. The next few states to adopt a similar measure will also get an influx of new citizens. [via]
posted by ob1quixote at 2:40 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


complete and utter jackassery --- and right before elections?!? w-o-w
posted by mrmarley at 3:04 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


ALT text FTW! (mouse over Holder's pic')
posted by Lukenlogs at 3:04 AM on October 16, 2010 [26 favorites]


"Hi, I'm Eric Holder and I am cheerfully on the wrong side of history."
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:17 AM on October 16, 2010 [17 favorites]


Note to Feds: don't write checks that your ass can't cash.

Obama seems pretty cool about suspending habeas corpus. He can't lock up everyone, but the courts have helped him lock up a lot of people.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:19 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Are they planning on prosecuting and imprisoning 1/6 California's population?

If that's what it takes to protect the market share of Prozac then so be it.
posted by three blind mice at 3:20 AM on October 16, 2010 [11 favorites]


Some substantial number of people, I'm going to go with millions, are going to move there soon after.

Move to another state just for pot? Not a chance. You can't become that much of a pothead unless you already have a regular supply. Nobody joneses that hard for weed.
posted by ryanrs at 3:21 AM on October 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


He also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

An even more significant impediment to targeting drug traffickers is not letting people grow the harmless stuff at home, thus creating a huge black market economy propping up your criminal class.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:24 AM on October 16, 2010 [13 favorites]


Move to another state just for pot?

Not just for pot, but for legal pot. I have heard from a friend that knows someone who knows someone who smokes weed - and this could just be a rumor - but this girl says she would prefer to obtain her supply of drugs from a legal source instead of supporting the local biker gang and Mexican drug lords. No one buys aspirin on the street when it's easy and inexpensive to obtain at the drugstore.
posted by three blind mice at 3:27 AM on October 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Good luck with that, feds.

I believe they make 1 percent of all marijuana busts now. What, are they gonna double that? Oooh, scary.
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:31 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


this girl says she would prefer to obtain her supply of drugs from a legal source

Yeah, yeah. If it means that much to her, why hasn't she already moved here and gotten a medical marijuana card?
posted by ryanrs at 3:56 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?
posted by Postroad at 4:16 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Then they would be assholes and California would still be awesome. What a stupid question.
posted by ryanrs at 4:22 AM on October 16, 2010 [58 favorites]


Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

I love the smell of relativism in the morning! It smells like false equivalences!
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:25 AM on October 16, 2010 [36 favorites]


For the sake of discussion, this is the complete text of Prop. 19. as it appears in the CA Voter Guide.

This proposition is not the de facto legalization of current consumption habits. That's not what Prop 19 does. A friend forwarded a link a blog, Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative, which does what it says on the tin. Although alarmist I found the Pandora's Box article to be thought provoking. Prop 19 bills itself "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", and that's a damned accurate name: it regulates, controls, and authorizes taxes for the sale, purchase, cultivation, possession, and legal use of marijuana. It may be good to make pot legal, but with this proposed legislation we may instead see a huge legislative and legal clusterfuck that will make us wish we simply said, "Thank you!" and called it a day when Schwarzenegger dropped possession down to a simple infraction.

Frankly, California doesn't do legislation well when it's written by legislators and/or their lobbyists, and it's track record with propositions is even spottier, if that were possible. Prop 19 is not very tight legislation, and it has some provisions that could be used to turn the whole thing on its head. I acknowledge that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but Prop 19 isn't particularly good. I would love to see pot legalized, but I won't be too disappointed if Prop 19 fails. The status quo in our state is good enough that I'd prefer to wait for something better to come along.
posted by plowhand at 4:41 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

One's okay, one's not. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which.
posted by armage at 4:43 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

Would the slaves be allowed to smoke pot?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:59 AM on October 16, 2010 [15 favorites]


News flash! Federal law enforcement officers claim to enforce federal laws! Film at 11!

Seriously, why is this news? Did anyone seriously expect the United States Department of Justice to suddenly announce that they aren't enforcing the law anymore?
posted by valkyryn at 5:02 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


California should probably succeed from the Union, but you're all too stoned to file the proper paperwork.
posted by crunchland at 5:18 AM on October 16, 2010


I will note two things:

The first is that I'm absolutely certain that the Republicans who keep bleating about "State's Rights" will be in favor of vigorous enforcement of Federal drug laws in California.

The second is that apparently the Obama administration is going out of its way to antagonize and alienate its base today. First they state that rather than taking the end to DADT that was just handed to them on a silver platter the Obama administration will be appealing the decision and will demand a stay. Then they go out of their way to say that, fuck you California Democrats, we'll keep prosecuting the insane War on Drugs no matter what you say.

Seriously, what was the point of Holder's big announcement on this topic? What possible purpose was served other than further exacerbating the already huge enthusiasm gap?

valkyryn I'd expect, from a not committing political suicide standpoint, Holder to STFU and not antagonize Democratic voters. I ask again, what purpose was served by this announcement?

And as for enforcement? I'd expect Holder et al to prioritize their limited resources and, rather than spending DoJ resources on enforcing stupid, evil, federal anti-drug laws to do something useful such as hunting down abortion clinic bombers or investigating corporate fraud, investigating environmental and labor violations by factory farmers, etc. They've got more important things to do than waste limited DoJ resources pestering California marijuana smokers.
posted by sotonohito at 5:27 AM on October 16, 2010 [18 favorites]


California should probably succeed from the Union

How to secede in business without really trying.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:32 AM on October 16, 2010 [12 favorites]


(stupid spell check.)
posted by crunchland at 5:36 AM on October 16, 2010


A big big part of this, obviously, is politics, but it might not be that obviously to folks who don't live in the conservative parts of Cali.

I've got a tea party family member in Cali -- she has said or implied about marijuana:

1) It is a socialist tool
2) It will be used to dope folks up so that they don't care about death panels
3) Obama is a socialist pothead (this point illustrated with a photoshopped Obama with a big spliff)

Also, (and I say this as a bona fide pot head who is scoring later today) the Admin is going to have an international I don't know if problem is the right word, but the legalization of weed will be as big as the end of prohibition. It's pretty understandable that they are least trying to spin things.
posted by angrycat at 5:39 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


While Big Tobacco may have waned in power over the years it's good to see the Alcohol Lobby can still press the right buttons and throw their weight around...
posted by jim in austin at 5:51 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Intrigued Englishman here. So what if South Carolina did pass something that was illegal federally and made them look like dicks. The federal level can't intervene at all?
posted by vbfg at 5:57 AM on October 16, 2010


"He also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs. "

Dear current administration,

Please read the history of the United States from 1919-1933.

PS - Pay extra attention to the part where Wall Street destroyed the economy through speculation and rampant greed and then the feds spent 4 years trying to make things better by doing nothing
posted by banal evil at 6:02 AM on October 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


It depends what was illegal vbfg.

In this case CA is choosing not to have prohibitions against cannabis and will not assist the feds in enforcing federal laws. Nothing obliges the state to enforce federal law in this instance.

Now if South Carolina decided to, say, change the form of state government to a Maoist dictatorship, the feds could intervene as that act would be unconstitutional because Article Four Clause One of the US Constitution stipulates that each state must have a republican form of government
posted by banal evil at 6:09 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

What if a pig could get a bachelor's degree in computer science? What if Abe Vigoda were the 57th President of the United States of America? What if Dracula started a supergroup with Wayne Newton and Ice Cube? What if you engaged with the actual subject?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:25 AM on October 16, 2010 [61 favorites]


Seriously, why is this news? Did anyone seriously expect the United States Department of Justice to suddenly announce that they aren't enforcing the law anymore?

No one expected the DoJ to not enforce federal law, but, as someone stated above, they allocate their resources to prioritize some things and deprioritize others. Each new administration tends to shift the focus (i.e. going after civil rights crimes or pornography or whatever). What is disappointing to me is that it seems that they will not deprioritize marijuana drug laws. Although hopefully in practice they will, although I am not holding my breath (even though it gets you higher).
posted by Falconetti at 6:35 AM on October 16, 2010


If you don't like it, change the (federal) law.

The "South Carolina slavery" strawman is a waste of time. So is Prop 19, really. Pass it, California. Good luck with that, and the fallout. Remember: you get the country you deserve, no more and no less.
posted by andreaazure at 6:36 AM on October 16, 2010


Intrigued Englishman here. So what if South Carolina did pass something that was illegal federally and made them look like dicks. The federal level can't intervene at all?

Oh, fine. Here's a serious answer.

The feds could totally intervene. The federal government has a completely separate, parallel system system of law enforcement, government prosecutors, courts, judges, and even separate prisons. Aside from the different laws, a BIG, BIG difference between the federal and state systems is who pays for it. If the feds want to bust pot smokers, they need to do it with their personnel and pay for it out of their own budget.

If Attorney General Holder really wants to commit massive federal law enforcement resources to bust California potheads, he'll almost certainly win those cases in court. But he'll have to do it with no help from the state government of California. Pot smokers will need to be arrested by FBI or DEA agents, prosecuted by the US attorneys office, tried in federal courtrooms, and locked up in federal prisons. No way are the feds going to do that for individual smokers. Even if they wanted to, they don't have enough agents for effective enforcement against individual users. So they'll stick to making occasional high-profile busts, just like they do today.

That's what this announcement is all about—warning potential entrepreneurs from setting up large scale operations.
posted by ryanrs at 6:41 AM on October 16, 2010 [20 favorites]


> Are they planning on prosecuting and imprisoning 1/6 California's population?

Probably not, but they certainly will be adding it to the laundry list of obscure and/or stupid laws people pay no attention to because they are usually not enforced but that can be enforced, at their pleasure, any time they want to drag you in for some unrelated reason they can't prove or don't want to state openly. "Hey lootenant, I seen this guy's mug on hidden-cam film from about six protests now. Smokin' up at every one of 'em too. He's really askin' for it. What say we pull out that laundry list and pick one (or seventeen) of 'em and bust his sorry ass?"
posted by jfuller at 6:45 AM on October 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


you get the country you deserve, no more and no less.

That statement represents a fallacy. Many hundreds of thousands of people in the United States do not, in fact, deserve the country they've got.

True of many other countries around the world, too.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:45 AM on October 16, 2010 [12 favorites]


US drug policy
Money often gives conscience a helping hand. At the start of the 20th century half of all federal government revenue came from duties on alcohol, tobacco and playing cards. Two decades later, with newly-introduced income and business taxes, America could contemplate alcohol prohibition. Then in the 1930s, with the Great Depression weighing on tax revenues, booze was relegalised. Now, with alcohol and tobacco contributing just 1 per cent of federal receipts and 2 per cent of state incomes, the need for cash is helping to prod public policy along. Next month Californians will vote on Proposition 19 which, if passed, will allow the sale of marijuana to be regulated and taxed.

Estimating the budgetary impact of such policy changes is complicated by the lack of data on markets outside government control. Even in Portugal – the test case for treating drugs as a medical matter since usage for all drugs was decriminalised in 2001 – there is little to go on. Social measures have improved, particularly in relation to heroin use and drug-related deaths and disease, but the Portuguese have not yet tried full legalisation and taxation.

For the US, Harvard economist Jeffery Miron has estimated that taxing all illegal drugs at similar rates to alcohol and tobacco could raise about $30bn annually (for comparison, duties on the two legal pleasures will together contribute about $27bn to federal coffers this year). However, the hypothetical process requires many guesses at prices and demand.

More concrete is the cost side. Returning responsibility for drug policy to the individual states would allow the federal government to cut immediately the $16bn annually spent on enforcement, estimates Dr Miron. The states might redeploy resources, but collectively they spend $26bn each year on the drug war – California alone spent $5bn on the fight in 2008. Attractive terms for a truce.
Taxing Pot
During the 1890s and the early part of the 20th century, there was a powerful national campaign to abolish smoking that was no less intense than the drive for Prohibition. A key reason the campaign ultimately fizzled out in the 1920s was the government's need for tobacco tax revenues, especially after alcohol tax revenues dried up. The Republicans' cuts in income taxes in the 1920s also increased the federal government's dependence on tobacco tax revenues, which rose from 4 percent of federal receipts in 1920 to 11.2 percent in 1929. The onset of the Great Depression, the concomitant fall in income tax revenues, and the inelasticity of demand for cigarettes caused tobacco revenues to rise to 20.7 percent of all federal receipts by 1932.

In the end, revenue needs trumped sumptuary considerations in the cases of both alcohol and tobacco. This raises the interesting question of whether revenue considerations will drive reform of the laws against illegal drugs.
California to start selling debt backed by marijuana taxes - "Cal. Public Finance Conf. attendees say if Prop.#19 passes, the market will accept bonds backed by marijuana taxes."

Reagan Did It - "Reagan actually bragged about releasing people from prison and shrinking the prison budget, which is hard to imagine nowadays."

Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana - ‎"More than any other initiative out there, Prop 19 will stabilize our national security and bolster our state economy. It will alleviate unnecessary overcrowding of non-violent offenders in our state jails, which in turn will help California residents."
posted by kliuless at 6:54 AM on October 16, 2010 [12 favorites]


To give you a sense of scale, the DEA has about 5500 law enforcement officers nationwide. If they decided to commit 10% of their force to policing California marijuana offenses—that's a little more than 500 officers. The Los Angeles Police Department has 10,000.

The idea that the feds are going to hold back legal weed is laughable.
posted by ryanrs at 7:03 AM on October 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


I'd expect, from a not committing political suicide standpoint, Holder to STFU and not antagonize Democratic voters. I ask again, what purpose was served by this announcement?

This isn't for the Democrats. The base may grumble, but they're still gonna vote for Democrats. On the other hand, there are a lot of independents who would be pretty annoyed if the feds announced they weren't going to enforce the law.
posted by valkyryn at 7:04 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Another interesting wrinkle— I'm pretty sure every federal prosecutor and law enforcement agent sees small-time weed busts as beneath them. They are career-minded professionals, and nobody in their line of work makes a career out of possession charges. And as we saw in the US Attorney firing scandal, they have an expectation of a certain level of autonomy from political appointees like Eric Holder.
posted by ryanrs at 7:27 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


It should be obvious to everyone that the feds don't currently have the capability to enforce marijuana laws if local cops don't. They could do stings on major growers, just as they've done with medical growers. But basic enforcement? It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to do: the DEA would basically need their own police force with as many feds as there are currently cops. It would cost hundreds of millions, at least
He also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.
Right, just like how legalizing alcohol made it so easy to by crack at my local grocery store along with a 6-pack of Heinken. Once marijuana is legalized, dealers won't be any more interested in breaking other laws then liquor-stores (not to mention clubs, grocery stores, gas stations, etc) are today.
Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?
You're aware of the 13th amendment, right? It's pretty straight forward.
The status quo in our state is good enough that I'd prefer to wait for something better to come along.
newsflash: you can still violate the law after prop 19 passes. But the very important point, details aside is that this will stamp weed as being officially socially acceptable, along with alcohol and tobacco.
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


And thus the central fallacy of centrism: alienating the base in order to pander to people who have no commitment to voting Democratic. "Enthusiasm gap," my ass; the DLC sees this as a feature not a bug.

Republicans to crazypants fringe: crank up the noise, we need the votes.

Democrats to progressives: who needs you? Bugger off, pinko hippies.

Notice all the incumbents in safe seats get no headaches from this strategy and everybody gets to collect payola on exiting through the revolving door to corporate sinecures. So it's homeostatic at least and in some circumstances like the present, accelerative of the downhill slide.

It's self-perpetuation.

The flaw in the SC slavery argument is that the SC law would infringe on federal rights which the federal courts would defend (slowly and ineptly.) Current example is Arizona, which has passed a law that wildly infringes on federal civil rights if zealously enforced. So no sale on the comparison, but nice try.
posted by warbaby at 7:30 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


And as we saw in the US Attorney firing scandal, they have an expectation of a certain level of autonomy from political appointees like Eric Holder.
They are political appointees.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 AM on October 16, 2010


The flaw in the SC slavery argument is that the SC law would infringe on federal rights which the federal courts would defend
And more importantly: slavery, specifically, is constitutionally banned.
posted by delmoi at 7:32 AM on October 16, 2010


There are a lot of independents who would be pretty annoyed if the feds announced they weren't going to enforce the law.

Not really, not in California. A large minority may choose to vote against Prop 19, but very few people are going to get seriously riled up by its passage.
posted by ryanrs at 7:36 AM on October 16, 2010


Some people seem to have an "OMG OMG, you can't do that, it isn't fair" reaction to the proposed law. "Fair" is only important to demagogues and 8-year-olds. Grow up.

Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

First, terrible example (Federal law doesn't really "trump" that simply, that's an uninformed view of our legal system), and second, to be simple "baloney." Some laws are just more important than others. Yes, distasteful as you make it sound, real human beings need to make decisions about priority. For example, you can't (and shouldn't, imho) prosecute a drug offense with the same vigor as a kidnapping.

More directly, let's see the feds try to bring much power to bear. See, it takes cooperation, and California is going to stop cooperating. Happily due to budget crunches, the feds can't even really scale that much. Sadly for the absolutists, laws aren't 100% equivalent, and we as a society get to prioritize.

All flippancy aside, I don't understand why Obama would not simply tell Holder to calm the fuck down. It is reasonable to prioritize spending of law enforcement money. Marijuana prohibition is on the fast-track to nowhere, anyone with a brain can see it. Why be on the side of the inevitably defeated?

Perhaps it is all words-to-make-a-point-during-an-election. In which case I'd argue that he (Obama) is getting no net positive from this action. "Partnership for a Drug-Free America" aside, I have a hard time believing that anyone seriously thinks of pot as a big social problem worth spending much money on, at least not in comparison to the real big questions facing the U.S.A, such as:

- the uninsured, are they are problem, or should "we" tell them to fuck off because they are poor or bad planners?
- what do we really want to do about illegal immigrants?
- what about these unaffordable wars, should we actually be fighting them?
- is "terror" really a sufficient justification for an endless war?
- prescription drug prices are crazy, right, right?
- the mortgage mess, should we ahhh, maybe do something about that?
- should corporations really be citizens?
- global warming, it is real and a problem, right?
- how can we get people back to work?
- how can we invest in badly-needed infrastructure during a low-tax-collections period?

Those are just off the top of my head, and any one of those issues deserves 100x the attention that the specter of legal pot is getting. Yes, I am aware that the country is capable of focusing on more than one thing at once, but ... why waste the money on an exercise in futility?
posted by Invoke at 7:37 AM on October 16, 2010 [9 favorites]


Aggressive USDOJ resistance to Proposition 19 should put the kibbosh on commercialization of explicitly recreational pot -- professional cultivation and distribution would stay limited to the "medical" marijuana channel.

The Proposition's grow-your-own cultivation and use could end up being subject to a de facto local veto. In counties where law enforcement and civic groups don't want backyard pot, the Feds will have all the help they need to take down people wholesale -- and they won't need to take many people down before the message is clear. (While Federal law doesn't make Proposition 19 invalid, I think any effort to say that cops or sheriffs couldn't assist in the enforcement of Federal law if they chose would be invalid.)

I strongly doubt that jury nullification will be a restraint. California federal juries have convicted many "medical" marijuana operators since 1996; it won't be hard for the feds to indict or convict people who don't have a medical defense.

(There's no analogy to South Carolina legalizing slavery, because the 13th Amendment bans slavery within the United States unambigously; one of the very few things regarding which the Constitution deprives the states of any power.)
posted by MattD at 7:38 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Constitutional ban or not, the federal enforcement could take many forms.

The current Hawaii cases could also apply to Arizona if the Feds got busy with some human trafficking cases. Lord knows there's plenty of human trafficking related to prostitution which the FBI never seems to get around to prosecuting.

As this relates to California marijuana laws, the Feds could dream up interesting ways to make thing difficult for CA, some of which could be indirect and not immediately obvious.

Bottom line: Demos get the 9/11 Truthers and the Rethugs get the Tea Party. Difference: Truthers don't win elections or get big money's support. Advantage: Republicans.
posted by warbaby at 7:49 AM on October 16, 2010


The view from Humboldt. $25 an hour to manicure buds? Sign me up! Back in the day it used to be lunch and you got to keep all your trimmings.
posted by timsteil at 7:51 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


While Federal law doesn't make Proposition 19 invalid, I think any effort to say that cops or sheriffs couldn't assist in the enforcement of Federal law if they chose would be invalid.

Ah, but where would they be tried? There are only 53 judges in federal district courts in California. In 2008, there were 78,500 marijuana-related arrests in California. Clearly they'll need to cut back a bit.
posted by ryanrs at 8:10 AM on October 16, 2010


Now if South Carolina decided to, say, change the form of state government to a Maoist dictatorship, the feds could intervene as that act would be unconstitutional because Article Four Clause One of the US Constitution stipulates that each state must have a republican form of government

Actually, it's funny you should use that example because it's kind of a tricky one. In that case, it would be up to Congress to address the issue. The Supreme Court has held that that clause is not up to the courts to enforce, as the determination of what is and isn't a "republican form of government" is a political issue. "[T]he enforcement of that guarantee, according to the settled doctrine, is for Congress, not the courts." Highland Dairy Farms v. Agnew, 300 U. S. 608 (1937).

So 'the feds' in this case would be Congress passing a law, not a federal lawsuit, which is the usual way issues of constitutionality and federalism are decided in the US.
posted by jedicus at 8:16 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


As this relates to California marijuana laws, the Feds could dream up interesting ways to make thing difficult for CA, some of which could be indirect and not immediately obvious.

Pissing off the entire state California would be bad for a democratic administration's reelection prospects in ways that are direct and immediately obvious.

posted by Zalzidrax at 8:16 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


>There are a lot of independents who would be pretty annoyed if the feds announced they weren't going to enforce the law.

Not really, not in California.


But there are in Ohio, etc., where the Democrats really are on the ropes. This is an issue of national significance, because there are plenty of people in swing districts who do care about the War on Drugs. That's how it is.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but it's not an obviously stupid one from a strategic political perspective. A reasonable mind could have reached that conclusion, as the Obama administration apparently did.

I'm no fan of Obama, but I'm solidly convinced that he and his aides and cabinet make decisions based on some rational decision-making process, even if they come up with answers with which I do not agree.
posted by valkyryn at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2010


Now that's keeping things the same that I can believe in.
posted by fuq at 8:25 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


warbaby, you say that your linked article to human trafficking is an example of what the feds could do in an (imho foolish and doomed) attempt to undermine Prop 19.

As this relates to California marijuana laws, the Feds could dream up interesting ways to make thing difficult for CA

I read the linked article. Ahh .. it doesn't mention the feds at all, except that the trial is going to federal court. Yeah, we got that. The DEA could prosecute in federal court. I'm not sure what sort of fancy legal maneuvers you are imagining, but it certainly doesn't seem evident from your linked references.

I think that most people would agree, that yes, human trafficking is a bigger deal than pot. That's most of my point. We'll come together as a society over big issues, but small, silly stuff like pot, not so much, especially when it costs a tremendous amount to do so and we're poor at the moment.
posted by Invoke at 8:26 AM on October 16, 2010


Oh NO! Not the dreaded Mary Jane!

Holy crap. Here's my theory on legalized pot vs. legalized booze: I've never seen anyone take a monster bong hit and then turn around and beat on their wife or kids. Johnny Walker's a different story.

Getting rid of pot-related arrests, court cases and incarcerations would free up a HUGE amount of resources. And then they could tax the snot out of it just like cigarettes. So whatever. I'm so sick of this country's duplicity when it comes to drugs it's not even funny.
posted by PuppyCat at 8:26 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


juat wait till he tries to enforce enmasse.


"let them smoke kush".
posted by clavdivs at 8:30 AM on October 16, 2010


But there are in Ohio, etc., where the Democrats really are on the ropes.

Ok, gotcha. Obama is pandering to Ohio independents by sending the DEA thugs to execute early morning raids in my home state. A cunning political move, no doubt. Do I get to vote against him now, or will that still make me a bad liberal?
posted by ryanrs at 8:37 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


> I would love to see pot legalized

Ha ha ha. "Plow-hand". I get it... (wink,wink)
posted by mmrtnt at 8:40 AM on October 16, 2010


Michael Pollan: What Do Marijuana and Catnip Have in Common?
posted by homunculus at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


There's probably more recreational cannabis smokers in California then there are employees and agents of the entire Federal government in all branches and agencies combined.

I'd love to see what would happen if California suddenly stopped paying out any Federal taxes. I mean everyone. Every business, every facet of California state government, every citizen, too. I bet the funding for the DEA would dry up pretty damn fast.

Recession or no, California is still a financial juggernaut.
posted by loquacious at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I had to click through and read the article to realize that CSA didn't mean "farm share" in this context.
And to rid my mind of the excellently silly notion of a bundle of weed being in among the zucchinis and tomatoes in a weekly produce allotment.

Watching this play out is fascinating- govt officials wearing their assumptions on their sleeves.
posted by SaharaRose at 8:49 AM on October 16, 2010


Interesting ways to make things difficult for California - with this congress it's easy to see some grandstanding by conservatives to attach strings to federal funding. It doesn't have to be fancy.

Just because I don't enumerate (or can't imagine) what the consequences might be isn't the same as saying this will be consequence-free for California.

I'm not arguing the merits or relative importance of this initiative, just saying that the constitution isn't the only obstacle to slavery as the incredibly screwed up situation in Hawaii demonstrates.

The old chestnut about "unintended consequences" is a conservative red herring. It's a willful failure to contemplate consequences that is the problem.

Behind all this, I'm chagrinned that the Republicans can repeatedly seize control of federal policy and wreck the country through a stunning combination of incompetence, greed and corruption, while the Democrats can't seem to fumble their way though to maintaining their tenuous grasp on federal offices, much less steer policy in a positive direction.

The Republicans don't care what happens to the country as long as they get their piece and the Democrats don't seem to care about anything, even getting or staying elected.

The only reason to vote Republican is if you have a good chance of getting a slice of the graft. The only reason to vote Democratic is the Republicans are going to screw you over worse. So much for enlightened self interest in 21st century America.

I'm also amused by the dopers/cops alliance to defeat the initiative. Saw that one coming a mile away.
posted by warbaby at 8:50 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Federal law trumps state laws. What if South Carolina passed a new law allowing slavery?

You are aware, I assume, that slavery is banned by constitutional amendment, right? Neither a state nor the federal government may pass such a law.

Put simply, Obama does not use drugs. I've never once heard him say he was for legalization. Ever. Nor was Bush for legalization, nor was Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon or LBJ, Why people are suddenly shocked by all of this I don't know.

I'm also frustrated by everyone who is unhappy with Obama referring to themselves as his "base." Please do not do that. You are people who oppose him. You're angry with him because he's in Afghanistan--even though he said he wanted to fight that war the entire time. You're angry with him because he never provided single payer, some thing he explicitly said he would not do. You're angry that he has tried bipartisanship and compromise, even though he said he would.

But most of all you are angry that he has done everything he said he would about as effectively as is possible. Stimulus? Passed. Health Care Reform? Passed. Wall Street Reform? Passed. All in the very teeth of GOP opposition and all within 600 days of taking office.

Your only real response is to assume that unless he gets 100% of what he said he was going to try to do, without making a single compromise with the other, co-equal branch of government made up of 535 people, each with the same freedom of decision that he has, he has failed.

The only way you could believe such a thing is if you thought the movie Dave was a realistic portrayal of how humanity works.

The President is not perfect. But I have never seen one get more done in so short a time as he has. Only one ever did, and he cruised in on a titanic 60% majority and held over 70% of Congress during the midst of a far more severe economic shock.

If you could name anyone who could have done a better job, then I will take that name.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:54 AM on October 16, 2010 [23 favorites]


If you don't like it, change the (federal) law.

The "South Carolina slavery" strawman is a waste of time. So is Prop 19, really. Pass it, California. Good luck with that, and the fallout. Remember: you get the country you deserve, no more and no less.


Yeah, we're trying to change the law. Federal law will follow california's example here(*), eventually.

I remember from previous metafilter discussions that you are on the side of this argument that want to ruin people's lives because they enjoy THC. No matter how you phrase it, it's going to be found hateful.

(*) Assuming it passes, which is looking sadly difficult. I hope the people that are against 19 on the nuances are aware that if it fails the rest of the country will view it as a referendum on marijuana - "even CALIFORNIA doesn't want to legalize it, it must be bad!" - and not as "well those california potheads are smarter than we thought and will only accept the exact law that they want!". *facepalm*.
posted by flaterik at 8:57 AM on October 16, 2010


Ok, gotcha. Obama is pandering to Ohio independents by sending the DEA thugs to execute early morning raids in my home state. A cunning political move, no doubt. Do I get to vote against him now, or will that still make me a bad liberal?
No, but do you really want to vote for Carly Fiorina? Seems like a hard pill to swallow. If Obama's approval ratings stay as low as they are in 2012, it's possible that he could see a primary challenger. Ford and Carter both got 'em. That would be the time to vote against him.

But really, everyone should pay more attention to primary campaigns.
posted by delmoi at 8:57 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do I get to vote against him now, or will that still make me a bad liberal?

I don't give two shits about ideological purity, so hey, go ahead. Seems like the sort of circular firing squad move for which the Democrats are becoming legendary, but I seriously doubt the GOP will try to stop you. Maybe you'd prefer a change of pace?
posted by valkyryn at 9:11 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


The AG has to something
he has too cause of his job.
perhaps this is what the answer was along having states vote the right. (I mean people smoke pot in 'public' at were they purchased it, by states law lawfully.) there is little they can do( to reverse the new pot laws)IF the state law is being upheld.

so
"...Like Romeo and Juliet.
... Redefine happiness.
....Another 40,000 coming everyday... We can be like they are."

LAHNNAA..
posted by clavdivs at 9:13 AM on October 16, 2010


You really have to pity the poor leftist potheads- you can imagine their disappointment with Obama. When he was first running, they were all like "Woah, he's like a brother, duuude." fffffffffft "He's gonna be totally awesome. Like, he's gonna repeal the pot laws, and end all war, and feed the poor, and like, he's gonna appoint Hugo Chavez as secretary of state, and like, there's be hellacious babes and free love for all of us duuuuude."

And now it's all "duuuude, he's like, getting all authority figure on us. Like he thinks he's a president or something. I'm totally not gonna vote for the next twenty years and let the Republicans run things." fffffffffft
posted by happyroach at 9:13 AM on October 16, 2010


Well, the administration is required to enforce the law, and the law is on the books.

The law on the books also bans medical marijuana. They certainly could decide not enforce it for recreational use if they wanted, but anyone who listened to Obama on this subject knows he does not support doing so.


To give you a sense of scale, the DEA has about 5500 law enforcement officers nationwide. If they decided to commit 10% of their force to policing California marijuana offenses—that's a little more than 500 officers. The Los Angeles Police Department has 10,000.

The idea that the feds are going to hold back legal weed is laughable.


Well duh, prohibition of pot doesn't even work in areas where federal, state, and local officials are all on board with it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:14 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


well, the supremes.
posted by clavdivs at 9:14 AM on October 16, 2010


You really have to pity the poor leftist potheads- you can imagine their disappointment with Obama.

I'm the definition of a lefty pothead Obamabot, his decision to stop the federal raids of the medical pot providers was concrete action that has done a lot to push progress on my pet issue. Of course I want more, but he has been very clear he isn't on board with that.

I'm more disappointed with him on the lack of a public option in the healthcare bill. If socialized medicine was legalization, the public option was medical pot. He didn't push forward the cause enough to get credit on that like he did with pot.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:20 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


That Michael Pollan link is interesting. But it reminds me that I read someplace ages ago that THC doesn't affect animals who cannot digest fat, which is why deer and other such animals can strip a plantation clean and not wander around in a haze afterwards. That would seem to contradict his theory about why it evolved its effects.

Of course, my google-fu is failing me, so maybe I only dreamed that I read that.
posted by hippybear at 9:27 AM on October 16, 2010


I don't think it'll be vigorously enforced, whatever he says. Going over the state's head after a referendum will piss off a lot of people in California, and can either party really afford to do that? I think you're likely to see loud noises but not much action - the loud noises will make the anti-pot people in the rest of the country happy, while the lack of any real action will avoid pissing off the Californians too much.

Not to mention - how much could the DEA really accomplish, if state and local law enforcement refused to assist them in any way?
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2010


The DEA's 5500 agents are inadequate only if they were trying to suss out the clandestine or camoflauged grow-ops in all of California. But the idea of Prop 19 is to legitimize the trade. Any legal grow-ops will be registered with state and/or local authorities and the DEA can certainly shut them down. The same as with the dispensaries, except that the strong majority support across the US for medical MJ led to some political fallout due to those raids. For rec grow-ops, probably not as much.
posted by daksya at 9:38 AM on October 16, 2010


Lukenlogs writes "ALT text FTW! (mouse over Holder's pic')"

Very childish and it fucks with people using screen readers.
posted by Mitheral at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Put simply, Obama does not use drugs. I've never once heard him say he was for legalization. Ever.
Nice tense switch, there. Obama used cocaine in the past and he also advocated decriminalization (which is already the case in CA)
I'm also frustrated by everyone who is unhappy with Obama referring to themselves as his "base." Please do not do that. You are people who oppose him.
Finally you've moved on from the whole "If you don't support obama you're a horrible liberal, bla bla bla" nonsense that seems to infest the "my party right or wrong" sycophantic democratic fanboys. Good to hear.
But most of all you are angry that he has done everything he said he would about as effectively as is possible. Stimulus? Passed. Health Care Reform? Passed. Wall Street Reform? Passed. All in the very teeth of GOP opposition and all within 600 days of taking office.
Public option? Closing Gitmo? DADT? Global warming? But whatever. The main problem is Obama's horrendous stewardship of the economy. 10% unemployment means you suck.
I'm the definition of a lefty pothead Obamabot, his decision to stop the federal raids of the medical pot providers was concrete action that has done a lot to push progress on my pet issue.
Except for the fact the raids are still going on.
posted by delmoi at 9:41 AM on October 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


No, but do you really want to vote for Carly Fiorina? Seems like a hard pill to swallow.

Indeed. I would vote for George W. Bush to be president again before I'd vote for Carly Fiorina. Or even fail to vote against her. She makes his "failing up" look amateurish by comparison, and the fact that she's a candidate for federal office at all would be insult enough, though it pales in comparison to the sheer brazen (and possibly unmatched) hypocrisy of basing her campaign on jobs for Americans of all things.

So, my dear California voters, if you must take Holder's statements at face/insult value, you must, but please please please show up and make sure at least this particular catastrophe doesn't replace Boxer in the Senate.
posted by weston at 9:55 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Lots of comments about how the DEA won't want to piss off Californians. Nixon didn't give a flying fuck about pissing off California when he invited a drugged-out Elvis Presley over for a photo and a handshake and started the federal drug war in 1970, and he was Orange County born-and-bred. Why should now be any different?

Besides, there are lots more rightwingers, moralists, pot-fearers, churchgoers, Bible thumpers, opportunists, tea partiers, busybodies, naysayers, creeps, and just plain "I don't want California to be the laughingstock of the country" and "I don't want a pot farm in my next-door neighbor's backyard" types in California than there are pot smokers. Lots more.

Some of the categories may overlap in that typical wonderful hypocritical way that hypocrites tend to have, but be that as it may, when push comes to shove, the public side of the moralist will usually be the punitive side. If Prop 19 passes, right behind it, there will be another initiative along to repeal it. Initiatives in California are more widespread and hardier than pot plants. Didn't the whole Prop 8 "Let's make damn sure that homosexuals will never be able to get married" shebang prove that nobody throws referendums and money at political problems like California does?

Here's a (non-comprehensive) list of the groups that have contributed $5000 or more to the No on 19 campaign (most of the real money won't be known -- or spent -- until just before the election, if not later):

-- California Association of Highway Patrolmen PAC, $3,000 contribution
-- California State Narcotics Officers Association, $20,000
-- Greg Munks for Sheriff 2010 (sheriff of San Mateo County, running unopposed, detained in 2007 after being caught in a Las Vegas brothel "looking for a massage" because he was "sore"), $10,000
-- San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association PAC
-- California Hospital Association PAC, $16,000
-- CALBUSPAC, the California Chamber of Commerce arm, $16,000
-- San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, $16,000
-- California Correctional Supervisors Organization, $10,000
-- George Adams (chief of SA Recycling in Anaheim, a scrap metal recycling company), $10,000
-- California Beer and Beverage Distributors State Issues PAC, $10,000
posted by blucevalo at 10:03 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Even if Proposition 19 passes, things will be up in the air regarding local enforcement. San Francisco will be fine, I'm sure, and some municipalities like Long Beach have even pre-emptively set up what their local tax structure will be. But check out our Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca, and his stunning disrespect for upholding the law:
"Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Friday his deputies’ marijuana enforcement would not change even if Proposition 19, which would legalize the drug in California, passes Nov. 2.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park.

Baca, whose department polices three-fourths of the county, was bolstered Friday by an announcement from the Obama administration that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.

Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

Flanked by other opponents of the measure, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Baca made a colorful assault on marijuana use and sales. Asked if he had ever experimented with the drug, Baca was unequivocal. “Hell no,” he said...

...Baca said Friday local law enforcement agencies should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana even if the state measure passes.

“[Prop.] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” he said."
"Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes"?! That's some mighty fine legal blinders you got there, Sheriff. Then again, this is the same dickhead who also refuses to allow concealed carry permits for law-abiding county residents, so at least his authoritarian streak in the face of laws overtly permitting personal freedoms is consistent.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:05 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Whoops:

San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association PAC, $10,000
posted by blucevalo at 10:07 AM on October 16, 2010


Speaking as someone who doesn't smoke and doesn't plan to:

Fuck the feds. They're going to lose this battle, and they should.
posted by Xezlec at 10:10 AM on October 16, 2010


Except for the fact the raids are still going on.

Really? Despite his earlier statement? Do you have a cite for that? I'm not contending you're wrong, I'm just interested.
posted by weston at 10:17 AM on October 16, 2010


What was Jack Kerouac doing trying to buy "tea" in the jazz bar restroom?
posted by nervousfritz at 10:20 AM on October 16, 2010


That's some mighty fine legal blinders you got there, Sheriff. Then again, this is the same dickhead who also refuses to allow concealed carry permits for law-abiding county residents, so at least his authoritarian streak in the face of laws overtly permitting personal freedoms is consistent.

That's a stance that most sheriffs are going to take if they value being re-elected. Look at the contributions the San Mateo County sheriff's office has made to No on 19. The only sheriff who is not going to come out in arms publicly opposing Prop 19 is maybe (maybe) Michael Hennessey in SF County. I don't think that even Gary Philp in Humboldt County is going to publicly support Prop 19.
posted by blucevalo at 10:20 AM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


You know what? I'm going to give Obama and Holder a pass on this one.

Yes, cannabis should be decriminalized. Yes, Holder is writing a check he can't cash. And yes, the administration is kicking its supporters in the balls yet again.

But as long as cannabis possession remains a federal crime, I have no beef with the Attorney General saying that he is committed to enforcement of those laws. Though of course it would be seemlier, and better politics I think, to dial down the rhetoric.

The difference between this situation and the DADT appeal is that the latter law has already been declared unconstitutional - and it leads to an outcome that the administration claims to support. (Pro Tip: they're lying.)
posted by Joe Beese at 10:41 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]


Really? Despite his earlier statement? Do you have a cite for that?

Well, as recently as July, DEA agents took down a registered marijuana grower in Mendocino County.
posted by hippybear at 10:50 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

You should have a basic understanding of what laws are and what constitutionality is before being allowed into law enforcement, is all I'm saying. Jesus babyfucking christ.
posted by kafziel at 10:55 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Now if South Carolina decided to, say, change the form of state government to a Maoist dictatorship, the feds could intervene as that act would be unconstitutional because Article Four Clause One of the US Constitution stipulates that each state must have a republican form of government

Hey, it's not called the People's Republic of China for nothing.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:58 AM on October 16, 2010


2) It will be used to dope folks up so that they don't care about death panels

why, when there's already television?
posted by toodleydoodley at 10:59 AM on October 16, 2010


The federal law commonly known as "Prohibition" was repealed in 1933, so thankfully it's now possible to apply legally for a permit to manufacture alcohol everywhere in the US, and begin making said alcohol. The Federal government recognizes our legal right to manufacture booze, and will protect us against local governments that try to infringe on that right.

No, wait. That's not exactly true. Try making alcohol in a dry county in Tennessee, and see how far that gets you. Will the Feds step in when the local cracker police force slap handcuffs on your ass? Not likely.

So the Federalist argument in favor of recognizing States' rights works with alcohol, but not with marijuana.

Alcohol 1, marijuana 0.
posted by Gordion Knott at 11:03 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]



Well, as recently as July, DEA agents took down a registered marijuana grower in Mendocino County.


The raids continue only at locations that the feds have determined not to be in compliance with the state regulations. The full story on that bust is not out as far as I know but numerous other locations in Mendocino have been raided for violating the law, even by state officials.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2010


No, but do you really want to vote for Carly Fiorina?

No, I like Boxer. She's been in the Senate since before I was in high school and I think I know her positions pretty well. She voted against the Iraq War, the telecom immunity FISA amendment, military commissions for "unlawful enemy combatants", and a bunch of other bad crap during the Bush years. She's strong on civil rights, even when it's not in fashion. I think a lot of her positions on gun control are reactionary and poorly-informed, but that's near the bottom of my list of shit that matters.

The democrats I have a problem with aren't the ones that are going to be on my ballot this November.
posted by ryanrs at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


El Blog Del Narco. Yea, let's keep up our patronage with the horrifically violent drug cartels instead of growing our own. Instead of creating jobs, tax revenue, increased tourism, safety for our citizens.

Regarding Holder, man, I'd really hate to be the national spokesperson for really stupid shit. How embarrassing.
posted by snsranch at 11:22 AM on October 16, 2010


OH, warning to anyone clicking that Narco Blog...there is some extremely violent NSFP stuff in there. Sorry.
posted by snsranch at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2010


2) It will be used to dope folks up so that they don't care about death panels

why, when there's already television?


Have you ever seen television... on weed???
posted by hippybear at 11:31 AM on October 16, 2010


Try making alcohol in a dry county in Tennessee, and see how far that gets you.

It's apparently gotten the makers of Jack Daniels quite far.
posted by hippybear at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm more interested in what Holder didn't say. If the Feds really wanted to crack down on cannabis, they'd refuse federal funds for highways until everyone gets on board, just like the do with DUI laws. Everyone knows that the Feds have nowhere near the resources to prosecute users in California and the threat is thin. They were stopped with medical marijuana and there's no indication, short of a huge windfall in federal spending on this, that they'll succeed here.

I'm surprised by the establishment's continued pro-drug war stance. Just this week CNN was running a senseless article about why marijuana should be illegal (thesis: because it is "not good", at least informed op-eds have evolved to the point where they're not pushing gateway drug myths and the like). I assumed that more people would get on board with Prop 19, but I guess it is just one of those issues there's no political upside to being on the right side of history.

Also, if this passes I have a feeling we could see legalization across more liberal states such as Oregon and Hawaii. This very well could be a Berlin Wall moment where change happens a lot quicker than we would have ever imagined. You just don't have legalized marijuana in the most populous state in the union without all that cheap legal weed flowing over the borders.
posted by geoff. at 11:49 AM on October 16, 2010


If the DoJ brought a successful federal prosecution against a marijuana distributor in California (assuming prop 19 passes) is it possible that the case could be appealed to the supreme court and overturned? I thought that interstate drug trafficking has been the justification for the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act... I'm no constitutional scholar, but what authority does the federal government have under Article I Section 8 to regulate a substance that is grown, distributed, and consumed within a single state, where it's legal to do so?
posted by Frankieist at 11:51 AM on October 16, 2010


I'm more interested in what Holder didn't say. If the Feds really wanted to crack down on cannabis, they'd refuse federal funds for highways until everyone gets on board.

Good luck having a national Democratic party is California decides to stop voting for you.


I'm no constitutional scholar, but what authority does the federal government have under Article I Section 8 to regulate a substance that is grown, distributed, and consumed within a single state, where it's legal to do so?


Gonzales v. Raich
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:53 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


"Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Friday his deputies’ marijuana enforcement would not change even if Proposition 19, which would legalize the drug in California, passes Nov. 2.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park.

Baca, whose department polices three-fourths of the county, was bolstered Friday by an announcement from the Obama administration that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure."


California is in a fiscal crisis. Government services are on the cutting block, and people are baying for more cuts. Here's a thought. If Sheriff Baca is so hot on spending resources to defy California voters (in case prop 19) passes, we should take a careful look at his budget - if he has not eliminated all other crime down to zero, but instead is spending money on marijuana enforcement, we should cut his budget by that amount... and keep doing that as long as he keeps spending money on anything other than fighting non-mj related crime - right down to zero.

Apparently the Sheriff feels he has too much money, because he's taken care of all the other crime.

If the Feds want to enforce federal laws, let them do so, but Californians pay for Sheriff Baca's budget and we have no desire to see that money go to anything other than crime we are actually concerned over.

Time to take a very careful look at Sheriff Baca's budget. If we need to cut waste from Government, that particular budget seems ripe for some cutting.
posted by VikingSword at 11:55 AM on October 16, 2010 [18 favorites]


I just got a call from a nice lady at my local Republican congressional candidate's campaign office, wanting to know if I, a registered Republican in a heavily Democratic district, wanted a free yard sign for him. I asked her his position on Proposition 19, and she was so totally flummoxed when I told her I unfortunately could not support the candidate because I support Prop 19. I actually had to explain it to her twice, and make sure she understood that cannabis is the same thing as marijuana. Yes, nice Republican lady, you're losing your young Republican vote (thin though we may be in these parts) over this.

It's really too bad, because the local candidate seems so shiny and optimistic and cute and naive and has one of the best political names I've ever heard: Merlin Froyd. That's a name that practically demands some weed.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:14 PM on October 16, 2010 [7 favorites]


And I should say that at the Prop 19 volunteer meeting I went to, about a quarter of the volunteers self-identified as Republican. We even got applause when they asked us to raise our hands. :-)
posted by Asparagirl at 12:18 PM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


It's really too bad, because the local candidate seems so shiny and optimistic and cute and naive and has one of the best political names I've ever heard: Merlin Froyd. That's a name that practically demands some weed.

He is kinda cute. He looks ike Elijah Wood playing Frodo Baggins in a blond wig. The chances of him winning in that district against Howard Berman, pot or no pot, are about as high of the chances of my dead grandfather winning.
posted by blucevalo at 12:27 PM on October 16, 2010


This was completely predictable. The Democrats are living in the 1980 and 1990's, when they got brutally beaten for being "soft on crime" and when the answer to political success was to move to the right and co-opt Republican talking points like welfare reform. They failed to realize that doing this is no longer effective as they've moved the whole spectrum to the right and continuing in that direction isn't actually moving towards the center any more. They've also failed to recognize that the internet-- and the personal experience of half the country-- debunks the myths about marijuana that used to terrify people.

Hence, we will see Obama doing what he knows is stupid by enforcing federal drug laws as an attempt to pre-empt Republican critiques of his softness on crime. When, if he were to recognize that we're not living in the 80's anymore, he'd coopt their states' rights point instead and see California as a "laboratory of Democracy."
posted by Maias at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2010 [8 favorites]


I'm no constitutional scholar, but what authority does the federal government have under Article I Section 8 to regulate a substance that is grown, distributed, and consumed within a single state, where it's legal to do so?

The longer answer is that almost anything bought or sold, even if it does not itself cross state lines, still affects interstate commerce through the magic of the market. The courts have accepted this power since the 1930s or 1940s.

Before you get too upset about the existence of such a power, you ought to remember that if you were to somehow wave a magic wand and make that power disappear, that would also re-legalize much of Jim Crow. The federal laws that prohibit racial and ethnic discrimination in essentially all commerce rely on the same mechanism by which purely within-state transactions affect interstate commerce. Lots of other serious, important things that any sane person would like also rest very firmly on similar uses of the same power.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:03 PM on October 16, 2010


How to secede in business without really trying.

For all its troubles, California makes up something like 13% of the United States' GDP. It is too big to fail secede.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:31 PM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


A judge saying a law is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. The system works where it has to go up to the supreme court for anything like that to be decided.

Though of course you know that Joe Beese, so what does it really matter.

What I hope is that Prop 19 will show the rest of the country that pot isn't the devil that it's portrayed to be and that will be enough for it to get legalized federally.

But our country moves slow for a reason, so who knows when that will happen.
posted by Allan Gordon at 1:46 PM on October 16, 2010


Ironmouth: I'm also frustrated by everyone who is unhappy with Obama referring to themselves as his "base." Please do not do that. You are people who oppose him. ... [M]ost of all you are angry that he has done everything he said he would about as effectively as is possible.

I was furious when I first read your comment, as the only two reasons I can imagine anyone could type something this absurd are: (a) the speaker has either avoided reading, or read and ignored, all of the well-reasoned explanations for frustration with the Administration posted on the Blue and literally all over the Internet, or (b) the speaker knows this not to be true and is just saying it to make some political point. So, I started digging up a ton of links to make an excessively long Internet comment argument before catching myself and realizing that would be counterproductive and fortunately unnecessary for this particular exchange.

The rule in debate is that the party making a fantastic bears the burden of supporting it, right? Let's focus on the last sentence I quoted above, since the others in your quote aren't worth arguing over (I spent months campaigning, phonebanking, and door-to-door GOTVing for Obama in 2008 and plan to vote for him again in two years; Condescending, divisive, and dickish statement; There's a difference between disappointment and lack of support, which you and so many others lately refuse to recognize). What's more, let's focus on a single area of campaign promises: Civil liberties.

Our President, formerly a Constitutional law professor, garnered the support of many of us who actually care about the rule of law by arguing that his Administration would push for transparency and the repeal of Bush Administration executive power abuses. Instead, Obama's DOJ has done the exact opposite. With a single substantial exception (authority to use torture), the Administration has either held the exact same line as the Bush DOJ on everything from indefinite detention without habeas corpus for enemy combatants to the warrantless wiretapping program that Obama campaigned on repealing (prior to winning the Democratic primary). To every court challenge possible, the Administration has argued that these programs Obama promised to shed light on and dismantle are vital state secrets that the entire Judicial branch cannot, therefore, do anything about. (Similar absurd transparency failure: the torture abuse photos that Campaign Obama advocated releasing, became so threatening to President Obama that he stood behind the Lieberman/Graham statutory provision to amend the Freedom of Information Act to add a special exception so that the government could avoid releasing those exact photos, and refused to veto it.) Moreover, in many areas, the Obama DOJ has gone further than the Bush DOJ - broader definition of "enemy combatant," claimed authority to assassinate US citizens with no Due Process, etc.

Please, explain to me how this record demonstrates that I am angry because "he has done everything he said he would about as effectively as is possible."

It's amazing to me how many members of the current progressive-disparaging bloc of the Democratic Party take Obama at face value when he says he's doing everything he can on issues where it is clear that he isn't, considering that he has repeatedly called on Democrats to hold him accountable and to "hold his feet to the fire." His words. But when some Democrats actually try to do that, all we hear is people saying to shut up, accusing us of being secret Tea party members or "firebaggers" or whatever the fuck, blaming us for the existence of an enthusiasm gap that has literally nothing to do with what a handful of people are commenting online and everything to do with policies and results. Well, policies, results, and possibly the constant refusal on the behalf of centrist Democrats to actually address or even acknowledge our concerns, instead mischaracterizing our actual beliefs (as you have) or condescending to call us "children" throwing tantrums because we didn't get a pony or didn't get everything we wanted (the surprisingly popular, ever-so-mature refrain).

I'm voting Democrat next month, and will vote for Obama in 2012 if he runs again, but only because the Republican options are unimaginably worse. But since exercising my right to vote sends a message of approval that I don't intend, I'm going to goddamn well express my actual concerns in little comments on websites that a tiny fraction of the voting citizenship of America will ever actually read online.

BTW: You can't dismiss concerns over the continued war in Afghanistan, failure to consider single payer, and "compromising" with a bloc of retards who announced immediately after his election that they would not cooperate and would do everything to tank this Congress and Administration from day one by saying "that's what Obama said he would do during the campaign nurrr" while simultaneously dismissing concerns over his inaction on GLBT rights, closing Guantanamo, conducting industry negotiations on C-SPAN, and every fucking other thing he promised he'd do during the administration and hasn't done. We can't be expected to simultaneously accept every shitty thing he promised in the campaign and forget all the good things he promised at literally the exact same time.

Jesus, good thing I didn't go with writing the full length version
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 2:51 PM on October 16, 2010 [32 favorites]


Can we please stop using tax revenue as a reason for or against legalizing anything?

Money -- is just money. No amount of money will ever change my opinion on Prop 19, and I'm not alone on this. Because "lets make this illegal thing legal... for the money!" is, in fact, a slippery slope.

Lots of other arguments the pro-19 crowd can make. Some are even valid. But "more money for the state" is not one of them.
posted by andreaazure at 2:57 PM on October 16, 2010


When you are running a deficit you have to make some choices about money. Tax pot or tax something else? Cut services? Since pot is one of those few things people are actually begging you to tax and regulate it makes sense to do so when there is no compelling reason not to.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:11 PM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


> ... a slippery slope...

You understand, yes, that a slippery slope argument is a classic logical fallacy? That by their very nature such arguments must be invalid, at least at some point?

"If we allow X, then it's a slippery slope to Y (some bad thing)". Well, you can always draw a slope to some bad thing, no matter what!


> But "more money for the state" is not [a valid argument].


Not so. It's obviously a valid argument if you're concerned with the practicalities, but just as much if you're concerned with the ethics.

Clearly the state has limited resources, represented by their limited budget. More money for the state allows them to do more things, which include education, roads, health, all sorts of services. Less money spent on drug enforcement laws means more money spent on enforcing other laws against things that, you know, actually hurt people - it means getting people out of jail for selling a few joints and keeping people in who are actual bad guys.

Anything involving allocating money has a public and moral element.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:14 PM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


No amount of money will ever change my opinion on Prop 19, and I'm not alone on this.

You aren't. But it's important to recognize that there are a variety of reasons for wanting to change the laws regarding marijuana and that you stand a much better chance of getting the job done if you're willing to work with people who have different views and are swayed by different arguments.

I don't think marijuana is harmless (though I agree it's arguably less harmful than some other legal drugs). I have little doubt there are substantial numbers of people who'd like to see marijuana legalized who disagree with me, including a large number of readers of Metafilter. I don't really care to argue with them. We probably agree on other important things: that it's ridiculous that we decide to waste public money on ruining some number of people's lives with the criminal justice system in order to keep some number from potentially hurting themselves via substance abuse, and that the prohibition often fuels more violent criminal activity. If other people think we should change the laws for other reasons, great, I don't see why arguing about the things we don't agree on is a better idea than working together.

If one of those reasons is that legal-but-regulated production might yield more public funds, and there are some people who will get behind this for that reason, what's the problem?
posted by weston at 3:23 PM on October 16, 2010


Anybody know how close the vote is? I did some googling and found contradictory results.
posted by angrycat at 3:26 PM on October 16, 2010


Too close to call for sure. Personally I think it is going to fail. :(
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:38 PM on October 16, 2010


Its all but legal now. Medical marijuana recommendations are patheticall easy to obtain. They cost $150 everywhere last year and but have dropped to $45 at many offices in LA, at least.
And BTW, plenty of marijuana dispensaries strike me to be staffed (if not owned) with gangbanger types, whether security or sales... Not all, but more than just a few.

(Try the Jack Herer sativa strain, its quite excellent in every regard)
posted by Fupped Duck at 3:43 PM on October 16, 2010


Lukenlogs writes "ALT text FTW! (mouse over Holder's pic')"

Very childish and it fucks with people using screen readers.
posted by Mitheral at 9:40 AM on October 16 [1 favorite +] [!]


Actually, just putting a simple one-word phrase as alt-text on a picture rather than source or copyright info would shorten the screen-reading, wouldn't it? Also, it leads the reader (listener) to know where the article & site authors are coming from, right?

As for it being childish, it was, that's why I laughed at it.
posted by Lukenlogs at 3:50 PM on October 16, 2010


"More money for the state" is absolutely a valid argument. Here's how it works:

The people who want to get stoned are already doing so. They are paying a premium because pot is illegal. The state needs money badly. And the economy is still in the shitter. Legalizing, regulating, and taxing pot provides job, gets users what they are already buying at a lower cost, and provides revenue for the state. Hell, it provides an industry for the state.

In addition to simply being the right thing to do.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but, why is this not a valid point to bring up?
posted by Navelgazer at 4:26 PM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]


Because she really really really doesn't like pot or pot smokers and wants their lives ruined.
posted by flaterik at 5:57 PM on October 16, 2010


The money woes California has will end, with or without Prop 19. There are up cycles and down cycles, and this has been true going back to the 1870s.

It amazes me to see many libertarians, who want the state out of their lives, clinging to the notion that Tax Revenue Increases are a good reason to pass Prop 19. It is contradictory; that opinion is fake on the face of it.

I don't want pot users lives ruined. I think some of the draconian laws about possession in this country are just that -- draconian. I might have a shade of gray or two on this issue. Just because I don't agree with you on this, doesn't mean I want to jail every freaking pot user.

There is a world of difference between decriminalization and legalization. That isn't a world (a state) I want to live in. I am glad I don't live in California, I would leave the state if this passed while I was there.
posted by andreaazure at 6:24 PM on October 16, 2010


I am glad I don't live in California, I would leave the state if this passed while I was there.

That's not really a shade of grey.
posted by flaterik at 6:35 PM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


It amazes me to see many libertarians, who want the state out of their lives, clinging to the notion that Tax Revenue Increases are a good reason to pass Prop 19.

Can buy product + pay tax is greater liberty than can't buy product. Libertarians don't believe in the abolition of all taxes anyway.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:41 PM on October 16, 2010


Medical marijuana recommendations are patheticall easy to obtain.

True. My buddy got one by saying it was to treat his alcoholism. Which is true enough, but all he had to do was say it, and he got the scrip.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 6:50 PM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


The difference between this situation and the DADT appeal is that the latter law has already been declared unconstitutional - and it leads to an outcome that the administration claims to support. (Pro Tip: they're lying.)

Really? You have some sort of lie detector? The fucking secdef, the chair of the joint chiefs and the rest of them come out publicly in favor, the house votes in favor and the senate effort fails for a few votes and obama's lying? Why? Because they moved for a stay when one federal district judge declared the law unconstitutional? What about all of the federal judges who have already declared DADT constitutional? For christsakes, they've even stopped enforcement during the pendancy of the appeal. And you think the supremes are going to find against DADT? hardly. the prez's authority in defense is nearly plenary. they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. the administration wants this passed in congress so it gets done right and can't be reversed by the next president.

Seriously, joe, you can whine all you want about gitmo, but you have no credibility when you say this crap. this administration has been way farther out in front of this issue than any other, ever.

Just to change the law requires a lot of legislative drafting to fix everything. and its the only way to make it permanent. If obama just changes it by fiat, then congress won't touch it, ace, because why stick your ass out when the job's been done? the problem, of fucking course, is, what the fuck happens when some republican takes power? if we haven't done it the legislative way, obama's way, the republican prez will just reverse it, citing his power as commander in chief. and we will be powerless.

This is simply the stupidest position i've ever seen on this issue, ever. its whining for no reason.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:55 PM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fupped Duck writes "Medical marijuana recommendations are patheticall easy to obtain."

"cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. " That's a pretty all encompassing list of conditions.

Lukenlogs writes "Actually, just putting a simple one-word phrase as alt-text on a picture rather than source or copyright info would shorten the screen-reading, wouldn't it? Also, it leads the reader (listener) to know where the article & site authors are coming from, right?"

ALT text should be descriptive of the photo. While the text that was used may be descriptive it's not very helpful at providing context for someone who can't see the image.
posted by Mitheral at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2010


andreaazure: There is a world of difference between decriminalization and legalization. That isn't a world (a state) I want to live in. I am glad I don't live in California, I would leave the state if this passed while I was there.

Just out of curiosity, why? I can't imagine someone considering this issue so much of a threat that they immediately flee without at least waiting around to see what happens, or so wrong that they depart on moral grounds.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2010


ALT text should be descriptive of the photo. While the text that was used may be descriptive it's not very helpful at providing context for someone who can't see the image.

I think you meant conteNt. It nailed the context, from the author's perspective.
posted by Lukenlogs at 7:20 PM on October 16, 2010


No amount of money will ever change my opinion on Prop 19

After some thought I realized that I have a bit problem with this statement. So, even if legalization would balance the CA budget (which it wouldn't, just for sake of argument), you'd still be against it? Even though the constant budget crisis here leads to all sorts of issues with public funding for education, infrastructure, and all sorts of social services?

I mean, I can get behind "people shouldn't smoke pot all the time, kids shouldn't smoke it at all, and you shouldn't be subjected to other people smoking if you don't want to be around it". But you seem to think it's SO BAD that no amount of public good that comes from a healthy economy and well funded government would be worth making it legal.

How do you get to that conclusion? Because all I've seen are appeals to slippery slope, and that doesn't even begin to cut it.
posted by flaterik at 7:48 PM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


Rand (hardly a liberal hippy den) has come up with an estimate of a "worst case" scenario of a 100% increase in marijuana use following legalization. Where does that put the population use rate?

At exactly where it was in the 1970's when it was just as illegal as ever. The fashions may have sucked, the divorce rate was high and the economy was in the tank but I don't think you can argue any of that (OK, maybe the fashion) had anything to do with the high rates of marijuana use. The children who came of age and hit high school and college when American drug use peaked-- from 1979-8-- are known as GenX. We don't seem to have turned out too badly.
posted by Maias at 8:47 PM on October 16, 2010


oops, that should have been 1979-82...
posted by Maias at 8:47 PM on October 16, 2010


Lots of other arguments the pro-19 crowd can make. Some are even valid. But "more money for the state" is not one of them.

So if no amount of money would convince you to change your mind, and no possible argument would make you want to live in a state that legalized pot, and you're glad you don't live in California, and in fact Prop 19's passage would make you want to leave the state even if you lived there, what possible valid arguments could Prop 19 supporters make?
posted by blucevalo at 8:57 PM on October 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


To convince me blucevalo? Dunno. Hasn't happened yet. Note the difference here between actual medical use and what Prop 19 does -- actual medical use (and not "anything I want to be a medical claim is good enough" use like you have in California and Colorado) is pretty likely to gain national acceptance. And while I personally disapprove, I don't disapprove enough to deny someone a useful medical treatment.

My comment here wasn't about "how you can convince me that Prop 19 is a good idea," my comment is that I don't believe tax revenue is a good argument to make any illegal act a legal one. Argue on the basis of the validity of the prohibition, or lack thereof. That's dealing honestly, in my opinion.

Taken another way: there are 44 states where I can't marry someone of my sex. I don't believe an argument of "but equal-marriage laws will increase business in weddings!" is a valid argument.

* If we're arguing tax laws, then money should be the focus.
* If we're arguing social policy laws, then the social policy should be the focus.
* When these two things mix, I believe that there is a larger-than-necessary confusion of the issue.
posted by andreaazure at 9:11 PM on October 16, 2010


Well, I understand what you're saying, but I don't know. This is now a derail on my part, but I'd use whatever argument would stick to the wall and work. If increased business in weddings and more revenue for a city or a state would be enough to convince a city council or state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage (not likely, but let's assume), hell, why not?

The commingling of types of argument doesn't much matter to me. I just want to marry my partner. Nationwide. That's it. Whatever it takes to get that done. Fair dealing isn't something the other side is concerned with, ever. Why should fair dealing concern me? I would rather be able to marry than to deal fairly and to get the pyrrhic victory.
posted by blucevalo at 9:28 PM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


and not "anything I want to be a medical claim is good enough" use like you have in California and Colorado

Anything is good enough that my doctor will sign off on. Maybe we should leave the medical decisions to doctors instead of government bureaucrats?

It's really obtuse that you don't think it is valid to consider side benefits of a social policy. Tax revenue alone is not a good enough reason but it is certainly worth considering the potential positive results for the budget when you look at the big picture.

Or, turn it around. Would you consider banning something if it resulted in a significant monetary loss? The sapping of productivity of workers is one of the main reasons society bans drugs in the first place. When you look at the healthcare bill or social security, do you consider the costs?

Of course we need universal government provided healthcare for everyone! Don't tell me about the costs though this is social policy! The only question is if healthcare for everyone is beneficial to our health or not!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:31 PM on October 16, 2010


Andrea, obviously I remember seeing you post in marijuana threads before. But what I can't remember if ever hearing a clear argument from you about what's wrong with it, other than "you don't like it". Perhaps there was a story where a family member had some sort of issue where marijuana use played a part. But for the most part all you ever say is "it's bad and I've never heard an argument that convinces me otherwise, and though one is technically possible I would move if the state I lived in legalized it". That a pretty intense view to have, especially if you don't have anything to back it up.
posted by flaterik at 9:33 PM on October 16, 2010


This measure has been totally misrepresented in so many ways. Currently in California 1 oz. of marijuanna is a $100 ticket and if you get your doctors scrip for $45 dollars you can grow, possess and sell far more than measure 19 allows. 19 could even limit the current amounts medical patients are allowed to grow.

If this measure passes local jurisdictions will continue to cooperate with DEA on cases involving illegal/unlicensed grows, other drugs and black market connections.

Meanwhile the DEA will continue to hit targets of opportunity and if the people are legal, they won't even need the jack-booted thugs to come in, they can just drop off a polite letter to appear in court and seize the relevant bank accounts and property.

There will be plenty of people growing and selling without a license or dodging the local taxes for locals to arrest. These taxes will be unlimited and up to the discretion of the local governments. Rancho Cordoba is proposing $600-900/sq.ft. for medical grows and a greater amount for recreational. These tax proceeds are specifically earmarked for the enforcement of the measure by the language of the measure itself.

TL;DR This measure gives the local jurisdictions unlimited powers of taxation, licensing and regulation and only explicitly protects the right to possess an oz. or less. DEA and local police will continue as normal.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 10:21 PM on October 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Just because I don't agree with you on this, doesn't mean I want to jail every freaking pot user.

You can't make this argument while criticizing the legitimacy of the tax revenue argument. If marijuana remains illegal, pot users will continue to be jailed. That is an incontrovertible fact. Whether you want those users jailed or not, they will continue to be arrested and jailed. You can't separate the practical consequences of prohibition from the legal status of pot.

Arguing against prop 19 is, by definition, arguing for arresting and incarcerating pot smokers.

Well, ok, I guess someone could try to argue that they're against Prop 19 because they only want to see pot made into an infraction punishable by a small fine and no jail time, but that's a rather cowardly fence-straddling position for someone to take and I've never actually come across anyone arguing for pot to be made an infraction as anything but a step towards full legalization..
posted by Justinian at 10:27 PM on October 16, 2010


TL;DR This measure gives the local jurisdictions unlimited powers of taxation, licensing and regulation and only explicitly protects the right to possess an oz. or less. DEA and local police will continue as normal.

Why are those same groups so publicly opposed to this measure, if it ultimately benefits them?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:17 PM on October 16, 2010


This measure gives the local jurisdictions unlimited powers of taxation, licensing and regulation and only explicitly protects the right to possess an oz. or less. DEA and local police will continue as normal.

So if this is all true, who do you believe is backing Prop 19 and why, and why are so many of the deep-pocketed groups that I listed above opposing it? If what you say is the case, it's a monumentally clever snow job, because everyone else who's commented here seems to think it's a terrific step forward.

I do see that Richard Lee and Oaksterdam University stand to make bank if the measure passes and have spent $1.5 million to push it. So yeah, not exactly a dispassionate backer there. Prop 19 has also gotten $100,000 from Philip Harvey of DKT International, a contraceptive provider in Chapel Hill, and $20,000 from George Zimmer of Men's Wearhouse fame. I'm not seeing any major common threads of nefarious intent, other than that.
posted by blucevalo at 11:20 PM on October 16, 2010


Anybody know how close the vote is?

intrade has it at 60%, fwiw...
posted by kliuless at 7:43 AM on October 17, 2010


* If we're arguing tax laws, then money should be the focus.
* If we're arguing social policy laws, then the social policy should be the focus.
* When these two things mix, I believe that there is a larger-than-necessary confusion of the issue.


These things mix all the time, in a variety of issues. Money and social policy are intimately connected. Yes, their mixing makes things complicated, and sometimes confusing. That's just how things go. Trying to pretend that one doesn't affect the other in an effort to "simplify" the issue is silly when the reality is that they do affect each other.

Recently here in SF, there was a proposal floated that would add a (small amount, can't remember what) of money per drink served in bars. This money would go towards alcohol treatment programs. The board of supes shot it down. I'm sure you can imagine the the arguments on both sides.

So there you go: someone got their money in my social policy!

When counties argue about whether or not to allow a local tribe to open a casino in the county, what, no discussion of the economics should come into play if you're going to argue about the social ills of gambling? Or should they not talk about gambling addiction since their main focus will be on revenue?

It's nonsensical to argue that talk of money and social policy must be divorced from one another.
posted by rtha at 9:09 AM on October 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


Blazecock Pileon writes "Why are those same groups so publicly opposed to this measure, if it ultimately benefits them?"

While the groups may benefit the individual actors might not. And never underestimate the fear of change.
posted by Mitheral at 9:32 AM on October 17, 2010


Is there really any evidence that there exists a significant bloc of voters in swing states who would vote for Obama, but only if he antagonizes California Democrats by undermining their efforts to repeal marijuana prohibition? I haven't seen any polls indicating that, can someone point me to what I've missed?

Ironmouth wrote Seriously, joe, you can whine all you want about gitmo, but you have no credibility when you say this crap. this administration has been way farther out in front of this issue than any other, ever.

Has this really gotten so bad that you and the other people on the "Obama is doing a great job" side have decided to characterize criticism of the systemic violation of both the US Constitution and plain morality that is represented by the, quite literally, lawless detention of people with neither charges nor trials, in an environment that was once filled with torture that may resume the instant Obama leaves office, as "whining"?

Is that really how you picture this? Obama as a great man who has done little to nothing actually wrong beset by whiners?

I can't speak for Joe, and frankly I disagree with his core position in that I do plan to continue voting Democrat both in the upcoming election and specifically including voting for Obama in 2012 assuming we can't mount a successful primary challenge to oust him. However I do think that by dismissing legitimate criticism of Obama's embrace and extension of systemic human rights violations as whining you're doing yourself no favors.

Speaking personally, I'd feel a lot better about working with the people who still view Obama as a largely good president (as opposed to my own view of him as so bad that only the nutbag Republicans can look worse by comparison) if they'd at least acknowledge that there are legitimate, and serious, complaints about his behavior.

Not, as so many keep trying to pretend, whining about timing and things that Republicans can and do block, but substantive complaints about things that Obama has actively done and done very wrong.

*******

As for the specific issue of gay rights, I do think that there is plenty of legitimate criticism, though some of it does fall into the area of timing.

Obama had, very briefly, a shaky, sort of, kind of, 60 vote majority in the Senate. He saw early on that the Republican plan was to filibuster absolutely everything he was attempting that was to the left of Darth Vadar. History shows that the majority party tends to lose in the midterms, that would (to my way of thinking anyway) indicate that anything Obama wanted to seriously pursue had to be accomplished before the 2010 elections, because after that there would be no guarantee at all that his (nominal, and shaky) 60 vote majority in the Senate would continue to exist.

Rather than fast tracking gay rights issues, Obama tabled them. You can argue that was a necessary strategic decision, I might even agree to a point. But with DADT he specifically tabled it pending a foot dragging "study" done by military brass hostile to the idea of openly serving homosexuals.

That study isn't scheduled to be completed until after the 2010 elections, that is, after the time when Obama was all but certain to lose even his nominal 60 vote majority even back before Kennedy died.

In other words, Obama appears to have deliberately scheduled the vote on repealing DADT to take place after it is all but certain that it can't get through the guaranteed Republican filibuster in the Senate. If he really wanted DADT to be repealed I can't think of how he could have gone about doing so in a less effective manner.

I think Obama's gay supporters, and those who aren't gay but nevertheless genuinely support gay rights, have a valid gripe regarding Obama and DADT.

As for DOMA, how exactly do you think he's going to manage to repeal it after the 2010 elections? I don't see how it's possible. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't see how its possible for Obama to get anything even faintly liberal passed from now until 2012 at the earliest. Even during the upcoming lame duck session the Republicans still have a 41 vote majority in the Senate, why would anyone expect them to do anything but filibuster?
posted by sotonohito at 10:56 AM on October 17, 2010 [4 favorites]


I thought this was the weed thread.

Anyhow, just to step in it and say that I think that Obama has done a better job than many on the left have given him credit.

I don't think anyone is giving him an A+ on all fronts. There's also the small issue that none of us in this thread have to/ have had to grapple with something as complex as being the president of the U.S. in the year of our Lord, 2010.
posted by angrycat at 11:11 AM on October 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


none of us in this thread have to/ have had to grapple with something as complex as being the president of the U.S. in the year of our Lord, 2010

By that screwed up logic, we shouldn't have criticized Bush, either. (Coincidentally, the criticisms are by and large the same.)
posted by ryanrs at 12:05 PM on October 17, 2010 [2 favorites]


While the groups may benefit the individual actors might not. And never underestimate the fear of change.

I don't understand how this relates to the federal government stating public opposition to this, in spite of it (as the original claim went) benefitting them. If it was beneficial, they would get behind this proposition, right?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:38 PM on October 17, 2010


psycho-alchemy: "This measure has been totally misrepresented in so many ways. Currently in California 1 oz. of marijuanna is a $100 ticket and if you get your doctors scrip for $45 dollars you can grow, possess and sell far more than measure 19 allows. 19 could even limit the current amounts medical patients are allowed to grow."


A couple of corrections: currently low-level mj possession in California is a misdemeanor. Jan 1st it will become an infraction. The cost is usually higher than the $100 fine because of court fees. A doctor's recommendation (not a prescription) does not create a legal right to sell mj.

Prop 19 very explicitly does not limit medical patients' rights and they will continue to be allowed to possess and cultivate what they need.
posted by gingerbeer at 3:57 PM on October 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


At exactly where it was in the 1970's when it was just as illegal as ever. The fashions may have sucked, the divorce rate was high and the economy was in the tank but I don't think you can argue any of that (OK, maybe the fashion) had anything to do with the high rates of marijuana use. The children who came of age and hit high school and college when American drug use peaked-- from 1979-8-- are known as GenX. We don't seem to have turned out too badly.

Heh. That last bit is arguable, but I don't think marijuana played a major role for good or ill.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:42 PM on October 17, 2010


The children who came of age and hit high school and college when American drug use peaked-- from 1979-8-- are known as GenX.

Wooooah there. People in college in 1979/1980 are not Gen X, they're the tail end of the baby boom. The baby boom was from 1946 to the early 1960s. Gen X people are folks born in the mid 60s to about 1980. So you don't even have to have been born in 1979 to be Gen X, much less be in college.

It's true that a lot of people born around 1960 don't feel like they fit comfortably in the Baby Boom generation, but neither are they comfortably Gen X. I'm not sure there is a name for those transitional kids but certainly they're not Gen X. That would make Barack Obama a Gen Xer and, yeah, he is not.
posted by Justinian at 9:44 PM on October 17, 2010


Gen X people are folks born in the mid 60s to about 1980. So you don't even have to have been born in 1979

Hrm. I'm 79 and always recall reading about "generation x" and it being a little earlier than me. Then there was generation Y that was a little younger.

I liked not having a label for my cohort.
posted by flaterik at 10:25 PM on October 17, 2010 [1 favorite]


Gen X are the kids of boomers.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 2:05 AM on October 18, 2010


Hrm. I'm 79 and always recall reading about "generation x" and it being a little earlier than me.

Since these generation thingies are completely made up they always get a little squishy around the edges. So you have people like Obama (born in '61) who don't fit comfortably into either the Boomer or Gen X categories. Ditto people born around 1980 who in my experience can either fit easily into the Gen X category or not fit into any category comfortably depending on their familial situation and peer group. My sister, for example, was born in 1980 (one year after you) and is pretty obviously a Gen Xer. The fact that she has two older brothers who are stereotypical Xers and no younger siblings likely has a lot to do with that.

Do you have any siblings 5+ years older than you? Please say no! Or my theory will have to ignore you!
posted by Justinian at 4:55 AM on October 18, 2010


Actually, Generation X kids would be more likely the kids of the Lost Generation, whose parents were born or grew up during WWII, with Generation Y (or the Millennials) being born children of Boomers.

The labels are squishy, but they have to do with shared experiences with one's cohort group while growing up. Justinian is correct in saying that cusp children who are born with older siblings tend to be more part of the older cohort than the younger. And a first born child who is born on a cusp who has several younger siblings will generally be part of the newer cohort.

It's hardly a hard-and-fast science, but generational theory is an interesting way to look at history as a series of cycles that build on one another, with two smaller loops that alternate with each generation, and a larger 4-generation cycle which appears to play out repeatedly across US history.

Based on his birth year, Obama would be most likely a cusp child between Boomer and Gen X. But it's the shared experience of history with his peers and how that shaped his worldview that really determines which he should fit into. I'm not entirely sure which he should be, but I tend to lean toward Gen X for Obama.
posted by hippybear at 6:02 AM on October 18, 2010


You can't dismiss concerns over the continued war in Afghanistan, failure to consider single payer, and "compromising" with a bloc of retards who announced immediately after his election that they would not cooperate and would do everything to tank this Congress and Administration from day one by saying "that's what Obama said he would do during the campaign nurrr" while simultaneously dismissing concerns over his inaction on GLBT rights, closing Guantanamo, conducting industry negotiations on C-SPAN, and every fucking other thing he promised he'd do during the administration and hasn't done. We can't be expected to simultaneously accept every shitty thing he promised in the campaign and forget all the good things he promised at literally the exact same time.

Dude, you can't say that he is a failure, either. Dude did what he said he was going to do.

Consider single payer? Puhleeze, There are not 60 fucking votes in the Senate for single-payer. Indeed there are probably 15 total. I am not kidding. Nor would it pass the House. And any plan based on it would be a non-starter and put you in a worse place.

Inaction on GLBT? He announced he was ending DADT, and the House passed the end of DADT. It failed in the Senate. That's not his fault. He does not possess a mind control ray. How did your senator vote on it? Did you contact him or her?

He is trying to close Guantanamo. But he has nowhere to put the prisoners and there are some other legal issues, that I'm not at liberty to discuss, that are affecting the situation. They are getting a workaround on that. But Obama was wrong in saying he could close it within the year. He made a mistake in thinking that it would be that easy.

you ask for fucking perfection. you ask for ridiculous things that can't be gotten or demand that your time table be followed. He's been in office 600 days!!!!!!!!! He's done more than clinton did in 8 years. But it ain't enough. And your whining contributes to a lack of enthusiasm when evil is at the motherfucking gates. Direct your anger at the GOP where it fucking belongs.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:35 AM on October 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do you have any siblings 5+ years older than you? Please say no! Or my theory will have to ignore you!

Your theory is safe! I have one sibling 6 years younger. But he's so much younger than me and I was enough of a loner while growing up that I don't think he really worked as a pull down resistor to gen y for me. Unlabeled I remain!
posted by flaterik at 10:15 AM on October 18, 2010


er, wrong thread. stupid recent activity confusing me.

I swear this is not a THC related mistake
posted by flaterik at 10:16 AM on October 18, 2010


*facepalm* or, this thread simply has too many, er, threads, in it. No more commenting before coffee. Christ.
posted by flaterik at 10:18 AM on October 18, 2010


Ironmouth wrote "He is trying to close Guantanamo. But he has nowhere to put the prisoners and there are some other legal issues, that I'm not at liberty to discuss, that are affecting the situation. They are getting a workaround on that. But Obama was wrong in saying he could close it within the year. He made a mistake in thinking that it would be that easy. "

So what?

Why do I care if he keeps people detained for life, with neither trials nor charges [1] in a facility in Cuba or in the USA? The problem is not and never has been with the physical facility at Guantanamo Bay, but with the entire lawless (in the literal sense of the word) system of indefinite detention violating the 5th Amendment.

That's a system that Obama has embraced, extended, and defended in court.

Please address this point. Obama has thrown his presidential weight behind the idea that people can be imprisoned, forever, without trials or charges on what amounts to presidential whim. That's a pretty damn big evil thing he's done.

I'm not asking for fucking perfection, I'm asking that he not actively and deliberately embrace a lawless, anti-constitutional, evil.

Is that "whining" in your eyes? Seriously?

I get that you're pissed at Joe. I get that you think he's doing the wrong thing by giving up on the Democrats (I even agree, kind of, with you there). But you aren't getting anywhere by pretending that real complaints about actions deliberately taken by Obama are "whining" and demands of perfection.

[1] Or, worse, people who were acquitted in a real court but who the administration decides to keep in a cage forever anyway by the magic of Post Acquittal Detention.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on October 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


As for gay rights in general, I must disagree with your assessment of Obama's commitment.

His Department of Justice filed motions supporting DOMA that used some pretty vile language and analogies. You can argue that the DoJ is obligated to defend existing law, I note that Bush operated under no such constraints but fine. The DoJ however is **NOT** required by either statute or the Constitution do defend existing law using the most vile homobigoted language that exists. Obama's DoJ submitted documents in defense of DOMA that actually equated homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. Don't tell me that was necessary under the law and Constitution. I also note that no heads rolled at the DoJ for that language, implying that Obama approved, or at the very least didn't care that his own employees were sending out vile homobigoted screeds on the taxpayer's dime.

More important the President's party almost always loses in the mid-terms, there are exceptions but they're really rare. Obama's tenuous, nominal, sixty vote majority in the Senate was, even back in 2008, predicted to vanish in the 2010 elections. That means that any real liberal action he wanted to take had to happen between his election and January 3, 2011, and he knew it.

Facing that reality President Obama chose to drag his feet on DADT by, very late in the game, insisting that action had to wait until a degrading and pointless study was completed by homophobic military brass. A study that is scheduled to even reach Bush appointee Robert Gates by December 1 of this year.

Tell me how, exactly, Obama planned on overcoming the inevitable, lockstep, Republican filibuster on this issue? During lame duck. Assuming that none of his elderly Senators died (like Kennedy did), assuming that he could get everyone in the Democratic caucus to vote to overcome the filibuster.

And now, now that there isn't even a nominal sixty vote majority in the Senate, now you and Obama expect me to believe that the Senate will repeal DADT? That the Senate, in its current incarnation (never mind how it will look after the 2010 elections) will overcome a united Republican filibuster?

Obama could have refused to appeal, then DADT would have already ended. Instead he appealed and now tells us that the Republican run Senate will repeal the law?

Obama could have ended DADT with an executive order, Truman integrated the military with an Executive Order (#9981), so there is precedent here. But no he and you tell us that the Senate, with its current 41 vote Republican majority, is the only way that DADT can possibly be repealed.

If the Senate is the only way Obama believes that DADT could/should be repealed, then shouldn't he have taken care of it back when he had a nominal 60 vote majority instead of commissioning a foot dragging study?

Here's the thing, we already know Obama says that gay people are second class citizens who don't deserve marriage. Given that, seeing the evidence of the vile and repulsive language his DoJ used in defending DOMA, given his foot dragging that has now all but guaranteed that DADT will never be repealed, why should anyone believe him when he claims to support gay rights?

He hasn't done jack shit for gay rights.

He's made a few empty speeches (and not many of those), he's said that he really, really, wants to get DADT repealed while simultaneously refusing to do anything about it and putting off all votes until he was guaranteed to lose them.

All evidence indicates that Obama is hostile to gay rights.

I'm not Joe. I'll vote Democrat in November, and assuming that Obama survives all primary challengers I'll vote for him in 2012. But that's because he remains marginally better than the alternative, not because I think he's a great, or even good, president. And it certainly isn't because I'm stupid enough to believe Obama's lies when he claims to be for gay rights.

If you'd like to change my mind on this issue, I can be easily persuaded by the simple method of showing me actual **ACTION** (not empty speeches) taken by Obama that expanded on gay rights. Show me that he's really done something positive and I'll not only apologize here, I'll defend Obama everywhere against charges that he isn't really in favor of gay rights and I'll do it by using the evidence you provide.

Because right this second, I'm of the position that Obama is deliberately trying to sabotage gay rights and that he's lying through his teeth when he claims otherwise.
posted by sotonohito at 11:33 AM on October 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


I hate the fact that, for all the interesting conversation and debate that it has engendered, Prop 19 will probably fail.

Not for any good reason, mind you, just because it feels like we've reached a point where we should be seriously reevaluating our views on this, and the Public has a nasty habit of slapping me down when I think like this.
posted by quin at 2:31 PM on October 18, 2010


Ironmouth: Dude, you can't say that he is a failure, either. Dude did what he said he was going to do.

I can't figure out how you managed to read the words of my comment and somehow completely fail to get anything that I said. (One hint: I never said he was a failure. Are you responding to me?)

The main body of my comment was a list of glaring examples of how he hasn't done what he said he was going to do. I specifically picked issues that fall under the control of the DOJ because you can't argue that it's Congress that's somehow frustrating Obama's secret inner desires.* Today, in a second, if he had a problem with any of the developments I listed, he could instruct Holder to change course, but he hasn't. He promised something and he has been actively delivering the opposite. Okay? Drop the lie about how he's done what he said he was going to do.

The postscript of my comment, that you focused your response on, was not an impassioned argument for any of those policies. It was just a statement - there is a rhetorical inconsistency in defending Obama's shitty moves by saying "hey, don't act so surprised! he said he would do that during the campaign!" while simultaneously trying to shut people up for urging Obama to do OTHER things that he promised during the campaign. Are we to hold him to what he promised during the campaign or not? Are his campaign promises what we should expect, or what we should ignore? Does the answer turn exclusively on whether or not it's an issue that progressives care about?

you ask for fucking perfection. you ask for ridiculous things that can't be gotten or demand that your time table be followed. ... And your whining contributes to a lack of enthusiasm when evil is at the motherfucking gates. Direct your anger at the GOP where it fucking belongs.

I don't do any such things, as I've demonstrated by my comments. And please, until you find some kind of survey indicating that the voting public is seriously more influenced by blog comments than by watered-down, sellout legislation and/or total inaction, don't blame me for the enthusiasm gap. Especially not when your tone and your comments are overtly hostile to fellow Democrats. I proposed a topic and offered a reasoned statement. What did your tantrum add? Where is your anger directed? ("fucking perfection" ... "ridiculous things" ... "!!!!!!!!!!" ... "your whining" etc.) Hint: I'm not a member of the GOP!

Here's what I see: One faction within the Democratic party offers recommendations for ways in which the Administration and Congress could be more effective, and earn greater public support. (Promote the rule of law. Fight harder for actual people instead of the banking industry, the health care industry, the military industrial complex. Stop prioritizing "bipartisanship" over results by letting negotiations grind to a halt while striving to reach futile compromises with bad-faith actors who plan to engage in a party-line vote against the resulting compromised product. Etc.) We have objective support for our positions. (Polling shows that people wish that health reform had been more extensive by a ratio of 2:1. Economists agree that the "compromise" stimulus amount was too low to effect an economic turnaround. Poll after poll shows that people care more about unemployment than the deficit, even though Republicans keep hammering the deficit issue as an excuse to cut funding on fucking everything) We don't want Obama or the Democrats to lose, we just think that their course of action isn't effective, and that they would do better and our nation would actually end up being a better place if they altered their behavior. We say these things online, and another huge, vocal faction within the Democratic party screams their heads off that we should shut up, that we're the enemy, that we're responsible for the enthusiasm gap, that if we offer any kind of commentary that isn't glowing praise for Obama and Democrats in Congress we're just as bad as GOP filth trying to ruin this country.

With pre-election polls as miserable as they are for Democrats right now, why on Earth are so many people so unwilling to entertain suggestions for a change of course? Like things have gone so well for them over the past two years? I only wish someone had listened sooner, while there were still Democratic majorities high enough to do anything with their mandate.

BTW, my senator is Pelosi. I've called her staffers so often in the past several years that they know me by last name. You don't have to lecture me about the effectiveness of live political activism, because I've done enough of it to know how powerful it is (cf. my previous comment mentioning phone banking, door-to-door GOTVing, etc.). This experience makes it easy for me to dismiss the people screaming so loud that you can't criticize any Democrats in MeFi comments because that's the kind of action that really sways the fucking electorate. Spare me.

* This whole "oh the votes weren't there!" argument has been a cop-out too often in the past two years. Obama isn't powerless to influence votes in Congress, and you can tell a lot about what issues he prioritizes by seeing where he actually chooses to use that power. For instance, when Democrats threatened not to vote for a war supplemental funding bill, the Administration had no trouble threatening to cut off all support, telling vulnerable freshmen "you'll never hear from us again" if they didn't fall in line. So did he apply the same kind of pressure to, say, Blanche Lincoln, as she stood in the way of useful reform in the health care system? Of course not! In fact, Obama endorsed Lincoln in the Democratic primary, over a candidate who (a) helped organize and run free clinics for those who couldn't afford health care, and (b) polled much better against Republican opposition than Lincoln. He went out of his way to campaign for a less-feasible candidate who blocked the kind of reform that he claimed to be doing "everything he could" to support. (Moreover, Obama's endorsement was widely seen as key to Lincoln's winning the primary.) So unless and until you actually see the Administration twisting arms to get votes instead of just sitting back and talking about how much they support a certain issue, I'm not sympathetic to the "oh the votes just weren't there" arguments, especially when the vote is super close.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 3:16 PM on October 18, 2010 [6 favorites]


Polling shows that people wish that health reform had been more extensive by a ratio of 2:1.

Cite, please.
posted by angrycat at 5:12 PM on October 18, 2010


angrycat: Cite, please.

Gladly.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:27 PM on October 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


huh, you're right. thanks, i'd not heard of that poll
posted by angrycat at 6:48 PM on October 18, 2010


Pelosi is not a Senator.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:18 AM on October 19, 2010


True. Where was my mind?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:01 PM on October 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


Prop 19's new TV ad features Former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara...
posted by vorfeed at 12:08 PM on October 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older Nassim Nicholas Taleb...  |  FCKH8 Fundraiser with Lots of ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments