The LA Times reported over the weekend that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has communicated in a letter to the DEA and other law enforcement agencies that, even if the voters of the state pass Proposition 19, he intends to “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana laws against Californians.
So let me get it straight: in this era of limited resources, overcrowded jails and prisons running at double-capacity, the U.S. AG is going to go after the pot smokers? (And growers and sellers.) All this in defiance of the will of the California voters, should Prop. 19 pass?
Yeah, that works.
(NOTE TO MR. HOLDER: I don’t know if you and your DEA friends have noticed, but crystal meth is destroying lives at a staggering clip in states like Montana, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas and Missouri, and that little issue might be a better use of your time and money, than weed.)
Furthermore, where are all the states rights, small government, free market conservatives on this?
The always excellent Doug Berman, over at Sentencing, Law and Policy, put it better than I can. He said:
I am disappointed, but not really surprised, that this story has yet to generate backlash or even comment from the usual suspects on the right who are so eager and usually so quick to attack every supposed “big government” move by the Obama Administration. For reasons I am still struggling to fully understand, the traditional conservative voices on the right who gush about individual liberty and free markets, and who love to bash big government and the Obama Administration, seem to flee from their purported principles when the liberty and free markets at issue involving growing and smoking a weed.
(Here’s Berman’s much earlier post called Making the Conservative Case for Ending Pot Prohibition on California.)
TRUTANICH: “THEY’RE FRIGHTENED THAT I’M STRONG”
Hillel Aron at Neon Tommy did a terrific and slightly horrifying interview with Carmen Trutanich. Here are a few choices moments of the exchange:
Why do you think there’s so much resistance to this idea of a grand jury on the City Council?
I don’t know, to be honest with you. There shouldn’t be any resistance. I am their lawyer. I cannot investigate my own client. I don’t know if they get that, I don’t know if they understand that.
They think that you’re going to investigate them?
Yeah. They’re afraid. Accountability must be…I tell you, you want to investigate me? Have at it. I hope that we hold each other and ourselves accountable for everything we do in public life. That’s what transparency’s all about. And if you’ve been transparent in how you’ve conducted your public life, even if I could investigate you, why would it matter? But I can’t. I can’t. So whatever blowback I’m getting is from lack of understanding or just, I don’t care and I don’t want to run the risk.
Do you think you’ve done anything to encourage this view that you would investigate them?
No. I think they’re frightened that I’m strong. I’m not a weeping willow. I’m smart in terms of how I run this office. We’re effective. We’re thorough. When you have someone who’s competent and in a position of authority, it tends to frighten some people.
AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE SUBJECT OF TRUTANICH AND WEED…..
If you haven’t already, be sure to read Steve Lopez’s account of how, at our City Attorney’s urging, he plans to take a hit for the team. Or several hits— of pot—as it turns out.
Part 1 ran on Saturday, Part 2 will be Wednesday. (It would very very wrong to miss either.)
FRONTLINE ASKS IF TEXAS EXECUTED AN INNOCENT MAN
In its Tuesday night season premier, PBS’s Frontline takes on the Todd Willingham case.
Did Texas execute an innocent man? Several controversial death penalty cases are currently under examination in Texas and in other states, but it’s the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham — convicted for the arson deaths of his three young children — that’s now at the center of the national debate. With unique access to those closest to the case, FRONTLINE examines the Willingham conviction in light of new science that raises doubts about whether the fire at the center of the case was really arson at all. The film meticulously examines the evidence used to convict Willingham, provides an in-depth portrait of those most impacted by the case, and explores the explosive implications of the execution of a possibly innocent man.
Here’s some back story on the case.
OKAY, YOUR HONOR, SO I GET IT THAT AS A JUROR ONE CANNOT TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CASE—BUT WHAT ABOUT BLOGGING?
Monday’s NY Times has the story of Bruce Slutsky, who began chronicling his jury duty experience in Queens on his blog. He began on Sept. 16, the first day he had to report. He wrote about the jury room and chatted about how he was called for a civil case.
He blogged about his experiences every day thereafter until law professor John Clark of the University of Texas stumbled upon Slutsky’s blog—and notified the court.
Read the rest of the intriguing tale here. (Spoiler: the judge and lawyers did not dismiss him….but there’s more.)
Image from the Montana Meth Project
Don’t smoke pot in Sheriff Baca’s jurisdiction either, Sheriff Baca also plans on going after pot smokers even if Prop 19 is passed.
If we want to smoke pot in CA. we should be able to. End of story. The feds. have no business getting involved in this. It’s a matter of states rights.
Now, let’s apply this common sense constitutionally protected state right to all the issues.
Whatever happened with Prop 8 anyway?
Yeah, that is a horrifying interview with Trutanich alright. Good that Hillel posts the wall plaque Trutanich has on his wall as reflecting his sense of invincibility: “The weak do what they must, the strong do what they will.” Anything?
Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do”
There’s your answer.