Feds Meddle Into California's Prop 19

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 15, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

            Throwing in his two cents, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. warned that if Prop 19’s marijuana legalization passes Nov. 2, he’s prepared to sue the state in federal court.  Instead of a  knee-jerk response, Holder should look at how California’s Prop 215, the medical marijuana initiative, revolutionized archaic thinking about cannabis in 1996.  Instead of repeating ancient talking points about marijuana being a “dangerous drug,” Holder should bite his tongue, look carefully and the research and examine the 14-year successful track record of California’s compassionate use law.  Law enforcement objected in 1996 and they’re screaming now, repeating the same 1936 “Reefer Madness” propaganda about marijuana.  Fourteen years of medical marijuana has caused no disruption in California promised by law enforcement and religious establishments, expecting only bad things.

            Since Prop 215 passed in 1996, there’s been no increase in pot smoking either legally among medical marijuana users or the more impressionable youth to whom the establishment predicted more addiction and serious substance abuse.  Holder completely misses the implications of legalization on the illicit drug trade, especially the Mexican drug cartel for whom marijuana accounts for 60% of drug trafficking inside the U.S.  Legal marijuana sales would significantly dent the drug cartel’s business north of the border.  Calling Prop 19 a “significant impediment” to federal law enforcement, Holder again shoots from the hip showing no understanding of how much Prop 19 would help federal efforts to stop Mexican drug sales.  Holder’s been told that California’s Prop 19 is no different than Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-immigrant law, recently tossed out as unconstitutional by a federal judge.

              Instead of meddling in California politics, White House officials should spend their time more wisely studying the logic behind the bill.  Prop 19 doesn’t make marijuana any more accessible than it is today.  Liberal prescribing privileges make it easy to get for a wide variety of medical conditions. Physicians inclined toward writing medical marijuana scripts don’t need draconic diagnoses, like AIDS, to write legitimate prescriptions.  Prescription-grade pot or its illicit variety is already so ubiquitous in California.  No statistic shows over the last 14 years an increase in pot smoking.  “We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, eve if such activities are permitted under state law,” said Holder, hypocritically deciding to ignore the state’s medical marijuana law.

            If the Justice department concluded that it’s OK to possess, manufacture and distribute medical marijuana, there’s no reason to block recreational pot use. There’s nothing inherently different about medical marijuana over recreational use confined to at least 21-year-olds that must follow alcohol, tobacco and now marijuana laws.  If California’s Prop 19 passes, Holder must convene a task force to recommend to the Drug Enforcement Agency and Congress a change in current drug laws that defines marijuana as a dangerous narcotic, subject to the DEA’s regulation and oversight   There’s no parallel with the Arizona immigration law because Prop 19 doesn’t discriminate against citizen or non-citizen’s constitutional rights.  Current marijuana laws may be good for defense attorneys but Holder knows there were 47,000 needless marijuana arrests made nationwide in 2008.

.           Flying into Los Angeles, Holder grandstands with other politicians trying to make a splash during an election year.  “We will continue as we are today regardless of whether it [Prop 19] passes or doesn’t pass,” said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca at a new conference with Republican LA County DA Steve Cooley, locked in a tight race with San Francisco DA Kamala Harris.  Baca and Cooley called Prop 19 unenforceable because federal laws prohibit cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana.  While there’ s certainly a collision course in the making, the federal government should learn something from the most populous state if Prop 19 prevails on Election Day.  With a $20 billion budget deficit, California can no longer waste exorbitant sums of tax dollars prosecuting and locking up marijuana-related offenders.  Local, state and federal officials should get up to speed.

           Locked in a tight race for governor, neither Democratic candidate Atty. Gen Jerry Brown nor Republican Meg Whitman would jeopardize votes supporting Prop 19.  “We have to win and it has to pass before we get to answering that question,” said Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford, hinting at how “governor” Brown would handle enforcement.  While officially opposed to Prop 19, Brown has rigorously upheld Prop 215, California’s medical marijuana law.  It’s ironic that Whitman, who says she has a plan to fix the state’s red ink, wouldn’t consider Prop 19’s provisions that taxes marijuana for recreational use.  “I think this is not the right thing for our young people.  It’s not the right thing for our community of citizens in California, but don’t ask me.  Ask law enforcement,” said Whitman, the same group that opposed Prop 215 and is busting the state budget.

About the Author  

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.