How Will Holder 'Vigorously Enforce' Marijuana Prohibition in California?

As Matt Welch noted earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder is promising that the federal government will "vigorously enforce" marijuana prohibition in California if Proposition 19 passes. "Regardless of the passage of this or similar legislation, the Department of Justice will remain firmly committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in all states," Holder said in a letter to eight former DEA administrators who have been urging the Obama administration to take a firm stand against the ballot initiative. "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."

Good luck with that. In 2008, according to the FBI's numbers, there were about 848,000 marijuana arrests in the United States. The feds accounted (PDF) for less than 1 percent of them. The DEA has about 5,500 special agents nationwide, compared to nearly 70,000 local police officers in California. 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? Not much, says Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance:

This is 1996 all over again. Naysayers said then that the passage of Proposition 215, California's medical marijuana law, would be a symbolic gesture at most because the federal government would continue to criminalize all marijuana use. Today more than 80 million Americans live in 14 states and the District of Columbia that have functioning medical marijuana laws. All that happened without a single change in federal law.

Under our system of government, states get to decide state law. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires that the State of California criminalize anything under state law. If California decides to legalize marijuana through the passage of Proposition 19, nothing in the Constitution stands in the way. In fact, Congress has explicitly left to the states wide discretion to legislate independently in the area of drug control and policy. States do not need to march in lockstep with the federal government or even agree with federal law.

The reality is that the federal government has neither the resources nor the political will to undertake sole -- or even primary -- enforcement responsibility for low level marijuana offenses in California.  Well over 95% of all marijuana arrests in this country are made by state and local law enforcement. The federal government may criminalize marijuana, but it can't force states to do so, and it can't require states to enforce federal law.

More on federalism and marijuana policy here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Another reason to vote yes on Prop 19:

    Dumb cops

  • Leonard ||

    we are a nation of laws, without these laws that govern our society. we run the risk of mayhem and chaos breaking out. The legalization of pot is a touch and go situation. my wife believes that some type of decrimalization should be involved because of what it's doing to our young people, by pulling them into the criminal Justice system. I've seen how people graduate from one drug to another. I just don't think we as a nation are ready for this type of legislation(legalization)This may close some doors. But you better believe it's going to open some serious other social doors. "look at holland, (Amsterdam) " look what legalization has done for them..

  • ||

    Well, let's see:

    Legalization in Holland has reduced the prevalence of drug use to about half of that in the US. Legalization has created freedom loving tourism. So, less drug use and increased prosperity; yeah, I HATE that!

  • ||

    Are you incredibly stupid, or just trolling?

  • ||

    Did anything you just said have to do with why we should restrict people from doing marijuana?

    Dumbass.

  • ||

    The one thing the feds can do is make sure that there are no legit retail outlets or commercial producers, thus ensuring that a big chunk of the marijuana trade remains a criminal enterprise, with all the violence and criminality that entails.

    These problems will, of course, be touted as proof that legalization failed.

  • spur||

    There already are legit retail outlets and commercial producers here in Oakland.

  • ||

    Yeah exactly. They pay taxes, are specifically accounted for in zoning laws, and make zero attempt whatsover to hide what they're doing.

  • ||

    Holder's smoking more than I am! And ISALOP!

  • tafurs delight||

    hur duhr, from acrost the cost from anything so "progresssive", & in a state of pot paranoya, seems like Rhayader makes RCs point, etc...

  • tafurs delight||

    ehr, coast that is, & hell is an ISALOP? that dogcode fer Lamb Chops Sacrifice to Gods of War Lamb er sumpin?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I Smoke A Lot Of Pot.

  • Mexican Drug Lord||

    NO ON 19.

  • ||

    With the passage of Prop 19 there will be no need for recourse to criminals to maintain the cannabis supply. Every adult in the state would be allowed to grow 25 square feet of cannabis on his own property. If the feds block commercial production, millions would grow and share their output with friends and neighbors.

    This would be a shame, since no taxes could be collected, but the people of California would have all the marijuana they can use.

  • ||

    This would be a shame, since no taxes could be collected

    Feature, not a bug.

  • Joe M||

    It'll be homegrown all the way.

  • ||

    These problems will, of course, be touted as proof that legalization failed.

    Nope. "The free-market failed!", that's my bet.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

  • ||

    NOOOOO! on 19.

  • ||

    "Under our system of government, states get to decide state law. There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires that the State of California criminalize anything under state law."

    This is off topic, but could this also be argued for the ban on internet gambling?

  • ||

    Well, sure, states don't have to ban Internet gambling.

    It's a rare state (like Kentucky, with Gov. Beshear (D)) that actually does state prosecutions for gambling. Internet gambling tends to be inherently interstate.

  • ||

    Beshear tried to seize domain names, if you recall.

  • ||

    I didn't even know there were state-level internet gambling bans. Although I'm not even a little surprised.

  • ||

    Hopefully the local cops will get all turf-war and start arresting DEA agents. That would be ideal.

  • ||

    Just lead to an arms race between the cops. That can't be good. Think of the collateral damage when they start using howitzers and predator drones on each other.

  • ||

    I don't know; sounds pretty good to me. I mean, think of how much collateral damage there is already.

  • tafurs delight||

    rah, how many limbs do you need blowd off?

  • ||

    Local law enforcement would have no legal basis on which to arrest federal agents enforcing federal laws. Proposition 19 CAN'T make it illegal for federal agents to enforce federal law.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

    The best states can do is refuse to give any help whatsoever to federal agencies (DEA) trying to use state agencies (local/state police) to do their dirty work.

    That said, I have no faith whatsoever in state governments sticking to their resolve once the federal government starts withholding federal funds from states which don't comply with its will.

  • ||

    Given the Prop 19 will amend the constitution there is little likelihood the California state legislature will be able to undo legalization.

    I do think we will see some local law enforcement continuing to assist the feds in marijuana arrests. I'm guessing a few law suits resulting in formal injunctions should do the trick in stopping that.

  • RyanXX||

    NULLIFICATION!!!

  • ||

    LA county sheriff Lee Baca said he will enforce federal marijuana law even if prop 19 passes. And Steve Cooley, candidate for state Attorney General, has said he will do the same if elected. So this should be interesting.

  • Wind Rider||

    Have Japanese speakers in LA stopped snickering every tie they hear the Sherrif's name?

  • mikec||

    I'll bite. What's it mean?

  • Xenocles||

    Baka = (roughly) stupid.

  • ||

    "fool"

  • ||

    LA county sheriff Lee Baca said he will enforce federal marijuana law even if prop 19 passes.

    Helloooo wrongful imprisonment suit.

  • ||

    Hey, Cali has plenty of money to pay for those settlements, so...oh, what, they don't?

  • ||

    [sarcasm] I'm sure that the federal court system will be glad to accept all of the nickel-and-dime marijuana possession cases that can no longer be tried under state law. Just as glad as they are to accept all of the immigration cases the new Arizona immigration law is throwing at them. [/sarcasm]

  • jasno||

    From http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:


    Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that ”no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

    IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

    So it sounds like he'll be breaking state law if he does.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Great. Law enforcement officers doing exactly what the residents of their localities expressly telling them to ignore.

    I fucking hate cops.

  • ||

    They haven't 'vigorously enforced' marijuana prohibition since its fruition. Cartels are making more money every year. California's law enforcement should view prop 19 as a godsend, an opportunity to save taxpayer money and the lives of citizens AND law enforcement.

  • Atanarjuat||

    They should, but they'll probably look at it as a threat to their tax revenue and jobs.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They should, but they'll probably absolutely look at it as a threat to their tax revenue and jobs.

    FIFY

    Whatever would cops do if their bread and butter were no longer there for them?

  • ||

    The likelihood of commercial outfits being busted by the feds would be so small that one could profitably issue "bust insurance". Don't even get me started on the futures market...

  • ||

    This will simply give the cops, local as well as federal, to arrest people when and where they want to.

    If a cop doesn't like the way some black kids look rolling in the hood, he can say he smelled weed or saw smoke and he was enforcing federal law.

    I am afraid the ambiguity will allow cops more leeway to fuck with people who are obeying state law, yet they are annoying the cop. Until this clears the courts and federal drug bans are lifted, it will be a mess because people with power are more concerned with that power than they are with justice.

  • ||

    Local cops can't arrest based on federal law, and there's a provision in Prop 19 that (at least is supposed to) stop local cops from turning over investigations to the feds.

  • ||

    Bullshit they can't arrest based on federal law. Tell that to all the local cops across the country arresting people on immigration charges.

    That provision will be the first thing that is found to be unconstitutional with Prop 19. Trust me, a lot of these cops use federal law to bust people for dealing drugs. More often than not, he Feds use local cops to carry out raids and other dog-killing opportunities because they lack the manpower.

  • Xenocles||

    Isn't the Justice Department suing to stop just that in Arizona?

  • ||

    Yeah, I'm excited for the day when Eric Holder asks state/local cops to enforce federal drug laws. And the day when conservatives whine about activist judges cutting down the unconstitutional DADT law and overriding legislative powers while simultaneously asking activist judges to cut down the unconstitutional health care law and override legislative powers.

    Seriously, how can these people go on with zero sense of self-awareness? The cognitive dissonance is going to drive me insane if I have to keep watching it.

  • Xenocles||

    To be fair, a lot of this hinges on the definition of "activist judge." One camp reserves it for judges who uphold pet policies regardless of constitutional merit. Another camp seems to consider any judge who overrides precedent activist. The third expands that to a judge who overturns any law, regardless of constitutional merit.

  • Xenocles||

    There's a fourth camp that overlaps the other three and can take any position depending on the issue.

  • tafurs delight||

    harrumph, best definition of activist judge to date, hmm

  • ||

    The (sad) thing is that the fourth one almost always seems to be the norm. Stupid Mark Levin.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's a good point. Cops can be models of pragmatic inter-agency cooperation when it comes to racking up the stats. Still: medical marijuana has flourished in CA, and these conflicts are no more significant with recreational use than medical.

  • ||

    Until the Arizona law, local cops did not bust people solely for being in the US illegally. If they busted people for other reasons and found out they were illegal, then they'd call ICE. It's really not that hard to understand.

  • ||

    There was a provision in the marijuana legalization bill Tom Ammiano introduced to the legislature that prevented state and local cops from enforcing federal marijuana laws. That provision is not included in Proposition 19.

  • jasno||

    See my post above.

  • ||

    This is so funny. Holder's all pissy because he is losing so miserably. We will squash him out like a dirty cigarette butt with Prop 19.

  • ||

    "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."

    Sure you will, Eric. Sure you will.

    A show trial here and there maybe, but vigorous enforcement? Make me laugh, Eric.

  • EMp||

    This latest declaration from the Obama administration (re: prop 19) is nothing but an over-reaction so as to not appear too liberal prior to the mid-terms.

    IMO - it's purely grasping at straws in a pathetic mis-guided attempt to mute the damage/democrat losses in the November....

  • EMp||

    Sorry - 'November elections'....

  • No Name Guy||

    And good luck on getting juries to consistently convict.

    Nullification baby.....

  • Jeff||

    Are you kidding me? People are fucking sheep. In law school, I saw a guy convicted of a DUI-Drugs based on the theory that a guy, who smoked pot 13 days prior, was still impaired because he had metabolites in his system (he tested positive for marijuana, therefore he must have been impaired).

    Nullification is rare. People buy insane prosecution theories.

  • Wind Rider||

    Holder has got to be the dumbest, most incompetent AG we've had since that lawyer that passed the bar but never tried a case was hired by his brother, the Navy Lieutenant who sunk his only command.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Racism, straight-up.^^

  • Xenocles||

    I don't think comparing Holder to RFK would pass for racism in even the craziest loony circles.

  • Almanian||

    Oh, c'mon, imagine harder - think Max's mad cousin or something!

  • Xenocles||

    Right, but most of those crazies actually like the Kennedys, so they're likely to see it as a compliment.

  • ||

    Holder has got to be the dumbest, most incompetent AG we've had since that lawyer that passed the bar but never tried a case was hired by his brother, the Navy Lieutenant who sunk his only command. the last AG...and the one before that...and the one before that...and...

  • Rick ||

    If Holder is really "serious" and the Feds orchestrate a crackdown - an act of aggression in my opinion - then perhaps it will be time to discuss decentralization and secession.

  • Bingo||

    Prop 19 could cause a pretty nasty and very entertaining political crisis if it passes. Maybe not a bad time to start stocking up on popcorn in addition to guns, ammo, gold, and booze.

  • ||

    And seeds. Lots of seeds.

  • Bingo||

    Best part about seeds: they are self-replicating if you give them enough time. Talk about sustainability ;)

  • mad libertarian guy||

    RACIST!!

    You probably supported slavery too.

  • Tman||

    Compare Holders reaction to Prop 19 with his reaction to the Arizona immigration law.

    Inconsistent?

  • Eric "Judge Dread" Holder||

    I am the law!

  • Eric H||

    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, or something

  • ||

    In 2008...there were about 848,000 marijuana arrests...The feds accounted for less than 1 percent of them.

    Oh. Never mind that other thread. Sorry to waste everyone's time!

    Carry on.

  • ||

    I'd love to see a tenth amendment challenge arise from this. If the marijuana is locally grown, locally consumed, and if sold at all, only sold locally, then there is no interstate commerce. Since the Constitution only grants authority to the federal government to regulate things like corn or marijuana when it crosses state lines, and the tenth amendment restricts the feds from intervening with states outside of certain narrowly defined areas, the only way for Holder's prosecution of pot users (if 19 passes) would be a corrupt judge.

  • Xenocles||

    But the MJ could, in theory, be sold in some other state. Also, legalizing it might affect drug prices in another state. So clearly it is an interstate commerce issue.

    Seriously, though, I think it's cute that you expect a court to rule the way you do. The naiveté is so refreshing.

  • Tony||

    You Constitution-worshipers, always with the Tenth Amendment. Get real.

  • ||

    Under present interpretations, trimming your toenails is interstate commerce.

  • Tman||

    Clarence Thomas dissent from Gonzales v. Raich"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

  • ||

    There is a lot of precedent for controlling intrastate production and use based on the Interstate Commerce Clause. When the US Supreme Court settled Gonzales v Raich (2005) it set another one. According to the justices, something produced and consumed in state has an effect on interstate markets and is, therefore, legitimately an object of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    That's the argument, alright. But it's tripe; nonsense; horse hockey.

    Intra-state commerce is the business of the statehouses and the people, and congress's business in interstate commerce is to see that the state don't erect unreasonable barriers---to make the commerce between states A and B follow the same rules as that between states C and D and any other pairing you care to mean---that is to make it regular.

    This "might, sorta, hypothetically effect" standard can be extended without limit, and is therefore manifestly an incorrect interpretation because the Constitution exists explicitly to limit the federal government. Any reading that causes that limit to drop away is simply wrong. Else why do we have the document in the first place?

  • Jeff||

    10th Amendment challenge would go no where because the SCOTUS has held that the 10th Amd. is nothing but a statement of a truism, it has no independent legal value.

  • ||

    The feds have no case.

    The prohibition of marijuana is unconstitutional in the first place. It is a sacrament of my church and is only illegal so 'they' can prey on us. It is a long complicated argument, but really, the folks at Reason ought to be on to it by now.

    Free Roger Christie!

    THC Ministry Raid: 14 charged after Big Isle Pot Bust
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6QGGImoig

    Blessed be.

    Sister Lauren
    THC Ministry
    Pleasant Hill, Ca
    A Native American Church

  • ||

    Notice the ridiculously stupid "feds should sue CA" conflict-of-law crap wasn't even mentioned by Holder. All he said was that they would wiggle their own little DEA dicks all over the state. Big friggin deal. These hacks are so pathetic.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Either states can set their own:

    Drug policy
    Gay-marriage policy
    Gun-ownership policy
    AND
    health-care policy

    ...or they can't.


    So... which is it? All, or none?

    I say "all", with a hearty dose of "fuck, yeah".

  • Aaron Bernard||

    So... which is it? All, or none?

    In a U.S. that is following the Constitution, the answer is "some."

    The 14th amendment (properly interpreted) restrains all states from restricting certain liberties.

    The 9th and 10th amendments taken together (properly interpreted), would make all other actions regulated at the state level.

  • ||

    We don't need no stinking constitution.

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    Alexander Hamilton fed drugs to James Madison to get him to contribute to The Federalist Papers. Communist plots go waay back.

  • ||

    Fed = injected into his backside?

  • Wind Rider||

    Nah, he scored some killer indica from Jefferson, and baked him some cookies with it.

  • ||

    Hey guys, look at it from the Obama administration standpoint: they can hire 70,000 full time DEA agents to control California! Jobs!

    Seriously, what's going to happen is the Feds will stop giving CA highway money and they will roll it back because they're already too broke as it is.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Which is exactly why the 17th amendment should never have been passed. We traded diverse corruption in the statehouses for monolithic corruption on Capitol Hill, and have been paying for our foolishness ever since.

    Diverse corruption at least provided a laboratory for the effects of policy decision...

  • ||

    Let's see… 70,000 new DEA agents at a cost of $100,000 each (salary plus benefits) would cost seven billion dollars a year. In this economy, that would be hard to justify. And in two years, when Oregon and Washington legalize recreational marijuana, even harder.

  • Wind Rider||

    Way to low ball those labor costs.

  • ||

    Blame the OMB not Buzzby.

  • ||

    Are you serious? 7 billion is chump change with all the money that's being printed and bandied about these days. And besides, it's for THE CHILDREN!

  • ||

    Stimulus that Republicans would support, by the way.

  • jasno||

    If anyone rolls back 19, according to the CA constitution it must be the voters. The legislature can't restrict rights we grant under 19.

    What they could do, I think, is convince every county to tax it at some prohibitive rate, effectively removing legitimate commercial sales. Everyone still gets their 5x5' plot and the right to transport 1 oz out of their house.

    I wonder what they're going to do with all of those dogs that can't alert on marijuana anymore...

  • ||

    I wonder what they're going to do with all of those dogs that can't alert on marijuana anymore...

    No on Prop 19: Unless you support Nazi-Style Gassing of Sweet Lovable K-9 Officers.

  • ||

    Sell them to potheads?

  • ||

    The whole point of 19 is to force the issue. Make these assholes fight to prove that they do, in fact, have the right (and public support) to do the things that they bluster about now.

  • ||

    A well-covered police-state crackdown (by a democracy) is not a pretty thing to be shown (in China).

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Do you believe that our current leadership will have the good grace to be embarrassed?

  • ||

    The world is watching.

  • ||

    It would give dictators a chance to say, "See how much your vote is worth in the USA?"

  • Mike Laursen||

    The DEA has about 5,500 special agents nationwide...

    And, apparently, they're all busy posing as cold medicine purchasers at drug stores across the country.

  • Wind Rider||

    Shorter Holder - "we're outnumbered, losing badly, but swear we'll continue the Second Civil War till Hell freezes over, which won't happen cause Lisa Jackson swears this Global Warming shit is real"

  • ||

    They can't effectively keep drugs out of their own prisons.

  • ||

    As a member of the Nation of Cowards, I'll have to admit that I'm afraid of fascistic quadroons.

  • ||

    If anyone wants to help out a major force against prohibition, there's a moneybomb for Marc Emery to pay the lawyers dealing with his incarceration in the US for selling seeds from Canada by mail. Google him if you don't know about him.

    http://www.cannabisculture.com/moneybomb

    They're only looking for $8500.

  • ||

    So, in a year when an expanded federal government is issue #1, this colossal dumbfuck Holder has handed the prop 19 forces this wonderful gift, whereby the people of California can tweak the Feds without having to vote for a single idiot pol?

    Thank you, Eric--if I didn't know better I'd think you were doing our bidding!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I wonder what the progressives in California will do, the very same people who equate states' rights with teh racism, when they realize that they are in the midst of a fight for their state to have the right to tell the feds to fuck off when it comes to pot laws.

  • ||

    eric holder is an asshole

  • J. Gravelle||

    Conservatives should be (literally) "up in arms" when der Attorney General decides that the commerce clause allows him to declare war on California:
    http://gravelle.us/content/att.....california

    But who's the bigger hypocrite in the marijuana issue:
    - a liberal who demands that the federal government stay out of their health issues; or
    - a conservative insistant that Washington impose its will upon the states?
    http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2847

    Legalization is a conservative position, and prohibition a progressive one.

    BOTH sides of the aisle are schizophrenic on the matter...

    -jjg

  • ||

    I am not worried about the state pigs enforcing federal law. Pigs are lazy. That is why they concentrate of strict liability crimes like drug possession instead harder to prove crimes where you have to prove mens rea.

    Plus, if LEAP is any indication, there are cops out there that think that the drug war is a complete waste of time. Those officers, are not going to spend any effort helping the federal pigs.

    And if there are only 5,500 federal pigs, I can see social networks outing where these pigs are and what to look for.

    I am holding my breath for November 2nd.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I am not worried about the state pigs enforcing federal law. Pigs are lazy. That is why they concentrate of strict liability crimes like drug possession instead harder to prove crimes where you have to prove mens rea.

    Which is exactly why they will help the feds. Not only can they continue to do the easy work of arresting marijuana smokers, they won't even have to do anything but the dirty work of barging in houses and shooting dogs. They will simply be federal pawns. No thinking. No investigations. Just brute force which, by all accounts, they enjoy doing.

  • jasno||

    Let's try this again cause I think no one caught it the first time I posted it:

    From http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:


    Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that ”no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED.” If you are a patient, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may “lawfully cultivate” as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to “lawfully cultivate” and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

    IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

    So it sounds like he'll be breaking state law if he does.

  • ||

    jasno, thanks, everybody should read the entire article you linked to above.

  • jasno||

    Much of the discussion on prop 19 that I've see is driven by out of state folks who haven't even read the bill. Very few people besides the activists have a firm grasp on it, in my opinion.

    I think the above article is one of the best breakdowns, and should be used as a study guide while reading the actual text of the proposition.

  • ||

    I live in CA and voted for p19, so did my wife. I read the proposition. I like the analysis you linked to, it makes me feel much more confident that 19 is well enough drafted to not be a disaster.

  • ||

    I think you should be able to purchase reefer with food stamps.

  • Jhon||

    Really interesting, thanks for the info.

  • vaporizer vaporizers||

    Jacob! Great article and you seem very passionate in your writing as well! I would have to agree with you also on several points that you made and well done too ,) keep up the posts!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement