Media

Holder to California Potsmokers: We Will Still Lock You Up

|

Asshole

From the Associated Press:

Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if the state's voters approve a ballot measure to legalize the drug. […]

He made the comments in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

"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," Holder wrote.

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. Holder said approval of the ballot measure would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

Man, I can't wait for this thing to pass.

Today's no-on-19 newspaper editorials: Napa Valley Register ("'Just Say No' remedy isn't 'Just Say Yes'"), Santa Cruz Sentinel ("Do we want our kids to get the message that being stoned is OK, because government says it's OK?"), and Marin Independent Journal ("It is time to admit the 'war on drugs' has been a failure," by … opposing the first marijuana legalization that has a snowball's chance in hell). And the Orange County Register still hasn't weighed in yet, though today the libertarian-leaning ed board shot down the notion that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's semi-decriminalization obviated the need for Prop. 19.

NEXT: "Baby Cheyenne" Returned to Parents in New Hampshire

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.

  1. Don’t you dare stare at my goodies!

  2. Now that’s what I call truth-in-alt-texting.

    1. Welch only wrote that so he would be invited to cocktail parties.

      1. Welch only wrote that so he would be invited to cocktail bong parties.

        FTFY

        1. Matt’s welcome at my house. As long as he brings his own smoke, and is willing to share, that is. Gas, grass, or ass, nobody rides for free.

          1. I don’t see how we can “ride” at your house. Surely you’re inviting Monsieur Welch to the rear of your fuck-bus, you scoundrel.

            1. Gas, grass, or and ass, nobody rides for free.

              Inflation is a bitch.

              1. It only makes me sneeze.

                1. And then it makes it hard to find the door?

  3. Mr. Welch, you have my vote for alt-text of the year.

    1. I second.

      1. Oops, forgot that nominate and vote are two different things.

        1. Well if you’re in Chicago, you can get your second vote.

          1. In PA you can vote twice…even if you’re dead, whee!

            1. I hereby nominate Mr. Welch for alt-text of the year.

              Seconded: capitol l

              Vote:
              sage (=1)
              capitol l, presumed dead in PA (=2)
              Barely Suppressed etc., presumed alive in Chicago (=2)
              moi, alive in WA (=1)

              Opposed: … crickets …

              This is not PETA, crickets not eligible to vote. Motion carried!

  4. Man, those Democrats are friggin’ awesome on the WoD and on gay rights, aren’t they? Such change!

    1. There’s still the hope.

      1. Should we keep hoping for change?

        1. There’s always hope and change.

        2. I used to hope, but I changed.

    2. New DNC motto: “All the authoritarianism, twice the regulation.”

      1. … and triple the taxes.”

        CompletedTFY.

      2. New Democrat slogan, “Tax the rich, so we can fund more DEA thugs beating down on potheads.”

    3. Man, those Democrats are friggin’ awesome on the WoD and on gay rights, aren’t they? Such change!

      Obama is misunderstood. He has to be presidential.

  5. Any Obamatrons care to weigh in on this?

    1. I’d especially like to hear from joe.

      1. Dave joe’s not here…

    2. Playing defense are hard.

  6. Eat shit, Tony.

    1. Wouldn’t surprise me.

  7. I still believe the Register will come through — perhaps at the very last moment.

    1. If you were running the one paper in the state that supports the initiative….how much time do you want to give the other fishwrappers to blast you for it?

      “THE REGISTER WANTS YOUR KIDS TO DIE!!!!111oneoneoneoneone, VOTE NO ON 19!”

  8. Molest me with your big libertard phalluses!

  9. 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. Holder said approval of the ballot measure would “significantly undermine” efforts to keep California communities safe.

    Is Eric Holder under the impression that every community in California is presently safe? If it that is true, does he believe that it is due to marijuana criminalization? Most importantly, when did he stop fucking sheep?

    Legalize it

    1. Jeeze, not only is he an asshole, but an ovisphilic one at that.

      Holder is a public figure and I write satire.

      1. CYA for the win.

        Someone knows his libel law carve-out for the 1st Amendment..

        1. All I know about satire I learned from Jerry Falwell’s mother.

      2. ovisphilic?

        1. Sheepfucker, basically.

          1. A Google search for the word turns up only three links, and this thread is the first one.

    2. Does Sullivan v. NYT mean that we can question whether Eric Holder fucks sheep without fear of reprecussion?

      1. Of course. The commentariat holds no actual malice towards AG Holder. We only inquire as to whether or not Eric Holder fucks sheep out of concern for the defenseless ovines that might suffer as a result of being fucked.

        1. “The behavior by these commenters is threatening our ability to keep comments enabled at Hit & Run.”

          1. Holder is a public figure. And I’m doubting he’s a hypersensitive douchebag, unlike certain attorneys who shall remain unnamed.

            1. And I’m doubting he’s a hypersensitive douchebag, unlike certain attorneys who shall remain unnamed.

              I don’t know about that, but I’m betting that the negative publicity wouldn’t be worth it for a public political figure, unlike a private attorney.

  10. Alt text FTW!!

  11. Eric Holder: wrong on gun rights; wrong on the war on drugs. Eric Holder: just wrong. Eric Holder: asshole.

    This advertisement brought to you by the Committee to Bash the Shit out of Eric Holder. I’m Barely Suppressed Rage and I approve this message.

    1. You forgot wrong on gay rights and voting rights.

      1. And he left out the possible bestiality, too.

          1. He’s right on Barack!

  12. This is the Dred Scott decision of the millenium…well, maybe not.
    The uptight, technological armies of the east against the slacker, laid-back, army with the munchies west.

    West army of revolt training camp.
    Instructor: Place your finger on the trigger.
    Dude recruit: Whoa….its like theres worms on my hands wiggling…

  13. Change you can believe in, bitches!

    1. Actually, this is the change I could believe in from the Obama administration. Had he backed this initiative, or any legalization at all, that would have been change I couldn’t believe in.

  14. “Do we want our kids to get the message that being stoned is OK, because government says it’s OK?”

    Nicely cutting the legs out from all their typical First Amendment arguments. Assholes.

    1. What about the message that it is OK to appropriate someone else’s money because they don’t need it and you know how to spend it better than they do?

      1. “Do we want our kids to get the message that cheating on your girlfriend is OK, because government says it’s OK?

        Jeebus do I hate the “I think something is immoral therefore it should be illegal” argument.

    2. Because if it’s legal, that has to mean it’s condoned.

      I still can’t decide if this idea is merely authoritarian, or full blown totalitarian.

      1. Totalitarian. It’s the apotheosis of the state. “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

    3. I eagerly await them outlawing tobacco, alcohol, and earning more than $250K/year.

      1. too late

    4. Well absolutely!! Cannabis is non-toxic and safer than aspirin!

      The real Devil is BOOZE and that is legal you self-righteous moron!

      1. Please don’t make the argument of “X is more dangerous than Y, and X is legal!”. What happens is that the statist will then start advocating for the banning of X, not advocating for the legalization of Y.

        1. I’d actually prefer they start trying to ban alcohol, if only for the reaction.

  15. 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.

    If you’re worried about “other drugs” why wouldn’t you want the traffickers removed from the reefer business?

    Oh that’s right. You’re a disingenuous, statist, freedom hating asshole.

    Man, I can’t wait for this thing to pass.

    Then we finally get to bury “Hope and Change!”

  16. I don’t think I could like these guys in office less if I tired. If your gonna fuck up the country, at least allow me to get high legally so I can forget that you fucked up and vote for you again in 2012.

  17. Hold on here…………
    We now have proof of reefer madness, but it’s not among those smoking the stuff.

  18. He said “joint efforts”. Hehehe.

    1. His name is Eric *Holder*. Churtle.

      1. He’ll be the toke of the town!

      2. Are you suggesting he camps on the grass?

  19. After it passes and the Feds sue, then what happens? Will state law enforcement not assist the Feds?

    1. I assume they would assist the feds — as they do with med-pot raids currently — but they would have no grounds on which to charge anyone. But to them that’s just a technicality; they’ll take the opportunity to crack some hippie skulls no matter how the details work.

      1. So mostly crowd control. Yeah, that won’t get unruly.

      2. You know it’s just not hippies, right?

        1. Um, considering the fact that I burn chron like it’s my job and I would never call myself a hippie, yes.

          But I don’t think the typical cop’s perspective is very subtle. Pot smokers = dirty hippies = criminals.

          1. We should go into business together.

          2. But I don’t think the typical cop’s perspective is very subtle. Pot smokers = dirty hippies = Non cops = criminals.

            1. So depressingly true

  20. He made the comments in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

    Doesn’t this go directly against the Obama administration dictate? That they would not arrest or prosecute marijuana users/posessors etc. which “comply with state law”?

    1. Furthermore, why the fuck did he send a letter about this to “former” chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration?

      1. Don’t you know about the secret cabal of “Former DEA Chiefs”?

        They’re the reason we still have prohibition.
        They’re the ones who plant the news stories about the “[insert obscure chemical/plant buzz] Epidemic”.
        They’re the ones who keep DARE running in every school, even though it really encourages drug use.
        They’re the ones who keep us off the metric system.

        1. They also made Steve Guttenberg a star.

          1. And held back the electric car.

            1. They have an engine that runs on water, water I tells ya, in the basement of the dea!

              Just asking questions here.

            2. Stonecutter’s Song for those not getting the references.

              1. Thanks for clearing that up- I was thinking it was the ‘Fall Guy’ theme song.

      2. Because they’re about the only ones left that would give him a round of “fuck yeah!” for that piece of drivel.

  21. Man, I can’t wait for this thing to pass.

    No shit. If Obama Holder & Co go after this thing, they’ll end up blowing through whatever political capital they still have left. If they want to be this exceptionally tone-deaf, I say let them.

    The truth, in this case, is going to prevail eventually. Obama/Holder can ride the train or get run over by it, but they can’t stop it.

    1. You know what really suck? When Obama is done, we will be paying another 40 years of his retirement benefits, security detail, etc.

      1. Every president starting with GWB only get 10 years of Secret Service protection after leaving office.

        We will, however, be paying him $200,000+ a year forever so that he doesn’t have to worry if he doesn’t find someone to pay him $100,000 for a speech every week.

        1. “”Every president starting with GWB only get 10 years of Secret Service protection after leaving office.””

          Do they get an allowance to hire private sector guards?

  22. Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if the state’s voters approve a ballot measure to legalize the drug.

    Empty threat – see below:

    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.

    Politicla Bullshit to English: “Don’t do this to us, bro! We don’t have the resources to make good on our fascistic threats, we need them state and local police to do our dirty deeds!”

    1. Yeah, and from some of the Dispensary raid video I’ve seen where DEA is getting ‘assistance’, the give a shit factor (based on local cop body language) is pretty close to zero. Noted a couple of instances where the locals pointedly declined to ‘help’ even carry stuff for the feds. Not hard to imagine the DEA requests for ‘assistance being turned down due to other pressing concerns in the community, like making sure the donut shop is safe.

      1. like making sure the donut shop is safe.

        Those things are magnets for robberies. Did everybody forget how that’s the reason cops started hanging out at donut shops in the 1st place?

        1. The most dangerous environ in DC is a nudy club called “Camelot”
          I swear every time I’m in there a cop does a “walk thru”…because…uh, it the girls were wearing clothes, they might be hiding drugs…yeah, that it. So they have to continuously check on the nudity.
          Now, I am just in their for safety’s sake, to escape all the street crime. No interest in watching young naked women gyrate about…keep my eyes closed…well, I have to open my eyes when I walk out…and that never takes more than an hour…or two.

    2. So if Italian restaurants are often associated with mob activity, we should outlaw spaghetti to assist efforts to fight oraganized crime?

      1. That is what Holder seems to think . . .

    3. All of the local PDs who oppose Prop 19 will assist the feds in undermining CA state law.

      You don’t think they are going to pay attention to a little thing like state law, do you?

      1. Re: J sub D,

        All of the local PDs who oppose Prop 19 will assist the feds in undermining CA state law.

        Do you mean with their Union’s blessing, or against it?

        Because I don’t think so.

  23. Ha, ha, ha….come on down Mr. Holder. There will be millions of us waiting to get arrested!!

    1. Dude, they’ll just deputize the local cops. It’ll be business-as-usual.

    2. Dude, they’ll just deputize the local cops. It’ll be business-as-usual.

  24. “”Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

    Feature, not a bug.

    1. Ha, that sounds like an endorsement to me!

  25. What success does Holder hope to have without the cooperation of the local law enforcement officers who do the ground work?

    1. As mentioned earlier, they get cooperation from the local law enforcement. The local pigs line up to help the fed pigs bash hippy skulls.

      1. But what happens when state law no longer authorizes local law enforcement to make the arrests that perk up the feds’ ears in the first place?

        1. Assume for a moment that the locals and state get out of it. The feds can run their own operations. They would score many arrests just hangout on Facebook looking for folks bragging about their chronic stash or plants.

          1. Along these lines

            http://news.yahoo.com/s/livesc…..riagefraud

  26. And the Captain Obvious award goes to…this article! Congradualations!

  27. I don’t recall this kind of abuse when Holder sued Arizona over their “Being Mean to Mexicans” immigration law.

    1. The dynamic is reversed. The feds can prevent a state from imposing unconstitutional burdens on the people. They cannot force a state to enforce federal legislative code. Two very different situations.

      1. I suppose it boils down to what the definition of “unconstitutional” is. Regardless, the Arizona law could be looked upon as a “state’s rights” issue, just as the California “proposition” is. Holder is attacking both.

  28. 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.

    If its legalized, they will continue to deal pot if and only if Eric Holder prosecutes legal businesses that sell pot.

    So its up to you, Eric. Sounds like you want to make good and goddam sure the drug gangs deal pot, to me.

    If your goal, as you imply, is to shut down the drug gangs, then call off your pot-sniffing dogs. Let the gangs lose a major product line.

  29. Just one comment: With that mustache, is it any wonder Eric Holder is the chief cop?

  30. I am more than willing to call his bluff. I don’t think the federal judicary is going to be all that happy about being overwhelmed with a plethora of misdameanor pot possession cases.

  31. I am still waiting for ANY Obama voter to show signs of embarassment. Man the cognitive dissonance in their brains must be deafening.

  32. Fuck Obama, fuck Holder, and fuck the sheep they rode in on. Wait a minute…

    1. you really think McCain+Palin would’ve been a lot better?

  33. The feds can prevent a state from imposing unconstitutional burdens on the people.

    The feds can, but that’s not what the AZ lawsuit is about. That lawsuit does not involve any civil rights issues. Rather, it is an incoherent assertion of quasi-exclusive federal authority over immigration.

    Essentially, in AZ the feds are arguing that the states are prohibited from enforcing laws in areas where the feds have acted (immigration).

    In CA, the feds are arguing that the states are required to enforce laws in areas where the feds have acted (pot).

  34. How dare the federal government enforce its own laws instead of cherry picking the ones they like and don’t like!

    Libertarianism = the executive branch can do whatever it wants?

    1. Re: Tony,

      How dare the federal government enforce its own laws instead of cherry picking the ones they like and don’t like!

      You mean like they do with immigration laws?

      By the way, even a “constitutional” law can be nullified by a state if found morally reprehensible, like the Fugitive Slave Act was nullified by Wisconsin back in 1854. I would imagine that, if you lived back then, you would hold the same sentiment: How dare Wisconsin go against federal law and nullify the FSA! How dare they!

      Please, go ahead and be consistent and tell me that Wisconsin had no right to nulify the FSA. Please, Tony, be a man for once and say that.

      1. I’m really just playing devil’s advocate here. I am very much against drug prohibition. I’m just pointing out that libertarians are bitching that the executive isn’t selectively enforcing laws. Would they prefer it do whatever it wants regardless of what Congress does?

        1. The point, Tony, is that some degree of “cherry picking” is unavoidable, in that cops and prosecutors are constantly choosing which battles to fight with their limited resources. It’s the equivalent of triage in emergency medicine. For example, Holder was not obligated by the law of the land to write a letter promising to keep pot busts going strong. A wiser USAG might have said words to the effect of, “Marijuana prosecutions? Who has the energy anymore? There are only so many hours in a day. Aren’t we already too busy fighting the terrorists?” (He couldn’t afford to be quite that glib, but you know what I mean.)

    2. It’s one thing to selectively enforce a specific law based on who is violating it, and another to forego enforcement of certain laws altogether, at least in terms of “justice for all”.

  35. That amkes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.total-privacy.au.tc

  36. Somehow I don’t have much trouble picturing Holder with a Nazi hat on his head. Forgive me.

  37. Most of the Obama-worshipping print rags are kowtowing and falling in line against — while their columnists go home and light up a bomber. The right-leaning Orange County Register will, I predict, come out in favor. Pot heads are spinning.

  38. This is the most ignorant bullshit ever. Come on an imagination journey with me while I explain why…

    It’s 1930 and you want to drink. The only way to do that is to find someone who’s willing to break the law to either brew or traffic alcohol. Either way, you end up having to buy a 6 pack from some dudes basement. 1933 rolls around and prohibition ends. If some guy tries to sell you a 6 pack from his basement, you should laugh at them and buy your booze from the store where it is regulated by the FDA for your safety, the money spent helps the local economy, and the tax dollars help the state/country.

    Of course legal marijuana will give drug dealers increased access to pot, but who the fuck would still buy it from them when you can go to a fucking Krogers and get it. Not to mention drug dealing is a business. They sell a product to a market for a profit. If you get rid of their market, there is no more profit, and drug dealing doesn’t become quite so lucrative anymore.

  39. This is pretty sad. Here’s to hoping the Register pulls through.

  40. it’s going to take some time to get things changed at a federal level – but regardless of what the feds do – YES ON 19 is a step in the right direction. we will eventually change the federal law too.

  41. I’m starting to get nostalgic for John Ashcroft.

  42. You should see the comments section of the Santa Cruz Sentinel for the anti-Prop. 19 editorial. Commenters have reamed the editors some new Holders.

    1. Indeed, James. My comment on that thread, which I also submitted as a letter to the editor, was printed the next day. Comment thread is here: http://www.topix.net/forum/sou…..21NCKCK0NE

      I actually thought the editorial read as if the editor was really in favor of Prop 19, but was ordered by his corporate overlords to editorialize against it.

  43. You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

  44. I just added this blog as a favorite.
    because it is very interesting and provide insight to readers ..
    thanks

  45. very interesting!
    blogs are very helpful, thank you for enlightenment.
    I have bookmark your site.
    thanks

  46. very interesting and full of understanding for the reader ..
    thanks

  47. Every man may have a problem about virility.
    therefore I hope you surf my website. To fix all of them before its too late!
    thanks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.