Prop 19 Madness: Sheriff Baca of Los Angeles Declares Vigilante Justice


Pot use and possession doesn't inherently hurt anyone, and it wouldn't even be illegal anymore under the laws he is supposed to enforce as an agent of a county in the state of California. Still, a dangerous strongman holed up in Southern California who goes by the colorful sobriquet of "L.A . County Sheriff Lee Baca" vows that the armed band at his command will continue to assault, extort, and even kidnap people for using or selling a plant he has an irrational animus against…and he reserves the right, as in all his official actions, to harm or kill you if you continue to resist his commands.

At least when Attorney General Holder says he will still ruin your life over pot even if California's citizen Proposition 19 passes legalizing personal growth and possession, he's got his own set of still-existing laws to rely on. But Baca? He is the law, he told the L.A. Times last week:

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 came out against the measure early on, joining forces with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to defeat it….

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.

Matt Welch earlier today keeps summing up California state media's idiotic objections to 19.

NEXT: India Follows China's Sporting Folly

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    1. I’m sure every deputy in LA is making sure sovereign immunity will apply when they falsely imprison someone.

  2. So how much harder will the boot come down if 19 fails?

    1. Sheriff he don’t like it…

  3. Lee Baca is a huge supporter of Scientology, which is adamantly anti-drug. So, I am sooo not surprised by this statement.

    1. Yeah, Scientology is the fucking problem here. Jesus.

      1. I think you mean Xenu. Jesus is from a different religion.

        1. That’s right, man. Don’t fuck with the Jesus.

          1. 8 year olds, Dude.

            1. I’m calmer than you, dude.

              1. im chillin heavy like a fat biotch

            2. What’s a pederast, Walter?

              1. Donnie, shut the fuck up.

      2. Do a little digging and you’ll find that the Sheriff conjures Scientology often when speaking about drug policies. Jesus.

        1. So fucking what. You have an article about a Sheriff saying that he’ll enforce a non-existant law and you bring Scientology into it.

          Yeah, what a religion, they think people live better lives when they’re not on drugs. Sounds like a dangerous group to me.

          1. They/you are a dangerous group for other reasons, like their/your affinity for squelching criticism via copyright lawsuits and their/your penchant for controlling new converts’/marks’ access to the outside world.

            1. They don’t allow others to violate their copyrights? Are you kidding? They sound a lot like Paramount and Fox.

              Where is the compound that they are all in? Maybe Tom Cruises’ house or something.

              1. Uhm the big ass compound on Hollywood Blvd?

              2. Weird. I could have sworn that Tulpa said that they abused copyright law to squelch criticism, not that they used copyright law to protect their works from unfair commercial exploitation.

              3. I am not sure if there all there, but San Jacinto as the “Naval” themed private school there and the movie studio and 18 hole golf course . You cant miss the place it is up against a mountain lit up like prison. Also if you had lived near here all you remember is them stealing the night sky with their garish outdoor lighting scheme. The have no sense about light pollution .

              4. They sound a lot like Paramount and Fox.

                Let me know when Paramount destroys all copies of the movies they’re ashamed of (including those held in public libraries) and then sues anyone who attempts to summarize them or, god forbid, produce a critical review that includes short clips of the film.

          2. I have no desire to argue about the merits (or lack thereof) of Scientology – I was simply stating that Lee Baca’s position vis a vis the War on Drugs and his enforecement of it is corrolated with his connections to it.

            Also, various drugs have certainly helped me over the years. Including right now – I’m taking the “psych drug” Chantix to help me quit smoking.

            1. I’ve heard that nicotine and Chantix causes some unpleasant feelings, like wanting to puke until your feet come out of your neck.

              1. Well, that’d make you want to quit, wouldn’t it?

          3. I’ve got to pile on here, too.

            Greer, if you casn’t see how morally bankrupt scientology is, you need to do a little research. Keeping spouses separated, getting people to sign away their money and property through intimidation and sleep-deprivation, forbidding contact with the outside world and refusal to pay or release funds to the SeaOrg members is just the tip of the iceberg.

            These people would be dangerous if they weren’t so damn comical in their secrecy and willingness to sue.

          4. If the sheriff’s dabbling in quackery and cultery is influencing his decision to openly defy the laws of his state, then it’s a fit topic for discussion and most certainly SHOULD be brought into it.

            1. It’s a personal matter.

          5. um…every religion is dangerous.

            1. Oh, I dunno. I am a regularly practicing member of the Church of the Sunday Morning Comics, and I don’t think I present a danger. At least not to most people.

    2. Funny. I would think that being on drugs would make the tenets of Scientology more believable.

      1. Yeah, but those sorts of drugs aren’t covered by Prop 19.

      2. I’ve never had a drug powerful enough to make scientology remotely believable.* Taking the LOTR trilogy as divinely revealed ancient history makes more sense.

        * I have seen a whole forest fall down and get back up, but scientology? Too far-fetched for a drug addled youth to swallow.

      3. Nah. We went in to the place in Austin tripping balls and it still seemed like psychobabble wrapped in the trappings of religiosity. Also, I watched L. Ron being interviewed by a British guy, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t imagine the part where they defined “nooks and crannies” in a subtitle.

      4. “”Funny. I would think that being on drugs would make the tenets of Scientology more believable.””

        Or any other religion for that matter.

        They all believe crazy shit.

        1. may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless your noodles.


        2. Or any other religion for that matter.

          They all believe crazy shit.

          For example, some of them are against bike paths, right Howard Dean?

  4. Ah, I see. Every local cops wet fucking dream:

    “I get to play with the FEDS!”

    Go lick a boot, Baca. Yer a fucking joke.

    1. “Prohibition now, prohibition tomorrow, and prohibition forever!”

  5. Sheriff Baca of Los Angeles Declares Vigilante Justice

    What do you mean “declares it”? Wasn’t it already a de facto deal among the thick blue line???

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

    It’s not like it’s the State that pays their salaries . . . right???

    1. He’s for state’s rights, right? Then how is this even consistent? The state enacts a law, he goes with the federal one? This is why religion is dangerous-it enables doublethink.

  6. Who the fuck is his boss? Why isn’t he just fired summarily?

    I have the sinking feeling he’s elected…

    Ironically, this would be the perfect place for the FBI to investigate him…except that he’s going along with their federal policy, so why would they?

    1. He is elected. And quite popular, like his commrade Joe Arpaio.

      1. Democracy is fucked.

        1. I dunno, I’d argue “the people” are getting what they want. To quote an old hippy movie with a very cool car, “Ah my, how the world still dearly loves a cage…”

          1. 51% of the people are getting what they want.

            (Well, maybe more, but a substantial minority aren’t.)

            1. It’s hard to tell since Baca often runs unopposed. I have heard tell he like sto use his office to dig up dirt on his opponents, and very few people are willing to let that happen to them. Potential candidates for Sheriff most likely set their sights on other offices because teh risk/reward for running against Baca ain’t worth it.

        2. By design even (gimme a Repbulic).
          BUT, Democrats should be ‘fucked’ … in the ear, sans lubricant, repeatedly, till ‘Vices are Not Crimes’ sinks into their little code pink heads.

        3. Democracy is fucked.

          And you can thank Citizens United.

          1. I know, dude. Everything was going so well up til that point.

        4. can’t let it happen. Where am I going to get outrageously expensive and highly carcinogenic cigarettes?

      2. I’m curious to see what Arpaio’s reaction to Prop19 will be if it passes. He’s not in a county that borders Cali but I can easily see him putting up checkpoints on the interstates that run between CA and AZ.

        1. The Rand study almost says that would be the only way to keep CA from becoming the principle exporter of MJ to the rest of the country.

        2. It would be interesting to see the federal reaction to something like that, since stopping such roadblocks would actually be a legitimate exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

          1. It’s already being done on the way into California. Every time I drive into the state on the I-10, I get stopped and am subject to search for plants/produce that I, for some reason, cannot bring into the state.

            Anybody know why and how they can do this?

            1. That really freaked me out the first time I visited and saw those. (Flew into CA, rode with someone to Vegas.)

            2. They are not searching you out of suspicion you have committed or are committing a crime; they are simply keeping out items that could be carrying pests into the state that could devastate their agriculture.

              Many moons ago, I had to give up a bag of apples and oranges on my way south from Orygun into Hahafornia.

            3. You bringin’ in bad bugs, sloopy.

            4. The checkpoints are government program that has never been defunded. They’re what remains of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly scare from the Eighties. They were set uo to keep the fruit fly from spreading into CA citrus. And like any good government program, the checkpoints will exist forever.

        3. Humboldt County, CA, is the Napa Valley of pot… highways out of there would go through NV, not AZ.

    2. Most US Sheriffs are elected…

  7. Another reason to hate Lee “Bootlicker” Baca:

    The Los Angeles County Sheriff earns the highest annual salary of any Los Angeles County employee
    and one of the highest salaries of any public official in the nation: $268,153 (2007).

    Almost $300k to play grab ass with the feds and beat up minorities. Guess that’s good work if you can get it right, Lee?

    1. And did you know “Public workers in California earn 7 percent less on average than private sector employees,…”?…..&tsp=1

      Some serious cherry-picking went into this ‘study’.

      1. Any of those studies are really damn hard to perform, because of issues like how long it takes to get promoted in one place versus another, work environment, hours, etc.

        That’s why I prefer looking at studies that examine how often people leave one field for another.

      2. HA HA HA

  8. How does he have any more authority to enforce federal law than you or me?

    He should be dealt with as any would be dictator, and forcibly removed. Sic semper tyrannus.

    1. Unless Prop 19 specifically forbids state law enforcement from enforcing federal law, he’s free to do so.

      If a cashier catches you handing her a counterfeit $20, chances are it’s not going to be FBI or Secret Service that comes and throws your ass in jail.

      1. Well, then we should all stand up and applaud the sheriff for the courageous stance he has taken.

        Or we could put his head in a fucking basket.

        1. What’s in the box? What’s in the box?

          1. He did seem a little Wrathful, there.

          2. It’s my brother!

      2. But can’t they just hold you until the Feds show up to claim you? And isn’t there a limit on how long they can hold you? If it’s not against the law at their level, can they charge you with anything?

        Seriously, I’d like to know. I can’t see the Feds coming to process every hippie with a joint, but I’m assuming some level of rationality.

        1. “”but I’m assuming some level of rationality””

          Bad assumption since we are talking about anti-drug warriors. But I take it you knew that already.

          I’m thinking the same thing. The state can arrest and hold you for a federal crime, the immigration debate comes to mind. But what they do after the arrest is the rub. There would be no state crime so they would have to hold you for the feds. I would think there is a time limit, and they would have to let you go if the feds said no thanks. I’m thinking the feds will gladly take you just to make their anti-drug point. The odds are the feds will shift some resources from illegal immigration to this issue just to stand their anti-drug ground.

      3. I think handing someone a counterfeit bill constitutes an attempt to defraud/theft, which is a crime and would be the charge on which the person would be arrested. I’m not sure a state official can legally arrest someone for a federal only offense. Any criminal lawyers who care to comment?

        1. criminal lawyers

          Is there any other kind?

            1. Just because the criminal is polite, he is still a lawyer

          1. Persecutors.

            Oh wait, never mind.

        2. You’re wrong. They’re held for the feds to pick up.

          Covering counterfeiting with fraud laws would be a stretch, and doing so with theft would be a long healthy rip. If I hand a cashier an expired gift certificate, that doesn’t make me guilty of fraud, even though I’m presenting a form of payment that has no legal value.

          1. It depends if you know its expired or not.

            If you do and you are trying to pass it off as current, that would be fraud. If you have no clue it wouldnt be.

            Same for a counterfeit $20. It isnt that its bogus that makes you spending it a crime, its that you know it is bogus.

            1. So you wouldn’t have a problem with the cops arresting someone and throwing them in jail because they tried to use an expired gift certificate?

              This is assuming you don’t have a problem with them doing that in the case of someone trying to pass a counterfeit $20, which isn’t much of an assumption out in the real world.

              1. Counterfeiting is a more serious crime for reasons that you will have to take up with the founders.

                Not sure that I would jail someone for trying to commit $20 in fraud, but a small fine for first offense? Sure.

                Im not big on jailing for non-violent small dollar crimes in general.

                1. Counterfeiting is a state crime, and most of the time if they find some kid xeroxing twenties it will be dealt with by local law enforcement.

      4. From

        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.


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

        1. I suspect there’s a Supremacy Law argument to be made there that that particular clause conflicts with federal law.

        2. No Supremacy Clause problem. Its good Con law that no state or local official can be required to cooperate with the feds in enforcing federal law.

          The duties of state and local officials are set by state and local governments. If CA wants to prohibit CA cops from cooperating with the feds, they can do that.

          Of course, we all know what will happen next – the feds will pull the federal highway funds until CA is tonguing some fed asshole again, like a good little state.

          1. “”Its good Con law that no state or local official can be required to cooperate with the feds in enforcing federal law.””

            Can a state require a local officials to enforce federal law?

            “”Of course, we all know what will happen next – the feds will pull the federal highway funds until CA is tonguing some fed asshole again, like a good little state.””

            At least. For some reason, this isn’t blackmail.

            1. Can a state require a local officials to enforce federal law?

              Although that would technically depend on the state’s own constitution/statutes, I’m not aware of any state constitution that would clearly prohibit the state legislature from passing a law requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal statutes (although that might be iffy in some states that have very strong “home rule” provisions for municipalities).

              1. I’m sure all the state constitutions have clauses forbidding delegation to anyone else (except for subordinate bodies) the making of the laws to be enforced in their state. I don’t think any state charters Congress!

          2. Indeed, while the Supremacy Clause prevents local and state law enforcement from interfering with federal agents, there’s a difference between that and cooperating.

            And anyone who’s ever worked or shopped knows that non-cooperation without actually interfering or disobeying can be incredibly effective at frustrating orders.

            1. he Supremacy Clause prevents local and state law enforcement from interfering with federal agents

              Not so. Federal agents are subject to the state jurisduction in which they operate, meaning they are subject to following state laws, so the appropriate sections of the Penal Code regarding false imprisonment, theft, burglary, etc. do apply to them. They do not get sovereign immunity from violating state laws.

              However, no LEO in California has the balls to enforce this, hence the problem.

      5. isn’t his duty to the State constitution first? I’m asking, cuz I’m too lazy to look up, then actually read California’s constitution.

        1. California’s constitution is the 3rd longest in the world, after Alabama (which is basically a unitary state and every issue is a constitutional issue) and India.

        2. Don’t bother, it’s the third longest constitution in the world. Covers everything from the make up of the state’s legislature to fishing rights.

          1. Damn Jason, did we have ths same CA law class or something?

      6. Unless Prop 19 specifically forbids state law enforcement from enforcing federal law, he’s free to do so.

        Not necessarily true. Your local sheriff is a commissioned officer of the particular jurisdiction. That does not automatically mean he has any more authority than you or I do to try to enforce some federal law.

  9. He’s just enforcing federal laws that the state refuses to enforce.

    I don’t use the word ‘hero’ lightly, but Sheriff Baca is the greatest hero in American history.

    1. Awesome thread potential because of this one comment.

      1. It was tempting, but I didn’t want to feed him.

        1. please, please, please…OK, FINE THEN. Have it your way… But I’ve got dibs on the next stupid comment.

          1. Has the internet entered a new age? Do Simpsons quotes no longer mark posts as sarcastic?

      2. Nah, I’ll argue with Tulpa. At least you know his bootlicking is genuine.

        1. And here I thought we were DiffEq brethren. Don’t come crying to me when you get hit with a wicked Laplace Transform problem.

          1. I said that you were genuine. What else do you want from me?

    2. You are so full of shit, Joe Arpaio is the greatest living hero in American history.

      You know marijuana is a mexican word and nobody stops mexicans better than sherrif joe. You know you’re just a shiteating bootlicker if you say otherwise.

      1. Indeed, Joe Arpaio also deserves sarcastic Simpsons citations, just like his buddy Tom Tancredo.

        There is certainly no shortage of greatest heroes in American history.

        1. Anybody remember the “Real American Heroes” commercials Bud Light put out?

          The pussies changed them to “Real Men of Genius” after 9/11 after charges of being insensitive by FDNY and NYPD.

        2. “”There is certainly no shortage of greatest heroes in American history.””

          I think O’Donnell is one of the newest with comments like,

          “”Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked, a statement that drew laughter from the audience.”


          Is this what the Tea Party represents?

          1. It’s correct, of course, that that phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution. It’s also true that quite a few people believe otherwise, even though the phrase appears in a private letter of Jefferson’s instead. Then again, a large number of people state in polls that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is in the US Constitution too.

            Harry Reid would also have us believe that the Tea Party represents:

            “vot[ing] to protect the privacy of sex offenders instead of the safety of our kids.”

            And of course Conway in KY would have us believe that it represents the evil of not wanting to criminalize victimless crimes, like pot possession.

            1. “”When Coons summarized the amendment as saying government shall make no law establishing religion, O’Donnell interrupted again: “That’s in the First Amendment?”””

              1. What she said was:

                She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

                She’s correct, you’re either wrong or relying on someone who took a quote out of context.

            2. “”Harry Reid would also have us believe that the Tea Party represents:”””

              Who cares. It’s not up to Reid to define the tea party, it’s up to the tea party folks to define themselves. O’Donnell’s doing a heck of a job.

              If the tea party folks can’t do better, they will have a political lifespan shorter than Ross Perot.

      2. um…it’s a Spanish word, not Mexican. Just sayin’ not arguin’ or nuttin’. Just sayin’s all.

    3. How could anyone applaud this man for taking a position AGAINST his Citizens? This is not about some guerilla farmers defending an illegal weed plot. This is about what the PEOPLE want. If a majority of voters pass this Propositioin, then it pretty much sums things up you would think.

      I am sure that the job description for local sheriff is to uphold the local laws. I’m also sure that any sheriff who had decided to stop doing what his boss told him could simply resign. Probably the best option for anyone who feels that the newly approved working conditions are not to their liking.

  10. Hopefully, this asshole will get his eventually from the State.

    If not….well, Southern Californians better arm themselves.

  11. “I am the law! Bow down before me, for I am sore wroth at the disobedience of lowly civilians!”

    1. “Look upon my badge you powerless and despair.”

    2. “Respect mah author-i-tah!”

  12. Hmmm…. I think this pig is bluffing.

    1. I doubt it. His department routinely undermines the law to get things done.

      If planting evidence, covering up murders by cops, intimidating and illegally imprisoning people are part of this guy’s unwritten policy, I doubt he’s bluffing about cracking heads here.

      I honestly fear for people across the grapevine when Prop 19 passes. I’m afraid we’ll be reading stories in the LA Times (or OC Register, more likely) about people who remained locked up for a month in county without being charged, waiting on the feds to pick them up on that possession charge that carries a $150 fine.

      1. Oh I am sure that if prop 19 passes, the feds will try to make a show. But in the big picture, pigs like this will fail. The feds might be about to get a manufacturing case, but I don’t think the federal judicary is going to be all that enthused about a bunch of nickel and dime weed cases.

        And say the federal pigs do try to mount a charge in california, that means they are going to have to pull agents from other areas.

        As far as staying a month in jail, isn’t this something a writ of habeous corpus could solve?

        1. As far as staying a month in jail, isn’t this something a writ of habeous corpus could solve?

          Only in theory, troy. Only in theory.

      2. I can’t think of a better way to galvanize public opinion against the weed warriors though. It’s a tragedy that individuals will be wrongfully imprisoned and violated in the process, but eventually the crackdown approach will only solidify pro-freedom public sentiment.

        I hope.

        1. So do I. I just don’t trust power-hungry fucks like Baca to give up their control so readily.

          1. The eventual youtube vid of him being dragged from his office, kicking and screaming, nails frantically clawing at the door frames….I can’t wait.

          2. “”I just don’t trust power-hungry fucks like Baca to give up their control so readily.””

            Hell, I don’t trust the citzenry to vote for someone else. He’s tough on crime, voters eat that up.

    2. nah. they don’t bluff. they just pick on people who can’t hire lawyers.

  13. It would be so horrible to demand that he endanger his life chasing actual dangerous criminals…

  14. LA is too damn high.

  15. What a joke. I can hear his political opponents queuing up youtube now.

  16. capitol l’s “head in a basket” is the first thing that sprang to my mind. And I am a nonviolent and forgiving person by nature, but to out-and-out say that you are going to violate the rights of the citizens of your county is guillotine-worthy.

    1. This!

  17. He sounds like the kind of guy who lives on a hobby farm. And $300K/year can buy some high-end sheep.

    1. what do you do with sheep on a hobby farm? No, really.

  18. This is the same jackass who released Paris Hilton early.

    Just saying.

    1. scientology, anti-drugs, celebrity-worship. it really is loathsome stuff.

      1. not if you’re high….

  19. “Them sheeps was beggin fer it.”

    1. Well, they were not unresponsive.

    2. what were they beggin fer? I’m not a farmer! then accepts Oscar nomination for best dramatic scene (or whatever).


  20. Article needs more caps lock.

  21. This is one of those isolated bad apples. Right?

  22. See, at the state level he’s Rosa Parks, at the federal level he’s Bull Connor.

  23. Sheriffs aren’t usually bothered by laws anyways, this is no different.

  24. I once had a job where I told everyone that I was not going to do my job anymore, but one I chose to do instead….funny, they stopped letting me do my job…

    If I understand his statements, Sheriff Baca has stated that no matter how many of the people he works for (voters) tell him to do something he has decided to simply do something else? With such a high unemployment rate it should be easy to fill any vacancy at the LEO level no?

    Perhaps there should be a Prop. on the ballot specifically forbidding local LEO from assisting ANY Federal assault on Citizens operating within State law. Also outlawing this “1 day special officer” crap we’ve heard about.Going so far as to require Local LEO assist victims of Fed. invasion?

    1. Is recall only for state employees in Cali?

    2. “”With such a high unemployment rate it should be easy to fill any vacancy at the LEO level no?””

      And for less than what they are paying this jerkwad.

  25. What was the thing recently where police officer’s signed an oath declaring they wouldn’t enforce laws they thought unconstitutional? Maybe this shit works both ways?

    1. Does that mean we can take Mr. Baca’s kids away now?

    2. I don’t know that “I won’t obey illegal orders” is quite the same as “I make my own law, hippie scum.”

      1. I hear ya, but if they see Prop 19 as an “illegal order from the people” then…

        1. You’re conflating two opposite ideas. The first involves ignoring orders which violate the rights of the people, and the second involves ignoring the rights of the people in favor of self-issuing orders.

    3. do you think we could sign one where we wouldn’t obey any law we thought unconstitutional?

  26. At least he’s not as bad as Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau:

  27. Fine let him keep arresting people if prop 19 passes. He will be hit with a lawsuit and out of a job.

    Someone needs to remind this guy that he is an employee of the state, not an employee of the federal government.

    My guess is that he’s just all bark. I’m sure deep down he knows it’s his job to follow state law. He’s just trying to scare people, like he usually does.

    1. dude, it’s working, and I’m on the East coast. Remember: stupidity is like a virus. It spreads.

  28. I keep reading in here people discussing Baca’s “personal war on drugs.”

    It clearly states in the proposition that:

    “no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, seed..”…..dt_1-s.pdf

    (page 7)

    Wake up and smell the herb California, state and local law enforcement will not be able to do anything under this proposition. Sheriff Baca is just fear mongering votes!

    1. Section 11303(a) should add the word “federal” to the “no state or local…” part. Then the state could arrest federales for violating state law. Im sure it wouldnt hold up on appeal, supremacy clauses and all, but the state courts could just not be concerned with that and let it get to federal appeal level first.

      Yeah, there are probably six+ reasons why that is a bad idea, but it would still be funny.

    2. Yet there’s no punishment if law enforcement violates the law and helps the feds enforce marijuana prohibition.

  29. It will be amusing to see if the feds actually do try to assert themselves in California.

    The logistical problems they would face in doing so are extreme.

    If every ape who refused an order was sent for reconditioning, Ape Control would be overwhelmed.

    1. Racist!!!

      1. Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!

    2. I would like to see the Governor call in the CA National Guard to protect legal CA pot growers from Federal forces.

  30. Just out of curiosity. What have been the results of contacting Sheriff Baca after a home invasion involving a Medical Marijuana patient? Are they treated like victims, or are they “pieces of sh*t”.Can you even get response?

  31. What’s most interesting is seeing how Californians and their hard left lean will try and mold a states’ rights argument being that the left has, even very recently, held firm that the mere concept of states’ rights is just code for racism and pro-slavery.

    How can they reconcile their idea of a centralized government being ideal, yet openly advocate resisting the central government?

    1. Well, since whatever federal effort we’re talking about will have Obama and Holder in charge of it, they just won’t reconcile it.

      They will denounce the evil California pot-smoking anarchists and explain to us all about how Obama is heroically resisting them.

      A few will break with this camp, to point out to us that Obama never promised to not use federal law to stomp on people obeying their own state law, so it’s all good.

      1. Or it will turn the Left against the Democratic party…some straws gotta break that camels back eventually.

    2. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of a buzz.

    3. on the other hand, it’s already interesting to see a states rights advocate, refuse to follow his own state’s laws, but will apply federal law. Funny…politics. Well, not so funny as much as bone (and boner) chilling.

    4. Actually, most of the Democratic establishment (and the newspapers, but I repeated myself) is lining up behind the following reasoning:

      “Well, I don’t like the War on Drugs, but it’s very important that we avoid having any sense of federalism or diversity among the states, because being different engenders confusion, so we must be against Prop 19.”

      Being against federalism is more important than ending the War on Drugs.

      1. Or is it mindlessly obeying a Democratic President? I really wonder if their position would be different if a Republican were President.

        1. More like trying not to piss him off or look rebellious or make him look weak, because they know how fucked their industry (for the newspapers) and state are, and both are going to need to be on Uncle Sugar Daddy’s good side soon.

  32. Funny that him and Boxer are buddies. The same people who will tell you that Arizona local officials can’t enforce immigration law will tell you that it is just fine for them to enforce federal drug laws.

  33. I’m delighted to see an LEO that just lays it all out there. He’s just saying he’ll do what the majority of CA cops probably want to do. I mean, come on, busting dope smokers has got to be just about the easiest police work out there. Hopefully this story will get circulated far and wide, so people can see the pure contempt in which they are held by tough guys like Baca.

  34. I’m all for this. You dopers all need to be locked up, for life.

    1. get your ass in the kitchen and make a fucking sandwich or something.

      1. Nah, Juanita just needs to go here and leave us alone. She’d fit in great over there.

  35. If he wants to be contrarian, then freeze his department’s fucking pay. Problem solved.

    1. That will only work if he doesn’t have his own budget and revenue streams. Various fees, auctions, and forfeiture takings will add up to a nice little chunk of change.

  36. Humm.. Isn’t that what they call sediton ?

  37. Well the sheriffs have tried ruining my life all over me inadvertently being in possession of 0.3 grams of marijuana….Read about it:

  38. AGAIN I say our police and elected officials are called Public SERVants for a reason. Each should be required to have regular periodic psychological evaluation to weed out the control freaks and power-hungry. They are not called public dictators and need to keep foremost the “serve” part of their profession.

  39. Baca pissed me off, BAD. I filled in the “Yes” on 19 box on my Cali absentee ballot. Also voted for two twits instead of a parasitic bitch and a parasitic ass-wipe. Sealed envelope, put two stamps, mail tomorrow.

  40. Sheriff Baca has declared his intention to violate California law. That alone should be enough to bounce his insubordinate ass off the public payroll.


  41. Lee Baca,Steven Cooley,and Eick holder are all heavy handed autocratic morons…
    They need to understand that they are public servants….Not dictators…

    I’d fire his scrawny little ass.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.