Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU Backs Prop. 19, The Pot Initiative
LA WEekly ^ | Jul. 22 2010 | J. Patrick Coolican

Posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Mojave

California's three ACLU affiliates announced today they are backing Prop 19, the statewide initiative to legalize pot for those 21 and older. The measure will be on the ballot in November.

"Enforcement of marijuana prohibition consumes a great deal of California's law enforcement and court system resources, and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color," the ACLU said in a press release.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.laweekly.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: marijuana; pot; prop19; proposition19
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last
The ACLU never misses a chance to play the race card in its quest to damage our society.
1 posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:59 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You certainly summed up the situation perfectly.


2 posted on 07/23/2010 9:51:06 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Because like, it’s your body to (psssspppst) do with as you want to. Like abortion.

By the way, the ACLU is silent on the new 2014 to report our BMI mumbo jumbo to Big Prez.

And don’t get any ideas about selling a kidney. That’s prohibited too.


3 posted on 07/23/2010 9:52:16 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too


4 posted on 07/23/2010 9:52:45 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

...”has a disproportionate impact on communities of color,” the ACLU said in a press release.”

Sounds like the ACLU spoke stupidly. Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?


5 posted on 07/23/2010 9:54:28 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw
Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?

Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?

6 posted on 07/23/2010 9:56:33 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
In Nov ‘08 Gay State voters voted to make possession of pot a civil infraction punishable by a $100 fine.Recently there was a piece on a Boston TV station indicating that only a very small percentage of the fines assessed (less than 10%) were paid *and* that the law,as passed by the voters,provides *no* penalty/legal sanction of *any* sort for those who fail to pay the fine.
7 posted on 07/23/2010 9:57:09 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Legalization in California is not such a bad thing. It’ll send all the junkies to California and out of our states.


8 posted on 07/23/2010 9:57:20 AM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Question: Are there federal drug laws? Is California trying to usurp the federal governments authority?


9 posted on 07/23/2010 9:58:05 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (There is neither honesty, manhood nor good fellowship in thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

In addition, there is never a crime or moral evil that the ACLU does not support-and, at taxpayer expense when they are awarded attorney fees.


10 posted on 07/23/2010 9:58:20 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too

Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol.

11 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:16 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

The same is true of Arizona enforcing illegal immigration law.

The other states’ legislators that are saying they provide much needed labor and revenue can exploit them for votes, revenue, and labor. What’s the problem?


12 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:34 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.


13 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:34 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?

Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?

No, but it got me to thinking that whites can claim disproportionate impact relative to asians and start demanding special treatment from Government.


14 posted on 07/23/2010 10:02:09 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw; Mojave

So the ACLU admits that the reason more blacks and hispanics are incarcerated is that there is more crime among blacks and hispanics? Brilliant!


15 posted on 07/23/2010 10:04:19 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (I saw Ellen Page bend a Paris street into a cube and it looked as real as the moon landing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

snip

The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively. Ante, at 15—16; Lopez, 514 U.S., at 573—574 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Id., at 590—593 (Thomas, J., concurring); Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 3 The Founders’ Constitution 259—260 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. This Court has carefully avoided stripping Congress of its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it has casually allowed the Federal Government to strip States of their ability to regulate intrastate commerce–not to mention a host of local activities, like mere drug possession, that are not commercial.

One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that “ ‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why today’s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html


16 posted on 07/23/2010 10:05:40 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dila813
And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.

And what will the TSA personnel at California airports do with all the ounces that they "confiscate" at check in?

17 posted on 07/23/2010 10:07:01 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KDD
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold..."

Proposition 19 provides for sales.

18 posted on 07/23/2010 10:09:21 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

They will give it to the poor of course or sell it in TSA shops and donate the proceeds to illegals (they will need the money once this income from illegal drugs dries up).


19 posted on 07/23/2010 10:11:23 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KDD

So the California Law tracks citizen’s purchases and limits them? Requires them to show valid driver’s license or state issued id with proof of residence?

Does the law also require proof that the drugs were grown in California?


20 posted on 07/23/2010 10:15:23 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Well, what a shock I tell you.

If it’s degenerate, the ACLU is for it. Anything that destroys human beings.


21 posted on 07/23/2010 10:16:09 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Also wonder if they will ban illegal grow operations where the drugs are grown for smuggling to other states?


22 posted on 07/23/2010 10:16:45 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KDD

“Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol. “

Oh yes, they are such moral equivalents.

If we are going to ban public nudity, we must therefore ban shorts.


23 posted on 07/23/2010 10:17:26 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KDD

If we were evil racists like the Democrats claim, we would support this because these lazy pot smokers in the inner city never vote.

Too busy getting high.


24 posted on 07/23/2010 10:19:24 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Intrastate sales...not interstate.

Disturbing to see so called conservatives cheering utilizing the court's unconstitutional substantial effects doctrine and apply it to any type of prohibition law.

25 posted on 07/23/2010 10:19:34 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

LOL, the scumbag ACLU...
Let me know when those mice take on a 2nd Amendment issue.


26 posted on 07/23/2010 10:22:09 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

What make marijuana “Immoral”?

What exempts alcohol from the morality clause of the constitution?


27 posted on 07/23/2010 10:22:47 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dila813

In California, you have to show your ID when purchasing cold medicine or cough syrup. My husband also had to show his ID when he purchased some marshmallow forks at the local pharmacy!! California is filled with bureaucratic bullies!


28 posted on 07/23/2010 10:25:16 AM PDT by TMD (Sometimes people say the wrong things, just remember, they really meant to say the right thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Intrastate sales...not interstate.

Fungible. Oh, and a false distinction to boot.

"For these reasons, we hold that medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana." --Justice Clarence Thomas

29 posted on 07/23/2010 10:26:43 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

Good point.

But the question should be “Why are there federal drug laws”?

Show me where the constitution gives them that power?


30 posted on 07/23/2010 10:27:22 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Yes it will send all the drug tourists to California. They’ll get in cars, drive to California, spend a lot of money and drive home to their houses, families and jobs.


31 posted on 07/23/2010 10:28:00 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dila813

“And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.”

So then pot is not currently available in your state anyway?


32 posted on 07/23/2010 10:28:42 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
If we are going to ban public nudity, we must therefore ban shorts.

Zing!

33 posted on 07/23/2010 10:28:56 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Amen!


34 posted on 07/23/2010 10:32:57 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
No States Rights for you.

All hail the moral Fed Gov.

Our benevolent nanny.

You would trade freedom for pottage.

There are moralists and there are conservatives.

There are definite distinctions between the two...something that is illustrated here quite often.

35 posted on 07/23/2010 10:33:22 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KDD

What makes marijuana “immoral?”

The same thing that makes drunkenness immoral.

I had this debate on another thread. Alcohol use is always made equivalent to drunkenness. But you can have one without the other, any usually, people who drink do not get drunk.

A person can have a glass or two or even three, depending on their body type and the length of time ingesting and the alcohol level in the drink; without being impaired.

A person can not smoke a joint without being impaired.

Deliberately impairing your rationality and judgement is immoral.

I will not defend drunkenness any more than I will defend getting stoned.

But a limited amount of alcohol does not make you drunk.

Lest you think I am defending my favorite drug at the expense of yours, I assure you, I do not drink at all. I don’t like the taste of any alcohol being the reason.

Some like to equate marijuana with caffeine; I say again, a person can drink quite a few cups of coffee without getting high; but you are high if you smoke one joint.


36 posted on 07/23/2010 10:34:44 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Now who would have ever thought that liberals would back liberals and a liberal position.
37 posted on 07/23/2010 10:35:03 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
They’ll get in cars, drive to California, spend a lot of money and drive home to their houses, families and jobs.


38 posted on 07/23/2010 10:35:55 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“Oh yes, they are such moral equivalents”

Actually, I would say alcohol is roughly equivalent.

Wouldn’t you?


39 posted on 07/23/2010 10:36:27 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

Yes, produced locally or smuggled from Mexico or Canada. Currently smuggling from California isn’t the source.


40 posted on 07/23/2010 10:36:50 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KDD
No States Rights for you.

California is perfectly free to put this initiative on the ballot and to promote the agendas of the left.

41 posted on 07/23/2010 10:38:04 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

“Actually, I would say alcohol is roughly equivalent.”

No, and that is indeed the crux of the argument.

If marijuana’s effects were equivalent to alcohol’s effects, it would make little sense to ban marijuana.

However, as I posted above, most of the people having a drink today are not going to get impaired with it.

Most of the people smoking pot today - virtually all, unless they suddenly have to snuff out the dutchie for some strange reason after one little hit - will be impaired.

Thus they are not the same.


42 posted on 07/23/2010 10:39:19 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TMD

So this proposed law requires the same?

Hey, if it does limit purchases to people that have a state id and limits their purchase and only allows local pot I am all for it as long as the taxes are all put for enforcement of legal grow operations only.

State rights, have at it.

I just don’t want to see California as the new source of Pot for all the other states in the US. You will see all the Mexican Drug gangs move from Mexico right into California.


43 posted on 07/23/2010 10:39:49 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“but you are high if you smoke one joint”

And you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whisky too.

So it’s all about the quantity then?

Should half joints be legal?


44 posted on 07/23/2010 10:40:01 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KDD

“There are definite distinctions between the two...something that is illustrated here quite often.”

Yup! Seems more and more lately too.

If it’s not drugs, it’s religion. The sad fact is that a lot of these so called “conservatives” are just fine with a lot of government - as long as it agrees with their views.


45 posted on 07/23/2010 10:42:09 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

Yes, you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whiskey.

Drunkenness is a crime, already.

You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.

If you were able to smoke 2, 3 joints without being impaired, I’d see the equivalence to 2, 3 drinks.

But you can’t.


46 posted on 07/23/2010 10:44:45 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Impaired after one hit?

Well I admit it’s been several decades since I last indulged, and I hear it’s more potent these days.

But 1 hit? Really?

I bet you favor a .02% BAC limit too. Or would that invalidate your argument.

I have news for you. If you are average sized and you have 2 or 3 beers, you are “impaired” according to the law.


47 posted on 07/23/2010 10:45:21 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dila813

It doesn’t contain any identification or residence requirements for purchase.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_(California)


48 posted on 07/23/2010 10:46:30 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“But it would be so ridiculous to enforce”

I don’t know about that. They have breathalyzers, not to mention field sobriety test (walk a straight line, etc.)

If you can pass a field sobriety test, shouldn’t you be OK to drive?


49 posted on 07/23/2010 10:48:03 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

I did not say you are impaired after one hit. Please read my post.

“You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.”

As for being impaired after 2 or 3 beers, I indicated that it depends on alcohol content, body type, and how quickly you drink it. Again, please read my post.

I can most certainly drink 2 or 3 beers over an hour or two and not be impaired.

I can’t say the same about smoking 2 or 3 joints over an hour or two. Not even just one joint.

I know your world view is demanding that marijuana and alcohol be considered equivalent. But they aren’t.


50 posted on 07/23/2010 10:48:48 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson