Skip to comments.L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca says deputies would enforce marijuana laws even if Prop. 19 passes
Posted on 10/17/2010 8:27:40 PM PDT by bornred
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, whose department polices three-fourths of the county, was bolstered Friday by an announcement from the Obama administration that federal officials would continue to vigorously enforce marijuana laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.
Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Inside every so-called "liberal" is a tyrant waiting to come out.
He can’t enforce them with state laws, because mj will be legal. Will he become an arm of the feds? Will the feds let Baca enforce fed drug laws, but won’t allow AZ to enforce fed immigrant laws?
Will AG Eric Holder let him enforce Federal law?
It would be legal when? where? work? kids?
Its not even a well-thought out idea.
He is a State Law Officer who needs to get his foot out of his mouth. He has NO AUTHORITY save State law and if he tries to enforce a State Law that is no longer State Law then he needs to be put away. I don’t care where he stands on the issue, he is to enforce the law of the State.
How can a county sheriff say he is going to enforce federal laws while violating state laws? Where is his authority to do this? He’s not a federal agent. Which jurisdiction does the county fall under? I don’t see “county” anywhere in the separation of powers; they are obviously an arm of the state... not the feds... unless you happen to live in Waco.
And no, this is not the same thing as Arizona... law enforcement are enforcing a state law that AGREES with federal law.
Really, which one? the State Law or the Federal Law?
In this case there might be two laws and where exactly in the constitution does it talk about imposing naughty vegetable laws?
But there are a lot of Nanny Staters who wish to control others in this regard.
Inside many republicans there is a totalitarian rascal waiting to get out.
Wouldn’t that pre-empt Federal Law?
I couldn’t help it, just saying.
Because L.A. County has no other problems.
In my state of Idaho we just had laws go into effect that if a firearm is made in Idaho and stays in Idaho the Federal Government has no authority over it. We are still waiting on the challenges in court.
Is California’s marijuana law not going to have the same legal challenges when it comes to the FEDs?
Would the FEDs not claim the Interstate Commerce clause on both cases?
Prop 19 is not well laid out and will probably have unforseen reprocussions, but if passed, it would make it legal to have less than an ounce, grow your own in limited area and supply, etc. A couple weeks ago, Arnie signed a law making less than an ounce to be an infraction, reducing it from a misdemeaner. All this of course is only for 21+ year olds.
I’ve read the arguments for and against and neither camp makes very good arguments.
I heard on the radio news Saturday that Eric Holder intends to uphold the anti MJ law in CA no matter the outcome of the election. So I guess Baca would be able to enforce???
not a big difference.
Today all you need is a quack and even a minor can get it prescribed for laziness.
If dope is legalized, the narcs are all out of work. No more cool property forfeiture, no bribes, no lucrative rehabilitation classes, half the prisons will be empty, etc.etc. The cops have more at stake than anybody else if legalization ever happens.
Between the Mexican cartels and US “law enforcement”, half the continent lives off illegal dope.
But Federal Law trumps State law doesnt it. So if the Feds say it is illeagl couldnt they prosecute you? Although I really do not see that happening unless of course you are a Republican or Tea Partier and are running for office :)
Yeah, that’s what they say. I don’t believe much that comes from 0baMao and his homies.
The Federal laws on sale and cultivation are pretty serious:
I suspect the last thing the Feds want is a test case where somebody is busted for “personal cultivation” in compliance with state law, since it could be the basis for overturning Gonzales v. Raich.
As for Baca, it’s possible he will just focus on the storefront operations. Seize the merchandise and lock up the owner for 48 hours. Doesn’t even matter whether the Feds file charges, because it’s impossible to do business in that environment.
This is essentially how the blue counties treat legal gun owners today, so it’s not much of a leap for them.
Sure they do................
I don’t believe what 0blahblah or Holder say. Call me a skeptic.
Prop 19 is potentially even more interesting, because it permits cultivation of small amounts (25 square feet) in your own garden.
The Raich case dealt with co-ops, but if you’re growing your own, it’s a lot harder to make the case that it involves any sort of commerce (much less interstate commerce).
So, it's okay to enforce SOME federal laws locally, but not others?
What is a 9 letter word for "Liberal"?
The prop lays the legality of it out nice and neat. You might want to get a copy of it and read it. Not legal for kids or even legal to smoke it in front of a minor. Many of the same rules governing alcohol consumption.
Well shoot. If Gonzales v. Raich is overturned, wishful thinking on your part, then I’m just going to convert my semi-auto rifles into machineguns because Raich is the basis that SCOTUS used to overturn U.S. v. Stewart which originated in my state.
If the CA liberal potheads can defy Federal law and win in the US Supreme Court, they’re going to have to get used to the homegrown select fire weapons I’ll be manufacturing. Maybe I’ll even be a nice guy and send the US Treasury a check for $200 for every one that I convert.
Until then, I will be following Federal NFA law. I don’t need to be waiting in prison for the pothead cavalry to come to my legal rescue.
It most certainly IS interstate commerce, because you are using home grown to replace what would have otherwise been purchased, thus adversely affecting interstate dealers' sales.
Hey, that argument worked in front of the SCOTUS for home grown wheat used exclusively for personal use, in "violation" of Ag Dept Marketing Orders. Look up Wickard vs. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (decided in 1942) and weep.
For an update, look up Blattner.
Translation: Legalization means the end of my rake-off and I’m not gonna allow that to happen!
does the L.A. sheriff enforce federal law re: illegals ?
Of course there's no guarantee that any of this will fly, but it would be good to have the libs fighting commerce clause overreach for once. And getting high is way too near and dear to their hearts for them to just drop the matter - this one is personal.
Can you remind me where in the Constitution is the authority to prohibit MJ in the first place? I can find the prohibition of alcohol, but not MJ. Oh, wait, the prohibition of alcohol was repealed ... but still there's no prohibition of MJ.
Re Wickard vs. Filburn........
Different from prop 19 in that the “personal use” amount produced, exceeded the total allowed amount.
Trust me. If this law is passed there will still be plenty of drug cases to prosecute. Cartels will still grow weed in the national forests. People will push the legal limits of cultivation. The growers in the north part of the state will still be looking for profit margins supported by exportation out of state. Look at B.C. Dope possession is pretty much legal there, but still there is a huge criminal network devoted to smuggling bud to the U.S. If dope is ever legalized across the board in the U.S. then those same criminals will fight over the coke and ecstasy trade.
I don’t think anyone except for the SCOTUS is qualified to say what the original intent of the Commerce Clause means. It’s just one line in the Constitution that elected representatives have run with for generations like a steelhead trout running off with the baited hook while the fisherman holding the pole is fast asleep on the shore.
So don’t ask me. I don’t make those decisions.
Dumb question I guess, but how can a county official enforce Federal law? I guess they can arrest them for violating it, but what can they do after that?
So don’t LAPD officers enforce state laws, or county ordinances? Don’t state police enforce Federal laws? If a state Trooper sees someone violating a federal terrorism law, does he have to let that person go. No, and if you guys want to smoke big giant marijuana cigarettes, you’ll either have to change the federal law or convince a federal judge that the law isn’t constitutional. Stop f@#$ing around with medical pot and state laws, those are lame excuses.
Here’s a discussion I found:
I would assume that arrest and confiscation may be troublesome enough to discourage above-board business activity, even if the Feds don’t prosecute. Cities have generally been successful in driving away legal Prop 215 dispensaries, when they’ve tried.
From what I understand about 19 is that the cities/counties will be able to decide whether they want the actual places of sale or not. Maybe he could go against that further will of the people, and maybe I’m just naive (and god knows it’s probably the case) but it would stun me if LA voters voted for Prop 19 and voted to allow the stores and he shut them down in the name of Federal law.
From what I gather about the towns who don’t want the medical dispensaries is that, well, it’s as simple as them not wanting them and it’s probably easier for the local authorities to get rid of them if the town/city passes a stature that says they don’t want them there. At least that’s how it works in Colorado.
Is this a joke?
What about federal laws regarding illegal aliens? The county alone probably has 2 million illegals running through the streets...Upwards of 30 million nationally.
Ya got millions running around that have violated federal law and entered the country illegally during wartime, but you expect the cops take time to enforce federal law regarding pot?
“Is this a joke? “
I don’t see the question as a joke.
Obviously the sheriffs are already picking what laws they enforce and what laws they don’t.
In San Francisco, people walk around nude and having public sex on certain parade days. The cops do nothing. Because they are told to do nothing, I guess by the mayor? And it’s a violation of state and federal law.
So I guess if they get to cherry pick some categories they get to cherry pick others.
Obviously the sheriffs are already picking what laws they enforce and what laws they dont.
My question was rhetorical in nature...But thanks for the reply.
The net impact to existing commerce would be zero. It certainly would impact future. Of course it would have to be legal in more than one state to qualify as interstate commerce.
Yes, but that was a FEDERAL allowed amount; and the FEDERAL allowed amount of MJ is ZERO, so it could still be twisted to apply. EVERYTHING (Just ask Nancey!) is “Interstate Commerce”. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!
I don’t think that pot is any better or worse than any other intoxicant, but the real problem is how do you determine if someone is “under the influence” in an accident (traffic, industrial, etc.). I don’t think that there is any standard, and THC can stay in a system for a long time.
I would not care to travel in California should this pass.
On the other hand, how much trouble can you get into going four miles an hour?
It gets better: The "liberal" in this case is a RINO.
I have absolutely no doubt Holder would attempt that same argument. LOL!!!
One SheriffIn The Knowintends to use the “Bully Pulpit” before the vote takes place.
Yeah, the law is the law and this Sheriff can’t pick and chose which laws to enforce.
Baca has ignored for years federal immigration law and allowed illegal immigrant criminals to escape punishment and commit more crimes.
The real reason he would continue to enforce federal MJ laws is MONEY.
His department would lose federal grants and training which supplement his budget.
A couple of ideas:
1) He thinks it will get him noticed and serve as a path to higher political office.
2) He loves the asset forfeiture goodies and wants them to keep on coming.
Both are used to get high, and both can be harmful in excessive quantities. We sell every kind of liquor from wine coolers to everclear and in whatever quantities wanted to anyone over 21, yet an ounce of pot will get you thrown in jail.
I've been around a LOT of people drunk and a lot of people high, and from everything I've witnessed the people high on pot are a lot less aggressive and dangerous than those drunk from liquor.
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.