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

Skip to comments.

L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca says deputies would enforce marijuana laws even if Prop. 19 passes
LA Times blog ^ | 10/15/2010 | Staff

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Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: ca2010; cainitiatives; leebaca; marijuana; prop19
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last
Agree or disagree, but the law is the law.

Inside every so-called "liberal" is a tyrant waiting to come out.

1 posted on 10/17/2010 8:27:47 PM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bornred

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?


2 posted on 10/17/2010 8:32:34 PM PDT by umgud (Wear your Border Patrol hats to the polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

Will AG Eric Holder let him enforce Federal law?


3 posted on 10/17/2010 8:33:12 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

It would be legal when? where? work? kids?

Its not even a well-thought out idea.


4 posted on 10/17/2010 8:36:45 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


5 posted on 10/17/2010 8:37:14 PM PDT by politicalmerc (I can see November from my house; can you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


6 posted on 10/17/2010 8:38:54 PM PDT by streetpreacher (I'm not a preacher of anything; I'm just a recipient and unworthy steward of God's grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred
Agree or disagree, but the law is the 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.

7 posted on 10/17/2010 8:39:19 PM PDT by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

Wouldn’t that pre-empt Federal Law?

I couldn’t help it, just saying.


8 posted on 10/17/2010 8:39:25 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

Because L.A. County has no other problems.


9 posted on 10/17/2010 8:42:50 PM PDT by Yaelle ( I donated double. We need FR running smoothly this fall. Join me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Will AG Eric Holder let him enforce Federal law?

U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside (Holder on California's Proposition 19)

10 posted on 10/17/2010 8:48:29 PM PDT by Libloather (Teapublican, PROUD birther, mobster, pro-lifer, anti-warmer, enemy of the state, extremist....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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?


11 posted on 10/17/2010 8:48:37 PM PDT by born2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


12 posted on 10/17/2010 8:49:08 PM PDT by umgud (Wear your Border Patrol hats to the polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

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???


13 posted on 10/17/2010 8:50:34 PM PDT by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: umgud

not a big difference.

Today all you need is a quack and even a minor can get it prescribed for laziness.


14 posted on 10/17/2010 8:51:37 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


15 posted on 10/17/2010 8:53:01 PM PDT by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

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 :)


16 posted on 10/17/2010 8:57:12 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Yeah, that’s what they say. I don’t believe much that comes from 0baMao and his homies.


17 posted on 10/17/2010 8:57:25 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: umgud

The Federal laws on sale and cultivation are pretty serious:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4575

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.


18 posted on 10/17/2010 8:59:47 PM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister
Between the Mexican cartels and US “law enforcement”, half the continent lives off illegal dope

ROFLOL!!

Sure they do................

19 posted on 10/17/2010 8:59:51 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

I don’t believe what 0blahblah or Holder say. Call me a skeptic.


20 posted on 10/17/2010 9:00:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: born2bfree

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).


21 posted on 10/17/2010 9:23:30 PM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bornred
Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law

So, it's okay to enforce SOME federal laws locally, but not others?

What is a 9 letter word for "Liberal"?

Hypocrite

22 posted on 10/17/2010 9:24:33 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: A Satanically Transmitted Disease spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
It would be legal when? where? work? kids? Its not even a well-thought out idea.

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.

23 posted on 10/17/2010 9:28:55 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


24 posted on 10/17/2010 9:45:27 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bornred
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).

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.

25 posted on 10/17/2010 9:46:33 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: A Satanically Transmitted Disease spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bornred

Translation: Legalization means the end of my rake-off and I’m not gonna allow that to happen!


26 posted on 10/17/2010 9:47:03 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

does the L.A. sheriff enforce federal law re: illegals ?


27 posted on 10/17/2010 9:48:31 PM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
But wheat was a legal item already. If somebody starts growing and smoking dope the day after Prop 19 passes, the net impact to commerce is zero. He didn't buy it last week and he isn't buying it this week.

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.

28 posted on 10/17/2010 9:55:27 PM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bornred
Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

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.

29 posted on 10/17/2010 9:59:02 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Do you think the Raich decision was in keeping with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment?
30 posted on 10/17/2010 10:00:53 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Re Wickard vs. Filburn........

Different from prop 19 in that the “personal use” amount produced, exceeded the total allowed amount.


31 posted on 10/17/2010 10:03:55 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister

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.


32 posted on 10/17/2010 10:06:37 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

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.


33 posted on 10/17/2010 10:10:11 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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?


34 posted on 10/17/2010 10:10:24 PM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: politicalmerc

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.


35 posted on 10/17/2010 10:20:13 PM PDT by Paddy Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nate505

Here’s a discussion I found:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561774

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.


36 posted on 10/17/2010 10:25:40 PM PDT by bornred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bornred
Irrespective of this article, Baca is a POS
37 posted on 10/17/2010 10:31:56 PM PDT by americanophile (November can't come fast enough....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


38 posted on 10/17/2010 10:46:40 PM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Paddy Irish; politicalmerc
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.

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?

39 posted on 10/17/2010 11:00:19 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

“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.


40 posted on 10/17/2010 11:08:25 PM PDT by Marie2 (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
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?

Obviously the sheriffs are already picking what laws they enforce and what laws they don’t.

My question was rhetorical in nature...But thanks for the reply.

41 posted on 10/17/2010 11:24:11 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bornred
"But wheat was a legal item already. If somebody starts growing and smoking dope the day after Prop 19 passes, the net impact to commerce is zero. He didn't buy it last week and he isn't buying it this week."

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.

42 posted on 10/17/2010 11:28:56 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

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!


43 posted on 10/17/2010 11:40:30 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: A Satanically Transmitted Disease spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister

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?


44 posted on 10/17/2010 11:49:47 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bornred
Inside every so-called "liberal" is a tyrant waiting to come out.

It gets better: The "liberal" in this case is a RINO.

45 posted on 10/18/2010 12:36:53 AM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

I have absolutely no doubt Holder would attempt that same argument. LOL!!!


46 posted on 10/18/2010 12:41:25 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bornred

One Sheriff—In The Know—intends to use the “Bully Pulpit” before the vote takes place.


47 posted on 10/18/2010 12:49:48 AM PDT by Does so
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bornred

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.


48 posted on 10/18/2010 4:58:13 AM PDT by WaterBoard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher
How can a county sheriff say he is going to enforce federal laws while violating state laws?

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.

49 posted on 10/18/2010 5:18:32 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (/s, in case you need to ask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bornred
I'm no fan of marijuana, but just what is the difference between that and alcohol anyway (other than the social stigma)?

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.

50 posted on 10/18/2010 5:29:53 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Today, Congress. Tomorrow, the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 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