WEED WARS: Ex-DEA chief: Prop 19 backers 'smoking something' in tax pitch

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/11/10 | Peter Hehct

[SmithL]

As the United States Attorney in Los Angeles in the late 1980s, Robert C. Bonner prosecuted Mexican drug cartel members and conspirators in the ruthless torture and murder of a U.S. drug agent, Enrique "Kiki" Camarena.

At the time, he vowed: "The United States government will not let the murder of an agent by a terrorist organization go unavenged."

These days, Bonner is refusing let a California ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use go unchallenged.

In an interview for an article in last Friday's Sacramento Bee, Bonner argued that Proposition 19 not only defies federal law but also breaches international drug control treaties. "It would send a terrible signal to countries of the world," he said from Mexico City, where he was attending an international drug policy conference.

Bonner is a former head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, a retired federal judge and past commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

. . .

"Nobody is going to pay taxes," he said. "You would have to be really stupid to pay taxes to the state of California and admit to a very serious crime."

[onedoug]

Not only does it thwart the feds but gives more power to local governments.
´Sounds good! What was it again? Marijuana legalization. Oh, yeah. That.

[Lurker]

Wow. A former DEA goon protecting his rice bowl. Now there's a shock. Of course it never occurs to his tiny muddled brain that if the stuff were legal the dead Agent in question wouldn't have been there in the first place.

And the gang that killed him probably wouldn't have existed in the first place.

But since he's been sucking on the tit of the US taxpayer for his entire stupid 'career' it's no wonder.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There are a surprising number of people who still think that alcohol prohibition was a good idea.

[Persevero]

I know!

And if meth were legal, no meth bustin’ cops would be dead.

And if mescaline were legal. . .

you know, if we made everything legal, we would not even need cops. And none of them would die.

Problem solved /s.

[Lurker]

This country learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous Prohibition experiment. Nothing.

There is absolutely no Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell you what you can or can't put into your own body. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

But you faux-conservatives don't really give a rip about what the Constitution authorizes as long as you agree with it. You're frauds.

[Persevero]

Libertarians are the faux conservatives. I am not one of them.

Perhaps you should post at Libertarian.com. You may find some kindred spirits.

Generally on FR we go for all three legs of the three-legged stool. Social conservatism is one of them, and it does not include the promotion of drug abuse.

[Steel Wolf]

Sounds like this guy has a bit of a conflict of interest on this issue.

Of course, so does the State.

[philman_36]

you know, if we made everything legal, we would not even need cops.
Wow, I can't believe that "make it legal" line is still being trotted out.
See, there is no such thing as an "illegal" drug. That's a misconception that many people have and one that the government allows to continue as it helps them with their control.
If you look at the "Controlled Substance Act" you'll find that actions taken with controlled substances are what are illegal. It's a way around the Constitution, plain and simple. Congress can't ban anything so they "control" things.
And when the government is allowed to "control" some substances then all substances will eventually fall under their authority. Just look at "CO2", "salt" and "sugary drinks". All are "substances" that need "controlling" since they can't be banned or made "illegal" without violating the Constitution.
It's about control and you seem to be in favor of it without realizing it.

[Lurker]

Have you ever actually read the Constitution?

[reagan_fanatic]

I was discussing this with my Wife last night. If you think about it, pot and alcohol are very similar to each other, in that both are used to get high. From my experiences, alcohol brings out the aggressiveness in people, while pot mellows them out. Both are relatively harmless in reasonable amounts, and both can damage your body or kill you if abused.

It is silly to have a set of rules for one while having a different set of rules for the other.

As far as I'm concerned, either pot should be legalized or alcohol should be criminalized.

[Steel Wolf]

Generally on FR we go for all three legs of the three-legged stool. Social conservatism is one of them, and it does not include the promotion of drug abuse.

Social conservatism that can't distinguish between "promoting" and "permitting" can't be distinguished from Nanny state liberalism. Except cosmetically.

[philman_36]

Remember, the charge is "possession/sale/use" (whatever...the action is what is illegal) "of a controlled substance", not "possession/sale/use of an illegal drug".

[humblegunner]

Generally on FR we go for all three legs of the three-legged stool

It's cute seeing someone here since 2010 tell someone
who has been here since 1998 what "we" go for. Cute..

[dennisw]

You are the phony conservative. The liberals want more people stoned on MJ. More Democrat votes there

You want more Democrats then go for open borders
You want more Democrats stealing your taxes then legalize marijauna. Stoners are tax eaters. They are not productive. They will outvote tuff guys like you

[SeeSharp]

This country learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous Prohibition experiment. Nothing.

Yes they did. They learned that if alcohol is illegal alcohol taxes dry up. That's the real reason prohibition got repealed. Several state governments went insolvent during the twenties and the really effective pressure to repeal prohibition came from them.

[dennisw]

Another fake libertarian....Yeah man Adam Smith smoked dope...or was it George Washington?

[philman_36]

Generally on FR we go for all three legs of the three-legged stool.
Speaking of three-legged stools, you've got the first covered with the "illegal drug" spin. Now comes leg two...

Social conservatism is one of them, and it does not include the promotion of drug abuse.
Drug use is equated with drug abuse. The things I mentioned earlier apply just as much here as there.
All three substances can be used and all three can be abused.
One more and you'll have the trifecta and a perfectly stable stool.

[Lurker]

Generally on FR we go for all three legs of the three-legged stool.

Great. Another newbie putz who hasn't read the home page or the FR mission statement.

L

[Lurker]

You are the phony conservative.

Where exactly in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is the authorization for Congress to tell me what I can and cannot ingest?

Now if a State wants to ban it, fine. But there's no authorization for the Feds to do any such thing. None.

You either support the Constitution of the US (that whole original intent thingy) or you don't. Conservatives do. Those who don't are not conservatives no matter what they claim.

L