NYT: Attorney General Holder wants MORE Federal Marijuana Possession Prosecutions!!!

[FourScore]

From the New York Times:

In the interview, Mr. Holder said he was sending an additional 100 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the southern border to crack down on the so-called straw gun purchases — in which one person submits to the federal background checks to obtain guns for someone else — that fuel much of the southbound smuggling. And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/world/americas/04mexico.html?ref=global-home

[gulfcoastliberal]

1. Fuck that fascist pig.

K&R

They want to fill up the jails with even more marijuana users!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

2. Calling Jim Webb! (n/t)

[Adsos Letter]

3. JUST LEGALIZE POT AND BE DONE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!

jeez...their approach is wrong at soooo many levels.

[FourScore]

8. Legalizing would be the BEST way

to fight the organized crime in Mexico (which is what the article is about). Get the marijuana trade out of the hands of the cartels.

[PM Martin]

4. I'm shocked. I had no idea that McCain won the election last fall.

[Occam Bandage]

40. I don't remember Obama running on a platform of drug legalization.

[terisan]

5. Political Calculation-re-election will be based on attracting votes from the right. nt

[rwheeler31]

6. This is good.

[FourScore]

36. Why do you think it is good? n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

47. 'Thinking' obviously had nothing to do with his response. nt

[babylonsister]

7. What a bullshit headline. Not the word 'border' or 'gun' to be had.

Really, you can do better.

[FourScore]

10. Although the quote is taken from an article pertaining to cartel

violence at the border, Holder is not saying that he is limiting an increase in federal prosecutions to only that area. Such a federal crackdown would be...well...federal. So it would affect all of us in the US.

Therefore, I'm not sure a mention of guns or border is necessary for this OP.

[babylonsister]

12. From what you posted, the only part you didn't put in your headline:

In the interview, Mr. Holder said he was sending an additional 100 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the southern border to crack down on the so-called straw gun purchases — in which one person submits to the federal background checks to obtain guns for someone else — that fuel much of the southbound smuggling.

Sure, guns and borders aren't at all necessary. Please.

[FourScore]

16. Like I said before, the federal possession prosecutions could

affect everyone in US. The guns and border policies do not. In other words, this thread is about marijuana.

[MagickMuffin]

11. Mexican and U.S. Attorneys General Confer to Strengthen Cooperation on Drug Violence

Considering this is the headline from the article. I seem to post the headline to the article when starting a thread, but hey that's just me.

[babylonsister]

14. Thank you. I knew it!

:hi:

And I don't always post the exact title, but I don't try to change the whole point of the story.

[FourScore]

18. I purposefully focused on a quote within the article which could go unnoticed.

And if Holder means what he says, it could affect ALL of us and not just people along the border.

Besides, I don't see the mention of the words "border" or "guns" in that headline either.

[babylonsister]

21. I don't see the words 'Mexican' or'cooperation' in yours either.

By design, as you've said. :thumbsdown:

[FourScore]

23. Oh good grief. As much as I admire you , babylonsister,

(in fact, this is undoubtedly the first time I don't agree with you) I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal about this.
I truly have never seen any posts from you as caustic as this. Thumbs down and all.

MY OP IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE ENTIRE LINKED ARTICLE. It is NOT about the Mexican drug war along the border. It is about Holder's plans to strengthen the federal marijuana laws. It's only one sentence in a whole article, but exactly that sentence is what is pertinent to me in this OP.

Why then do you take issue with my headline? And for God's sake, why would I include stuff in my headline that I am not focusing on. I provided the link so that a person can read the context of the quote for him/herself. I don't see the problem.

[GoesTo11]

24. You are right.

[babylonsister]

25. Then quit with the

EXCLAMATION MARKS THAT MAKE THIS SO BREATHTAKING when it's not. When you're not even portraying the original article the way it was written.

Got it? That's my gripe. Don't do what the talking heads and some of the media do.

[FourScore]

34. That's exactly my point.

I'm not "portraying the original article" (but, to be fair, I have linked to it for reference), I'm only focusing on one quote out of the article. And, personally, I do find that particular to be quote "breathtaking". Perhaps you do not, hence our disagreement on the OP title.

[The Straight Story]

9. I think we should all plant some pot in protest. They can't arrest us all

I don't even smoke pot, but would plant some just to piss em off.

[MagickMuffin]

13. If we could grow our own, there wouldn't be the need to face off with the Cartel

We would be growing our own Victory Gardens and that would be fine with me.

[babylonsister]

15. Got seeds? Maybe a seed silo centrally located would work.

:evilgrin:

[The Straight Story]

17. I think burpee has some, will look next time I am at wal mart

:rofl:

[MagickMuffin]

19. There used to be a campaign of throwing water balloons with seeds inside

out your car window along highways. I'm not sure if it took off, but what a way to display dissent, and keep law enforcers busy.

In Texas it could be part of Lady Bird's HIGHWAY beautification program. :rofl:

[FourScore]

20. Sweeeet.

That's good.

[alfredo]

22. I saw Africans put seeds they wanted to plant inside a ball of mud. They'd

then throw it to the ground.

[MADem]

26. I agree with those who are saying that this OP is VERY misleading.

It's usually a good idea to not get too creative with the headline. Use the one that goes with the story.

The only reputation harmed is your own.

[tkmorris]

27. Not getting people's problem with the OP here

This isn't LBN. He/she isn't trying to create a post to discuss the article as a whole. The OP instead wanted to discuss a quote within the article, by itself. It might be argued that the quote should better be considered within the context of the rest of the article, but frankly I don't see much there that changes the perspective on the quoted portion. Holder did in fact say that he wants to beef up federal marijuana laws in the manner the OP stated.

This looks a lot like kneejerk defending of an Obama appointee to me.

[MADem]

28. The suggestion is that Holder is going to go whacko on the punk

down the street with the wee bit o'pot, and that's not where the guy is going at all.

There's a false impression created in the OP and it doesn't aid discussion of the full story provided in the article.

It has nothing to do with "kneejerk defending of an Obama appointee"--it's all about not doing what the "other team" does--taking a single remark or quotation completely out of context and twisting it to suit a particular agenda. It is just a cheesy thing to do.

Look, if I posted a headline that said "Obama agreed to let reporters see casket arrivals at Dover, and CHANGED HIS MIND at the LAST MINUTE!!!!!" you would be of the impression that he was still barring reporters from covering these events, based on that headline.

Well, the fact of the matter is, that headline is "technically" true--but not in the way that one would assume by reading it. See, the lifting of the ban was supposed to start TOMORROW....but DOD allowed reporters access a DAY EARLY. Contextually, the headline I have provided is MISLEADING. And "misleading" just isn't cool.

[tkmorris]

29. But, that's my point.

I don't see that it is out of context in any meaningful way. It's certainly hyperbolic, but Holder did in fact say exactly what was claimed. You don't seem to believe that this change in federal law would be used to prosecute the "punk down the street" but that remains to be seen, and the law change suggested is exactly 180 degrees from the direction we should be going.

Ah well, I'm done defending the OP. I certainly wouldn't have constructed a post in the fashion he/she did, I merely thought the outrage against it for using a headline that wasn't representative of the article was disingenuous, considering that the OP had no intention of discussing the article per se but rather the individual quote contained within it.

[MADem]

30. I don't seem to believe that the punk down the street will be prosecuted at all.

However, the hyperbolic language in the subject line is designed to try and MISLEAD me in that direction.

See, I read the article, I compared it with the headline, and the collars and cuffs did not match.

It's not outrage I'm feeling at all. It's closer to "minor annoyance." It's just that I like to come to a site with the word "Democratic" in it and not have these sort of Limbaugh-like tricks played on me, is all. I always think we can do better...

[FourScore]

37. Wow. "Limbaugh-like" . That hurts.

I don't think my title is misleading at all. If federal laws are changed in the manner Holder is speaking, then it does affect ALL Americans. I'm not sure why you think the punk down the street would not get prosecuted if federal laws are changed to encourage stricter federal prosecution. We should be going in the other direction. Such a hardening of the marijuana laws would go against so many things we dems fight for. It increases prison population for non-violent offenses; it makes it harder for those who seek marijuana for medical purposes; the reasons go on and on. I'm sure you already know the repercussions, MADem, you are very well-informed.

I really am focusing on one quote which I found alarming. Perhaps Holder should elaborate on what he means, but as it stands within the article, I find it very disconcerting and contrary to what I would've expected from him.

[MADem]

38. I don't mean to hurt. It's just that deceit isn't helpful.

Holder's goal, and it's clear from that piece, is not to affect all Americans. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the Justice Department is going the other way--as states decriminalize, you don't see the feds tossing injunctions at them under this administration.

Holder's plainly targeting a specific bunch of people--the ones who are associated with the cross-border violence.

Your subject line, though, suggests otherwise. You're sounding an alarm where there's no evidence of a fire.

Your assertion is also in complete contravention of articles like this one, which suggest an opposite tack coming out of Justice:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7827

Washington, DC: United States Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed yesterday that he will not authorize federal justice resources to target or prosecute medical cannabis users or providers that are compliant with state law.

Holder's statements clarify remarks he made last month when he said that the Justice Department would uphold President Obama's campaign pledge not to use federal resources to circumvent state medical marijuana laws.

"The Obama administration's position is a dramatic shift in US drug policy, and is a major victory for the 72 million Americans who reside in states where the use of medical cannabis is legal," NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. "This stance is a marked departure from those of the Bush and Clinton administrations -- both of which consistently used the power of the federal government to try and undermine state medical marijuana laws and prosecute those who followed state law. Further, it also lends support to the ongoing efforts in several states, such as Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, each of which are currently debating legislative proposals to make the production and distribution of medical cannabis legal under state law."

That sort of attitude is enabling legislation to regulate and tax the stuff in California and Massachusetts, as well as other places. See these articles for more information:

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7832

Boston, MA: House and Senate bills seeking to "tax and regulate the cannabis industry" have been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature.

House Bill 2929 and Senate companion bill S 1801 propose to legally regulate the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age.

The bills would impose licensing requirements and excise taxes on the retail sale of cannabis. Adults who possess or grow marijuana for personal use, or who engage in the nonprofit transfer of cannabis, would not be subject to taxation under the law.

San Francisco: State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation this week to legalize and regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis for adults age 21 or over. The proposal – Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act – is the first bill ever to be introduced in the California legislature that seeks to tax and control the sale of cannabis.

Ammiano introduced AB 390 at a press conference Monday. Joining the assemblyman in support of the measure were Betty Yee, Chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization (Taxation), Oakland City Council member Rebecca Kaplan, Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray (retired), and Dale Gieringer, Coordinator of California NORML, which provided legislative text and financial analysis for the bill.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move toward regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," Ammiano said. "This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes. California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."

Local news anchors from CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS television covered the press conference. National stories regarding Ammiano's bill have appeared in USA Today, as well as on Air America and CNN.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7814

[FourScore]

44. The title was not deceitful in anyway.

The title of my OP states EXACTLY what the article states. There is nothing deceitful about it.

And I am not focusing on the cartel issue, but rather that one sentence within the article because I find it alarming.

The article clearly states that Holder "was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases. So I am not sure where you are able to determine that "Holder's goal, and it's clear from that piece, is not to affect all Americans." I'm not sure where you are otherwise extrapolating that he intends exactly the opposite of what he states here, or that such a federal law will somehow be selectively used. Show me please where you see that within the article.

I understand your desire to support Holder -- I'd like to support him too -- but I do not believe that such support should be blind.

It is true that Holder does not intend to target those who use or supply medical marijuana as long as they comply with state law, and this is truly a great change. However, most states do not have such medical marijuana laws.

Your other two examples are changes that are occurring on state levels and have nothing to do with Holder.

But mainly, MADem, whether or not we agree on the quality of my title or what my post contains pertaining to the article, I find such rhetoric as "Limbaugh-like" and "deceitful" beneath you. Those are just about the ugliest things a person could say to a fellow DU'er. If one finds a fellow DU'er misguided in their posts, I'm sure someone as articulate as yourself could find a less antagonistic way of communicating that.

I have no problem if you and I disagree. I have no problem if you tell me that my interpretation of the article is misguided. I may not like your opinion and I may disagree with you, but it's not hurtful, and it's not personal as long as one sticks to one's own opinion of the facts. BUT, to make such nasty comparisons as those you have made is exactly the sort of ugliness that is harming DU.

[MADem]

49. This has nothing to do with supporting Holder. It wouldn't matter if Judge Judy were the AG.

It's not a "cult of personality" discussion in any way, shape or form. It's not about the person of Eric Holder.

This has to do with your seizing on a sentence in an article and blowing it up into a dramatic "sky is falling" argument, absent any context whatsoever--in fact, deliberately OBSCURING the context, reversing it, in fact, to make a false point.

The "state level" initiatives could never have taken place under BushCo. They'd be in there with injunctions quick as a wink. The state legislators never would have dared to try to advance that sort of legislation.

The AG's attitude towards the states IS a "seismic" shift. Also, Obama's new "drug czar" is a decriminalization type. That's a major change that certainly doesn't signal a more draconian approach.

That's not going in the opposite direction, as you suggest, that's going in the direction of eventual legalization.

The tactic you used was PROFOUNDLY deceitful, IMO. That's not a slam, it's what it is. And sorry, again, I don't wish to make you feel bad, but that IS exactly the kind of shit that Rush Limbaugh does, and I pointed that out to make it very plain to you what I saw you doing with this subject. I won't be scolded by you for stating the obvious, either. Limbaugh is a master at that stuff. He'll seize on a small thing, twist it totally out of context, and then encourage the torch and pitchfork crowd to sell the Big Lie far and wide. And in some cases, it's worked. In this case, you did the same thing, and got a few people to bite--you managed to reel in a few "outraged" posters, when there's no call for outrage at all.

In fact, if you look at the trajectory of the Justice Department and the administration vis a vis this issue, for those who favor legalization, there's cause for real optimism.

[FourScore]

52. It's a direct quote without comment.

That's neither deceitful, nor anything like Limbaugh.

I'm done with this. We'll agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, I don't feel bad by any means. I just think your rhetoric is pretty over-the-top, MADem.

In any case, I hope you are right about eventual legalization. That would be wonderful.

[MADem]

54. Without comment!!!!!!! No comment !!!!! .... whatsoever?

Come on, you are being disingenuous.

I think your rhetoric is "over the top" too--which is why I noted it.

Already nearly half the states have some measure of decriminalization. More have medical provisions. Once California or another locality starts taxing it, the walls will come tumbling down, particularly if the revenues can forstall additional state income or property taxes.

And when they do move to legalization, the sky will not fall. Odds are there will be a brief ripple of excitement, and then the giddiness will subside and society will be affected, oh, about as much as gay marriage changed the entire fabric of life for every person in Massachusetts (which is to say, it didn't--except maybe for those gay folks who were finally able to marry).

[endarkenment]

42. The jails are stuffed with pot criminals

"the punk down the street" is somebody else's kid. Your kid (if you have one) is of course well behaved and will never get into this sort of trouble.

[MADem]

43. Wow. You have an active imagination.

Where do you get the idea that I am ascribing nefarious motive to the punk, and holding up my family members as models of probity?

You need to extrapolate a little less, and maybe try reading everything I've written on this thread before you get so dramatically judgmental. You know what they say about ASSuming, after all....

For the record, in case you're still confused, you're dead wrong. You couldn't be further "off the mark" as to my views if you tried.

[endarkenment]

46. when you use these terms to describe victims of the WOD

your attitude and the thought processes behind them are on display. You may of course not be a hypocrite and include your own offspring in the category of "punks who use pot", and if so you would be one of the few who do so.

[MADem]

50. What the fuck are you babbling about?

Why are you going on about "victims?"

And why do you persist in trying to make this personal, when you know nothing about my family situation?

Look, if you can't discuss the issue on the merits (and bother to actually read the links I provided) just don't bother. You come off looking foolish and combative.

I don't have time or inclination to indulge you in a load of whiney "victim" foolishness.

FWIW, my "attitude" on this subject is that I favor legalization. I want those punks--if they're over 21--to be able to purchase and use the product legally. I'd also like the states to reduce the tax burden on individuals by taxing the product.

But you're so fucking ready to excoriate me because you're full of preconceived notions, that my views on this subject (which should be obvious to anyone who actually read the whole thread and saw all my comments) have sailed right over your head, and you're ready to paint me as a foot soldier in your personal "WOD." RIF.

[Pastiche423]

31. What is so difficult to understand about the OP wanting to focus

on a particular sentence in the article? Especially one that is not the feature, but one that effects every single person in our country that uses marijuana for any reason?

This one sentence should send chills up every toker's spine (this includes Medical Marijuana users, that need it desperately for chronic pain).

"And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases.".

That POV is going backward, not forward. I'll agree that it's change - change for the worse.

Why aren't more people alarmed by this information?

[MADem]

39. Have a look at post thirty eight, just above your post.

Holder is NOT going backward. He's loosening the Feds' grip on this matter, and allowing states to take the lead, by and large. I've provided three articles in support of that assertion.

He's not talking about kids with ounces, he's talking about cartel criminals with BALES. Holder has already said his department isn't going to focus on users. He just wants the drugs-guns business down south to cease.

The OP is taking a specific tactic that Holder is using to combat a specific problem along our southern border, and falsely extrapolating both Holder's intent and his goals. That's simply unhelpful.

[Autumn]

32. I don't like that at all

I would like him to explore ways to pull his head out of his ass. I haven't smoked marijuana in 30 years but I really don't see it as being different from alcohol.

[GeorgeGist]

33. RE: your sig line

You should know that Madison considered native 'americans' to be foreign enemies; tyranny and oppression came to their land.

[FourScore]

35. Is that the origins of that quote?

I had no idea if it is. Please tell more. Obviously, if that is the background then I will want to change it.

[MADem]

51. That's an interesting fact.

I guess it isn't too surprising, though.

Old JM "Christened" the Republican Party, according to the Library of Congress: http://www.myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/BillofRights/FormationofPoliticalParties/ExhibitObjects/RepublicanPartyChristenedbyJamesMadison.aspx

[endarkenment]

41. Delusional thinking 101

"And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade" ... stop Mr. Holder. Stop and think. I know this is difficult for all of you, but please try to understand why there is a connection between marijuana sales and gun violence and gang violence and drug crimes. What could the connection be? Why, for example, is there no connection between beer sales and gun violence, gang violence and drug crimes? Oh wait, there was, a long time ago, just such a connection. When was that? How did a sane society deal with that problem?

[FourScore]

45. I agree 100%.

[RedCappedBandit]

48. He, and all drug war advocates, should be arrested for crimes against humanity. nt

[spanone]

53. did we learn nothing from prohibition?