Nobody likes a bully. US Attorney BULLIES California with IDLE THREATS

Don’t BEAT ME UP, Pimp…

The report came out yesterday confirming what we all knew. Holder and the USDOJ will continue to bully California and cannabis users and providers to carry on the FAILED war on drugs. Way to go. You political posturing is unnecessary, but expected. After all- it is your job as the Nation’s top cop to protect your interests. There is no interest of the country being upheld as you would assert. Jailing and making criminals of cannabis users has been THE BIGGEST FAILURE of public policy this nation has experienced since the Civil Rights movement.

This is nothing new. In 1996, the Clinton Administration made the same remarks about prop. 215 and made the same threats. Now comes the big schoolyard bully, trying to protect the big business and lobbying interests rather than enforce sensible policy. What a joke. I guess what WE THE PEOPLE believe is not good enough. The fact that we are tired of living in fear over cannabis use and tired of being treated as inferior for our choice to use a safe and effective plant, is not good enough reason to stay out of the affairs of California. You had to come input your threatening BS in an attempt to quash the vote. US Attorney Eric Holder and his boss President Obama should BE ASHAMED! This is a cowardice bully move and it WILL come back to bight them in the ass come 2012. You have just told the most populous state in the Nation that our votes do not count. Thanks.

Here is a couple of excerpts from Holder’s statements:

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will “vigorously enforce” against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.

So this is a wise use of Federal resources? Why? It would seem that if you do not have the resources to go after medical users, why on earth would you now have the resources for responsible adult users? You couldn’t “vigorously enforce” your way out of a wet paper bag. And what would the point be anyway? Do you see THIS CRUSADE as a wise use of Federal resources? There are plenty of law enforcement in California. Why not let them do their job?

“We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law,” he wrote.

So there we have it California. Fuck you. Fuck your hopes and dreams. Fuck the “great state experiment” theory. FUCK YOU, Pothead losers. Does that about sum it up, Mr. Holder?

Well I for one do not take kindly to being bullied. I will not give you my lunch money and my freedoms because you have threatened me. I have been here before. This is not my first rodeo. If you want to send your goon squad out to kick my doors in again then so be it. I will put my Santa suit on, grab my signs, and make a fool out of your actions…AGAIN. You cannot imprison the MILLIONS of people who use cannabis. It is just NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Get a grip. Find something else to do. Hell, Obama can’t even remember that the DEA exists.

With 2 wars, threats of terrorism in our borders, violence on the border, a SHITTY ECONOMY, no jobs, and one failing policy after another, it would seem that the Obama Administration would have something better to do…i mean really. Even issuing this stupid statement was TOO BIG A WASTE OF RESOURCES for cannabis prohibition. Live in the NOW. Look around you. People are tired of the lies, misinformation and THREAT of bullying enforcement policy. GO BACK TO WASHINGTON D.C. and threaten the cowardice legislators that still make cannabis “illegal under Federal law” which is the only reason you can give for your enforcement policy. GO HOME and fix the system instead of posturing in California about what you will or will not do to enforce your ARCHAIC AND FAILED POLICIES.


Obama- reel your boy in before Californians completely turn their back on you in 2012 because you are picking on us. We are a sovereign State and expect you to uphold the 10th Amendment. In case you forgot what that says here it is for you:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And spare me the Interstate Commerce clause BS. I defer to the great Sandra Day O’Connor in her disent in the Raich case:

We enforce the ‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. …

This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States’ core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353, 113 S. Ct. 1710 (1993); Whalenv. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603, n. 30, 51 L. Ed. 2d 64, 97 S. Ct. 869 (1977). Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering. Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation. In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause — nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes — rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 146 L. Ed. 2d 658, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000). Accordingly I dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas went further, berating the Court for their interpretation of the Commerce Clause:

Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.”

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.


If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

and further…

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

So while I never thought I would agree with Justice Clarence Thomas, he makes valid points. Move on and find some real crime to enforce Top Cop Holder. We got California under control. Thanks.

Former San Jose Police Chief summed it up better than i ever could in his response to Holder’s bullying threats:

“As we saw with the repeal of alcohol prohibition, it takes action from the states to push the federal government to change its policies,” said McNamara.

“Passing Proposition 19 in California will undoubtedly kick start a national conversation about changing our country’s obviously failed marijuana prohibition policies,” he added. “If the federal government wants to keep fighting the nation’s failed ‘war on marijuana’ while we’re in the midst of a sagging economic recovery and two wars, it just proves that the establishment politicians’ priorities are wrongly focused on maintaining the status quo.”

Yeah….what he said.

Comments are closed.