This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Eric Holder Promises To Enforce/Ignore Federal Anti-Marijuana Laws

This story is pretty funny. If California decriminalizes marijuana, attorney general Eric Holder says that he will still strictly enforce Federal anti-marijuana laws.

"Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if the state's voters approve a ballot measure to legalize the drug," Pete Yost reports for the Associated Press.
I guess he should have a meeting with Eric Holder from February 2009.
Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, and marks a major shift from the previous administration.
That would make a good Daily Show bit. Jon Stewart took a week off, and hasn't had the opportunity to ridicule that yet. I wonder if any of his writers read my blog?

In 2009, Eric Holder said he would respect states that wanted to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws for "medical marijuana". Now, he says that he will strictly enforce the law no matter what states do.

Once a bad law is on the books, State thugs can arbitrarily decide to start enforcing it more strictly or leniently. A bad law has inertia. The people who profit from it will always lobby to block repeal.

This also illustrates the fallacy of nullification. Even though people in California want to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws, Federal thugs have more guns and will violently enforce their laws.

California's "legalize marijuana" law would only have teeth if it said "Any Federal agent who arrests someone for possession of marijuana is guilty of assault and trespassing. They will be arrested and prosecuted." Then, California police would have to be prepared to back that order with force.

However, that could lead to a civil war, if both sides resorted to violence. Unfortunately, State parasites are cowards. Politicians in California would never try this.

It's amusing to see Eric Holder "flip-flop", regarding whether he would respect the right of states to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws. I'm surprised he isn't more sharply criticized for this. Why isn't the mainstream media calling out Eric Holder for reversing his February 2009 statement?


Bas said...

Besides the fact that the "war on drugs" only exists to justify tens of thousands of law enforcement jobs - it is also blatantly unconstitutional. The Feds have no authority on drug regulation. What happened to the 9th and 10th amendments?

I'm not a fan of the U.S. constitution, but if a government body does not live by the rules it sets for itself, there will be no end to injustice. Who's the keeper's keeper?

Anonymous said...

A bad law has come onto the United Kingdom books. It states you cannot look after your neighbour's/friend's/work colleague's baby or have reciprocal baby sitting agreements under certain circumstances.

A policewoman looked after her friend's baby and was told unless she stopped she would be prosecuted. The policewoman and her friend gave birth at similar times and so thought reciprocal baby sitting arrangements would help them be able to keep their jobs etc.

The policewoman at the time said she might not be able to afford to pay for a babysitter.

The case came up some time ago and despite a new government in the UK promising to roll back the craziness of the last government, nothing has been done in the open to roll back this absurdity.

FSK is right. Bad laws, despite being outed as ridiculous, just stay on the books.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at