The mindless incoherence of Prop 19's opposition is really kicking into full-gear following Attorney General Eric Holder's statement that he'll continue to enforce federal law if California legalizes marijuana. LA Times is so intimidated by Holder that I can only assume they believe he possesses super powers or commands a vast army of narco-clone-soldiers capable of capturing every casual user in California:
Attorney General Eric Holder says he will "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana laws in California if Prop 19 passes, and he's taking a lot of well-deserved heat for it. To even suggest that he could somehow bust every pot-smoker in California is just ridiculous on its face, and reeks of desperate last-minute political manipulation. But after watching this event unfold and reading the statement itself, I'm less concerned about federal interference with Prop 19 than ever before.
Prop 19 gives California voters a choice between legalization and prohibition. The gubernatorial race, on the other hand, gives voters a choice between two cowards who pledge to continue waging war on their own constituents. Just watch Republican candidate Meg Whitman boasting about her drug war credentials:
RAND is known for publishing speculative analysis that appears to be aimed at undermining marijuana reform, but this passage from their latest study is pretty strong:
Arguably the most plainly false argument to emerge in the debate over Prop 19 is that the new law could be "challenged in court" and overturned by the federal government if it passes. Obviously, opponents of marijuana legalization would like its supporters to believe their vote is pointless, but the truth is that Prop 19 would be just as legally binding as the medical marijuana law that came before it.