TPMDC

Sen. Boxer Opposes California Initiative To Fully Legalize Marijuana


Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) does not support a push to fully legalize marijuana in California, an initiative she will share the ballot with this fall. As we reported earlier, California voters will decide whether to legalize -- and tax -- marijuana. The state already allows for medicinal marijuana use.

I asked Boxer's campaign her position. Campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski issued a statement detailing the senator's stance on the measure, which qualified for the ballot last week.

Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies," Kapolczynski said. "She supports current law in California, which allows for the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription."

Boxer will face one of several Republicans vying for their party's nomination on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Ed. note: This post has been edited from the original.

Comments (76) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

mcc

user-pic

April 2, 2010 5:40 PM   

The more important question is Jerry Brown's position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 9:38 PM    in reply to mcc

brown is also opposed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

April 3, 2010 3:14 AM    in reply to benjoya

Interesting. Where did you see that, if you don't mind me asking?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 6:15 PM   

Well, it's the obvious position to take, politically.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:00 AM    in reply to dndobson

Why is it obvious?

"Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime.."

The prohibition creates crime. Even my John Bircher dad sees that. W.F. Buckley saw it.

The people of California see it.

It is not an obvious political conclusion. It is a change in the status quo and the wave of reform is a political tide that should not be ignored.

Boxer is a tool, she has proven that time and time again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:07 AM    in reply to UMSLBlog

...and BTW...whgo is the strongest and most adept politcian on the planet?

Obama.

What is his unofficial stance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:39 AM    in reply to UMSLBlog

If Obama's so strong and adept where's the public option...oh yeah, he auctioned that off along with all other reforms in the imfamous HCR bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 3:04 AM    in reply to dndobson

Obvious? Why? Does she expect to get ReDumbicans votes out of this?? That's as stupid as Obama hoping to get Rep votes out of supporting off-shore drilling...

It's political suicide, is what it is. It's displaying her lack of spine (even moreso than she has displayed before) and she is turning off an important political base that can be energized and mobilized to get out the vote.

All this "Triangulation" completely misses the point of electoral fact: You can't get your voters to the polls if they just don't care. I know: I've tried. It's harder than selling life insurance...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 6:25 PM   

I always have a hard time voting for people who want to send me to jail. Sen. Boxer just lost my vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 7:25 PM    in reply to Alan in SF

You'll already be locked up by November 2, so I'm sure she's not concerned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 12:52 AM    in reply to Alan in SF

Tell her then! Just google "write my representative." it will only take a minute!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 2:45 AM    in reply to Alan in SF

So you prefer a Republican senator to a Democrat who opposes Marijuana legalization?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 6:40 PM   

She really can't say anything else. The attack ads would write themselves. And she's running for Federal office, and Federal law will still make pot a crime, even if CA decides otherwise. There's no reasonable hope for Federal legalization in the foreseeable future, so why should she throw herself on her sword, even if she did agree?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 6:59 PM    in reply to libdevil

Sad but true. We're still fighting to get industrial hemp made legal again. Yet another way we look like the biggest bunch of backward hicks to the rest of the world. I don't understand why pot has such a malignant reputation in some segments of this society, as if it were the most horrendous drug out there, so evil we can't allow people to grow its non-intoxicating cousin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 1:37 AM    in reply to lotl

In Oregon, we have legalized industrial hemp. Our climate only allows a limited grow season, so it's almost a moot point. I believe other states have, or are working on, legal industrial hemp.

It's time to stop being ruled by a policy founded on racism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:03 AM    in reply to libdevil

The attack ads are already there. The response is so simple.

Revenue!!! Fighting Drug Cartels!!

The U.S. has 5% of the world population but 25% of its prisoners?

Land of the Free?

Cali is hurting she could reap many rewards following the proper course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:37 AM    in reply to UMSLBlog

Exactly. Like attack ads on an issue like this would be even remotely effective. If they're based on the same shrill talking points she just spit out then they should no time shooting them down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:24 AM    in reply to libdevil

She can't say anything else? How about she say the truth and state prohibition is bankrupting the state and that keeping it a continuation of Jim Crow law enforcement. Instead she says an outrageous lie like it would increase crime and car accidents - first off marijuana absolutely does not make users prone to violence (quite the opposite, they mellow out), and there are already exist laws against driving under the influence. Hopefully you Cali folks dumb her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 7:19 PM   

You know, the reasons she lists for opposing the initiative make absolutely no logical sense. One would hope she at least knows that...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:28 AM    in reply to GrizzlyEdTandy

William Randolf Hurst, the father of marijuana prohibition, made the case that Mexicans and blacks would smoke marijuana and rape white women and therefore it should be illegal. THAT was the original rational for the ban, and it was nothing more than a very shallow way of continuing Jim Crow laws with the goal of criminalizing blacks. Apparently Sen. Boxer agrees with Hurst.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 10:55 PM   

Agreed.

"...she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime"

It would be legal. It wouldn't be a crime! So there would be *less* crime. What is she smoking? ;-)

But like dndobson said upthread, it's a political position.

The people will have to do this on their own. Once it passes, Brown and Boxer will defend it as the will of the people.

Probably smart politics, as stupid as it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 2, 2010 11:26 PM   

Wise up Senator Boxer or bye-bye...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 3:06 AM   

It's an initiative: it really doesn't matter what the politicos think. I have no problem with quiet opposition.

But then again, I wouldn't: I support medical marijuana and Netherlands-style decriminalization. But this initiative opens the door to the sort of advertising and marketing that the tobacco corporations do. Sure that won't happen immediately, but methinks it best to limit large scale manufacture and distribution of pot at the onset.

Kevin Drum is leaning for the initiative, but he runs down the arguments:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/marijuana-legal-california

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 4:56 PM    in reply to Measure for Measure

this initiative opens the door to the sort of advertising and marketing that the tobacco corporations do

so you're saying tobacco companies should have the playing field tilted in their favor? why?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:45 AM    in reply to Measure for Measure

There's a big gaping hole in your argument "measureformeasure". This ballot allows people to grow their own, and considering it grows about as easy as a weed, the production network will be widespread, not just a few big tobacco networks. And even if I did buy your argument (I don't) it wouldn't negate the reasons for ending prohibition including reducing law enforcement/incarceration costs and defunding the mexican cartel.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:53 AM    in reply to loudprogressive

Somebody made a great informational post right here at our Cafe about the benefits of legalization. You seem completely up to speed on the issues, and much thanks for your advocacy, but it is a handy reference guide anyways.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 5:42 AM   

For "police chiefs, sherifs and other law enforcment officials" legalizing pot does not exactly enhance their career prospects. Arresting pot dealers and smokers is the biggest make work program the police have going. Add to that all the money they get to sieze and keep on top of the federal 'War on Drugs' funding and there is one big incentive for cops to support the status quo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:50 AM    in reply to fpie

Exactly. People acknowledge that police and city governments sometimes are overzealous with tickets when they're trying to raise money..but they don't think that police would take advantage of marijuana prohibition for the same reasons. Not only do they get easy arrest/convictions to boost their career, they get to confiscate the property and money associated with it and use it to enrich their department. Its too destructive to keep going any more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 9:14 AM   


Arresting pot dealers and smokers is the biggest make work program the police have going.

Hear, hear...Aside from further crushing the poor and generating a new method to force able-bodied young boys into the military, this make work for burly cops who'd be better utilized actually protecting their communities has slurped lots of Homeland Security cream because of some forced connection between locally grown pot and global terrorism.
Around 2005, I saw one of my rural Cornepone County deputies pulling out of a grocery parking lot driving a spankin' new and huge gleaming white pick-up truck with an equally gleaming 'Cornpone County Homeland Security' decal on the driver and passenger doors.
Checking the cop’s web site I couldn't find the truck listed among their vehicles so I called the dispatcher who repeatedly denied the truck's existence.
The Bushies were perhaps overly eager to win the approval of county sheriffs with the easy lucre gushing from the fear tap...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 12:53 PM    in reply to sean

Two very good comments in a row. Fifteen years or so ago, back when NPR actually challenged the status quo with some of its reporting, they profiled what was basically a boat-or-auto show-like convention for the profit-making contractors servicing the prison industry. It then went into how the industries were increasingly starting to lobby state and federal governments in order to, in effect, legislate incarceration for more offenses and for longer terms, giving rise to a prison-industrial complex.

Law enforcement and our prisons serve a useful function and do good work. But they should have policy dictated to them, not the other way around.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 10:50 AM   

Of course the Senator opposes it. Think of all the people whose jobs depend on pot being illegal..... First, the drug dealer, then the cops, including the DEA, the lawyers and of course the extra Judges needed, the court employees, oh, and to top it all of, the Prisons for Profit, which have to be filled up.

Did I mention the Drug Testing companies as well? Oh dear, legalizing would put so many people out of work it won't happen.

But it should. Alcohol and Tobacco are by far worse for a person but try prohibition again and see how far you get.

In the meantime, the prisons for profit can be kept to a maximum capacity (for maximum profit paid by the taxpayers), and the drug tests can continue to discriminate against those who smoke a little cannabis. Geez, you can go get smashed on a lot of drugs on Friday night and have clean urine on Monday morning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:24 AM   

There is a law enforcement group in CA that is for the initiative. The law enforcers who oppose it do so for two reasons: they fear loss of funding, but more that that, they really hate the message that they've been spending a lot of effort on something that was never worth doing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:30 AM    in reply to mrdufus2u

You mean like patrolling black neighborhoods and arresting youths for minor possession violations, or worse, supplying it to white youths.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 11:10 AM    in reply to loudprogressive

I do mean that. I also mean arresting decorated war heroes and retirees with no criminal records for growing pot. They've destroyed a lot of lives that didn't need to be destroyed, and legalization would confront law enforcers with a historical verdict that they were predators, pure and simple. That's what I mean.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 12:56 PM   

She doesn't care about law enforcement, she cares about being re-elected. This will drive a lot of folks who normally stay home on election day to the polls and most of them can't stand her. End of story.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 8:38 AM    in reply to The Ouroborus

And you have this information on what authority? Barbara Boxer is very popular here in California.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 3:20 PM   

(Time to drag out this time-worn joke.)

The issue should be decided by a joint session of the legislature.

I know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 4:04 PM   

Dumbass

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 5:21 PM   

Ugh what idiots. Decriminalizing consensual behavior by definition reduces crime.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 8:15 PM   

I have an acquaintance who moves maybe 2-3 lbs a month and believe me, the last thing she wants is to make it legal in any way shape or form. That would be the end of his business.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:35 AM    in reply to runfastandwin

I'm sure Boxer knows a few of those folks herself, which explains why she can say so many lies about it in one sentence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 9:45 PM   

I always expect ignorance from the R's but obviously the D's aren't immune to it either.

Ummmmm...Senator, a clue for you, it only increases crime because our government has deemed Mother Nature to be a criminal. 420 for life...

Namaste...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:41 PM    in reply to Libertine

Look, she knows all that, okay?

I don't understand why this is so hard for people. There are just things politicians have to say because we live in a media culture dominated by attack weasels. Say the wrong thing and you lose all control of your message. Like when Obama committed candor about a Harvard professor getting arrested in his own him and lost all control of the entire message he had the press conference to get onto the MSM's radar.

That's just how it is. Want candid politicians? Then get better media. Lacking that, she can either say she's against it and move on with her own issues, or she can spend the next eight months talking and talking and talking about this one issue and every time she does, they pull one phrase out of context and dig her a deeper hole with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:52 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Well if the midterm election in CA has a groundswell of people going to the polls to support legalization she is losing out on a lot of potential voters who might vote 3rd party in a candidate supports legalization. This issue will bring indie voters (libertarians who support legalization) and liberal voters out in numbers.

But you're right cravenness is a prerequisite for being a national politician. Never take a position that might offend someone. No wonder the American voter is so cynical...weasly politicians worried about other weasly politicians employing attack weasels. Nice...but feel free to blame it on the media. Not that I am defending them and their shallow tabloid news coverage but to pin this all on them is disengenuous.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:33 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

-There are just things politicians have to say because we live in a media culture dominated by attack weasels.

In other words you advocate politicians concede battles before they are fought, and if necessary just lie, so people on cable tv don't say mean things about them. What a pathetic and weak justification for advocating politicians lie and commit to positions not only against their own better judgment but to the detriment of their voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 8:17 PM    in reply to loudprogressive

That's what I love about people who call themselves "progressives." Show 'em a wall and tell them their objective is on the other side, and they promptly line up and start bashing their heads into it. Suggest that it might be easier and more effective to simply walk around it or climb over it and they attack you as a sellout or a corporatist or an apologist or whatever insult is trendy with them that week.

Makes one suspect that they're more interested in the bashing of their own heads against the wall than actually accomplishing the things they say they're trying to accomplish.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 8:42 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Excellent post. Why is this so hard for so many to understand. It's reality and it's the way it is. Great post.

Here in Callifornia you can get a doctor to say you need it for medicinal purposes and walk into any one of hundreds of these farmacias and buy whatever you want - so it's almost pointless not to decriminialize it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:54 PM   

Wow. I am always surprised at the authoritarian streak in liberals and so-called libertarians. Meg Whitman postures as some kind of big free market Ayn Rand reincarnation. But she is a stupid authoritarian corporatist asshole. And Boxer and Brown - well, they have come a long way toward the tight-assed center. I would bet anyone a thousand dollars that he lit up regularly in the Governor's mansion back in the day. And he also probably snorted a few lines off of Linda Rondstadt's ass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:55 PM    in reply to weezie.jefferson

"he" = Brown

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 3, 2010 11:57 PM    in reply to weezie.jefferson

Heh...I prefer red.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 12:01 AM    in reply to LisB

Mmmmmmmm red...gold is good too though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 8:46 AM    in reply to weezie.jefferson

Good morning weezie jefferson? How were those scrimps this weekend????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 12:09 AM   

True. But gold is harder to find these days.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 12:11 AM    in reply to LisB

Yeah, tell me about it.

:-(

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 12:51 AM   

Write Boxer and tell her what YOU think! The Democrats are not with the people on this issue. If you are a Democrat (as I am) it is imperative you write your Democratic Party representatives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:31 AM   

who cares about pot or not, she supported joe lieberman, so she doen't get my vote

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:41 AM   

I'm all for Legalize Marijuana, especially on election day!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 5:29 AM   

Legalized pot? Sorry, its just not a burning issue for me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 2:14 PM    in reply to Dave Adams

The 100 million who have smoked marijuana in their lives, the 3 million who smoke it daily, the million or so arrested for it last year alone, those imprisoned for it, to all those folks it is a burning issue. This involves a private act that doesn't affect others, has a zero death rate attributable to it (unlike tobacco and alcohol) and--since the government refuses to acknowledge the difference between psychoactive drugs and simple hemp--a large new industry associated with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 1:34 PM   

When will you Democrats learn? You have much more to gain by supporting the measure than opposing it. When you oppose something as sensible as ending prohibition, we see you for the empty hacks you are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 2:07 PM   

If it's legalized,what will cops do for bribes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 2:07 PM   

Since it's a citizen-created initiative, Boxer has no say in the matter anyway. The people asked for it on the ballot, the people will decide upon it when they vote. Just like they'll vote on whether they want to keep Boxer in office or not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 8:43 AM    in reply to pakaal

Exactly and they will vote for it and they will re=elect her to office. She has a damn good voting record.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 7:07 PM   

It is amusing hearing some of the comments here. It is the same with their foreign policy. Oh, sure! The former CIA SAUDI DOG is an Afghan Patriot trying to free his people!

Marijuana is a drug. The only difference is that it kills you slower than say alcohol. I am sick and tired of people calling Obama and Boxer fucking RACIST because of this! It is the same as calling him a racist against white people because he is gonna tax tanning salons!

While we are at it, why don't we legalize ALL the drugs, even the one that has absolutely NO medical value according to ANY doctor? Because non-whites are the ones that are ALWAYS disappointingly affected by this.

Come on. Call my yellow ass a racist! At least I am not the dumb fuck willing return to a Republican regime over a few fucking bags of white powder!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 7:24 PM    in reply to Nutter

Marijuana is a drug. The only difference is that it kills you slower than say alcohol.

No it doesn't. That is just plain wrong. Alcohol does kill people as does nicotine, which are both perfectly legal, there is no clear scientific data that marijuana is physically harmful in terms of toxicity. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

But feel free to continue your exercise in hyperventilation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 10:45 PM   

A big difference between the left and the right in the US is the way in which both sides hear the dog whistles. Basically, the left doesn't hear them, while the right thrives on them. The article says that Boxer, while not in support of the current ballot initiative, supports current law that allows medicinal marijuana. To me, that is a dog whistle reply that says she will support the initiative if passed. This is a much open support that any politician could be expected to give. Rather than spending time trying to vote out Boxer or punish her in some way for not openly supporting something which would be political suicide to do so, people who want the legalization of marijuana should do all they can to get the ballot initiative passed. If it does, politicians like Boxer will support it and not attempt to get it overturned in the manner that a Republican senator would most certainly do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 10:58 AM    in reply to magurakurin

What magutakurin said: like it or not, Sen. Boxer's position really is the only one that makes political sense. First, it takes the CA legalization fight off the table as a campaign issue - if ALL the candidates in the race are opposed to a Proposition, no one can use it one way or another: so Boxer's campaign will go on on its own merits (such as they are).

If the initiative fails, well: back to the drawing board/signature-gathering: if it passes - it's doubtful that Barbara Boxer will be much of an activist for its overturn: "will of the people" and all that... and besides, that's Eric Holder's job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 4, 2010 11:30 PM   

The posturing by Boxer (etal) against this proposition is pandering of the most transparent kind. We wouldn't want to alienate any potential voters, would we? Boxer's rationale seems thin, at best.

"...could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies..."

One would think the organized crime currently doing the distribution would be cut off at the knees, thus decreasing costs for local law enforcement agencies...or at least freeing law enforcement up to pursue things like violent offenders - which is where the resources should be directed in any case.

The only people more contemptible than politicians are televangelists...and it's about a toss-up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 12:56 AM   

If Her lip are moving, she is most likely ..... so on and os forth!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 1:54 AM   

Dear god I live in a world populated with some the most ignorant and stupid homo-sapiens that walk upright on two feet, a simian has far more intelligence than what these rejects regurgitate from scripted lines.
I'm 64 years of age and more than likely smoked more pot than most of you diaper refugees combined, I have dealt it, smuggled it,cooked with it and gone to colledge with it.
Have never beaten up anyone while stoned, to incapacitated from the effects of the cannabis, Have never shot any one while stoned, did protest the Viet Nam loaded to the gills on it, went to Woodstock with a bag full of it,plus some contributions from Sandoz and leary,The REAL WOODSTOCK, not the Corporate one.
Demonstrated at the 68 Chicago Convention with Daly' Thugs, Watched the first ever Man walking on the moon stoned like road side kill, watched NIXON Say I'm not a criminal while so high arlo guthrie would have been jealous, and yet we still can't smoke this shit in public because the Anslinger Nose Pickers deem it more important to incarcerate than to liberate.

BOXER she is right, don't put yourself in harms way regardless of the whinning fucking progressives that brought you a president that is as worthless as a roach clip with out a joint.

Get it leagal cal the rest will follow. and tax it like you do ciggs and sex toys, that way you can balance your budget and then you can take your mountians away from the growers again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 4:45 AM   

Decriminalize, yes.
Collect sales/use tax on, yes (taxing authority already is place).
Legalize, no.

Can we not be satisfied with leaving our children broke, must we also make it easier for them to get high to cope with the mess we have made?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 5, 2010 9:02 AM    in reply to Cupertino56

So, we should incarcerate them instead?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DF

user-pic

April 5, 2010 6:50 PM    in reply to Cupertino56

This is probably my favorite canard in the whole pot debate. The idea that legalizing pot will make it more available to kids is bogus on its face. The people who employ this boffo nonsense immediately out themselves as impossibly out of touch.

As a product of the California public school system, let me clue you into something: I never more access to drugs than when I was in high school. Pot, acid, cocaine, etc. All of these were easily available on campus during school hours. In fact, that was the easiest time to get them. As for pot specifically, I knew at least a dozen pot dealers in high school. In point of fact, if I wanted to obtain some right now, I would do so through someone that I met in high school.

In summary, as a former child I both resent your disingenuous indignation in the name of the fate of our children as well as recognize that it is utterly fallacious in every conceivably sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 6, 2010 8:58 AM   

"CA-Sen: Boxer Leads Double-Digits in Curious LAT/USC Poll
There is good news and bad (or, at least, strange) news out of the new LA Times/USC poll of the California Senate race pitting Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer against a trio of Republican hopefuls. The good news is that the poll gives her a sizeable lead of 14 points (48-34) over her GOP opposition. The strange news is that the poll also used a generic Republican; a curious move, since there are just three Republican frontrunners, and they are all relatively well known. The LAT/USC poll also looked at the GOP primary, and continue to find right-wing insurgent candidate Chuck DeVore unable to find traction. The primary poll had Tom Campbell leading at 29% of the vote, with Carly Fiorina trailing at 25% of the vote. DeVore nabs just 9% of the GOP vote.

In other California Senate news, in what has to be good news (!) for Carly Fiorina: John McCain will be campaigning for her in Orange County tomorrow afternoon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on