Dispatches from the California Marijuana Front SacBee /Peter Hecht / September 17, 2010 Cops and retired cops square off in California marijuana fight In the cop vs. cop politicking over Proposition 19, the California initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use, there are a few words that may help determine who may be endorsing which side. The opposition to Proposition 19 is dominated by a vast list of current law enforcement office holders, including 39 sheriffs and 33 police chiefs, and organizations including the California Police Chiefs Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association and the California District Attorneys Association. But the Yes on 19 campaign recently released a list of its own cop endorsements. And most come from people sharing some common modifiers in their titles - namely "former" or "retired." The names under an endorsement letter for the initiative include retired San Jose Police Chief John McNamara, retired Deputy Los Angeles Police Chief Stephen Downing, former Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff David Sinclair, former San Francisco District Attorney Terrance Hallinan and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray. Current office holders signing the endorsement were Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos and Oakland City Attorney John Russo. Here is except from their letter on behalf of Prop 19: "The only groups that benefit from continuing to keep marijuana legal are the violent gangs that control its distribution and reap immense profits through the black market. If California voters make the sensible decision to effectively control and tax cannabis this November, it will eliminate illegal marijuana distribution networks, just as ending alcohol prohibition put a stop to violent and corrupting gangsters' control of beer wine and liquor sales." McNamara also recently penned an op-ed piece in the San Jose Mercury News, arguing that Prop 19 will allow a reallocation of law enforcement resources to make California safer. "People are not terrified by the thought of pot smokers in their neighborhood, but voters who are justifiably concerned that violent criminals threaten their safety, as well as that of their children and families, will vote for Proposition 19." But not according to some cops still on the job. "Nothing about Proposition 19 is positive," said Fontana Police Chief Rodney in a statement released by the No on 19 campaign. "The initiative has too many legal loopholes and will cause too much chaos, and put the public's safety and our communities at risk." Added Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar: "If Proposition 19 passes, our workplaces and roadways will be in danger, our cities and counties will not benefit economically, and a huge burden will be placed on local law enforcement..." Just some arguments to ponder from both sides - retired and still on the job.
i want to see an article where the former officers call the current officers out on wanting to protect their easy money (raiding pot criminals). it seems obvious to my why the former officers support and the current officers oppose. what other reason could there be that the distinction? the current officers stand to loose funding for the easy raiding jobs and will have to go after real dangerous criminals. and former officers already are getting their pension so they have nothing to loose. could there even be any other reasoning? the only other reason i could think for the disticntion is that the current officers all the sudden think they can stop the cartels and the gangs. but that doesnt make any sense, cannabis usage hasnt decreased and cartel violence is the worst it has ever been. if the former officers called out the current officers that would cause a huge burst of news, and i think it would change people's opinions and could be the straw that breaks the camels back. but they would never rat out their own kind.....
They always say that, but always decide it is best to not elaborate. I didn't know preventing people under 21 from smoking cannabis would be such a huge burden to pick up, in fact, you would think police would love to preventing under-aged folk from smoking.
Nothing about Proposition 19 is positive," said Fontana Police Chief Rodney in a statement released by the No on 19 campaign. "The initiative has too many legal loopholes and will cause too much chaos, and put the public's safety and our communities at risk." Our communities safety is already at risk from the very thing you want to perpetuate.the prohibition of marijuana. Because you and fellow officers are so busy locking up marijuana criminals,the violent gangs operate with impunity and little regard for you or anyone else's well being. We are at least trying to remove marijuana from the criminals control,whereas you want to underwrite their income. Added Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar: "If Proposition 19 passes, our workplaces and roadways will be in danger, our cities and counties will not benefit economically, and a huge burden will be placed on local law enforcement..." Where are the dead bodies now? Do you think people are not already drinking and working under the influence of drugs? How about coffee,nicotine and alcohol.does an employer have the power to limit your intake of these drugs while on his property? Then he should have the same control over the intake of marijuana and the workplace. If your city governments have enough sense to be realistic with taxes and licensing fees that will allow the final street price for one ounce lowers the obscene profits from illegal marijuana,marijuana will be removed from the criminals menu. Any attempt to enact excessively high taxes and fees,which drives up production costs,will just underwrite the existence of a black market. Please explain how removing marijuana from your police officers work load would overload them? With over 33,000 marijuana arrests last year ,in California alone,please give the total man hours you will save versus your imagined problems and fear mongering.
this is the kind of information people need to hear. its jsut so hard to get the information to the people without a huge profit gobbling company backing us... if people could hear the arguments that are refuted (and refuted extremely well) here i think it would already be legal. the people jsut dont know the truth. and there are so many people who are eating well and sleeping on satin who do not want the people to know the truth.
Posting it at sacbee in a moment. I try to get it out every chance I get,sometimes a little off colored,abrupt and about as subtle as a freight train,but at all times,,,,onward,thru the fog,,,,,,,