Sen. Boxer Opposes California Initiative To Full Legalizing Marijuana

[Newsjock]

Source: TPM

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 on the matter, and campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski issued a statement detailing the senator's position. It's the first time she's been asked since the measure qualified for the ballot last week, the campaign said.

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."

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/sen-boxer-opposes-california-initiative-to-full-legalizing-marijuana.php

[sakabatou]

1. *facepalm*

[Zorro]

2. Preventive tactic

Removes it as an issue in the Senate race.

Unless the Republican candidate endorses legalizing marijuana.

[stevedeshazer]

8. Bingo.

Makes it a non-issue in the general election.

Even solid liberal politicians like Boxer, who I love, are still forced to oppose this due to the political implications.

Fear not; when the people speak in California, Washington, and Oregon and marijuana is legalized all along the left coast, politicians will scramble to get on the bandwagon. All these states have solid mechanisms for citizen initiatives and many pro-legalization constituencies. It's only a matter of time.

[inna]

15. +1

I also love Boxer, and... I hope you're right!

[pinboy3niner]

21. Bingo.

I'll support Boxer. Would anyone rather have Fiorina win her seat?

[No Elephants]

43. Ah, yes, the old "lesser of two evil Republicans" argument.

Hooray for the one-party system. Good thing we can't tell Democrats apart from Republicans anymore.

[Arkana]

66. So because Boxer has decided not to support full pot legalization

suddenly she's a horrible DINO and should be booted from the party.

Geez, you guys are worse than the teabaggers with your black/white line bullshit.

[w4rma]

97. Boxer rocks. Your statement is outright BS. (nt)

[WheelWalker]

22. Gezactly.

[SkyDaddy7]

52. Especially when the revenue starts to flow!

That will be the gasoline on the fire that should help spread legalization...Just have to get the fire going in California!

[JackRiddler]

27. So you're saying political tactics should trump truth...

assuming the truth, as you imply, is that she secretly supports it.

Or maybe she's actually against it? How could one tell?

[No Elephants]

51. We can't tell. We're Democrats. Only Republicans demand things from their politicians.

Now, shut up and vote for the one with the (D) after the name, no matter what.

[xsquid]

80. Well Said. nt

[onehandle]

28. Exactly right. She did the right thing. nt

[No Elephants]

41. Definitely the right thing. Whether it was also the correct thing or the smart thing remains to be

seen.

[pattmarty]

54. That's exactly what I thought. A strictly political decision (and a correct...........

.........one) in a highly charged election year. I like Boxer and don't really blame her on this one. My guess if she beats Fiorina? and the measure passes she will be OK with it.

[Lost4words]

78. Bingo +1 nt

[shanti]

89. bb is a smart cookie

this is a great chess move on her part.

[villager]

3. Even Boxer isn't immune from "Democratic Election Year Chickenshittedness" syndrome...

sigh...

[tburnsten]

86. +1

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Will ignorance ever NOT triumph?

[kestrel91316]

5. Fortunately, her lame assed opinion doesn't matter. We will pass it with or

without her help.

[patrice]

6. Wine Country $peak$

[mike_c]

7. that was beyond lame....

I suppose we know where she's getting some of her campaign money, and endorsements likely?

[inna]

19. oh maybe she just doesn't want to lose her sear to fiorina?

read post#8 in this thread.

i prefer to continue to view Barbara Boxer (as well as Barbara Lee) as my representatives that i actually like and endorse.

[No Elephants]

42. See Reply ##s 3 & 40. BTW, there is more than one way to lose a seat.

You can lose it by alienating your own base. Just ask McCain. Maybe even Al Gore, too.

Democrats seem to believe that the only for them to lose an election is to actually be Democrats, even as they say being a Democrat is so much smarter and better than being a Rethug. Sad.

Reality: Democrats will NEVER be as good at being Republicans as Republicans are. And only a minority of the country identifies with Republicans, who keep running looney right so much faster than any sane Democrat can chase them there. Yet, Democrats talk and act as though Democratic principles are something to be ashamed of, to hide, to run away from.

[ixion]

9. *sigh*

even the "good" ones can't get beyond the BS.

[CLANG]

10. How about just saying you will support the decision of the people!

I've sent money to her more than several times in the last 8-10 years, but never again.

[CLANG]

32. I sent her this on her contact page:

I've always admired you and have contributed to you several times in the past even though I live in Wisconsin. Your opposition to legalizing marijuana in your state is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you do. I won't ever send you my hard earned money again. If you really think that legalization will create MORE crime, and cost MORE for law enforcement, you are an idiot! I could go on and on about the benefits of legalizing/taxing marijuana, from the emptying of our prisons of non-violent otherwise law-abiding citizens, to the redirection of law enforcement resources to more pressing needs, to say nothing about the increase in tax revenue. Legalizing marijuana will actually discourage people from using harder drugs, because they won't be feel betrayed by the hypocrisy and lies about the harm of smoking marijuana. Unbelievable...

[CLANG]

34. And I just sent her money yesterday!

Dear CLANG,

I just wanted to send you a short note to thank you so much for your generous financial support before the March 31 fundraising deadline.

With your help, not only did we meet our goal over the last two weeks of the quarter, we far surpassed it in the last 24 hours before the deadline!

What a tremendous accomplishment. It's just one more testament to the strong grassroots support that is powering our campaign forward, and it wouldn't be possible without you.

Knowing that you're with us keeps me going each and every day. With a tough fight ahead of us, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your support. Together, I know we will prevail.

Again, thank you for everything.

In friendship,

Barbara

[No Elephants]

44. You don't even have to go that far. You just say this is for the people of California to decide, not

a U.S. Senator.

It's the kind of answer both a populist Dem and a teabagger could love.

[Mz Pip]

65. That would certainly

make a lot more sense than coming out opposing it.

I usually agree with Boxer on most everything but this is just such a backward looking position to take. Good grief, one would thknk that she could see what a waste of time and money keeping pot illegal is.

[bertman]

11. Finger in the political wind? How much money from the prisons-for-profit industry finds

its way into her campaign coffers?

Anyone ever wonder why all those sheriffs are so worried about repealing the prohibition on pot? Because they won't be able to confiscate the property (cars, homes, boats, etc.) of any unfortunate soul who's caught with the dreaded reefer. By confiscate I mean legally STEAL it and spend the money on their pet possessions like bigger guns, cooler black uniforms with robo-cop accoutrement, spiffier and faster cars, better surveillance equipment, helicopters, etc. etc.

How many more Americans will have their lives ruined because of America's puritanical and fanatical obsession with a harmless herb? When will a national leader emerge who will say ENOUGH!! STOP the INSANITY OF OUR DRUG LAWS!!

If you haven't read it "Drugs, America's Holy War" by Arthur Benavie is an enlightening read that exposes the real reasons for our insane approach to dealing with drug usage.

[Oldenuff]

20. Ding! Ding!

Quoth bertman "Anyone ever wonder why all those sheriffs are so worried about repealing the prohibition on pot? Because they won't be able to confiscate the property (cars, homes, boats, etc.) of any unfortunate soul who's caught with the dreaded reefer. By confiscate I mean legally STEAL it and spend the money on their pet possessions like bigger guns, cooler black uniforms with robo-cop accoutrement, spiffier and faster cars, better surveillance equipment, helicopters, etc. etc."


Nail on head.You hit it!

[DebbieCDC]

25. Your post deserves a K&R Oldenuff

:thumbsup:

[cannabis_flower]

79. And probably even...

skimming a little bit of herb off for themselves and their friends. The F*ckers.

[FatDave]

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

Ummmm.... It would certainly reduce crime and law enforcement costs. Duh?

[AlbertCat]

26. It would certainly reduce crime and law enforcement costs. Duh?

No no no! Don't you know how well Prohibition worked? We've learned so much from that experiment!










:sarcasm: (just in case)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. its a ballot initiative, doesn't need congressional support

if it passes, it will be law.

Why should Boxer touch the third rail since it has nothing to do with what
she does in congress?

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Exactly right.

The only bad choice would be for her to lose votes supporting it. Her endorsement won't help it, but will cost her. Her failure to endorse will not hurt it, but will save her a few votes & contributions.

[eridani]

39. Good point. This is an issue (like campaign finance reform) in which

--the people are going to have to lead the politicians. No other alternative.

[No Elephants]

46. The SCOTUS just killed campaign finance reform, so let's think of another example.

[No Elephants]

45. Because Democrats are so anxious to pass for Republicans that the obvious no longer

occurs to them.

[jberryhill]

14. Okay, that's one CA voter... What are the rest of them thinking?

What difference does it make what is her opinion on a state ballot initiative?

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Ex-fucken-

zackly.

[eecumings]

18. Boxer

apparently doesn't know the the "war on drugs" was lost long ago. Legalizing drugs in Portugal has not lead to increases in crime, accidents, and costs. Perhaps she has heard of Portugal. Illegal drugs have fueled the war in Mexico and along the US border with that country. People with convictions, mostly false, will hold tighter to those convictions when presented with facts which prove their beliefs wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Your points are all well taken.

I suspect, though, that BB knows the details quite well. This is pretty much general knowledge in the reality-based community. This was a decision that she took for political reasons, and it essentially cost-free, since it is a referendum rather than a US Congressional action that is at issue. Her opinion in this forum counts only as that of an ordinary citizen; she eliminates the "Drugs!" hot button from the debate at no cost to the legalization campaign.

And welcome to DU.

[No Elephants]

47. You think you know more about the war on drugs than does Boxer?

She's not even trying to deal in facts or knowledge, but in her own re-election. Therefore, anything goes.

[Joey Liberal]

23. Boxer sold her soul

I used to admire her.

[mitchtv]

24. she was on my select list of donations

She is now off that list

[No Elephants]

48. I hope you will let her know that--and tell her why.

[lunatica]

57. Are you a one issue voter?

I'm sure you've looked at her record. She really is Progressive. I think she's simply distancing herself from an issue that her conservative opponent could and would use to defeat her. No one should forget the shock of having Prop 8 pass in California which is considered a Blue State. Any politician who is liberal or progressive has ample reason to be very nervous about the elections coming up.

[mitchtv]

67. No , but some are dealbreakers

this isn't , she'll get my vote, but her donation will go for Prop X ( to undo her deliberate damage)

[robinblue]

29. Does anyone know of any congresscritter that supports this?

[No Elephants]

49. Why is that a concern? This is a matter of California state law. (Which is all Boxer had to say.)

[karynnj]

59. Not exactly - Medical marijuana is legal, but this is to legalize marijuana altogether

if I read the op right.

[Alexander]

30. James Jeffords had a solid Democratic challenger running against him not too long ago.

Back when Jeffords was a Republican, before the switch.

His challenger was tied with him in the polls. They asked her, "Would you consider supporting legalized marijuana?"

She said "Yes, I would".

Lost the election by 10 points.

Moral of the story: Even in liberal Vermont, supporting legalization of marijuana can get you in trouble. The last thing I'd want to see is Boxer losing re-election over this issue.

Now, talk about medical marijuana, deprioritizing, or decriminalization, and public support is much higher. But legalization - that's still too much for a lot of people.

[No Elephants]

50. So, you leapt to the conclusion that the Democratic challenger lost to the incumbent only bc

of supporting legalization of marijuana?

Further, even assuming that conclusion was correct--which is a stretch, IMO--you don't think California today is any different from Vermont then?

BTW, which issue WOULD you like to see Boxer lose an election over? Or, can she talk Republican on all issues, because putting a (D) after your name makes all the difference in the world? Is it okay to vote against legalizing pot. to vote against choice, to vote for wars of aggression, etc., as long as those doing it put a (D) after their names.

Where and when do we draw the line?

Please also see Reply ##s 40, 42 and 43.

[Alexander]

58. It is the only plausible explanation, if you are familiar with this race.

If you look at any relevant polls even in the past year or two, there isn't an overwhelming majority of Americans who support legalization.

"Further, even assuming that conclusion was correct--which is a stretch, IMO--you don't think California today is any different from Vermont then?"

Possibly. But I see no need for Boxer to take an unnecessary risk. As far as I can tell, she never supported legalization, so at least she's being consistent.

"BTW, which issue WOULD you like to see Boxer lose an election over?"

I would not like to see Boxer lose at all, which is my point.

"Or, can she talk Republican on all issues, because putting a (D) after your name makes all the difference in the world?"

Oh please. She's one of the most liberal members of Congress, and the only Senator to challenge the 2004 election results. For you to leap to such a conclusion about Boxer is simply ridiculous.

Yes, I disagree with her on this one issue. But so what? We don't elect clones to Congress. The other 80-90% of the time, I agree with Boxer wholeheartedly. If you want a lawmaker who agrees with you 100% of the time, maybe you should run.

"Is it okay to vote against legalizing pot. to vote against choice, to vote for wars of aggression, etc., as long as those doing it put a (D) after their names."

Boxer is very pro-choice and voted against the Iraq War. So your argument makes no sense.

"Where and when do we draw the line?"

If you are seriously in favor of getting rid of Boxer because she doesn't support legalizing marijuana, then I have some bad news for you. Whoever replaces her is likely to disagree with you on some other important issue, especially if it's Carly Fiorina.

I certainly don't advocate throwing Boxer under the bus because of this one issue. Do you? Because it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.

[dionysus]

63. you caling boxer a DINO? have you lost your fucking mind?

let me clue you in on something. if you can't get yourself a bag without getting busted, you're not doing it right.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[karynnj]

60. These nationwide numbers back up your last two paragraphs

http://pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

(In the Jeffords example, the question would be what was she polling before saying that - Jeffords was quite popular. )

[Alexander]

62. Yep. Those numbers make sense.

I believe his challenger was tied with him in the polls just before making that statement.

[Aramchek]

31. It will pass, she might as well ride its coattails

[pattmarty]

55. I'm not so sure. Look what happened with prop 8 and all the BS.........

...........surrounding that vote. I hope that it does, because of the implications for the rest of the country. First California, then Vt, NY, Il, .......... In these times the tax "thing" means a lot too by giving "cover" to politicians to support it.

[Aramchek]

64. sad to say, but many more people will vote for reefer than human rights

[mitchtv]

68. Fuck, they gave rights to factory chickens that year

[pattmarty]

69. Well, I'm not so sure about that. The prop 8 deal (I am no expert...........

...........or authority on prop 8 either) was heavily influenced by the Mormons and my understanding a lot of blacks voted for it too. As far as it passing, my guess is it depends how much the "pros & cons" get involved and how much money either side spends. Sad to say thing is politics now all boils down to money in one way or another.

[JI7]

74. no, California has a history of voting against minorities, immigrants, gays while supporting

things like abortion rights, marijuana etc.

[mulsh]

33. I'll vote for the initiative and for Boxer.

She's been a very good senator. I don't expect to agree with every opinion she has.

[EFerrari]

35. That's unfortunate. n/t

[DissedByBush]

37. She's so full of it, parroting the drug warriors

"could lead to..."

"an increase in crime" How about a decrease. How many gangs will have their income cut out from under them as pot becomes literally dirt-cheap (it is a weed that grows anywhere).

And the basic logic: make something illegal legal, by definition you lower crime.

"vehicle accidents"

People smoke pot and drive as it is. There will be no increase in accidents. Simply enforce it the same way drinking and driving is enforced.

"higher costs for local law enforcement agencies"

See #1. They'll save loads of money not busting every pothead who's not hurting anyone, or busting granny for having five plants in her back yard.

The only thing they're sad about is not being able to seize stuff under the unconstitutional confiscation laws this drug war started.

They'll be sad about having fewer excuses to send in jackboot SWAT thugs to shoot people.

[Wizard777]

38. She's afraid it will increase crime. How?

Will the cops that shake down pot dealers have to start robbing liquor stores? Is that what they are REALLY afraid of? :eyes:

:banghead: Until that damned wall falls!

[No Elephants]

40. Why didn't she just say something like California state law is not within her jurisdiction?

It's for the people of California to decide for themselves.

She did not have to take a position, one way or another. She had a perfect out.

Massachusetts de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use, per a ballot initiative. Those in favor had cops in their ads. De-criminalization won. The world did not end.

[MindPilot]

53. Another nail in the coffin of the Democratic majority.

I will not vote for a drug warrior. Period.

[lunatica]

56. I love Barbara and will vote for her, but I disagree on this

It's not just pot. It's hemp and it's many, many uses that will benefit. The hemp industry could take off in California because right now it's illegal because Marijuana is illegal. Hemp doesn't get you high but because Marijuana does it follows (in some minds) that to grow hemp should also be illegal, although to buy the products that can be made from hemp isn't illegal. Why not develop that industry and all it's cottage industries? Who knows, maybe hemp can also be converted into an alternate source of energy.

[Odin2005]

61. More triagngulating bullshit!

[truthisfreedom]

70. Ridiculous. Barbara, go smoke a couple of hits and chill the fuck out.

See if you want to get in your car and drive afterward. Sheesh. Or commit a crime. See if you want to ANYTHING other than stay quietly in your home having a beer and some munchies watching the tube.

[socialist_n_TN]

71. If my senator was Barbara Boxer..................

(God I wish. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander here-ugh), I'd give her a pass on this one and I've been a legalize it person since the mid-60s. I DO wish she would have said something like "That's a state referendum. Whatever the people of California say is what I'll support." But she didn't and that's OK. Whether it was politically motivated or whether she actually believes the BS she spouted, I don't have to agree with my rep all of the time. Just most of the time.

[Cal Carpenter]

72. Of course she does

Why does is this news, or surprising to people? As a Democratic Senator,it would be much more shocking, much more newsworthy, for her to support legalization.

Of course on a major issue like this (which it is - because it covers the whole idea of the war on drugs and our 'justice'/prison system to boot and all the economic and social implications of those things), she is going to support the status quo.

:shrug:

[yurbud]

73. way to give ammunition to the other side...do Democrats TRY to lose on purpose?

[NuttyFluffers]

75. foolishness. sometimes silence is golden.

even vagaries like, "i will listen to the will of the CA voters on this one," is more than enough to say. as a holder of power she should know that not everything needs your own political commentary. taking sides on every issue is a fast way to alienate your friends and bolster your enemies...

[greymattermom]

76. DEA

would not allow it, and federal laws trump state laws. Why not make possession a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, sort of like jaywalking? This is what happens in much of Canada.

[Flaneur]

77. Then let DEA try to bust a million California pot smokers.

[shanti]

90. it is a misdemeanor already

that's not what this is about.

[defendandprotect]

81. Disappointing . . .Drug War is a right wing concept .... AND, the other day ...

I think on Thom Hartmann, they were mentioning that in the 1950's, the

British government simply offered anyone addicted to drugs to report that to

them -- you had to have a doctor's report that this was true -- and the government

would give you the drugs!!



Voila!!

I think we're so overcome and buried under the right wing garbage on this issue

that it's difficult to see behyond their propaganda --

[AngryAmish]

82. been nice to know you

[MisterP]

83. very funny, Mary Whitehouse's ghost, now get out of the Senator nt

[Old Troop]

84. How progressive of her

My only question is, who would benefit from legalization? Would the current illegal operators come out of the shadows and control the trade? In the early '70s we were told that the cigarette companies already had packaging and marketing programs ready to go if it was legalized. Why not treat it as we do alcohol? What about other drugs?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

87. The dealers would be driven out of business because of the lack of profit.

I imagine it would be like cigarettes, where Philip Morris-type companies sell it in mass, but you could also roll your own like you can with loose tobacco.

[tburnsten]

85. Legalizing a nearly harmless substance

That results in millions of otherwise peaceful and productive adults per year being charged with various crimes simply for indulging would INCREASE crime in her mind?

I think she is past her prime. Time to move on and allow someone with a functional mind to run for that seat.

[Vidar]

88. She's allowed to be wrong once in a while.

[jmowreader]

91. Barbara Boxer knows something a lot of people here don't seem to

There are a LOT of Repukes in California. Yes, it's a blue state, but it's also got nineteen Republican congressmen. They came from SOMEWHERE, right?

If Barbara Boxer comes out and says she's FOR legalization, the Fiorina camp is going to flood the Repuke areas with "Barbara Boxer wants your children to smoke marijuana" ads, and we'll be looking at Senator Carly for six years.

If she says she has no opinion on it, the Fiorina camp will interpret that as "Boxer is for it" and flood the airwaves with footage of six-year-olds rolling blunts just like Barbara Boxer wants to teach your children to. Once again, Senator Carly.

If she ignores the issue, the Fiorina camp will wonder, in multimillion-dollar ad buys, why Barbara Boxer isn't telling the parents of California she's trying to get bongs added to the school supplies list for third grade.

The ONLY way she can defuse the issue is by channeling the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

[tburnsten]

92. Seems like a great way to open herself up to shots

for going back on campaign promises later on to me.

Does she even have any real role in whether or not marijuana is legalized in California, other than giving her opinion to the state legislature?

[jmowreader]

93. She doesn't even get THAT much input

US senators don't get to affect the workings of the state laws their legislatures pass, or the citizen initiatives their citizens sign off on.

[tburnsten]

94. I didn't think so

I'm starting to feel a little less like she abandoned a major improvement in our legal system and more like it was a politically neccessary maneuver that didn't have any actual effect on the change in question.

[jmowreader]

96. Precisely...

Publicly taking the Prohibitionist stand (even if she is in complete agreement with the need to legalize it) is the ONLY way to keep the Repukes from running an ad telling The People how Senator Boxer thinks everyone, no matter their age, should be allowed to smoke marijuana.

[tburnsten]

99. For what it's worth, I don't really approve of misrepresenting your stance for political gains

At all.

But I do understand it, and am not incensed about this particular case since she doesn't have any real pull in the matter anyway, except with all the people of her district who look up to her as a leader and expect her to follow relevant legal issues such as this, which does give her a lot of influence even in state-only matters.

[Romulox]

95. Political cowardice. An example of a Democrat at her most craven.... nt

[cadmium]

98. In a senatorial campaign this is a nonissue. It

matters nothing to policy what a candidate says about pot legalization.