California Vs Eric Holder?

If you were visiting California from just about any other state (Oregon and parts of Colorado excepted), you'd be forgiven for believing marijuana was already legal. After all, you can get it from a plethora of 'medical' vendors, and there seems no shortage of 'doctors' who will write you a note.

But you'd be wrong. Marijuana is still most definitely illegal in the Golden State. Voters will be given a chance to change that on November 2.

I won't go into the arguments for and against the proposition (#19) that proposes legalization. I am more interested in what will happen if the measure is passed. US Attorney General Eric Holder has stated the DEA will not recognize the state law and will aggressively enforce the federal statutes.

This potential conflict will give the thoughtful among us a reason to reflect on the old question of State's Rights in a Democratic Republic. Some will come to the conclusion that California has no business passing laws that contradict federal law. Others will conclude that drug laws shouldn't be national, but should be decided at the state level.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other, except for this: I dislike laws that make a substantial portion of our otherwise law-abiding population into criminals. And I dislike the crime and violence that follows illegal drugs.

I'm not sure legalizing marijuana is the right solution, but cracking down on the kids that smoke it sure isn't.

It will be interesting to see how things play out on November 2, and in the aftermath if the proposition passes. It has the makings of an interesting legal drama ...