Kamala Harris reacts to feds’ marijuana blitz

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has now issued a brief statement about the recently announced federal crackdown on California’s medical marijuana dispensaries:

“Californians overwhelmingly support the compassionate use of medical marijuana for the ill. We should all be troubled, however, by the proliferation of gangs and criminal enterprises that seek to exploit this law by illegally cultivating and trafficking marijuana. While there are definite ambiguities in state law that must be resolved either by the state legislature or the courts, an overly broad federal enforcement campaign will make it more difficult for legitimate patients to access physician-recommended medicine in California. I urge the federal authorities in the state to adhere to the United States Department of Justice’s stated policy and focus their enforcement efforts on ‘significant traffickers of illegal drugs.”

Of course, that’s exactly what the feds say they’re doing, anyway.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Rick K.

    Kamala Harris was a joke as a “prosecutor” in San Francisco and is even more of a joke as California’s supposed top law enforcement official. The Obama Administration needed to take action because Proposition 215 has morphed from being “marijuana as a privately-grown pharmaceutical plant” into a shield for organized crime and murderous Mexican drug cartels to make lots of money. Does Ms. Harris approve of the destruction of our national forests by marijuana growers, whose gun-toting guards kill hapless hikers? Every “dispensary” should be forced to disclose the exact provenance of every bit of marijuana sold. If any of them are supporting the murderous marijuana drug trade, then everyone with knowledge should be forced to forfeit every dollar of their ill-gotten gains and all of their related assets. And why must I be forced to breathe someone else’s “medicine” (a.k.a. second-hand marijuana smoke) at public parks and on public sidewalks? Harris is just biding time to become California governor. She’ll follow Moonbeam’s model by doing nothing as A.G. except for a few high-profile cases and spend most of her time raising money for the next statewide post. Maybe Steve Cooley will re-challenge her and she’ll be a one-termer.

  • WAP

    In response to Rick K., your comments confirm how really really stupid and self-righteous you are. Additionally, since its abundantly clear by your tone and failed commentary that you understand nothing about the Law. Do yourself and others a favor and take the time necessary to properly educate yourself before your submit your unintelligible verdict of others that in your entire life could never hold a candle too. Reading what you wrote offers positive essential that you slept through school!!

  • rew

    I thought Kamala Harris was a pretty good as SF DA. SF had long had terrible prosecutors, Terrence Hallinan, Joe Frietas – blew slam dunk Dan White case, Arlo Smith – boy was he a bumbler, I mean you had a series of loser DA’s in SF. Kamala was really pretty good compared to these losers. Not great, but better than average. While Harris has only held AG job for awhile, she seems to ahve a good pulse on the state. California is no longer a hard core law order state – if it ever was. Harris is progressive on a lot of law enforcement issues, which seems to match the views of the average Californian.

  • Elwood

    @ #2

    Speaking of sleeping through school, you could benefit greatly from a course in remedial grammar.

  • Truthclubber

    Let’s be real here — this is merely 2012 kabuki theatre for Obama’s re-election hopes; he gets to look all “tough on crimy-like” with his crackdown on pot growers here in a state that is safely blue come November ’12, so no loss, all gain.

    Meanwhile, in Colorado (where they are doing EXACTLY the same thing — growing el weedo for “medical purposes” like there’s no tomorrow) — where is the Fed crackdown THERE? Why, that’s a horse of another color, since Colorado is a battleground state, and we don’t want no potheads votin’ against Obama THERE!

  • John W

    Re: #5

    Ummmm. I don’t know about that analysis. You’re right about Colorado. However, I don’t see the political upside to Obama in this. It’s not like independents in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are going to say, “oh boy, Obama’s cracking down on weed in California, so guess I’ll vote for him again.” And the folks in Colorado who would hold it against him, and are most definitely aware of what’s going on here, aren’t going to give him points because the initial crackdown is in California and not Colorado. My theory is that this has more to do with not picking and choosing on which issues states get to blatantly thumb their noses at federal juridiction. If they’re going to let states do their own thing on weed, then why not immigration too?