L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca says deputies would enforce marijuana laws even if Prop. 19 passes
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Friday his deputies’ marijuana enforcement would not change even if Proposition 19, which would legalize the drug in California, passes Nov. 2.
“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff's headquarters in Monterey Park.
Baca, whose department polices three-fourths of the county, was bolstered Friday by an announcement from the Obama administration that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.
Baca said the proposition was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.
Campaign contributions: Who has given for and against Prop. 19?
Flanked by other opponents of the measure, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Baca made a colorful assault on marijuana use and sales. Asked if he had ever experimented with the drug, Baca was unequivocal. “Hell no,” he said.
California’s laws for personal users already are lenient, he said.
“If you have a need for an ounce or less … then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” he said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”
Baca said personal users smoking in their homes were already a non-priority for police agencies, including his own. His department’s target, he said, are the dealers.
Baca came out against the measure early on, joining forces with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to defeat it. Polls have shown California voters are split.
Baca said Friday local law enforcement agencies should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana even if the state measure passes.
“[Prop.] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” he said
-- Robert Faturechi in Monterey Park
Photo: L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca. Credit: Los Angeles Times
Proposition 19: California's marijuana legalization debate








This is disgraceful. America: The Land of Where State And Federal Police Tell YOU, Whats Good For You. We have very good reasons to pass this proposition, along with the overwhelming support. So why must "our protectors" spit in our faces and say "I TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE"?
Posted by: Joe | October 17, 2010 at 02:34 PM
I These pot heads waste time taking potshots at Baca instead of learning the facts:
Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects.
Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.
Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia.
Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and has been determined to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.
Know the facts.
Vote NO on 19.
Baca has it right.
Posted by: USAPatriot | October 17, 2010 at 09:10 PM
Well my life has been ruined all over being in possession of 0.3 grams of marijuana.....the sheriff's prosecuted me over it & even took me to trial.........
http://batteredbypd.wordpress.com
Posted by: batteredbypd | October 17, 2010 at 09:24 PM
Baca's statement prove's my earlier posting. Why Vote? The govenment and Heads of State do not care what the people want. They do what they want regardless. And for that, they should all be replaced. Somehow.
Posted by: Nikeylynn | October 18, 2010 at 12:48 AM
I think Lee Baca needs to take a step back. I don't think he, or Obama, have a say in if they should enforce if it passes. The American people in California are voting on it. Just like they voted for Baca. Just like they voted for Obama. This guy keeps stating opinions instead of fact. I think these guys need to study up on what "Will of the people" means. This is a threat to attack Americans if we don't do what the government wants. I say impeach them both. I thought Obama was going to cut corruption. Here is a guy saying that he will enforce a law that won't exist. Lee Baca. There you go Obama administration! A REAL criminal! If they carry out what they say they are going to do then we need to "vigorously impeach".
Posted by: jim | October 18, 2010 at 08:47 AM
Isn't this the same guy that tried to force Scientology on school children through "Drug Awareness"?
Posted by: jim | October 18, 2010 at 08:50 AM
This is outrageous. The LA County Sheriffs Dept is a State level employment. They are not federal agents, they are put in place to enforce the laws set forth by the state of California. To look over a state law to enforce a federal law is to over step there bounds and put personal bias in front of the state law. This is an injustice to the freedoms of the people of California.
Posted by: Scott B | October 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Are there any other laws which enjoy almost 50 %of the voters supporting repeal? Remember that SCOTUS tossed all consensual sodomy laws a few years ago.
Not even repeal of the income tax has that kind of support. In 2008 the voters in Massachusetts defeated a ballot initiative to do just that, do away with their State income ta. The idea got only 30% support. On the same ballot the very same voters decided to decriminalize petty possession of cannabis. That margin was 65% to 35%. Landslide numbers there. But still we have to hear the hokum that the know nothings like to proffer in their argument that 'its the law' when the know nothings talking about their fabrications of cannabis fiction.
Posted by: Duncan20903 | October 18, 2010 at 12:12 PM
How many times have we heard law enforcement officials say, "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." Now, we have the head of a major law enforcement agency vowing to disregard the law. It is little wonder that respect for authority is eroding in America.
Posted by: Weathereye | October 18, 2010 at 01:13 PM
Well, county officers aren't federal agents, which means that he would be unable to make arrests...The only thing he could do is to assist a would be federal investigation...Someone needs to explain to this 'police offiver' that he doesn't have the right to make his own laws...Mioght want to explain that cannabis is less harmful that alcohol or tobacco while you are at it....The nazis have lost the intellectual debate so they stick to their GUNS
Posted by: jeff | October 18, 2010 at 01:22 PM
This is just about as un-american as you could get.
Posted by: R.Link | October 18, 2010 at 01:42 PM
Sheriff Baca clearly does not take his responsibilities to uphold state law very seriously. He obviously believes that his position as sheriff puts him above the law, and gives him the right to choose which laws to uphold.
There is absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution that requires a state to enforce Federal laws, and in fact, California stopped enforcing alcohol prohibition while it was still a Constitutional Amendment, as did New York State.
Law enforcement officials life Baca and Cooley need some lessons in civics before they start spouting off in public forums on how they intend to ignore a state law which they personally don't like or do not approve of.
Posted by: Brinna Nanda | October 18, 2010 at 01:54 PM
Lee Baca gets a huge amount of his campaign money from the Church of Scientology. Scientology gets a huge amount of their money from their faux rehab center Narconon. Narconon gets most of its money from people forced to go to rehab because of marijuana charges. It's a few degrees of separation but Baca has a financial interest in this Proposition. Not exactly a man anyone should bother listening to. His hollow threats are merely trying to intimidate voters. If he indeed does what he says he will, he'll be falsely imprisoning countless people who will all be cleared of any charges and in a perfect position to sue.
Posted by: Chris | October 18, 2010 at 02:06 PM
Someone should start a petition to get him relieved of his position, or at least demand a retraction of his comments.
http://www.change.org/start-a-petition
Posted by: Chris | October 18, 2010 at 02:22 PM
To Cooler heads:
So you have seen "the pain and suffering that marijuana causes" why dont you be a little more specific. What "pain and suffering" has marijuana caused. Dont just generalize either tell us all exactly what pain and suffering you are refering to.
Posted by: Eric Byers | October 18, 2010 at 03:02 PM
This cop is obviously either paid for by the alcohol industry... or just doesn't want to give up the billions in federal aid (or maybe he just likes his deputies to have easy work... busting people for smoking weed... the easiest bust by far!)
hey sheriff... why don't you bust the alcohol shops too??? wasn't alcohol ALSO illegal and the voters repealed the prohibition of it?
REVOLUTION NOW!
Posted by: RevolutionNewsDotUS | October 18, 2010 at 11:19 PM
I may be in Florida, however me and all my neighbors, friend and co-workers are all about 100 times more likely to take a vacation to California to be able to buy some "legal" marijuana and consume it there while on vacation legally. I am like most marijuana users, have smoked pot all our lives, never got in trouble with law or caught with it and lead very highly respectible and responsible lives. I am near 50 and always had a wonderful life, never been arrested for anything. I dont drink and been smoking pot since I was 11 almost on a daily basis. California doesnt realize it will have a tremendous tourist boom on their hands as millions of Americans are looking forward to vacation traveling to California as "pothead tourists".
No matter what anyone says, its not that pot causes trouble in communities but it is unfortunate that trouble makers happen to smoke pot. Thats not to say that all pot smokers are trouble makers. Many of us smoke pot but say we dont when we are surveyed on the subject. I am all for it and I hope this causes a domino effect in the western states where all of them legalize the drug.
Posted by: Florida Joe | October 19, 2010 at 12:52 AM
In all honesty, I'm not surprised by this. Do you honestly think that the police will stop busting people for minor possession just because of a ballot measure? Criminals generate jobs for law enforcement, and considering that our prisons are being filled with non-violent drug users at an exponentially larger rate every year, why would they want to cut off their cash flow?
The police don't want to see their paychecks decrease. That's all there is to it, as sad as that reality is.
Posted by: Jerry | October 19, 2010 at 06:16 AM
I think Lee Baca, is making this a personal issue, if he wants to enforce federal laws, let him enforce, imigration. Whats a matter baca? You afraid of enforceing imigration? CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You were elected by the people. What happened to the will of the people. You make arrests, get your convitions. People go to jail for 90 days ,you let them out in 35-40 days for good behavior. You complain that your jails are overcrowded, and that your buget is strained. And what about paris hilton?you should have been held in contempt of court. Hilton was released, in less than 24 hours. Seems to me, that your prioritys are all screwed up. shame on you. What a waste of tax payers money. Who are you kidding?
Posted by: leg inspector | October 19, 2010 at 07:43 AM
This is really a stupid article, like a federal law has any effect. Give me a break. Time to vote this tyrant Baca out.
Posted by: Joe | October 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM
The push for legalizing marijuana in California reflects a greater push nationwide to legalize this substance and the Prop 19 vote is just the tip of the iceberg to gain momentum for something that, to me, seems to be a no-brainer. I am shocked at people's perception of marijuana in light of the fact that a much more dangerous substance, alcohol, IS legal. I simply don't get it. I am a successful, ambitious, well educated person who smokes pot. I am not lazy, nor an idiot. The only drug that has ever interfered with my life has been alcohol. Alcohol, to me, is one of the worst drugs, yet it is in our face everywhere we turn. It is a social lubricant that is hard to escape. Alcohol is physically addictive, whereas pot is not. Alcohol is the only drug where you can actually die from withdrawls. Have you ever encountered alcoholism? Have you ever seen how ugly and ravaging it can be? On the flipside, have you ever seen a pothead throwing up, skinny, shaking from withdrawls, having their stomach pumped? No. You haven't. Do I think everyone should be stoned all the time? No. But if we are going to allow one of the worst vices to be legal, then why not one that is less so? Maybe people would smoke more and drink less. To me, that would be a good thing. Smoking pot does not lead to violence, unlike drinking. Some studies show that small amounts of pot might actually improve driving ability. And of course, there are the multitudes of social benefits to legalizing pot: free up our police to fight real threats to society, free up our courts, free up our overcrowded prisons, take away business from violent drug cartels, provide new and taxable business. Also, one of the biggest disparities in Los Angeles County is the racist ways prohibition is used to charge minorities: In 2008, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests, the majority of them young men of color. In Los Angeles County alone, the marijuana possession arrest rate of
African Americans is more than 300% higher than the same arrest rate of
whites, although blacks made up less than 10% of the county’s
population, according to a DPA report. This is just sickening. Legalize it. Tax it. Allow people a vice that is less destructive than alcohol.
Posted by: Responsible Angelina | October 19, 2010 at 11:40 AM
This guy is a complete idiot. When I was coming up they said if you don't like the laws change them. They were only enforce'n the laws they didn't make them. Law is law and nobody is above it. He should try and be more like Andy Taylor. Up hold the law and protect his people. This guy isn't even fit enough to be a crossing guard.
Posted by: eric jon petriken | October 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Wonderful, a State Sheriff that says he won't follow the will of the people or the law if prop 19 passes. A sheriff that won't follow the law should is not a very good example.
Posted by: Mark D. Shapiro | October 19, 2010 at 08:00 PM
So a county sherrif is going to try to enforce a federal law- under what authority? He's not a fed. Can anyone say violation of the 10th amendment!
Posted by: Sam | October 20, 2010 at 09:08 AM
[quote]After Prop 19 passes, state law will have been changed (regardless of what the feds want). It will no longer be against the law to be in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, or to grow a small amount in your own home in California. When he tries to arrest people that haven't broken state law, judges are going to laugh at him and tell him to stop wasting their time. If the feds want to continue to enforce an unwinnable war on marijuana, let them try. But state resources (such as Sheriff Lee Baca) will no longer be capable of aiding in marijuana prohibition. And if California law enforcement does continue to enforce existing marijuana laws after Prop 19 passes, that is in direct violation of citizen's rights. In other words, you can't be arrested for something that isn't against the law. Think about it. What would happen if an officer arrested you for being in possession of a six pack of beer that was in the trunk of your car when you were pulled over? What would that officer tell the judge when you go before a court? Would he tell the judge that alcohol was once illegal and he wished it was still illegal, so he had the right to arrest you? That's about the same logic this ignorant sheriff in Los Angeles County would have...that marijuana was against the law and he wishes it still was. Doesn't matter. It won't be against the law in California if Prop 19 passes. Good luck, Sheriff Lee Baca. [/quote]
You are missing his angle here. He will "arrest" and hold the person for the feds. The person will be in federal court not state court. He has in essence stated that his department are now a federal enforcers.
Posted by: A Human Being | October 20, 2010 at 09:51 AM