XPost: talk.politics.drugs
From: erj66@xs4all.nl

On 22-01-2004 21:22, in article 1010c8qefe9a56d@corp.supernews.com, "Arnold
Sw."  wrote:

>
> "Eric Johnson"  wrote in message
> news:BC35DE19.41EDF%erj66@xs4all.nl...
>> On 22-01-2004 19:40, in article 101068cfd73l343@corp.supernews.com,
> "Arnold
>> Sw."  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Eric Johnson"  wrote in message
>>> news:BC35BAE1.41E75%erj66@xs4all.nl...
>>>> On 22-01-2004 16:43, in article 100vrsqfmrbmo66@corp.supernews.com,
>>> "Arnold
>>>> Sw."  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have a nice day Mike......mine is.... Oh yes I back to being a
> crossing
>>>>> guard again.........came out of retirement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How horrible. But not surprising as the law enforcement in Sacramento
> and
>>>> surrounding counties refuse to acknowledge proposition 215.
>>>>
>>>> EJ
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh they do EJ......but Feds don't & Federal Laws supersedes the States.
> Like
>>> when they rearrested the pot growers last week.
>>> To bad, so sad 
>>>
>>>
>> The action was precipitated by the D/A's wish to eliminate the medical
>> defense. I wonder what she was afraid of?
>>
>> EJ
>
>
> The Feds coming back at her for not upholding the Law would be a good one!
>
>
Local officials are -not- charged with enforcing federal law. They may do so
by turning cases over to the federal attorney or in cooperative cases, but
this is usually not the case.

The feds enforce federal law and the state officials enforce state laws.

Finally, there is a law in California which prohibits California prosecutors
and police from enforcing Federal laws which conflict with state ones.

This DA may have opened herself up to state criminal charges.

EJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)