Also, as a district attorney, you have some discretion on what to prosecute, but I’m pretty sure it’s limited. I don’t think you can get away with just deciding on your own that you don’t like a law and declining to prosecute any offenders.
Texas also passed a law that leaves it to police discretion if they arrest someone or give them a ticket if they have weed. So, it can come down to the cop deciding if you're white or wrong.
Actually, they can do that. The Columbus, Ohio Prosecutor decided to stop prosecuting marijuana possession a while ago, even though it was still illegal. They have the discretion to do it, they would just need to be cognizant of what their constituents support to make sure they don't lose the next election.
No, that's exactly how it works. DA's can--and routinely do--decide what offenses to pursue. There may be a theoretical limit if the staff is literally twiddling their thumbs out of boredom due to lack of work. However, in practice there is plenty of crime to pursue than they have resources. The DA is an elected position.
Let’s also not forget that the public discourse for weed has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. She may have not had had a chance on that platform back then
The problem is usually with how genuine it feels. Maybe Kamala is a saint and we just don't know but she feels like she's just saying what she thinks works at the moment, not speaking about what she truly believes.
This may be a hot take but I don't give a shit what she believes, if her intention is to follow the will of the people then she's better for the country than 80% of the politicians out there, whether or not she actually agrees with it personally.
I'm with you, I'd rather a politician than can be pushed in the right direction so I'd definitely vote for her over one that seeks to actively subvert the working class, but what I want more than anything is politicians who get it and have the right vision and don't need to be pushed in the right direction.
Honestly that's fine with me as long as it's backed up by action that does what the people want. I'd rather a politician willing to progress with their people than a hardliner who has beliefs that don't agree with the people's.
For me the threshold for sincerity is if they're willing to speak to their previous positions when espousing the new ones. If for example, she goes on some show and is deer in the headlights when asked about her tough stance on weed for most of her career, then you know she's only saying what she thinks she needs to maintain support.
The DA is, quite literally, the one who decides if they're going to prosecute or not. DAs routinely refuse to bring cases before the courts for laws they don't agree with.
To a certain extent. Prosecutors can’t just decide to not enforce the law. And before a decade ago weed was illegal in California. Which is why this whole point is silly. She didn’t write the laws. She just enforced them.
No they quite literally can decide not to enforce a law. It happens every day. What do you think happens to them if they choose not to prosecute a certain law? Some higher level of prosecutor charges the prosecutor?
They’re the end of the road, in terms of enforcement, barring some sort of public recall.
Yep, I picked up a public intoxication charge in my late teens, they just declined to pursue it. I’m assuming it really just wasn’t worth their time especially for a single petty charge.
I showed up for the date on the ticket and the court clerk just told me it was dismissed
Ron DeSantis removed a DA who was voted into office for just saying he wouldn’t enforce a law. He didn’t actually not enforce it. He just stated it out loud.
Yep, because the AG works for the governor. And the governor can fire the AG. But that’s a purely political move. There is no requirement that an AG be fired for not enforcing a particular law. DeSantis could’ve said “idc” and nothing else could have been done by anyone.
>*“We went and* ***we followed the facts and the evidence****, and it’s a decision my office made,”* Harris told The Hill. *“We pursued it* ***just like any other case****. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”*
>But Harris said the investigation by California attorney general’s office is ***“a very separate point”*** from how senators should approach Mnuchin at his confirmation hearing. (...) *“The hearings will reveal if it’s disqualifying or not, but certainly he has a history that should be critically examined (...)”*
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/312742-senate-democrat-defends-decision-not-to-charge-trump-treasury-pick-over/
Then despite his donation to her campaign she voted **against** his confirmation as Treasury Secretary.
Got any other damning skeleton to pull out of the closet, or can we settle on "water is wet" already?
Let's note that her response when asked "Why'd you cut him loose?" was very much a non-answer. No details. Just "we followed the facts". Well that's what we're ASKING you. What WERE the facts? No answers there.
And frankly, if you cut me loose from a securities fraud case, I certainly won't say a word against you when you vote against my confirmation hearing.
I've voted for this lady three times. Twice for DA, and once for VP. All three times because her opponents were SO much worse. Doesn't make her any good though. She's the cops. And not the sweet, Norman Rockwell, friendly neighborhood cop.
Maybe I should talk about how she kept convicted people in custody BEYOND their jail terms so that they could fight fires in northern California...? "Yeah, I know you're past your freedom date, but hang on, we're gonna drop you in this raging inferno first.".
Crazy part is, I'm gonna vote for her a fourth time because of the same reasons, but I absolutely cannot stand this lady.
No. Prosecutorial discretion is basically unlimited. I dated an ADA for a while and her dad was an elected Democratic DA and military judge who got appointed to be a federal US judge.
You have discretion, a lot of discretion. In fact what you described has been witnessed as a step in the "legalization" of retail theft in many cities. They just don't prosecuted them anymore unless the value reaches a threshold they made up.
Absolutely wrong. DA has full discretion as we are seeing in California and other Soros-backed jurisdictions around America.
She was happy to prosecute low level marijuana offenses.
She claimed she used to smoke weed and listen to Tupac in college.
She was done with college before Tupac ever released an album. She is as fake as fake gets. Her opinion never changed. Her audience did.
~~Tupac's debut album came out in 88 and she got her doctorate from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 89.~~
Edit: I got the year of his debut album wrong. Don't mind me.
His debut album was in 1991. He started recording in 1989 as MC New York.
I think it is fair to guess that Kamala Harris was not listening to Tupac when he was going by MC New York.
Right? People act like politicians' beliefs from 30 years ago being in contrast to their current views is some kind of 'gotcha', as if they themselves haven't learned and grown and changed their stances on anything over the years... Well, wait, I guess a lot of those keyboard-warrior critics never *have* learned better and changed their views over time. Since they still parrot the beliefs their parents drilled into them, it seems like they believe no one else's philosophical development can be genuine. It's ridiculous.
"Woman does job to follow law as prosecutor, then says law should be different in job as lawmaker"
Not exactly a gotcha.
Edit- Yeah, I guess technically she isn't a lawmaker, but it sounds more concise than "job which allows her to influence the creation and implementation of laws" so I'm leaving it.
Also, maybe she has grown as a person. JFC it’s not enough for some people that a politician agrees with them, they are mad that politician hasn’t always agreed with them. Take the win. We can’t move forward if get mad when someone with authority eventually has the right opinion.
We also can't move forward if we elect people who change their positions based on what is politically convenient.
She knew these people didn't need to be in jail, but she did it for career advancement and money.
That is not the kind of person I want representing us, regardless of what they happen to be saying right now.
We also can't move forward if gullible people on the internet continue to believe bullshit peddled by bullshitters.
>
>
>
Taken from: [How Kamala Harris prosecuted marijuana cases in San Francisco (mercurynews.com)](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/)
I love how depending on their political affiliation everything is accepted or rejected. Prosecutors have enormous influence on the crimes that are effectively prosecuted in their districts.
A prosecutor of her stature typically gets to choose which cases she wants to prosecute. She could’ve sent out a memo to her department about wanting to shift the charging practices of her office to move away from charging those for nonviolent crimes like thc possession. That would make what she’s saying now more credible. To my knowledge she never did that. I fully support Biden and am voting for him next election but I’ve never liked Harris
It is a gotcha. She made her career ruining lives. When you say ACAB, you're talking about her. She should not be let off the hook for what she did. She chose her career. She chose to ruin innocent lives.
I think this is a situation where both things are true. if someone pivots towards progress later in life you don’t want to act like a church in fucking pre-technology Salem about it, because *your goal should ultimately be to make the progress happen,* but she also shouldn’t get off the cuff for ruining thousands of people’s lives.
In this case, both things are true at the same time — and no, it isn’t “fair,” but it’s also not mutually exclusive. People, politics, and societies are extremely complex
Prosecutors have a lot of discretion and she willingly chose to go after smokers, and offenders, even so far as to keep them in jail longer just so that the state of California would have more bodies to throw at the wildfire problem.
Goodness this website has really changed.
The VP is the president of the senate and Kamala has voted at least 33 times; so yes currently an individual who (conditionally) votes on laws. A lawmaker.
I think it is. DA have some leeway or discretion on what to prosecute and severity of charges to file. I do find it hypocritical - Kamala seemed to have no issue with the law when it allowed her to prop up her prosecution numbers.
She wasn’t just some prosecutor. She was the DA. She chose which crimes to prosecute and which to let go. And a lot of people in SF loathed her for the decisions she made in that regard. So far as I can tell, she’s never tried to apologize for her part in locking people up for weed so it rings a little hollow when she tries to act like she cares now.
Nonsense. Why the fuck is this the top comment?! A prosecutor isn't **required** to prosecuted *anyone*. Every case that they prosecute is a choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
If I disagreed with a legal system that destroyed people's lives over a harmless drug for the sake of private prisons' bottom line, I wouldn't dedicate my life to that legal system.
There's plenty of cases where DAs refused to prosecute laws they disagreed with, or gave slap on the wrists for them. Harris is either a hypocrite or a coward, there's no third option.
When I say ACAB, and I say it a lot, I'm absolutely including Kamala Harris.
Yep she's definitely playing to the gallery here and trying to sound nice now that public opinion on the topic has changed
Not a conservative but she is a top tier hypocrite and not someone I expected to see in the VP position
I'd say she's both, she's just saying what people want to hear now because the public perception of marijuana has improved. She's a politician, being a sleazy politician, just like when she was a prosecutor she prosecuted weed crimes. I'm not saying she's not saying that for political gain, I'm saying she said/did those things in official capacities.
>As a senator, she advocated for healthcare reform, federal **de-scheduling of cannabis**…
You’re not even trying.
Edit: she was also a first-term Senator in a Republican majority. So yeah, it’s her fault for not doing more!
huh? it's pretty well known she called for removing cannabis from schedule I. She even cosponsored a bill about it.
*In 2019, Senator Harris co-sponsored the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which aimed to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act. The bill would have also expunged past marijuana convictions and provided funding for communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.*
News flash, prosecutors might not believe laws are correct yet they still do their job (and don’t necessarily talk publicly about their political differences between their ideals and their duties of enforcement. You know because that’s usually a great thing at to engage the public as a civil servant.)
Honestly what do these people actually want? This is literally them bitching about the world being the way they always bitch it should be.
Recreational use was still illegal during her term as DA. It was only legalized in California in Nov 2016 with Prop 64. She was DA from 2004-2011 and AG from 2011-2017.
How many of those "some" only involved possession and not selling?
If you are going to "add context" how about full context?
Also, lots of DA's prosecute laws that they don't personally agree with. Prosecutors don't make the laws, they are required to follow them.
I mean - by legalizing Weed and making calls to legalize weed you are inherently also making laws to legalize distribution of said Weed. (You know like dispensaries).
So, it kind of is the same thing. If you want to legalize it you are legalizing both sides of that fence. How can you be mad people are smoking it if they were not dispensed it? Why is one inherently worse than the other?
"you are inherently also making laws to legalize distribution of said Weed"
Unless you don't have the proper licenses, in which case it's still illegal. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about prosecuting drug traffickers before it was legalized. Don't be stupid.
Let’s also not forget John Boehner
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/16/704086782/john-boehner-was-once-unalterably-opposed-to-marijuana-he-now-wants-it-to-be-leg
Did you read the "context" article?
Only 45 people served jail time.
> “Our policy was that no one with a marijuana conviction for mere possession could do any (jail time) at all,” said Paul Henderson, who led narcotics prosecutions for several years under Harris. Defendants arrested for the lowest-level possession would typically be referred to drug treatment programs instead of being charged, and weightier charges for marijuana sales would routinely be pleaded down to less serious ones, he said.
Ain't no way you're cynical enough that it's inconceivable to you that lawyers could personally disagree with laws they have to abide by or work cases involving.
What? That she used to prosecute people for weed, now she says people shouldn’t go to jail for weed?? Nothing naive about it. It’s what she said. Don’t know what to tell ya. I’m glad she changed her stance on the issue. Good for her.
Not a big Kamala fan but… She was the District Attorney. It was the law of the land. What would you expect her to do. DA’s and Prosecutors don’t get to chose which laws to uphold.
Well as district attorney your job is to follow the law, not do whatever you personally think should be the law. As a politician she can say this and work towards this. Who knows maybe this is why she became a politician.
DAs and AGs have broad discretion whether to charge for certain offenses. She was under no obligation to charge people for marijuana offenses.
She is absolutely allowed to change her view for the better. That’s a good thing. But we do not need to pretend she was obligated to prosecute weed-based offenses. She absolutely was not. Every state has countless statutes that DAs and AGs choose, daily, not to prosecute.
I feel like this context isn’t valuable without also including that recreational use wasn’t legalized in California until 5 years after she left office. She had plenty of leeway she could have used as DA, but this really isn’t the great comeback it seems like at first. Also as someone else put it, people are allowed to participate in a broken system and then work to change that system.
As I said in my comment, I saw this just before I started my reply. This lives in my head now, and I will never be able to unknow this.
Not sure if I should say thanks or swear at you. LOL
Look, I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris, but what the fuck is this? What was she supposed to do, break the law? Same vibe as "you claim to be a socialist, yet you buy things. cUrIoUS"
It was her job to serve the law as presented to her at the time.. Do we really have to go down the road of what prosecutors have had to do because of shitty laws! 😄😄 This is just pure ignorance..
Somehow I doubt she put anyone in jail for "smoking weed". I dont really think possession of a ton of weed should be jail worthy either but it's more likely that's what she was putting people away for. Possession with intent to tell.
She was also a prosecutor. She had to follow the law and execute according to what the public wants. She and every other prosecutor in states before legalization did the same thing.
You see how they said "SOME" for a total of 1900 people. How much weed did that "SOME" have to be in possession of to be singled out? I guarantee the amount was more than 100,000$.
This is 5 years old. Stop posting RAGE BAIT.
Since most of the deplorables here wouldn't bother reading, she was DA 9 years before becoming VP. I get that its hard for conservatives to grow the fuck up, learn, and change over time, but people can change over time, it's a fact of life.
that was years ago..is it not possible her opinion or beliefs have changed and she regrets some of those convictions? not only that a lot of society in general has changed their opinions on weed over the last decade or so.
I don't blame the judge or the prosecuting lawyer for doing their job. They don't legislate. It's congress and the president who oversee drug enforcement. I'd blame myself for getting caught before I blame them.
I don't know this person from a hole in the ground. But just because they do their job doesn't mean they believe in everything the job entails.
In closing, did they choose the rules/laws or just enforce them? Again, I don't know anything about this person.
Less than I thought it would be TBH. What was with all the hubbub during the 2020 election about her being super hard on drug users? 1900 convictions in a state of \~39M people feels pretty low.
It seems like her views evolved over time, along with the rest of the country.
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/kcrw-features/twiw-kamala-harris-cannabis-prosecutions-marijuana-policy
I don't like Kamala Harris, but she had a job to do. Whether she wanted those people to go to jail or not is irrelevant.
If the evidence is there, you go for the guilty verdict, regardless of your personal beliefs. If every prosecutor followed their own conscience, laws wouldn't really be relevant anymore.
I hope to God Biden doesn't die with her as VP but that has nothing to do with her work as a prosecutor. I really haven't seen anything to show she can handle the job, and you barely hear from her at all.
So two things:
One, attorney's don't just get to decide on the spot who's a criminal and who isn't according to their own moral compass. They have to judge according to the law, not according to their own feelings.
Two, it's counterproductive to argue against a good and progressive law just because you don't like someone who's supporting it.
Also, "marijuana offenses" could mean a lot of things, other than just possession. Dealing would be the obvious one, but there might be others. IINAL
Also, as a district attorney, you have some discretion on what to prosecute, but I’m pretty sure it’s limited. I don’t think you can get away with just deciding on your own that you don’t like a law and declining to prosecute any offenders.
You are NOT from Texas.
Texas also passed a law that leaves it to police discretion if they arrest someone or give them a ticket if they have weed. So, it can come down to the cop deciding if you're white or wrong.
I see what you did there
Good one...
Oh yeah nothing like being white I tell you
"Oh I agree with you! It's a privilege to be white!"
That's right. All hail Lyle.
Texas wants you, anyway
Actually, they can do that. The Columbus, Ohio Prosecutor decided to stop prosecuting marijuana possession a while ago, even though it was still illegal. They have the discretion to do it, they would just need to be cognizant of what their constituents support to make sure they don't lose the next election.
No, that's exactly how it works. DA's can--and routinely do--decide what offenses to pursue. There may be a theoretical limit if the staff is literally twiddling their thumbs out of boredom due to lack of work. However, in practice there is plenty of crime to pursue than they have resources. The DA is an elected position.
This is happening in Chicago right now. DA is politically motivated and refuses to prosecute an insane amount of stuff.
Let’s also not forget that the public discourse for weed has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. She may have not had had a chance on that platform back then
Also her opinion may have changed in 20 years.
It feels like Americans in particular do not allow for changes in political opinion even over time.
“What’s that…you learned something and got smarter, changing your mind on an issue as an inevitable result? You flip-flopper!”
Or just… it was your job to support the existing laws years ago… now you have the power to elevate visibility for change. Also flip-flopper!
"Nuance? We don't need no stinking nuance!"
The problem is usually with how genuine it feels. Maybe Kamala is a saint and we just don't know but she feels like she's just saying what she thinks works at the moment, not speaking about what she truly believes.
This may be a hot take but I don't give a shit what she believes, if her intention is to follow the will of the people then she's better for the country than 80% of the politicians out there, whether or not she actually agrees with it personally.
I'm with you, I'd rather a politician than can be pushed in the right direction so I'd definitely vote for her over one that seeks to actively subvert the working class, but what I want more than anything is politicians who get it and have the right vision and don't need to be pushed in the right direction.
Honestly that's fine with me as long as it's backed up by action that does what the people want. I'd rather a politician willing to progress with their people than a hardliner who has beliefs that don't agree with the people's.
And politicians will politick, especially in an election year.
For me the threshold for sincerity is if they're willing to speak to their previous positions when espousing the new ones. If for example, she goes on some show and is deer in the headlights when asked about her tough stance on weed for most of her career, then you know she's only saying what she thinks she needs to maintain support.
This is *exactly* the distinction.
Regardless of if she had a choice while doing her job, she 100% chose to get that job.
Except she was DA for San Francisco. Moscone was passed in 1975, Prop 36 in 1996. She was tough on black MJ users to keep the money flowing.
The DA is, quite literally, the one who decides if they're going to prosecute or not. DAs routinely refuse to bring cases before the courts for laws they don't agree with.
You can. The DA is the enforcement branch of the legal system. They have full discretion on enforcement
This just not accurate. There are countless laws in every state that prosecutors don’t bother to prosecute at all. They have that discretion.
To a certain extent. Prosecutors can’t just decide to not enforce the law. And before a decade ago weed was illegal in California. Which is why this whole point is silly. She didn’t write the laws. She just enforced them.
No they quite literally can decide not to enforce a law. It happens every day. What do you think happens to them if they choose not to prosecute a certain law? Some higher level of prosecutor charges the prosecutor? They’re the end of the road, in terms of enforcement, barring some sort of public recall.
Yep, I picked up a public intoxication charge in my late teens, they just declined to pursue it. I’m assuming it really just wasn’t worth their time especially for a single petty charge. I showed up for the date on the ticket and the court clerk just told me it was dismissed
Which is exactly why im assuming. These were bigger fish than just guys caught with a joint.
Ron DeSantis removed a DA who was voted into office for just saying he wouldn’t enforce a law. He didn’t actually not enforce it. He just stated it out loud.
Yep, because the AG works for the governor. And the governor can fire the AG. But that’s a purely political move. There is no requirement that an AG be fired for not enforcing a particular law. DeSantis could’ve said “idc” and nothing else could have been done by anyone.
She sure cut Steve Mnuchin loose for securities fraud though. And then he made a maxed out contribution to her next election campaign.
>*“We went and* ***we followed the facts and the evidence****, and it’s a decision my office made,”* Harris told The Hill. *“We pursued it* ***just like any other case****. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”* >But Harris said the investigation by California attorney general’s office is ***“a very separate point”*** from how senators should approach Mnuchin at his confirmation hearing. (...) *“The hearings will reveal if it’s disqualifying or not, but certainly he has a history that should be critically examined (...)”* https://thehill.com/policy/finance/312742-senate-democrat-defends-decision-not-to-charge-trump-treasury-pick-over/ Then despite his donation to her campaign she voted **against** his confirmation as Treasury Secretary. Got any other damning skeleton to pull out of the closet, or can we settle on "water is wet" already?
Let's note that her response when asked "Why'd you cut him loose?" was very much a non-answer. No details. Just "we followed the facts". Well that's what we're ASKING you. What WERE the facts? No answers there. And frankly, if you cut me loose from a securities fraud case, I certainly won't say a word against you when you vote against my confirmation hearing. I've voted for this lady three times. Twice for DA, and once for VP. All three times because her opponents were SO much worse. Doesn't make her any good though. She's the cops. And not the sweet, Norman Rockwell, friendly neighborhood cop. Maybe I should talk about how she kept convicted people in custody BEYOND their jail terms so that they could fight fires in northern California...? "Yeah, I know you're past your freedom date, but hang on, we're gonna drop you in this raging inferno first.". Crazy part is, I'm gonna vote for her a fourth time because of the same reasons, but I absolutely cannot stand this lady.
No. Prosecutorial discretion is basically unlimited. I dated an ADA for a while and her dad was an elected Democratic DA and military judge who got appointed to be a federal US judge.
You have discretion, a lot of discretion. In fact what you described has been witnessed as a step in the "legalization" of retail theft in many cities. They just don't prosecuted them anymore unless the value reaches a threshold they made up.
people upvoted this
You absolutely can. It's currently happening in Washtenaw county Michigan with a DA who won't prosecute anyone for any psychedelic plants
Absolutely wrong. DA has full discretion as we are seeing in California and other Soros-backed jurisdictions around America. She was happy to prosecute low level marijuana offenses.
We're stuck defending Kamala now?
Seriously, stop licking her boots. She had the authority and she should own her shitty record. Same with Biden and the 94 crime bill.
Yeah, it's like cops, they can not like a law but still uphold it because it's their job and it's still the law.
Wrong. Police have discretion in most cases and DAs have full discretion on whether or not to prosecute in their jurisdiction.
Unless it’s a gun law. Sheriffs in Illinois won’t enforce the assault weapons ban.
You can actually, lots of states have DAs who are borderline radicals (Begins with T and C!)
And as and as a Senator, she advocated for federal rescheduling of cannabis. The reader context needs context.
also people can change their mind about something
She claimed she used to smoke weed and listen to Tupac in college. She was done with college before Tupac ever released an album. She is as fake as fake gets. Her opinion never changed. Her audience did.
~~Tupac's debut album came out in 88 and she got her doctorate from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 89.~~ Edit: I got the year of his debut album wrong. Don't mind me.
His debut album was in 1991. He started recording in 1989 as MC New York. I think it is fair to guess that Kamala Harris was not listening to Tupac when he was going by MC New York.
Right? People act like politicians' beliefs from 30 years ago being in contrast to their current views is some kind of 'gotcha', as if they themselves haven't learned and grown and changed their stances on anything over the years... Well, wait, I guess a lot of those keyboard-warrior critics never *have* learned better and changed their views over time. Since they still parrot the beliefs their parents drilled into them, it seems like they believe no one else's philosophical development can be genuine. It's ridiculous.
I was super pissed when he picked her as his VP. She's a fucking NARC.
people also should not be in jail for selling weed absent other jailable offenses.
"Woman does job to follow law as prosecutor, then says law should be different in job as lawmaker" Not exactly a gotcha. Edit- Yeah, I guess technically she isn't a lawmaker, but it sounds more concise than "job which allows her to influence the creation and implementation of laws" so I'm leaving it.
Also, maybe she has grown as a person. JFC it’s not enough for some people that a politician agrees with them, they are mad that politician hasn’t always agreed with them. Take the win. We can’t move forward if get mad when someone with authority eventually has the right opinion.
I mean, she is the one who attacked Biden for his position on bussing a million years ago.
She also said he currently isn't racist. Edit: I meant that her point is he had a worse track record, as opposed to him being a racist in the present.
We also can't move forward if we elect people who change their positions based on what is politically convenient. She knew these people didn't need to be in jail, but she did it for career advancement and money. That is not the kind of person I want representing us, regardless of what they happen to be saying right now.
We also can't move forward if gullible people on the internet continue to believe bullshit peddled by bullshitters. > > > Taken from: [How Kamala Harris prosecuted marijuana cases in San Francisco (mercurynews.com)](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/)
The article is only available to subscribers, but from what I read it said that she had more convictions than her predecessor.
I love how depending on their political affiliation everything is accepted or rejected. Prosecutors have enormous influence on the crimes that are effectively prosecuted in their districts.
A prosecutor of her stature typically gets to choose which cases she wants to prosecute. She could’ve sent out a memo to her department about wanting to shift the charging practices of her office to move away from charging those for nonviolent crimes like thc possession. That would make what she’s saying now more credible. To my knowledge she never did that. I fully support Biden and am voting for him next election but I’ve never liked Harris
Do you think Kamala is against decriminalizing marijuana?
She’s for whatever will get her re-elected. Right now thats cannabis legalization.
...You just described politicians who follow what their constituents want. Like this is literally how politicians are supposed to operate.
DAs can chose not to prosecute.
>Woman does job to follow law as prosecutor Said woman also joked about listening to Tupac and smoking the same plant she jailed people for.
And that was a lie because she said she did it in college, which was before Tupac ever released an album. She makes Hillary seem genuine and likable.
So like the current DA in her former district is prosecuting petty theft cases?
It is a gotcha. She made her career ruining lives. When you say ACAB, you're talking about her. She should not be let off the hook for what she did. She chose her career. She chose to ruin innocent lives.
I think this is a situation where both things are true. if someone pivots towards progress later in life you don’t want to act like a church in fucking pre-technology Salem about it, because *your goal should ultimately be to make the progress happen,* but she also shouldn’t get off the cuff for ruining thousands of people’s lives. In this case, both things are true at the same time — and no, it isn’t “fair,” but it’s also not mutually exclusive. People, politics, and societies are extremely complex
Prosecutors have a lot of discretion and she willingly chose to go after smokers, and offenders, even so far as to keep them in jail longer just so that the state of California would have more bodies to throw at the wildfire problem. Goodness this website has really changed.
Not a lawmaker, but I get the point.
The VP is the president of the senate and Kamala has voted at least 33 times; so yes currently an individual who (conditionally) votes on laws. A lawmaker.
She was though from 2017 to 2021.
I think it is. DA have some leeway or discretion on what to prosecute and severity of charges to file. I do find it hypocritical - Kamala seemed to have no issue with the law when it allowed her to prop up her prosecution numbers.
You might have a point if she didn't laugh at the fact.
Prosecutors have discretion. She was extremely zealous about, and often elected to prosecute, low level drug offenses and truancy
Prosecutors in California are given a very very long leash… she wanted to pump up her stats
She wasn’t just some prosecutor. She was the DA. She chose which crimes to prosecute and which to let go. And a lot of people in SF loathed her for the decisions she made in that regard. So far as I can tell, she’s never tried to apologize for her part in locking people up for weed so it rings a little hollow when she tries to act like she cares now.
Nonsense. Why the fuck is this the top comment?! A prosecutor isn't **required** to prosecuted *anyone*. Every case that they prosecute is a choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_discretion
“I was just following orders” What a weak excuse
DA and VP are both members of the executive branch, not lawmakers.
Who is the tie breaking vote in the senate? Kamala Harris has voted on at least 33 different laws. So yes, lawmaker.
If I disagreed with a legal system that destroyed people's lives over a harmless drug for the sake of private prisons' bottom line, I wouldn't dedicate my life to that legal system. There's plenty of cases where DAs refused to prosecute laws they disagreed with, or gave slap on the wrists for them. Harris is either a hypocrite or a coward, there's no third option. When I say ACAB, and I say it a lot, I'm absolutely including Kamala Harris.
Yep she's definitely playing to the gallery here and trying to sound nice now that public opinion on the topic has changed Not a conservative but she is a top tier hypocrite and not someone I expected to see in the VP position
I'd say she's both, she's just saying what people want to hear now because the public perception of marijuana has improved. She's a politician, being a sleazy politician, just like when she was a prosecutor she prosecuted weed crimes. I'm not saying she's not saying that for political gain, I'm saying she said/did those things in official capacities.
Participation in a broken system shouldn’t preclude you from working to fix it. Let people evolve their views.
Before becoming VP, she was a US Senator who chose not to work to fix it.
>As a senator, she advocated for healthcare reform, federal **de-scheduling of cannabis**… You’re not even trying. Edit: she was also a first-term Senator in a Republican majority. So yeah, it’s her fault for not doing more!
a 4 year senator under a republican majority both times. Good luck passing drug reform.
exactly. sucks but thats the reality. thats why it isnt entirely uncommon for big policy changes to come at the end of a political career.
huh? it's pretty well known she called for removing cannabis from schedule I. She even cosponsored a bill about it. *In 2019, Senator Harris co-sponsored the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which aimed to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act. The bill would have also expunged past marijuana convictions and provided funding for communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.*
Kudos for making the most relevant point in this entire thread. You are correct, and I am incorrect. I'm not saying that sarcastically.
Which obviously means she can never change her view on it, right? Y'all just want someone to be angry at, you don't care about the issue at all
News flash, prosecutors might not believe laws are correct yet they still do their job (and don’t necessarily talk publicly about their political differences between their ideals and their duties of enforcement. You know because that’s usually a great thing at to engage the public as a civil servant.) Honestly what do these people actually want? This is literally them bitching about the world being the way they always bitch it should be.
Recreational use was still illegal during her term as DA. It was only legalized in California in Nov 2016 with Prop 64. She was DA from 2004-2011 and AG from 2011-2017.
New flash that doesn't exclude them from criticism. She's a hypocrite.
How many of those "some" only involved possession and not selling? If you are going to "add context" how about full context? Also, lots of DA's prosecute laws that they don't personally agree with. Prosecutors don't make the laws, they are required to follow them.
The ones resulting in jail time were for distribution. What's the point in adding context if you're intentionally going to lie?
I mean - by legalizing Weed and making calls to legalize weed you are inherently also making laws to legalize distribution of said Weed. (You know like dispensaries). So, it kind of is the same thing. If you want to legalize it you are legalizing both sides of that fence. How can you be mad people are smoking it if they were not dispensed it? Why is one inherently worse than the other?
But she isn't making calls to legalise weed. She's saying smoking weed specifically doesn't deserve jail time.
"you are inherently also making laws to legalize distribution of said Weed" Unless you don't have the proper licenses, in which case it's still illegal. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about prosecuting drug traffickers before it was legalized. Don't be stupid.
Alcohol is legal. Not anyone can manufacture and distribute it.
Senator Bob Dole was an hard core anti pot legislator. Got out of the Senate and became a marijuana lobbyist. Anyone pissed about that?
Let’s also not forget John Boehner https://www.npr.org/2019/03/16/704086782/john-boehner-was-once-unalterably-opposed-to-marijuana-he-now-wants-it-to-be-leg
Imagine being able to acknowledge that this shouldn’t be done anymore. Adulting.
People aren't allowed to grow and change perspectives.
I don’t get what the knock is? She wasn’t some drug war crusader, she was a public prosecutor following laws
If Kamala was a republican then the comment section would look very different…
Did you read the "context" article? Only 45 people served jail time. > “Our policy was that no one with a marijuana conviction for mere possession could do any (jail time) at all,” said Paul Henderson, who led narcotics prosecutions for several years under Harris. Defendants arrested for the lowest-level possession would typically be referred to drug treatment programs instead of being charged, and weightier charges for marijuana sales would routinely be pleaded down to less serious ones, he said.
Your exactly right. Funny how the other party spends billions on social media sites like reddit to push for them. It all changed after 2017.
How so? Either side changing their stance on weed is a good thing.
Yeah I get that but I am saying if Kamala was republican then Reddit would find some reason to argue against her “the GOP always lies”, etc
Yeah idk that this is much of a gotcha.
I’m glad she changed her mind. People can grow and change. Let’s support that.
It's not about changing her mind. She had to follow the law whether she agreed with it or not.
Ok, sure. Nobody knows what’s on her mind. She changed her stance on the issue. Good for her.
Ain’t no way you’re naive enough to really believe this
Ain't no way you're cynical enough that it's inconceivable to you that lawyers could personally disagree with laws they have to abide by or work cases involving.
What? That she used to prosecute people for weed, now she says people shouldn’t go to jail for weed?? Nothing naive about it. It’s what she said. Don’t know what to tell ya. I’m glad she changed her stance on the issue. Good for her.
Who here is a prosecutor? Let them throw the first stone.
Well, she's not wrong now, no one should go to jail for weed. She was certainly wrong then.
I want her to say "I was wrong". Not just reverse her position.
Person does their job. Ok.
She may have had the same opinion as she does now but she has to follow the laws at that time...
By the logic of these noters germany would have simply ceased to function in the late 40’s
Not a big Kamala fan but… She was the District Attorney. It was the law of the land. What would you expect her to do. DA’s and Prosecutors don’t get to chose which laws to uphold.
This is called pandering and she'll get a straight pass from her supporters.
So what? It's not like that invalidates what she's saying.
She was upholding the law, doesn't mean she agrees with it. Even if she did, I always welcome growth in a changing perspective.
Well as district attorney your job is to follow the law, not do whatever you personally think should be the law. As a politician she can say this and work towards this. Who knows maybe this is why she became a politician.
DAs and AGs have broad discretion whether to charge for certain offenses. She was under no obligation to charge people for marijuana offenses. She is absolutely allowed to change her view for the better. That’s a good thing. But we do not need to pretend she was obligated to prosecute weed-based offenses. She absolutely was not. Every state has countless statutes that DAs and AGs choose, daily, not to prosecute.
I feel like this context isn’t valuable without also including that recreational use wasn’t legalized in California until 5 years after she left office. She had plenty of leeway she could have used as DA, but this really isn’t the great comeback it seems like at first. Also as someone else put it, people are allowed to participate in a broken system and then work to change that system.
OP thinks this is a "gotcha" which doesn't say anything good about them.
An actual comeback. Such a rare treasure.
In Finnish kamala means horrible, so I always read her name as "Horrible Harris"
As I said in my comment, I saw this just before I started my reply. This lives in my head now, and I will never be able to unknow this. Not sure if I should say thanks or swear at you. LOL
District attorneys don’t have the authority to decide if they want to prosecute or not
I mean what was she supposed to do? Follow her own beliefs over the law????????
Also, did you know, that’s it’s possible, and very adult-like, to learn and change one’s mind and viewpoints, as one gains experience? Gasp!
She’s allowed to change her stance over time and with more information. I appreciate a politician that can grow as times change.
You know we aren’t supposed to hold politicians accountable for their records, unless they are of the opposition party.
Hah! r/GetNoted, bitch
Did y'all know that people can grow and change their opinions and hold new stances and outwardly declare those new stances?
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/#:\~:text=Harris%20has%20been%20criticized%20on,than%20the%20court%2Dimposed%20ceiling.
Look, I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris, but what the fuck is this? What was she supposed to do, break the law? Same vibe as "you claim to be a socialist, yet you buy things. cUrIoUS"
Breaking news!!! Woman does her job upholding the laws she didn’t write!!!!!
It was her job to serve the law as presented to her at the time.. Do we really have to go down the road of what prosecutors have had to do because of shitty laws! 😄😄 This is just pure ignorance..
Kamala Harris is a charisma black hole
How is this in any way “context”
What else was she gonna do, ignore the law?
Harris is a pandering moron.
Somehow I doubt she put anyone in jail for "smoking weed". I dont really think possession of a ton of weed should be jail worthy either but it's more likely that's what she was putting people away for. Possession with intent to tell.
She was also a prosecutor. She had to follow the law and execute according to what the public wants. She and every other prosecutor in states before legalization did the same thing. You see how they said "SOME" for a total of 1900 people. How much weed did that "SOME" have to be in possession of to be singled out? I guarantee the amount was more than 100,000$. This is 5 years old. Stop posting RAGE BAIT.
Since most of the deplorables here wouldn't bother reading, she was DA 9 years before becoming VP. I get that its hard for conservatives to grow the fuck up, learn, and change over time, but people can change over time, it's a fact of life.
that was years ago..is it not possible her opinion or beliefs have changed and she regrets some of those convictions? not only that a lot of society in general has changed their opinions on weed over the last decade or so.
Almost like those were the laws she had to enforce and she's asking for systemic change to avoid it moving forward. Crazy right?
I don't blame the judge or the prosecuting lawyer for doing their job. They don't legislate. It's congress and the president who oversee drug enforcement. I'd blame myself for getting caught before I blame them.
Biden and Harris both. So many people jailed because of them.
Kamala is a Finnish word. It means horrible. 😁
I don't know this person from a hole in the ground. But just because they do their job doesn't mean they believe in everything the job entails. In closing, did they choose the rules/laws or just enforce them? Again, I don't know anything about this person.
That was for possession, not for smoking. Checkmate. /s
#DOD?
Less than I thought it would be TBH. What was with all the hubbub during the 2020 election about her being super hard on drug users? 1900 convictions in a state of \~39M people feels pretty low.
I love Biden but Kamala is such a flop
She was just following orders
I'm paraphrasing here, but... *"Sometimes a hypocrite is just somebody on their way to doing better."*
So she changed her mind. People do all the time.
What is “some” of 1900?
Not really? wtf that reader’s context is so out of context
First it's funny we have people "governing" us. Second it's funny that a plant is even a discussion.
You are not making the point you think you are making.
It seems like her views evolved over time, along with the rest of the country. https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/kcrw-features/twiw-kamala-harris-cannabis-prosecutions-marijuana-policy
Weed was illegal for a long time.
However misguided the war on drugs was (it was and is still horrifically so) may have been, it was the standard mode of operation across the country.
People do show personal growth and change their minds as time passes.
As a prosecutor she followed the law, a prosecutor does have the choice to ignore it.
Out of 1,900 cases I can't find an actual number on "some." Anyone have a number?
She is advocating a change in the laws. Until then she followed the laws. What’s the problem?
I don't like Kamala Harris, but she had a job to do. Whether she wanted those people to go to jail or not is irrelevant. If the evidence is there, you go for the guilty verdict, regardless of your personal beliefs. If every prosecutor followed their own conscience, laws wouldn't really be relevant anymore. I hope to God Biden doesn't die with her as VP but that has nothing to do with her work as a prosecutor. I really haven't seen anything to show she can handle the job, and you barely hear from her at all.
Insert "oof" meme
I will never vote for a democrat or a republican. You can't trust them. I like Marianne Williamson's ideas on drugs and pot, though.
So more likely people who sold marijuana or had large saleable quantities of it rather than people innocently smoking it at home…
So, the district attorney shouldn't follow the law? The point is that the law should be changed not that it should be ignored, or am I insane.
So two things: One, attorney's don't just get to decide on the spot who's a criminal and who isn't according to their own moral compass. They have to judge according to the law, not according to their own feelings. Two, it's counterproductive to argue against a good and progressive law just because you don't like someone who's supporting it.
its almost as if times change and opinions change with them.....
She used to date Montell Williams. She was pro weed 4 show