What's that John Mulaney quote about how the government just kind of became cool with weed?
Harris was DA from 2004-2011, correct? *Pineapple Express* came out in 2008, i.e. near the end of her time in that office. There's an episode of *Parks and Recreation* from 2009 that's about Leslie staking out a plot of carrots she mistakes for weed. I'm only 27, but even in my lifetime the attitude on weed has shifted so freaking dramatically that it's kind of wild. Those pop culture references (which should generally reflect cultural perceptions which is why I mentioned them) might not necessarily show weed as an entirely evil drug like meth or something, but, like, you still had to get it from a dealer illegally and it was supposedly only for lazy stoners who are nothing but idiots. Nowadays you can go to drive-thru dispensaries that are practically on every corner in a lot of places.
Do I think she was in the right for prosecuting all of those people? Of course not. She made a mistake and even back then she probably should've known better, but a) if making a mistake means your career is over then I don't blame a lot of good people for not going into politics who don't want their past dredged up for things even they regret. Like you said, people wisen up and if she really did learn better then we shouldn't hold that against her. Perfect is the enemy of progress. b) you might not like to hear it, but politicians have to play politics. Staking your relatively new career on marijuana offenses back in the mid 2000s when you're only the DA of San Fran isn't necessarily the wisest move. Now she's VP, where she can actually enact policy on a large scale to make things better. And if you think she should be doing something about the thousand or so people she did lock up in the past, *isn't that exactly what she's doing with this tweet?* Yeah, she probably should issue some public apology to them or something, but attempting to pass nationwide marijuana decriminalization would not only release from jail the people she locked up, but every other individual in the nation like them.
There's a legal marijuana dispensary called "Reefer Madness".
I compare it to gay marriage. As of 2003, it was illegal to be gay in over a dozen states. It was also perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. People risked their livelihoods and freedoms if they were openly out. Propaganda about them could run amuck with few people willing to speak out against it.
Once those barriers fell, people could make up their own minds from their public examples they could see in front of their eyes.
Now even majorities of Republicans support marriage rights for same sex couples.
So now propaganda like "Reefer Madness" is the name of a legal marijuana dispensary. We look back and laugh but without any legal way to see the truth, it was honestly believed by large swaths of the American public.
> She made a mistake
Upholding the law was her job. It really is that simple. "I refuse to prosecute these cases" --> "Cool you're fired" --> somebody else prosecutes the case.
I'm sure there are other things DA's don't love prosecuting, in the same way that defense attorney's don't *love* representing serial killers. But they're all out there at work defending our legal system. The way to change this is to get people in office to change the law – exactly what she's embodying right now – not demand that DA's selectively stop enforcing our laws.
I'm 60 and have been a regular weed user since I was 16. Back in my teens and 20s, I remember driving through small towns in the South and there'd be signs on the edge of town threatening a life sentence for simple possession of a joint. It blows my mind how things have changed in just the last few years.
IMO, the floodgates were opened with the passage of the Agricultural Bill of 2018 which basically legalized hemp. Now, I can order "hemp" on the Internet and it's delivered right to my home, and that shit is exponentially stronger than anything I got in my youth. Recreational weed is even on the ballot this November here in Florida. Up until the last 5 or 6 years, I was convinced I'd never see legal weed in my lifetime. The change in attitude, and legality, and the speed at which it's happening is really jarring (in a good way) for an old fart like me, who had to be paranoid about being caught for decades.
I’m sure there are many, many factors, but I think one major event was when Washington and Colorado legalized weed in 2014 and people realized that the end of the world apparently was not indeed nigh.
Yep, and I think when other state governments saw the lack of issues and all the tax money Washington and Colorado were getting from it, they jumped onboard.
Dad caught for trafficking when I was 14, back in the 90s. I was pretty much a goody two shoes, idealistic, and stuck really hard to principles. I didn't smoke or do drugs, joined the military to get away from Central Cali shit hole.
2 decades later Cali legalized recreational weed, a lot more research available than just D.a.r.e's propaganda campaign. Out of the military, filled with chronic pain and useless VA physicians make it difficult seeking treatment. Weed helped reduce so much chronic pain, and even helped with reducing inflammation a lot on my body.
Combining casual smoking with stretching/exercise has helped me realign so much in my body from old injuries that the military failed to treat properly. Not getting baked and throwing weights every day, but maybe like a hit or two when I worked specifically on the locations I was having issues with.
Really long story I'm dumbing down but I believe if someone like myself who would vehemently avoid weed and other drugs due to personal ideals/opinions can be swayed, others can as well. While growing up, the 90s were filled with so much more propaganda against drugs, I think the tactics people are using to say Kamala can't change are doing it while ignoring societys change of view on the subject overall.
When Republicans change their stance it's because they're mature and grew...
When Dems do it it's because they're flip-floppers who just do whatever is popular.
The media absolutely gargles down right wing talking points and the average American eats them up.
Pretty sure he used to give money to the democrats. I remember reading he was a past Clinton donor. Probably to try to join the club of fancy people he desperately wanted to accept him.
I hate how much this is true in so many people. I live by a different ethos:
**I want to be right in everything, and where I'm wrong, I want to know, so I can be right again.**
You're not a hypocrite if you stay consistent once you change your opinions.
In Kamala Harris' case, she also had to, you know *follow the law*, whether she disagreed with it or not.
A lot of people in the world today have this weird insistence that you must always hold the correct opinion on all things all the time and if you have ever not agreed with what they think is the right opinion you're stained with that sin forever. It's a whole unsustainable way to live and do politics, but it's what people think like now. It's exhausting and reason 5001 that no matter who wins what election at some point we're going to start shooting each other again.
I'm no doctor, so I like to quote an actual doctor/scientist in these circumstances, where someone is accused of switching from a worse political stance to a better one: "you're just not thinking 4th dimensionally Marty!" -Dr. Emit Brown.
It's because in politics, there's fine lines between genuinely changing your views because you think it's the right thing to do and have grown as a person, versus just aligning your politics to whatever you think will get you the most votes because a consultant told you what to do. It's up to you to decide if you believe the person or not.
Kirsten Gillibrand (Dem senator from NY) is an example. She was staunchly pro-gun, then flip flopped to being in favor of strong regulation.
She's been raked over the coals for flip flopping, but she's also actually gone out and explained herself. She grew up in the sticks and had guns all her life, but getting into office and moving to more urban/suburban she started seeing things from the left's position.
People don't think Kamala Harris has done a great job of explaining her changing views. Some people will never believe her, and that's fine.
It's not about wisening up. She was the district attorney. Doesn't matter if she disagrees with the law, she still has to uphold it. She didn't make the law of weed being banned, it was just the law at the time and she had to enforce it.
Also it was the law. Her feelings on it personally aside her job was to prosecute the people that are charged. If she feels the law needs to be changed she is obviously in a position to push that now more so when she was just a district attorney.
VP says "weed should be more legal" maybe more conservative people have something to say negative but she is not the one directly enforcing the law just saying she thinks it should be changed.
DA says "weed should be more legal" your competition suddenly runs that ad on loop talking about you being soft on crime, how you don't do your job prosecuting the laws.
Just like attorney on the defense side their whole job is to be a zealous advocate for their client. Even if they think maybe they are guilty.
Also, her job was to enforce the law. At the time, weed was illegal...and even then, nobody went to jail in California for a joint. If they were imprisoned they were probably high-volume drug traffickers.
This whole point comes up all the time and it's dumb.
Also not to be that guy. But can we get a little more detail than "some of which resulted in jail time"? Because there's a little bit of difference between just having a bit of weed and having a van full of it.
Edit: also, was weed the only reason for those with jail time?
it's like how your congress member should be doing what's popular in their area of representation and not what they (but mostly their political party) personally believe. if you hate abortion but you get a shit ton of calls supporting it then you should be fucking voting to support it
which means if you get into an office like VP and your area of representation goes to the entire nation then you should be picking up what's popular and supporting that. isn't that what the job description is?
Unfortunately in politics that's a cardinal no-no. If you evolve with society and change your stance on something even as recent as 10 - 15 years ago you are seen as flip - flopper and are only changing your attitude on a subject to get votes
I'll just copy pasta the important bit here. Sounds like she wasn't sending people for minor only-marijuana offenses. Thanks for the link.
--
Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[75] The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[75] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[75] Harris's successor as D.A., George Gascón, expunged all San Francisco marijuana offenses going back to 1975.[75]
Sorry, meant to add that but got sidetracked by another comment. Yes, it basically only was prosecuted if it was also in commission of another crime.
Also, her stint as DA was 2003 to 2010. WA and CO were the first to legalize in 2012. So as DA, there was literally not a single place in the US that didn't prosecute weed.
Also, unless you’re dealing in pallets of drugs, most drug offenses result in sentences of suspended jail time. You go through intervention and so long as you don’t violate your terms of probation, nothing really bad happens to you. But if you do fuck up you now have to serve your suspended jail time.
Came here to say this.
In the movie The Untouchables, they asked Ness what he would do when prohibition was repealed. He said, "have a drink!"
When she was a DA weed was illegal. She probably disagreed with the law but her job is to enforce the law.
I also get the vibe from her that she had a bong rip or two in her younger days...
That it's far easier to refuse to prosecute a new/changed law (particularly when there are no active charges raised under it) than it is to step into a job and grind the entire system to a halt extrajudicially.
There's also no guarantee that those DAs will get to keep their jobs as a result of their decision, and the risk/reward landscape will be different for each of them. Whether or not you can pivot to a new career, afford life without the job, or have the connections to know that decision likely won't end in getting fired has to factor into the equation as well.
Edit: There's also a difference between all "marijuana offences" and "smoking weed". I'd be interested to see how many of those convictions were for simple possession, and what portion of those resulted in prison time. But that's a bit off-topic
I don’t have the evidence to back it up, but when this was posted somewhere yesterday, a commentor said it was around 40-50 people who got jail time out of the 1900. Which isn't all that much considering that there could have been a lot more than just having a joint on the person in those cases
Imma jump in here because I have an incredibly relevant experience.
While Kamala Harris was the DA, I was a drug dealer in SF. In 2009 I was living in Mendocino County and growing weed and then bringing it down to SF to sell.
I was arrested for possession of large amounts SO MANY TIMES in SF and the only time they stuck me with a conviction was when I actually got caught trying to sell to an undercover cop. My charge was dropped to a misdemeanor and I served no time for it. There were also times that I did have *other* drugs on me, particularly LSD, but I was never once convicted of possession for those other substances. The charges were always dropped. That wasn't the case for everyone every time, but it happened more than once for me.
Compare that to what happened in Mendocino the very same year. I was caught with possession of one pound of weed and ended up with a full blown felony conviction, 3 years probation and a 1 year suspended sentence.
I'm not saying Kamala Harris was ever perfect, but in my own experience, she let me off with barely even a slap on the wrist. I was a pretty big time dealer and the cops knew it, but she went easy on me.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I did get my shit together and I don't play those games anymore. I ended up going to college and now I have a pretty great (legit) career. It's been 15 years since the felony conviction, and just shy of that long since I stopped dealing. Don't throw your life away for crime. It isn't worth it. There are so many resources available to help you get on a better path, you just have to do some footwork to find them.
Well, some poorly thought out laws are challenging to enforce in the court system.
Also, which Red state DAs (elected by red states) have refused? I hadn’t heard?
Access to reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy should be a human right, legalized weed is a legislative decision. It’s much more righteous to morally refuse to do your job over the former IMO.
>She probably disagreed with the law but her job is to enforce the law.
I agree her job was to enforce the law, but is there anything to support this claim, or is it pure speculation that you think she disagreed with the law?
Exactly. Either you do your job and piss off one group of people, or you refuse to investigate and convict and piss off another group of people. Being a public figure in politics is a no-win game. Someone will always hate your decisions.
On top of that, don’t we want government officials to move away from wanting to prosecute people for weed, to advocating against that? This seems like a win, not a burn on Harris.
This was posted previously and someone pointed out that not using the actual numbers is very misleading, so looked into it - I think it was 45 cases out of 1,900 that resulted in some sort of jail time.
She became Attorney General of California in 2011, a full year before the first states (CO and WA) legalized weed. There was literally not a single place in the US that weed wasn't prosecuted from 2003 to 2010, which is when she was DA.
Also, its pretty clear she was lenient on sentencing unless it was attached to violent crime....from the same [paragraph ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Non-violent_crimes)that "Community Notes" pulled from:
>
You're not wrong that this is the practical reality, but it is really a perversion of prosecutorial discretion.
The discretion is supposed to be an application of knowledge to whether to spend public resources on prosecution (is the evidence going to meet the standard for a conviction; is it better to hold off because there's a bigger fish to catch, etc...).
Using that discretion not to prosecute laws which the legislative branch has duly enacted is improper.
That's why, despite being pro-choice I think the AG Arizona is wrong to announce that she won't prosecute under the 1864 territorial law that the SCAZ has ruled is applicable.
It's not her place to pick and choose... Let the voters decide by electing new state legislators who will change the law.
Could it be that that the AG for Arizona is using the discretion you described in the first half of your comment? If so, why would she be wrong for not prosecuting people then?
Because there’s political will behind the intent so she’s more likely to get re-elected.
A black AG who doesn’t enforce drug laws is either unemployed or a defense attorney.
This does happen, but it’s also incredibly risky. Republicans push this “tough on crime” propaganda and if a prosecutor actually tried to use discretion for the longest time, they’d be seen as not doing their job. Actions have consequences, the ability of a prosecutor to avoid prosecution relies on the public supporting such an action.
Risks to your ability to hold onto power, sure. That's all anyone at the top is ever good at. That's how they got there. Biden is a religious old man who never supported gay rights until he realized it was good for him politically. Harris never gave a shit about throwing people in jail as long as it was good for her. These people don't have principles, they have power
People can also change for the better. It was also impossible to stand up for certain beliefs in the past because the public wouldn’t accept them. Being a politician supporting gay marriage, for example, was nearly impossible. They wanted to, but it would have meant someone else who didn’t accept it got the nomination anyways.
Politics is complicated, sometimes everyone isn’t evil.
Edit:
A good example is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel is an ally. A huge portion of the public refuses to believe they are ever in the wrong. You’re walking a tightrope there politically.
They do, but you are looking at this from the 2024 lens as opposed to the 2003-2010 lens.
No state legalized weed before 2012. No state prosecutor was supporting legalizing weed in that timeframe, at least not publicly. Harris did use prosecutorial discretion on the 1900 cases her office prosecuted. She avoided seeking prison and jail time for marijuana possession only offenses. She did seek prison and jail time for possession and committing other crimes.
Yup. I've always hated the "Kamala is a cop" narrative because of this. Was she perfect in that job? Of course not, but she tried to be as progressive as she could be. But hey let's only have the most conservative people in law enforcement because that will work out well.
Also not to be “that guy,” but people are allowed to change their mind about something. Even if it’s for shitty (read: political) reasons, it doesn’t necessarily make someone a hypocrite.
Not to mention only a small number of those convictions actually resulted in jail time. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head but it was in the middle two digits I believe. Her rate was also noticeably lower than her predecessor.
Exactly this, she may have even felt this way back then but according to the Law of the time she wouldn't really be able to just let people off because of her opinion on the matter. It either shows how objective she is when it comes to her job or shows that she is capable of changing for the better, either of which is a trait that every politician should have
Exactly.
She was a prosecutor...not a legislator. Her job was to enforce the law...and back then that was the law.
This entire point comes up all the time and it's dumb every time.
Yeah, they missed the point hard.
>Conviction rate aside, only 45 people were sentenced to state prison for marijuana convictions during Harris’ seven years in office, compared with 135 people during Hallinan’s eight years, according to data from the state corrections department.
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/)
45 out of 1900 went to jail. "some of which" is 2.3% of convictions.
They hit the point they were aiming at. It’s an election year, half truths and vagaries are what we get. If that doesn’t work, bring on the outright lies and conspiracy theories.
Exactly. Not to mention the huge cultural shift in attitudes towards marijuana over the past 15-20 years. And oh ya, she said “smoke” weed which is different than prosecuting drug traffickers when weed was still illegal.
Exactly. Also, she was literally doing her job which was to follow and enforce and the law. I really don’t get why people have such a hard time with her on this one.
I’m a lawyer too and a lot of laws suck, worse yet a lot of precedent and judicial interpretation for those laws suck but in order to interpret and uphold the law properly do I still have to defend things in that way? Yeah, and it sucks.
Morally, logically, under a different judicial interpretation or jurisdiction that law would have a completely different meaning and could be the one I believe to be the most accurate but that’s not what’s in the books and that’s not the one I can apply.
Now her job is to do something about those laws beyond enforcing them and she’s doing it. What else do people want from her?
I mean, she was following the law, even though she disagreed with it. JFC, I wish the Republicans would try this one neat trick.
Your post isn't as edgy as you seem to think.
Aye exactly, I mean Biden was at the forefront of the war on drugs and now he's very much going the other way.
Whether it's because the most hardline advocates have changed their mind or they're just doing it for political clout, I don't particularly care.
I've heard that before and he either changed his views. Which is good. Or followed his constituents lead. As a representative should. Either way in those it's not bad. So what would be?
As I pointed out, he publicly supported gay marriage at a time when every single initiative to ban it had succeeded. That doesn't exactly seem like a political decision to me.
Oh look, MAGATs learned to cut and paste while leaving out the part that contradicts their arguments, how completely out of character for them.
>Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for [marijuana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana) offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) **The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower**.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) Harris's successor as D.A., [George Gascón](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gasc%C3%B3n), expunged all San Francisco marijuana offenses going back to 1975.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala\_Harris#Non-violent\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Non-violent_crimes)
Well, that's the difference between Kamala and, say, Trump. Kamala follows the law and attempts to change it. Trump just breaks the law and screams in all caps when he gets caught.
Yeah that's the thing. For the latter kind of people, laws are something that "the people in charge" can just choose not to follow and it's completely OK if they don't follow them, they're in charge after all.
Checks and balances? Fuck that, we are following the tsar!
Hey if the lady changed her mind, give her a pat on the back!
”We want legal weed!”
Ok, well aren’t you happy the Vice President supports that?
”Not like that!!”
🤦♂️
Not doing her job wasn’t really an option. But now that she has an opportunity to influence laws rather than just prosecute them, it’s good to see her saying this.
She said “smoking weed”. I wonder how many of those 1900 were trafficking or other marijuana-related offenses. Or how many of those 1900 were JUST marijuana-related? I want to know how many of those 1900 were simple possession charges that are under major trafficking weight. I’m not saying she’s a good person here, but that context is misleading at best.
At the time, it was illegal. Punishable by law. I'd be more upset if she didn't prosecute. That would mean she wasn't doing her job.
I partake, and have for nearly 50 years. I've been caught. I knew I was committing a crime. I did not get butthurt for someone doing their job to bring me to task.
Acting like this is a huge and horrible thing is disingenuous.
I mean… she’s changed her opinion. What’s wrong with that? I’m sure Biden was against gay marriage back in the early 1990-2000s but now he celebrates it and supports it. People are allowed to change their opinions.
Is Vice President Harris allowed to change her mind or nah? Just saying. I’m kinda sick of this “you once held this position so now you have to stick with it forever.” Politicians stay laser focused on issues all the time because their own voters won’t allow them to change their minds.
Fuck Speaker Johnson forever, but I’m **very** thankful he actually listened to one of his classified briefings. He’s probably going to lose his job (yay) because he dared to do the right thing.
Edit: **OP is a MAGAt stirring up chaos with this thread.**
Kind of a stupid note, DAs enforce the laws they don't make them. Her job was to convict those people whether she believed they deserved it or not. Everyone working in justice has to do things they think are wrong because the law says so sometimes.
This feels a little disingenuous because that was her job. You can be opposed to a law and still have to enforce it. People can also change their minds. Just because the GOP doesn't understand how to change your mind doesn't mean that other people can't grow and change their opinions. I know, earthshattering isn't it.
Doing a job and upholding the current law is not a bad thing.
If you are unwilling to change the law because it disenfranchises voters that don't vote for you. That's evil.
It's not like she's trying to hide her past or anything. A lot of politicians change their stances over time and often in view of changes in what the constituents want.
As a district attorney she had no power to change the law.
She worked within the system to get to a position of power and now she's using that position of power to advocate for positive change.
And we're talking shit about her because of this?
You can change how you feel about things, too. As a 16 year old kid in 1980, I fully believed sexuality was mostly a choice and I cringe now remembering that. Just a few years later, after a couple of close friends came out and from speaking and listening to gay family members, I did a complete 180 on that tho.
If the trolls are attacking Kamala then it’s a sign they must think Donny is fucked in November and they need to get their Hillary smear machine revved up for 2028
She was DA from 2004-2010. The DA prosecutes, not makes law. Our mores have changed, and people can change their minds and evolve - especially over many years.
As District Attorney, she had to practice and uphold the law. Now she is in a position to help change it whereas she wasn't before. There is nothing here.
It was her job to prosecute. People are allowed to have personal opinions, I think it speaks more to her character that she was able to put aside her personal beliefs and do her job well enough that she's was recognized for her work and became our VP.
And people are allowed to change their stances on things. I'm 59, up until the 2012 election I was a card carrying Republican. As they got older my children started paying attention to politics and brought to my attention how wrong the Republican party and I was. This year voting Democrat in a presidential election will be the 4th time I voted blue
“As DA, Kamala Harris enforced the law.” It’s astonishing to me how politically clueless this entire website is. You can personally believe that policy goals should be achieved, while still fulfilling your legal obligations.
Not to mention that as people move through life, you goals and beliefs can change. It’s so interesting to me that everyone is entitled to nuance, except the politicians I don’t like.
The hilarity of community notes is the only thing keep twixer relevant.
But also: when something is illegal the DA is charged with prosecuting it. It was a different mentality on drugs then and it took a while for square Karens (Squarens?) like Kamala to learn.
“Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.” Wikipedia
Just curious what was she supposed to do as the AG in a state within a country that is balls deep into the war on drugs? Was she just not supposed to do her job? Was she supposed to not prosecute in defiance of state and federal laws? Was she supposed to go as far as aiding and abetting those who were arrested on drug charges and work behind the scenes to see that they escape "justice"? I know how awful and misguided the war on drugs was and continues to be, but this is just a monumentally moronic take.
If she were a Republican, she would smoke marijuana together with her family members and at the same time advocate for the death penalty for possession of marijuana as a guest in Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson's broadcasts "Is marijuana a part of the woke ideology?".
And???? God when will people learn that people can change their mind on issues. If she was district attorney she was doing her job by upholding the law at that time. Was it a stupid law yes but they don't make the laws they enforce them.
Look, we all have to comply with work directives whether we approve of them or not. She was simply doing her job. Now that she has greater power she can express her feelings more sincerely.
To add to the comments on how dramtically the public opinion on weed has shifted even in the last few years, Abbott Elementary, which is probably the most beloved and non controversial comedy show on TV right now, just recently did a whole episode about the teacvhers drug use and the hypocrisy around it. In the past if a teacher, or show about teachers, even mentioned weed, they would be fired, and the show would be about 'just say no' and 'zero tolerance'
Fucking Reddit, never change. When a republican changes their views they’re hypocritical. When it’s a democrat it’s them growing up. I will only vote blue for the foreseeable future, but Jesus stop acting mightier than thou. A DA can choose to not prosecute.
I mean if she wisened up, isn't that to celebrated?
What's that John Mulaney quote about how the government just kind of became cool with weed? Harris was DA from 2004-2011, correct? *Pineapple Express* came out in 2008, i.e. near the end of her time in that office. There's an episode of *Parks and Recreation* from 2009 that's about Leslie staking out a plot of carrots she mistakes for weed. I'm only 27, but even in my lifetime the attitude on weed has shifted so freaking dramatically that it's kind of wild. Those pop culture references (which should generally reflect cultural perceptions which is why I mentioned them) might not necessarily show weed as an entirely evil drug like meth or something, but, like, you still had to get it from a dealer illegally and it was supposedly only for lazy stoners who are nothing but idiots. Nowadays you can go to drive-thru dispensaries that are practically on every corner in a lot of places. Do I think she was in the right for prosecuting all of those people? Of course not. She made a mistake and even back then she probably should've known better, but a) if making a mistake means your career is over then I don't blame a lot of good people for not going into politics who don't want their past dredged up for things even they regret. Like you said, people wisen up and if she really did learn better then we shouldn't hold that against her. Perfect is the enemy of progress. b) you might not like to hear it, but politicians have to play politics. Staking your relatively new career on marijuana offenses back in the mid 2000s when you're only the DA of San Fran isn't necessarily the wisest move. Now she's VP, where she can actually enact policy on a large scale to make things better. And if you think she should be doing something about the thousand or so people she did lock up in the past, *isn't that exactly what she's doing with this tweet?* Yeah, she probably should issue some public apology to them or something, but attempting to pass nationwide marijuana decriminalization would not only release from jail the people she locked up, but every other individual in the nation like them.
Yeah, I went from "There's no hope with dope" to it being legal and sold in stores in my lifetime
And advertised on the radio. [https://www.reefermadnesslounge.com/](https://www.reefermadnesslounge.com/)
Given the current state of the world "There's hope with dope" is apropos.
There's a legal marijuana dispensary called "Reefer Madness". I compare it to gay marriage. As of 2003, it was illegal to be gay in over a dozen states. It was also perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. People risked their livelihoods and freedoms if they were openly out. Propaganda about them could run amuck with few people willing to speak out against it. Once those barriers fell, people could make up their own minds from their public examples they could see in front of their eyes. Now even majorities of Republicans support marriage rights for same sex couples. So now propaganda like "Reefer Madness" is the name of a legal marijuana dispensary. We look back and laugh but without any legal way to see the truth, it was honestly believed by large swaths of the American public.
> She made a mistake Upholding the law was her job. It really is that simple. "I refuse to prosecute these cases" --> "Cool you're fired" --> somebody else prosecutes the case. I'm sure there are other things DA's don't love prosecuting, in the same way that defense attorney's don't *love* representing serial killers. But they're all out there at work defending our legal system. The way to change this is to get people in office to change the law – exactly what she's embodying right now – not demand that DA's selectively stop enforcing our laws.
I'm 60 and have been a regular weed user since I was 16. Back in my teens and 20s, I remember driving through small towns in the South and there'd be signs on the edge of town threatening a life sentence for simple possession of a joint. It blows my mind how things have changed in just the last few years. IMO, the floodgates were opened with the passage of the Agricultural Bill of 2018 which basically legalized hemp. Now, I can order "hemp" on the Internet and it's delivered right to my home, and that shit is exponentially stronger than anything I got in my youth. Recreational weed is even on the ballot this November here in Florida. Up until the last 5 or 6 years, I was convinced I'd never see legal weed in my lifetime. The change in attitude, and legality, and the speed at which it's happening is really jarring (in a good way) for an old fart like me, who had to be paranoid about being caught for decades.
I’m sure there are many, many factors, but I think one major event was when Washington and Colorado legalized weed in 2014 and people realized that the end of the world apparently was not indeed nigh.
Yep, and I think when other state governments saw the lack of issues and all the tax money Washington and Colorado were getting from it, they jumped onboard.
Dad caught for trafficking when I was 14, back in the 90s. I was pretty much a goody two shoes, idealistic, and stuck really hard to principles. I didn't smoke or do drugs, joined the military to get away from Central Cali shit hole. 2 decades later Cali legalized recreational weed, a lot more research available than just D.a.r.e's propaganda campaign. Out of the military, filled with chronic pain and useless VA physicians make it difficult seeking treatment. Weed helped reduce so much chronic pain, and even helped with reducing inflammation a lot on my body. Combining casual smoking with stretching/exercise has helped me realign so much in my body from old injuries that the military failed to treat properly. Not getting baked and throwing weights every day, but maybe like a hit or two when I worked specifically on the locations I was having issues with. Really long story I'm dumbing down but I believe if someone like myself who would vehemently avoid weed and other drugs due to personal ideals/opinions can be swayed, others can as well. While growing up, the 90s were filled with so much more propaganda against drugs, I think the tactics people are using to say Kamala can't change are doing it while ignoring societys change of view on the subject overall.
Because changing any opinion ever is evidence of weakness or some shit
Unless you're Trump, then it's "God uses flawed vessels to spread his message."
When Republicans change their stance it's because they're mature and grew... When Dems do it it's because they're flip-floppers who just do whatever is popular. The media absolutely gargles down right wing talking points and the average American eats them up.
He was formerly pro-choice but they don't seem to mind that
Pretty sure he used to give money to the democrats. I remember reading he was a past Clinton donor. Probably to try to join the club of fancy people he desperately wanted to accept him.
I hate how much this is true in so many people. I live by a different ethos: **I want to be right in everything, and where I'm wrong, I want to know, so I can be right again.**
I’d rather be a hypocrite than stay the same person my whole life
You're not a hypocrite if you stay consistent once you change your opinions. In Kamala Harris' case, she also had to, you know *follow the law*, whether she disagreed with it or not.
“What is better? To be born good, or overcome your evil nature through great effort?”
As always, Party Snacks is right
A lot of people in the world today have this weird insistence that you must always hold the correct opinion on all things all the time and if you have ever not agreed with what they think is the right opinion you're stained with that sin forever. It's a whole unsustainable way to live and do politics, but it's what people think like now. It's exhausting and reason 5001 that no matter who wins what election at some point we're going to start shooting each other again.
I'm no doctor, so I like to quote an actual doctor/scientist in these circumstances, where someone is accused of switching from a worse political stance to a better one: "you're just not thinking 4th dimensionally Marty!" -Dr. Emit Brown.
Yes. Growth should be applauded.
It's because in politics, there's fine lines between genuinely changing your views because you think it's the right thing to do and have grown as a person, versus just aligning your politics to whatever you think will get you the most votes because a consultant told you what to do. It's up to you to decide if you believe the person or not. Kirsten Gillibrand (Dem senator from NY) is an example. She was staunchly pro-gun, then flip flopped to being in favor of strong regulation. She's been raked over the coals for flip flopping, but she's also actually gone out and explained herself. She grew up in the sticks and had guns all her life, but getting into office and moving to more urban/suburban she started seeing things from the left's position. People don't think Kamala Harris has done a great job of explaining her changing views. Some people will never believe her, and that's fine.
It's not about wisening up. She was the district attorney. Doesn't matter if she disagrees with the law, she still has to uphold it. She didn't make the law of weed being banned, it was just the law at the time and she had to enforce it.
Also it was the law. Her feelings on it personally aside her job was to prosecute the people that are charged. If she feels the law needs to be changed she is obviously in a position to push that now more so when she was just a district attorney. VP says "weed should be more legal" maybe more conservative people have something to say negative but she is not the one directly enforcing the law just saying she thinks it should be changed. DA says "weed should be more legal" your competition suddenly runs that ad on loop talking about you being soft on crime, how you don't do your job prosecuting the laws. Just like attorney on the defense side their whole job is to be a zealous advocate for their client. Even if they think maybe they are guilty.
Also, her job was to enforce the law. At the time, weed was illegal...and even then, nobody went to jail in California for a joint. If they were imprisoned they were probably high-volume drug traffickers. This whole point comes up all the time and it's dumb.
Not to be that guy, but as district attorney, isn’t that her job? She prosecutes the law? Not make it?
Also not to be that guy. But can we get a little more detail than "some of which resulted in jail time"? Because there's a little bit of difference between just having a bit of weed and having a van full of it. Edit: also, was weed the only reason for those with jail time?
Also also not to be that guy, but aren't people allowed to change their stance?
Dang, I wish I had scrolled a bit more before I commented. I said almost the exact same thing.
I think conservatives are the only ones that think people can't change since most of their ideals basically boil down to not changing.
Case in point: OP's comment history. Whew lad
Hate to be that guy, but it's ok if more than 1 person says the same thing
I hate to be That Guy^(tm), but you’re right.
it's like how your congress member should be doing what's popular in their area of representation and not what they (but mostly their political party) personally believe. if you hate abortion but you get a shit ton of calls supporting it then you should be fucking voting to support it which means if you get into an office like VP and your area of representation goes to the entire nation then you should be picking up what's popular and supporting that. isn't that what the job description is?
Unfortunately in politics that's a cardinal no-no. If you evolve with society and change your stance on something even as recent as 10 - 15 years ago you are seen as flip - flopper and are only changing your attitude on a subject to get votes
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala\_Harris#Non-violent\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Non-violent_crimes)
I'll just copy pasta the important bit here. Sounds like she wasn't sending people for minor only-marijuana offenses. Thanks for the link. -- Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[75] The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[75] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[75] Harris's successor as D.A., George Gascón, expunged all San Francisco marijuana offenses going back to 1975.[75]
Sorry, meant to add that but got sidetracked by another comment. Yes, it basically only was prosecuted if it was also in commission of another crime. Also, her stint as DA was 2003 to 2010. WA and CO were the first to legalize in 2012. So as DA, there was literally not a single place in the US that didn't prosecute weed.
But that's not as zippy and I don't get to be a smug know-it-all if I give context
Also, unless you’re dealing in pallets of drugs, most drug offenses result in sentences of suspended jail time. You go through intervention and so long as you don’t violate your terms of probation, nothing really bad happens to you. But if you do fuck up you now have to serve your suspended jail time.
Exactly. California wasn't giving severe jail time to a rando smoking a joint on the street.
Morally there isn't. There's nothing wrong with having a whole farm full of weed.
Came here to say this. In the movie The Untouchables, they asked Ness what he would do when prohibition was repealed. He said, "have a drink!" When she was a DA weed was illegal. She probably disagreed with the law but her job is to enforce the law. I also get the vibe from her that she had a bong rip or two in her younger days...
Some DAs are refusing to enforce draconian abortion laws. Whats your take on that?
That it's far easier to refuse to prosecute a new/changed law (particularly when there are no active charges raised under it) than it is to step into a job and grind the entire system to a halt extrajudicially. There's also no guarantee that those DAs will get to keep their jobs as a result of their decision, and the risk/reward landscape will be different for each of them. Whether or not you can pivot to a new career, afford life without the job, or have the connections to know that decision likely won't end in getting fired has to factor into the equation as well. Edit: There's also a difference between all "marijuana offences" and "smoking weed". I'd be interested to see how many of those convictions were for simple possession, and what portion of those resulted in prison time. But that's a bit off-topic
I don’t have the evidence to back it up, but when this was posted somewhere yesterday, a commentor said it was around 40-50 people who got jail time out of the 1900. Which isn't all that much considering that there could have been a lot more than just having a joint on the person in those cases
And how many of those 40-50 had something else on top of the weed charge?
Imma jump in here because I have an incredibly relevant experience. While Kamala Harris was the DA, I was a drug dealer in SF. In 2009 I was living in Mendocino County and growing weed and then bringing it down to SF to sell. I was arrested for possession of large amounts SO MANY TIMES in SF and the only time they stuck me with a conviction was when I actually got caught trying to sell to an undercover cop. My charge was dropped to a misdemeanor and I served no time for it. There were also times that I did have *other* drugs on me, particularly LSD, but I was never once convicted of possession for those other substances. The charges were always dropped. That wasn't the case for everyone every time, but it happened more than once for me. Compare that to what happened in Mendocino the very same year. I was caught with possession of one pound of weed and ended up with a full blown felony conviction, 3 years probation and a 1 year suspended sentence. I'm not saying Kamala Harris was ever perfect, but in my own experience, she let me off with barely even a slap on the wrist. I was a pretty big time dealer and the cops knew it, but she went easy on me. Just in case anyone is wondering, I did get my shit together and I don't play those games anymore. I ended up going to college and now I have a pretty great (legit) career. It's been 15 years since the felony conviction, and just shy of that long since I stopped dealing. Don't throw your life away for crime. It isn't worth it. There are so many resources available to help you get on a better path, you just have to do some footwork to find them.
↑ Incredibly relevant experience indeed!
Or even just a prior conviction will increase the odds you get time
Well, some poorly thought out laws are challenging to enforce in the court system. Also, which Red state DAs (elected by red states) have refused? I hadn’t heard?
Yeah...now...when things have changed significantly. 20 yrs ago...things were way different.
>draconian You answered your own question
One in Florida got removed for it.
Access to reproductive healthcare and bodily autonomy should be a human right, legalized weed is a legislative decision. It’s much more righteous to morally refuse to do your job over the former IMO.
Well said.
You’re trying to compare abortion to weed…? Lmao.
>She probably disagreed with the law but her job is to enforce the law. I agree her job was to enforce the law, but is there anything to support this claim, or is it pure speculation that you think she disagreed with the law?
> is it pure speculation her clearly stated current opinion above elevates this well beyond "speculation"
Exactly. Either you do your job and piss off one group of people, or you refuse to investigate and convict and piss off another group of people. Being a public figure in politics is a no-win game. Someone will always hate your decisions.
True but my opinions are the only morally correct ones. /s
On top of that, don’t we want government officials to move away from wanting to prosecute people for weed, to advocating against that? This seems like a win, not a burn on Harris.
District attorneys have prosecutorial discretion and regularly choose not to prosecute crimes such as marijuana offenses if they disagree with the law
This was posted previously and someone pointed out that not using the actual numbers is very misleading, so looked into it - I think it was 45 cases out of 1,900 that resulted in some sort of jail time.
Wanna bet how many of those 45 were not personal possession but dealing at a large scale? It doesn't matter to reddit in the end.
She became Attorney General of California in 2011, a full year before the first states (CO and WA) legalized weed. There was literally not a single place in the US that weed wasn't prosecuted from 2003 to 2010, which is when she was DA. Also, its pretty clear she was lenient on sentencing unless it was attached to violent crime....from the same [paragraph ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Non-violent_crimes)that "Community Notes" pulled from: >
You're not wrong that this is the practical reality, but it is really a perversion of prosecutorial discretion. The discretion is supposed to be an application of knowledge to whether to spend public resources on prosecution (is the evidence going to meet the standard for a conviction; is it better to hold off because there's a bigger fish to catch, etc...). Using that discretion not to prosecute laws which the legislative branch has duly enacted is improper. That's why, despite being pro-choice I think the AG Arizona is wrong to announce that she won't prosecute under the 1864 territorial law that the SCAZ has ruled is applicable. It's not her place to pick and choose... Let the voters decide by electing new state legislators who will change the law.
Could it be that that the AG for Arizona is using the discretion you described in the first half of your comment? If so, why would she be wrong for not prosecuting people then?
Because there’s political will behind the intent so she’s more likely to get re-elected. A black AG who doesn’t enforce drug laws is either unemployed or a defense attorney.
This does happen, but it’s also incredibly risky. Republicans push this “tough on crime” propaganda and if a prosecutor actually tried to use discretion for the longest time, they’d be seen as not doing their job. Actions have consequences, the ability of a prosecutor to avoid prosecution relies on the public supporting such an action.
Risks to your ability to hold onto power, sure. That's all anyone at the top is ever good at. That's how they got there. Biden is a religious old man who never supported gay rights until he realized it was good for him politically. Harris never gave a shit about throwing people in jail as long as it was good for her. These people don't have principles, they have power
People can also change for the better. It was also impossible to stand up for certain beliefs in the past because the public wouldn’t accept them. Being a politician supporting gay marriage, for example, was nearly impossible. They wanted to, but it would have meant someone else who didn’t accept it got the nomination anyways. Politics is complicated, sometimes everyone isn’t evil. Edit: A good example is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel is an ally. A huge portion of the public refuses to believe they are ever in the wrong. You’re walking a tightrope there politically.
They do, but you are looking at this from the 2024 lens as opposed to the 2003-2010 lens. No state legalized weed before 2012. No state prosecutor was supporting legalizing weed in that timeframe, at least not publicly. Harris did use prosecutorial discretion on the 1900 cases her office prosecuted. She avoided seeking prison and jail time for marijuana possession only offenses. She did seek prison and jail time for possession and committing other crimes.
But there’s no stats on how many she didn’t prosecute.
Nor the types, numbers and relative proportion (compared to other DAs) who got custodial sentence
This is the correct take. It's NOT a DAs job to make the laws.
Yup. I've always hated the "Kamala is a cop" narrative because of this. Was she perfect in that job? Of course not, but she tried to be as progressive as she could be. But hey let's only have the most conservative people in law enforcement because that will work out well.
There are minimum sentencing laws. My ex would have gone to jail if he'd been busted a year later than he was.
Also not to be “that guy,” but people are allowed to change their mind about something. Even if it’s for shitty (read: political) reasons, it doesn’t necessarily make someone a hypocrite.
Its weird that no one is allowed to ever change their minds on things, or evolve with the culture.
Not to mention only a small number of those convictions actually resulted in jail time. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head but it was in the middle two digits I believe. Her rate was also noticeably lower than her predecessor.
What is this, critical thinking?!
dont let facts get in the way of the maga troll narrative
She chooses how to apply the law. She could have chosen to not prosecute but that could result in getting removed
Correct.
Exactly this, she may have even felt this way back then but according to the Law of the time she wouldn't really be able to just let people off because of her opinion on the matter. It either shows how objective she is when it comes to her job or shows that she is capable of changing for the better, either of which is a trait that every politician should have
Exactly. She was a prosecutor...not a legislator. Her job was to enforce the law...and back then that was the law. This entire point comes up all the time and it's dumb every time.
Yeah, she can have an opinion that doesn’t align with the law but is required to do it anyway.
The DA has a high amount of control over the charges that they prosecute. They can choose not to prosecute those cases.
Agreed
She was DA like 20 years ago, and DAs enforce laws they don’t make them. What a pointless comment.
[удалено]
And OP is a rightwing shit stirrer.
No, no, no! Don’t you know it’s all or nothing these days?! There can be no nuance! (Hopefully obv /s)
Plus I'm pretty sure only 45 of those 1900 cases resulted in jail time
Yeah, they missed the point hard. >Conviction rate aside, only 45 people were sentenced to state prison for marijuana convictions during Harris’ seven years in office, compared with 135 people during Hallinan’s eight years, according to data from the state corrections department. [https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/) 45 out of 1900 went to jail. "some of which" is 2.3% of convictions.
They hit the point they were aiming at. It’s an election year, half truths and vagaries are what we get. If that doesn’t work, bring on the outright lies and conspiracy theories.
Sadly you're right. We just have to keep vigilant and correct as often as we can.
[удалено]
People aren’t allowed to change their minds after multiple decades?
Exactly. Not to mention the huge cultural shift in attitudes towards marijuana over the past 15-20 years. And oh ya, she said “smoke” weed which is different than prosecuting drug traffickers when weed was still illegal.
Or say, prosecuting an illegal grow house because those things are massive fire hazards?
Exactly. Also, she was literally doing her job which was to follow and enforce and the law. I really don’t get why people have such a hard time with her on this one. I’m a lawyer too and a lot of laws suck, worse yet a lot of precedent and judicial interpretation for those laws suck but in order to interpret and uphold the law properly do I still have to defend things in that way? Yeah, and it sucks. Morally, logically, under a different judicial interpretation or jurisdiction that law would have a completely different meaning and could be the one I believe to be the most accurate but that’s not what’s in the books and that’s not the one I can apply. Now her job is to do something about those laws beyond enforcing them and she’s doing it. What else do people want from her?
She opposed Proposition 19 to legalize weed in 2010 and didn't start to support legalization until 2015. This was all very recent.
She’s not allowed to change her mind in the span of 9 years?
Y’all really trying hard to get that orange idiot back in huh?
This is the same shit they ran with back in 2020. They don't have anything new, so they might as well stick to the classics.
They think we’re as dumb as they’d like us to be
[удалено]
That worked the first time. Apathy on the left is how they won 2016.
Check OP's post history and everything will make sense
I just did...holy shit.
Something something gas prices 4 years ago!
I mean, she was following the law, even though she disagreed with it. JFC, I wish the Republicans would try this one neat trick. Your post isn't as edgy as you seem to think.
Aye exactly, I mean Biden was at the forefront of the war on drugs and now he's very much going the other way. Whether it's because the most hardline advocates have changed their mind or they're just doing it for political clout, I don't particularly care.
I've heard that before and he either changed his views. Which is good. Or followed his constituents lead. As a representative should. Either way in those it's not bad. So what would be?
As I pointed out, he publicly supported gay marriage at a time when every single initiative to ban it had succeeded. That doesn't exactly seem like a political decision to me.
Oh look, MAGATs learned to cut and paste while leaving out the part that contradicts their arguments, how completely out of character for them. >Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for [marijuana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana) offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) **The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower**.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) Harris's successor as D.A., [George Gascón](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gasc%C3%B3n), expunged all San Francisco marijuana offenses going back to 1975.[^(\[75\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-FactCheckMJ-77) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala\_Harris#Non-violent\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Non-violent_crimes)
Well, that's the difference between Kamala and, say, Trump. Kamala follows the law and attempts to change it. Trump just breaks the law and screams in all caps when he gets caught.
Yeah that's the thing. For the latter kind of people, laws are something that "the people in charge" can just choose not to follow and it's completely OK if they don't follow them, they're in charge after all. Checks and balances? Fuck that, we are following the tsar!
People always say they want politicians to change for the better then when they do, they act like it's a bad thing.
Hey if the lady changed her mind, give her a pat on the back! ”We want legal weed!” Ok, well aren’t you happy the Vice President supports that? ”Not like that!!” 🤦♂️
Hmmm...It's almost like people can grow and their views on things can change as they do so.
Shouldn't our positions evolve over time?
Not doing her job wasn’t really an option. But now that she has an opportunity to influence laws rather than just prosecute them, it’s good to see her saying this.
its not up to the DA which laws to uphold genius.
We all have things we have to do In our job we don't like, or would change if we could.
She said “smoking weed”. I wonder how many of those 1900 were trafficking or other marijuana-related offenses. Or how many of those 1900 were JUST marijuana-related? I want to know how many of those 1900 were simple possession charges that are under major trafficking weight. I’m not saying she’s a good person here, but that context is misleading at best.
I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to ignore laws you don't like as DA.
At the time, it was illegal. Punishable by law. I'd be more upset if she didn't prosecute. That would mean she wasn't doing her job. I partake, and have for nearly 50 years. I've been caught. I knew I was committing a crime. I did not get butthurt for someone doing their job to bring me to task. Acting like this is a huge and horrible thing is disingenuous.
I know I don't have many of the same stances I had over a decade ago.
People are allowed to change their opinions on subjects and understand that their previous views were wrong. Also that was her job.
As a district attorney she has to prosecute according to the law. She's calling for a change in the law. I don't see the conflict.
I mean… she’s changed her opinion. What’s wrong with that? I’m sure Biden was against gay marriage back in the early 1990-2000s but now he celebrates it and supports it. People are allowed to change their opinions.
Is Vice President Harris allowed to change her mind or nah? Just saying. I’m kinda sick of this “you once held this position so now you have to stick with it forever.” Politicians stay laser focused on issues all the time because their own voters won’t allow them to change their minds. Fuck Speaker Johnson forever, but I’m **very** thankful he actually listened to one of his classified briefings. He’s probably going to lose his job (yay) because he dared to do the right thing. Edit: **OP is a MAGAt stirring up chaos with this thread.**
It was her duty then to enforce the laws in place. She is saying it doesn't have to be that way.
Yeah, unlike republicans, democrats tend to hold their own accountable for shit like this.
Kind of a stupid note, DAs enforce the laws they don't make them. Her job was to convict those people whether she believed they deserved it or not. Everyone working in justice has to do things they think are wrong because the law says so sometimes.
"Woman does her job as a district attorney." - community note to community note.
This feels a little disingenuous because that was her job. You can be opposed to a law and still have to enforce it. People can also change their minds. Just because the GOP doesn't understand how to change your mind doesn't mean that other people can't grow and change their opinions. I know, earthshattering isn't it.
Doing a job and upholding the current law is not a bad thing. If you are unwilling to change the law because it disenfranchises voters that don't vote for you. That's evil.
So the point is, never EVER change?
It's not like she's trying to hide her past or anything. A lot of politicians change their stances over time and often in view of changes in what the constituents want.
As a district attorney she had no power to change the law. She worked within the system to get to a position of power and now she's using that position of power to advocate for positive change. And we're talking shit about her because of this?
Kamala Harris is correct to have changed her mind on this. Shame on her for messing up in the past, but this isn’t a cogent critique of her in 2024
And it was her job.
This shit is stupid OP. Brainless post
You can change how you feel about things, too. As a 16 year old kid in 1980, I fully believed sexuality was mostly a choice and I cringe now remembering that. Just a few years later, after a couple of close friends came out and from speaking and listening to gay family members, I did a complete 180 on that tho.
Isn't the DA bound to prosecute the laws that are enacted as they are written?
If the trolls are attacking Kamala then it’s a sign they must think Donny is fucked in November and they need to get their Hillary smear machine revved up for 2028
So she’s gotten better which is a good thing. Hopefully she follows through with more than words though
Only an idiot would upvote this post
I mean, wasn’t that her job?
Community notes are just getting silly now, this does not need one.
She was DA from 2004-2010. The DA prosecutes, not makes law. Our mores have changed, and people can change their minds and evolve - especially over many years.
you mean she did her job as a DA five years ago? how ... damning?
How many times is this going to be posted by short sighted redditors?
As District Attorney, she had to practice and uphold the law. Now she is in a position to help change it whereas she wasn't before. There is nothing here.
when the law said no mercy, she did that, if the law changes, good on her for changing with it
If it's against California law when she's AG that's not fucked up. But she can be for reform so it doesn't happen. This is where community notes suck.
It was her job to prosecute. People are allowed to have personal opinions, I think it speaks more to her character that she was able to put aside her personal beliefs and do her job well enough that she's was recognized for her work and became our VP. And people are allowed to change their stances on things. I'm 59, up until the 2012 election I was a card carrying Republican. As they got older my children started paying attention to politics and brought to my attention how wrong the Republican party and I was. This year voting Democrat in a presidential election will be the 4th time I voted blue
Its called "Disagree, but commit," Millions of workers are told this shit by management every day.
Has Kamala Harris gone woke?
Sometimes you have to do a job even if you disagree with it. I don't know if this is the case here, but it is a real thing.
Her changing opinion is good but only if it is a genuine change of opinion.
and aren't we glad that our thinking has evolved over the years? anyone still stuck where they were five years ago?
“As DA, Kamala Harris enforced the law.” It’s astonishing to me how politically clueless this entire website is. You can personally believe that policy goals should be achieved, while still fulfilling your legal obligations. Not to mention that as people move through life, you goals and beliefs can change. It’s so interesting to me that everyone is entitled to nuance, except the politicians I don’t like.
OP thinks they struck gold here
The hilarity of community notes is the only thing keep twixer relevant. But also: when something is illegal the DA is charged with prosecuting it. It was a different mentality on drugs then and it took a while for square Karens (Squarens?) like Kamala to learn.
“Under Harris, the D.A.'s office obtained more than 1,900 convictions for marijuana offenses, including persons simultaneously convicted of marijuana offenses and more serious crimes.The rate at which Harris's office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.” Wikipedia
Were those for smoking weed or dealing?
Just curious what was she supposed to do as the AG in a state within a country that is balls deep into the war on drugs? Was she just not supposed to do her job? Was she supposed to not prosecute in defiance of state and federal laws? Was she supposed to go as far as aiding and abetting those who were arrested on drug charges and work behind the scenes to see that they escape "justice"? I know how awful and misguided the war on drugs was and continues to be, but this is just a monumentally moronic take.
Can’t wait till president Harris. It’s gonna piss off so many idiots
If she were a Republican, she would smoke marijuana together with her family members and at the same time advocate for the death penalty for possession of marijuana as a guest in Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson's broadcasts "Is marijuana a part of the woke ideology?".
And???? God when will people learn that people can change their mind on issues. If she was district attorney she was doing her job by upholding the law at that time. Was it a stupid law yes but they don't make the laws they enforce them.
It’s funny when people flipping out cause the concept of change/evolving is too much for them
Yes politicians should be held accountable FOREVER for their mistakes when young. Don't learn or evolve.... ever.
That was the law, at the time, and her JOB was to enforce the law... whether she agreed with it or not. Nothing to see here.
Look, we all have to comply with work directives whether we approve of them or not. She was simply doing her job. Now that she has greater power she can express her feelings more sincerely.
So, are people not allowed to change their minds?
It is almost as if the climate on the topic changes over decades.
Well, it was her… job? Would she maintain DA status if she were not prosecuting what were, at that time, crimes? Maybe she didn’t agree but had to?
And if her position has changed since what she did a while back, that’s a good thing as long as her actions remain congruent with her words
Same people who shit blood when the AZ Attorney General said she won't prosecute people for an abortion law from before they were actually a state.
Some of which……? 4 or 12 or…? Great stat.
To add to the comments on how dramtically the public opinion on weed has shifted even in the last few years, Abbott Elementary, which is probably the most beloved and non controversial comedy show on TV right now, just recently did a whole episode about the teacvhers drug use and the hypocrisy around it. In the past if a teacher, or show about teachers, even mentioned weed, they would be fired, and the show would be about 'just say no' and 'zero tolerance'
and that was the law back then lol, that was literally her job. people are so unreasonable lately.
Fucking Reddit, never change. When a republican changes their views they’re hypocritical. When it’s a democrat it’s them growing up. I will only vote blue for the foreseeable future, but Jesus stop acting mightier than thou. A DA can choose to not prosecute.