Eric Holder's Position on the possible passing of Proposition 19

This commentary by Marcus Wohlson is about the Califrnia Attorney General Eric Holder's position on what will happen if marijuana becomes legalized in November. Holder states in a letter that even if marijuana is legalized in California, it is still illegal according to federal law and that the federal laws will be "vigorously enforced" against recreational use. Holder believes that the passing of Prop. 19 would undermine efforts in targeting the trafficking of marijuana, which is often distributed with other drugs, and would put California communities at higher risk from these dangers. Advocates of the legalization of marijuana argue that marijuana will become a "new industry" and that it's "taxable new income" and will attract many tourists.
   Many people are also skeptical about Holder's claim to prosecute distributors and recreational users because the federal government doesn't have the resources to constantly patrol the streets of California and find every user of the drug. Less than one percent of suspects in marijuana related arrests nationwide in 2008 were made by federal law enforcement, DEA could only be able to focus its time on larger targets.
   Although many pot dispensaries in California were raided by federal agents during the Bush administration, the marijuana industry was minimally affected and continued to grow. Advocates of Prop. 19  also argue that Eric Holder and the federal government could "put our tax dollars to better use," instead of spending so much time and resources on "continuing an endless cycle with little positive effect."
  So even if Proposition 19 is passed, Holder will not sit idly by because he believes that the Controlled Substances Act Should strictly be enforced in every single state in the country "even if such activities are permitted under state law."

Eric Holder to Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes

My Critique of a NYTimes Columnist

    I read in the "Opinionator," a commentary on the ground zero mosque by Dick Cavett. It is titled, "Real Americans, Please Stand Up." Mr. Cavett expresses how shocked and ashamed he is by how some Americans act in opposition to the ground zero mosque, mainly the people who supported a burning of the Quran. Although these people have the right to burn the Quran, they do not have the right to deny muslims of their freedom of religion, nor deny their right to private property. He Argues using examples of how white, Christian Ku Klux Klan members lynched blacks in the South and yet there were Christian churches near those operations. He also mentions how people ignore the fact that most Muslims were against the actions taken by the Muslim radicals on 9/11. And many people who suffered from the tragedy aren't against the building of the center, they just aren't being heard over the loud protests of the  center. Cavett expresses his confusion of how many Americans claim to be tolerant of other religions and expressions and yet "simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one?" I agree with his position on the issue because he believes that it is un-American to oppress the rights of Muslims building a religious community center near ground zero, because many Muslim Americans (who were innocent victims) also died on 9/11. I understand that people have a right to protest, but I also understand that it is wrong to persecute people based on their religion or race, which is what I think Dick Cavett is saying in this column.