• @Viking_Hippie
      link
      274 months ago

      For legalization, but historically toed the party line

      It’s sadly a common theme with her: she claims to be progressive on many subjects, but when push comes to shove, she almost always toes the party line.

      I hope she’ll buck that trend when she’s president, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

      • Queue
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Depends if the lobbyists want it legal.

        • @Viking_Hippie
          link
          64 months ago

          Yeah, that’s a given, since the owner donors decide where the party line is more than anyone else…

      • @nullroot
        link
        54 months ago

        Yeah, my feelings exactly

    • @Wrench
      link
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I wonder how many people she pursued possession charges on as a DA.

      Edit:

      But at different junctures of her time in office, she has been an enforcer of cannabis laws and an opponent of legalized use for adults in California.

      Though she defended marijuana’s use for medicinal purposes as district attorney, her prosecutors in San Francisco convicted more than 1,900 people on cannabis-related offenses.

      • @LovingHippieCat
        link
        64 months ago

        1900 people were convicted, but only 45 of them went to prison. The rest were referred to addiction services and work release programs.

        • @johannesvanderwhales
          link
          54 months ago

          It’s also not really a prosecutor’s job to decide what the law should be.

          • @Buddahriffic
            link
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            That’s a bit of a cop out. Was she “just following orders”?

            Anyone enforcing laws they don’t believe in is IMO a bigger ethical issue than agreeing with controversial laws.

            People’s willingness to follow through on what the government decides should absolutely be a check and balance on government power IMO.

            Edit: she’s still a far better choice than Trump and would have to have a lot more issues to change that, just to be clear.

            • @johannesvanderwhales
              link
              14 months ago

              It’s literally a prosecutor’s job to enforce the law. I’m sure she had many opinions on whether the laws were just or not…and that’s probably something that moved her to want to go into politics, where she can help shape the law. It’s fine if you object to someone having been a prosecutor but I don’t think you can accept that she was a prosecutor and then object to the fact that she…did her job.

        • @Wrench
          link
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s still a lot of people with criminal records whose lives are much more difficult for it, for something she’s now antagonizing her opponent for flip flopping on as well.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m voting Harris and donating to get campaign. But I find this particular attack vector to be massively hypocritical.

          • @LovingHippieCat
            link
            34 months ago

            Oh, those people have definitely had a conviction on their records impact them. Although I’m fairly sure the ones that didn’t go to prison were misdemeanors, so not felonies. But regardless, I just think it’s important context to know more about the 1900 number. Is it still not the best? Yeah. But it’s also not as black and white as she sent 1900 people to prison for weed.