I may be clueless, but I try not to stay that way

Updates to yesterday’s post
“bullet” A big thanks to Dano regarding the postponement of Ammiano’s legalization bill (AB 390). A note from Dale Gieringer posted at Mendocinocountry’s Blog says:

Contrary to the article by Richard Johnson, Assemblyman Ammiano did NOT withdraw his bill AB 390 (which is for legalization, NOTŠ decriminalizationŠ). I just spoke with him today, and he is pursuing it vigorously.
He had it extended into a two-year bill in order to give us more time to lobby the legislature. The Speaker had been pressing to kill the bill quickly by bringing it to an early hearing in a hostile committee. At Ammiano‰s request, the bill was kept alive and postponed for extended consideration. Hearings are expected next January or December.

“bullet” Regarding the Holder attribution in the New York Times:

And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases.

I asked reporter Ginger Thompson whether Holder had been talking about distributing or importing rather than possession.
Her reply:

Thanks very much for your query.
Mr. Holder said he thought that too few marijuana possession cases were prosecuted by the federal government, and that he was exploring lowering the minimums to prosecute more.

Still clueless as to what that really means, but I hold to my analysis from yesterday.