I don't know much about her, but directly from the wiki:

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.[76] 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.[76]

It sounds like her position on weed is not exactly what people are painting it as. At least these comments make it seem much worse than it is according to the wiki.

EDIT:

According to this, she even supported a bill in 2019 to legalize marijuana at a federal level, tax it, and use that money to (according to this):

Create a community reinvestment fund to reinvest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow those funds to be invested in the following programs:

Job training;

Reentry services;

Expenses related to the expungement of convictions;

Public libraries;

Community centers;

Programs and opportunities dedicated to youth; and

Health education

I don't know if it's on purpose, but you are definitely spreading misinformation.

If that's the spin republicans will take on her, they'll alienate their own voters and push them democratic.

She's a democrat so the average voter is totally incapable of identifying that they could be anything but pro minority and soft on crime.

It's like pointing out that republicans keep crashing the economy, doesn't matter, they're branding is still 'good for business'

Oof, that's not great; got an example?

I think this is an instance of people failing to think from a systems perspective rather than an individual perspective. Kamala Harris was a functionary of an oppressive system and chose the easy path of not challenging it from within. That in itself may not inspire confidence in her potential presidency, but it does not discount her completely. She is still an individual who has changed her views over the years in a way that suggests hope for her being a better president than she was an Attorney General.

Exactly. If it were a real issue, it would be important enough to talk about all the time. When it only comes up if she is in the spotlight, it's a disinformation campaign.

1. Chosen because of her gender before her merit. Evidence: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309

2. She ran for president previously and lost terribly because people didn’t like her. She is not well spoken because clearly people didn’t resonate with her, women included.

3. When she loses, and I assure you she will, it’s not because she’s a woman. It all comes down to her track record and how charismatic she is, both which are bad.

4. Let’s not forget she backs Biden so things that the left is against, such as her and Biden sending bombs to Israel will hurt her terribly.

5. I’m probably voting for her, but it leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth stomaching it. I’m able to accept that I won’t have a perfect candidate but most Americans aren’t these days so it’s a loss for her, yeah.