What Would Jesus Legalize?
March 8, 2012 5:06 PM   Subscribe

Over a year after after decrying mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana possession (Previously on the blue), 700 Club founder and evangelist Pat Robertson has come out in support of outright decriminalization, saying marijuana should be regulated like alcohol.
posted by codswallop (75 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
My goodness. At this moment, this broken clock has the correct time!
posted by birdherder at 5:08 PM on March 8, 2012 [44 favorites]


Actually, back to at least 2010 when he began decrying mandatory minimum sentences for possession, he was also saying marijuana should be regulated like alcohol. (Source YT video, from Christian Broadcasting Network). This isn't new, but the coverage appears to be.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:13 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Time to update this list.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:13 PM on March 8, 2012


I'm really cynical right now, my first thought was, "which painful disease did he come down with last year that isn't quite painful enough to warrant a medical marijuana script?"
posted by Slackermagee at 5:14 PM on March 8, 2012 [27 favorites]


Octogenarianism
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:16 PM on March 8, 2012 [7 favorites]


"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!" (Habakkuk 2:15)
posted by mittens at 5:43 PM on March 8, 2012


This, while Obama's DEA and DOJ are attacking medical marijuana caregivers -- including some who worked with local sheriffs to reform the system -- and shutting down dispensaries. The legalize-and-regulate ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington will be something to watch...
posted by vorfeed at 5:44 PM on March 8, 2012 [8 favorites]


Does he have cancer?
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 5:47 PM on March 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


This is great! Too bad the conservative machine has perfected the art of throwing its own under a bus at the first hint of rational thought. Cf. Christopher Buckley on Obama, Olympia Snowe on abortion rights, Arlen Specter on everything.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:47 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Oh, good. We've established that we hate Pat Robertson even when he's agreeing with us. I was so very worried that no one would take up that banner.

Just once, can't a person spout an idea counter to his or her usual stripe and be accepted with simply, "I agree, sir or madam. Thank you for speaking up on this issue. Please spread your thinking amongst your compatriots."?
posted by Etrigan at 5:47 PM on March 8, 2012 [19 favorites]


or what Slackermagee said
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 5:47 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Good. Even assholes can hold correct views.
posted by KathrynT at 5:54 PM on March 8, 2012


Meanwhile, under our liberal president...
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:13 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Just once, can't a person spout an idea counter to his or her usual stripe and be accepted with simply, "I agree, sir or madam. Thank you for speaking up on this issue. Please spread your thinking amongst your compatriots."?

That he has adopted a rational view on this issue does not absolve him of his various and many awful acts. He's still a terrible person. One good thing does not make him immune to criticism.

I am very interested to see how his compatriots react. Will they agree? Will they get out their torches and pitchforks?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:18 PM on March 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


It's the stopped clock that's right twice a day. The broken clock might never be right.

It is nice to see the Reverend Mr. Robertson getting something right, though.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:18 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


That he has adopted a rational view on this issue does not absolve him of his various and many awful acts

That someone has not mentioned his awful acts in any one particular discussion does not absolve him of his awful acts either.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:23 PM on March 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


Just last week Bill C-10 passed a 48 to 37 vote in the Canadian Senate. The bill institutes mandatory minimum sentences for cultivating as few as 6 marijuana plants. Canada is now more regressive on drug policy than Pat Robertson. Yay.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 6:25 PM on March 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


One good thing does not make him immune to criticism.

I didn't say anything that could remotely be construed as "Pat Robertson should be immune to criticism." I just think that it's at best unproductive to raise high the "YEAH BUT HE STILL SUCKS ON EVERYTHING ELSE" banner. Don't worry -- no one will take away your More Enlightened Person Card for failure to attack a terrible person at every unrelated opportunity. They did away with that bylaw in the late '60s.
posted by Etrigan at 6:26 PM on March 8, 2012 [6 favorites]


I don't want this to be a derail, so I'll say no more about it after this, but Robertson's view on this issue is only noteworthy because it so out of step with his other views and his previous acts. So, of course, his other views and previous acts are going to be relevant to the discussion.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:45 PM on March 8, 2012 [6 favorites]


You think that's some crazy shit outta his mouth, you gotta see this.
posted by symbioid at 6:50 PM on March 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


Of course, he does manage to blame it on 'da libruls' (HuffPo):
Robertson blamed left-wing lawmakers for the harsh sanctions.

"What is it we're doing that is different?" he said. "What we're doing is turning a bunch of liberals loose writing laws -- there's this punitive spirit, the always want to punish people. It's time for change! More and more prisons, more and more crime. It's just shocking, especially this business about drug offenses. It's time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can't do it anymore...You don't lock 'em up for booze unless they kill somebody on the highway."
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:50 PM on March 8, 2012


And by crazy, I mean "the most lucid the old coot's ever been" -- maybe when your whole life is based on some juvenile dementia, when senility hits, you suddenly become rational and clear...

(then again - we know he's gonna say 99% more bullshit after these things).
posted by symbioid at 6:51 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Finally - if you never watched his show, it seems like his son's taken (or in the process of taking) over the mantle. I get to hear it every time I visit my parents when my mom has it on in the other room.

From what I can gather based upon the topic (yes, that's singular) that his son continually dwells upon is that he must be completely 100% in denial flaming gay.
posted by symbioid at 6:54 PM on March 8, 2012


That HuffPo quote is incredible. The cognitive dissonance, it burns.

The more Pat Robertsons and Ron Pauls out there speak out in favor of legalization, the more the number of supporters climb who otherwise wouldn't be caught dead getting behind a cause tainted by hippies and liberals.
posted by notashroom at 6:54 PM on March 8, 2012 [6 favorites]


Pat Robertson wants pot legalized, I want Pat Robertson jailed for his use of slave labor in Africa and his association with Charles Taylor.

I think we can BOTH get what we want here!
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:54 PM on March 8, 2012 [7 favorites]


From my link (in case you're too lazy to click):

Pat Robertson: “We could start putting all of those bankers in jail. There was not one banker prosecuted and so many people were lying, and so-called “no-doc loans” and liars’ loans, and none of them have been held accountable. I’m not for putting people in jail. I’m sick of these — we’ve got too many penalties. Too many penalties, too many criminal sanctions, too many people in prison. But here is an opportunity for the people who wanted, you know, to enforce laws, to enforce that one. There must be some laws against lying on documents. I’m sure there are.”
posted by symbioid at 7:01 PM on March 8, 2012 [4 favorites]


Maybe like Lee Atwater he's figured out that he's mortal and hell is hot.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:10 PM on March 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


I'd smoke a j with Pat Robertson. Well, I would if weed didn't make me nauseous. And if Pat didn't make me nauseous, also.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:26 PM on March 8, 2012



I don't want this to be a derail, so I'll say no more about it after this, but Robertson's view on this issue is only noteworthy because it so out of step with his other views and his previous acts. So, of course, his other views and previous acts are going to be relevant to the discussion.


But the point isn't whether Pat Robertson is a good person or not. The point is there are many people out there who have the same viewpoint as Pat Robertson, people who would not normally be for decriminalizing marijuana. Maybe, just maybe, by them watching Pat Robertson decry criminalizing marijuana, they will also be swayed on this issue. So to me it doesn't matter how many abhorrent beliefs Robertson holds. If he's able to convince millions of conservatives on this issue, then that is a net good.
posted by gyc at 7:36 PM on March 8, 2012 [4 favorites]


If he's able to convince millions of conservatives on this issue, then that is a net good.

I agree. I'm just not convinced that will happen. I eager await the reactions from the right wing nut-job commentators.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:49 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe like Lee Atwater he's figured out that he's mortal and hell is hot.

Or maybe the Drug War is such straight-up nonsense that even Pat Robertson has to stand up and say no more, rather than playing n-th dimensional tough-on-crime chess while non-violent citizens are losing their livelihoods, freedom, and sometimes even their lives over issues of horticulture. Or, like the man himself said: "I just want to be on the right side. And I think on this one, I'm on the right side".

The sooner we admit that this is a legitimate issue, the better. The sooner we admit that there's widespread support for at least some form of marijuana legalization, including among evangelicals and Republicans, the better. That's the bottom line... and if it takes Pat Robertson to step up and say so, then the question isn't "hmm, what's with him". It's "what's with everybody else".
posted by vorfeed at 7:52 PM on March 8, 2012 [7 favorites]


I eager await the reactions from the right wing nut-job commentators.

Damn it. Eagerly. I no type gud.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:54 PM on March 8, 2012


Pat Robertson: Change We can Put Weed In
posted by Hoopo at 8:02 PM on March 8, 2012


So, of course, his other views and previous acts are going to be relevant to the discussion.

This isn't a discussion. This is a bunch of people lining up to come up with more clever ways to vilify someone who is agreeing with them on something. How is that remotely productive?
posted by Etrigan at 8:19 PM on March 8, 2012 [5 favorites]


You're doing it wrong, Etrigan. People come to Metafilter to avoid productivity.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:23 PM on March 8, 2012 [6 favorites]


This isn't a discussion.

So discuss. All you have done so far is complain about how no one is discussing the topic. I, for one, am perfectly happy to engage if you have anything you would like to banter about.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:28 PM on March 8, 2012


I personally think it's interesting that Robertson is calling for this. Frankly, I wish more christian leaders and media personalities would call for legalization of things which they may personally deplore in the name of their faith. Then they could rail against those things as much as they want from the pulpits, only they would be making not doing those things A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE OF FAITH AND CONSCIENCE rather than legislated prohibition throughout society.

This way, they'd be building stronger believers in whatever brand of religion they are promoting. You see, if you have the choice to be able to do something, but then you choose NOT to do that because your religious faith says you shouldn't, then you're actually taking a stand for your faith. If you're denied even having that choice because of legislated prohibition, then you're not actually exercising any religious muscles by not doing something.

Frankly, I don't know why more religious leaders don't see this and campaign actively for legalization of drugs and abortion and gay marriage and all that stuff. It'd be the only really true way to build a flock of followers which you know actually pass muster.
posted by hippybear at 8:47 PM on March 8, 2012 [4 favorites]


All you have done so far is complain about how no one is discussing the topic.

No, all I've done so far is complain about how one does not need to establish one's ideological bonfires by saying, "Yeah, well, he's still an asshole." I don't really see much to "discuss" in Robertson's apparent change of view, other than, "I agree and am glad that he spoke up on this issue. I hope he spreads his thinking amongst his compatriots."
posted by Etrigan at 8:58 PM on March 8, 2012


Or one's ideological bonafides. Mea culpa.
posted by Etrigan at 8:59 PM on March 8, 2012


Or one's ideological bonafides. Mea culpa.

I don't know, 'bonfires' seems pretty appropriate in the circumstances.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:03 PM on March 8, 2012 [3 favorites]


Frankly, I don't know why more religious leaders don't see this and campaign actively for legalization of drugs and abortion and gay marriage and all that stuff

Well, the current Pope claims that the legalisation of gay marriage is a threat to the 'future of humantity itself'.

I'm not entirely sure what he means by that. On its face, it appears to mean that he believes that if people are 'allowed' to be gay, then everyone will be, and human reproduction will cease entirely. Thus: DOOOOOOM!

But maybe that really is it. They think that all their congregations, given the choice, would go over to the other side. Therefore, they dare not allow that choice.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:08 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah, this makes me wonder.

I think Pat Robertson is an asshole and because of that impression I do not want his support for a common cause. Am I wrong for not welcoming the dude with open arms and instead thinking "what am I giving up here beyond self-respect if I appreciate his support?"
posted by roboton666 at 9:28 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Just reacting to His thoughts were red thoughts' comment: How ridiculously disingenuous is Robertson?!? Nixon established the DEA and declared the war on drugs. And Reagan first instituted mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Last I checked, those guys were Republicans. So ... what exactly has Robertson been smoking?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:29 PM on March 8, 2012 [2 favorites]


Just reacting to His thoughts were red thoughts' comment: How ridiculously disingenuous is Robertson?!? Nixon established the DEA and declared the war on drugs. And Reagan first instituted mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Last I checked, those guys were Republicans. So ... what exactly has Robertson been smoking?

Millions of dollars and horrifying amounts of political influence.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:54 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Millions of dollars and horrifying amounts of political influence.

You can smoke that stuff? I learn something every day!
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:59 PM on March 8, 2012


Or one's ideological bonafides. Mea culpa.

I don't know, 'bonfires' seems pretty appropriate in the circumstances.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:03 PM on March 8 [+] [!]


I remember a kid in my year 6 class during a 'life skills,' or whatever they were calling sex-ed and drug awareness programs at the time, asking the teacher:

"So when the police discover and destroy a pot plantation in the bush, do they throw it into a big fire and all stand around breathing deeply?"

Pretty much everyone including the teacher burst out into laughter. Of course, considering the activities of elements the NSW police force that emerged thanks to a Royal Commission into police corruption, it's perhaps more likely that they were on-selling it to organised crime groups.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 10:43 PM on March 8, 2012 [1 favorite]


Does he have cancer?

Once again I am forced to link to Michael Moore's Prayer To Afflict The Comfortable (With As Many Afflictions As Possible).

To respond to Etrigan, there are plenty of people who agree with Pat Robertson outside of Metafilter. Can't they stop loudly proclaiming how much they agree with him? It's a discussion thread, so MeFites will discuss.
posted by JHarris at 1:07 AM on March 9, 2012


Nixon established the DEA and declared the war on drugs. And Reagan first instituted mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Last I checked, those guys were Republicans. So ... what exactly has Robertson been smoking?
One, the Democratic majority leader Tip O'Neill is primarily responsible for the mandatory minimum sentences (PBS Frontline). It was a political gimmick to steal the "tough on drugs" mantle from the Republicans, following the death of basketball star Len Bias (who died of a cocaine overdose; IIRC he was on his way to play for the Celtics, in O'Neill's congressional district, or nearly so).

Two, the drug war has enjoyed broad political support from both parties for many decades. It's just as wrong for Robertson to primarily blame liberals as it is to assume Republicans are primarily to blame.

By all means vote your conscience and for the best candidate in any given election. But why on earth anyone of good moral character would want to belong to either political party is beyond me. It's like picking sides in the "tastes great"/"less filing" argument over the same crappy product.
posted by Davenhill at 1:10 AM on March 9, 2012 [2 favorites]


Pat Robertson wants weed to be legal?

Well, I say this from the depth of my agnostic soul: THERE IS A GOD!
posted by three blind mice at 1:16 AM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


I think the quickest way to get rid of the drug act is to lobby to get rid of the exemption in it for alcohol and tobacco. We need to get alcohol scheduled where it belongs and really get people pissed when they can't drink their booze again.

Maybe a Mormon president wouldn't be so bad after all.......
posted by dibblda at 1:31 AM on March 9, 2012


I'm curious: how do his fellow televangelists feel about this? Is he off the reservation, or a trailblazer laying down a safer path for his brethren? Is Jesus now in favor of pot?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:33 AM on March 9, 2012


It was only a few weeks ago when Robertson said that Obama secretly “wants to take control of every aspect of this nation by the federal government. . . If you want a dictatorship, then that’s the way to get it because he’s giving it to you."

"Well, the current Pope claims that the legalisation of gay marriage is a threat to the 'future of humantity itself'."

...and he should know!
posted by markkraft at 2:05 AM on March 9, 2012


You can smoke that stuff? I learn something every day!

Like cocaine, regular use turns you into an asshole.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:39 AM on March 9, 2012


It seems to me that with some sufficiently motivated activists, especially in the case of mandatory minimum sentencing, there could be a fairly effective method of scoring a media coup: get someone who's, say, 70 years old, an "upstanding citizen", and generally sympathetic, and have them walk into the police station carrying just over the minimum amount of pot.

Either they get arrested and sentenced, in which case you get a story about the idiocy of a grandma getting put in prison at a cost of half a million dollars for a trivial crime; or they get off on a technicality, or because the police decline to prosecute, in which case you get a story about how the mandatory sentencing laws are being selectively applied.

Apart from the obvious problem of asking people to make what is potentially a huge sacrifice, how do people think this would play out? Am I being hopelessly naive?
posted by alexei at 4:18 AM on March 9, 2012


He probably wants it to be legal seeing either a family member go through pain from illness or he is himself.

That or he finally gets what the hullaballoo is all about.

Either way good for him.
posted by stormpooper at 7:08 AM on March 9, 2012


Meanwhile Joe Biden is bribing latin american leaders with drug war "aid." Does Joe Biden actually have some influence in the White House? Was he behind the hiring of Michelle Leonhart? Can we please drop Joe from the 2012 ticket? Pretty please??
posted by mrhappy at 7:12 AM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, this is clearly one of the issues the Republicans have been calculating to make political hay over. Attacks on Obama on this issue have been in the works for a while, and the Repubs have a history of talking out of both sides of their mouth on legalization when they think it can swing a few timely votes their way. I'm deeply skeptical of the motivations here. But I'm glad Robertson is taking this stand publicly all the same.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:31 AM on March 9, 2012



Just reacting to His thoughts were red thoughts' comment: How ridiculously disingenuous is Robertson?!? Nixon established the DEA and declared the war on drugs. And Reagan first instituted mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Last I checked, those guys were Republicans. So ... what exactly has Robertson been smoking?


Setting up that the drug war and mandatory minimum sentencing as a liberal conspiracy makes it easier to sell decriminalization and the end of the drug war to the hardcore conservatives that make up Robertson's audience.
posted by gyc at 8:39 AM on March 9, 2012


I don't want this to be a derail, so I'll say no more about it after this, but Robertson's view on this issue is only noteworthy because it so out of step with his other views and his previous acts.

How precisely?

William F. Buckley was for marijuana legalization. WILLIAM F BUCKLEY!
posted by Jahaza at 8:42 AM on March 9, 2012


Marijuana encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
posted by box at 8:45 AM on March 9, 2012 [3 favorites]


I'm curious: how do his fellow televangelists feel about this? Is he off the reservation, or a trailblazer laying down a safer path for his brethren? Is Jesus now in favor of pot?

I don't know about the evangelical community, but the Freepers seem to largely agree with him.
posted by KathrynT at 10:05 AM on March 9, 2012


I'm curious: how do his fellow televangelists feel about this? Is he off the reservation, or a trailblazer laying down a safer path for his brethren?

The libertarian-evangelist fight to control the Republican party (as slightly distinct from "the right wing") continues apace, with the free-marketers pretty much sitting back and letting them fight it out, now that the Democrats seem more or less cowed on that front. Drug legalization is something that you can sell Jesusy types on by pointing out that it doesn't really hurt them, and God doesn't hate it nearly as much as he hates abortion or gays.
posted by Etrigan at 10:25 AM on March 9, 2012


The Republicans will get into the White House when they can push a not-quite-so-socially-conservative, corporate-type candidate who also vocally favors marijuana legalization. As soon as you throw marijuana legalization into the works, you are going to attract many voters who would otherwise vote Democrat, third party, or not at all.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing that such a Republican would win, because I'd rather have someone like Obama in power over someone like Romney in power, but I really do think that such a Republican would win.

(Ron Paul doesn't count because he isn't really a "corporate" type - he plays the "ideological purist" card - and he doesn't have much support outside of his own followers within the Republican party.)

...

It's a shame, however, that many people would go insane if Obama were to promote the same exact policy. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that people would flip their collective shit. It's like how Republicans had been fine with Middle Eastern military intervention during the Bush years, but once Obama focussed his attentions on "leading from behind" in Libya, they couldn't bring themselves to admit that his strategy had not only more or less worked, but had been more effective than the Rumsfeldian desire for boots on the ground and American flags over the capital.

I'm genuinely unsure if a non-Black Democrat would be able to float marijuana legalization without being similarly pilloried. I'm thinking probably not. Republicans still hate the Clintons plenty.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:28 AM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe he has just noticed that lots of people smoke pot religiously?
posted by srboisvert at 10:44 AM on March 9, 2012 [2 favorites]


vorfeed: "
Or maybe the Drug War is such straight-up nonsense that even Pat Robertson has to stand up and say no more...


Just say NO to drug wars
posted by symbioid at 11:17 AM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


roboton666: "Yeah, this makes me wonder.

I think Pat Robertson is an asshole and because of that impression I do not want his support for a common cause. Am I wrong for not welcoming the dude with open arms and instead thinking "what am I giving up here beyond self-respect if I appreciate his support?"
"

So you oppose national parks cuz Hitler supported them?
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on March 9, 2012


That really was phrased wrong - ignore that :\
posted by symbioid at 11:29 AM on March 9, 2012


but the Freepers seem to largely agree with him.

Aw crap, them too? That settles it, marijuana possession = death penalty.
posted by FatherDagon at 11:36 AM on March 9, 2012






One, the Democratic majority leader Tip O'Neill is primarily responsible for the mandatory minimum sentences (PBS Frontline). ... Two, the drug war has enjoyed broad political support from both parties for many decades.

Fair enough. I definitely did not intend to excuse Democratic Party members, just to point out that Republicans were firmly behind the drug war. Which point is confirmed by your Frontline link, which notes that the two houses of Congress were split in 1986: the Democrats controlling the House and the Republicans controlling the Senate. So, Robertson's vast liberal conspiracy to introduce mandatory minimum drug sentences required the support of a Republican Senate and a Republican President.

But yes, I agree with your broader point: Democrats shouldn't get a free pass on this issue. (Or on any issue where they happen to be wrong.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:45 PM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Ideological bonfires
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:21 PM on March 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


"So when the police discover and destroy a pot plantation in the bush, do they throw it into a big fire and all stand around breathing deeply?"

I had an ex-girlfriend whose dad was the clark of a local court in a NSW country town. He had a place literally next door to the local police station. And he was a tremendous pot head.

Every couple of months, behind the station, the cops would burn off all the pot they had confiscated. It was a pretty big fire. The ex's dad would set up a deck chair in the back yard, settle in for a long afternoon, crack a beer, and breathe deeply.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:23 AM on March 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


Update: Denver Marijuana Law Vote: Amendment 64 Wins Majority Support In Republican Assembly

"Fifty-six percent of the delegates at the Denver County Republican Assembly voted in support of a resolution to regulate marijuana like alcohol in the Centennial State. While the initiative, known as Amendment 64, did not receive the two-thirds majority required to adopt it as a plank in the party's platform, advocates are hailing the vote as significant. [...] The Assembly, which voted Saturday on the initiative, did adopt a resolution affirming that medical marijuana is a 10th Amendment issue that should be left to the states."
posted by vorfeed at 2:48 PM on March 15, 2012 [1 favorite]




« Older Lolita cover redesigned   |   The Thin Wall Challenge Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments