« New UK sentencing structure attacked for giving judges too much discretion | Main | Illinois Governor acts on backlogged clemency petitions and grants multiple pardons »

April 6, 2010

"Sarah Palin, Marijuana Law Reformer?"

The title of this post is the partial headline of this item at the Huffington Post, which continues with "Nevada Group Hopes $25,000 Convinces Palin To Back Reform Of Marijuana Laws." Here are snippets of the piece:

Could Sarah Palin become the highest profile conservative to endorse reforms to the nation's marijuana laws?

She clearly has no problem with legalized inebriation. Palin, who is scheduled to give the keynote address Tuesday at the national convention for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, will be offered to give a similar speech at a Nevada event about marijuana.  Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws (NSML), a ballot initiative group, is poised to offer the former Alaska Governor $25,000 to speak at one of their upcoming events, according to a statement from the Marijuana Policy Project.

As evidence that Palin might be willing to support marijuana, NSML's Campaign Manager Dave Schwartz pointed to Palin's willingness to endorse alcohol....

But Schwartz might do well to prepare himself for rejection.  According to a Politico report, the former Republican candidate for vice president charges at least $75,000 per speaking engagement.

Though I do not think the folks at NSML should start booking a room for Palin at its upcoming event, I am hopeful that some of the anti-government rhetoric coming from some notable conservatives might lead them to seriously consider supporting movements urging government to get out of the business of pot prohibition.

Some related older and more recent posts:

April 6, 2010 at 02:24 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20133ec7d71d8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Sarah Palin, Marijuana Law Reformer?":

Comments

This is a momentous human experiment. It should be tried and evaluated in a small jurisdiction. All lawmaking is ghoulish human experimentation done by incompetents with the scientific validity of two year olds throwing things about a room. Laws need to be tested as safe and effective over 5 years, at least. Then the unintended consequences should be disclosed to the public prior to wide enactment.

Could go either way. There could be huge rewards from taxes, savings on criminal justice, respect for law. Could be 10% of the population gets addicted and stops working or doing anything else beside lay in bed all day, eating.

The decision should be driven by outcomes not rhetoric.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 6, 2010 9:38:30 AM

We’re all waiting for your next article of course.


Best Attorney

Posted by: Fridadesai | Apr 9, 2010 1:29:30 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB