Interesting map: The marijuana vote in MA

Hopefully Holder was trying to make a name for himself in 96, obviously the country believes in decriminalization as state after state vote passes it.
Congrats Chap you now live in one of the 13 non braindead states.
 
Wow seriously fuck this.

Let's see how they youth vote and black turnout go in 2012 after this bullshit...


the youth will be stupid as always, just like they were this time actually thinking anything was going to change. L - O - FUCKING - L.
 
Wow seriously fuck this.

Let's see how they youth vote and black turnout go in 2012 after this bullshit...


This is bull...I am not very happy at all! We don't need to step up the war on marijuana, it should be just the opposite!

Obama get a strike against him for this one!!!!!
 
Sorry I missed your post ..

Eric Holder: Extreme Drug Warrior

The Washington Post on Holder’s (failed) drug policies in 1996:

U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/19/eric-holder-extreme-drug-warrior/

The Trouble With Eric Holder
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564


The Nation has come out against him, oh, damn this is bad!
 
Barack Obama really has no values, to appoint a bastard like this to the spot.

At least he won't justify torture like the last administration.
 
I agree that Holder is a terrible pick, while I certainly disagree with him about drugs, the second amendment stuff doesn't thrill me either. Honesty seems to be slippery with him also, see the Gonzalez stuff w/Reno:

http://volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml

Eric Holder on firearms policy:
Earlier this year, Eric Holder--along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice--co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC's ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.

But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional.")

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.
 
One further note, I suppose I just have a tough time lambasting the US Attorney in D.C., which you have to admit had very serious crime problems, for taking a hardline approach on the "war on drugs."

Do either of you have people in mind that are good enough to be AG in an Obama administration?

Think prohibition brother.

Legalize mj and the crime goes away .. but so do the dollars it generates for police, judges, courts, lawyers, and everyone else who sucks from the teet of "crime."

As far as an AG .. it doesn't have to be one who even sympathizes with mj, but one who regonizes the burden that prosecuting victimless crimes places on our society.

If Obama was at all serious about what he pledged to do. he's have no problem finding someone to carry out his wishes.
 
Back
Top