The Rev. Nancy Harris, a Rastafarian, (center) with supporters outside the Third Circuit courtroom Monday. Photo by Tiffany Edwards Hunt. All rights reserved. Below, a flyer passed around outside the courtroom.
The trial for the Rev. Nancy Harris, of the Church of the Holy Smoke, accused of commercial promotion of marijuana, began today with jury selection. If you know anything about trials, you might think that this was a rather uneventful day. That’s what John Burnett, of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald thought when he asked Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Damerville on Damerville’s way to the drinking fountain if jury selection was expected to last all day. Burnett left, but those who stuck around got to see that jury selection is anything but mundane and there is news to be had at every turn. Let me start from the get-go. Anybody who reads my writing knows that I am a breastfeeding mother first and reporter second. That means I take my six-month-old child wherever I go. So, first thing this morning, we headed into town, thinking we needed to be at the Hilo Judiciary Complex by 8:30 a.m. Once in the courthouse, a group of Harris’ supporters informed me that the trial wasn’t expected to start until 9:30 a.m. I opted to take that one hour to fill out an application for extended media coverage. But first I found the bathroom. And with a baby that takes a little bit longer than alone. By the time I found the spot I needed to be to fill out my application, which, for those not in the know means an application to be able to photograph and record inside the courtroom, Roxanne “RJ” Hampton and Sativa Sulton were already in line ahead of me doing the very same thing. I could tell they were trying to beat me to the punch when they hushed “Papa Jim” as he was trying to be helpful to me by sharing Harris’ last name, as I filled out the application. It really didn’t matter to me if they were first to fill out the application and turn it in, the point was to see that someone got an opportunity to record the trial beyond traditional notetaking.
Fast forward a couple of hours later, I’m inside the courtroom waiting for our applications for extended media coverage to be taken up by Third Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hara. It’s shortly before 10:30 a.m., right around the time when my baby is ready for his second nap of the morning. The judge hasn’t entered the courtroom yet. My baby is being very vocal, letting me know his teeth are hurting and he is getting near nap time. He’s not crying, he’s just making noises. A court reporter says very loudly that if my baby makes any noises while court is in session, we will be asked to leave. I thank her for the heads up. I decide to leave the courtroom before that happens. I hang out on the couch outside the courtroom, breastfeeding until my baby falls asleep. Once he is asleep, I slip back into the courtroom. It’s very quiet… and then the judge speaks loudly into the microphone. My baby is startled awake, cries briefly and I quickly put him back on my breast. It wasn’t fast enough. The judge announces that there is a crying baby in the courtroom, despite the fact that he is not crying, and I’m asked to leave. Before I exit, I explain that I’m waiting for my application for extended media coverage to be heard. He looks at the clock and says he will take up that matter during a break, about 45 minutes from then. I head back to the couch outside the courtroom and wait there. Then, to bide time and ensure I don’t get ticketed, head to my car to feed the meter with enough quarters to bide about two more hours of time there. Prospective jurors leave the courtroom and I take it that is the time for our applications for extended media coverage to be heard. The application for extended media coverage for Roxanne Hampton and Sativa Sulton is heard first. The judge mistakenly refers to Ms. Hampton as “Mr. Hampton” and is assured that she will be sharing her footage with others. Neither the defense nor the prosecution has a problem with her or Sulton’s application, they say. But Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Damerville says he has a problem with mine. My heart stops momentarily. Then Damerville explains that he has no problem with my journalistic integrity, he just knows that Harris has granted me “extensive interviews” and it could come down to her denying some of the things she has stated on the record and I could become a witness. For a minute I was worried that I was going to be sequestered from the trial! But then both attorneys waived the exlusionary rule, I believe — please forgive me if I didn’t get this right because it was the first time in my journalism career that this has happened. I was permitted to cover the trial. But the judge did urge me to take care of my “child care problem.” And I left the courtroom intent to do just that. I called my mother in law and arranged for her to babysit my child outside the courtroom tomorrow, so I could hear opening arguments. But I also spent much of the afternoon reflecting on that, and how messed up it is that it’s perceived as a “problem” that my child accompanies me wherever I go. I was all set to write a commentary tonight on the fact that this is one of the problems in our society, that our children are sequestered from our lives. But then the news of the day trumped my personal commentary. After I left and jury selection continued, it was brought to light that Roger Christie’s girlfriend Sherryanne L. St. Cyr had passed around flyers outside the courtroom throughout the morning. Apparently, there were a couple of jurors who felt that one of those flyers was all they needed to be convinced they could not be an impartial juror. And so they were dismissed. Let me stress that I was not in the courtroom — I was sent on my way to sort out my child care ‘problem.’ I am told that Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Damerville is concerned the jury pool has been tainted by the passage of this pamphlet. Jury selection resumes tomorrow morning. We shall see what happens, but it could be very interesting. It’s purely speculation on my part, having heard what I heard, but the judge could decide that the damage has been done with this pamphlet, or flyer, whatever you want to call it, and they could call for a whole new round of jurors. We shall see, tomorrow.
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 am
Tiff,
I agree with so much that you do, but with respect I don’t think that motherhood should trump the judicial process…..unless you are the accused.
This is already a dog and pony show and all that is missing is the popcorn and pot breaks.
The Lack
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:51 am
What a huge waste of taxpayer money. Thanks for covering it, Tiff. I don’t know any details of the case, but I believe the Reverend will show the community what an absurd waste of resources this is – the arrest, the prosecution, the trial, the jury’s time, and our overloaded judicial system. If a simple pamphlet can endanger the jury, then the law is on thin ice anyway. The Emperor truly has no clothes.
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Thanks for recognizing that children should not be sequestered from real life — whether that real life is logical or not.
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
The baby’s mother is trying to make a living, reporting these very public matters and properly caring for her child (i.e. personal responsibility).
And the person who adjudicates supposedly for the community’s well-being refers to a baby, making a momentary baby sound, as a “childcare problem” ?
That says a lot about our current state.
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Waiting for the start of the afternoon session . Jury selection continues
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
I have to agree with the Lack’s thoughts. Maybe if you were just a spectator then maybe not so much an issue.
I do not see asking the baby making noise to wait outside. The courts do the same for anybody in court who will cause a distraction (including the defendant). It is not as though the baby is being treated any differently then any other person who would cause a distraction. Are we to give the baby special considerations above and beyond anybody else who would cause a scene or distract during court proceedings?
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Thanks.
Basically what it comes down to is that I can’t report the news if I can’t find child care.
If the jury is seated by this afternoon, I won’t be able to race into town to hear opening arguments. My children are my primary responsibility in my life.
So, if anybody is wondering if I’m in Hilo waiting in the wings, I’m not. And I’m glad I did not drag my family to Hilo to wait for jury selection…
If opening arguments are before 10 tomorrow, I have child care lined up to be there…
August 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Jury selection getting close to be finished. Open arguments will probably be tomorrow morning.
August 23rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I must have missed it – but who is Nancy’s legal team in this case?
Also, can we expect to see the elusive Officer John Weber here to testify?
August 23rd, 2011 at 5:22 pm
The “cannabis dream team” is Paul Sulla as lead counsel and Gary Zamber is co-counsel (and he did the jury selection process.”
Officer Webber is on the witness list, but it is unclear that he will show up. I recall Damerville saying in the hall a few weeks ago that they would not need Webber to prove their case. I thought the defendant was allowed to confront their accuser, but I guess not….
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Laughing baby, crying baby, gurgling baby whatever the case may be……noise in the courtroom is not allowed….as for your children being your primary responsibility so they are for most mothers but like most mothers who work ….we do not take them to work for very obvious reasons……
August 23rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Guess what, people? I am not clocking in at a 9-5 job here. Have any of you who read my blog and comment on my blog ever pushed that donate button to the right? In fact, just a handful in nearly three years. And you think I have a child care problem, huh? You should thank Jeff Hunt for his shop’s success, allowing me to roam and report with the baby in tow. Loving your support! Sometimes I feel like protesting my own blog I swear. I certainly feel like turning the comments off and writing for myself right about now.
August 24th, 2011 at 6:18 am
Matt, while Ricky Roy may choose not to call Weber, then Rev. Nancy needs to ask her counsel to do so if she wants to invoke her right to face her accuser. Its not Dammerville’s responsibility to try the case for her.
August 24th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Matt, while Ricky Roy may choose not to call Weber, then Rev. Nancy needs to ask her counsel to do so if she wants to invoke her right to face her accuser. Its not Damerville’s responsibility to try the case for her.
August 24th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Matt, while Ricky Roy may choose not to call Weber, then Rev. Nancy needs to ask her counsel to do so if she wants to invoke her right to face her accuser. Its not Damerville’s responsibility to try the case for her.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Her accuser is the State of Hawaii, not Weber. He is a
witness.
August 24th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Tiffany, You stated that Roger Christie’s girlfriend, Sherryanne L. St. Cyr was passing out flyers in the courthouse hall throughout the morning. Sherryanne was IN FACT passing them out to just a few of her personal friends and acquaintenances. Please let it be known that she was ZERO passing them out to prospective jurors. Also, there may be implications that Sherryanne was there to bring awareness to Roger and the GREEN 13 when in fact the flyer was more about the Liberation of Cannabis than about her fiance, Roger Christie.
The liberation of this plant is truly what is at stake and what Reverend Nancy is courageously standing up for as she risks her future and her life for this sacred herb. Sherryanne fully supports Reverend Nancy Harris and apologizes for any misunderstandings that these flyers may have generated.
August 24th, 2011 at 9:55 am
What a bunch of hoo ha. And in the meantime the economy goes down the toilet.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:03 am
I very much appreciate BIC. You can make it easier for people to donate by putting the button at the TOP of the page! We have short attention spans; put it in our faces right off the bat and I would guess you would be better rewarded for your great community effort. Also, when ‘sharing’ your posts on social media we have a choice of photos from all of your great advertisers but none for this blog. At least put your logo in the advertising mix so people can chose to help you promote this great blog. Kermit the Frog, baby!
As for this trial; what a colossal waste of time, energy, and money.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Hattie gets it.
August 24th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
For those who are interested in the laws and policies nationally, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States
As this source points out, there are federal laws as well as state laws, and while a state may allow marijuana to be used under certain circumstances, no such provision exists at the federal level. Therefore, it is difficult to address the problem only at the local (state) level, although that would be necessary if the federal laws were to be eliminated. That, however, is not likely in the near future.
August 24th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
How about the 10th amendment to the constitution which says the states don’t have to enforce Federal law?
August 24th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
First let me state that I am a strong supporter of thoughtful, comprehensive law enforcement and judicial action. No one who knows me will tell you that I am “soft” on crime.
This whole thing with the marijuana laws, however, is just a sick and disgusting game that ruins people’s lives without making the community any safer. We have a very tight budget with limited (and frequently misallocated) police resources. At times in Puna, we have six to officers patrolling an area roughly the size of Oahu.
Yet somehow, the powers that be find it helpful to spend a lot of money on Green Harvest and other anti-pot initiatives. When I raised this issue off the record with a very good local cop a few years ago, he said, “Some of those guys like playing Rambo in helicopters more than doing the grunt level work that makes the community really safer.”
And don’t start me on the sentences some of the judges hand down in pot cases compared to violent and serious property crimes. The priorities, my friends, are simply screwed up and in total disregard of the expressed will of the citizens at the polls.
For the record and disclosure, I am the chairman of the HPP Neighborhood Watch, and these are my personal opinions, not necessarily those of that organization or its members.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
end the war on drugs and war!!! Ron Paul
August 24th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Thanks, Tiff, you’re awesome! I want to come, yet have no chaild care and know from experience that they will kick me out at the slightest peep and she peeps a lot.
So i searched for an online way to keep up with what’s going on. So thanks!
August 24th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Hokulani Cheneviere Says:
1. August 24th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Also, there may be implications that Sherryanne was there to bring awareness to Roger and the GREEN 13 when in fact the flyer was more about the Liberation of Cannabis than about her fiance, Roger Christie.
Oh please….just who are you trying to talk to? Roger Christie’s picture is on the flyer and you say it’s not about Roger. I really dislike being talked down to, if you are not honest you are nothing. At least Rev. Nancy is taking this hit with pride because she believes, your Roger was making BUCK’S from his scam.
The Lack
2.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Please note that while I read blogs and occasionally comment after a trial is over, I use my full name. Some are attributing comments made by a person using the handle “Rick” as coming from me. Those comments are not coming from me. The only comments that will come from me regarding this trial will come after the trial.
Rick Damerville
August 24th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Thanks Mr Damerville for clarifying.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
@Rick Damerville
Thanks for clarifying that – I did think for a second he was you – but realized it was not once I read his posts.
Now, on another note – I see by your comment that you do read and occasionally post comments on blogs. I note the time you made your post was at 4:52PM.
I assume you are not using County equipment to read and/or post on any blogs.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Or State. Or Federal.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I did not make that up. Let’s look at the first 10 words…they are part of a pesky CONSTITUTION of the United States! Why is this trial taking place? and why are my tax payer $$ contributing to it? Do we have so much money in our State coffers? I got two words…Furlogh Friday.
Just FYI: Members of the Rastafari movement use cannabis as a part of their worshiping of God, Bible study and Meditation.
August 25th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Shanti, you could offer to babysit for Tiffany and vice versa. Easy fix.
August 25th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Several readers seem to misunderstand how the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
That interpretation may change somewhat over time, but to date it has not interpreted the use of marijuana (or
any other prohibited drug) as fulling under “freedom of religion). It has, however, interpreted it to give limited freedom to the use of some drugs by Native Americans in a religious ceremony. As for freedom of speech, there are many restrictions. Political speech has the most protection, but even it is limited (you\
cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to quote a famous Supreme Court case).
August 25th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Damerville posting here, clarifying the public record about the trial seems to me to be within the scope and course of his employment.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Maybe @Ken was being toungue-in-cheek, but for me that exemplifies the ridiculous nature of our public discourse. Who cares whether Rick Damerville a public employee is using the computer at 4:52pm on a work day?
If that was all he did all day and got paid, sure. If that is what he did for half the day then ok. But in the scope of life that is so Manini.
Part of our problem as a society and which is exemplified in this trial is that we all need to give a little. Nothing is black and white.
While I do not think anybody should go to jail for Marijuana use, and there are a litany of reasons why this prosecution shouldn’t happen (i.e. religion, waste of tax paper funds, no public harm, etc). On one side the police as our neighbors should maybe turn the other cheek in these instances (and I believe they do in some cases, but probably not enough, depends on the Cop as well). But on the other hand, whether you believe Marijuana should be legal and you shouldn’t have to hide it, there are a lot of people in our community who are not comfortable with Marijuana and/or marijuana use. Maybe not being so heavy handed and blatant in the support, use and love of Marijuana would go a long way in not getting into these situations.
If I were to hazard a guess well over 60% of our community either uses, has used or is ok with the use of marijuana. We have seen it in every age group, income and ethnic demographic.
Maybe the argument is that it has to be in the news, it has to be challenged to elicit change.
August 25th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Well HJ – you saw thru my attempt at trying to show how ridiculous this all is.
So, I guess then we have not one issue with any County, State or Federal employee using County, State of Federal equipment of any kind to perform personal functions.
While Mr. Damerville is free to post on this or any blog or new outlet whatsoever, one must ask, is he posting HIS opinions or the County’s? The two could conflict. And I believe there are procedures to release official government news.
But, then again, who obviously cares. Why not let all government employees use tax paid equipment to do anything they desire that would be and is clearly considered personal.
There must be no issue then if he shops on EBay, does some internet gambling, perhaps looks at porn, or posts here on Tiff’s blog.
Sometimes, rules of employment can be ridiculous in nature.
But then again, so is this absolute waste of time, money and resources this trial truly is.
August 25th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
@HJ Your comment is perhaps the most intelligent thing I have read in a long time.
Common sense and decency. Respect for others. I agree, that Cannabis Supporters should be discreet and respectful of others who little agree. I abhor alcohol but zero go off on angry tirades (well except for hubby when he’s had too much) when I see bottles of booze in the grocery line.
I do think that Reverend Nancy, even with her outward religious symbols is a respectful and courageous human being. She deserves full support for her bravery in pushing this all the way. Fortunately she is in a position where bullying her into a plea agreement didn’t satisfy her. She KNEW she was innocent as charged.
As for the constitution and its interpretations of plants, how in Creation would the Founding Fathers have ever imagined there would come a day when a plant would be prohibited and illegal to cultivate? A plant that most of them grew or processed in one form or another. A plant that they deemed critical for the wealth and protection of this nation. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson encouraged Everyone to “sow the hemp seed”. The constitution was in fact drafted on rag hemp paper from Benjamin Franklin’s mill. So the issue of cannabis and religious freedom was inherent and implied. Last I checked WE THE PEOPLE have the inalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I see zero victims in the enjoyment of a God Given plant. How can this so called “Crime” of Nancy Harris be called such a thing without VICTIMS? Where are the victims? Will they be testifying for the prosecution? Seems to me, the only victims are the Defendant and WE THE PEOPLE.
August 25th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Agree with John about Damerville’s use of time/computer to clarify.
IMHO, the Prosecutor’s Office has super-sized problems, but a brief blog post to clarify who is who does not fall among them.
We shall overcome.
August 25th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Ken, I can see a difference between clarifying that certain comments on here were not made by the PA and shopping Ebay or looking at porn. You can’t?
August 25th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
@Hokulani – I hear what you are saying and do not disagree.
All I am saying is that it takes a lot of work to get arrested for marijuana distribution. Whether or not you believe its harmless, there are laws and by telling the world look at my love for marijuana, you put yourself in the position that the Reverend finds herself in. That is a choice, if its a choice to fight a good fight then so be it, but we shouldn’t be surprised when that person gets arrested.
Whether or not the Founding Father’s would be turning over in their graves or if nobody is harmed, the fact is that it is a law. Like the 2% land fund and (unfortunately, eventually) plastic bags, these are the rules we are supposed to live by.
I guess we all pick and choose which laws should and should not apply so maybe that is why the discourse is always so black and white.
August 25th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@Ken – http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/surfing-the-web-at-work-actually-makes-you-more-productive-20110823/
surfing the web at work actually makes you more productive. See the link above. I think we should have the County do a pilot program exploring this phenomenon. Productivity cannot get much worse.
August 25th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
I wonder if Sharia allows littering?
August 26th, 2011 at 8:10 am
@Hj Where do you get your info? Was Rev Nancy on the front page of the paper, smoking? showing her plants? Maybe she was on the radio, talking about Vets who medicate with pot? Oh…that must have been her in Honolulu mag, talking about pot? NO? oh that’s right, it was me. How did I get there…my overwhelming desire to recruit mj smokers? No again. I was minding my own business your see, following the law, filing with Narcotics Enforcement with my doctor’s recommendation, growing my own a best I could (which for sick and old is problematic) when Keith Kamita, then head of Narcotics Enforcement sent my CONFIDENTIAL patient files to a newspaper.
So here I am. Outed by the very system that was supposed to protect me.
There was NO punishment for the people that violated my rights…no trial. Just me sucking it up and living with everybody on the planet earth knowing I toke.
I have changed my opinions too…I WAS advocating for medicinal use but given the crap we have to put up with…time to legalize.
August 26th, 2011 at 11:40 am
It is not reasonable to compare cannabis prohibition with plastic bags.
The user of cannabis does no harm to other life, plastic bags do.
August 26th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
@James – You are right. I agree marijuana does do less harm to no harm to other’s? – The point is that most everybody picks and chooses what laws do not make sense for them.
some say “marijuana causes no harm” fair enough. I say “I use plastic bags responsibly so screw a bag ban”.
@Teri – you are right. I do not know that the Reverend was announcing her use of MJ, although its not a stretch to believe that the Reverend of a Church that admits to heavy use of the product is indeed partaking in it. Which in itself invites further scrutiny (legal or not that is reality).
August 26th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Choosing which law to obey?
Yes, you are probably right.
As I think about it, one of my greatest inspirations, Rosie Parks, must have done just that when she refused to obey Jim Crow Laws that would make her ride on the back of the bus.
August 26th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
while I don’t know if I would go so far as saying civil rights and marijuana rights are analogous, I am sure some believe it is so.
August 26th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
while I don’t know if I would go so far as saying civil rights and marijuana rights are analogous, I am sure some believe it is so.
August 26th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Good call, James. Rosa Parks knew she was breaking the law. She chose to fight that law. The same as the young men who sat at a counter waiting to be served. They knew there was a law against what they were doing. They chose the fight.
Cristie and Harris chose to fight this law by breaking it. Be it under the Medical or Religious beliefs, it will be a legal battle that can change things for the better. I wonder how they will be remembered in 5 or 10 years. History is happening.
Kim
August 26th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I believe they are challenging this as a freedom of religion right.
So do all of you who believe it is ok to smoke pot as a religious sacrament feel there was a miscarriage of justice in Texas ?
There a prophet of a religion was sentenced to life plus 40 years.His sacrament was the the rape of little girls.
Get real !!! Until pot is legalized it is illegal to produce as much as Reverend Nancy was arrested with.
August 26th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@Obie: That is a DISGUSTING comparison. Pediphiles can’t use relegious freedom as an argument unless you believe in institutionalized perversion.
Freedom to practice a relegion that uses cannabis doesn’t mean you can do anything to anybody you want. That is like the people who say same sex marriage will lead to incest…where do people come up with this crap?
August 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
@Obie – I think the naysayers would say that he is hurting little girls and that in itself is a crime, but I hear your argument. What is acceptable religion?
and with the entire civil rights things… I do not see the correlation. Are we infringing on the Marijuana plants right to exist? If the argument is religious, then hasn’t god made all plants? So shouldn’t we be arguing to free the Poppy? What about the Coca Plant? Aren’t we discriminating against these plants, by only arguing for the Marijuana plant.
August 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
I think obie’s point was that religion is not a get out of jail card for all offenses. And Hj, “free the Poppy” haha!
August 27th, 2011 at 7:11 am
Indeed, Terri, it is disingenuous at best, and really rather perverted, to compare child rape with cannabis.
August 27th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Your miles may vary, but in my mind it’s borderline obscene to compare the struggle to undo the legacy of slavery with the struggle to get wasted legally.
August 27th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Change your mind, John. The issue is about denying individual liberty, without any imposition on the liberties of others and it is zero about ‘getting wasted’. As it happens, in the case at hand — that of Rev. Nancy — what is specifically at issue is the liberty of religious expression without denying any other person of any liberty. Rev Nancy seeks the liberty of religious expression without denying anyone else their liberties.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I think we are getting to my original point and John is right. Miles may vary and how you choose to justify your beliefs is at best subjective.
What Teri calls “institutionalized perversion” was an accepted practice in virtually all cultures and is still practiced in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
It was not long ago that the practice was allowed here in the US.
Time (and maybe further enlightenment) has given rise to changes into these practices.
Comparing the illegality of marijuana is disingenuous to any physical struggle whether it be child exploitation, slavery, Woman’s rights, etc. THIS IS A PLANT! So what if someone says its illegal. If you believe this is a fight that has to be had then so be it, people fight for much smaller things, but if you choose to fight the fight and break the law, it is what it is. You knew it going in.
Its pretty easy to not get caught. Don’t wear anything with a “Pot” leaf insignia, don’t drive drunk, stoned or high, don’t break any laws while in
August 27th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
James – If all you religious libertarians and deeply religious folks aren’t getting wasted, perhaps you’re doing it wrong.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
The clear case of ‘getting wasted’ is the matter of resources getting wasted by cannabis prohibition — money, human intellect, and human purpose to start the list.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
@James – I agree that the war on marijuana is indeed a waste of time and money, but there has to be some admittance to the fact that there is a ridiculous nature to the various justification’s for why it should be legal and some of the most visible proponents for the legalization of MJ do not help in educating the public that doesn’t know about MJ.
From what I have seen is that most of the legalize MJ proponents pander to their existing constituents rather then trying to communicate with the uneducated public.
August 29th, 2011 at 1:41 am
Ms. Harris appears rather dangerous. Shouldn’t she be handcuffed?