Questions answered, questions raised

Andrew Sullivan’s casual marijuana usage explains a lot. (The past 18 months or so illustrate why one shouldn’t toke and blog, man.) But whom, I wonder, is trying to protect him from the legal consequences of same? And it couldn’t possibly be related to the general direction is blogging has taken, could it?

Political commentator, author and writer for The Atlantic magazine Andrew M. Sullivan won’t have to face charges stemming from a recent pot bust at the Cape Cod National Seashore — but a federal judge isn’t happy about it.
U. S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings says in his decision that the case is an example of how sometimes “small cases raise issues of fundamental importance in our system of justice.”
While marijuana possession may have been decriminalized, Sullivan, who owns a home in Provincetown, made the mistake of being caught by a park ranger with a controlled substance on National Park Service lands, a federal misdemeanor.
The ranger issued Sullivan a citation, which required him either to appear in U.S. District Court or, in essence, pay a $125 fine.
But the U.S. Attorney’s Office sought to dismiss the case. Both the federal prosecutor and Sullivan’s attorney said it would have resulted in an “adverse effect” on an unspecified “immigration status” that Sullivan, a British citizen, is applying for.

Via @JTlol.
Update: for the record, I support legalizing it, and I don’t think a minor pot bust should be grounds for keeping you out of the United States. But Glenn Reynolds puts it best: “Andrew would no doubt make a big deal out of any special treatment afforded to a member of the Palin family under similar circumstances.”

4 thoughts on “Questions answered, questions raised

  1. Millie Woods says:

    Please join the movement to stop whom-ing. Whom is wrong, wrong, wrong most of the time it’s ised as is certainly so in the introdction to the quotes on Sully. Whom is fast overtaking more and most importantly as the bloviators’ grammatical error pf record.
    As for Andrew – should an individual on as many drugs as he needs to survive be taken seriously. I think not.

  2. Bruce Rheinstein says:

    I suspect Sullivan is still trying for U.S. citizenship, which is why he doesn’t want the pot bust on his record. Of course, I also seem to recall him extolling the vitues of ecstasy and body-enhancing drugs on his website, so it’s not as though this is a matter of rank hypocrisy.
    As an aside, Merriam-Webster has a nice treatment on “whom” and observes that usage is little changed since Shakespeare’s time, but that “18th century grammarians … have intervened… One thing they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom . Another is that they have made some people unsure of themselves.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whom

  3. DaninVan says:

    As long as I can clearly understand the intent of what is being said (by whoever) I really don’t give a rat’s a** which form is used…:)

  4. Dara says:

    If you use ‘whom’, and it’s correct, people think you’re being pretentious.
    If you use ‘whom’, and it’s incorrect, people jump on you.
    Sometimes the only way to win is not to play.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s