High Court?


I’ve been around elections a long time, but I’ve never seen a candidate who brags that he is a member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Especially a judicial candidate like John Robert Howes.
Howes states he is a member in the organization on both his law office web page and on his listing in Martindale-Hubbard, where he is top-rated as an AV lawyer.
The organization, best known by the name NORML, supports the removal of all criminal penalties for use, personal cultivation and “casual transfers of small amounts of marijuana.
Maybe NORML and Howes have a good idea.  Lots of states have, or are considering, medical marijuana.  Many believe the current penalties against marijuana do nothing but clog the courts and teach the young to be law breakers.
But the law is the law.  In Florida, marijuana is illegal.  Voters will have to ask themselves how Howes can enforce drug laws as a judge if he is a member of a group that wants to do away with the laws.
The candidates running against in the August 26 primary are lawyer and former School Board member Paul Eichner and lawyer Merrilee Ehrlich.

8 Responses to “High Court?”

  1. Frankie says:

    You were always the only political writer with balls, nevins. This is great.

  2. Stevey G says:

    Great to see you back!

  3. Great Analysis Buddy says:

    But you’ve officially killed his candidacy.

  4. B. Obama says:

    Maybe you need a civics lesson, I thought the police enforced laws while judges interpreted them. Judges have lee-way in their sentencing for everything…

    Why should only those who are rich and have good lawyers get reasonable penalties for lower-level drug offenses?
    Maybe Mr. Howes will actually treat all fairly with his rulings and not just those who don’t need to use the public defenders.

    For this, he will recieve my vote.

  5. S. Only says:

    Alas, he’s got my vote too!

  6. Killmenow says:

    This news certainly doesn’t kill the possibility of his getting my vote!

  7. lloyd golburgh says:

    that’s the point of being an american buddy. one can advocate a position and or a change in current law without actually breaking that law. do you understand now?

    I understand and I understood it before the election. I found it interesting that the candidate advocated this position and I thought the public deserved to know about it.

  8. PQ says:

    I suppose that you would’ve felt the same way back when racial segregation was the law and a judicial candidate would’ve joined a group that advocated for the laws to change.