Skip to comments.Legalize Pot, Says Televangelist Pat Robertson
Posted on 12/23/2010 9:47:12 AM PST by Second Amendment First
Chalk this one up to a real head-scratcher.
Pat Robertson, the televangelist who once ran for president, said on his show, the 700 Club, that he thinks marijuana should be legalized.
Yep, the Christian conservative preacher who said the Katrina hurricane was Gods way of punishing America for abortion policy is now on the side of the pot lobby.
Im not exactly for the use of drugs, dont get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing its just, its costing us a fortune and its ruining young people, Robertson said. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. Thats not a good thing.
Of course, Mr. Robertson is not alone in his thinking. Californias proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in that state, failed in November, but not before lining up an impressive list of supporters from across the political spectrum.
Representative Ron Paul, the Texas lawmaker who ran for president in 2008, has advocated leaving the decision about marijuana up to the states. And even Sarah Palin, who opposes legalizing pot, has said she thinks police shouldnt spend a lot of time hunting down offenders.
If somebodys gonna to smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then, um perhaps there are other things that are cops should be looking at to engage in, Ms. Palin said on Fox News last summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Wow! I actually agree with Pat. He’s right. I don’t see the Purple Gang bringing whiskey across the river to Detroit and killing anyone since Prohibition ended.
Robertson can KMA.
Let’s legalize everything. No need for police, FBI, prisons. Think of all the money we would save.
He’s defiantly ben smokin it...!!!
If people choose to make nothing happen in their own lives it's their own business. Besides, somebody's got to cook the french fries.
(No munchies jokes, please - not that I'd know anything about that kinda stuff.)
Hey, Pat. Whaddaya think about queers in the military?
Sure, why not.
Where’s that huge eyeroll gif when you need it?
Right-On !!! Brother Pat....Legalize it, tax it, and sell it in liquor stores...
Yeah, Jim , who needs lungs anyway?
I think we should legalize all shoplifting below $25.00. It would help prevent kids from leading a life of crime.
Legalize pot and prostitution and tax both heavily. That way democrats will pay their fair share of taxes.
Pat must’ve noticed a leafy plant in the worrded area behind the university. Regent/CBN is about 1.5 miles from my home and I heard the police find a bush or two in those woods each spring.
Pat’s been nuts on some things, but on this, I agree. Same with prostitution and some other things. Lets focus on crimes that are actually serious, like gang warfare in the streets, ax murders, etc, that get pushed to the side while cops confiscate cars because some dude was smoking pot in the car. And, yes, this actually happens.
Perhaps we should legalize forcible rape. After all, shouldn’t a man be allowed to use his own body as he pleases?
The man has been senile for years
It is NOT like alcohol. Pot is a psychedelic and creates psychosis and paranoia in the user. The psychological damage of pot cripples a person's potential including memory abilities. The gravity of these effects may depend on the user but the more severe effects can incapacitate some and land others in mental hospitals. (In the 1960's I was a heavy user (no other drugs) and it landed in the psychiatric ward.)
Pot should definitely not be legalized. It's already robbed many kids of their full potential from at least two generations beginning in the 60's with my generation.
You need to seek some help for your mental problems. Seriously, the synapses aren’t firing in a logical order.
I’ve never smoked Cigs, pot, turkey or anything else. I am sitting here tied to an oxygen tube due to a terminal lung illnesss.......
Anyone who proposes legalizing this, without a law that allows the government to tax it, is insane.
Weak. Come on, you can do better than that.
Get your quoths right. It’s “The pump dont work
Cause the vandals took the handles
Or brain cells that talk to each other.
He’s turning into a HUGE IDIOT!!
I agree with Pat Robertson..legalize IT.
I respectfully disagree with you.
Telling people that it’s legal to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, but not OK to smoke pot, strikes me as absurd.
Cigs and booze, much worse for you then pot. In my humble experiances. The arguement that it harms some people who do it PALES to the number of people harmed by cigs and booze.
And no, I do not advocate prohibition of booze and cigs.
And hard drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, should clearly remain illegal.
“Pot should definitely not be legalized. It’s already robbed many kids of their full potential...”
You seem to be arguing that prohibition has NOT WORKED.
I see some libertarian heads exploding...
There are clinical pathological effects including psychosis, paranoia, and memory loss. It is not like alcohol - it is a psychedelic drug and does often lead to experimentation with more dangerous drugs.
Went to college with a guy who was a heavy pot user. Nice guy, very laid back who succeeded in destroying his short term memory. Couldn’t remember a thing, had difficulty performing any task that required more than a few simple sequential steps. Actually locked himself out of his car with the engine running once. Very sad to see what he did to himself.
Pat Robertson is very wrong on this along with several other issues. I don’t know what’s happened to him but he has clearly abandoned God’s Word in several areas and substituted his own feeble reasoning.
There's no way it should be legalized. Kids who take it are hurting their future.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Cigarettes are physically threatening and booze if abused, can be physically threatening as well and also can become addictive.
The issue with pot is its psychological damage to the user including an almost immediate issue with paranoia and some degree of psychosis. Over a long time of use, it can be psychologically very damaging.
Well, enforcement another issue. I'm simply saying that pot is psychologically destructive and shouldn't be legalized. We should be aware of its dangers and get smart about how to deal with the problem of its use in society. I think the fact of its illegality at least has some kind of deterrent effect and that's good.
I'm angry at Pat for saying these things.
He’s probably going to sell it and call it Holy Land high.
Legalize consensual behavior? Yes. It’s my body and I own it so let me put in it what I choose to.
Certainly not cigarette smokers. Of course, they're getting closer and closer to getting locked up themselves, so there ya go.
Smoking tobacco and drinking alcolhol lead to more tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking and whatever physical and behavioral baggage comes along with it.
Smoking dope not only has its own undesired effects, it very often leads to use and abuse of other, more deadly drugs.
I am always amazed at the numbers of hypocritical rabid anti-tobacco zealots who avidly promote the legalization of pot.
The question for gov’t is - does it violate the rights of others?
The question for the individual is - does it harm me?
The answer for the gov’t is ‘no’. The answer for the individual is ‘yes’.
Could someone under the influence of a drug harm others? Sure - and when they do, arrest and prosecute. Even make laws against certain activities like with alcohol and for minors.
Many things can harm others indirectly - workaholism, gambling, unfaithfulness, internet porn, investing without knowledge, etc. but those don’t violate people’s rights directly.
As far as taxation goes, I don’t see the case for it like with gasoline, eg. which amounts to a user fee that repairs roads. Other than regular sales tax (or part of a consumption fair tax) I don’t support taxation for social engineering like the liberals do.
So it IS like alcohol. Merry Christmas.
According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse:
Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non-drinkers.
Children who smoke are 19 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers.
See that? Everybody can play!
> According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse:
> Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non-drinkers.
> Children who smoke are 19 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers.
The problem with that is that the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has a self-interested reason for coming up with such ‘statistics’. I don’t doubt there were questions and answers that lead to those results, but the question is, is it a correlation or causation?
If the question to drug users were, for example, did you drink as a kid or smoke as a kid? But what if they would ask ‘did you chew gum as a kid?’ or ‘did you play video games as a kid?’ - what do you think the results of those questions would be? 100%? And what conclusions could one draw from that?
I don’t buy it. I taught in an inner-city public school for a number of years and the kids who smoked pot were a disaster in class. They just sat there and smiled and had no clue what was going on.
The less we criminalize it, the more acceptable it becomes and the more adults think it is OK, the more kids think it is OK.
A lot of our kids are screwed up enough as it is without adding more pot to the mix. And with our wonderful pot-smokin’ coke snortin’ zero president comin’ out an tellin’ us about usin’ it, more kids think it is OK. “See, he used drugs an he became president! So why shouldn’t I use it?”
He’s getting senile — poor old Pat.
Counterfeit vodka is often laced with methanol and drinking that stuff can blind you. But it doesn't stop sensible people from drinking, responsibly, properly manufactured and properly sold and properly labelled vodka.
If they get into trouble by virtue of drinking to excess, it's their fault, not the fault of the booze. Or, to bastardize a popular 2nd Amendment analogy, gins don't kill people, people kill people.
The worst thing about defending the law as it presently stands is that it relies on the MyWifeAlwaysWinsTheArgument gambit to justify the most absurd double standards...
Hands up married guys here, who've ever had your wife consistently shoot arguments down with a standard "rule of thumb" that she regards as totally infallible - as long as she's the one using it... but as soon as you have a situation where you could cite the exact same "rule of thumb" to your advantage instead of hers, suddenly she finds an exception to the rule.
Regulation concept, in a nutshell:
1. Booze that's been manufactured under controlled conditions by reputable companies, may be safer to consume than counterfeit hooch. If you choose to go with the counterfeits or abuse the legit stuff, on your head be it.
2. Prescription drugs that are manufactured under controlled conditions by reputable companies, may be safer to consume than allegedly similar drugs from an unknown source. If you choose to go with the counterfeits, or abuse the legit stuff, on your head be it.
3. Tyres that are manufactured under controlled conditions by reputable companies, may be safer to use than allegedly similar items from an unknown source. If you choose to go with the counterfeits, or abuse the legit stuff, on your head be it.
Rinse and repeat ad infinitem.
4. "cannabis that is grown under controlled conditions by reputable companies..." STOP! I must not be pwn3d by my own infallible logic! Cannabis is badder than tobacco! Period! ABORT RETRY FAIL!
Of course, what makes this farce even more dumb, is the fact that the people doing this, are genetically incapable of seeing how inconsistent they are being.
At the same time that the teetotallers were desperately trying not to have an EPIC FAIL on their experiment at alcohol prohibition, another bunch of wooly-minded idiots were thinking, "we've got to do something about those evil snake oil salesman flogging any old tat and passing it off as efficable medicine" and along came the FDA. Did those two groups of people never, ever speak to each other?
Here's a radical idea: decide on a moral position, and apply it consistently across the board. So, if you want prohibition of all drugs, apply the exact same prohibition to booze as well. If the prohibition logic has legs, it'll work across the board.
Conversely, if you want the free market to clean up the streets, allow the regulated manufacture and sale of everything, including cannabis. If the free market's as good with cannabis as it is with booze, then it'll clean up the streets.
Well, like many, you're comparing apples and oranges which I addressed in post #35.
Absolutely. But...you only see the Gateway Theory questioned that way when booze and cigs are blamed. The same logic applied to pot seems to be ok. Go figure.
Well, like many, you're comparing apples and oranges which I addressed in post #35. Another aspect of pot is its psychedelic element which ushers the user into a spiritually dark world that some have difficulty returning from and leaves people wounded and scarred.