Skip to comments.Anti-Pot Republican Lawmaker Charged with Pot Possession
Posted on 05/02/2011 9:29:39 AM PDT by Graneros
Its likely that Robert Watson, the minority leader of the Rhode Island House, is now regretting his incendiary comments during a speech to the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce last February. Watson caused a commotion when he made clear his feelings that Rhode Island lawmakers were wasting their time debating marijuana decriminalization. According to Watson, making pot decrim a priority would be a good idea if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smokes marijuana.
Watsons hypocrisy was revealed this week after he was stopped at a police checkpoint Friday and charged with what else? marijuana possession. The police report indicates that Watson smelled like alcohol and pot and slurred his words. He also had difficulty passing a sobriety test. Officers found a bag of what they suspect to be marijuana and a wooden pipe in Watsons pocket.
In addition to pot possession, Watson faces charges of driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia. Watson claims he was safe and sober behind the wheel and states that his Breathalyzer test showed that I was well below the legal limit of .08.
The very definition of hypocrite.
Sounds like a typical Establishment Republican.
How conservative can a Republican from Rhode Island actually be?
Sounds like a gay Guatemalan pot smoking gambler.
FWIW, behind the wheel, the alcohol makes him much more dangerous to the public than the pot.
However, both pale in comparison to the cell phone user.
/s ......sort of...
Federal government regulation of marijuana should be a relic of the 20th century. The very idea that some leaves that people smoke should be on a narcotics schedule is idiotic.
Why is it that ministers are the ones found having sex with kids and mothers against drunk drivers have someone who is arrested for drunk driving and ones vehemently against porn are found with it in there possession and then this?
Makes you suspicious of anyone campaigning against anything real hard, like the old adage ‘methinks thou dost protest too much’
and I hate to be in with that groupthink. Gad.
You forgot the alcohol lobby.
I include the alcohol lobby in the drug dealer group. Alcohol is a drug in every sense of the word.
Who in turn, pales in comparison to every driver transporting small children.
Not even a little sarcasm, other than that the notion that one's mind can not be trained to function when conversing with an unseen communicant attempts to deny millennia of military training regimens - and the training of every pilot civil or military in the western world.
And if the people hawking that socialist drivel actually believed it - they would push for the removal of radios in emergency vehicles as well.
Not all of the chicken littles are part of the global warming scam.
Actually, only dopers want drugs to be legalized, and they project on every one else.
It is the current requisite hands-on manipulation of the device which causes the danger.
Mount the damn phone, with speech driven command software, rendering it hands free, and the whole game changes.
Until the preponderance of vehicles/phones are configured in such a manner, the danger is hardly “socialist drivel”.
Open your eyes on your next commute.
But that is not the case.
Read up on the laws being proposed and the drivel behind them. The assertion is that it is the very act of conversing with some one you cant see that causes the danger.
As if taking your eyes from the road to look at the kids behind you were less dangerous.
Do your home work. If it were simply banning handsets that was winding through the legislature, I wouldn't have addressed the loopy rationalization that is being pushed in the attempts to ban automotive cell use altogether.
Not wanting to pass laws to legalize one’s personal failings or service one’s “category” is not hypocritical, that is the kind of attack that homosexual leftists make against conservative gay legislators, and it is used against black and female legislators also, in varying ways.
I assume you are calling me a "doper".
I drink a few beers once a month, not that it's your business. Don't "Dope".
But I want drugs legalized and the police state rolled back to 1900. I want police to be beat cops, that little kids (and their dogs) can trust again.
If crackheads want to kill themselves, I have two questions, Do you need a ride to the store and Do you have a lighter?
He’s only a hypocrite if he insists on not being legally punished. He’s reportedly against decriminilization - not usage.
The notion that ...rendering it hands free, and the whole game changes. doesn't jibe with my own (admittedly non-scientific) observations. It really doesn't seem to matter if they person is hands-free, or holding the infernal device to his/her ear, you can spot 'em from five cars behind. They're driving faster or slower than other traffic, are all over the lane, and exhibit a delayed reaction to traffic hazards vs. non-distracted drivers. I contend that they're worse than a driver with a car full of kids.
Not that Cali's cell phone law has had any discernable deterrent effect. Not sure that more laws are the answer, but there does seem to be a pretty strong negative effect if you look at actual driving in traffic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.