Skip to comments.Pat Robertson Backs Legalizing Marijuana
Posted on 03/08/2012 8:30:25 AM PST by AnTiw1
Of the many roles Pat Robertson has assumed over his five-decade-long career as an evangelical leader - including presidential candidate and provocative voice of the right wing - his newest guise may perhaps surprise his followers the most: marijuana legalization advocate.
"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol," Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. "I've never used marijuana and I don't intend to, but it's just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn't succeeded."
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
You've got it exactly backward. Since kids report that they can now get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer, it follows that the best way to restict their access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).
It’s the synthetic drugs, like Ecstasy that are the problem.
Go on, go on...
Tell us all how you pretend to have reverence for the Constitution, but will easily push it aside and allow government to enforce your definition of morality.
I am not in favor of legalized prostitution, and would vote against it. It is illegal in my state.
But it should be a state issue, as it was at the time of the founding. I guess you think our Founding Fathers were a bunch of whacky libertarians for not implicitly outlawing prostitution (or drugs) in the Constitution.
Somehow I have managed to have morals without the government telling me to do so. Imagine that.
I love these guys who try and make all these eloquent arguments when it is just a simple fact they want to hit the weed without worrying about the man.
Ain't got jack to do with the Constitution...
For the most part it is. And when it isn’t we’ve got perfectly reasonable laws and regulations to model after. We have drunk driving laws, and actually all of them were long ago tweaked to cover any form of “perception alteration” like illegal and even prescription drugs (yeah those “do not operate vehicle” labels are actually legally enforceable because that’s you being told your driving will be impaired). If one goes violent on drugs we have laws about that. If one stops taking care of their kids we have laws about that. We don’t need the WOD, which you’ve acknowledged has failed, to enforce these other laws when they are violated by people on drugs.
And as for the general familial wreckage of addiction, that happens no matter what the person is addicted to. Watch a couple of episodes of Hoarders on A&E, their families are just as traumatized as any dope fiend’s families and nobody is trying to outlaw purchasing.
less laws = less government = more freedom.
Its the synthetic drugs, like Ecstasy that are the problem.
I don't know that kids have any trouble getting that either. Heck, white suburban kids are using heroin ... the idea that criminalizing drugs protects kids has not a shred of evidence to support it.
Especially hussein's type of government. His brand of crony capitalism isn't limited to just energy and auto. He's choosing winners by using the DOJ and DEA to strong arm unworthy 'legal' medical marijuana providers.
I would like to see that report...
Once it’s legal the number 1 supplier of marijuana will be Phillip Morris, they pay taxes. Unless the taxation goes crazy (like in many states for tobacco) white markets are cheaper than black markets. When people can buy quality controlled at the convenience store for cheaper than who-knows-what-you’re-really-getting from Back Alley Bob Bob runs out of business. Why do people not buy moonshine anymore? Because Jack Daniels is easier to find, cheaper, and less likely to make you go blind.
Social sanctions. I get that.
And right now the pervasive social sanctions in America are all about keeping drugs illegal.
Even California turned down Prop. 19 which would have legalized pot.
dfwgator: No, I said they should have the right to do so.....it's a business decision...some businesses may not have a problem with hiring drug users, that should be their choice.
Um, I'm afraid I don's see ANY distinction between "being allowed" to do something and "having the right" to do something. They are virtually identical.
So I think that what you really meant to say was "Yes, ALL employers should be given access to ALL their employees' saliva, blood, urine, or what have you. The Fifth Amendment right to not be forced to incriminate oneself should be abolished."
the new tack: if you legalize weed, you'll have to legalize it all
in my world, voters and individual common sense play a part in that process
if you think prohibition is for our own good, then why not outlaw alcohol and tobacco, those two drugs alone account for 93% of all drug related deaths...answer?
if you don't think alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited, then apparently we CAN be selective about which drugs are too dangerous to let go uncontrolled...
reminder...alcohol and tobacco are the sole cause of over 1,000,000 deaths per year...cannabis is the sole cause of ZERO deaths per year
anyone think this is about anything other than corporations, money, media indoctrination and managed morality?...then keep thinking
Drugs are illegal, and there is still drug addiction.
There is not a person in the world that I know of that would smoke crack or shoot heroin if only it were legal.
If people want to shoot heroin and smoke crack, they are going to do so, legal or not.
In the meantime, the War on Drugs creates a black market that is filled by the most violent criminals. The violent drug cartels exist because of drug laws, just as the black market for guns exists because of restrictive gun laws.
We tried this with alcohol. Prohibition was a disaster. It created thugs like Al Capone and gave us the freaking Kennedy’s.
Brilliantly well said!
Why would you do that? It’s not conservatives like me that you need to fear, but liberal leftist haters.
For your own good, take that down.
WTF does that have to do with what I posted?
Your non-sequitur response is akin to replying to “cars should be legal” with “oh, so you just want to run people over with your car all day?”
When is the last time you applied for a job. Employers already do a drug screen. I just did one 2 days ago for a Tech support job. It’s not like I’m going to be messing with any hazardous stuff. I’ll be answering Internet questions on the telephone.
And, yes, they test for alcohol. A few years ago my fiance almost didn’t get a job because they found evidence of alcohol in her test results. But she didn’t drink. She’s diabetic, and the ketones from diabetes mimic alcohol.
So yes. Employers can test and reject people from employment based on legal substances they put in their bodies. And I’m ok with that. But I am not OK with government kicking down doors to stop people from smoking an evil plant. I don’t do it, but I don’t care if someone else does it.
I never said that anyone should be forced to hire anyone. I am merely pointing out that it does not logically follow that employers therefore have a right to stick needles in their employees' veins, or to require them to go "pee-pee" into a cup while Nurse Ratched watches, etc.
Do you understand? Your negative right (i.e. your right to not have to hire me) does not vest you with a positive right (i.e. the right to invade my privacy and forcibly extract my body fluids).
Elegant, how the Constitution works, isn't it?