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.
It’s 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.
Execution?
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."
Regards,
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!
Dang, newbie.
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?
Regards,
nope, don't think so...they can do whatever they want
Who is forcing you? You can simply turn around and refuse to work for the company if it means submitting to a drug choice...you have a choice...they have a choice...what’s the problem?
I would like to see that report...
"44. Which is easiest for someone your age to buy: cigarettes, beer or marijuana?
31% CIGARETTES
14% BEER
34% MARIJUANA
5% THE SAME
15% DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE"
http://www.casacolumbia.org/download.aspx?path=/UploadedFiles/b0ooqrvk.pdf
“What about the hard drugs?’’ Well hows the prohibition on them been working?
You do support making alcohol illegal, correct? I mean, you wouldn't be inconsistent or anything, right?
It's scientifically impossible to overdose on marijuana, genius.
before this recession all my friends had regular jobs now it seems most of them have small businesses, all under the table...if you really want to be your own boss...
i started a small internet biz in 2001, semi-retired at 45 and moved aboard a sailboat around 2007...set it up so all i need is a cellphone, s long as i'm anchored within range to get a signal, i'm rolling
There are more restrictive laws on the books now regarding the sale and usage of alcohol than there ever was during Prohibition.
If you’re like me and you don’t like this, then what are we to do?
I know. Lets return to Prohibition when there was fewer Nanny State laws.
(lolol. I LOVE making liberal heads explode!)
Yes, and considering 90% of the posters on this thread disagree with your nonsense, perhaps it is you that is confused about conservatism.
Admittedly rather long ago.
Employers already do a drug screen.
Which employers? What percentage of employers?
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.
Are such tests capable of distinguishing between occasional, social drinking and "hard" drinking?
And I’m ok with that.
I am appalled and truly astonished. What has become of America?
Regards,
“Yes, and considering 90% of the posters on this thread disagree with your nonsense, perhaps it is you that is confused about conservatism.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You just got here junior. You have a lot of catching up to do. You are replying to a reply of a reply that began in post 23 when I was speaking about libertarians needing to shit up and put down the bong.
And here you are making yourself look stupid by alleging that remark applies to 90% of FReepers?
Son, I told you on another thread that you need to go back to class. That your grade school remarks are not welcome here.
OMG. WHAT did I just say?
I better edit that last comment before the mods delete it....
___________________________________________________________________________________
“Yes, and considering 90% of the posters on this thread disagree with your nonsense, perhaps it is you that is confused about conservatism.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You just got here junior. You have a lot of catching up to do. You are replying to a reply of a reply that began in post 23 when I was speaking about libertarians needing to SHUT up and put down the bong.
And here you are making yourself look stupid by alleging that remark applies to 90% of FReepers?
Son, I told you on another thread that you need to go back to class. That your grade school remarks are not welcome here.
I have never been asked to undergo drug testing.
In any event, I am not personally invested in this issue.
But "Zuerst nahmen sie die Kommunisten fest, aber ich war kein Kommunist..." (Martin Niemöller), and as a political Conservative, at a political website, I nonetheless feel entitled to weigh in on this issue - and I find it appalling that (save for overriding considerations, like in the case of air traffic controllers) workers in America can routinely be required to submit to such invasive medical procedures, or face the consequence of losing their livelihoods.
Regards,
What’s so invasive about peeing into a cup?
What's it to you? A company should have the right to not hire left-handed people, if they want to have such a stupid policy...it's none of my business.
One doesn't measure degree of restriction by simply counting laws. Did you really not know that?
Your only real job security is in how well you perform at your job. If you're good at it, you'll be able to find another job someplace else that doesn't weed out people for characteristics that aren't relevant to the position.
An employer should be able to hire or fire anybody he chooses, for reasons as simple as how long they grow their hair or whether they have a spike running through their nose.
Somebody that is marginal in their performance on their job may feel the need to give up the marijuana if the job they currently hold is their only option.
Whether a substance is illegal or not is a separate issue from whether or not it is appropriate to have social consequences to use of that substance.
dfwgator: What's it to you? A company should have the right to not hire left-handed people, if they want to have such a stupid policy...it's none of my business.
In case you hadn't noticed: That question was addressed to christx30. My reason for asking? Because I was curious.
What's it to you?
Regards,
A few things I find interesting...
Most teens who use alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana do so by the time they are 15. Among teens who admit to smoking, drinking or having tried marijuana, by age 15: 95 percent have had their first cigarette; 93 percent their first drink and 86 percent their first joint.
Also...
This year’s survey is the first time that a higher percentage of teens finds marijuana easier to buy than cigarettes and beer. Such teens have a risk of substance abuse one and a half times greater than average.
Teens who perceive marijuana as “not harmful” are at more than two and a half times greater substance-abuse risk than teens who think marijuana is “very harmful.”
One of the popular arguments from the pro pot crowd is how harmless it is...
One of the popular arguments from the pro pot crowd is how harmless it is...
So counter them with facts - not scare stories about "psychosis" (much less "ODs" as one Drug Warrior was peddling on this thread). Lie to kids about the harms of marijuana and get caught, and they won't believe the truth about the harms of marijuana.
I suspect that that organization sees any and all pot use as "abuse".
One good turn deserves another...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/marijuana_myths_facts.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm
http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_marijuana_is_harmless.html.
http://www.justthinktwice.com/consequences/drugged_driving_you_get_high_and_drive.html
Ah, well that would be silly wouldn’t it. After all a 14 year old kid knows when to say when...
That’s a retarded little stat. Kids that don’t see a drug as harmful probably do drugs (more than just pot) and therefore can have a problem, kids that see the same drug as harmful probably don’t do any drugs and therefore can’t have a problem. So yeah kids that do drugs are indeed more likely to have drug problems than those who don’t, that doesn’t mean the particular drug in question (pot) is harmful.
The fact that you delight in having somoene zotted really speaks to your love of government control and morality policing.
You're trying to inject logic into a discussion with the dude who was the biggest Arnold lackey/McClintock basher back in the days of the recall. That should give you an example of the mentality of the anti-pot people around here.
To misquote a dirtbag homo pedophile drug addict, Alan Ginsberg, who wrote this quote for all the wrong reasons....
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness....
I don't remember the 60's
149
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.