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 ...
We’ve seen the devestation of pot in people’s lives; some here want their recreational drugs but it would be better if it were only for cancer patients and only that kind of thing.
Just say NO!
Well as one pro freedom guy to another I will support your right to want the things you are against made legal while I will assert my right to think legalizing pot is a stupid idea...
And that is about all I can say about that since I gotta get to the house.
That's pretty sad. It's just about springtime. Go outside and get some fresh air.
WTG newbie Einstein.
I told you to take your home address off your FReep page.
Looks like you want the boss to do it.
Uhh, yeah he is, dude.
People that can tie their own shoes. People that think no knock raids are a violation of the 4th Amendment. People with allergies that are sick of having to worry if their purchase of perfectly legal non-prescription drugs is going to be considered too much by the FDA.
My 80 year old mother in law was the victim of a no knock raid last week actually. A “reliable source” made a tip, and they busted in on her while she was redecorating her dead husband’s (dead less than a month, career Air Force) office. They got the description of house wrong on the warrant, but of course wouldn’t let her see it until after they’d finished searching, a search which of course found nothing because she’s an EIGHTY YEAR OLD WIDOW. Welcome to your War on Drugs America where the jack booted thugs can kick in ANY door ANY time for ANY reason, even yours.
First of all, it's "affects". "Effects" is the noun usage. Sorry a "pro-pot" stoner burnout had to point that out to you. Second of all, this whole "for the children" nonsense is worthy of Hillary "it takes a village" Clinton. If you're not a good enough parent to keep your kid from using drugs, it shouldn't "effect" the rest of us.
For the record I think no knock raids and such are a bad idea.
But that does not make me want to run out and have pot as available as Budweiser...
There is a middle ground.
Do you support overturning Roe v. Wade? Because if it were overturned, guess what? IT WOULD BECOME A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE.
Like the middle ground between liberalism and conservatives
And I know some incredible parents who have had kids with drug issues. That is a BS argument from the pro drugs crowd. Do you really think that attitude and approach is going to win you support among us straights.
Why should I have to subsidize someone’s else use of drugs? Because if it’s legalized now I will. If the government legalizes it, taxpayers will be on the hook for the costs, welfare, rehab, and probably the drug itself.
It's called a bad economy. Of course there are factions here. Good debate what makes this a great forum. Of course, if you don't like it, feel free to start your own busybody statist message board and we'll see how many posters you attract.
Ive seen the devastation of alcohol in peoples lives - do you support banning that drug?
No knock raids are part of the WOD, if you’re for it AT ALL you are for no knock raids. And I was against the WOD long before last week’s incident, largely because I saw what the WOD has done to the country, like making no knock raid the standard (not just for the WOD anymore, the vast majority of warrants are now served with a SWAT team and no knock, 30 years ago there was no such thing). It’s simply disgusting. Try to buy enough sudafed for a family of allergy sufferers. You can’t, not by yourself, you’ll need multiple adults buying from multiple locations, then your buying stats go to the DEA, and if they decide that’s “too much” bang goes your door. Better hope you don’t have a coffee maker. Coffee makers are made up of a heating element, a beaker and a filter, which when couple with the presence of sudafed means, in the eyes of the DEA, you run a meth lab.
And frankly having pot as available as beer the answer. Alcohol is actually a very effectively regulated drug. As has been point out by many, the presence of white market alcohol killed the majority of the black market, it’s much more difficult for children to get a hold of than anything forbidden by the WOD because the black market is so small and the white market isn’t willing to take the risk. Nobody is actually pushing for drugs to be wide open. I know that’s the strawman drug warriors like to push but it’s just that. Notice EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this thread that’s spoken out against WOD has said regulate it like tobacco and alcohol. NOBODY is saying give it to your kids. If you REALLY want to keep pot away from your kids, which is an admirable goal, you ACTUALLY want it legalized EXACTLY like Budweiser, which right now at this very minute is harder for them to get.
If they do criminal acts like all the violent offenders in prison, also send them to prison and start confiscating their stuff. Sure!
Jim’s a busy guy. Do we really need to bring him into this?
first i was going to get 'zotted' for the thread topic...
now i'm going to get it for violating another rule of yours that is written...nowhere?
exactly who do you think you are, JR's better half?
Gotta luv libertarians, no one on the world but them...
And pot is illegal. Those kids would be burnouts whether it was legalized or not.
not necessarily...but when someone tells me i'm 2b zotted for thread content or non-obscene info on my contact page, i want a second opinion...out of line?
Wow! The loon’s actually making sense!
You are already subsidizing “drug enforcement” efforts worldwide, incarceration, etc. - well, if you pay taxes. Either way, we pay.
The homicidal drug gangs thank you for your remarks.
Oh, and f*ck you too.
That’s my point.
Walk proudly. I think your should get rid of anyone who favors legalizing drugs. The purer the site the better.
Relax New stuff. I don’t want you to get the zot. Even if you are a retread.
Some day - if I feel like it - I’ll tell you the story of how - a few weeks ago - I was instrumental in getting another naive newbie like you UNZOTTED.
So if you do get the zot - I’ll come to your aid also.
(JR’s better half)
You are priceless, ya know that?
Dude. I was gonna call your attention to the fact that you can’t get away with a vulgar insult someone like that. Then I scrolled up, and I was like...
Goes to show. We never really read the replies, or someone never bothered to hit report abuse on the newbie.
You really should update yourself on the pro-life agenda.
Of course I support overturning Roe v. Wade. As a start. But to leave a matter of life and death up to the states is absurd.
The US must enact a Personhood Amendment. Equal rights to the born and the unborn.
Fair enough. In that case, we agree completely (please don't go jumping off a bridge for agreeing with a libertarian). I do give you credit for respecting the Constitution, despite our big differences on the danger or lack thereof regarding weed.
You were convinced that he was a liberal because he pointed out Santorum and Newt’s flaws? You are so full of yourself.
I know you hate liberals, you say it a lot. Does hating the right people make you socially conservative? Is that your platform?
I dont really care how much work you put in here, that doesnt bolster your argument, just tries to make you look like some sort of hero.
And it is pretty clear you fear other ideas, because you put effort into zotting people who have different ones.
But my original point was that it doesnt surprise me that someone who wants the government to control people’s lives also takes joy in banning different opinions on a website.
Interesting you use a logical fallacy to try and prove some point about logic.
How come cops, teachers and those in Congress are not randomly drug tested? How come those who perform the drug testing are not randomly drug tested?
I've noticed over the years, certain types live for that and seem to really get off doing that.
The first two can be answered with one word - unions.
thats sweet but going homo worked with your daddy
not with me ;^)
Very nice retort there retread new-wad.
I never would have thought to come back with such a gay reply, but then I don’t play your way.
what can i say? i'm so profoundly masculine in everything i say and do, and you seem to be so utterly unlike me, what could i visualize but a pencil necked old man wearing a dress?
I have no idea. I saw a couple of firefighters in the office waiting to go back to do their test, so people ar getting tested randomly. But I know it does happen. Most companies I have worked at, people are drug tested after accidents.
If we legalize marijuana, isn’t that like saying that the hippies were right and we were wrong? I can’t live with that.
If they do criminal acts
That's not the question. You offer devastation of lives as a reason to BAN pot - NOT just punish criminal acts by pot users - so the question is whether you support the SAME policy of BANNING alcohol due to its devastation of lives ... or if you're a hypocrite.
I found this site that you can look at if you want to. It lists all companies that do drug screens.
You can search by company name, or state, or just view the whole list if you want to.
Looks like an extensive list.
And the third one can be answered simply: They make the laws. It’s also why they and their staff are exempt from jury duty.
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.