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 ...
i just think common sense should tell us
since tobacco and alcohol are legal,
any drug that causes you less damage than those two cutural icons should be legal, too
i mean, cannabis sativa has been "vetted" for smoking use since 2700BC minimum...no surprises here
I onder if the government would “allow” me..........
Don’t you see the basic fallacy in leaving this up to the government?
Secondly, people are choosing drugs now and the government doesn’t “allow” it.
Is that how we treat alcohol?
Yes I am a “so called” conservative...
Confirmed earlier.
Thank God there are many more like me...
Do you drink alcohol? Do you think it should be made illegal?
We must have radically different definitions of sanity...
Good luck with your approach. Maybe one day you guys can enjoy you weed without worrying about the man.
Perhaps the deepening insanity of our society will give you the boost you need....
I would also deny welfare benefits for users, as well.
But at least they won’t go to jail for using, unless they commit some other crime.
Total insanity and that is probably dimensia settin in.
Pot destroys lives.
It destroys potential.
It has destroyed Mexico.
Most all violent people in prison love their pot.
We now also have all these kids born with mental problems for life from using pot and other things while the baby was in the womb.
NO POT!
I am stongly AGAINST legalizing Marijuana!
Well, we should definitely repeal the War on Poverty.
We should also end the War on Drugs.
The majority of crime in this country revolves around drugs. End the War on Drugs, put the Mexican cartels out of business.
Morality cannot be legislated.
I understand. We all have made mistakes in our past.
But the key premise amongst conservatives still remains. We do not want our government involved in trashing our young people with legal drugs.
I know better than to use tobacco, but I'm perfectly fine with our government allowing others to become enslaved to the problems of tobacco use.
How about you?
The thing I hate most about drugs is that they cause folks
to write like morons without proper capitalization or punctuation.
Don’t you agree?
Here are the facts. The WOD has failed, it needs to be revisited.
Legalizing drugs IS NOT the way way a sane and sober society interested in promoting the general welfare of its people goes about such things.
Make all the high minded (no pun intended) poetic and philosophical arguments you can but in the end it boils down to a group of folks who want to smoke pot without worrying about the man, nor the consequences to society as a whole.
Just like criminals regularly undercut the price of legal alcohol?
and we just increase the number of psychotic people
The hefty increase in marijuana use over the last few decades has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in psychosis. So much for that Chicken Little fable.
Or the problems of Internet addiction.
Or the problems of eating too many carbs (actually with their food pyramid, they actually encourage that, but that's another story).
Or the problems of not getting any exercise.
Or the problems of ....
We now also have all these kids born with mental problems for life from using pot and other things while the baby was in the womb.
All true of the drug alcohol. Is banning that drug the right answer?
The word I prefer is “Decriminalization”, that does not imply “Normalization”....in others words, you won’t get thrown in jail for using marijuana, but don’t expect to get a job or any government benefits if you do use.
If it feels good do it!
Which party pushes that thinking?
Care to tell us why?
I onder if the government would “allow” me..........
Don’t you see the basic fallacy in leaving this up to the government?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I MIGHT see the basic fallacy if you rephrased that question in English.
I kid. I don’t answer to libertarians. I hate libertarians - morphing or otherwise. (re-adding tagline). And I also don’t answer to that just say no fool.
There are some people on this site that may someday be reached - that someday more be converted to Conservatism, but Just say no is a lost cause.
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 isn't banned, but there certainly is today a stigma assigned to a person smoking or drinking while pregnant. You just don't see that anymore.
Nice smokescreen. How much you makin’ or takin’? Look up the definition of psychosis or go over to the daily kos because you’re out of your league here.
Really, dfw???
You want to equate drug usage with internet addiction, eating too may carbs, exercise...?
You know better than than.
Prostitution, like marijuana, should be a state issue, like it was at the time the of the Constitution.
Since you didn't use any qualifiers such as "employers of employees performing hazardous tasks - e.g., air traffic controllers," I take it that you truly do mean ALL employers should be allowed to require ALL of their employees to submit to drug testing, right?
In other words, you'd like to see employers be given carte blanche to extract body fluids from their employees, right? And to be able to fire them, even if the employees have only been using perfectly legal substances on their own time?
In other words: Employees = chattel.
That's a very strange opinion for someone with a regard for our Bill of Rights to hold!
Regards,
That's the thinking behind the War On Drugs - it hasn't had any demonstrable effect on drug use, it has enriched criminals with all the ills that entails, but its supporters feel good about having laws against bad acts (however futile and counterproductive).
If you don’t understand the word morphing, there are plenty of online dictionaries.
I can understand why you hate libertarians after your remark about what the government will allow. I would respond further, but the government won’t allow me.
Well you’re part way there,. you understand the WOD has failed.
Now for the other half, where you’re completely backwards. A SANE society let’s people take their own risks.
Make all the bad puns you want but in the end it boils down to are we a free society of not? Free societies allow people to take risks, even unreasonable risks. Free societies allow stupid behavior. It allows people to eat unhealthy food, read in dim light, not dress properly for the weather, drink and smoke dope. Once you decide the government gets to start dictating which “bad” behavior is and isn’t acceptable you open the door for all kinds of stupid tyranny like we’re getting now, with socialized medicine and governments outlawing fatty foods all for “our own good” because they “know best”. Screw them, it’s not their life, it’s not their call. If I want to eat transfats (which I do) it’s my business, not theirs, not yours. If I want to smoke dope (which I haven’t in decades) it’s my business, not theirs, not yours.
As long as people are keeping the risk to themselves it’s really nobody’s damn business. At least in a free society.
Stigmatization is the liberty-loving answer for those opposed to drug use; criminalization is the lazy way out.
Pat - the war on drugs doesn't limit itself to marijuana. If you legalize it, then what about the war on all the other drugs - do you think it will just go away? Legalizing marijuana would be just the beginning. Other illegal drugs would necessarily soon follow, otherwise the war on drugs would not go away and you wouldn't have accomplished anything.
Actually, the LD for THC is so large that you couldn't smoke enough to die - it isn't physically possible. You would basically fall asleep (or pass out) long before you could possibly smoke enough to kill you. If you extracted it and concentrated it, then you could get a lethal dose.
As for people who say, "Well, the war on murder, robbery, rape, etc., haven't eradicated those crimes, so we should just stop fighting them too", is making a completely bogus straw-man argument. The difference between marijuana (and I might add alcohol) use and all those other crimes, is that all of those other crimes involve an UNWILLING VICTIM. I would also add that in my entire life, I have never seen anyone who was high on marijuana get into a fight, beat their wife/girlfriend, be loud, rude, and obnoxious, or "smoke" themselves to death. The same cannot be said of alcohol.
Furthermore, one of the reasons marijuana is so vilified is that it is supposedly a "gateway" drug, and its use will lead people to harder, more addictive, and more dangerous drugs. There is precious little evidence to support this claim. There are millions and millions of Baby Boomers out there who smoked pot for many years of their lives (and many, many of them still do, I am sure). In the overwhelming majority of those cases, they never did any harder drugs like cocaine or heroin, though some undoubtedly did experiment with LSD, Mescaline, Psiloscybin, and other hallucinogens.
Is marijuana consumption GOOD for you? No, it isn't, but then neither is alcohol consumption. But you have to put this in perspective: marijuana is NOT a narcotic like cocaine, heroin, methampethamine, etc. It is also NOT addictive like those other drugs. Habit forming? To a degree, but as a (arguably very mild) hallucinogen, it is not an addictive drug (I won't waste space explaining why that is).
People need to get past the knee-jerk "ALL DRUGS ARE EVIL AND MUST BE BANNED AT ALL COSTS" attitude. They are no better than Carrie Nation, whose crusade led to a failed experiment in government intervention that led to gangsterism, corruption, and an enormous and entirely avoidable waste of resources and human lives.
It doesn't make sense to have a prohibition against marijuana any more than it made sense (or was feasible) to have a prohibition against alcohol. And as evidenced by changes in state laws over the past 15+ years, legalization in some form is coming, and it is going to happen. When, and to what degree, and how much the government will seek to control (and tax) it is the only question.
Go on.. go on...
Tell us more. Tell us how YOU beleive your state should LEGALIZE prostitution.
See? This is what I hate about libs who hide behind the Constitution. Libs who bring out the 10th Amendment to advance their liberal pro-porn, pot and prostitution agenda.
I spent 25 years working in the CA correctional system. 12 of those years in a Correctional Rehab facility. Weed is not the problem. Alcohol IS the main gateway drug. Always has been, always will be. When do we ban alcohol again? I believe the answer to all of this is personal responsibility. I should be solely responsible for whatever I do to my body. Society should not be obligated to bail me out medically, financially, or in any other way because of my decisions. If I deny someone else their rights by my actions-—that’s what laws and punishments should be for.
how do they plan to tax it? they can’t get a handle on
it even when its illegal.
In the great scheme of things this is waaay down the list.
I'm not necessarily equating them....but how much government intrusion do you want to make sure people don't do those things? We want drunk drivers off the road, so what do we do, we monitor drivers...we don't ban alcohol, or make sure people don't drink. And if you truly want to decrease drug usage, use the power of social sanctions, as I mentioned earlier with how you no longer see pregnant women smoking or drinking....I don't necessarily think that's because they know it's bad for the baby, it's because they know that any one who see them doing it will be appalled, and they would be outcast.
Nice smokescreen. How much you makin’ or takin’?
None and none. Your personal attack is duly noted, as is the weakness in your argument that it indicates.
Look up the definition of psychosis or go over to the daily kos because you’re out of your league here.
All your huffing and puffing isn't blowing away the simple fact I've noted. Too bad for you.
Alcohol, while legal is still problematic. Kids still get it despite the laws and the fact that is so readily available makes such far more prevalent and easier than it should be.
So the "conservative" answer is to make MORE such drugs available, that will make society safer and people more productive?
Everyone running around drunk and stoned and high and spaced out as long as it is “legal” is a conservative argument?
Really?
Wow...
I think that sums up the gulf between conservative and libertarian rather succinctly, why Reagan always said Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism, but never said they were equals. Conservatives understand responsibility sometimes goes beyond self interests.
I agree, but we haven't lived in a free society in a long time, my FRiend.
There are big government types on the left and the right.
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.
BS. There is absolutely no evidence of this. There is also no evidence that it causes brain damage or any irreversible brain changes. In fact, prior to prohibition, it was prescribed for menstrual cramps, labor cramps, PMS and morning sickness. Queen Victoria was the most famous patient.
Now, Alcohol is 100% proven to cause fetal damage. It is 100% proven to cause permanent brain damage. And it is 100% legal.
Gotta love those wiggle words!
Also: Source?
Also: And alcohol?
Also: I'm sure that it would be no problem carrying out a study to prove that inhaling gasoline fumes "could" pose a similar risk - Should we therefore also illegalize gasoline?
Regards,
Wrong - you'd have taken a big bite out of criminal profits by removing far and away the most popular currently illegal drug from the black market.
When you get ObamaCare, it will become EVERYBODY'S business......that's one reason Obama/RomneyCare must be stopped.
I’m sorry to attack you based on you screen name. You haven’t had it very long. If I were you, I’d abandon it and start over with a decent one.
I’m still getting over the fact that I had LIBERTARIAN JOE zotted yesterday. He was a typical lib. Supported RoPaul and had nasty things to say about Newt and Santorum.
I don’t know how he lasted here 11 years, but he is no more.
Why should a business be forced by the government to hire drug users. Business owners should have rights as well.
And that's the problem right there...
The risk is not always self contained...
See? This is what I hate about libs who hide behind the Constitution. Libs who bring out the 10th Amendment
I'd vote for zoned, regulated prostitution in my state - it beats enriching criminals and having no control over where prostitution takes place. Nevadans made a similar choice. Where's the "hiding"?
” It’s amazing how hypocritical lbertaians can be. “
conservative for gingrich, not that it makes any difference, oh labeling one:
” One minute they are flaming away at RoPaul and Pat Robertson, the next - they are in agreement with them. “
links?
” It’s very simple. We should not surrender to Mexico. We should continue to fight the WOD. “
yup and hows that working out? taking MS13’s lunch money away doesn’t appeal to you?
” We shoulld tell all libertarians to put down that bong and shut up. “
i don’t have a bong, but i catch your drift...my address is on my profile, so nothing’s holding you back from ‘shutting me up’, is there?
Taxing is easier when it's legal - do you think bathtub gin was effectively taxed during Prohibition?
Yup. Everybody’s got their sacred cow, everybody wants control on some level. Even I’ve got a few, if you gave me a button to push that would eradicate the cellphone from American culture I’d push it so hard and so fast I’d probably injure myself, I see no benefit from them and lots of annoyance from their users. On some level I realize that my loathing of cellphones and my support of limiting their use is really counter to my usual small government instincts, but they still irritate me. So I try to be a little sympathetic to the drug warriors, we’ve all seen lives destroyed by addiction and I can certainly understand not wanting to see them legal because of it, but on this issue I can look past the personal to the big picture, which they can’t, but I can’t on cellphones. Everybody’s got a cow.
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.