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 ...
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 youre 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?
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: 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?
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"?
” Its 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. “
” Its 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.