Pat Robertson: "Legalize Marijuana"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1

Onetime Republican Presidential Candidate Pat Robertson:

Mr. Robertson, 81, said that there had been no single event or moment that caused him to embrace legalization. Instead, his conviction that the nation "has gone overboard on this concept of being tough on crime" built up over time, he added.

"It's completely out of control," Mr. Robertson said. "Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all."

Didn't see that coming.

Wait... a conservative saying something that makes sense?

I guess there's a first time for everything.

/flameshield

Bymidew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1

Onetime Republican Presidential Candidate Pat Robertson:

Mr. Robertson, 81, said that there had been no single event or moment that caused him to embrace legalization. Instead, his conviction that the nation "has gone overboard on this concept of being tough on crime" built up over time, he added.

"It's completely out of control," Mr. Robertson said. "Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all."

Didn't see that coming.

*laughs* Never thought I would say "Wow I agree with Pat Robertson" - how much do you want to bet that he personally, or a family member, needs or uses the drug? He wouldn't be saying this out of altruism. He probably discovered it was in his own best interest.

As far as I know that is the only way to get a conservative to admit anything. If it's in their own best interest.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell would it work for drugs?

Well, I guess everyone has to be right about something at some point in their lives.

Stagnant:
Well, I guess everyone has to be right about something at some point in their lives.

A broken clock is right once a day. Still, I find this jolt of sanity suspicious.

Fucking hell, I was NOT expecting that! Talk about out of the blue!

TheDarkEricDraven:

Stagnant:
Well, I guess everyone has to be right about something at some point in their lives.

A broken clock is right once a day. Still, I find this jolt of sanity suspicious.

Maybe he had a stroke or found out cocaine is awesome. Who knows?

Oh cool, a sane Pat Robertson.
I guess the Mayans were right. The world is going to end this year. There is no way that this universe and a sane Pat Robertson can coexist.

Sounds reasonable enough, for both ideological and practical reasons.

It is not for the state to ban people from things that'll only harm themselves, and much like the prohibition era, the organized crime the criminalization of it has fostered is far more harmful than the taking of it, which haven't even been prevented much anyway.

Now, if he'd only raise a debate on the absurd level of sanctioning and punitive damages in the American justice system in general, and how prisons are basically an industry, then one might start to think the old geezer had at last found his marbles.

There's a whole world between the current stance on drugs the US has, and just throwing everything overboard by legalising pot.

PercyBoleyn:
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell would it work for drugs?

Drinking was common and deeply ingrained in culture. Drugs aren't.

Besides, the dynamics are way different. It's possible to use alcohol responsibly, it's not possible for other drugs because all of them are damaging. Yes, also pot, I've heard all the excuses but at the end up the day it's still damaging.

Times have also changed. Some parts of the US and other countries have alcohol prohibition today.

Blablahb:
Drinking was common and deeply ingrained in culture. Drugs aren't.

Yes they are.

Blablahb:
Besides, the dynamics are way different. It's possible to use alcohol responsibly, it's not possible for other drugs because all of them are damaging. Yes, also pot, I've heard all the excuses but at the end up the day it's still damaging.

Why wouldn't it be possible to use drugs responsibly?

Ya think Pat had an encounter with some burning foliage of some sort? XD

PercyBoleyn:
Yes they are.

I wonder where you live, if the vast majority of all adults are on drugs there.

PercyBoleyn:
Why wouldn't it be possible to use drugs responsibly?

Because of the health damage they always do, and the inevitability of other problems. For marijuana for instance, one out of every so many users goes psychotic or schizofrenic and will remain unstable for the rest of their lives, and every non-adult user suffer inreversible brain, to the amygdala and some other parts of the brain.

Blablahb:
I wonder where you live, if the vast majority of all adults are on drugs there.

The vast majority of adults are on drugs, legal or otherwise.

Blablahb:
Because of the health damage they always do, and the inevitability of other problems.

You mean like alcohol and nicotine?

Blablahb:
For marijuana for instance, one out of every so many users goes psychotic or schizofrenic and will remain unstable for the rest of their lives

Pre-existing conditions. There are certain issues also made worse by alcohol as well. What's your point?

Blablahb:
and every non-adult user suffer inreversible brain, to the amygdala and some other parts of the brain.

There are also serious side effects of teenage alcohol use. Besides, legalization would also mean regulation. We could prevent teenagers from using drugs much more effectively if we actually controlled the market.

PercyBoleyn:

Why wouldn't it be possible to use drugs responsibly?

It is possible to use pot responsibly, and it probably should be legalized.

I don't think we should legalize all drugs, though. I would say that almost nobody can use heroin "responsibly".

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, I suppose.

Yosarian2:

PercyBoleyn:

Why wouldn't it be possible to use drugs responsibly?

It is possible to use pot responsibly, and it probably should be legalized.

I don't think we should legalize all drugs, though. I would say that almost nobody can use heroin "responsibly".

It's impossible to use any drug responsibly without exposing yourself to risk at the moment due to the illegality of the drug trade. That bud you're smoking might have been laced with something or cut with God knows what. Legalization would not only give the government the ability to control consumption more effectively but it would also make drugs generally safer by setting certain standards by which they can be manufactured. As it stands, the benefits certainly outweigh the cons in regards to drug legalization.

PercyBoleyn:

Yosarian2:

PercyBoleyn:

Why wouldn't it be possible to use drugs responsibly?

It is possible to use pot responsibly, and it probably should be legalized.

I don't think we should legalize all drugs, though. I would say that almost nobody can use heroin "responsibly".

It's impossible to use any drug responsibly without exposing yourself to risk at the moment due to the illegality of the drug trade. That bud you're smoking might have been laced with something or cut with God knows what. Legalization would not only give the government the ability to control consumption more effectively but it would also make drugs generally safer by setting certain standards by which they can be manufactured. As it stands, the benefits certainly outweigh the cons in regards to drug legalization.

Again, in terms of pot, I agree with you. Drugs that have about the same level of risk as alcohol and tobacco should be made legal.

Something like heroin, though, something where using it out of curiosity a few times has a very high chance of sending you into a fairly rapid death spiral of addiction that almost nobody can escape from, should never be something that is legally sold in stores.

I don't want to ever see Big Opium running commercials of a cowboy on horseback shooting heroin and then hear them try to explain why the add isn't aimed at children, for example. And I don't think the "cut with God knows what" argument holds up here; there's almost nothing you could add to heroin to make it much more deadly then it already is.

PercyBoleyn:
he vast majority of adults are on drugs, legal or otherwise.

Sounds like something that would require proof, because I don't see the majority of people using crack, heroin, cocaina, xtc, marijuana and such every day.

PercyBoleyn:
You mean like alcohol and nicotine?

Didn't I just point out alcohol doesn't need to be damaging, contrary to drugs?

PercyBoleyn:
Pre-existing conditions. There are certain issues also made worse by alcohol as well. What's your point?

If it needed drugs to occur, it wasn't a pre-existing condition. The two rule eachother out. Marijuana causes mental illnesses, nastiest of which are schizofrenia and psychosis.

PercyBoleyn:
There are also serious side effects of teenage alcohol use.

Note how alcohol is banned for them because of this.
[quote="PercyBoleyn" post="528.353514.14030301"]Besides, legalization would also mean regulation. We could prevent teenagers from using drugs much more effectively if we actually controlled the market.

Uhm, no. The number of addicts would increase as drugs are easier to get. Reduction of the number of addicts is done through drug education.

There's no reason why there can't be drug education without other things changing, and that is a much better alternative than leaving things as they are and letting it get out of control by just legalising drugs.

The US has a crack epidemic in the 90's. What do you think would've happened if they hadn't been able to arrest drug dealers or stop the trade because it was legal? The scale of it would've increased tenfold.

Blablahb:
...
Because of the health damage they always do, and the inevitability of other problems. For marijuana for instance, one out of every so many users goes psychotic or schizofrenic and will remain unstable for the rest of their lives, and every non-adult user suffer inreversible brain, to the amygdala and some other parts of the brain.

And is the risk not theirs to take?

One of so every so many who consumes alcohol end up becoming an alcoholic. Such can certainly be equally devastating to an individual, all the more so for being something that's easy to hide in plain sight due to the cultural acceptance of it.

Yet such does not warrant a ban on it; It is one's inalienable right to do whatever will destroy only oneself, and like the ban on marijuana is doing, it'd only strengthen criminal activity by providing a steady source of funding it, and have little consequence for its availability anyway (...on the contrary, it is the forbidden fruit that taste the best when one is young).

It is a tide that can not - and ideologically should not - be stemmed, and the attempt to do so is doing more harm that good at this point. The stuff can be bought everywhere at little cost, filling the pockets of vile criminals also engaged in many forms of crimes which actually have victims. If the state will not respect the rights of the individual to do with its body as it wish, it must at least respect that it is powerless to stem the tide (at least while remaining a civil rights democracy offering appropriate legal rights and guarantees, rather than an authoritarian police state), and act appropriately.

evilneko:
Ya think Pat had an encounter with some burning foliage of some sort? XD

I'd actually not be too surprised if he'd somehow become familiar with marijuana. If not by using it himself, then by somehow coming into closer contact with someone who did. Though it is worth noting that the decriminalization of victimless crimes was always a view that was present in certain ideological factions of the American right wing (aka anti-government types and that Ron Paul guy, save his stance on abortion).

...and there's an avatar I can approve of. Not much less creepy than the last taken on face value, but its connotations are much beloved, as my own would reveal.

Yosarian2:
Something like heroin, though, something where using it out of curiosity a few times has a very high chance of sending you into a fairly rapid death spiral of addiction that almost nobody can escape from, should never be something that is legally sold in stores.

And what's the alternative? Let junkies hang out with shady dealers and shoot up using dirty needles? There's more to addiction than the physical. The places junkies go to, the people they hang around with also contribute to it. Legalization would mean more control in the hands of the government and therefore more possibilities to reintegrate junkies into society. Legalization would also not necessarily mean an increase in users, quite the opposite actually as shown to us by alcohol prohibition and the current state of marijuana use in the Netherlands

Yosarian2:
I don't want to ever see Big Opium running commercials of a cowboy on horseback shooting heroin and then hear them try to explain why the add isn't aimed at children, for example. And I don't think the "cut with God knows what" argument holds up here; there's almost nothing you could add to heroin to make it much more deadly then it already is.

Actually, yes you could. By regulating the drug trade you could enforce certain standards for manufacturing. This would mean clean needles, which would serve to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, uncut drugs, which would mean less nasties in it and serve to reduce the inherent risk of infection associated with heroin use and actual information on what you're putting into your body like dosage, purity and such which would serve to reduce the risk of overdosing.

Blablahb:
There's a whole world between the current stance on drugs the US has, and just throwing everything overboard by legalising pot.

PercyBoleyn:
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell would it work for drugs?

Drinking was common and deeply ingrained in culture. Drugs aren't.

Besides, the dynamics are way different. It's possible to use alcohol responsibly, it's not possible for other drugs because all of them are damaging. Yes, also pot, I've heard all the excuses but at the end up the day it's still damaging.

Times have also changed. Some parts of the US and other countries have alcohol prohibition today.

so alcohol is special just cause of a large social relevance? people die from alcohol poisoning, driving drunk, and people develop alcoholism which can kill as well, unless you get a new liver or want to go through dialysis treatments everyday. if your gonna make an argument at least be objective about it.

You don't think that, if a large corporation was legally allowed to sell opiates in the US openly, right in stores, that it would find a way to advertise and increase the number of users?

Making a drug illegal has a number of negative consequences. Making a drug legal increases access to it. It's a trade off, to be sure, and the cost/benefit depends on the drug.

As for the dirty needle argument; almost every city in the US now has a needle exchange program where people can get clean needles for free. If a heroin user isn't using clean needles now, he probably just doesn't care all that much about the risk, and probably wouldn't if it was legal either.

Blablahb:
Sounds like something that would require proof, because I don't see the majority of people using crack, heroin, cocaina, xtc, marijuana and such every day.

There are 55 million drug users in the US alone. Barring that, alcohol and nicotine are still drugs.

Blablahb:
Didn't I just point out alcohol doesn't need to be damaging, contrary to drugs?

Neither does any other drug if used responsibly.

Blablahb:
If it needed drugs to occur, it wasn't a pre-existing condition. The two rule eachother out. Marijuana causes mental illnesses, nastiest of which are schizofrenia and psychosis.

False. People who suffered from marijuana related psychosis were already predisposed to it beforehand.

Blablahb:
Uhm, no. The number of addicts would increase as drugs are easier to get. Reduction of the number of addicts is done through drug education.

Drugs are already extremely easy to get. Legalizing them would mean enforcing certain standards, like no selling to minors. No matter how you spin it, legalization would only serve to reduce the number of teenage drug users.

Blablahb:
There's no reason why there can't be drug education without other things changing, and that is a much better alternative than leaving things as they are and letting it get out of control by just legalising drugs.

The Western World already has a fairly comprehensive drug education and prevention program and it's done jack shit to curb the use of illicit drug use.

Blablahb:
The US has a crack epidemic in the 90's. What do you think would've happened if they hadn't been able to arrest drug dealers or stop the trade because it was legal? The scale of it would've increased tenfold.

If drugs were legal there wouldn't have been an epidemic in the first place.

Imperator_DK:

evilneko:
Ya think Pat had an encounter with some burning foliage of some sort? XD

I'd actually not be too surprised if he'd somehow become familiar with marijuana. If not by using it himself, then by somehow coming into closer contact with someone who did. Though it is worth noting that the decriminalization of victimless crimes was always a view that was present in certain ideological factions of the American right wing (aka anti-government types and that Ron Paul guy, save his stance on abortion).

...and there's an avatar I can approve of. Not much less creepy than the last taken on face value, but its connotations are much beloved, as my own would reveal.

Maybe he got some of that medical marijuana. ;)

And what's so creepy about Rika glomping Satoko while wearing cat ears? D: Y'know, I have a whole bunch more Rin avatars...

Yosarian2:

I don't think we should legalize all drugs, though. I would say that almost nobody can use heroin "responsibly".

My rule of thumb for that is "Will letting person X take that drug screw him up worse than putting him in jail for trying to take that drug would? If so, keep it illegal."

As far as I can tell, pot passes that test about as well as alcohol does. Pretty sure meth fails it.

And IIRC, William S. Burroughs (the writer) was a heroin addict. He managed to live to old age. On the other hand, he DID write "Naked Lunch".... :D

PercyBoleyn:
There are 55 million drug users in the US alone. Barring that, alcohol and nicotine are still drugs.

You mean you're talking about a fraction of less than a fifth of the population, but you want to call that a vast majority?

PercyBoleyn:
Neither does any other drug if used responsibly.

Except that is impossible because of addiction and damage to someone. Third time I've said this.

PercyBoleyn:
False. People who suffered from marijuana related psychosis were already predisposed to it beforehand.

And if they hadn't touched marijuana they'd still have been healthy, stable and happy. The drug is the cause.

What you're saying is like someone intentionally running over a pedestrian, and then we blame building streets for that, instead of the reckless driver. Sure, if there were no streets it wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't shift away the blame from driver, nor from the drug.

PercyBoleyn:
Drugs are already extremely easy to get. Legalizing them would mean enforcing certain standards, like no selling to minors. No matter how you spin it, legalization would only serve to reduce the number of teenage drug users.

PercyBoleyn:
The Western World already has a fairly comprehensive drug education and prevention program and it's done jack shit to curb the use of illicit drug use.

Uhm, no, it does not. Only a few countries have sufficient drug education. Unsurprisingly these are characterised by much lower usage rates.

Oh, and by drug education I don't mean the highschool teacher saying "drugs are bad m'kay?".
[quote="PercyBoleyn" post="528.353514.14030588"]If drugs were legal there wouldn't have been an epidemic in the first place.

Because....?

Captcha: "heated debate". ^_^

TheDarkEricDraven:

Stagnant:
Well, I guess everyone has to be right about something at some point in their lives.

A broken clock is right once a day. Still, I find this jolt of sanity suspicious.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Blablahb:
You mean you're talking about a fraction of less than a fifth of the population, but you want to call that a vast majority?

The current number of alcohol users in the US is 90 million. To say that drug use isn't ingrained into our culture is to deny reality.

Blablahb:
Except that is impossible because of addiction and damage to someone. Third time I've said this.

You mean like alcohol?

Blablahb:
And if they hadn't touched marijuana they'd still have been healthy, stable and happy. The drug is the cause.

Untrue. The psychosis would have surfaced either way. Marijuana might have increased the risk, 25% if I remember correctly, but it certainly wasn't the only cause.

Blablahb:
What you're saying is like someone intentionally running over a pedestrian, and then we blame building streets for that, instead of the reckless driver. Sure, if there were no streets it wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't shift away the blame from driver, nor from the drug.

That analogy makes no sense.

Blablahb:
Uhm, no, it does not. Only a few countries have sufficient drug education. Unsurprisingly these are characterised by much lower usage rates.

For example?

Blablahb:
Oh, and by drug education I don't mean the highschool teacher saying "drugs are bad m'kay?".

How would you mean it then?

Blablahb:
Because....?

Because we could have controlled supply.

Tyler Perry:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Stagnant:
Well, I guess everyone has to be right about something at some point in their lives.

A broken clock is right once a day. Still, I find this jolt of sanity suspicious.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

...

I have no choice but to kill you now so no one else finds out about my mistake.

evilneko:
...
Maybe he got some of that medical marijuana. ;)

Would make sense, with all the crazy he's previously espoused.

And what's so creepy about Rika glomping Satoko while wearing cat ears? D:

Well, an unfortunate side effect of running a fan group of the series is also knowing the picture it's from in full (though I rather wish I didn't, especially that it's god damn official cover art; Higurashi has the worst marketing team ever). Angel Mort uniforms aren't exactly made with modesty in mind...

Y'know, I have a whole bunch more Rin avatars...

...I guess it'd be folly to hope that you'd be referring to Rin from Fate/Stay Night, rather than that kid from It-which-shall-not-be-named.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Tyler Perry:

TheDarkEricDraven:

A broken clock is right once a day. Still, I find this jolt of sanity suspicious.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

...

I have no choice but to kill you now so no one else finds out about my mistake.

Actually, a broken clock can mean many things. A clock that was blown up is broken, no? So it's fair to say that such a clock is NEVER correct. Either it's right zero times per day, or two (Or even more). So what you were just doing was making an average, correct?

(Stick with the story. It took all of my legal training BS to come up with)

Wait, Robertson still matters enough to be the subject of a New York Times article?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked