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 ...
How is smaller government and greater individual liberty "liberalization"?
and agree with those who see pot as a gateway drug far more so than booze.
"Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non drinkers." (http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/mjcnnct/addctn.htm) No support there for "far more so."
Sticking it on a shelf is not the same as liquor.
I don't understand what this statement means.
But then we used to worry about such thing, not glamorize it.
Selling something at WalMart is "glamorizing" it?
Oh, and on the subject of gateways, keep this in mind:
“People who enjoy the effects of marijuana are, logically, more likely to be willing to try other mood-altering drugs than are people who are not willing to try marijuana or who dislike its effects. In other words, many of the factors associated with a willingness to use marijuana are, presumably, the same as those associated with a willingness to use other illicit drugs. [...] There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect. One might argue that marijuana is generally used before other illicit mood-altering drugs, in part, because its effects are milder; in that case, marijuana is a stepping stone only in the same sense as taking a small dose of a particular drug and then increasing that dose over time is a stepping stone to increased drug use.” - “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base”, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
Nope, false choice. You can be apathetic towards pot. And a lot of people who are apathetic towards it are in favor of not jailing people for having it. ITs similar to smoking cigarettes in public. You can not like it without having to have the government ban it.
You are trying to make the debate solely about marijuana, but the debate is about the proper role government. There are plenty of things I dont do that I think should be or should remain legal.
For someone so on the straight and narrow, your grasp of written English is horrendous. Can you please try to rephrase that with rudimentary grammar so I can understand what the hell you're trying to get across?
So its a gateway. Thanks, since observed histories of many of my wife’s patients confirm that.
But all points considered I can see that throwing you off...
"only in the same sense as taking a small dose of a particular drug and then increasing that dose over time is a stepping stone to increased drug use.”
Why this sort of "gateway" is relevant or interesting is beyond me.
But it doesn't matter how eloquently you state the case, how many times you speak of rights and the Constitutions and freedom and such, we are not arguing about guns or property rights or freedom of religion, we are arguing about making it easier to SMOKE POT!
Do you really think that the hard core conservative base, us God guns and guts folks among others, are really buying this? If it was as a conservative cause as you guys want to make it out to be it would have been on the platform as far back as Reagan's days.
And yet...
However you may get your shot. Since society seems to give less and less of a damn about what is right and moral and good you may well gain enough allies across the way and among those who just don't care and want their hit, pot may be right next to the smokes at the quick mart. I am sure Pixie stick tubes of crack and M&M bags of LSD will soon follow. Hey it is all about freedom, right?
Lord bless me enough to miss such days if they come to pass.
Therein lies the rub. "We" aren't all arguing about making it easier to smoke pot. Some of us are just arguing that the authority to make that decision was never granted to the federal government.
Every state has it's own laws about marijuana, and if every federal law about it were taken off the books tomorrow all the state laws would still be in place.
ENDING THE FEDERAL DRUG WAR WILL NOT LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.
The liberals have to be absolutely loving seeing these kinds of debates go on because it means they've sucessfully taken the idea of a republic, and what it means to have one out of the public consciousness.
Only the ones whose minds are open to facts and logic.
So every Conservative who is against legalizing pot is a close minded moron.
I’d go with that...
And good luck...
But there are those here on this very thread who are not just wanting to end the WOD (not a bad thing, at least not as it is now) they also want to legalize pot...
Yes two different but very connected issues.
And yes I would support ending the war on drugs and leaving it up to the states. It worked better that way anyways.
The only thing the FEDs do is keep it out at the border leaving us to deal with the homegrown stuff.
Yes there are, but not everyone who wants to end the federal drug war wants to legelize marijuana. We are NOT all talking about making it easier to smoke pot.
Fair enough...
To my mind, we're talking about whether Joe Blow down the street has the right to put whatever substance he wants in his body, or whether the government has acquired the power to make that determination. If it is the government's (or society's for that matter), then as a principle they also have the power to tell you that you can't eat more than one cheeseburger a month or that you have to eat three servings of vegetables each day. They have the power to tell you what you can and can't do with your money (the product of your labor). They can require you to use some of your money to buy health insurance or pay union dues for that matter.
It is the principle of whether it is the government's responsibility to control how we live our lives or if we have self determination (limited of course by the extent to which our actions might infringe on somebody else's rights).
It is the government's responsibility to protect our rights. Not to take them away.
Some guy’s opinion is newsworthy? Really?
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.