Pat Robertson Advocates Decriminalization of Marijuana Use

[Aggie]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/legalize-pot-says-televangelist-pat-robertson/?partner=rss&emc=rss
(and various other sources)

I'm not sure what to think about this; I've been surprised at the swift shift in the US stance on pot over the past few years.  I certainly didn't think I'd hear it from the Christian Right.

Is this an honest realization of the absurdity of locking up otherwise non-criminal users, or is there something larger at play?

[ivor]

Pot is all natural made by God!    That's what I hear the local wacko's say (not 'cause they like pot wacko's, just ordinary fur bearing wacko's).  I tell them arsenic is all natural too, then I get this deer in the headlights look and you can hear gears grinding and sound effects.  Sounds kinda like a circa 1980's Hanna-Barbera cartoon.

[Griffin NoName]

Would legalising murder reduce crime?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

No, but then again there is an overwhelming consensus about murder, while there isn't one about recreational drugs, nor the damages caused by it's consumption are as clear as with murder.

Besides, not too long ago a UK study placed alcohol as the most damaging drug in the market today. We can also talk about the incredibly addictive nature of nicotine and the medical costs of tobacco which are significantly higher than pot.

The legal status of tobacco and alcohol (and a number of prescription drugs) has a good deal to do with the economic interests behind it (who have been perceived as more 'legitimate'), hence the -to me- readily apparent inconsistency regarding the drug laws.

[Sibling DavidH]

The legal status of tobacco and alcohol (and a number of prescription drugs) has a good deal to do with the economic interests behind it (who have been perceived as more 'legitimate'), hence the -to me- readily apparent inconsistency regarding the drug laws.

Very true, and let's not forget the handy tax revenues brought in by those things.  But for me the issue is mainly the simple fact that you absolutely cannot get rid of these substances, whatever you do.  Look at what happened when the US tried prohibition.  And look at how illegal narcotics are readily availalable everywhere, in spite of all the money and effort spent trying to get rid of them.  So it seems to me that however undesirable these things are, we might do better to legalise them and to some extent control them.  At least we'd stop a lot of crime.  If rape is inevitable .....

[Swatopluk]

Some countries came close to civil war when the government tried to control access to coffee (for health reasons, taxes were something added later to the mix).

[Griffin NoName]

I kicked caffeine - if I did, anyone can

Personally I think if nicotine and alcohol are legal, there's no case for recreational drugs being illegal. And let's make prescription drugs OTC as well - doctors have too much power.

[Opsa]

Darned right they do, and the pharmaceutical companies make far too much on sick people. Put out the generics and just see who'll pay top dollar for a lot of that stuff.

Either legalize marijuana or make nicotine illegal along with marijuana. Just think: the U.S.A. would have to have a department of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and marijuana. Or maybe they could just call it "The Party Store".

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Darned right they do, and the pharmaceutical companies make far too much on sick people. Put out the generics and just see who'll pay top dollar for a lot of that stuff.

I thiiiink she was being sarcastic?

Either legalize marijuana or make nicotine illegal along with marijuana. Just think: the U.S.A. would have to have a department of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and marijuana. Or maybe they could just call it "The Party Store".

I love you.

I mostly think it's funny that PAT ROBERTSON of all people wants legalization. And it's even funnier that I find myself agreeing with him. Pot is not devil weed. It's not as bad for you as tobacco or alcohol. It would be very, very lucrative, tax-wise. I see no reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be legalized.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think Mr. Robertson is aware of the trend, the pro-legalization lobby might've lost in California in this election but chances are that the next time it comes in the ballot it may pass, besides it's easier to accept than other trends like the acceptance of homosexuality (see the repeal of DADT this past week). They have to remain relevant or risk losing adepts.

[Swatopluk]

Or is he simply going to extend his business activities?
From weapons and blood diamonds to drugs should be a small step for him. All the better, if it were 100% legal for once.

[pieces o nine]

Just think how much weight he could lift if powered by Pat Robertson Weight-Defying Brownies™!

[Aggie]

I may relish the opportunity to contend, at some other time (in the Debating Chamber, perhaps), that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol and tobacco.  However, I can see a strong political-control and somewhat more tenuous economic argument for making it easily available to the American public.

In contrast to the historical association of marijuana use with political counterculture, I would say there's now a perhaps more widespread stereotype of the slacker-stoner. Legitimize pot, and you'll root those counterculture associations out completely.  Contemporary pot culture, barring political action promoting legalization, tends to mobilize people less against the government and more towards the nearest bag of chips.  Want to keep people off the streets and securely in front of their TVs and video game consoles?  Give them pot.  Want to keep people watching funny kitten videos on YouTube instead of discussing matters of concern to society on the internet?  Give them pot.  Want to support sectors of the economy that are dominated by American corporations and/or by their nature completely domestic - such as industrial agriculture, snack food production*, Hollywood and other segments of the entertainment industry, video games and tips for the Domino's delivery guy?  Give them pot. 

Want to keep your population dumb enough to understand nothing more strenuous than a Faux News soundbite?  Give them pot, as strong as you can breed it, and tell them it's OK to self-medicate at home, alone, on a regular basis.

_{*not to mention the pharmaceuticals and latest medical equipment necessary to deal with increasing levels of obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol and other byproducts of munching out on a regular basis.  9.8/10 stoners prefer Doritos to broccoli.}

[Swatopluk]

One thing really bad about pot is that it meddles with the memory process, esp. the transfer from short term to long term memory.
And as far as I have heard it, this effect can last for an extended period of time (i.e. several days) after the immediate effect of the drug wore off.
For that reason (and possible influences on brain development) scientific proponents of legalization think there should be a strict lower age limit for pot use.
Personally I never understood how someone got the idea to inhale the smoke of burning/smoldering leaves and was able to persuade others to do the same.

[Sibling DavidH]

Aggie, Aldous Huxley beat you to that idea with soma.

[Swatopluk]

Which was based on an actual drug iirc but not a natural one.

[Opsa]

Personally I never understood how someone got the idea to inhale the smoke of burning/smoldering leaves and was able to persuade others to do the same.

I'm sure they just happened to be standing near some smouldering weeds and noticed that stupid things seemed much more hilarious than usual, and that it gives a worried mind a little vacation, much like booze does. The problem is not to stay on permanent vacation, rosy as it seems, but to uncrinkle enough to step back and catch one's breath before moving ahead in the real world to solve the situations that caused the worry in the first place. Many people are possibly not strong enough to keep in mind that the end result should be to go back to the business of life refreshed and not to stay in la-la land. Balancing life may seem like too much work.

I agree, it could easily be used to pacify the public, and that it messes with memory. Uhhhh... what was I saying?

[Aggie]

Aggie, Aldous Huxley beat you to that idea with soma.

Quite a different matter; soma in BNW is more closely modelled on mescaline I suspect, and functionally is used more like Ops describes (a little vacation from reality to uncrinkle).


We are discussing this in the context of a society which has admitted and obvious issues with walking the line of moderation.  The hope for responsible use of french fries is misplaced, let alone pleasurable addictive drugs.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The hope for responsible use of french fries is misplaced

Are you advocating entering poutine in the list of controlled substances?
---
I'm not convinced by far, that legal pot necessarily implies an overwhelmingly stoned society (ask the Dutch). Certainly those stoned will have to deal with the consequences, as smokers do, and alcoholics do (and far more, their families*).

I don't think that advocating for the decriminalization/legalization of pot is -at all- promoting the consumption of it, but more the acknowledgment that it is practically impossible to prevent it's consumption by certain people, and that it is not only counterproductive to lock addicts, but extremely expensive.

* in that sense alcohol, not pot, is more comparable with hard drugs like coke and heroine