Pat Robertson Wants to Decriminalize Pot

Merry Christmas:

Update: Someone's on cleanup duty. This statement arrived in my emailbox at 12:11 p.m. Thursday, via DRC Public Relations:

CLARIFICATION OF MARIJUANA COMMENTS:

Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana. He was advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. He was also pointing out that these mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available. Dr. Robertson's comments followed a CBN News story about a group of conservatives who have proven that faith-based rehabilitation for criminals has resulted in lower repeat offenders and saved the government millions of dollars. Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN

Watch the clip again. Robertson said: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing possession of a few ounces of pot, and that kind of thing -- it's costing us a fortune, and it's ruining young people." Unless Robertson wants to claim that he's for "costing us a fortune" and "ruining young people," that sounds like a call for decriminalization to me. I'm sorry to see him walking it back, but I'm glad he's at least standing by his opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Brother Pat's said some stupid things in his time. This isn't one of them.

  • MWG||

    Amen!

  • ||

    *cough* hat tip *cough*

  • sevo||

    Are you suggesting something?

  • Ska||

    Sounds like he needs a Luden's.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Reeeecolaaa!!

  • Name Nomad||

    If the resistance to legalizing marijuana starts crumbling on the religious right, I believe the tipping point to have been reached.

  • Jeffersonian||

    National Review has had a pro-decriminalization stand for quite some time, one they doubtless got from Bill Buckley's stand some years earlier.

    I think all the issue needs now is a focal point, a leader or case that coalesces support for reform.

  • Mike M.||

    I think all the issue needs now is a focal point, a leader or case that coalesces support for reform.

    I agree with this, but the person to ultimately lead the way to victory can't be someone like George Soros. It has to be a real American; someone who normal mainstream Americans can have some respect for.

  • Name Nomad||

    Joe the Puffer?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    George Clooney?

  • NotLinky||

    Ward Cleaver?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't tell me: Sarah Palin.

  • ||

    Funny you mention Sarah Palin, Hugh.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/06.....z0rEQsXBCy

  • Sidd Finch||

    Rex Ryan's wife?

  • Apostate Jew||

    "...someone who normal mainstream Americans can have some respect for."

    While I can understand your contempt for a rich, Hungarian Jew (who doesn't hate rich immigrants who try to interfere with out politics!)*, I wonder who these "normal mainstream Americans" might be?

    *Australian Christians who only become American citizens in order to purchase television stations, of course, excluded.

  • ||

    Didn't any of you see Harold and Kumar II? GWB is your man!

  • ||

    SpongeBob SquarePants?

  • SIV||

    If the resistance to legalizing marijuana starts crumbling on the religious right, I believe the tipping point to have been reached.

    Well you still have the communitarian center and public health left in the way. Prohibition is "progressive".

  • ||

    No, prohibition is authoritarian, which is to say right-wing. Liberals are not the ones who are constantly trying to regulate consenting private adult behavior.

  • SIV||

    Liberals are not the ones who are constantly trying to regulate consenting private adult behavior.

    lol!

  • ||

    Not sure if I should be shouting Halleluja or WTF.

  • Almanian||

    Personally, I WTF'ed, in wunder...

  • Kristen||

    I whiskey tango foxtrotted, then I looked out my window to see if there were any pigs landing at National Airport.

  • ||

    Brother Pat sounds like he might have taken a puff or two before that broadcast

  • ||

    I don't think Pat Robertson needs to be smoking the weed. He already on Cloud 9 without it.

  • DMXRoid||

    OK, if Pat Robertson has come around, that means that we won, right? I mean, who the fuck is left after you convince the head of the goddamn Christian Coalition?

    That's sort of an auto-win argument. "Pat Robertson gets it and you don't" should sufficiently shame someone into being pro-decrim.

  • JoshINHB||

    I mean, who the fuck is left after you convince the head of the goddamn Christian Coalition?

    The progressive-corporate welfare coalition.

  • ||

    I suspect that, should we ever succeed in getting pot legalized, there will immediately be a "Mothers Opposed to Pot Smoking" (Note cute acronym) lobbying to get it banned again.

    They will rally behind the 'Johnny Mothersmothered Law' named after a boy whose domineering mother drove him to suicide, which she blames on the two nanograms of pot found in his bedroom.

  • smartass sob||

    I suspect that, should we ever succeed in getting pot legalized, there will immediately be a "Mothers Opposed to Pot Smoking" (Note cute acronym) lobbying to get it banned again plethora of taxes passed on it. You know - so as not to lose all the money that government entities presently make from its illegality.

  • ||

    You don't mean money that the government MAKES from its illegality, you mean money it SPENDS.

  • cuernimus||

    No. There are many government organizations, namely police departments, that receive money as a result of marijuana's illegality. Theft, in the form of asset seizures, and inflated arrest statistics being used to justify inflating their budget are two of the more egregious examples. And yes, it's a net loss for government, but it's not like they are spending their own money.

  • BakedPenguin||

    In addition to what Josh said:

    The prison-industrial complex - police unions, prison guard unions, etc.

  • ||

    This cop, and most cops I know support at least decrim, if not legalization. You would be surprised how many times cops find mj on somebody and tell them to dump it on the ground. Few give a flying #($# about smokers. They still do go after the growers, though.

  • ||

    Sure, that's why LEAP is composed almost entirely of retired cops.

  • ||

    The prison-industrial complex - police unions, prison guard unions, etc.

    That's exactly what I was going to say. The Prison-Social Worker Complex needs the drug war as feeder for their captive "customers." Our Drug War has metastasized that social tumor into every lymph node of our body politic. It will take decades of wrenching chemo to kill it off.

  • ||

    I hear weed can help with that social chemo...

  • ****||

    Most of the opposition to pot legalization seems to be on the nany-ist left nowdays.

  • MNG||

    Citation needed.

  • MNG||

    Only four of California's congressional delegation came out in favor of prop 19, all four were democrats.

  • MNG||

    Additionally several prominent leftist groups supported it (NAACP, AFT, SEIU, ACLU, etc) as well as many county Democratic parties). I'm not aware of anything comparable to that on the conservative side.

  • ||

    Oh sorry, you want to take ineffectual over insincere?

  • sevo||

    MNG|12.22.10 @ 9:58PM|#
    "Additionally several prominent leftist groups supported it (NAACP, AFT, SEIU, ACLU, etc) as well as many county Democratic parties)."
    Not as well as they supported the election of that hag Pelosi, that ignoramus Boxer, that worn-out lefty Brown, that brain-dead Newsome, and that left-over Willy Brown twat Harris, right?

    "I'm not aware of anything comparable to that on the conservative side."
    Answering a question no one asked sort of leaves you, well.........

  • ||

    all of MNG's comments are in response to **** comment above, who tries to convince us that opposition to legalization comes mostly from the LEFT. As MNG points out, there is no basis for this claim. He goes on to provide many examples of groups on the Left who DO support legalization and points out that there are few if any on the Right who do. Got it? Or are you a Fox News watcher who just makes things up to see if you can fool other gullible people???

  • fuzzysheep||

    Wait, democrats are leftist? I hadn't realised.

  • ||

    None needed, it is evident that the progressive movement has hit its dead end. The past two years has clearly shown that the left/progressives/liberals/democrats have no interest in human rights.

  • smartass sob||

    I don't think they ever did. Most of what they ever passed off as "rights" were merely misappropriations of power.

  • sevo||

    How about this:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....65863.html
    And the rest of CA results, including the failure of Prop 19?
    Or is that too obvious?

  • ||

    If that is for me, I don't go to the Huffingtonpost, I think that they link to infected sites. Had an embarrassing incident at school where a computer went toasty on that site. Had to make a quick getaway.

  • sevo||

    CI,
    Nested comments; it was response to MNG.

  • ||

    No problem. I figured after reading your 10:10 post

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's probably not, now, but the logic of mandatory health insurance makes it inevitable in the long run. If I'm to be my brother's keeper, or else, I damn sure am going to make sure he walks a fine line.

  • ||

    There have been several cutesy, sarcastic replies to MNG's comment, but still no citations. Who on the left has been holding up pot legalization?

    This is Reason.com, so presumably we all hate the nanny state; but that doesn't mean you can smugly invoke the "nanny-ist left" even in situations where it simply doesn't apply.

  • ||

    Jim, people rarely reply to moronic comments, MNG's especially, because there are just so many of them. Also he didn't provide any citations, only claims.

    Who on the left has been holding up pot legalization?

    Unless this was parody to insult MNG, you are an imbecile. Which party has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years? Which President claimed to stop DEA action against medical marijuana suppliers and did not?

    How about this. Which California paper supported the recent legalization proposition in California? They lean largely to the left. Perhaps you could link to one of them writing in support? From what I gathered here, there was little, if any support.

  • ||

    The paper that came closest to supporting was the libertarian-ish Orange County Register along with the few other papers it owns, as you probably know.

  • ||

    I don't normally bother responding to internet toughs who refer to strangers as "imbeciles", but here goes.

    Obviously Democrats have played a role in the continued existence of the drug war: their role has been exactly as big as the Republicans'. This is a widespread, longstanding political problem in America, and NOT something manufactured or perpetuated solely by the "nanny-ish left".

    There seems to be plenty of nannyism to go around in all corners of American politics.

  • ||

    Who on the left has been holding up pot legalization?

    Elected and appointed officials, as opposed to various pressure groups. MNG listed a lot of pressure groups who are in favor of reform, but that's not really different from listing National Review and Pat Robertson.

  • ||

    In fairness, it does have to do with what the overall populace thinks.

    It's not quite the same situation as keeping violent video games and other fun things away from kids, a movement that is overwhelmingly sponsored and supported by Democrats, and opposed where opposed by Republicans.

  • ||

    Are you familar with right-wing family values groups? You don't hear as much about them since many right-wingers jumped from Jerry Falwell to Fox news. There was a time when the right wanted to be the leader of family values movment.

  • Robert Gibbs||

    The president opposes the legalization of marijuana…he does not think that's the right plan for America

  • Wind Rider||

    President Skippy is the epitome of the TEAM BLUE happy platitudes about cannabis. They talk a squishy game, but when it starts to actually come down to it, the excuses and the quibbling begins in earnest - "it's not the right time" or "that's not the right way to do it" or "don't blame us, those TEAM RED assholes will kidnap our grandmothers" - bullshit like that. Despite MNG's claims to the contrary, the only federal level candidate I read about that was plainly pro legalization was John Dennis, the TEAM RED candidate that ran against Pelosi in San Fran.

  • JoshINHB||

    @Jim-There have been several cutesy, sarcastic replies to MNG's comment, but still no citations. Who on the left has been holding up pot legalization?

    Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein for one
    http://blogs.laweekly.com/info....._chair.php

  • ||

    MNG|12.22.10 @ 9:48PM|#

    "Citation needed."

    The proof is in the pudding. Yes, several leftists have tried to appear pro legalization. Several left wing pressure groups have taken a stand on marijuana criminalization. However, leftists are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to actually implementing drug policy. THe nanny staters on the left just don't trust individual decisions.

    I would agree that there is still more opposition on the right, but it isn't different enough to really separate the two. I'm sure that there are far more democrats than republicans that favor legalization, but it is not enough to make a difference. The nanny staters in the party just push back.

  • RyanXXX||

    The biggest obstacle, I think, is moms. Especially suburban moms with young kids.

    It was never the rednecks and bible-thumpers who were really the driving force in the drug war. It was the concerned mother brigades. I've talked to several of them, and I'm sure they'd be honored to receive Reason's "nanny of the month" award

  • ||

    True.

    Kinda funny when you remember what those ladies were like when you, and they, were younger.

  • sr7||

    The biggest obstacle, I think, is moms. Especially suburban moms with young kids.

    The biggest bunch of communist the world has ever witnessed. If there was one lesson Barney Miller taught me while I was growing up, it was: 'trust no one, except strippers, street corner dealers, and whores. They just want your money, everyone else is after your soul.'

  • pmains||

    This was the basis of Phil Hendrie's Bobbie Dooley character, whom he once described as (paraphrasing) your typical suburban fascist. She was the ruthless tyrant of the subdivision, interfering with other folks' clothes, kids, pets, etc. Phil considers himself a Rooseveltian lefty (so, a progressive?) -- albeit a gun-loving one -- so go figure.

  • ||

    concerned mother brigades. I've talked to several of them, and I'm sure they'd be honored to receive Reason's "nanny of the month" award

    And Meme Roth would be leading the parade. (Can you get a less ironic name?)

    I saw her on Napalitono's show the other night. When I hear her shrill whine, it makes me want to fire up my wood chipper.

  • ||

    Yeah, that sounds about right. The only argument I really can see getting through to them is the "marijuana is safer than alcohol" stuff. The argument implicitly recognizes the right of the government to control our behavior for our own good, but for people who buy into that premise it seems to be effective.

  • ||

    I've found that to get anywhere you have to argue the slippery slope and when they argue against that you bring up trans fats, soda, etc. Then hit 'em hard saying you want to ban something they enjoy, and when they say that's not the government's business yell "Bingo!" as loud as you can. If none of it works, punch them as hard as you can. You may not have convinced them, maybe even strengthened their resolved, and you may go to jail, but I promise it will feel fucking awesome when you do it.

  • ||

    The argument I would favor using on the concerned mom crowd is "you think drug dealers are carding? maybe we should get this stuff in a store where ONLY adults will be allowed to buy it. as it stands your attempts to keep drugs away from your kids is just making the drugs MORE accessible."

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    To be fair, I don't think Pat Robertson really represents most religious people in the US.

  • Wind Rider||

    I knew there would be repercussions to my wife working at the cafeteria at CBN Headquarters. I always figured it would involve a lightening bolt or plague of locusts or something. Had no idea she'd influence the big guy! I'm gonna go give her a hug right now. . .

  • ||

    Gotta wonder what she's puttin in the food....

  • Ralp||

    ...for information on Libertarians at work worldwide on legalization and other issues, please see: http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  • ||

    PRAISE JESUS!!! THE END IS COMING!!!

  • ||

    anything Pat is for I'm against............um...........darn, That's not fair.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    *head explodes*

  • Marc||

    Congratulations, Barack Obama! Pat Robertson is officially more progressive than you on criminal justice reform. One more reason that you are an epic failure as a so-called progressive, and on this issue, a human being.

  • Virginia||

    I am going to enjoy rubbing my in-laws faces in this using your exact words.

  • RyanXXX||

    Now I've seen everything.

    Seriously, are we all in a Seinfeld "bizarro world" episode right now?

  • sevo||

    "Seriously, are we all in a Seinfeld "bizarro world" episode right now?"
    My old copies of National Lampoon have become very valuable in predicting new political alignments.
    I think P. J. O'Rourke may well have been prescient when he was managing editor.

  • ||

    Merritt's Law of Satire: If you live long enough, you will eventually see the implementation of all satire as common practice or public policy, however absurd it may have originally seemed.

  • Lord Jubjub||

    Well, I haven't seen any Irish babies up for sale recently.

  • ||

    They turned out to be Haitian babies instead. Nobody's perfect.

  • ||

    But Haitian babies have more flavor anyway.

  • ||

    Wow! I mean wow! I would never have bet that this would have happened. I would have bet that Pat would have gone to his well deserved grave arguing the idea that pot heads should have been summarily executed.

    There is (guarded) hope for the human race.

  • Binky||

    Next: 'shrooms!

  • ||

    Is there...there just can't be...I mean...it's just that...no fucking way did Pat Robertson just come out for decriminalization. Someone pinch me.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It was only a matter of time before the bible-thumpers went all soft on crime.

  • ||

    22, Sid has arrived.

    Goin to the alumni game?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It is rumored I have tix. Can't wait to get up extra early to see those old farts try not to break their hips slipping on ice.

  • ||

    Nice.

    If you see Gary Roberts though, don't call him an old fart, me and fmeth would be saddened if you died.

  • db||

    Are you guys near the 'burgh?

  • ||

    Right here, yup.

  • Mike in PA||

    Absolutely! Gotta remember "WWGRD?"

    (what would gary roberts do?)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yinz dicks better be watching HBO's documentary series 24-7 Penguins Capitals. (The unedited version is better.)

  • ||

    Going to the game tonight, where the Caps will put a spanking on Sid Swishous.

  • db||

    Dupuis FTW.

  • db||

    Dupuis FTW.

  • waffles||

    yinzers...ugh I am thee.

  • db||

    Perhaps we should try for a pgh-based reasonoid meetup sometime.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, like I'm going to meet up with people I met on the internets.

    Pervert.

  • db||

    I guess I can't help it if you don't enjoy good beer and shooting machineguns...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Machine guns, eh?

  • ||

    Hallelujah!

  • ||

    'Decriminalization', huh?
    Not 'legalization'?

  • Jesse Walker||

    It isn't clear from his comments how far he's willing to take the argument, so I went with the most modest headline.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm working on a Republican State Senator that I attend church with along the same lines. He insists that the politics don't favor full-blown leglization, so I'm trying to get him to see other alternatives to that that don't involve kicking down doors and hauling people into courts and jails for getting their buzzes in a way different from the way he and I do when we smoke cigars and drink bourbon together.

    It's working, and I hope to see him do something this session.

  • ||

    What state?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Missouri, home to that loathsome video Balko posted some time ago. I'm going to show it to my friend at the right moment.

  • Southerner||

    Well yeah, the video uploader went a bit overboard on calling it "legalization" in the title. Pat probably favors a more low-key approach like having parents punish their kids for smoking marijuana the same way they do when they catch them smoking tobacco, and courts levying a fine and maybe some community service for any adults caught smoking marijuana.

    In fact, a lot of us do tend to follow P.J. O'Rourke's thinking on this subject: as far back in 1986, he wrote an article pointing out the problem with drug laws. "Now, nobody wants to be quoted as saying drugs are cute or a swell thing to give to babies. Drugs are bad." and "...drugs have given several of my friends one-way backstage passes to the hereafter." However, "One of the most terrible proven side effects of drug use is jail. Jail will screw up your life worse than a whole Glad bag full of daffy dust." Also, "This is the first step toward totalitarianism. Of course, it won't be bread-line and barbed-wire totalitarianism the North Koreans have. It will be an all-American, clean-cut, safety-first, goody-two-shoes totalitarianism where everybody takes care of his health, keeps his lawn nice and never does anything naughty or dirty or fun. And there won't be any troublesome, offbeat creative people left to screw it up either. Try giving drug tests to the great men of arts and letters. There goes Coleridge, Poe, Freud, William James, Rimbaud, Aldous Huxley, and the whole cast of National Lampoon's Animal House."

    Drugs aren't swell things to give to babies, and marijuana should be medicine, not a party drug. Still, I think we ought to cut the potheads some slack, and save our prison cells for more serious offenders such as murderers and socialists.

  • ||

    ---"Drugs aren't swell things to give to babies, and marijuana should be medicine, not a party drug."---

    Who is advocating giving drugs to "babies" (or children)? But marijuana is definitely a party drug, and that should not be anybody else's business unless your definition of party is to got out high and cause trouble. Define trouble any way you wish.

    If I want to stay home, or at a friends home, and smoke out, it's nobody's fucking business but mine. If I want to walk around high, and don't mess with other people while doing so, it's nobody's fucking business.

  • Southerner||

    You go around belligerently f-bombing people over the slightest irritation like that, you're not going to get very far with your campaign to convince them that your recreational pot smoking doesn't make you a troublemaker. Here I was thinking pot might just make people kind of mellow and silly in the head like Willie Nelson, but you're sounding more like a junkie when he hasn't gotten his fix.

  • fuzzysheep||

    From your comment we learn that using certain words makes you a troublemaker. What would you suggest we do with these troublemakers?

  • Southerner||

    Well, around here, when a junkie off his meds starts cursing up a blue streak, we typically cover our kids' ears and walk them away from him. After that, what we do depends on where he's doing this. If it's in a private place, we get the manager to come ask him to behave himself or leave. In a public place, we get a cop to do the same thing. If he persists in the noise-making and won't leave, then we have him arrested for causing a public disturbance and making a nuisance of himself. If the manager takes the shouter's side, we don't patronize his business anymore.

    Of course, whatever else happens, we typically don't warm up to whatever cause the junkie off his meds thinks he's helping by standing around shouting obscenities at us, and may be put off from it, especially if it seems to have any connection to what he's doing. "Pot makes you swear like a filthy hippie? No thanks. I think I'll stick to my chewing tobacco."

  • .||

    Well put.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    If only we had some way to prevent everyone from speaking offensively about unconstitutional practices. That way, we can all keep a civil tongue and debate infringements on civil liberties in a more meaningful way. Perhaps a Federal law of some sorts is in order?

  • .||

    Civilized people can discuss principles without resorting to thuggish obscenities.

  • ||

    ---"courts levying a fine and maybe some community service for any adults caught smoking marijuana"...

    You seem to be saying that you think it is acceptable to punish adults for engaging in a purely voluntary activity that harms no one, since it is an activity you apparently disapprove of. I say it's nobody's fucking business.

    Post a list of things you like to do and I'll pick one to send you to jail/community service for. It won't have to make any sense which one I pick.

    Just think:

    Beer = okay
    Whiskey = okay
    Pot = not okay

    It will make that much sense.

  • Southerner||

    I might be interpreting Pat Robertson's opinion as seen in the video; did you ever consider that? I might also be pointing out that you're doing yourself no favors making wild accusations and swearing at me for venturing an opinion.

    As to whether I "approve" or not, that's beside the point. I don't worry about other people's bad habits that have no effect on me. Drinking and smoking and carousing are all vile and self-destructive habits, but I don't particularly care to stop anyone--especially anyone so charming as yourself--from destroying himself that way. I only favor laws against permitting you to spread your misery around to others.

    Case in point: drinking kills your liver; smoking kills your lungs; carousing gives you nasty STDs that can cripple and kill you. These bad habits also tend to do nasty things to your social life. All the same, it's mostly yourself you're hurting as people divorce, de-friend, and disassociate from you. As such, your self-inflicted miseries are no concern of mine, and I want nothing to do with any law that tries to make them so.

    It's when your bad habits start making trouble for me that I start looking to the law for solutions. You start endangering me on the road with your drunk driving, you go filling up my house with your smoke (tobacco or marijuana, both mildly carcinogenic), you go banging your girlfriend (or who knows, maybe your boyfriend) on my front lawn or up on a parade float in front of my whole family, you go gaming a government medical program to get my tax dollars to feed your addiction(s), you start wanting my taxes to pay for your medical care when you get AIDS or cirrhosis or lung cancer, you bet I want there to be laws against all of that!

    As for marijuana in particular, it is in fact a legitimate medication. It is also a drug that can do nasty things to your mind and body, much like certain other controlled substances. For my part, I think the penalties for using it should be similar to those for using tobacco and alcohol: higher premiums on your health insurance because you're putting yourself into a somewhat higher-risk demographic, private restrictions on where you may smoke it (in other words, not on other people's property without their permission), and making you pay for any stupid things you do while stoned, like T-boning some other guy while driving through a stoplight because you were too baked to notice and care that it had turned red.

    Pat Robertson, in contrast, seems to favor treating marijuana abuse more the way the law currently treats abusers of other legitimate medications such as OxyContin; that is, mild penalties like fines and community service instead of needlessly harsh mandatory minimum prison sentences. That's not exactly legalization or decriminalization, but it does amount to agreeing that the current punishment is disproportionate and counterproductive.

  • ||

    ---"making you pay for any stupid things you do while stoned, like T-boning some other guy while driving through a stoplight because you were too baked to notice and care that it had turned red."---


    ---"If I want to stay home, or at a friends home, and smoke out, it's nobody's fucking business but mine. If I want to walk around high, and don't mess with other people while doing so, it's nobody's fucking business."---

    Reading comprehension much?

  • Southerner||

    Well yeah, the video uploader went a bit overboard on calling it "legalization" in the title. Pat probably favors a more low-key approach like having parents punish their kids for smoking marijuana the same way they do when they catch them smoking tobacco, and courts levying a fine and maybe some community service for any adults caught smoking marijuana.

    [Emphasis added]

    Drugs aren't swell things to give to babies, and marijuana should be medicine, not a party drug. Still, I think we ought to cut the potheads some slack, and save our prison cells for more serious offenders such as murderers and socialists.

    [Emphasis added]

    You seem to be saying that you think it is acceptable to punish adults for engaging in a purely voluntary activity that harms no one, since it is an activity you apparently disapprove of. I say it's nobody's fucking business.

    [Emphasis added]

    ...you go gaming a government medical program to get my tax dollars to feed your addiction(s), you start wanting my taxes to pay for your medical care when you get AIDS or cirrhosis or lung cancer, you bet I want there to be laws against all of that!

    As for marijuana in particular, it is in fact a legitimate medication. It is also a drug that can do nasty things to your mind and body, much like certain other controlled substances. For my part, I think the penalties for using it should be similar to those for using tobacco and alcohol: higher premiums on your health insurance because you're putting yourself into a somewhat higher-risk demographic...

    [Emphasis added]

    Reading comprehension much?

    Physician, heal thyself.

    You libertarians are really fond of your rights to hurt yourselves, as am I, but you're not so fond of admitting that you are hurting yourselves, or taking the pain when the bill for your irresponsibility inevitably comes due and you're broke. That's when you start getting downright socialistic on the rest of us--and this is even if you do keep your promise to stay home while you're hurting yourselves, which you generally don't. (Munchies and forgetting to have enough food in the house to satisfy them will happen, after all.)

    Pat Robertson apparently prefers to have society preemptively bill you in advance; I prefer to let the bill come due later. His way might be more humane, but I think mine teaches you a more effective lesson in the long run.

  • ||

    Who is advocating giving drugs to "babies" (or children)?

    Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?

  • ||

    Obtaining pleasure from mind-altering drugs is not an inherently immoral or destructive activity. In fact, it's a perfectly defensible and natural part of human life. There's no justification for saying marijuana "should" be used for this or that reason.

    So long as users respect the boundaries of others and fulfill their own responsibilities, using marijuana for the pursuit of pleasure is no different from using it for the relief of suffering.

  • <s>Barack</s>Jeremiah Wright||

    God damn Pat Robertson!

  • SBOD||

    I think it's great to see Robertsen finally acting like a Christian. You know... Forgiving people for their sins.

  • sevo||

    What *sins*?

  • ||

    the body is a gift that god gave you....

    It is a temple.

    or something like that.

  • Ska||

    You mean not interfering with man's free will.

  • Kristen||

    The only "sins" that exist are those that do harm to others. Ergo, smoking a little doobie now and again ain't no goddamn sin.

  • ||

    "Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."

    --Robert Heinlein

  • Satan||

    Sin has no meaning whatsoever in an atheistic universe. Robert Heinlein is a coward for not following his beliefs to their logical conclusion.

  • takinglibertyseriously||

    From what I hear on this clip, Robertson doesn't just favor changing the laws on pot but also maybe thinks we should take another look at the whole overcriminalization thing.

    I hope so. The American overcriminalization movement of the past 30-40 years has not given our country the world's biggest national lockup but is the exact opposite of taking liberty seriously.

  • 10Q||

    I'm gonna call him "Pot" Robertson. Hee-hee!

  • Hugh Akston||

    You must write for the LA Times.

  • ||

    New York Post.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Fox News

  • Billy Shakespeare||

    The End Times are upon us. I don't want to be "left behind." Oh, noes!

  • ||

    Head. A'splodes.

  • ||

    I see Robertson coming out for decriminalization as a touchstone event, not a movement-maker. It is not Robertson per se that is important, it is that people from the Social Conservative camp are starting to re-examine the premises of the WoD (at least as far as marijuana is concerned) and also take a look at the real consequences.

    Robertson is just a cork in the Socon water, but the way he's drifting tells you the direction of the tide.

  • Jeffersonian||

    He can see the damage done to people thrown in jail for such a stupid "crime" that hurts no one. Even a hardcore SoCon like Robertson can't look at that and think everything's okay with it.

  • ||

    Even a hardcore SoCon like Robertson can't look at that and think everything's okay with it.

    Yeah, it's kinda hard imaging the answer to WWJD being "crack some hippy skulls, and send them for some prison rape." Somehow I just don't see Jesus going that route.

  • ||

    @ Aresen-I'd disagree with you on Robertson's influence. While there are more than a few voices on the Social Conservative Right, the Rev. does have a bully pulpit with TBN, a few million viewers (if you count re-runs during the day), and at least some political influence. He's less of a leader than an articulator and loud voice.

    I also think that a lot of good Christian folks, even if they've never indulged, know someone, or knew someone when the other person was high, and are honest enough to realize that it's hardly the evil that it's made out to be.

    And I will admit being impressed with the reasons that Robertson gave, especially the "youths in, hardened criminals out", but NONE of the reasons he cited would raise an eyebrow on this forum.

  • ||

    Not sure whether you mean I was over- or under- estimating his influence in Socon circles (I tend to think he is not very influential.)

    However, the fact that he has taken this position is a significant indicator that the "arrest all the druggies" mentality is weakening.

    If I am wrong and he has more influence than I thought, so much the better.

  • ||

    For once on this forum, I can say I'd be happy to be right for change!

  • Almanian||

    One toke over the line, sweet Jesus, one toke over the line.

    I still can't believe Pat Robertson just said what he said in that video. Wow - cool.

  • Almanian||

    One toke over the line, sweet Jesus, one toke over the line.

    I still can't believe Pat Robertson just said what he said in that video. Wow - cool.

  • Almanian||

    Two, two, two mints in one....

  • ||

    That would be the Lawrence Welk version of "One Toke Over the Line".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3ecDYxOkg

  • ||

    Some video! "Like everything that I've been through, it opened up my eyes..." about "champagne master" Larry, anyway.

  • Van||

    Pat's ready to be baptized!

    Put a teenage girl's Father in jail for Marijuana. She grows up wild, gets pregnant, drops out of high school, winds up working as a Dancer and Escort while collecting WIC checks.

    All in all drug prohibition is not a compassionate and wise policy, it's about Christian soldiers marching onward to slay the Sinners.

    You have seen the light Brother Pat! Welcome to the Church of the Amoral Libertarian!

  • Fabius||

    Wait, nobody ever said anything about the WoD contributing to the supply of dancers and escorts. I may have to rethink this.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Illegal = Tax Free

    Think about that one.

  • Van||

    Weed should be legal and tax free, no sin taxes on anything.

    They way you get there is make possession legal, make growing legal, but only decriminalize sales. The bottom will drop out of the illegal market when anyone can grow but no taxes will be levied against sales.

    Little girls will grow up with intact families. Fewer kids in the D-home.

  • Guy at the bar||

    What, you want to smoke your weed free while I gotta pay taxes on my suds?

    That's discrimination! Why aren't you advocating a liquor tax repeal?

  • Van||

    Your eyes are floating son. Reread, I said NO SIN TAXES ON ANYTHING!

    And I might add this goes double for Scotch and Irish Whiskey!

    Oh, and I haven't smoked for 25 years.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Is he a closet Aqua Buddhist?

  • Van||

    Can you elaborate? Aqua Buddha redirects me to Rand Paul.

  • Van||

    Never make fun of a Baptist!

    But was the girl raped?

  • ||

    Hasn't the other Pat, Pat Buchanan, started to come around on drug legalization too?

  • Wind Rider||

    Now that would be a conversion capable of making Hell freeze over.

  • Kevin Carson||

    If there were any potheads watching Robertson for giggles the way I used to watch Gene Scott, there were a lot of people in a lot of living rooms saying "Whuh....?"

  • ||

    OK, robertson can be funny, but he's no Jack Van Impe. Rexella, toss my salad please.

  • Robert||

    That's the way everyone watched Gene Scott, and he knew it. That was his m.o.

  • Max||

    Is Pat Robertson fucking Gillespie?

  • Paul||

    Are you fucking retarded? He doesn't look like fucking Nick Gillespie, so I'd fucking guess he's not fucking Gillespie.

  • Max||

    The silence is deafening. What a brilliant strategy. You're spreading the libertarian gospel by letting prominent potential converts fuck Nick Gillespe. When is Nick off the Russia?

  • PIRS||

    Are you jealous Max? Is that why you keep coming in here?

    In hopes Nick will ask you out?

  • pmains||

    I think he means to say that Pat has joined the Church of the Fonz.

  • ||

    Fluffy's head explodes in t-minus

    3

    2

    1


    KABOOOM!!!!

  • ||

    Not as much as shrike's head, if shrike actually had real political views.

  • Paul||

    I miss shrike. Where is she?

  • ||

    Possible reasons Pat has had a conversion on the pot issue:
    1. He has a secret lover in prison.
    2. He has been assigned to tax revenue propaganda by the government.
    3. He has had a stroke.
    4. God created weed.
    5. He believes in civil liberty. (Nah. Just kidding on this one.)

  • Paul||

    5. He believes in civil liberty.

    He probably does believe in civil liberty. Which one is the question.

  • West Texas||

    This video is GOLD, Jerry! GOLD!

    Every single person I have shown this too who might otherwise be for throwing potheads in prison has looked at it and said, "Wow. That's a good point."

    Pat's still good for something, I tell ya.

  • ||

    WOW. JUST WOW. I wonder what Pat's been smokin'...

  • hmm||

    If someone manages to get the pot smokers together with the bible carrying gun totters the government may actually resemble something worthwhile.

  • PIRS||

    I thought that was the original idea behind the LIbertarian Party ....

  • ||

    I think the proper headline should be, "HELL FREEZES OVER."

  • ||

    I think the proper headline should be, "HELL FREEZES OVER."

  • Paul||

    You can say that again.

  • Dept. of Redundancy Dept.||

    I think he just did.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Good news. Just don't ask him about the gays.

  • ||

    Bong hits for Jesus?

  • pmains||

    I'm waiting for Reason's coverage of the Missoula Mutiny case. Turns out jury nullification can work.

  • ||

  • pmains||

    Indeed. Marty McFly, you've foiled me again.

  • Big John||

    When Rush Limbaugh finally admits on the air that marijuana prohibition is the abomination we all know it to be, THEN the tide will truely turn.

  • Southerner||

    What if he were just to favor milder penalties like Pat Robertson here?

  • Paul||

    When Rush Limbaugh finally admits on the air that marijuana prohibition is the abomination we all know it to be, THEN the tide will truely turn.

    No it won't.

  • Paul||

    Pat Robertson Wants to Decriminalize Pot

    Meanwhile a kid in grade school is getting a patdown to see if he has any unhealthful snacks.

  • ||

    Pat Robertson must have some medical issue that has not been made public. Either he's been diagnosed with cancer or he had some kind of stroke that has affected him mentally.

  • ||

    From the Update: Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs.

    Fair enough. Make marijuana legal and he doesn't have to be against it any more and you don't have to spend time backtracking for him.

  • ||

    Vibram Five Fingers are selected, buy Vibram Fivefingers kso and FiveFingers Bikila from here, you will save 25%. Http://www.getvibramfivefingers.com

  • nicrivera||

    Aside from cowardly backtracking away from the opinions that Pat Robertson expressed on his show, Mr. Roslan's own comments suggest that he doesn't understand the basic concepts of personal choice and personal responsibility. In his clarification, he wrote:

    "Dr. Robertson did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana . . . Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs."

    Apparently, Mr. Roslan doesn't understand that supporting the decriminalization of marijuana and being opposed to the use of marijuana are not mutually exclusive positions. An individual can vociferously oppose a particular lifestyle choice while simultaneously taking the position that the government should not be criminalizing such lifestyle choices (the position that Robertson seemed to be taking). Yet Mr. Roslan would have us believe that Robertson's outspokenness against marijuana use proves that he supports continued criminalization of marijuana.

    That's the kind of flawed logic that only a statist could advocate.

  • ||

    Pot use causes murder and fornication.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement