Tell me we're not looking to this loathesome troll for guidance.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at December 23, 2010 2:00 AM
Besides which, he was all for putting people in jail for smoking pot just a decade ago!
Flynne
at December 23, 2010 4:33 AM
"Besides which, he was all for putting people in jail for smoking pot just a decade ago!"
There's nothing wrong with someone realizing that their original thoughts on something missed the mark.
whistleDick
at December 23, 2010 4:39 AM
WhistleDick: There's nothing wrong with someone realizing that their original thoughts on something missed the mark.
Or realizing that the positions you advocated 10 years ago are no longer practical.
Crid, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because Pat Robertson might be correct on a particular issue, it doesn't mean we're "looking to [him] for guidance."
Patrick
at December 23, 2010 4:50 AM
I don't think it's so much looking to Pat Robertson for guidance as seeing his statements as a marker or milestone. If the Pat Robertsons of the world start changing their minds, maybe the decriminalization movement will start making more headway.
Old RPM Daddy
at December 23, 2010 4:59 AM
Couldn't agree more with RPM Daddy, if a curmudgeonly extreme right christian preacher, can recognize that there is a need for a change in our no tolerance drug laws, well then there my be hope yet to repeal this draconian law.....
Contrary to popular belief, nobody is in a CA prison for recreational use of marijuana. Wherever you stand on legalization of drugs, just be aware that the notion of a harmless pothead going native on the inside and coming out a hardened killer is a myth.
Snakeman99
at December 23, 2010 6:37 AM
NOBODY is in prison for recreational use of pot? NOBODY?
Now, since then, they have made possession of under an ounce, essentially legal (if I remember correctly), but that doesn't change the fact that people HAVE been sent to prison for recreational use/possession.
Steve
at December 23, 2010 9:06 AM
> even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Such an instrument is nonetheless useless.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at December 23, 2010 11:08 AM
@Steve - that report deals mainly with arrests, not sentencing. When it does address imprisonments, we see what the roughly 200 of what the researcher deems small-possession marijuana sentences. However, the study does not take into account repeat offenses, third strike laws, possession deemed with the intent to sell, or other aggravating counts. Please remember that first offense possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a simple misdemeanor. Furthermore, CA has a robust array of diversion programs, treatment options, and deferred judgment agreements meant to deal with recreational users. Believe it or not, cops, judges, prison guards, the sheriff's department, and DAs understand that imprisonment for recreational use of pot would constitute a waste of resources.
In short, there is no way that any of the cited 200 imprisonments are for simple first-time possession of pot. There are good reasons for legalizing marijuana. Pat Robertson's fear that we are routinely throwing Surfshack Steve in the hole with the Aryan Brotherhood for seven years is not one of them.
snakeman99
at December 23, 2010 12:11 PM
Check out Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum's 2003 book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."
From the back cover:
"Jacob Sullum has produced a thoughtful, sane, and logical analysis of our drug laws. Is that even LEGAL?" -- Dave Barry.
“I’ve never used a recreational drug (or even had a sip of alcohol) in my life, but Jacob Sullum makes a great case to stop the drug wars. He exposes the tricks of the drug warriors, who scam the crowd with huckster patter about magical substances that force people to do evil.” – Penn Jillette, the taller, louder half of Penn & Teller.
Crid [CridComment at gmail]
at December 23, 2010 12:36 PM
Snakeman: In short, there is no way that any of the cited 200 imprisonments are for simple first-time possession of pot.
Sorry, but you haven't proven that, and you don't know that. All you did was offer at length speculation.
Furthermore, you overlooked the possibility that someone could be on probation for another offense, be caught for the first time using pot which would be in violation of their probation, hence imprisoned.
See? I can use speculation and claim I've proven something, too.
Patrick
at December 23, 2010 1:30 PM
I just realized that hell has frozen over: Robertson at least equinanimous on pot.
I live out in the boondocks where I could cultivate (probably pretty easily) a nice amount of pot if I really desired too.
My nearest basic grocery store is seven miles away (high cost, low choice). My nearest decent is 13, and I work 55 miles down range. When I hit a grocery store and buy non-perishable items, I buy double what I need.
If a recipe goes bad -- I can repeat it -- if I have to wait out a winter storm -- I have food on the shelves.
Same with getting prescription drugs. If I had a chronic disease -- I would always have at least an extra 3-5 days worth on hand.
If I were to be a chronic pot smoker -- I would buy double to triple the amount so I didn't have to go back to the "bad" neighborhood multiple times and to keep enough on hand so that I wouldn't have to worry about weather and crap.
That is my personality -- how do you defend that in court?
Jim P.
at December 23, 2010 7:58 PM
Old age might not be the only thing that's mellowing him out.
Tell me we're not looking to this loathesome troll for guidance.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 23, 2010 2:00 AM
Besides which, he was all for putting people in jail for smoking pot just a decade ago!
Flynne at December 23, 2010 4:33 AM
"Besides which, he was all for putting people in jail for smoking pot just a decade ago!"
There's nothing wrong with someone realizing that their original thoughts on something missed the mark.
whistleDick at December 23, 2010 4:39 AM
WhistleDick: There's nothing wrong with someone realizing that their original thoughts on something missed the mark.
Or realizing that the positions you advocated 10 years ago are no longer practical.
Crid, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because Pat Robertson might be correct on a particular issue, it doesn't mean we're "looking to [him] for guidance."
Patrick at December 23, 2010 4:50 AM
I don't think it's so much looking to Pat Robertson for guidance as seeing his statements as a marker or milestone. If the Pat Robertsons of the world start changing their minds, maybe the decriminalization movement will start making more headway.
Old RPM Daddy at December 23, 2010 4:59 AM
Couldn't agree more with RPM Daddy, if a curmudgeonly extreme right christian preacher, can recognize that there is a need for a change in our no tolerance drug laws, well then there my be hope yet to repeal this draconian law.....
Ed at December 23, 2010 5:47 AM
What Ed and Old RPM said.
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2010 6:33 AM
Contrary to popular belief, nobody is in a CA prison for recreational use of marijuana. Wherever you stand on legalization of drugs, just be aware that the notion of a harmless pothead going native on the inside and coming out a hardened killer is a myth.
Snakeman99 at December 23, 2010 6:37 AM
NOBODY is in prison for recreational use of pot? NOBODY?
People are arrested and jailed for it, though.
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2010 6:48 AM
Snakeman99,
You might want to take a look at this:
http://www.cjcj.org/files/Marijuana_Arrests_and_Californias_Drug_War.pdf (See table 5)
Now, since then, they have made possession of under an ounce, essentially legal (if I remember correctly), but that doesn't change the fact that people HAVE been sent to prison for recreational use/possession.
Steve at December 23, 2010 9:06 AM
> even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Such an instrument is nonetheless useless.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 23, 2010 11:08 AM
@Steve - that report deals mainly with arrests, not sentencing. When it does address imprisonments, we see what the roughly 200 of what the researcher deems small-possession marijuana sentences. However, the study does not take into account repeat offenses, third strike laws, possession deemed with the intent to sell, or other aggravating counts. Please remember that first offense possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a simple misdemeanor. Furthermore, CA has a robust array of diversion programs, treatment options, and deferred judgment agreements meant to deal with recreational users. Believe it or not, cops, judges, prison guards, the sheriff's department, and DAs understand that imprisonment for recreational use of pot would constitute a waste of resources.
In short, there is no way that any of the cited 200 imprisonments are for simple first-time possession of pot. There are good reasons for legalizing marijuana. Pat Robertson's fear that we are routinely throwing Surfshack Steve in the hole with the Aryan Brotherhood for seven years is not one of them.
snakeman99 at December 23, 2010 12:11 PM
Check out Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum's 2003 book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."
From the back cover:
"Jacob Sullum has produced a thoughtful, sane, and logical analysis of our drug laws. Is that even LEGAL?" -- Dave Barry.
“I’ve never used a recreational drug (or even had a sip of alcohol) in my life, but Jacob Sullum makes a great case to stop the drug wars. He exposes the tricks of the drug warriors, who scam the crowd with huckster patter about magical substances that force people to do evil.” – Penn Jillette, the taller, louder half of Penn & Teller.
lenona at December 23, 2010 12:33 PM
Whaddya know, he's recanting.
What time ya got?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 23, 2010 12:36 PM
Snakeman: In short, there is no way that any of the cited 200 imprisonments are for simple first-time possession of pot.
Sorry, but you haven't proven that, and you don't know that. All you did was offer at length speculation.
Furthermore, you overlooked the possibility that someone could be on probation for another offense, be caught for the first time using pot which would be in violation of their probation, hence imprisoned.
See? I can use speculation and claim I've proven something, too.
Patrick at December 23, 2010 1:30 PM
I just realized that hell has frozen over: Robertson at least equinanimous on pot.
I live out in the boondocks where I could cultivate (probably pretty easily) a nice amount of pot if I really desired too.
My nearest basic grocery store is seven miles away (high cost, low choice). My nearest decent is 13, and I work 55 miles down range. When I hit a grocery store and buy non-perishable items, I buy double what I need.
If a recipe goes bad -- I can repeat it -- if I have to wait out a winter storm -- I have food on the shelves.
Same with getting prescription drugs. If I had a chronic disease -- I would always have at least an extra 3-5 days worth on hand.
If I were to be a chronic pot smoker -- I would buy double to triple the amount so I didn't have to go back to the "bad" neighborhood multiple times and to keep enough on hand so that I wouldn't have to worry about weather and crap.
That is my personality -- how do you defend that in court?
Jim P. at December 23, 2010 7:58 PM
Old age might not be the only thing that's mellowing him out.
Doobie at December 23, 2010 8:40 PM
Leave a comment