Pot Robertson
As @Iowahawk tweeted:
Pat Robertson goes where Barack Obama won't.
Jesse McKinley writes in The New York Times that Pat Robertson is an advocate of legalizing marijuana:
"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."Mr. Robertson's remarks echoed statements he made last week on "The 700 Club," the signature program of his Christian Broadcasting Network, and other comments he made in 2010. While those earlier remarks were largely dismissed by his followers, Mr. Robertson has now apparently fully embraced the idea of legalizing marijuana, arguing that it is a way to bring down soaring rates of incarceration and reduce the social and financial costs.
...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."
Such talk was welcomed by some other religious leaders, especially those in African-American communities who have long argued that blacks are unfairly targeted in drug cases.
Iva E. Carruthers, the general secretary for the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, the Chicago group that represents hundreds of black clergy members and lay leaders, said Mr. Robertson's remarks suggested that he recognized that "if you're a Hollywood exec with money, you're treated differently than if you're a poor kid getting off public transportation and get arrested."
Okay. What do you think "legalization" means?
Because unless it assumes the shape of the tobacco industry and pot is produced by Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, you have no consumer protection against adulteration.
And this would not be good news for drivers.
Lots of people think there would be no consequences, only good news - Yay! We can get high now! Some just what to get high, screw everybody else.
Please do what you can to distinguish yourself from those people.
In Utopia, responsible people take a bit of heroin to unwind after a hard day watching the daycare or nuclear plant or flying the airliner. And they're not addicts, mentally or physically.
This ain't Utopia. The evidence is right next door.
Radwaste at March 8, 2012 2:43 AM
It still wouldn't be allowed at work, Rad. No more than drinking is. People in really risky jobs, like air traffc controllers, are subject to drug testing, and perhaps we'd need more of that, but I say good for Pat Roberston for realizing how absurd this all is.
Just think of the wasted youth. It's hard to move on from a drug conviction in your background check. Employers rarely ask whether it was a one joint or a load of cocaine that put you in the slammer. So many young people are already on a downward track, which just leaves them ultimately on the public dole.
Whether we support them on the streets or in prison, the numbers are staggering - the increase in the prison population and number of prisons built since the drug war began. It's a waste of taxpayer funds.
LS at March 8, 2012 4:34 AM
Rad reframes the classical argument against libertarianism. Fascism or Anarchy are not the only choices.
No, the alternative to what we are doing today is not doing nothing at all. LS didn't mention the militarization of the police, corruption of public officials, or the gang violence that comes from the illegal drug market, or neighborhood meth labs. Or even not being able to buy decongestants that work.
Vietnam is done, but the war on drugs - I'm sure victory is in sight.
MarkD at March 8, 2012 5:58 AM
Someone else that has realized prohibition does not work.
And there are many smaller cigarette producers as well as the loose leaf for pipes and roll your aficionados trying to get around the taxes. Go check out you local tobacco shops.
The point being that there is nothing wrong with having major manufacturers run the industry, as long as the local farmer can get in on the deal.
Jim P. at March 8, 2012 6:08 AM
Would this better a better cash crop for farming than corn?
Someone must have done a cash analysis but ...
Bob in Texas at March 8, 2012 7:01 AM
"And there are many smaller cigarette producers as well.."
Not to mention you hardly need a green thumb to grow your own cannabis plants. My understanding is that it's even more hardy than peppermint. (For that matter so is tobacco.)
Elle at March 8, 2012 8:38 AM
>>Okay. What do you think "legalization" means?
It's a plant. Legalization means you can own it and grow it. If you want to purchase it, you may. If you want to sell it you'll probably need a business licence or take it to farmer's market. You have the same consumer protection as when you buy a tomato. Buy certified organic if you're worried about it. The fact is consumer protection tends to be market driven in this case, and adulteration does not increase your market share or profit. Sell good weed you get repeat business. Sell weed laced with pcp and no one will touch you. Reputable sources are already out there.
Money will be saved regarding law enforcement. Money will need to be spent for accurate public education - not the usual government funded propaganda.
Money could be made through taxation.
Part of the Money raised by taxation will need to be spent dealing with negative effects.
Courts and prisons will be less crowded.
What negative effects will exist under legalization, that do not already exist?
Will more people smoke pot? Maybe. How many people do you know who would smoke it,if only it were legal? All the people I know who would smoke it, do already. All the people I know who don't smoke it, don't because they don't want to - not because it is illegal.
If you want to smoke it and drive, you can, but you'll get arrested if caught, since that's not allowed. This is already the case and legalization will not change it.
If you want to smoke it before work, you can but it might get you fired since that's not allowed. This is already the case and legalization will not change it.
So what big bad bogey man are you expecting from legalization?
Assholio at March 8, 2012 12:21 PM
Assholio, you're forgetting or don't know that I have been asking about this for a loooong time, because some people have this idea that "legalization" of a drug means a magic community of responsible people springs into being.
It doesn't.
Look at the equivocation in the suggestion that maybe more people will smoke pot.
Notice also that because it hasn't been legalized, you don't see a study about the long-term effects. You don't have any problem with calling a Lucky Strike smoker doomed and maybe stupid for inhaling so much of that stuff.
The point is made above about "it still won't be allowed at work" Really?
Where's the objective standard for intoxication, so that the school bus driver whose supervisor says "she's stoned" has a legal position?
This is all about ROI. Alcohol costs us tens of thousand of direct fatalities, and some call that good!
Radwaste at March 8, 2012 2:43 PM
I have yet to see ANY proof that pot (when not seriously contaminated) is anywhere near as dangerous or addictive as alcohol.
Not to mention that as things are right now, it's EASIER for teens to buy pot. How will keeping it illegal ever change that?
lenona at March 8, 2012 3:32 PM
I'm reaching the point where I think all recreational drugs should be legalized. Let the druggies Darwin themselves. Is that cynical?
Cousin Dave at March 8, 2012 7:38 PM
Let me rephrase that for you:
Let's see what happened when they made alcohol illegal. We had Al Capone in Chicago. Not to mention Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. being a bootlegger.
You have FBI g-man Elliot Ness takes a small federal agency to become a major crime-fighting agency; in opposition of how the tenth amendment meant stuff should work.
There is no magic bullet -- but show me how successful prohibition is?
Jim P. at March 8, 2012 8:30 PM
>>Assholio, you're forgetting or don't know that I have been asking about this for a loooong time,
I'm not entirely familiar with your position.
>>because some people have this idea that "legalization" of a drug means a magic community of responsible people springs into being.
My position is that there is already a significant community of both responsible and irresponsible pot users. I do not think legalization, combined with a little accurate public education, will cause a radical increase in irresponsible usage.
>>Notice also that because it hasn't been legalized, you don't see a study about the long-term effects. You don't have any problem with calling a Lucky Strike smoker doomed and maybe stupid for inhaling so much of that stuff.
I'd be pretty happy to go with,"This stuff will probably kill you just like cigarettes, and harm your unborn child, we just haven't proved it yet. Smoke at your own risk - you've been warned, don't bother with the lawsuit if you get sick." Whether I believe that or not is another question.
>>Where's the objective standard for intoxication, so that the school bus driver whose supervisor says "she's stoned" has a legal position?
Where's the objective standard now?
>>This is all about ROI. Alcohol costs us tens of thousand of direct fatalities, and some call that good!
Well, I see a significant ROI for the legalization of marijuana. Fewer people in prison, less strain on the courts and police resources. Less reason for a significant portion of the public to directly fear the police out of hand. Tax income for the state. Decrease in income for the drug cartels. Slight increase in job opportunities among the small farmers.
Will there be people who cannot use it and function? Yes, and they should be allowed to get help. I do not see anyone dieing from a marijuana overdose. I don't see doctors smoking a joint on their coffee break because it is legal.
I do not see a large number of normally responsible people behaving in an irresponsible manner. I have a strong feeling that the irresponsible people are already being irresponsible if they can get away with it.
Assholio at March 9, 2012 3:50 PM
"Where's the objective standard now? "
There isn't one. That's a key point about the entire issue of "legalization".
If you test someone today for cause, your actions are covered by existing law: {THC positive = illegal = fired}
But if/when it's legalized, you have to show how the person is impaired.
It's a lot of work that industry is not prepared to deal with - and, as a consumer, you are not prepared to pay for.
-----
Look at the wishful thinking here. Jim P rephrases what I wrote to imply that alcohol use would be MORE widespread and fatalities greater if it was illegal, then admits there is no magic bullet; that's dissonant right there. Then, Cousin Dave suggests that Darwin step in, as if users would only hurt themselves.
Nope. Look at the Emergency Response Guidebook (pdf). We ship more than a BILLION TONS of hazardous materials annually by truck in this country.
Are you a pilot, bus driver or train engineer? See Wikipedia's "Transportation_in_the_United_States" and count the passengers to be protected.
This is NOT an application of the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy. It is a partial citation of the daily business of a nation which is already impacted by legal and illegal drug use in a uniformly negative manner.
Do not lie and state that removing restrictions leads to less use of a thing. You, yourself may have noted that Federal subsidy encourages irresponsible behavior on the part of individuals, groups and even governments. The principle still holds: you can expect someone to be responsible, but when there are consequences if they fail, you must hold them to standards of performance.
What I am asking is simple: consider what "legalization" means. Plan for it. Show the consumer protections. Say what it will and will not do, with neither rose-colored or dark glasses in play. Bundle the change in the law to cover every burg, township, city, county, state to be consistent.
Radwaste at March 9, 2012 5:40 PM
Do not lie and state that removing restrictions leads to less use of a thing.
Hasnt Portugal, or was it Spain, that reported a drop in users after decriminalization?
lujlp at March 10, 2012 8:01 AM
Lujlp, the method of counting there has changed, as well as the motivation behind such a story.
Just wait.
And look up "Needle Park".
I work in the safest industrial park anywhere. We didn't get there by letting people do what the hell they wanted. Drug laws and drug use means work, and by people other than the users, a large number of which have demonstrated they can't be bothered.
Radwaste at March 10, 2012 3:06 PM
Leave a comment