Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

DrGreenthumb · December 27, 2010

I think that if the religious right backs legalization of pot, it is going to happen soon. They have always been a huge obstruction, but if they listen to Pat Robertson...

It's a Christmas miracle. Conservative minister Pat Robertson made a surprising declaration on a recent episode of The 700 Club: He disagrees with the continued criminalization of marijuana.

"I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot... it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people," Robertson said in the broadcast. "Young people go into prisons-they go in as youths-and come out as hardened criminals and that's not a good thing."

Robertson made the remarks in response to a group of conservatives that has launched a campaign called "Right on Crime", which aims to reduce the number of people in prison by encouraging community drug-rehabilitation programs and "taking crimes off the books that aren't really crimes".

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/12/22/Conservative-Minister-Pat-Robertson-Disagrees-Continued-Criminalization-Marijuana

Edited December 27, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

Shady · December 27, 2010

I think that if the religious right backs legalization of pot, it is going to happen soon. They have always been a huge obstruction, but if they listen to Pat Robertson...

It's a Christmas miracle. Conservative minister Pat Robertson made a surprising declaration on a recent episode of The 700 Club: He disagrees with the continued criminalization of marijuana.

"I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot... it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people," Robertson said in the broadcast. "Young people go into prisons-they go in as youths-and come out as hardened criminals and that's not a good thing."

Robertson made the remarks in response to a group of conservatives that has launched a campaign called "Right on Crime", which aims to reduce the number of people in prison by encouraging community drug-rehabilitation programs and "taking crimes off the books that aren't really crimes".

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/12/22/Conservative-Minister-Pat-Robertson-Disagrees-Continued-Criminalization-Marijuana

Why is something Pat Robertson said in the Federal Politics section?

bush_cheney2004 · December 27, 2010

Hmmmm...if your hopes for the legalization of cannabis in Canada rests on the influence of a geriatric evangelical in America, better keep those hidden stash boxes for a while.

Good luck with that...Jesus would support it 100%.

bill_barilko · December 27, 2010

Hmmmm...if your hopes for the legalization of cannabis in Canada rests on the influence of a geriatric evangelical in America, better keep those hidden stash boxes for a while.

LOL!!

Scotty · December 27, 2010

Hmmmm...if your hopes for the legalization of cannabis in Canada rests on the influence of a geriatric evangelical in America, better keep those hidden stash boxes for a while.

Good luck with that...Jesus would support it 100%.

I believe that America's attitude towards drugs has a major role in influencing how Canada's govermment, be it Liberal or Tory, treats the drug issue. If the Americans weren't so crazed about the subject then the Canadian government probably wouldn't feel the need to be either. If Pat Robertsonl's belated realization of how over the top America's drug laws are helps to tone things down in the south it might ease up in the north, too.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Scotty

bush_cheney2004 · December 27, 2010

I believe that America's attitude towards drugs has a major role in influencing how Canada's govermment, be it Liberal or Tory, treats the drug issue. If the Americans weren't so crazed about the subject then the Canadian government probably wouldn't feel the need to be either.

Canada banned cannabis before the Americans did.

If Pat Robertsonl's belated realization of how over the top America's drug laws are helps to tone things down in the south it might ease up in the north, too.

Such an epiphany by Robertson will have little to no impact on either side of the border. His influence has been greatly exaggerated in this instance.

Saipan · December 27, 2010

Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

Legalize moonshine! Says Billy Bob.

Sir Bandelot · December 28, 2010

I believe that this government has made the statement... that we are bound by some sort of treaty obligations... under the UN...

in other words want to change it now? No chance.

Really, this goes beyond federal.

Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others.

Saipan · December 28, 2010

Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others.

Does it include unelected dictators?

Scotty · December 28, 2010

I believe that this government has made the statement... that we are bound by some sort of treaty obligations... under the UN...

We might be commited to smuggling of drugs across borders but not to the extent we could not legalize their use within our borders. The Dutch did it, after all.

William Ashley · December 28, 2010

Does it include unelected dictators?

I tend to agree about the relevance of pat robertson being mentioned here because it would quickly turn into an american politics forum if we let even the little guys in to the forum. 700 club is a TV program that airs in Canada, and I don't see how it would be much different than the same thing happening on any other American TV show broadcasting in Canada and there are a lot.

The comment I think though relates to "US law, NOT Canadian law" but would likely be a generalization.

"Right on Crime", which aims to reduce the number of people in prison by encouraging community drug-rehabilitation programs and "taking crimes off the books that aren't really crimes".

I would highly endorse this position as it lines up with my own drug strategy.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/drugstrategy.htm (my website has been hacked so the text is a little off in points - part of an ongoing attempt by hackers to marginalize and damage my reputation and credibility.)

It is true, there are many social issues that don't directly relate to use, but use in public. Private use of marijuana really may only effect health care costs - in Canada with a "open access" health care system this is problematic. That is a reason why I also encourage a change to medicare into a national health insurance plan system, whereby

individuals incur more costs based on their cost to the healthcare system - while individuals with low cost to the healthcare system (or none) get rebates.

The thead though may be better in "CANADA-US POLICITCS" forum.

Edited December 28, 2010 by William Ashley

Saipan · December 28, 2010

So does "Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others", including dictators?

William Ashley · December 28, 2010

What do dictators and pat robertson have to do with this thread? Globalization is simply a system of removing governmental barriers and replacing them with economic and class barriers that arn't conditioned by the government but instead by business conglomorates.

People have no obligation to do business with people, and are only as defended against the will of dictatorship as they have the strength and willingness to resist them.

This ain't war, it is self defence.

It take an organized self defence against an ongoing threat.. BUT... the thing is... there is a "web" of occurence.

Where one fist doesn't hit, the next may be out of view. Government and business are like that because they are intermingled.

Who cares if a dictator is elected or not - they are a dictator. You think the minority doesn't care. What the hell does democracy have to do with repression and oppression and human rights abuses being ok all of a sudden. It is the standard not the willingness of the majority on the basis of good governance.

It is everyones responsiblity to uphold the value and morality of good governance, not simply obey the majorities complaicency with government.

We must maintain government because we are the state. This does not mean being complaicent, it means being proactive and responding to err.

Edited December 28, 2010 by William Ashley

Saipan · December 28, 2010

What do dictators and pat robertson have to do with this thread?

As the man said: "Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others". Meaning the UN, meaning most all the dictators.

Saipan · December 28, 2010

What the hell does democracy have to do with repression and oppression and human rights abuses being ok all of a sudden.

Then it's not a democracy. A reason why liberal attempt to disarm the public failed. Most firearm owners refused to register despite the billion$ wasted.

We are lucky to neighbour with the USA instead UK, else we would be in deep doo-doo.

bush_cheney2004 · December 28, 2010

I tend to agree about the relevance of pat robertson being mentioned here because it would quickly turn into an american politics forum if we let even the little guys in to the forum. 700 club is a TV program that airs in Canada, and I don't see how it would be much different than the same thing happening on any other American TV show broadcasting in Canada and there are a lot....

Hey...this is a teaching moment. I get the impression some Canadians actually believe that Pat Robertson and the 700 Club have wide ranging influence on what happens in American domestic and foreign policy. This is a wild exaggeration and warped manifestation of the perceived power held by evangelicals.

Even if this were true, why not start with evangelicals in Canada?

Edited December 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

GostHacked · December 28, 2010

I believe that this government has made the statement... that we are bound by some sort of treaty obligations... under the UN...

in other words want to change it now? No chance.

Really, this goes beyond federal.

Globalization means, you are bound to obey the will and purpose of others.

Which means there is no more sovereignty in this country. Canada no longer controls its own destiny.

Ditch the monarchy, and ditch the UN.

Michael Hardner · December 28, 2010

The numbers of listeners/viewers/followers is only one measure of influence. What about the degree of devotion ? Also the surprising thing about this statement is that it is a departure from the usual social-right mindset, that almost never diverges.

bush_cheney2004 · December 28, 2010

The numbers of listeners/viewers/followers is only one measure of influence. What about the degree of devotion ? Also the surprising thing about this statement is that it is a departure from the usual social-right mindset, that almost never diverges.

So what are you saying....should we expect Pat Robertson to begin advocating for abortions too?

Michael Hardner · December 28, 2010

So what are you saying....should we expect Pat Robertson to begin advocating for abortions too?

<sarcasm> Yes, absolutely this is what I am saying ! </sarcasm>

Pliny · December 28, 2010

He isn't calling for the legalization of pot. He is calling for the de-criminalization of pot.

nicky10013 · December 28, 2010

He isn't calling for the legalization of pot. He is calling for the de-criminalization of pot.

Which is the same thing really. J-walking is an offense punishable by fine. How many people have recieved a ticket for it?

Sir Bandelot · December 28, 2010

I think the question is unfair. I cannot disagree, without also admitting that pot is medicine.

Wilber · December 28, 2010

Which is the same thing really. J-walking is an offense punishable by fine. How many people have recieved a ticket for it?

Depends where you are. Some places you will get a ticket for J walking if you do it right in front of a cop.

dre · December 28, 2010

Canadians have wanted legalization for decades, as has been shown in countless polls.

Our government ignores us for many reasons... The biggest is that when you prohibit something for so long that prohibition becomes an industry in itself. Hundreds of thousands of people profit from criminalization including some powerful groups such as trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. So the system is just structurally resistance to change.

But another big factor is definately the US, and the impact having radically different substance management policies would have on our relationship as a whole. If the policy of criminalization starts to fall apart there then that dramatically changes the game in Canada as well. So Id say that ANY prominent voice is helpful and useful, but this definately isnt any kind of game changer on its own.