or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal like alcohol
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal like alcohol

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Prominent Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson wants pot to be legal and regulated like alcohol.

Quote:
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol because the government's war on drugs has failed.

The outspoken evangelical Christian and host of "The 700 Club" on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network he founded said the war on drugs is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. He said people should not be sent to prison for marijuana possession.

The 81-year-old first became a self-proclaimed "hero of the hippie culture" in 2010 when he called for ending mandatory prison sentences for marijuana possession convictions.

"I just think it's shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they had a possession of a very small amount of a controlled substance," Robertson said on his show March 1. "The whole thing is crazy. We've said, `Well, we're conservatives, we're tough on crime.' That's baloney."

Robertson's support for legalizing pot appeared in a New York Times (http://nyti.ms/zMys8R ) story published Thursday. His spokesman confirmed to The Associated Press that Robertson supports legalization with regulation. Robertson was not made available for an interview.

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol," Robertson was quoted by the newspaper as saying. "If people can go into a liquor store and buy a bottle of alcohol and drink it at home legally, then why do we say that the use of this other substance is somehow criminal?"

Robertson said he "absolutely" supports ballot measures in Colorado and Washington state that would allow people older than 21 to possess a small amount of marijuana and allow for commercial pot sales. Both measures, if passed by voters, would place the states at odds with federal law, which bans marijuana use of all kinds.

While he supports the measures, Robertson said he would not campaign for them and was "not encouraging people to use narcotics in any way, shape or form."

"I'm not a crusader," he said. "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."

In a statement Thursday, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said Robertson's "clearly stated and well-reasoned comments throw a curve ball into the growing debate over legalizing marijuana."

"Defenders of marijuana prohibition ... must be wondering if it's only a matter of time before theirs proves to be a lost cause," he said.

Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family opposes legalization for medical or recreational use, Carrie Gordon Earll, the organization's senior director of government and public policy, said in a statement. The group would not comment specifically on Robertson's statements.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana. Fourteen states also have some kind of marijuana decriminalization law, which removes or lowers penalties for possession. Legalization, however, would eliminate penalties and pave the way for regulated sales similar to alcohol.

Robertson's comments will likely help drive cultural conversations on the issue, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Whenever somebody of substance and notoriety in this country ... comes out in favor of changing the status quo regarding marijuana, for us and for the reform community, as the kids say, `It is all good," St. Pierre said.

I am by no means a fan or supporter of Pat Robinson, but I agree with him in this instance. The "war on drugs" has failed miserably and we should legalize cannabis.

Hopefully he will help his supporters to come to that conclusion as well.

I'm particularly curious as to what our resident anti-Christians BR and KingOfSomewhereHot think about this.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Prominent Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson wants pot to be legal and regulated like alcohol.



I am by no means a fan or supporter of Pat Robinson, but I agree with him in this instance. The "war on drugs" has failed miserably and we should legalize cannabis.

Hopefully he will help his supporters to come to that conclusion as well.

I'm particularly curious as to what our resident anti-Christians BR and KingOfSomewhereHot think about this.

I agree. That said, I heard he may have walked back his comments, claiming he meant "decriminalization" not full legalization. Whatever. It should clearly be legal. I'm not a fan of it myself, but it's far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. It's not physically addictive (though I believe it can be psychologically), either. The best argument is that use of really any drug should be legalized. I still say the government has no right to tell us what we put in our own bodies, particularly with things that grow in the freaking ground!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 67
A stopped analog clock is correct twice a day.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

A stopped analog clock is correct twice a day.

You can't bring yourself to say you agree with him, can you?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You can't bring yourself to say you agree with him, can you?

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 67
A question:

How do we tell if a driver is under the influence of pot after he (allegedly) causes an accident and maybe kills someone?

Breath and blood tests for alcohol are timely and accurate ... they reflect the amount of alcohol actively affecting the person at that particular moment.
Current drug tests used to detect marijuana, however, are NOT timely. By this, I mean they do not accurately reflect the substances CURRENT affect on the person. The tests only show that the person has used the substance within the recent past (days, not hours) ... The tests don't reflect a persons current state of influence by the drug.

It's just one of those things that's going to need to be worked out WHEN this stuff is legalized.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #7 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A question:

How do we tell if a driver is under the influence of pot after he (allegedly) causes an accident and maybe kills someone?

Breath and blood tests for alcohol are timely and accurate ... they reflect the amount of alcohol actively affecting the person at that particular moment.
Current drug tests used to detect marijuana, however, are NOT timely. By this, I mean they do not accurately reflect the substances CURRENT affect on the person. The tests only show that the person has used the substance within the recent past (days, not hours) ... The tests don't reflect a persons current state of influence by the drug.

It's just one of those things that's going to need to be worked out WHEN this stuff is legalized.

Well how do they test for it now? I'm sure there's a way to determine if one is impaired, even if they can't attribute it to a specific substance.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A question:

How do we tell if a driver is under the influence of pot after he (allegedly) causes an accident and maybe kills someone?

Why does it matter?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why does it matter?

Why does it matter with alcohol?...
I suppose because it turns what would have been "accidental" into something more like negligence.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Well how do they test for it now? I'm sure there's a way to determine if one is impaired, even if they can't attribute it to a specific substance.

Subjective tests are too prone to bias by the person (cop?) administering the test.
If I'm going to be subject to testing (and I am on a regular basis), I want it to be precise and measurable... not subject to the mood or opinion of the person administering the test. (Think of a blood or breath test for alcohol as opposed to "lean your head back and touch your nose... ")
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Why does it matter with alcohol?...
I suppose because it turns what would have been "accidental" into something more like negligence.

OK. Possibly. But maybe not. Isn't there other evidence than can be used to determine that conclusion?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 67
So the only rec' drugs that can be legal are those that can be subjected to road side testing?



I would think that many religious leaders would support decriminalization on the grounds that they believe that not all the spiritual and moral failing of life are best dealt with by criminal law. When one of their parishioners is having trouble with drugs and is removed from the congregation because of a jail sentence it removes them from the community that has the best chance to help them.
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

So the only rec' drugs that can be legal are those that can be subjected to road side testing?

No... what I was trying to say is that the testing that we DO have at the moment won't work.
I don't want to be involved in an accident, and then testing turns up marijuana (or Coke? LSD? Heroin?) in my system, even though it was from 10 days ago.
I obviously wouldn't have been under the "influence" at the point of the accident... but I can certainly see that "evidence" being used to turn a simple accident into an act of negligence (operating a motor vehicle under the influence) and pursuing criminal charges...

I have no doubt that accurate tests could be developed... but the ones they use currently won't cut it. They determine use, but not level of influence.

I don't have a problem with legalizing drugs ... but simple observation of what happens NOW shows quite clearly that we need a more reliable way to determine "influence" if the mere presence of the drug is going to be otherwise legal.

The statistical evidence of DUI cases shows that the general populace apparently can't be trusted to exercise good judgement on their own! (Then again, the whole point to recreational drug use is to "impair judgement". )
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. That said, I heard he may have walked back his comments, claiming he meant "decriminalization" not full legalization. Whatever. It should clearly be legal. I'm not a fan of it myself, but it's far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. It's not physically addictive (though I believe it can be psychologically), either. The best argument is that use of really any drug should be legalized. I still say the government has no right to tell us what we put in our own bodies, particularly with things that grow in the freaking ground!

Spot on... the libertarian in me wholly concurs! I don't use it myself either, but I never thought I would see the day that Pat Robertson said something with which I that I wholly agree! I wonder if he still thinks that gay people cause hurricanes?

On the downside, no matter *who* decries the drug laws, and no matter *who* tells us that the criminalization of of medical issues is a destructive strategy, pot and other recreational drugs) will likely remain outside of the law in the US... that is, for the long foreseeable future:

On average, around 400,000 Americans are in JAIL at any given point for contravening the laws on pot. The prison industry has become a for-profit business, run by powerful, well connected corporations in the burgeoning privatized security-prison-surveillance complex. It costs the tax payer approximately $50,000 a year to house each prison inmate. That works out to a throughput of some $20 billion each year on this issue alone, and a significant proportion of this huge figure is pure profit.

Pot was made illegal in the 1930s to protect the bottom lines of certain businesses, for example Du Pont and the cotton industry. This effort relied on a hysterical, fear-mongering propaganda campaign waged by the federal government, senior law enforcement officials (Harry Anslinger et al), aided by the corporate media and the entertainment industry in the day; the laws were passed without the input of a single appropriately qualified medical professional. The propaganda and lies were repeated to the point that "repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the accepted fact"... even today, there are segments of society who still believe the official story.

Despite Pat Robertson's call, legalization would hit profit margins... therefore it ain't going to happen any time soon. Perhaps another "bogeyman" demographic can be conjured up to fill those jail cells?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 67
You actually have the drug detection problem already today. Right?

I mean even though pot is illegal, surely there are people driving under its influence. Additionally there are certainly a variety if both OTC and prescription drugs that can impair someone's driving that are undetectable at the point of the event.

In all these cases, investigators must rely on other (sometimes incomplete) information to determine cause and fault.

I don't think pot changes things all that much.

If anything, there are probably external indicators and tell-tale signs that actually make it easier to detect...general behavior, possible smells (Mary Jane smoke has a very strong and distinctive smell)...lots of Taco Bell and Dorito packages in the car. Like that.


In the end though, my guess is there will be other signs of negligent or recklessness in the driving to be able to establish the at-fault party (if any).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You actually have the drug detection problem already today. Right?

I mean even though pot is illegal, surely there are people driving under its influence. Additionally there are certainly a variety if both OTC and prescription drugs that can impair someone's driving that are undetectable at the point of the event.

In all these cases, investigators must rely on other (sometimes incomplete) information to determine cause and fault.

I don't think pot changes things all that much.

If anything, there are probably external indicators and tell-tale signs that actually make it easier to detect...general behavior, possible smells (Mary Jane smoke has a very strong and distinctive smell)...lots of Taco Bell and Dorito packages in the car. Like that.


In the end though, my guess is there will be other signs of negligent or recklessness in the driving to be able to establish the at-fault party (if any).

I'd love to sit on the jury for the case that presents as evidence a pile of Taco Bell trash.
post #17 of 67
We all know how driving skills are impaired by intoxicants. Drunken driving killed c11,000 Americans in 2009 - thats about one fatality in every three. Prescription drugs can also be severely debilitating, re. driving skills and judgement, and we all know how Americans pop pills (antidepressants, cold and flu remedies etc) as it they're candy...

As a passenger in a car, I would prefer the driver to be completely straight and alert... but it seems that pot is likely a relatively minor player when it comes to road safety.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I'd love to sit on the jury for the case that presents as evidence a pile of Taco Bell trash.

Wow. Someone removed your sense of humor today.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

We all know how driving skills are impaired by intoxicants. Drunken driving killed c11,000 Americans in 2009 - thats about one fatality in every three. Prescription drugs can also be severely debilitating, re. driving skills and judgement, and we all know how Americans pop pills (antidepressants, cold and flu remedies etc) as it they're candy...

As a passenger in a car, I would prefer the driver to be completely straight and alert... but it seems that pot is likely a relatively minor player when it comes to road safety.

Agreed. It doesn't have the same effects as alcohol. Impaired on pot is different than impaired on alcohol.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A question:

How do we tell if a driver is under the influence of pot after he (allegedly) causes an accident and maybe kills someone?

Breath and blood tests for alcohol are timely and accurate ... they reflect the amount of alcohol actively affecting the person at that particular moment.
Current drug tests used to detect marijuana, however, are NOT timely. By this, I mean they do not accurately reflect the substances CURRENT affect on the person. The tests only show that the person has used the substance within the recent past (days, not hours) ... The tests don't reflect a persons current state of influence by the drug.

It's just one of those things that's going to need to be worked out WHEN this stuff is legalized.

Begging several questions here.

First, as others have addressed, you have ignored that DUI still exists now. It is currently illegal to drive under the influence of any sort of drug, legal or illegal.

Second, although maybe you aren't implying it, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that may have inferred that you thought drug use would increase if it were legal. It may, it may not. Statistics from other countries that have legalized drugs (Portugal) disagree.

Third, you are assuming that current blood alcohol tests are accurate and reliable in determining the qualitative level of impairment. Other factors such as tolerance, sleep deprivation, and use with OTC or prescription drugs should be considered.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Begging several questions here.

First, as others have addressed, you have ignored that DUI still exists now. It is currently illegal to drive under the influence of any sort of drug, legal or illegal.

Second, although maybe you aren't implying it, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that may have inferred that you thought drug use would increase if it were legal. It may, it may not. Statistics from other countries that have legalized drugs (Portugal) disagree.

Third, you are assuming that current blood alcohol tests are accurate and reliable in determining the qualitative level of impairment. Other factors such as tolerance, sleep deprivation, and use with OTC or prescription drugs should be considered.

These are all good points. Which leads to another more important question...regardless of any reason for alleged impairment...it is not the impairment that should be the concern so much as the actual results that come from it.

Example: Recently (and very unfortunately) a young lady was killed by a person who blew through a red light very early in the morning. This happened at an intersection I drive through every day...so I'm familiar with it.

Question: Does it matter if the person driving was drunk (or high) or not?

My Answer: Not really. In fact it's possible for the same thing to happen even if the driver was NOT drunk. Someone going home...late (3AM)...possibly tired...possibly distracted by the other person in the car...assuming that no one else is out on the road...driving too fast anyway...simply not seeing the other car pull out before it's too late.

Shit I see people blowing late through stop lights all the time...middle of the day...probably on their way to or from work at rush hours! I don't car ho sober you are...if you're speeding up to get through the light and flying through an intersection at 40-50 MPH...you ain't stopping no matter what you see.

The point is the primary focus needs to be on the recklessness of the driving...not necessarily what's causing it (at least from a legal perspective.) From an educational perspective? Sure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Begging several questions here.

First, as others have addressed, you have ignored that DUI still exists now. It is currently illegal to drive under the influence of any sort of drug, legal or illegal.

Second, although maybe you aren't implying it, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that may have inferred that you thought drug use would increase if it were legal. It may, it may not. Statistics from other countries that have legalized drugs (Portugal) disagree.

Third, you are assuming that current blood alcohol tests are accurate and reliable in determining the qualitative level of impairment. Other factors such as tolerance, sleep deprivation, and use with OTC or prescription drugs should be considered.



No... I don't think use will increase (maybe short-term, as a handful of people will want to "try it out" now that it's legal.)

You're right... we should just make it legal and rely on the good sense of the populace to use it responsibly. Besides, we all KNOW that pot has no affect whatsoever on a person's ability to drive, reason, or think clearly! [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying stuff shouldn't be legalized ... merely pointing out that there are some things (apparently accepted by society) that are going to have to be in place to "monitor" and "control" it's use to some degree. Personally, I'm all for legalization...
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

No... I don't think use will increase (maybe short-term, as a handful of people will want to "try it out" now that it's legal.)

You're right... we should just make it legal and rely on the good sense of the populace to use it responsibly. Besides, we all KNOW that pot has no affect whatsoever on a person's ability to drive, reason, or think clearly! [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying stuff shouldn't be legalized ... merely pointing out that there are some things (apparently accepted by society) that are going to have to be in place to "monitor" and "control" it's use to some degree. Personally, I'm all for legalization...

I don't see why you need to be sarcastic about it. In fact, your reasoning really doesn't make sense here. It's currently illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of pot. However, there is no test to determine the current effect the pot is having on the driver. Doesn't that mean the the DUI law is the problem? Making pot legal doesn't change this problem.

I also don't see why we need a chemical test. You can be arrested for DUI without an immediate test. If you fail the field sobriety test (walking the line, etc), it's curtains. There's no reason why a cop couldn't arrest someone on suspicion of driving under the influence, then gather enough evidence (possession, physical symptoms of being high, etc) to prosecute.

Last, no one said pot has zero effect on driving, but it's not the same effect as alcohol has. Why would it be treated the same?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 67
Field sobriety tests are often designed to result in an arrest. It's just physics. Reduce your moment of inertia and it's going to be easier to lose your balance sideways.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There's no reason why a cop couldn't arrest someone on suspicion of driving under the influence, then gather enough evidence (possession, physical symptoms of being high, etc) to prosecute.

Yeah...kinda scary huh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Field sobriety tests are often designed to result in an arrest. It's just physics. Reduce your moment of inertia and it's going to be easier to lose your balance sideways.

Which is why I want chemical based tests rather than subjective ones.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

...It's currently illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of pot. However, there is no test to determine the current effect the pot is having on the driver. Doesn't that mean the the DUI law is the problem? Making pot legal doesn't change this problem.

Go ahead and make it legal... I was simply pointing out that substantial changes WILL HAVE TO BE MADE to current DUI laws to accommodate. (so yes... the DUI law is the problem.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #27 of 67
Thread Starter 
Could this be the first time the majority of active POers are essentially in agreement on an issue?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #28 of 67
Legalize all drugs, prostitution, and force churches to provide the condoms.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 67
Thread Starter 
How about let people pay for their own condoms?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #30 of 67
And porn. Although, they already do their fair share of that. Utah is the biggest consumer of internet pornography in the nation.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Prominent Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson wants pot to be legal and regulated like alcohol.



I am by no means a fan or supporter of Pat Robinson, but I agree with him in this instance. The "war on drugs" has failed miserably and we should legalize cannabis.

Hopefully he will help his supporters to come to that conclusion as well.

I'm particularly curious as to what our resident anti-Christians BR and KingOfSomewhereHot think about this.

Pat Robinson is an old fool who should go into seclusion already.Legalizing pot would be detrimental to our health and our young people of today.
post #32 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And porn. Although, they already do their fair share of that. Utah is the biggest consumer of internet pornography in the nation.

Now you're just trolling.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #33 of 67
I was kidding about the condoms, yes. I wasn't lying about Utah's porn consumption, though.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 67
Thread Starter 
You mentioned it to try to get a reaction out of me. It was irrelevant to the discussion. That's trolling.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Pat Robinson is an old fool who should go into seclusion already.Legalizing pot would be detrimental to our health and our young people of today.

Do you have some sort of evidence that indicates that consumption would go up if it was legal? That was not what happened when alcohol prohibition ended.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Pat Robinson is an old fool who should go into seclusion already.Legalizing pot would be detrimental to our health and our young people of today.

I take it that the second sentence of your post was uttered in sarcasm.....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Which is why I want chemical based tests rather than subjective ones.

Physical tests are subjective, too. A BAC level of ..08 can affect different people in different ways. Serious drinkers build a tolerance, meaning they are essentially sober at levels higher than the legal limit.

Quote:

Go ahead and make it legal... I was simply pointing out that substantial changes WILL HAVE TO BE MADE to current DUI laws to accommodate. (so yes... the DUI law is the problem.)

I hear you, but I'm saying that the physical test is not all its cracked up to be. It seems better to me that we rely on multiple factors for pot. If the police pull you over and suspect you're under the influence, they can do a field sobriety test. This would include physical factors like squinting, red eyes, intoxicated "high" behavior, etc. This could be paired with the requirement of additional evidence, such as possession of pot itself, paraphernalia, etc. That's better than a simple test IMO.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Physical tests are subjective, too. A BAC level of ..08 can affect different people in different ways. Serious drinkers build a tolerance, meaning they are essentially sober at levels higher than the legal limit.

Yes, it affects people differently... but it's still a test that's not subject to the whims of the administrator.

I may be more (or less) "drunk" than you at .08 ... but at least it's a measurable limit. The cop can't lock me away just because he "thinks" I was drunk ... he has to measure a certain amount of BAC.

So while limit threshold determined by law may be subjective, the test itself is still NOT. I'm either over the limit or I'm not, regardless of the subjective effect it has on me.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Yes, it affects people differently... but it's still a test that's not subject to the whims of the administrator.

I may be more (or less) "drunk" than you at .08 ... but at least it's a measurable limit. The cop can't lock me away just because he "thinks" I was drunk ... he has to measure a certain amount of BAC.

The system I'm talking about isn't nearly as subjective as the physical test is. The physical test is using ONE type of evidence that may not be reliable in determining actual intoxication. The system I've described relies on the initial judgement of the officer to see if more investigation is warranted. You'd be arrested for DUI if there was MULTIPLE sources of evidence:
  • Odd behavior consistent with THC high (laughing, slower speech, etc)
  • Red eyes
  • Swollen eyes, sensitivty to light, pupil examination
  • Erratic driving
  • Admission of marijuana use
  • Evidence of recent use (smell, paraphernalia)
  • Marijuana in vehicle

Quote:
So while limit threshold determined by law may be subjective, the test itself is still NOT. I'm either over the limit or I'm not, regardless of the subjective effect it has on me.

That's the problem. The effect is the entire reason the laws exist in the first place. Yet, we have people that drink two light beers and somehow blow a .08, so they get a DUI. I can have two or three microbrews with dinner and be near the limit, yet there is no way (as 6'2" guy with some extra pounds) I'm anywhere near unable to drive safely.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I can have two or three microbrews with dinner and be near the limit, yet there is no way (as 6'2" guy with some extra pounds) I'm anywhere near unable to drive safely.

Would you be OK with me going to my job after having two or three beers with dinner? (You and your loved ones would a handful of the 180 passengers in the back of my plane... and the controller is going to make a mistake ... it'll be up to me and my judgment/reaction time to figure that out and avoid major problems ... death and destruction type stuff... )

So... are you cool with me drinking before I go "drive" you from EWR to LAX? Honestly, 2 or 3 beers don't put me anywhere near unable to fly safely!... trust me!!

(It's a rhetorical question... I'll assume you would answer correctly and I'll state that I don't want to be on the highway next to you right after you've had a few either.)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal like alcohol