Pat Robertson Says: Legalize Marijuana

[Correction]

Pat Robertson Says Marijuana Use Should be Legal
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: March 7, 2012

Spoiler: show

Of the many roles Pat Robertson has assumed over his five-decade-long career as an evangelical leader — including presidential candidate and provocative voice of the right wing — his newest guise may perhaps surprise his followers the most: marijuana legalization advocate.

“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.

“I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” he said.

Mr. Robertson’s remarks were hailed by pro-legalization groups, who called them a potentially important endorsement in their efforts to roll back marijuana penalties and prohibitions, which residents of Colorado and Washington will vote on this fall.

“I love him, man, I really do,” said Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former law enforcement officials who oppose the drug war. “He’s singing my song.”

For his part, Mr. Robertson said that he “absolutely” supported the ballot measures, though he would not campaign for them. “I’m not a crusader,” he said.

That comment may invite debate, considering Mr. Robertson’s long career of speaking out — and sometimes in ways that drew harsh criticism — in favor of conservative family values. Recently, he was quoted as saying that victims of tornadoes in the Midwest could have avoided their fate by praying more.

But advocates of overhauling drug laws say Mr. Robertson’s newfound passion on their issue could help sway conservative voters and other religious leaders to their cause.

“Pat Robertson still has an audience of millions of people, and they respect what he has to say,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for more liberal drug laws. “And he’s not backtracking. He’s doubling down.”

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.”

“I would hope and think that it would move the needle for the large constituencies of evangelicals he represents,” Dr. Carruthers added.

She said that she personally supported marijuana legalization, as did a growing number of conference members. But whether Mr. Robertson’s endorsement would have a lasting impact was unclear, even to Mr. Robertson.

“I think they would agree if they understood the facts as I do,” he said of other evangelical leaders. “But it’s very hard.”

He attributed much of the problem of overpopulated jails to a “liberal mindset to have an all-encompassing government.”

Conservative groups that usually align with Mr. Robertson, meanwhile, were largely silent when asked for comment on his stance. For example, Focus on the Family — a Christian group whose disdain for same-sex marriage and support for family values are in line with Mr. Robertson’s — declined to respond beyond saying that the group opposes legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use.

For his part, Mr. Robertson said he was “not encouraging people to use narcotics in any way, shape or form.” But he said he saw little difference between smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol, a longstanding argument from far more liberal — and libertarian-minded — leaders.

“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?” he said.

Mr. Franklin, who is a Christian, said Mr. Robertson’s position was actually in line with the Gospel. “If you follow the teaching of Christ, you know that Christ is a compassionate man,” he said. “And he would not condone the imprisoning of people for nonviolent offenses.”

Mr. Robertson said he enjoyed a glass of wine now and then — “When I was in college, I hit it pretty hard, but that was before Christ.” He added that he did not think marijuana appeared in the Bible, though he noted that “Jesus made water into wine.”

“I don’t think he was a teetotaler,” he said.

And while Mr. Robertson said his earlier hints at support for legalization had led to him being “assailed by those who thought that it was terrible that I had forsaken the straight and narrow,” he added that he was not worried about criticism this time around.

“I just want to be on the right side,” he said. “And I think on this one, I’m on the right side.”

This will make him popular for a few hours until his stoner allies sober up and remember what a horrible human being he is on every other social issue.

[archibaldcrane]

Still, he's a pretty revered figure in a pretty hardcore pro-drug-war section of Americans. It definitely won't hurt the cause.

[6souls]

I'm really surprised Big Tobacco & the textiles industry doesn't lobby hard for marijuana/hemp. The money in this is immensely lucrative. Also, in theory, if the Government took advantage of this opportunity, they good solve a few budget problems.

[Demosthenes11]

I'm really surprised Big Tobacco & the textiles industry doesn't lobby hard for marijuana/hemp. The money in this is immensely lucrative. Also, in theory, if the Government took advantage of this opportunity, they good solve a few budget problems.

tobacco industry vs. prison industry. Prison industry wins

[6souls]

Yup, prisons are a hot commodity atm. I won't argue that.

[Correction]

Still, he's a pretty revered figure in a pretty hardcore pro-drug-war section of Americans. It definitely won't hurt the cause.

According to CNN he's been going the way of decriminalization since 2010

In 2010, Robertson spoke on “The 700 Club” about decriminalizing marijuana but didn’t go so far as to advocate legalizing it.

“We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana, and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences,” Robertson said at the time. “…We’ve got to take a look at what we’re considering crimes and that’s one of ’em.”

His selective compassion is right in line with GOP tradition but I guess this news isn't as out of left field as my original reaction led me to believe.

[Siatdiat]

According to CNN he's been going the way of decriminalization since 2010



His selective compassion is right in line with GOP tradition but I guess this news isn't as out of left field as my original reaction led me to believe.

I was going to read this post, then I saw you had a hyperlink in it.

[Sera]

well done, p.rob! now if you could just stop endorsing discrimination & pushing christianity on us via legislation. honestly I feel like if the GOP would just sit back and smoke a j every so often this country would be a much more peaceful place to be

[Siatdiat]

I don't smoke pot and honestly, I don't tend to get along with many people who do. However, considering that between the two, I'd be more likely to drive through a preschool and kill a bunch of children while abusing alcohol than if I smoked a bunch of weed, I have to wonder why its such a big deal to people still. Seriously, what is the most dangerous thing that has happened to other people because someone was stoned? Don't bring up shit where people were stoned at work, no one should be getting stoned or drunk at work, unless maybe you are starring in a gay bukakke film.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't smoke pot... However, considering that between the two, I'd be more likely to drive through a preschool and kill a bunch of children while abusing alcohol than if I smoked a bunch of weed

Don't be so presumptuous if you've never smoked. I can drive significantly better after 4 beers than I can after 1 hit of good California medical weed. Things affect people differently.

[Sera]

The point is you shouldn't be doing either one. Alcohol use isn't illegal, drunk driving is. I'm definitely more coordinated post weed than post booze, and I don't smoke shitty weed. Shouldn't be working or operating machinery under the influence of ANYTHING -- be it alcohol, weed or even a medication you have a prescription for that causes compensated coordination and abilities.

[jmc]

Not to mention driving under the influence of any narcotic is illegal, and holds the same penalty as driving drunk.

[archibaldcrane]

lol

wow

[Siatdiat]

That's not my point but I guess it wasn't clear enough. I'm just saying they are both drugs, yet the one that is generally known to be much more dangerous is the legal one. I would never suggest driving, or anything else similar, under the effects of any drug.

[Siatdiat]

Don't be so presumptuous if you've never smoked. I can drive significantly better after 4 beers than I can after 1 hit of good California medical weed. Things affect people differently.

I smoked pot in high school. I don't like shit that makes me feel stupid.

Nice that you like to drink or smoke pot and then drive.

[Sera]

I smoked pot in high school. I don't like shit that makes me feel stupid.

smoking pot alone sucks, smoking with friends is HILARIOUS

but i rarely get so high i can't function

[kuronosan]

I smoked pot in high school. I don't like shit that makes me feel stupid.

Nice that you like to drink or smoke pot and then drive.

Why the fuck are you posting here, then?

[Indeed]

smoking pot alone sucks, smoking with friends is HILARIOUS

I don't mind being high alone, but generally I don't/haven't ever smoked weed by myself in the interest of having fun. Helps me relax and sleep. I have insomnia and a lot of problems with night terrors, but I don't remember shit if I smoke before going to bed. It's just pure, black, dead to the world, coma-quality sleep. Fucking fantastic, best thing in the world. I just wish I lived in a state with medical marijuana availability.

[Kohan]

I smoked pot in high school. I don't like shit that makes me feel stupid.

Nice that you like to drink or smoke pot and then drive.

Considering that you don't smoke—even though you did in the past—you may not be aware of the two separate types of marijuana: sativa and indica. Sativas are often considered stimulating, especially when it comes to their affect on the mind. They're best if you need to be productive, for example. Indicas, which are likely what you imbibed in, are a body high. The latter is usually what medical marijuana patients use, though sativas and sativa/indica crosses can produce the same effect, though to a lesser degree. Both share a lot of the same properties, of course, like encouraging appetite, which is why a cancer patient who doesn't want to be couch locked can smoke a sativa, manage to eat without being sick, and get through the day without being a total blob.

Additionally, people who actually do use marijuana responsibly will consume a much lower amount than, say, a kid who's burning through their stash with the sole goal of getting as high as possible. In disciplined doses, they can function as well as people on certain pharmaceuticals would, if not better, and with no medically serious side-effects.

I understand that you aren't against legalization, so I simply wanted to be informative. I believe it's always better to educate people than it is to shun them simply because they don't already know everything there is to know.

EDIT: Oh, and as someone who is devotedly pro-legalization, I never, ever encourage driving, operating heavy machinery, etc., under the influence. However, I do not have a problem with people partaking in an amount that would influence them on the same level as the correct dose of a pharmaceutical product and going about their day. Like any substance, people can smoke/consume THC to excess and present a danger to society, but that's on them, not the chemical itself.

[Yugl]

Considering that you don't smoke—even though you did in the past—you may not be aware of the two separate types of marijuana: sativa and indica. Sativas are often considered stimulating, especially when it comes to their affect on the mind. They're best if you need to be productive, for example. Indicas, which are likely what you imbibed in, are a body high. The latter is usually what medical marijuana patients use, though sativas and sativa/indica crosses can produce the same effect, though to a lesser degree. Both share a lot of the same properties, of course, like encouraging appetite, which is why a cancer patient who doesn't want to be couch locked can smoke a sativa, manage to eat without being sick, and get through the day without being a total blob.

Additionally, people who actually do use marijuana responsibly will consume a much lower amount than, say, a kid who's burning through their stash with the sole goal of getting as high as possible. In disciplined doses, they can function as well as people on certain pharmaceuticals would, if not better, and with no medically serious side-effects.

I understand that you aren't against legalization, so I simply wanted to be informative. I believe it's always better to educate people than it is to shun them simply because they don't already know everything there is to know.

EDIT: Oh, and as someone who is devotedly pro-legalization, I never, ever encourage driving, operating heavy machinery, etc., under the influence. However, I do not have a problem with people partaking in an amount that would influence them on the same level as the correct dose of a pharmaceutical product and going about their day. Like any substance, people can smoke/consume THC to excess and present a danger to society, but that's on them, not the chemical itself.

Thanks for this info. I've been around the substance (Former roommate "hotboxed" my dorm once) but never cared to try the substance myself. I wasn't even aware of the distinction.