What the deuce?
As anybody who has read Blogography for any amount of time already knows, I positively loathe Pat Robertson. The bastard is bat-shit crazy, and regularly says stuff so outrageous that you have to question his sanity. Except I don't question anything. I know he's insane.
He's so insane that I put him at the very top of my "Are You Insane?" self-diagnosis chart back in 2006...
And "crazy" is the least of his sins. In January of this year, I wrote "It's not just that Pat Robertson is a stupid, hypocritical, uncaring, opportunistic, lying piece of shit, it's that he's just plain evil." This was in response to him saying the Haitian people made a pact with the devil in order to end French colonization, and that's why God decided to devastate the country with an earthquake. Like I said, evil. He's right up there with Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter...
Then today something astounding happened.
Pat Robertson took a time out from being an evil lunatic, and actually had a moment of lucidity...
Like I said, what the deuce?
Much like Pat Robertson, I don't condone drug use. I honestly think it leads to more problems than it will ever solve for the vast majority of the population. But, so long as people don't abuse it by driving while high... and so long as they smoke their marijuana in the privacy of their own home where I don't have to inhale it... who gives a shit? Should we really be spending billions of dollars to incarcerate those who would rather get high off pot than drunk off alcohol? If people want to get high and aren't harming anybody else, then they should be able to do that. It's called "freedom."
And who knows? Not only might the legalization of marijuana save us on prison costs... it might also save us tons of money in the "war on drugs." Maybe if people can get legally high, they won't have a need to turn to harsher drugs that are harmful. That would be swell.
And let me tell you... if pot were legal, I'd be buying some right now.
That's about the only way I can deal with the fact that I am actually agreeing with something that Pat Robertson said.
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
PLEASE NOTE: My comment-spam protection requires JavaScript... if you have it turned off or are using a mobile device without JavaScript, commenting won't work. Sorry.
Atom Entries Feed Comments Feed
But he’s oh so HAWT. I’d do him. Do him in…that is. I think that the older he gets, the more deranged he gets….just like McCain. It’s like they’ve lost their marbles or are suffering from some mental issue.
Woot! Pat’s getting smarter in his old age.
Tho’ I enjoy the buzz, that stuff makes me sleepy most of the time. Hopefully, it’d do the same for you i.e. Dave’s insomnia + reefer = Zzzzzzzzz!
There is no doubt in my mind that the current approach taken against drugs is counterproductive. When we are attacking both the criminals (the suppliers) and the victims (the users), we end up perpetuating both. An ounce more compassion towards the victims would go a long way to actually pulling the rug out from under the criminals.
Marijuana should be decriminalized and treated like alcohol or cigarettes. It’s nowhere near as addictive as some legal drugs out there (see Morphine. My wife has had clinical experience with both, and she can tell you for certain which drug is more dangerous by far). We should allow our farmers to grow it, and tax it as a revenue source.
As for the harder drugs, which ARE dangerous, I’ve been wondering about this approach: instead of treating drug users like criminals, treat them like a category of the mentally ill.
Consider this: any individual who is diagnosed as being addicted to an illegal substance comes under medical care, and he or she receives the drugs he or she is addicted to from his health plan. These drugs are produced by the government, and are administered in safe doses. The addict receives close supervision to ensure he or she doesn’t overdose.
I’ve heard that this approach was tried before in Liverpool in the United Kingdom. This approach did NOT pull people off of drugs; only 5% of users actually went off — the same as typically happens without such a program. However, the program had several other benefits:
1. Significant reduction in deaths by overdose.
2. Significant reduction in the contraction of AIDS and other needle bourne diseases.
3. Significant reduction in property crime since: (a) the user didn’t have to steal in order to get his drugs, (b) we now know where said user lives (having visited the user frequently to make sure he or she is okay; depending on constitutional issues, we may even have their fingerprints on file), (c) the pushers go out of business because their client base dries up.
I don’t anticipate that this idea will actually catch fire. For one thing, the idea that government becomes the supplier of the drug users raises several moral issues that’s going to squick out legislators from here to Sunday. And the fact that it doesn’t stop drug addiction but simply focuses on keeping the drug user alive, is probably unacceptable to a lot of people who would hate to have the idea that their loved ones might suffer from something like this only to have the government do nothing.
But compared to what we are doing now to fight drugs, I have to ask, is this approach worse, or better?
Ann Coulter is a fucking nightmare. Thanks for the accurate depiction of her.
But as you might expect, his people are already doing damage control.
I definitely need to shower now. I agree with Pat Robertson?!!
I pretty much agree. Plus, hello tax revenues. With my name, though, I can’t partake. It would just be too cliche 😉
Great point, Lisa.
Pat Robertson making sense? This may be the first sign of the Apocalypse.
Pat Robertson never seems really dangerous to me. Every time I see him I think of Pinky’s sidekick “The Brain”