Shock: Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson favors marijuana legalization

[blinkisback]

Pat Robertson....

Pat Robertson....

Maybe you like him, maybe you don't. Personally, I don't have any opinion either way. However, he's got the right point of view when it comes to the herb... Blink

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/24/pat-robertson-stirs-pot-marijuana-laws/?test=latestnews

 

[Hydrosun]

quote/link or it didn't happen

Do we really need to link to all the CO / HI / CA / OR / WA / NV etal. busts? There are DOZENS of DEA busts linked to in various threads.

Eric Holder is a political animal that could care less about state laws. His injustice department is and has been prosecuting MMJ growers and users.

The CO guy who was DENIED a fair trial and FORBIDDEN from entering into evidence DOJ's own memo RE: non prosecution of state legal operations; is one of the greatest examples of the current administration's hypocrisy.

But please don't say it doesn't happen. Easy enough to put dozens of links here, but that would just take away from this great news about the 700 club.

For what it is worth, "National Review's" long time editor William F. Buckley was way ahead of the "Conservatives" on this one.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Do we really need to link to all the CO / HI / CA / OR / WA / NV etal. busts? There are DOZENS of DEA busts linked to in various threads.

AG didn't say JD wouldn't bust anybody. AG said JD wouldn't go after people who don't break their respective state law. AG didn't note federal law because it's status remained unchanged.

It's important to note there are two potential law-breaking scenarios here. One could break state law (and possibly be subject to the feds) and/or one can break fed law (and definitely be subject to the feds.)

The previous JD didn't recognize state reform laws. The current one does.

Eric Holder is a political animal that could care less about state laws.

You're welcome to your opinion. I'm afraid the facts aren't on your side.

His injustice department is and has been prosecuting MMJ growers and users.

AG never said he wouldn't prosecute. You're applying your own parameters, not the AG's.

That's why I invite you or others to establish facts. You know, dates, quotes, actions and most of all, factual details that support your opinion. News, not editorial. Lots of peeps trying to disguise opinion as news these days.

The CO guy who was DENIED a fair trial

subjective

and FORBIDDEN from entering into evidence DOJ's own memo RE: non prosecution of state legal operations;

link? Are you a lawyer? Are you prepared to explain why denial was illegal?

But please don't say it doesn't happen. Easy enough to put dozens of links here, but that would just take away from this great news about the 700 club.

One would gather that "link" brings factual information, not pre-digested, talk-host opinion.

For what it is worth, "National Review's" long time editor William F. Buckley was way ahead of the "Conservatives" on this one.

 

[Hydrosun]

If in compliance with state law DO NOT PROSECUTE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL: Isn't that the gist of the memo and what you claim is the JD current operating guidelines?

If so why this action in CO?

http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2010/10/20/D9IVL19G0_us_busting_pot_growers/index.html

...Bartkowicz has changed his plea before. He first changed his plea to not guilty in April and asked the judge to let him use Colorado's 2000 constitutional amendment allowing medical marijuana rules in his defense.

"I felt I was following state law," Bartkowicz told U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer last month.

Prosecutors asked the federal court to block Bartkowicz from using Colorado's medical marijuana law in his defense. The judge agreed, rejecting Bartkowicz's attempt to set up a federal-state showdown on medical marijuana rules.



So they don't bust you if you are with in state rules, but you can't enter any evidence that shows you in state compliance?

Have you ever heard of Orwellian DoubleSpeak?

Neither of us are entitled to our own facts, but we are allowed our own opinions of those facts. I respect your very civil and intellectual response to my VERY conclusory first post.


Quotes from the JUDGE like this:

"Brimmer chided Bartkowicz for believing that recent memos by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and another Justice official gave him permission to grow large amounts of pot in his basement without fearing federal prosecution."

Are on point to my earlier assertion about Holder and the JD. And that in this case the JUDGE was biased towards the prosecution. The fascist judge didn't think it was enough that the guy face FEDERAL PROSECUTION, but he took it further to BAR this guys defenses on:

(A) Reliance on JD memos stating no federal prosecution unless OUTSIDE of state law.

(B) Compliance with CO MMJ laws, and a chance that the FEDERAL jury would nullify because of their PERSONAL beliefs' in CO MMJ (or (A) above).

I think denying this grower his choice of defense is immoral, unconstitutional, a betrayal of the rule of law, as well as an attack on the LIBERTIES of all people. That is just my opinion others see the government's actions differently.

If we are innocent until proven guilty we are entitled to EVERY conceivable defense. I believe that this is the PURPORTED American criminal standard under the US Constitution. I know for certain that it is not the standard in fascists states. In my opinion disrespecting the constitution and the rule of law disrespects all of us. This is not what America is supposed to be.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hydrosun, I appreciate your information. You contribute positive discussion, even if we have a difference of opinion. I like Salon, I see the owner on cable news and respect her integrity. It's just that facets of the article aren't detailed enough to conclude AG is a hypocrite.

First, (correct me if I'm wrong) 100 plants can land federal charges. The grower had 200.

Does CO allow med patients 200 plants at a time?

Does CO allow med providers 200 plants at a time?

Did the grower qualify as a patient and/or caregiver in CO?

The Salon article doesn't elaborate.

This is just my opinion but the (possibly illegal) grower shouldn't have pressed his luck on television. If he's not compliant, he's sending the message that anybody can do what he's doing, basically daring JD in the process. I'm surprised we haven't heard whether the state of CO defends state compliance in this case.

IMO, the most definitive part of the Salon article is where the grower states he thought he was compliant, after he initially plead guilty. Why would a compliant patient and/or caregiver plead guilt, then reference a 2000 state law (he should have been aware of had he been compliant?)

I'm not trying to get you to like Holder, I'm just suggesting he's more tolerant than the previous three attorney's general. He's the only AG to date that public stated he recognizes state mmj laws.

IMO, reneging on his statement will be big news that's dissected into nausea-inducing proportions. The Salon article just doesn't elaborate enough to get that kind of media scrutiny started.

 

[Hydrosun]

One plant can get you federal charges, that is the federal law. 100 or more can get the the mandatory minimum 5 year sentence to federal prision.

I am unclear on CO plant counts but CA in the Kelly decision said that is a medical call between Dr. and patient.

Don't know all the info, but believe that he had a recommendation for this herb from a CO Md. These are questions of state law and fact. The huge problem here is that the FEDS took action AFTER they stated PUBLICLY that they would DEFER to state MMJ laws.

I agree 100% about not showing off plants and thumbing your nose at the man, so I completely understand the prosecution; however that doesn't change my opinion of the judge my perception of a denial of a fair trial to a person protected by the US Constitution.

I think Salon just reposted an AP wire story and they aren't always correct; but I have no reason to doubt this story or outcome especially because it was covered heavily on TV (CNBC Marijuana Inc. and other places).

As to why defendants make bad choices it is anyones guess, flip flopping the plea doesn't sound smart; however I still want the guy to have his day in court in front of his peers from CO. If they laughed at his defense that is one thing but for the government to deny a defense in an area that is UNQUESTIONABLY grey is a betrayal of human rights.

I will back off on some of my vehemence against the AG and agree that he is leaps and bounds better than many of his predecessors. The though of their names is enough to make me cringe. But calling him or any Presidential appointed AG a "Political Animal" is too easy a shot, of course they are political or they could never rise to consideration.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

AG and JD are supposed to be free and clear of presidential politics, just as our (appointed) members of the Judiciary. Tricky Dick Nixon resigned in hopes his own JD wouldn't prosecute. He gambled and won. It took Ford to pardon and Ford paid the price. Politics in justice doesn't belong.

 

[Baba Ku]

Just a couple of things to think about as the shit gets slung....
Over 80% of the citizens of the USA represent themselves as Christians. What percentage of Americans would be secular? We need to first factor in all the other religious affiliations that would be within the 20% non-christian groups, and what we would have left would be the secular people within our society. Anyone with even the simplest set of math skills can get some perspective of things here....

And just where is it in any Christian doctrines to be against pot? Just where is this preached? Where do we find pamphlets put out by Christian groups advocating for marijuana prosecutions/persecutions?

Also, I ask the same questions about Conservatives....just where is it that the conservative movement has included the prosecution of pot possession in their platform? Who is on the stump against pot? Just what conservatives voice their opposition to pot?

Perhaps some of the nasty things that get said are spawn from peoples simple minds, rather than what is in line with factual information? Could it be that our own misguided bias is part of the problem? Bias that many claim their opposition practices?

In closing, did you do the math? Do you understand what a very small and meaningless minority you are a part of? Oh, I know you feel that in your mind you are probably in a vast majority...but guess what....


*I needed to add this...
The problem with Eric Holder is that he is completely inept as an AG. The guy really doesn't have the sense to rub two coins together. I give zero credence to anything he does or says, simply because he is a numbskull that has been placed in a very important position by those who are equally inept and lacking resume.
He fits right in with the rest of this buffoon troop....including the security guy that had to be briefed on the worlds terror attacks by Diane Sawyer. The whole administration is a disgrace to our Nation.

You want to win the war? Get on the right side of things and make a change.
To think that we are ever going to be championed by the secular left is silly. Besides, the numbers just don't pan out. Kinda like Liechtenstein going into battle against the Russians.

 

[Baba Ku]

AG and JD are supposed to be free and clear of presidential politics, just as our (appointed) members of the Judiciary. Tricky Dick Nixon resigned in hopes his own JD wouldn't prosecute. He gambled and won. It took Ford to pardon and Ford paid the price. Politics in justice doesn't belong.

Yeah...bullshit.
Eric Holder went into congressional hearings without even reading the first word of the Arizona immigration law, and admitted as such. Yet his first move was to file suit against the state. Now, was he simply being impatial and removed from politics? Please, save that sillyness for somone who may buy it...lol... they guy is inept and it's apparent...apparent to those who do not wear rose colored glasses and have a rectal resting place for their head.

(ah but he does fit right in, yes? I mean he is clean cut, and well spoken...lacking the negro dialect, yes?)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just a couple of things to think about as the shit gets slung....

Last time I checked, not any shit being slung in here Ku. Is that why you popped up?

Over 80% of the citizens of the USA represent themselves as Christians. What percentage of Americans would be secular? We need to first factor in all the other religious affiliations that would be within the 20% non-christian groups, and what we would have left would be the secular people within our society. Anyone with even the simplest set of math skills can get some perspective of things here....

Yep, you've yet to make a point. 80% Christian huh? Sounds a bit high.

And just where is it in any Christian doctrines to be against pot? Just where is this preached? Where do we find pamphlets put out by Christian groups advocating for marijuana prosecutions/persecutions?

Nobody's arguing demographics. Some of us poke fun at Pat because he makes bigoted remarks. Religious bigotry is a twice bitter pill.

Also, I ask the same questions about Conservatives....just where is it that the conservative movement has included the prosecution of pot possession in their platform? Who is on the stump against pot? Just what conservatives voice their opposition to pot?

G
o
o
g
l
e

Perhaps some of the nasty things that get said are spawn from peoples simple minds, rather than what is in line with factual information? Could it be that our own misguided bias is part of the problem? Bias that many claim their opposition practices?

In closing, did you do the math? Do you understand what a very small and meaningless minority you are a part of? Oh, I know you feel that in your mind you are probably in a vast majority...but guess what....

*I needed to add this...
The problem with Eric Holder is that he is completely inept as an AG. The guy really doesn't have the sense to rub two coins together. I give zero credence to anything he does or says, simply because he is a numbskull that has been placed in a very important position by those who are equally inept and lacking resume.
He fits right in with the rest of this buffoon troop....including the security guy that had to be briefed on the worlds terror attacks by Diane Sawyer. The whole administration is a disgrace to our Nation.

I don't care what your political leanings are.

You want to win the war? Get on the right side of things and make a change.
To think that we are ever going to be championed by the secular left is silly. Besides, the numbers just don't pan out. Kinda like Liechtenstein going into battle against the Russians.

Let's get you on page, Ku...

Most everybody was taken aback when Pat pulled a hip shot on mj. Some of us poked a little fun. Mostly over his past, bigoted remarks. Bottom line, his acceptance is seen as mostly positive. In other words, I'm not a Pat fan but I'm cool with his recent remarks regarding weed.

We haven't been arguing left-right politics. We've had a few AG comments where citation was invited, but nothing like your tired left/right squabble. I don't care if somebody wants to believe something they don't reference. If their opinion kicks in before I make mine, it's their prerogative.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I am unclear on CO plant counts but CA in the Kelly decision said that is a medical call between Dr. and patient.

Your article says two hundred plants. I'm not sure that Cali law sets precedent in CO.

Don't know all the info, but believe that he had a recommendation for this herb from a CO Md. These are questions of state law and fact.

Yeah, I remember he said he believed he was in compliance after he first plead guilty. Whether it's fact or not wasn't revealed in your article. Obviously you feel differently.

The huge problem here is that the FEDS took action AFTER they stated PUBLICLY that they would DEFER to state MMJ laws.

I think we're back to who's on first.

I agree 100% about not showing off plants and thumbing your nose at the man, so I completely understand the prosecution; however that doesn't change my opinion of the judge my perception of a denial of a fair trial to a person protected by the US Constitution.

Denial of strategy, witness and or item etc isn't of itself unconstitutional. A judge determined based on (so far) undisclosed criteria. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I think Salon just reposted an AP wire story and they aren't always correct; but I have no reason to doubt this story or outcome especially because it was covered heavily on TV (CNBC Marijuana Inc. and other places).

I'll keep me eye open.

As to why defendants make bad choices it is anyones guess, flip flopping the plea doesn't sound smart; however I still want the guy to have his day in court in front of his peers from CO. If they laughed at his defense that is one thing but for the government to deny a defense in an area that is UNQUESTIONABLY grey is a betrayal of human rights.

With all due respect, these are lawyers following written law, augmented by AG, interpreted by judges and we don't have all the facts. Sorry if I don't sound like I'm about to follow your argument.

Human rights isn't a arguable defense in US courts. We're based on constitutional and civil rights. But the grower will get his day in court amongst his piers, albeit federal.

EDIT*** Human traffickers (could) get "human rights violation(s)" charges in US.

I will back off on some of my vehemence against the AG and agree that he is leaps and bounds better than many of his predecessors. The though of their names is enough to make me cringe. But calling him or any Presidential appointed AG a "Political Animal" is too easy a shot, of course they are political or they could never rise to consideration.

You're welcome to your take on the AG, whatever it is. I'm just curious enough to look for evidence before I make a call myself. If you feel it's already been established, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree. Peace bro.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah...bullshit.
Eric Holder went into congressional hearings without even reading the first word of the Arizona immigration law, and admitted as such. Yet his first move was to file suit against the state. Now, was he simply being impatial and removed from politics?

You know, I made a general comment that JD and appointed judges aren't supposed to be overtly political. But now that you mention it, this thread is about Pat Robertson's weed epiphany.

Please, save that sillyness for somone who may buy it...lol... they guy is inept and it's apparent...apparent to those who do not wear rose colored glasses and have a rectal resting place for their head.

(ah but he does fit right in, yes? I mean he is clean cut, and well spoken...lacking the negro dialect, yes?)

Please save the useless drivel for the mirror. You remind me of hoosierdoodoo. All opinion and the least facts in da house. All political too...


Nobody cared but apparently he thought different. Don't waste your time making personal cracks either. I've already seen you get close to tossed from another thread and thought I'd save you the trouble.

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

I watched cable news tonight (Maddow) and Robertson's doin' the walk back. A spokesperson said Pat wants decrim, not legalization.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...JUANA?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Broadcaster Pat Robertson questions harsh pot laws
By STEVE SZKOTAK
Associated Press


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson told his "700 Club" audience that harsh penalties for marijuana possession are costly for the nation and damaging to young people, but a spokesman said Thursday he was not calling for decriminalizing pot.


Robertson, 80, made the comments on the Christian Broadcasting Network in the context of faith-based approaches to treating offenders, the spokesman said.
"Dr. Robertson unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," Chris Roslan wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.


The comments, however, were widely interpreted on several websites as an endorsement by the Christian Coalition founder of legalizing marijuana. They were celebrated by NORML, a group that advocates legalization of the drug.


On its website, NORML posted a link to Robertson's comments under the headline: "Holy Hemp! Pat Robertson Supports Ending Cannabis Prohibition In An Effort To Get 'Smart On Crime.'"
During the Dec. 16 CBN broadcast from Virginia Beach, Robertson and his co-host discussed what they called the success of religious-based programs to help people with addictions to drugs, including alcohol.


Robertson then lamented long prison terms for people who have "taken a couple puffs of marijuana."
He added, "We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of 'em." Robertson said mandatory drug sentences are promoted by candidates for political office who want to appear tough on crime, compelling judges to sentence offenders to long prison terms. While Robertson said, "I'm not exactly for the use of drugs," he added that criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot is "costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."


Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, said Robertson is among a growing number of libertarians and "right-of-center" public figures who agree the nation's drug laws treat marijuana possession too harshly. "We don't care how people arrive at the conclusion that prohibition is a failure," he said. "They're acknowledging there are alternatives to lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key solutions." Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said Robertson's comments on marijuana are important because of his audience.
"The people who are listening to him may roll their eyes when the Democrats say this, but when Pat Robertson says this he has credibility in the faith community." The Drug Policy Alliance advocates for lighter drug punishments.
Roslan said Robertson advocated a review of the "severity" of existing laws and the millions spent on incarceration "when there are better approaches available."


Robertson regularly stirs controversy on the "700 Club," which began broadcasting in 1966 and now claims 1 million viewers daily.
In January, Robertson said one day after Haiti was devastated by an earthquake that the island nation was "cursed" and has called Islam a "religion of hate."

 

[Baba Ku]

Seems you like to break everything up into a line or two. Do you have trouble putting your thoughts all together in coherent paragraphs? Folks who use this style often take things said by people out of their original context and use them in their own special way.

Shit was being slung from the beginning....or do you turn a blind eye to disparaging remarks when they are directed at those you also loathe?

Remember the numbers, pal. Math...it exposes lots of things. It brings light to things some were simply blind to, and puts the truly insignificant in it's place.

Also, your debating style suck balls. Really very irritating to debate an out-of-contexter such as yourself. I mean this one: {"I don't care what your political leanings are.")
It was basically a useless response. I mean, I didn't present my political leanings in the paragraph. Not in the slightest. Oh, sure you may be able to make an assumption, and probably a correct one at that...but it had jack fuck to do with the words in the paragraph. See, that is how you operate...you can't fire back with anything of substance, just one liner quips and snipes...very bitchlike quips and snipes...but I suppose there is nothing wrong with presenting things in a bitchlike manner.

 

[sac beh]

Re: CO plant count issue above

I've heard from a lot of folks in CO that he had that one coming, that he was not in compliance with care-giver plant counts, and thus the federal reaction in this case was nothing unexpected given that its illegal federally and this guy made a raid very likely by announcing himself on the news.

 

[ddrew]

Remember the numbers, pal. Math...it exposes lots of things. It brings light to things some were simply blind to, and puts the truly insignificant in it's place.

Can you show me the "math" that says 80% of Americans are chrsitians?

Also, you remind me quite a bit of Hoosierdaddy, right down to the gatewood riley for KY Governor in your sig.

Is that you hoosier?


P.S. Found the answer myself
"During the 20th century prior to 1990, the popularity of Christianity had been stable in the U.S. About 87% of adults identified themselves as Christians. The country then experienced a major change. Significant numbers of American adults began to disaffiliate themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. By 2008, the percentage of Christians had reached 76% and is continuing its decline"

Sounds like the trend is people bailing on the church in larger numbers every year.
That's the best news I've heard in a while.
I can't wait for the day when they're finally a minority in this country.

 

[Baba Ku]

Yeah, that would be the typical stance of someone that was a part of the vast minority.


What the fuck are you, some sort of detective? A piss poor one if that is the case...lol....
Oh, wait...are you a snitch and think you have something?
Get a fucking grip.

 

[Baba Ku]

Sounds like the trend is people bailing on the church in larger numbers every year.
That's the best news I've heard in a while.
I can't wait for the day when they're finally a minority in this country.

It's not a matter of folks bailing...it's a matter of people like you actually procreate and raise children, all the while bringing them the rare wisdom that apparently only a small minority of people share.
Ever seen bacteria grow?

 

[sac beh]

Over 80% of the citizens of the USA represent themselves as Christians. What percentage of Americans would be secular? We need to first factor in all the other religious affiliations that would be within the 20% non-christian groups, and what we would have left would be the secular people within our society. Anyone with even the simplest set of math skills can get some perspective of things here....

Invoking a Christian majority in this way is a bit of a red herring here, because among people who claim it there are widely diverse views on politics and theology. Those like Robertson and other evangelicals who tend to hold more conservative values tend to be the last holdouts against legalization. While Christians who hold more liberal (not as in politics) values are more easily able to incorporate legalization of cannabis into their worldview.

And just where is it in any Christian doctrines to be against pot? Just where is this preached? Where do we find pamphlets put out by Christian groups advocating for marijuana prosecutions/persecutions?

Of course it isn't a Biblical doctrine, but the prohibition of drug use as with other immoral activities is a doctrine of Christians with leanings toward conservative and literal hermeneutics, wherein a single prohibitory statement overrides other more general sentiments which could contradict the former. But since there is no strict prohibition of cannabis in the Bible, the moral doctrine of prohibition is really a modern invention among certain religious types.

But I guess its all moot now since Robertson's handlers made it clear that we can't interpret his moments of mental clarity as anything diverging from the norm of traditional values, e.g., prohibition. It makes sense, because it would be hard to believe a person with such strong exclusionary views that border on hate and bigotry at times could have the clarity of mind to actually promote legalizing this great plant, unless he's had a more profound conversion experience that effects his whole worldview.

It's not a matter of folks bailing...it's a matter of people like you actually procreate and raise children, all the while bringing them the rare wisdom that apparently only a small minority of people share.

You're an idiot and you're threatening my values by procreating? This is your favorite ad hominem attack isn't it? I've seen the same insult in other threads where you've entered bringing divisiveness.

 

[ddrew]

It's not a matter of folks bailing...it's a matter of people like you actually procreate and raise children, all the while bringing them the rare wisdom that apparently only a small minority of people share.
Ever seen bacteria grow?

I had my doubts about you being hoosier until you started talking like this, and the previous post, and that is 100% angry, bitter hoosier at his best.
Here's one of your old favorites