Not quite a Christmas miracle, put this is a possible herald of change.
Televangelist Pat Robertson has been no friend of liberty, as witnessed by his long history of anti-gay and otherwise defamatory and discrimination-defending remarks. But as the Washington Post reported, he appears on the right side of one hot-button issue: pot criminalization. “We’re locking up people that take a couple of puffs of marijuana, and the next thing you know they’ve got 10 years,” Robertson said on “The 700 Club.” “I’m not exactly for the use of drugs—don’t get me wrong—but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people.”
Vice President Joe Biden was quick to disagree, responding “I think it would be a mistake to legalize.” Hey, if Robertson is for decriminalizing pot, then liberals must be in favor of it, right? As the Daily Caller comments:
The more glaring concern for Biden and Obama is that come 2012, there could be several Republicans running for president who are more progressive on pot. Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson have all expressed support for drastically reforming marijuana laws. (Johnson and Paul are in favor of legalization, Palin said she supports a person’s right to use it in their home.) You also have establishment Republicans and Tea Party groups citing the 10th Amendment argument for repealing health care—the same argument most libertarians cite when calling for the repeal of the Controlled Substances Act and allowing states to legislate their own drug laws.
The Democrats were once the party of slavery; then they became the party of civil rights. The Republicans were once the party of abolition and civil rights, then they became, well, you know. So, what if spurred on by the libertarian-receptive Tea Party movement the GOP would change again, while the Democrats remain committed to ever-more intrusive and expanding state power and government control. I’m not predicting, but rigidly thinking that the parties are frozen and unyielding is not a constructive approach to creating change.
More. Then again, Biden said this about gay marriage, which no leading GOP figure (to date) would. The difference might be that decriminalizing pot has a certain redneck appeal and they’re seen as part of the GOP base, whereas gay marriage is still viewed as lefty and urban (and hence hopelessly Democratic).
Also, at what point will Obama and Biden stop struggling over and “evolving” on gay marriage and openly support marriage equality?
23 Comments for “Stopped Rightwing Clock Gets Time Right”
posted by Jorge on
Perhaps it’s because I don’t remember the crack epidemic, which is probably worse than legalizing marijuana would turn out to be (I’d appreciate if someone could prove me wrong), but I don’t think that would be a good idea. Palin would need to add “as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” to her position, because marijuana does impair you when, for example, you are caring for children, and that’s not acceptable.
Still, if Senator Sessions (the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee) can “do that crack cocaine thing” and “reduce the burdon of penalties in some of the crack cocaine cases”… I think we can take a serious look at how to push more toward rehabilitation than punishment in marijuana cases. I’m sure the state laws are still very uneven. But the dealers can hit the slammer.
posted by PIL on
Jorge, marihuana relaxes people, unlike alcohol, it doesn’t lead to domestic battery, rioting, vandalism, assault, and other crimes. Sure, you have no business driving and smoking pot, but the same can be said of alcohol and plenty of people drive drunk and make it home alive.
We need to become a more libertarian society, we have got to stop protecting people from themselves.
One of the reasons I hate Obamacare and public health insurance is that it leads to regulating private behavior. My own uncle, a doctor, admits that people of a certain age have no businesss getting a heart transplant. Excuse me? I’d rather have a private HMO and tell my doctor “yes, I want a transplant, I want to live” than to have some federal bureucrat making that decision for me.
Government involvement doesn’t help anyone, read my article about how mandatory physical education turned me against sports and exercize for many years.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-physical-education-should-never-be.html
posted by Jimmy on
“Excuse me? I’d rather have a private HMO and tell my doctor “yes, I want a transplant, I want to live” than to have some federal bureucrat making that decision for me.”
If you are willing to pay for it, you can get anything you want. Public healthcare doesn’t change that fact. There is a global marketplace for any surgery out there.
Buy supplemental insurance for Cadillac coverage. There is a marketplace for that.
posted by BobN on
I’d rather have a private HMO and tell my doctor “yes, I want a transplant, I want to live” than to have some federal bureucrat making that decision for me.
If you think you can tell your HMO to do what you want, you’ve been deeply misled.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, marihuana relaxes people, unlike alcohol, it doesn’t lead to domestic battery, rioting, vandalism, assault, and other crimes.
No, it just leads to spacing out, having sex with strange men, moving “boyfriends” into your home after knowing them for a month, and not buying food because you’re too busy getting high to care about life, all while you have kids. Save rioting, that’s all of the above. Oh, and if you’re too busy getting high to attend to other people or care about being a better person, marijuana can lead pretty directly to domestic violence and child abuse, too. Marijuana doesn’t do this as much as other drugs, but I reject your assumption entirely, with reason.
We need to become a more libertarian society, we have got to stop protecting people from themselves.
We should never stop protecting people from others. If you smoke pot and you have kids, you are hurting your kids, and they deserve for you to be made to stop.
Sure, you have no business driving and smoking pot, but the same can be said of alcohol and plenty of people drive drunk and make it home alive.
Okay, I’m never getting into a car with you.
posted by Jimmy on
“…and not buying food because you’re too busy getting high to care about life,”
You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
“If you smoke pot and you have kids, you are hurting your kids, and they deserve for you to be made to stop.”
That is your opinion, not objective fact.
posted by Jorge on
BobN, I work in child protective services. I know what I’m talking about. When I equivocate on an issue I have strong opinions about, I have a good reason for it–on both sides.
I have encountered plenty of intact, perfectly healthy and stable families who had no business being involved with my agency. None of them smoked pot. The only one I’d count as a maybe was the medical marijuana family. I’ve met quite a few “good enough” families that smoked pot–there’s definitely something wrong, but there’s something strong holding everything together. But most of the families I’ve met where an adult smokes pot, there’s problems in that household, and it’s the children who suffer.
With most other hard drugs like heroin and cocaine the problems are impossible to ignore. With marijuana the problems usually seem more workable.
posted by Jorge on
Sorry, I get you two mixed up sometimes.
posted by Jimmy on
You don’t identify which problems are present, and whether they have anything to do with weed that legalization would not mitigate, ameliorate, or whatever. Would the same problems be there, with or without weed in the picture?
posted by BobN on
That wouldn’t happen if you’d put down the bong…
posted by PIL on
“No, it just leads to spacing out, having sex with strange men,”
—-I don’t need pot to have sex with strange men. I only need a place, a time, an internet connection, and a horndog.
“moving “boyfriends” into your home after knowing them for a month, and not buying food because you’re too busy getting high to care about life, all while you have kids.”
—So we’re gonna make drug policy based on drug abusers? That’s like banning alcohol to prevent alcoholism.
“marijuana can lead pretty directly to domestic violence and child abuse, too. Marijuana doesn’t do this as much as other drugs, but I reject your assumption entirely, with reason.”
—Child abuse in the form of giving pot to a baby? Sure, I saw that on The O’ Factor. But domestic violence? When have you seen a violent pothead? Besides, someone who’s gonna do evil doesn’t need pot to do it.
“We should never stop protecting people from others. If you smoke pot and you have kids, you are hurting your kids, and they deserve for you to be made to stop.”
—So you think the kids of an ocassional pot smoker should be removed and placed in an institution where they might get molested by their caretakers and beat up by bullies?
“Okay, I’m never getting into a car with you.”
—Funny, I have a perfect driving record, no speeding tickets, and have only driven a bit drunk twice. You’d be safer with me than with your average NYC taxi driver. LOL
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com
posted by Jorge on
—So we’re gonna make drug policy based on drug abusers? That’s like banning alcohol to prevent alcoholism.
That’s why we banned alcohol and most other drugs in the first place.
Child abuse in the form of giving pot to a baby?
No, I mean child abuse in the form of beating your child because you’re sick of him misbehaving to get your attention because you’re too high to pay attention to him.
But domestic violence? When have you seen a violent pothead?
Let’s see, there was the DV pothead and the pothead he beat, the pothead who liked to punch the kid, the other pothead who liked to punch the kid, beat up the mother, and was violent (not his kid in either case BTW), the pothead who suffered a fracture and got sent to the ER, the pothead who got kicked out of her boyfriend’s home (can’t prove it, but…), the teenage pothead who got beat, the teenage pothead who beat up his parents (although that wasn’t the reason)… I’m tired I’m taking a break.
So you think the kids of an ocassional pot smoker should be removed and placed in an institution where they might get molested by their caretakers and beat up by bullies?
No. But they do deserve for their parents to be made to stop.
Funny, I have a perfect driving record, no speeding tickets, and have only driven a bit drunk twice.
That’s not a perfect driving record.
posted by PIL on
“That’s why we banned alcohol and most other drugs in the first place.”
—Prohibition was repealed, it didn’t work, it created more crime, more alcohol abuse, and more death. The other drugs were banned due to hysteria and racism, for example, it was thought that blacks doing drugs were raping white women. You need to watch more History Channel, my friend.
“No. But they do deserve for their parents to be made to stop.”
—What about tobacco? What about obesity? Where does it end? Some groups think male circumcision is child abuse and want to outlaw it. It seems to me you don’t care about regulation because you haven’t experienced it yourself, well, I hope you never do.
“That’s not a perfect driving record.”
—That IS a perfect driving record, keyword, RECORD. See, if I drive drunk and get away with it, it’s like it never even happened. Nobody knows, there was no accident to report, no crashes, nobody got hurt. So yes, I have a perfect driving record and my car insurance is very low.
posted by Jorge on
—What about tobacco? What about obesity? Where does it end?
You should see some of the cases I get.
It seems to me you don’t care about regulation because you haven’t experienced it yourself, well, I hope you never do.
Ridiculous. You don’t work for the government as a Republican without experiencing mindless regulation and thinking a lot of people deserve to be fired. Your point is still meaningless.
posted by Jorge on
—That IS a perfect driving record, keyword, RECORD. See, if I drive drunk and get away with it, it’s like it never even happened. Nobody knows, there was no accident to report, no crashes, nobody got hurt. So yes, I have a perfect driving record and my car insurance is very low.
Hmm, yeah, I should have responded to this earlier.
I don’t know what to tell you, but by your own words you are an unsafe driver who makes excuses and does not take responsibility for mistakes that could kill other people. You are engaging in a classic logical fallacy of estimating statistical risk based on your own experience–a good example of the perils of Behaviorism. And we see quite clearly that your lax standards in this area carry over into poor modeling and credibility in your leadership on an important issue, and make this world a more dangerous and difficult place to put honor and trust into other people.
posted by Thomas Jefferson on
1. Frankly, I suspect that for most public figures (on the left and right) drug policy is much more then a means to an end (which typically means money and or power). In this case it would seem that some people on the political right are (a) trying to be cooler then they really are for a younger demographic, (b) trying to seem more libertarian than they really are for the libertarian faction that likes to thing it matters. Biden — who I am not sure would be especially liberal — is sitting in the administration and frankly, they do not want to appear ‘soft’ on crime.
posted by Pam on
GetGenerous to GetEQUAL. Please give today, we know the way.
http://www.getequal.com
posted by Jorge on
News flash: you won.
posted by Tom on
Stephen: The difference might be that decriminalizing pot has a certain redneck appeal and they’re seen as part of the GOP base, whereas gay marriage is still viewed as lefty and urban (and hence hopelessly Democratic).
Well, maybe the Republicans could come out in favor of same-sex marriage, but only between first cousins ….
posted by Jorge on
The difference might be that decriminalizing pot has a certain redneck appeal and they’re seen as part of the GOP base, whereas gay marriage is still viewed as lefty and urban (and hence hopelessly Democratic).
My take on Biden’s comment is, first, that he is on record as opposing recognizing same sex marriage, while at the same time affirming the gay rights movement which strives for gay marriage in very supportive tones. So this is absolutely nothing new.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.
Except that anyone watching the debates could see the difference between Biden on one hand and Palin and Obama on the other. He reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton on the issue. I think they both recognize that gay marriage is a civil rights issue in the long tradition of the civil rights movement. Many people have surely said to them, look lots of people were opposed to integration, interracial marriage, and women’s rights. I think they know that this is a cause they are probably on the wrong side of–yet still they stand opposed. That I think is a generational thing.
It would be devestating to hear a firm explanation of why Vice President Biden opposes recognizing gay marriage.
posted by Carl on
Shouldn’t this be more focused on the California voters who recently rejected legalizing marijuana than on Joe Biden, who probably doesn’t really change any policies that weren’t already there?
posted by TomJefferson on
BTW, both major parties were — originally — the parties of slavery. The Republican Party was — briefly — a third party (a coalition of a lot of different groups) that had no problem with slavery (except for a few liberal abolitionists) as long as it stayed out of the new western territories.
posted by Jorge on
BTW, both major parties were — originally — the parties of slavery. The Republican Party was — briefly — a third party (a coalition of a lot of different groups) that had no problem with slavery (except for a few liberal abolitionists) as long as it stayed out of the new western territories.
That was a very radical and controversial position at the time, one that led to armed conflict and death in what was known as Bleeding Kansas.