Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Anchored by Melissa Bell  |  About  |  Get Updates:  Twitter  |   Facebook  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 9:56 AM ET, 12/23/2010

Pat Robertson: supporter of legalized pot?

By Melissa Bell

The 700 Club, a Christian talk show program hosted by staunch conservative Pat Robertson, is not the place you'd expect to find sympathy for the marijuana-legalization movement. But that's exactly what happened this week when Robertson started talking about the need for more faith-based prison rehabilitation.

"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, that kinda thing it's just, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people," Robertson said. "Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."

Robertson's position is not as unusual as you might think. Support for legalizing marijuana has been growing amongst conservatives, who cite legalization as an answer to the "narcoterroism" in Mexico and the overburdened jail system. In October, Newsweek looked at the GOP's relationship to marijuana, saying that although only 25 percent of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana (as compared to 55 percent of Democrats), the number has jumped seven points since 2005. The article credits the influence of the anti-government-intervention Tea Party:

It's becoming increasingly hard for conservative candidates and lawmakers to square libertarian Tea Party catchphrases like "fiscal responsibility" and "limited government" with the government's war on drugs, especially when their constituents might prefer to see a war on joblessness.

Here's what Robertson had to say:

(Via Mediaite)

By Melissa Bell  | December 23, 2010; 9:56 AM ET
Categories:  The Daily Catch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Festivus 2010 for the rest of us: Aggregating your grievances; admiring your feats of strength
Next: Google doodles a huge holiday extravaganza: 5 artists, 250 hours, 17 images

Comments

It is wonderful to see more and more people coming around on the futile and destructive war on drugs. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to imprison people and buy military-grade weaponry for police has not decreased usage at all.

If the Tea Party is truly for limited government, then it should denounce the shameful assault on liberty that is Obama's Drug War.

Posted by: Langway4Eva | December 23, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Let he who is without sin get stoned first.

Posted by: GaryD3 | December 23, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Robertson, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill O'Reilly all favor decriminalizing small amounts of pot but Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer and the Democrats support and continue to fund the laws that keep marijuana possession a criminal offense at the federal level.

Posted by: sambklyn11 | December 23, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Of course Pat Robertson would legalize pot. Given the crazy things he says he has probably been smoking it for years. In all seriousness though he is right. Ruining some young person's life because he or she had a few ounces of pot in their possession does not make sense. Haven't we all done some dumb things in our life?

Posted by: JMATT5 | December 23, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Of course Pat Robertson would legalize pot. Given the crazy things he says he has probably been smoking it for years. In all seriousness though he is right. Ruining some young person's life because he or she had a few ounces of pot in their possession does not make sense. Haven't we all done some dumb things in our life?

Posted by: JMATT5 | December 23, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Robertson is 100% correct.

He might also have noted that the failed war on drugs is what funds our nation's enemies in South America, Mexico, Afghanistan and the war zones known as our inner cities.

Time to stop the madness and allow adults control over their own bodies.

Posted by: SageThrasher | December 23, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with a few bong hits 4 Jesus.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | December 23, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

i would have to say that is the very first time that i have ever heard of pat robertson saying anything that resembled a sane or even lucid statement.

Posted by: John1263 | December 23, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Langway4Eva
Obama's Drug War????
Put down the bong, and slowly step away from the Ghanga...

Posted by: cjbass55 | December 23, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Robertson, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill O'Reilly all favor decriminalizing small amounts of pot but Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer and the Democrats support and continue to fund the laws that keep marijuana possession a criminal offense at the federal level.
________________________
that's because all but Palin have no intention of running for office. There would have to be a lot more "cover" for a democrat to advocate legalization for fear of everyone but Palin (and even she would figure out how to attack) calling them a typical soft on crime democrat.

Posted by: JoeT1 | December 23, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse


I do not care what this goober does, in his world of make-believe. His day is nothing but money and superstition. Reality has nothing to do with it. He blames the natural disaster of New Orleans on sinners, not even thinking about the 100% of all of the world's biggest tornadoes that are inflicted on the Bible Belt.

Why can't we grow out of this terrible adolescent need for some Cosmic Daddy, some Santa for Grownups, who will love and punish us severely, and promise us that we really won't die? Are conservatives really so cowardly? Can they not accept their return to nothingness?

Pathetic.

Posted by: gkam | December 23, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse


I do not care what this goober does, in his world of make-believe. His day is nothing but money and superstition. Reality has nothing to do with it. He blames the natural disaster of New Orleans on sinners, not even thinking about the 100% of all of the world's biggest tornadoes that are inflicted on the Bible Belt.

Why can't we grow out of this terrible adolescent need for some Cosmic Daddy, some Santa for Grownups, who will love and punish us severely, and promise us that we really won't die? Are conservatives really so cowardly? Can they not accept their return to nothingness?

Pathetic.

Posted by: gkam | December 23, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Decriminalizing possession of small amounts will do nothing to solve the problem. It will cause demand to increase while supply, and the legal risk to suppliers remains constant. Any first year economics student will tell you that makes the price go up and make drug trafficking more profitable.

The only rational solution is to make it completely legal, regulating and taxing distribution. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: rhc52 | December 23, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't care if it was legal if people wouldn't smoke and get behind the wheel of a car or truck. Also, if I wouldn't have my insurance rates go up because of cancer related increases due to people smoking pot (studies have shown that it is worse than cigarettes because the smoker purposely holds the smoke in his lungs longer for the effect.) For these reasons, I would probably say legal for medical purposes but not for recreational purposes.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | December 23, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Decriminalizing pot is the only sensible and rational thing to do and ocasionally Pat is rational. Virginia, where he lives, probably does have a hard line and harsh penalties for small amounts of marijuana. Jail time for personal use and possesion is a waste of money and lives. We are prison happy in this country.

Posted by: Sandydayl | December 23, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Pot possession and usage should NEVER have been illegalized in the first place. There are more people in jail solely due to possession and usage. I give it 5-10 years and we'll see it legalized.

Posted by: mjr2k | December 23, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

We have the biggest prison population in the world, which is costing state governments a fortune. It costs $30,000 a year to keep someone in prison. DHS is busy building new federal prisons and turning America into a police state.

Robertson has developed a belief that herbal medicine is healtier than conventional medicine - and legalizing marijuana is a logical progression in his thinking on this subject.

Even Robertson realizes our drug laws are crazy. We waste billions every year on drug enforcement and our drug laws ruin millions of lives + over 30,000 deaths in Mexico.

Posted by: alance | December 23, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't care if it was legal if people wouldn't smoke and get behind the wheel of a car or truck. Also, if I wouldn't have my insurance rates go up because of cancer related increases due to people smoking pot (studies have shown that it is worse than cigarettes because the smoker purposely holds the smoke in his lungs longer for the effect.) For these reasons, I would probably say legal for medical purposes but not for recreational purposes.

Posted by: Georgetowner1
-------------------------
Your post is based on the assumption that a statistically significant greater number of people would start smoking pot just because it is legal. There are, of course, no statistics on that, but I would assume that there would be a corresponding decrease in drinking, which is also costly to society.

I never thought I'd see the day that Pat Robertson, Satan's handmaiden and chief hatemonger, and I would agree on anything. I guess it just shows that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Posted by: xconservative | December 23, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

If the WaPo is going to report on this subject, do you think you could make the distinction between "legalizing" marijuana and "decriminalizing" it? I don't see anywhere in Robertson's comments that he favored "legalizing" it. He's talking about decriminalizing it, ie. you still get a penalty if caught but you don't go to jail. There is no place where marijuana if fully legalized, not even in Amsterdam. So can we get the terminology correct? BTW, decriminalizing it would be a wise move. As Robertson says, too many lives are being ruined over a trivial offense and it's costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Posted by: hozro931 | December 23, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't care if it was legal if people wouldn't smoke and get behind the wheel of a car or truck. Also, if I wouldn't have my insurance rates go up because of cancer related increases due to people smoking pot (studies have shown that it is worse than cigarettes because the smoker purposely holds the smoke in his lungs longer for the effect.) For these reasons, I would probably say legal for medical purposes but not for recreational purposes.
Posted by: Georgetowner1
------------------------------------
By extension, can I also assume you are for the prohibition of alcohol, since people obviously get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car or truck? Are you in favor of prohibition of alcohol and all forms of tobacco since those also cause serious health problems? Please note there are ways to consume marijuana without the harmful side effects of smoking it. Would you then be in favor of recreational legalization?

Posted by: largewu | December 23, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Why would the Wash Post report on such drivel? Robertson doesn't even know what year it is. Look at him. LaLa Land. Needs an interpreter with him.

Posted by: pkbishop1 | December 23, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Please note there are ways to consume marijuana without the harmful side effects of smoking it."
Posted by: largewu

I've heard that boiling the leaves in water and drinking it as a "tea" is an awesome pain reliever. And let's not forget about hash brownies.

Posted by: kdinsd | December 23, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Legalize Pot??!?!?!

What have you been smoking, Pat?????

Oh....never mind....

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | December 23, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

If marijuana were legal, there would be huge benefits for society.

First, since marijuana would be legal to sell, this would take the weed trade out of the hands of criminals and all but eliminate the violence associated with the illegal growing and trade in marijuana. The alcohol prohibition is the PERFECT historical analogy: when booze was illegal, it was in the hands of Capone and his ilk. Before and after, it was and has been controlled by legitimate, regulated corporations that are held legally responsible for the quality of their product. When was the last time you heard of someone from Jack Daniels murdering someone from Jim Beam? When was the last time a rancher was killed by people smuggling in rum from Mexico?

Second, marijuana could be regulated to ensure that it met federal purity and safety standards, thus eliminating the deaths and injuries created by tainted weed.

Third, marijuana could be taxed and make them government some money so instead of wasting BILLIONS in a futile war on drugs that has lasted for decades and has obviously NOT WORKED in stopping people from using weed or we would not be having this discussion.

Legalizing weed does NOT somehow mean that we must tolerate gangs of pot-heads roaming our streets anymore than the fact that alcohol is legal means that we tolerate drunk driving or public intoxication, so don't fall for that false argument of the anti-weed crowd. People would be allowed to use pot responsibly, like alcohol, but would be punished if they abuse it and it leads them into anti-social or dangerous behavior, again JUST LIKE ALCOHOL!

Next they'll tell you that weed is a 'gate-way' drug that leads users to try harder drug. Another false argument! If someone uses heroin, of course they've probably used weed before. Thanks to the UTTER FAILURE of the current policy to stem the trade in marijuana, pot is universally available and nearly everyone tries it. Most people who use pot NEVER go on to other drugs. Furthermore, chance are that anyone who uses coke, meth or heroin probably tried caffeine, tobacco and/or alcohol before they tried one of those: does that mean that coffee, cigarettes and beer must somehow lead inexorable to heroin and meth?

Weed has been proscribed for over eighty years and millions upon millions STILL smoke it. There is NOT ONE good reason to continue this ridiculous prohibition and myriad reasons to lift it. I submit that it is time to reexamine our policy at its very root, time to stop doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result!

Posted by: andrew23boyle | December 23, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles, quite clearly, ARE:

1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
5) Fiscal responsibility.

Prohibition is actually an authoritarian War on the Constitution and all civic institutions of our great nation.

It's all about the market and cost/benefit analysis. Whether any particular drug is good, bad, or otherwise is irrelevant! As long as there is demand for any mind altering substance, there will be supply; the end! The only affect prohibiting it has is to drive the price up, increase the costs and profits, and where there is illegal profit to be made criminals and terrorists thrive.

The cost of criminalizing citizens who are using substances no more harmful than similar things that are perfectly legal like alcohol and tobacco, is not only hypocritical and futile, but also simply not worth the incredible damage it does.

Afghani farmers produce approx. 93% of the world's opium which is then, mostly, refined into street heroin then smuggled throughout Eastern and Western Europe.

Both the Taliban and the terrorists of al Qaeda derive their main income from the prohibition-inflated value of this very easily grown crop, which means that Prohibition is the "Goose that laid the golden egg" and the lifeblood of terrorists as well as drug cartels. Only those opposed, or willing to ignore this fact, want things the way they are.

See: How opium profits the Taliban: http://tinyurl.com/37mr86k

or: A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF NARCOTICS-FUNDED TERRORIST GROUPS
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/NarcsFundedTerrs_Extrems.pdf

Prohibition provides America's sworn enemies with financial "aid" and tactical "comforts". The Constitution of the United States of America defines treason as:
"Article III / Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Support for prohibition is therefor an act of treason against the Constitution, and a dire threat to the nation's civic institutions.

The Founding Fathers were not social conservatives who believed that citizens should be subordinate to any particular narrow religious moral order. That is what the whole concept of unalienable individual rights means, and sumptuary laws, especially in the form of prohibition, were something they continually warned about.

It is way past time for us all to wise up and help curtail the dangerous expansions of federal police powers, the encroachments on individual liberties, and the increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the unworkable and dangerous policy of drug prohibition.

To support prohibition you have to be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

Posted by: malcolmkyle | December 23, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Bill Buckley (the conservative intellectual icon) was in favor of this years ago. When Pres. Nixon created a commission of experts to report on marijuana they recommended decriminalizing. Of course Nixon instead launched the most costly and ineffective war in US history, the war on drugs.

Legalization is the right thing to do on many levels. The Dems are VERY wrong on this one.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | December 23, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Careful now...the NRA and the gun lobby would rather it stay the way it is. they need the laws to continue selling to both sides, cops and crooks.

Posted by: sherlockjt | December 23, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Don't distort what he said. He didn't say legalize and he didn't even say decriminalize. He did say sentences are too harsh and people shouldn't be sent to jail for possessing small amounts.

It's significant enough without people exaggerating what he said.

It's evidence of the sea change happening in public opinion over this issue. Pot will be legal in California within 2-3 years.

Posted by: tboyer33 | December 23, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I NEVER thought I would find myself agreeing with Pat Robertson. I guess there's a first time for everything.

Posted by: jeff20 | December 23, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I NEVER thought I would find myself agreeing with Pat Robertson. I guess there's a first time for everything.

Posted by: jeff20 | December 23, 2010 3:34 PM


_____________________________________________

You didnt:) He agreed with the rest of us :P

Posted by: Xanadrew | December 23, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

This is how much I trust Pat: Imagine floating this proposal only to get a good fix on the individuals and groups who support decriminalizing pot. Then turn around and withdraw support for this decriminalization and you're left with a long list of pro-dopers to ostracize, belittle and investigate.

Posted by: citizen625 | December 23, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Like his good friend and former student Virginia Gov. Bob McFalwell, Robertson will say anything for attention.

Posted by: clitteigh | December 23, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think all marijuana use should be legal (for adults). Not just decriminalized, but legal. If someone can drink, smoke cigarettes, or engage in any number of risky activities, then smoking a joint should not land one in jail. Let's put the cartels out of business.

Posted by: smc91 | December 23, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Of course he would be in favor of legalizing pot. Pot is good for propaganda. Short term memory loss is good for propaganda. Pot conditions the psyche to short term memory loss. He's and the evangelicals are full time 100% propagandists.

Posted by: glenmayne | December 23, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

How ironic, given that goofball Robertson has obviously been smoking wacky weed of some sort, for a looooooong time.

Posted by: 809212876 | December 23, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Of course it should be legalized. But it doesn't need your validation or freaky opinion, FREAKAZOID FUNDY!

Posted by: johng1 | December 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, I know folks who found God when they quit drinking and switched to marijuana. Of course, their God is way nicer than the one that Mr. Robertson worships.

But I'll give credit where it's due. That was a righteous statement Mr. Robertson.

Posted by: karlmarx2 | December 23, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

God, its about time.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 23, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Georgetowner1: There is no evidence that marijuana causes cancer or emphysema. If you want to look into this, a good place to start is with the name Donald Tashkin. He started out expecting that it did cause cancer, so he was able to get funding from the feds, but his study did not show a link, and he now thinks there is something in cannabis that counteracts the harmful effects of smoking it.

We need a safer alternative substance to alcohol badly, for those who can't handle alcohol, or have a family history that makes alcohol use risky for them, and cannabis is the safer alternative. We can live with cannabis.

Posted by: newageblues | December 23, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I would say this in my life...But I def agree with Pat Robertson on this issue....

Posted by: yeayea911 | December 23, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Pat Robertson is a nut case and not even the dumbest repubs pay any attention to him. However he claims no repub can get voted into any office without going through his office. WOW

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | December 23, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Pat Robertson also considered opium......

......but then said to himself "Wait, I already have Religion for that!"

I simply cannot believe Rev. Robertson can be sympathetic or logical. There must be something else behind this.

Posted by: kishorgala | December 23, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow, hell has frozen over - I agree with Robertson about something.

To all the posters who agree with Robertson but dismiss the significance of his remarks I say it is significant because religious conservatives are the biggest opponents of relaxing marijuana laws. If this is indicative of a trend then it means one of the last bastions for strict marijuana laws is fading, which is good news for absolutely everything.

Posted by: cjpotter19 | December 23, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use, among all echelons of society, is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.

By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus the allure of this reliable and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.

There is therefore an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're using something far stronger than the rest of us. So put away your pipe, lock yourself away in a small room with some tinned soup and water, and try to crawl back into reality A.S.A.P.

Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

If you support the Kool-Aid mass suicide cult of prohibition, and erroneously believe that you can win a war without logic and practical solutions, then prepare yourself for even more death, tortured corpses, corruption, terrorism, sickness, imprisonment, economic tribulation, unemployment and the complete loss of the rule of law.

"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
Abraham Lincoln

The only thing prohibition successfully does is prohibit regulation & taxation while turning even our schools and prisons into black markets for drugs. Regulation would mean the opposite!

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

Posted by: malcolmkyle | December 24, 2010 5:38 AM | Report abuse

Georgetowner1 regurgitated: "I wouldn't care if it was legal if people wouldn't smoke and get behind the wheel blah, blah, blah...my insurance rates go up because of cancer...blah, blah, blah...smoking pot (studies have shown blah, blah, blah)...that it is worse than cigarettes because blah, blah, blah...the smoker purposely blah, blah, blah."
-------------------------------------------
Well there's 2 standard issue Know Nothing prohibitionist straw men fallacies. Let's beat the stuffing out of both, shall we? I do so enjoy beating up other people's straw men.

1) There is no one arguing that driving while impaired is a good idea or should be condoned. Would you like to see driving while impaired be rewritten and become a felony with a minimum prison term of 5 year? Make up the petition to send to the lawmakers and I'll sign it. I think anyone driving while impaired is a committing much more serious crime than how it's treated.

Your being in favor of punishing people for what you are worried that they **might** do is morally bankrupt. I enjoy cannabis from time to time and you won't find me ever driving while impaired because I enjoy being alive and able to walk. No one in my peer group that enjoy cannabis will go out driving while impaired for similar reasons. How in the world can anyone reasonably call arresting me because someone else chooses to drive while impaired as just? It's not just, and it is simply immoral.

It's asinine to believe that there is a large cohort of people who have so much respect for the law that they won't get high on cannabis until it's legal. If allowed to enjoy cannabis legally, these same law respecting people will promptly transmogrify into scofflaws and go out driving while impaired. That assertion is absurd on its face.

It is totally without basis to believe that such a sober cohort exists because of not wanting to break the law. It wouldn't be unreasonable to state that there is a large cohort of people who choose to use drinking alcohol or sniff model airplane glue instead of cannabis because they don't want to break the law.

It's a well proven fact that the people who like to get high like to get high.

For a moment let's assume, arguendo, that there would be a statistically significant increase in the number of people who go out driving after enjoying some cannabis. This is not in an of itself a cause for concern. The true concern is the source of these people. If any Tom, Dick, and Harry J. Anslinger would have been drunk on drinking alcohol and/or high on Sominex and gone out driving while impaired but instead decide to enjoy cannabis and then drive it is at worst a lateral move from a societal point of view. It's the sum total of all instances of driving while impaired that is the valid issue. Impaired is impaired.

It is not reasonable to presume that anyone and everyone who gets high will go out driving while impaired.

Posted by: bpayne2 | December 24, 2010 6:04 AM | Report abuse

Smoking is bad mmm-kay?

Straw man #2:

let me note that I believe that anyone who thinks smoking is required to consume cannabis doesn't have even a loose grasp of the basic fundamentals of this subject and shouldn't be posting their uneducated speculations.

Vaporizers have been proven to be safe in peer reviewed studies published earlier this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the area of non-smoked routes of cannabis administration, Dr. Donald Abrams’ study, “Vaporization as a ‘Smokeless’ Cannabis Delivery System,” has been completed and the results published in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. This study found that vaporization was a safe and effective
mode of delivery. Two CMCR clinical trials are now in progress utilizing vaporization.

That's from page 11 of http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other non-smoking delivery methods include:

various edibles (category includes bhang)

sublingual tinctures

topical salves

transdermal patches

suppositories

Just like the guy who went to his doctor and complained of extreme pain every time he put his hands straight up like an NFL referee signaling a touchdown. The doctor told him, "just don't do that" Problem solved.

Posted by: bpayne2 | December 24, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

The "causes cancer" straw man was beaten to a pulp in 2006 when Dr Donald Tashkin, formerly the official quack of the ONDCP released a study that showed that if cannabis does anything regarding cancer is to make it less likely in cannabis smokers. I don't know why the Know Nothings insist on propping up this particular straw man. He's quite dead. He is not pining for the fjords.

"Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection"
from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

Posted by: bpayne2 | December 24, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Joe Biden on Pot

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Q4XTbNoXs6M/TRSt0ZonT1I/AAAAAAAACNI/LR_jMUJqlTM/s1600/bidenpot.jpg

Posted by: daestradapalma | December 24, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company