Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol because the government’s war on drugs has failed.

The outspoken evangelical Christian and host of “The 700 Club” on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network he founded said the war on drugs is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. He said people should not be sent to prison for marijuana possession.


Actually, this explains a lot…

Of course pot should be legal if alcohol is. At least pot is natural and non-addictive.

The war on drugs is a joke.

The most abused drugs in the US are prescription.

Non-addictive. Well, you won’t physically go through something like you would coming off alcohol or heroin, but psychologically, it is very addictive.

No more than coffee (actually less), and definitely less than nicotine.

Anything can be psychologically addictive, including the internet. :wink:

All of this coming from the same man who said it was OK to divorce a spouse with alzheimers.

Go figure.

It can be, depending on the situation.

Better benefits for the care of the spouse? Divorce can be done.


Divorce is not annulment in the Sacrament of Marriage.

Divorce is a civil issue.

Actually, I agree. I also say ALL drugs should legal…cocaine, speed, all of them. I have never used them, and never will…but, here is my reason:

People who will use them will use them whether legal or not.

If legalized, you could tax the **** out of them (helps our deficit) if legalized, the war would go away, the gangs in this country and in Mexico and Central America would dry up.

Killings would go down and tax revenue would go up.

A very interesting stance from the article is how the Focus on the Family group states they are staunchly opposed to Medical or Recreational use of Marijuana. There are countless stories out there of people who have Cancer, MS, among other things, and Marijuana ends up being their life saving drug. Many Pharmaceutical drugs out there like Marinol are similar to the real deal, but it doesn’t work as well and there are still side effects.

With the latest HHS mandate I have learned this. As a free people, we should stand against any government action that forces us to do things against God’s will. In this case, the government is forcing the redistribution of our taxpayer dollars to pay for Birth Control and Abortifacts. The Church has not been on a movement to outlaw Alcohol and Tobacco that I am aware of, and these substances are directly responsible for thousands (Alcohol) and millions (Tobacco) of deaths each and every year.

With that said, you would he hard pressed to find a doctor who would order a prescription of Jack Daniels, or a pack of Malboro Reds to help cure an ailment with a person. Sure there are people who get bogus medical prescriptions for Marijuana due to a back ache or things like that, but there are plenty of valid reasons to use if medicinally. I for one can’t understand how a group could be opposed to Medicinal use when all of the evidence in the world points to many valid circumstances for a patient to use Marijuana medicinally?

Trust me, I know the difference. I am the lay director of RCIA for our parish.

The fact remains it is wrong to do such a thing.

  1. You are abandoning your spouse because they are ill

  2. You are shirking your responsibility to care for your ill spouse.

  3. You are shifting the responsibility of caring for your ill spouse to the state, or some other agency.

Play with technicalities if you like, but it would still be wrong.

^ this

The difference us that if it is legal, EVERYBODY will use it, because it will be perceived as socially acceptable, versus now when it is mostly a youth-rebellion activity and disapproved of.

The criminals are here to stay. Just as the mob did not go away when prohibition ended, the violent elements in Mexico and elsewhere will find other rackets if dope becomes legal.


He hasn’t fully redeemed himself from his theory on divorce but this is a step in the right direction. The war on drugs is masochistic. The only people really being punished are the taxpayers in a broke country and those who value liberty.

You will not find me bowing to you because you are a lay director of RCIA. RCIA, if one does a cursory search, is a joke compared to proper catechesis and varies from parish to parish. Some are GREAT (and yours may be!) and some are better off being catechized by Protestants than what they are hearing in RCIA.

The issue of divorce for certain reasons is to actually address those issues you mentioned and to keep them from being forced into reality instead of just remaining truly married per the Sacrament and eschewing the albatross of civil marriage, which is a farce unto itself, and taking care of said spouse.

You actually think that piece of paper from the state means you’re really married? What next, when they give them to the homos, are they actually married too? The state cannot define marriage anymore than the Church can define divorce. Both are impossible for each. Divorce is not a Church issue but a civil one. That’s just Catholicism 101, “director”.


For me, the primary problems with illegal drugs are:

  1. The violence associated with the “industry”.
  2. The erosion of civil liberties caused by law enforcement having to police a consensual, private behaviour.
  3. The enrichment of violent thugs and the strengthening of criminal subcultures.
  4. The criminalisation of citizens who are law-abiding in every other respect.
  5. The harmful effects of addiction upon the addict themselves, and those affected by his or her behaviour.

The first four are all functions of the drugs being illegal. The fifth is not a problem unique to illegal substances, as others have pointed out. As a result I support decriminalisation.

Decriminalisation may not be politically feasible, however. In this case, even the proponents of prohibition must admit that a change in strategy is in order. The current approach is not working.

One such approach is suggested here.

pot is illegal for a reason. It was a big enough issue that a law was made against its use. Just because times change and the popular opinion on the issue shifts means we should throw it out? Gay marriage and abortions are popular. Maybe we should all go with the flow with those as well?

:rotfl::rotfl: Too funny

“a reason” is not a “good reason”.

The issue was wholly political.

Kinda like why we can take pictures of galaxies light years away, but we can’t figure out how to actually develop a truly fuel efficient vehicle?

In reality, most cars on the road could douple to quadruple their gas mileage with a few (currently illegal) tweaks.

These tweaks would also reduce emissions, but that’s not a politically expedient or effectively profit-seeking method.

Same with weed.

It’s all political, and nothing to do with anything remotely “good”.

I’m not a comedian. If I’m wrong, correct me.

The thing is, you can’t.

A Catholic can get civilly divorced if it means they are better able to take care of their spouse or children. Divorce has no effect, in the eyes of the Church, on whether a marriage is valid.

If one were to get civilly divorced to shirk their duty to their spouse, that is different.

One might even seem to “abandon” their spouse to a facility, but then visits them because they couldn’t afford care, whereas once divorced, the care is provided.

The state makes it harder on married people, and especially with kids.

I watched my own grandmother get treated like junk until my grandfather died because she was linked to “his” wealth, when in fact there was no wealth.

Divorce would have seen a different scenario in favor of both, while they would have obviously remained truly married.

Marriage certificates issued by the state are just fancy wastes of dead trees.

Oh, that Pat…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit