Chase bank has become the bank for suckers and chumps, cause that's how they treat their customers, like marks to rip off. Being a Chase customer is a constant battle of asking them to remove hidden fees and unapproved charges. I'm done with these crooks, shoulda moved outta their bank after their involvement in causing the recession. Any suggestions on good banks that don't try and rob you for every possible penny they can sneak outta your pocket?
You may think the only people capable of snooping on your Internet activity are government intelligence agents or possibly a talented teenage hacker holed up in his parents’ basement. But some simple software lets just about anyone sitting next to you at your local coffee shop watch you browse the Web and even assume your identity online.
“Like it or not, we are now living in a cyberpunk novel,” said Darren Kitchen, a systems administrator for an aerospace company in Richmond, Calif., and the host of Hak5, a video podcast about computer hacking and security. “When people find out how trivial and easy it is to see and even modify what you do online, they are shocked.”
This is my final paper for a class from last semester, which I said I'd post and never got around to. I hope this helps people get a better sense of the facts so that they can have an informed discussion about the topic. Enjoy.
For the past 75 years the general public has associated the word “marijuana” with things like crime, addiction, memory loss, violence, pacifism, a gateway drug, lower sperm count, a weakened immune system, murder, and (as was stated on the floor of congress) black men looking at a white woman twice. The words “most useful plant on the planet” are rarely associated with marijuana. Why is there such a strong disconnect between what the general public believes about the cannabis plant and the reality of what the plant does?
On November 2nd 2010 California voted on Proposition 19, a measure to legalize, tax, and regulate personal use of cannabis. The measure won 46% of the vote, garnering the highest result for complete cannabis legalization in the history of the USA, but still came up short of the 50% needed to pass (Walker, 2010). Cannabis will be on many state ballots in 2012 and in deciding this new public policy we are reminded of the importance of making an informed decision. To do so we need true, accurate facts with which to form the argument. Without accurate information it is possible to make what appears to be the right decision at the time, but ends up being very wrong in the long run. Take for example the buildup to the Iraq war – the government presented us with what they deemed facts about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links, and made a logical argument for war which the majority of the country agreed with at the time. But when those facts were proven to be inaccurate, the decision became blatantly wrong.
A similar situation is brewing in Colorado and the greater USA, where the topic of legalizing marijuana is becoming an important issue but the general public is being asked to make decisions based on inaccurate information. Due to that lack of factual information, a logical debate to develop public policy that works for the people in regards to cannabis legalization cannot currently be achieved.
A Brief History of Cannabis
Cannabis is as patriotic as a plant can get, having played a major role in American history. Before the 20th century, the cannabis plant provided almost all the world’s paper, clothing, textiles, lighting oil, rope, fiber, paper, incense and medicines, and America was no exception, using cannabis for a wide range of functions (Abel, 1980).
What did the USA make out of cannabis? The first American flag, the first 2 drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s writings including “The Age of Reason”, and even Levi Jeans, were all made out of cannabis. Benjamin Franklin used cannabis to create one of America’s first paper mills, allowing the USA to have a free colonial press independent of Britain. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both grew cannabis on their plantations. The first cannabis law in American history came in 1619 in Virginia, where farmers were ordered to grow cannabis or be jailed. Until the early 1800’s, cannabis hemp was legal tender in the USA and for 200 years you could pay your taxes with cannabis. In 1850 the US Census reported 8,327 cannabis hemp plantations of at least 2,000 acres, which did not include the small farms and family cannabis patches all over America. (Herer, 1985)
As stated in the Mount Vernon Museum,
our First President and founding father
was also an innovative hemp grower
In the 1800’s cannabis medicines ranked between the 1st and 3rd most prescribed medicines in the USA, and stayed popular until made illegal in 1937. Over that time not a single death was reported from cannabis use, and abuse and mental problems were practically nonexistent for anyone other than the rare first time user (Mikuriya, 1973). Cannabis was also widely used recreationally by upper class whites in the form of hash candies and Turkish Smoking Parlors. The candies were advertised in newspapers and sold over the counter, and were extremely popular in America for 40 years. Every major city had a Turkish Smoking Parlor – in New York City alone there were over 500 in the 1880’s through the 1920’s. In the early 1900’s cannabis in the form of flower tops, what we now call Marijuana, arrived in the jazz scene in New Orleans and along the Mexican border as immigrants brought it with them when searching for work in the USA. (Herer, 1985)
From the New York Herald in 1895
Across race, class, and religion, cannabis was widely used recreationally, medicinally, and industrially for 80 years with no concerns about addiction, crime, or detriment to society. It was as American as apple pie.
Why was cannabis so important for so long? As stated in Jack Herer’s book:
Because Cannabis hemp is, overall, the strongest, most-durable, longest-lasting natural soft-fiber on the planet… [cannabis] is a member of the most advanced plant family on Earth. It is a dioecious..., woody, herbaceous annual that uses the sun more efficiently than virtually any other plant on our planet, reaching a robust 12 to 20 feet or more in one short growing season. It can be grown in virtually any climate or soil condition on Earth, even marginal ones.
From the Romans to the Spanish to the U.S. government during World War II, leaders have ordered their people to grow cannabis because they recognized its worth. Cannabis can be used to create 4 times as much paper per acre as trees, for only 1/4th the cost and 1/5th of the pollution (Herer, 1985). The seeds are the best source of essential fatty acids and important proteins in the plant kingdom, and have been used to survive famines. For thousands of years, cannabis medicine has been used to treat about 200 ailments such as tumors, hepatitis C, glaucoma, nausea, sleep apnea, multiple sclerosis, herpes, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, tumors, asthma, and many more (Mikuriya, 1973). There is no other single medicine on the planet which can safely treat so many diseases with such few side effects. Cannabis is a neuroprotective antioxidant, which means it protects your brain from damage and degeneration and also slows aging (Hampson, Grimaldi, Axelrod, & Wink, 1998). Biofuel can be made from cannabis, 4 times more than can be made from corn husks (Dewey & Marrill, 1916). With its short growing season it is possible to get 2 crops a year in most places, and 4 crops a year in warmer climates like Texas and California. Proper use of cannabis would allow us to stop cutting down trees, begin to address our dependence on foreign oil through the production of bio fuels, and safely treat many diseases.
Cannabis was the most popular plant around for thousands of years with good reason – it is the most useful plant on our planet.
Some of the many uses of Cannabis
Cannabis Today
Considering what we know about the history of cannabis it is a shock to see America’s current societal views toward this amazing plant. Even the most basic information about the plant has been lost as we do not even get the name right – we now call it marijuana and the true name of cannabis is only seen in scientific studies and botany books.
When researching cannabis one is forced to wade through a monsoon of anti-drug group and government propaganda repeating debunked cannabis myths. When searching for the source of this misinformation the road always leads back to the US government, specifically the DEA and NIDA. Their website promotes myths stating that cannabis damages the immune system, cannabis is dangerously addictive, and cannabis is a gateway drug, among many others (Drug Enforcement Agency, 2010). Because the government is expected to be a credible source this information is taken and repeated by the media, anti-drug groups, parent groups, and anyone else doing brief research on cannabis. The government also actively disseminates this information through programs like DARE and their website geared towards teens titled “Just Think Twice”. Their propaganda campaign has worked, as study conducted by Ralph Weisheit found that the American public “overwhelmingly believed that marijuana is both physically and psychologically harmful (97% and 95%, respectively). Most also thought marijuana was physically addicting (88%) and that it made people more likely to try other drugs (94%).”
This paper will examine three of the many myths and expose how they started, the truth about the research, and the methods used to twist results to make cannabis appear as scary, harmful and dangerous as possible.
Belief: Cannabis is a Gateway Drug
When a person is forced to buy cannabis on the black market due to the government’s prohibition, they are exposed to other drugs that they normally would not see. Why? Because their vendor is a drug dealer rather than a store clerk. This exposure to other harder drugs does create a type of gateway effect, as proximity increases the chance of someone using them, but this effect has nothing to do with cannabis and everything to do with the government’s prohibition policy. There is no chemical aspect about the plant that physically causes or predisposes you to do harder drugs, and the evidence supports this. For every 104 cocaine users, only 1 is a cannabis user (Grinspoon, et al., 2007). If cannabis truly was a gateway drug, then the ratio would be much closer to 1-to-1 rather than 1-to-104.
On the NIDA website, to make their case for the gateway theory, they state that “Long-term studies of high school students and their patterns of drug use show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana.” The first problem with this statement is that they are trying to say that correlation proves causation, which is a logical fallacy. The fact that people who use illicit drugs have also used cannabis does not mean that cannabis had any causal affect on their use of other drugs. In fact, a much larger number of teens have used tobacco and alcohol first before using illicit drugs, and there is a stronger correlation between using those two legal drugs and later illicit drug use than with cannabis, as only a small percent of cannabis users go on to use harder drugs (Kandel, Treiman, Faust, & Single, 1976). The report by Denise Kandel that NIDA cites to prove the above point actually takes the position that alcohol and tobacco have a much stronger role in leading to illicit drug use, stating “There is a well-established association between the use of alcohol and/or tobacco and the illicit drugs by adolescents… Detailed analyses we have conducted on patterns and sequence of drug use clearly indicate that there is a progressive involvement with drugs that begins with tobacco and alcohol rather than with marihuana”. The fact that NIDA will take a report stating that information and use it as evidence that cannabis is a gateway drug makes it extremely difficult to trust anything that NIDA says. This is a shame as we should be able to trust our own government when looking for information on our public health.
One of many examples of the perpetuation of the gateway myth, which is not based in fact but rather in fear
In Jamaica, where cannabis is used widely in an accepted social context, hard drug use amongst lifetime cannabis smokers was found to be practically nonexistent (Rubin & Cmoitas, 1975). If cannabis caused people to move on to harder drugs, this population of heavy users should also be heavily using harder drugs, but that is not the case. The only gateway effect that exists is created by the government’s prohibition which lumps a soft drug like cannabis in with hard drugs like heroin, forcing cannabis users to interact with drug dealers who carry hard drugs. When this social rule is removed, any hint of a gateway effect also disappears.
Belief: Cannabis Damages the Immune System
The claim that cannabis lowers the white-blood-cell count is quite popular in literature from the government and from anti-drug groups, but is not based in fact. The original study which started the fervor was conducted in 1974 by Dr. Gabrial Nahas, the government’s original go to researcher. By taking white blood cells from both cannabis smokers and a control group, putting them into a culture and exposing them to known immune activators, he found that the cannabis smoker’s cells were less active and effective. However, these results were never replicated despite being repeated many times. (Zimmer & Morgan, 1997)
After Nahas there were other studies which found increased risk of infection in rats that were exposed to cannabis – but here’s the trick; these rats were exposed to 1,000 times more cannabis than necessary to get a human high, and they were exposed daily (Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). This is a common error found in anti-cannabis research, where, to get the negative result desired, the researchers expose the subject to extreme levels far beyond what is used by humans.
Another study done at the University of South Carolina found an increase in myeloid-derived suppressor cells (cells which suppress the immune system) in rats that were injected with cannabis. Here’s the catch – they only injected the rats with 1 cannabinoid, THC (DrugScience.org, 1995). There are over 60 cannabinoids in cannabis which affect us, and it’s the way they work together that creates the end result. To say that because THC alone causes an increase in immunosuppressive cells, therefore cannabis weakens the immune system is the same as saying that when you eat a piece of cake the only thing you will taste is raw eggs. By narrowing in on 1 cannabinoid and extrapolating from there, researchers are able to make it appear as if cannabis causes harm. As Leo Hollister said in his review of immunosuppressant evidence for the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs in 1988, “The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence”. In other words, in a lab where extreme levels are administered or only 1 cannabinoid is studied, negative results do occur, but in the real world with a human being smoking on their regular schedule, the negative results disappear.
No clinical or epidemiological studies have ever found an increase in viral, parasitic or bacterial infection in humans in conjunction with cannabis use. In fact the opposite has been found in several long term studies done in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, where no difference in susceptibility to disease was found between heavy long-term smokers and matched controls (Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). Cannabis continues to be used by AIDS patients all over the world daily and it has not caused an increase in the amount of patients who develop HIV or any other symptoms associated with AIDS. Claims that smoking cannabis will destroy your immune system are either based in ignorance or intentional deception, not in fact.
Belief: Cannabis is Physically Addictive
Physical addiction means that your body needs the drug to function normally. How does that happen? It occurs when the body stops producing natural chemicals or hormones because it depends on a drug to provide them. When you discontinue use of that drug, the body is imbalanced and this creates withdrawal symptoms as your body struggles to function while rebuilding its natural supplies.
This does not occur with cannabis use. The active therapeutic ingredients in cannabis are called cannabinoids. These cannabinoids mimic neurotransmitters in our system. Unlike most neurotransmitters (like dopamine which is effected by cocaine), natural cannabinoids are produced on demand and are not built up and stored for later release. Therefore when you stop using cannabis, you are not automatically deficient in the natural neurotransmitters. (Gettman, 1995)
To cause an effect these neurotransmitters lock onto a receptor. Think of a lock and a key – the cannabinoid is the key and the receptor is the lock. With heavy use the receptors begin to downgrade, which means they block the keyhole so that no key can be inserted. Once cannabis use is discontinued these receptors open back up over the course of days and sometime’s weeks. This is why a daily smoker does not get as high as an occasional smoker, but if that daily smoker takes time away from the drug the next time they smoke they achieve a more intense high than they’ve had in a long time. Receptors are never destroyed, never go away, and always return. (Gettman, 1995)
Heavy use which causes many receptors to close can result in a sluggish feeling once use is discontinued, and this is probably where the few slight withdrawal effects come from. They include difficulty sleeping, lack of appetite, and slight headaches. Cannabis withdrawal is rare and only happens in a small percentage of users, and is comparable to withdrawal symptoms that occur when quitting coffee. (NORML, 2009)
Cannabis withdrawal is similar to
coffee withdrawal, just not as bad.
In order to make a case that cannabis is addictive, anti-drug groups and the US government use statistics on the number of people in treatment for cannabis addiction. The DEA states on their website that “In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence.” These numbers are misleading because they do not tell the full story of how those people ended up in treatment. This increase reflects new government policies emphasizing treatment rather than imprisonment, where a person arrested for cannabis possession is given the option to either go to treatment or go to jail (and obtain a lifelong criminal record). The DEA numbers reflect people who were coerced into cannabis treatment, not people who voluntarily presented themselves for treatment because they had a problem. New aggressive marketing by treatment facilities, increased drug tests, and zero tolerance policies are all factors that contribute to the increased number of Americans in treatment for cannabis and are not accounted for in the DEA numbers (Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). This is yet another example of the DEA using misleading practices to form public opinion against cannabis.
It is possible to develop a mental addiction to cannabis, but that is not a reason to call it addictive, fear it or make it illegal. It is also possible to develop a mental addiction to television, exercise, collecting beanie babies, video games, or masturbation. Scientist Jack E. Henningfield studied and ranked nicotine, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, caffeine and cannabis according to their addictiveness based on the following factors: dependence, withdrawal, tolerance, reinforcement and intoxication. Cannabis ranked lower than all the others on dependence, withdrawal and tolerance, and was ranked equally with caffeine on reinforcement. The only time it was ranked higher than nicotine was in intoxication, where it came in fourth behind alcohol, heroin and cocaine (Zimmer & Morgan, 1997). It is important to note that nicotine is considered to be as addictive as heroin, if not more addictive, yet it is legally available in cigarettes all over the country. If the government or drug warriors were truly concerned with protecting us from addictive substances then their focus should be on cigarettes, not cannabis.
Disconnected From Reality
After researching many common beliefs about cannabis it became clear that they are almost always based on inaccurate propaganda rather than facts. Unfortunately the source of this misinformation always traces back to the USA government. The first cannabis smear campaign was led by Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) (Grim, 2009). To demonize cannabis he unleashed a brutal wave of fear inducing news clips, radio shows, and movies. For example, Anslinger stated:
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others. … Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men. (Belville, 2009)
In 1937 Anslinger testified in front of congress that “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind” (Herer, 1985). False tales of irresistible addiction, insanity and murder were only a few of the ways the government tricked the American population into being scared of cannabis.
Anslinger used his influence to start a wave of fear
about cannabis refered to as "Reefer Madness"
When looking back it is difficult to understand how the population could be fooled into thinking that their favorite plant was actually a devil weed. The first step taken was to change the name from cannabis to Marijuana, a Mexican slang term. Because of the widespread use of cannabis medicines, industrial hemp and recreational hash, it would have been impossible to convince people that cannabis was dangerous. By switching the name and painting it as a new drug being used by Mexican’s and Blacks, the USA government was able to fool people into fearing cannabis because they had never heard of Marijuana and had no idea what it was. (Grim, 2009)
Mayor La Guardia of New York City didn’t believe Anslinger’s hype and commissioned the first scientific report on cannabis conducted in the USA in 1938. He found that the slew of terrifying effects of Marijuana espoused by Anslinger were completely inaccurate. Anslinger acted quickly to discredit the report and prevent any further research by requiring all cannabis research in America to be done with federal cannabis and federal approval, and then he refused to give any approval. (Harrelson, Anslinger, & Bush, 2000)
La Guardia’s report was just one of many official government reports which found cannabis to be safe and recommended that it should not be criminalized. Other reports include the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1894 by the British government, the Panama Canal Military Study of 1916-1929 by the USA military, the Baroness Wootton report of 1968 by the British government, and the Shafer report of 1972 commissioned by President Nixon. (Grinspoon, et al., 2007)
Despite the consistent reports concluding that cannabis was not dangerous, harmful or a detriment to society and that it should not carry any criminal punishment, the American government continued to persecute cannabis (Grim, 2009). By restricting cannabis and grants from going to studies looking for positive effects of cannabis and instead focusing their funding on gutter science like that of Dr. Nahas, the government managed to produce studies showing dangers of cannabis, and then enlisted the help of prohibition groups, anti-drug groups and programs like DARE to spread their false information. This practice continues today as Harry Anslinger’s FBN has become the DEA, and NIDA has taken the place of discredited scientists like Dr. Nahas. (Herer, 1985)
Where Does This Leave Us?
Now in 2011 we sit with over 10,000 studies and 45 years of research confirming millennia of ancient wisdom, like the ability of cannabis to shrink cancerous tumors or its amazing healing effects for patients with epilepsy, to its ability to reduce anger and stress. The proportionally few studies that have shown cannabis to be harmful have been debunked yet continue to be spread by the government, creating an environment where false information is more easily available than true information. This makes it practically impossible to have a rational debate on the topic of cannabis because without clear common facts we never reach the point where we can accurately discuss the best measures to promote public health, safety and freedom.
If two sides are attempting to decide an issue like whether or not teens should be driving, it is impossible to come to a conclusion if one side makes arguments like “every time a teen gets behind the wheel of a car a puppy dies, and killing puppies is wrong therefore teens should not drive”. The argument makes sense if the facts are true, but the facts are completely ridiculous and made up. A refusal to accept that getting behind the wheel does not kill puppies means that the debate is stuck in a fairytale rather than moving forward to find the best solution based on the reality. Unfortunately that is exactly the nature of our current debate, and until the government puts an emphasis on funding and supporting all research into cannabis, not just research that will make it look negative, and updating their information to reflect the plethora of scientific research and historical facts, we will be unable to have a rational debate and find a solution that truly works for the good of the people of the USA.
Abel, E. (1980). "Marijuana, The First 12,000 Years". NY: Plenum Press.
Belville, R. (2009, Sep 8). "LA Times: The Racism of Marijuana Prohibition". Retrieved Dec 6, 2010, from NORML: http://stash.norml.org/la-times-the-racism-of-marijuana-prohibition
Dewey, L. H., & Marrill, J. L. (1916). "Bulletin #404". Washington DC: U.S.D.A.
Drug Enforcement Agency. (2010, Dec 15). "Facts and Fiction". Retrieved Dec 15, 2010, from Just Think Twice: http://www.justthinktwice.com
DrugScience.org. (1995). 1995 "Marijuana Rescheduling Petition". Retrieved Dec 5, 2010, from DrugScience.org: ttp://www.drugscience.org
Gettman, J. (1995, May 5). "Marijuana and the Brain". High Times , pp. 22-30.
Grim, R. (2009). "This is your Country on Drugs". Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Harvey, B. (Director). (2007). “The Union: The Business Behind Getting High” [Motion Picture].
Hampson, A. J., Grimaldi, M., Axelrod, J., & Wink, D. (1998). Cannabidiol and (−Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants . “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA” , n. pag.
Mann, R. (Director). (2000). “Grass” [Motion Picture].
Herer, J. (1985). “The Emperor Wears No Clothes”. Van Nuys: Ah Ha Publishing.
Hollister, L. (1988). “Marijuana and Immunity”. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , 3-8.
Kandel, D. B., Treiman, D., Faust, R., & Single, E. (1976). “Adolescent Involvement in Legal and Illegal Drug Use: A Multiple Classification Analysis”. Social Forces , 438-458.
Mikuriya, T. (1973). “Marijuana Medical Papers”. CA: Medi-Comp Press.
National Institue on Drug Abuse. (2010, Dec 15). “Marijuana: Facts for Teens”. Retrieved Dec 15, 2010, from NIDA: http://drugabuse.gov
NORML. (2009, Oct 1). “Cannabis "Withdrawal" Syndrome Short-Lived, Affects Few, Study Says”. Retrieved Oct 29, 2010, from NORML.org: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7981
Rubin, V., & Cmoitas, L. (1975). “Ganja in Jamaica - A Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use”. NY: Paris/Anchor Books.
Walker, J. (2010, Nov 3). “Even in Loss, Prop 19 Got More Votes Than Every Major GOP Candidate”. Retrieved Nov 4, 2010, from Just Say Now: http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/blog/page/5/
Weisheit, R. A., & Johnson, K. (1992). “Exploring the Dimensions of Support for Decriminalizing Drugs”. Journal of Drug Issues , 1-53.
Zimmer, L., & Morgan, J. P. (1997). “Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: a review of the scientific evidence”. NY: Lindesmith Center.
Holy shit, this is so inspiring, emotional, and flat out amazing. In 18 days these people were able to remove a 30 year dictator through mass protests and true people power. Democracy attained by the people, not by the barrel of a gun. Dictators the world over are shaking in their boots.
Watch the livestream, it's fantastic. An hour since the announcement and they're still celebrating like it just happened.
Watch this and imagine what it would be like to be in that crowd of protesters. I fear that in America we've gotten too lazy to ever attempt anything as brave as this, no matter how corrupt our government gets. Respect to these guys for not letting corrupt government hold them down.
On Thursday, January 27, President Obama is going to take part in an exclusive YouTube interview. Regular Americans are given a chance to submit their own questions they want the president to answer and vote on which questions they would most like to see the president answer. Currently, the five most popular questions all deal with marijuana and/or drug policy reform. Here is a screenshot of the most popular questions as of 11:00 am today.
So I'm actually looking at getting some sorta android phone. Any suggestions? What do you guys have, what has worked for you, what sucks, etc. I need advice. I'm still rocking a crappy old school blackberry on a prepaid card with no data plan. After using an android phone I can see a shitload of ways to make use of that thing, and I get all this sexiness without having to deal with apple and its fucking iphone.
This is why I love the issue of Marijuana - it's a place where I see both sides come together in agreement, from extremely right wing conservatives to super left liberals.
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself" - Jimmy Carter
Count this among the 10 things nobody ever expected to see in their lifetimes: 700 Club founder Pat Robertson, one of the cornerstone figures of America's Christian right movement, has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Calling it getting "smart" on crime, Robertson aired a clip on a recent episode of his 700 Club television show that advocated the viewpoint of drug law reformers who run prison outreach ministries.
A narrator even claimed that religious prison outreach has "saved" millions in public funds by helping to reduce the number of prisoners who return shortly after being released.
"It got to be a big deal in campaigns: 'He's tough on crime,' and 'lock 'em up!'" the Christian Coalition founder said. "That's the way these guys ran and, uh, they got elected. But, that wasn't the answer."
His co-host added that the success of religious-run dormitories for drug and alcohol cessation therapy present an "opportunity" for faith-based communities to lead the way on drug law reforms.
"We're locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they've got 10 years with mandatory sentences," Robertson continued. "These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of 'em.
"I'm ... 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. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."
Robertson has in recent years come under fire for increasingly flamboyant comments, such as calling for the assassinations of foreign leaders and blaming gay people for the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina.
Conservatives signing up for drug policy reform
The segment, while significant for illustrating a key conservative stalwart's shifting opinion on the drug war, was mainly a plug for a new conservative group called "Right on Crime," which parlays the arguments of groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) into conservative-leaning messages.
"Our marijuana prohibition laws, which send people to prison for merely possessing a plant, are clearly immoral," LEAP executive director Neill Franklin, a former Baltimore narcotics officer, told Raw Story.
"As a Christian, and as a former law enforcer who is now working to undo the damage these laws have done to our families and our communities, I'm glad to see Pat Robertson joining the chorus of faith leaders calling for reform."
Some faith-based groups, like the Council of Churches and Church IMPACT, also helped promote California's failed Prop. 19 ballot initiative, which would have legalized marijuana cultivation, sales and consumption by adults over 21-years-old. It failed to gain a majority in the state's 2010 elections.
President Obama has maintained his opposition to the legalization of marijuana, although his Department of Justice has largely taken a hands-off approach to states where voters have approved the drug's use if prescribed by a doctor.
Pat Robertson was a Republican candidate for the presidency in 1980, but saw his political ambitions dashed in the primaries by Ronald Reagan. Though he later earned Robertson's endorsement, President Reagan went on to significantly escalate the war on America's drug users.
This video is from the 700 Club, broadcast by the CBN Network. (Segment on marijuana law reform is at beginning.)
Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants . “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA” , n. pag.
