Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« What Benefits Do You Receive from Christ's Birth? | Main | Festivus and Two Kingdom Confusion (Re-Post) »

Dude . . . You Got the Cheetos?

Pat Robertson is now in favor of decriminalizing Marijuana (in small amounts).

Just say "maybe" to drugs.


Reader Comments (23)

I happen to be going through the WHI Romans Revolution again and there is a segment where alcoholism and divorce are discussed in the context of legalism and pietism. This seems to be the same argument to me. In so far as decriminalization is concerned, from a Left Kingdom perspective, this actually seems reasonable to me.

From a Right Kingdom perspective, why are we talking about this? If the church is actually trying to legitimize its involvement in criminal rehabilitation, this will only serve to decrease our credibility in the secular world even more. What is he trying to do? This is a totally Left Kingdom debate, the realm of adiaphora.

In any case, Merry Christmas.
December 23, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMerlin
Yeah ... isn't it kinda like the pope giving a wink & a nod to condom use in the "spirit" of preventing the spread of AIDS? 'Course, the spin-doctors at the Vatican are now working hard to retract/revise his comment, something that's pretty difficult to do when the one who made it is infallible ...
December 24, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGeorge
I think that it is pathetic to legalize pot. To condone the use of a mind altering substance is terrible.

The use of pot is not like drinking adult drinks in moderation. One or two puffs of the stuff and a person is blitzed.

I have pain 24/7, but the use of mind altering drugs is un-biblical and cop out for drug users.
December 24, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd I. Cadle
Actually, the legalization of marajuana was not discussed. This discussion is about decriminalization with mandatory sentences. This is not the same issue as legalization.

And since you brought it up, please cite the passages where the Bible references marajuana. In addition, alcohol is a mind altering substance as well, in least in terms of how the law sees it.

And BTW, I'm not condoning the use of any substance. I'm suggesting that we leave the Left Kingdom to the left in areas of the adiophora. Cheers.
December 24, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMerlin
I don't use pot, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But Pat Robertson is correct in that the mandatory sentencing is absurd. Ten years in prison for pot is absurd when you consider that in California rape "is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years." (CPC 264(a)). We know the life-altering trauma of rape, whereas pot just make avid users respond to "hey stupid" about 10 seconds slower than the rest of us. For the rapist to get less time than someone involved with the mildest of "drugs" is absurd. When the rapist feels sorry for the pothead's more lengthy sentence, something is wrong.
December 24, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEloquorius
Kudos, Eloquorius...

I have a problem with the option of Morphine for pain control and some of the other opioids. Oxycodone is as difficult to quit as heroin, yet doctors are only too happy to prescribe pain killers willy-nilly. I do not advocate for the illegal use of pot but I'm not against it's usage by people who are suffering from various ailments, especially cancer, or for those undergoing chemo/radiation. I guess I don't understand the difference between a natural substance or one that is man-made. Or why one is far worse than the other...
Now, I have to go Google "adiophora."
December 25, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterhb
Wine is permitted throughout the Bible, (it is also good for the heart, as are all other adult drinks; in moderation). Drunkeness is forbidden, and is considered a sin throughout the Scriptures.

So, Lutherans and the Reformed, we raise our drinks to this great joy!!!!!!!!!!
December 25, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd I. Cadle
Sorry, I misspelled it: Adiaphora....three a's, one o.
December 26, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMerlin
I haven't heard Robertson's remarks but I suspect this has to do with the punishment fitting the crime rather than a free for all for drug abusers.
December 26, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPaul
Merlin, excellent job at mopping the floor up with Lloyd's ridiculous statements.
Nobody gets blitzed on 1 or even 2 puffs. Perhaps Lloyd should contrast the amount of drunk drivers who cause car accidents to pot drivers who don't.

The point was to decriminalize; or would you expect a person who got caught taking a toke of pot deserving of the same sentence as a rapist or drunk driver who crashed into another car?
December 27, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDon

The punishment must fit the crime.

I am against drunk drivers. I am against using any substance that alter's the mind to a point where a person is blitzed or not able to think clearly.

Personally, I will not have more than one drink and drive. Drinking too much is a sin. I do enjoy adult drinks in moderation. They are very good for the heart. Studies have proved that males can have up to two drinks per day, and females one drink a day with very good health benefits.

Have one or two puffs if you please. You will get blitzed. Pot is much, much stronger today than when I was young. In fact, pot users will tell you that if you smoke pot on a regular basis, you will need less to get high.

To condone its use, unless you can find a use to make some kind of cream to rub on sore joints, is pathetic.
December 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLloyd I. Cadle
I think this was a very snarky post. I am sorry you have no emphathy for what Pat Robertson is saying. I understand your great distain for his theology I am a reformed christian also (urc too) but there really is no excuse for you to twist what he is saying in this clip. I had a son in this situation. Is getting caught with some pot equal to raping someone or being charged for the 15th time for a DUI. My son suffered consequences and well he should have. What Pat Robertson is saying is something my husband and I agree with 100 per cent. By God's grace I am fortunate that you were not our family pastor at the time of this trial in our life.
December 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaren Gosche
Mrs. Gosche:

I would respectfully ask you to read what I actually said -- I said nothing about whether I agreed with Robertson or not. I merely reported his comment . . .

Twist his view? How did I do that? I never revealed my view, nor did I even comment on his!

Obviously, this is an emotional issue for you, but I really don't deserve the cheap shot!
December 28, 2010 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger
"Dude you got the cheetos" and "just say maybe to drugs" - whose statements were those? That would be snarky IMHO. I don't know why you posted it in the first place. Pat Robertson was stating his opinion and I agree with him. I stand by my "emotional" so called "cheap shot." I don't mean to be disrespectfully but you sound so whiny.
December 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaren Gosche
So clear this all up and state your opinion. I would love to hear it from a Pastors heart not a hit and run blog post that gave an appearance to maybe just ONE person - me as being very uncaring. (Although I think there are others that posted that would agree somewhat with what I have said). People have perspectives on things from life experiences, always have and always will. Call me emotional fine - that does not offend me - I also have an intellect by which I can weight the pros and cons of given situations too as I pray for the Holy Spirit to help me. I have a very learned and theologically sound husband that guides me also. So give it your best shot.
December 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaren Gosche
Oh yeah and tagged in the "whacky world of evangelicalism" so there is all my evidence even though you say you have no opinion lol - good night.
December 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaren Gosche
Mrs. Gosche:

I can only assume that you are having a very bad night . . . Good grief, you've completely misread me.

You mistakenly assume that my attempt at humor is a reflection of my disagreement with PR's comments on this matter. I am not a fan of PR in any sense--that much is certainly true. If you don't like my sense of humor, please feel free to read someone else's blog.

But since you asked, here goes . . .

FYI--I am of the opinion that the "War on Drugs" has failed on multiple accounts.

First, while I do believe marijuana can be a gateway drug, excessive penalties for pot possession in small amounts (not for selling/transporting, etc) often create more problems than they solve--I actually agree with you (and PR) on this score. So, please excuse me if I'm taken aback by all the vitriol you've been dishing out. Before you lashed out at me, perhaps you should have asked . . .

Second, my opinion is that incarcerating millions of young Americans for non-violent crimes (like possessing small amounts of marijuana) has real (and destructive) consequences. I'd like to see restitution/fines for non-violent crime and greater penalties for violent crime. IMHO, the state often fails miserably in making the punishment fit the crime.

Third, while I do not favor decriminalizing drugs (many of them are utterly destructive not only to those who use them but to society in general) it is time to start focusing on the reasons why people engage in such self-destructive conduct in the first place.

Finally, although I don't want to see parts of the US end up like Mexico (with the drug cartels in control), I would like to think that the billions and billions we spend on this could be used more effectively.

This is a huge problem and I don't think we are close to finding an answer. But to put drug users in jail and treat them as violent criminals isn't working.

Next time, try asking me first.

December 28, 2010 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger
Thank you very much for your answer. Your thinking is very correct in my opinion and I agree with you. You are a pastor. You are on a public form. You are correct I don't have to and have been told by my husband not to read your blog. I comply - I peaked last night while I was reading on the internet. God works in mysterious ways. This is not the first time your humor and remarks as a reformed pastor has us questioning your being on a public forum. We think you mock others with your humor - it is haughty and arrogant in our opinion - not funny (why I have been instructed to stay away). I did not have a bad night YOU assume to much. I got my answer. I never dreamt I would have to ask, because I would have never thought that a person in your position could represent himself in such a way and think he was humorous! (I must say I still think your intention was to mock otherwise why post and tag it in the "whacky evangelical" dept.) You didn't answer those questions I asked, the ones that I thought legitmately had drawn me to the conclusion that you were mocking. Oh that was the humorous part right? Communication is important. I communicated and you didn't answer the first time you just told me I took a "cheap shot" and I was "emotional." You could have stopped this after the first post by me but you went on the defensive rather than explain yourself. Diplomacy in a pastor can be a virtue ;o) So now it is done. Happy New Year too you. I will stay off your blog. When I see your name on articles in Ligioner and Modern Reformation I will be tainted by this exchange -right theology, bad application I guess. I will pray for you and I will pray for me - may the Holy Spirit indwell us and give us right hearts and attitudes towards others. May we think of others as better than ourselves. In Christ's Love Karen
December 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaren Gosche

My point is a couple of puffs will not impair someone like a couple of drinks will (I guess it depends on the consumer's susceptibility). You go ahead and have your 2 drinks for your heart and I'll go and have my 2 puffs so I can have an appetite. Is that fair? Perhaps not in your view. I'm siding with the grandma with glaucoma who takes a couple puffs.

The idea of pot being stronger now than what it used to be is a myth perpetuated by biased people who think a joint is equally bad as a fifth of whiskey.

When I take my 2 puffs, I feel good enough to make and take pb & j's to the homeless. What do you do after your drink? Relax? You're so in control. As I am too. BECAUSE 2 PUFFS DOESN'T GET ME BLITZED. Let's discuss theology after I've puffed and you'll see how unblitzed I am.

December 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDon

Yes, please don't read this blog again. You clearly don't get it or Pastor Riddlebarger. You have an atrocious sense of humor (if any at all).
Hard to believe you're Reformed.
Go and read Joel Osteen, you'll get him.
December 29, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMary Owen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.