Video: Shep Smith – The drug war is lost

posted at 6:05 pm on February 17, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

So… how’s that war on drugs going for you? According to Shepard Smith at Fox News, not so well. In fact, he’s fairly sure that the war is lost.

Thanks to the drug scandal at Texas Christian University, we got to see all the different sides of our nation’s debate on drugs (besides, of course, the never-invited actual drug users, but whatever…) today on Studio B. Unsurprisingly, when you have a bunch of opposing sides on an issue like this, things got heated…

And, in the middle, was Shepard Smith who just seemed saddened by the whole thing. When Zelin argued that this was no way to “win the war,” Smith sighed.

“Win the war? This is a stupid war. This is a stupid war, isn’t it?” he asked. “We’ve lost this war. This war is lost.”

This is a constant bone of contention between libertarian leaning conservatives and more traditional fighters. (We’ll get to the video below in a moment.) But the case in Texas does highlight one of the profound differences of opinion and the seemingly intractable conundrums of modern society. And it shows up in a variety of conversations which are worthy of discussion.

Drug trade adds to the burden of national security efforts at the borders, since it affects everyone in that sense. Current drug laws create a market vacuum which someone will always seek to fill. It also fuels the need for guns and other weapons of mayhem as this battle is waged. But left unattended, the detrimental societal impact of illegal drugs is hard to deny. Have we lost this war? Was it even worth fighting? Or is there a moral imperative here which makes the cost – any cost – worth it for keeping society safe?

Check out the video and decide for yourself.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Rumor is, and this is just a rumor, that he’s suffering from radiation poisoning after being exposed at the Fukushima Reactor meltdowns.

Flora Duh on February 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

? Did he actually visit ground zero? From what I recall, he was reporting from Tokyo. I’m asking because nobody in Tokyo is dramatically losing weight like that.

Dongemaharu on February 17, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Here are the questions to ask:

1) Has drug use gone up or down, per 10,000 Americans… since the 1909 Shanghai Conference on Opium use which sought to end the opium trade in China?

2) Has China stopped producing opium and its by-products as part of its criminal establishment?

3) Has the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 aimed at opium use actually worked? It is out of various foods and drugs, yes, but has that actually stopped the use and abuse of opium and its by-products in the US? Do you like the fact that this was done to abide by the Hague Convention of 1912?

4) Why wasn’t the food and drug purity act given time to inform all citizens of what they were ingesting before the Harrison Act was passed?

5) Has the direction of the drug trade with respect to per capita use of drugs made illegal gone up or down in magnitude when population growth and economic inflation are factored out of the equation?

Before the Progressive Era there were NO national laws covering medications. The first remedy was the food and drug purity act… yet the fever pitch to pass more laws stampeded legislators who did anything they could to pass more laws. For the first time in US history doctors were being threatened with jail time for prescribing medications. The public, at large, was not given time to understand the full ramifications of what they were being prescribed and the amount of narcotics that were being added to other medications and food. Instead of letting the public figure this out, these laws were rammed into place to get new power vested in the federal government over DOCTORS and WHAT THEY DID.

You gots problems with Obamacare?

See where that started?

Local and State governments were doing as they SHOULD DO in a federalist system by selectively deciding what was good for their public based on the representative democracy that was at that level. There were plenty of laws on the books against various narcotics, alcohol, and other medications that varied State by State and County by County and even between cities within a County. This allowed for the ‘local approach’ to take hold and for each population to decide what it could tolerate and what it couldn’t. Federalism worked. That is the level it MUST WORK for these things as it becomes too expensive to do a ‘one size fits all, fits none well’ and costs more per person to boot.

All sorts of other ‘problems’ were being pushed in that early era… like a National income tax that would never go over 7% and then only on the wealthy. In 7 years it was at 70% and on everyone.

Notice what happens when you give the federal government a little bit of extra power?

And for those liking the laws, do you like having them put in place via international treaty well BEFORE the UN? That our individual rights were put up as a moral bargaining chip to international agreements? Do you believe that a good plant can come from an evil seed?

Legalize this stuff.

Require EXACTING PURITY STANDARDS so that people know what it is they are putting in their body and aren’t getting some extra-special arsenic in their heroin. Or oregano in their marijuana come to that.

Require that companies deal only with companies that are not connected with criminal or terrorist organizations.

ajacksonian on February 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Now, now, sharrukin. None of those things that you are posting about would ever happen here!

/sarc

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM

They don’t care. They want their dope and the cost for others doesn’t matter to them. They are disconnected from reality.

Is Somalia a Libertarian Paradise?

And no, that isn’t a parody.

More…
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/09/090515-3.htm

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Weird. There have been a half-dozen or so posters commenting on their personal drug use in a very public forum with no real concern over the consequences.
 
I’m thinking legalization is just a formality.

rogerb on February 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Why don’t you go smoke another fat one? You seem a little….tense.

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Sorry. Dealing with self-righteous idiots does that sometimes. And I can’t go smoke “another” one. Someone decided I would have to go to prison if I did that. Some self-righteous person who thinks that old rag (the Constitution) is obsolete.

Now goodbye. My wife is finally ready.

Squiggy on February 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Weird. There have been a half-dozen or so posters commenting on their personal drug use in a very public forum with no real concern over the consequences.

rogerb on February 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM

I am sure the Gestapo fascist Marxist social conservative police are knocking on their doors right now…, oh wait, no, that was just mom.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 PM

“It’s the dismal tide, it is not the one thing…Not the one thing.”

Norky on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Considering the death and addiction rates of alcohol, there is no rhyme or reason as to it’s legality.

rickyricardo on February 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

This might help make some sense of it:

http://twitpic.com/8lbap2/full

Nutt King, Saulsbury , Blakemore (2007). “Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse”. Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 9:36 PM

There’s no upside at all for the current drug importers if drugs are made legal. This raises the interesting possibility that the drug importers may keep drugs effectively illegal by killing off any legitimate competition and continuing to smuggle the stuff in.

In other words, having through unwitting price supports established drug gangs so militarily strong that they function as semi-states, we may have lost the ability to legalise drug distribution in the US.

PersonFromPorlock on February 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM

And that’s the argument that I reject when I ask the question: Which current laws would you repeal based on the fact that they don’t “stop” anybody from doing it? Rape laws don’t stop rape. So…repeal them? Child abuse laws don’t stop the pedophiles…so just legalize it and stop “making” them criminals? Come on…

You are missing the point. There is no victim for a person taking drugs. There is a victim for other crimes. But the argument I made was valid, you just skipped the whole of it. The drug laws do not prevent drug use, drug abuse, any of the addiction or anything by your own argument. Since there is no direct harm to anyone for one person’s voluntary use of a drug, there is no reason to make it illegal.

You can wrap it in any argument you want, but the fact is that the argument for drugs being illegal is the exact same argument for Obama to take control of medical care in this country, for Bloomberg to stop the use of salt and trans fat in New York, for the government to tell you when your child is mature enough to be left at home alone, for basically every single aspect of the nanny state. If so, say so. If you do not believe in the nanny state, then you should recheck your position on drug legalization.

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM

The theory that an object needs to be illegal because it causes harm is the same liberal argument that says guns should be illegal because they kill people. Having an object should not be illegal. The action of hurting someone or violating their rights is what should be illegal. Who cares if it was a gun, a drug, a knife or a flight of stairs that caused the harm? Pre-emptively banning objects because they may cause harm is certainly not a Conservative idea in line with intent of the constitution.

Resolute on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Another good chart:

http://twitpic.com/8lbila/full

Found in:

“Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse”. Lancet 369 (9566)

You might need a password to access the article, but it’s free of charge.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 9:55 PM

It is both hilarious and sad to hear all the SoCons on this thread making the same arguments Democrats do, and being just as eager as the Democrats to use the government and the criminal justice system enforce their idea of virtue on every citizen.

Bartrams Garden on February 17, 2012 at 9:57 PM

just as eager as the Democrats to use the government and the criminal justice system enforce their idea of virtue on every citizen.

Bartrams Garden on February 17, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Rape and murder laws are indeed supported by us Marxists on both sides of the aisle. We will continue to use the criminal justice system to enforce our idea of virtue on you.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 10:00 PM

You are missing the point. There is no victim for a person taking drugs…

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I’m a victim when they show up in the Emergency Room almost dead. And then I provide their care for several days in the ICU, paying myself for all the hard work through the massive taxes I pay to federal, state and local governments.

And when the drug users don’t survive, their family, friends and community pays.

The drug user isn’t the only victim. I see this almost every day.

You might say that you don’t believe in all the government programs that burden taxpayers with the costs and consequences of drug addiction.

Fine. Dismantle those programs. Then we can talk about legalizing methamphetamines, heroin and cocaine.

But don’t delude yourself. The costs and consequences of recreational drug use are enormous.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I’m a victim when they show up in the Emergency Room almost dead. And then I provide their care for several days in the ICU, paying myself for all the hard work through the massive taxes I pay to federal, state and local governments.

And when the drug users don’t survive, their family, friends and community pays.

The drug user isn’t the only victim. I see this almost every day.

You might say that you don’t believe in all the government programs that burden taxpayers with the costs and consequences of drug addiction.

Fine. Dismantle those programs. Then we can talk about legalizing methamphetamines, heroin and cocaine.

But don’t delude yourself. The costs and consequences of recreational drug use are enormous.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Your right, so you are a total supporter of Obamacare right?

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 10:09 PM

It is both hilarious and sad to hear all the SoCons on this thread making the same arguments Democrats do, and being just as eager as the Democrats to use the government and the criminal justice system enforce their idea of virtue on every citizen.

Bartrams Garden on February 17, 2012 at 9:57 PM

.
And one might expect that a criminal justice be used to enforce something other the some conception of virtue?! Should a criminal justice system enforce evil?

What nonsense!

One is compelled to wonder whether many Libertarians are naught but simple minded lazy anarchists!

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Pretty easy fix from where I am sitting.

1. Make it legal. I don’t drink and I have never smoked or done any kind of drug but I don’t believe I have a right to tell anyone else what they can/cannot do with their body. If I did believe that I would have to then try to outlaw alcohol as it is chemically just as much of a controlled substance as most drugs.

2. Make the punishments for doing something stupid while high so intense that people will self police effectively. If life without the possibility of parole is the automatic penalty for a fatal car crash regardless of fault, the use of those drugs might just stay indoors.

I have wrestled with this a while and don’t see how the outlawing of drugs is any more constitutional than Prohibition or the outlawing of raw milk.

(Just in case you were thinking I was lying before…I was not. I have never and will never use drugs…but if you were to make sugar illegal tomorrow I might just have to go black market to get it…)

P.S. Please stop equating rape & murder with drug use, it does not help your case at all. Crimes against others is completely different than someone doing something stupid to themselves… and as you can see even the idiots here who are currently high can tell the difference…

airmonkey on February 17, 2012 at 10:26 PM

The theory that an object needs to be illegal because it causes harm is the same liberal argument that says guns should be illegal because they kill people. Having an object should not be illegal. The action of hurting someone or violating their rights is what should be illegal. Who cares if it was a gun, a drug, a knife or a flight of stairs that caused the harm? Pre-emptively banning objects because they may cause harm is certainly not a Conservative idea in line with intent of the constitution.

Resolute on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 PM

.
Conversely it is a Conservative argument that guns should be legal because they are used by the innocent to protect the lives and the rights of the innocent and therefore the innocent should have access to legal guns to assure that their lives and their rights not be violated.
.
Pray tell how do dehabilitating “recreational” drugs protect the lives and rights of the innocent? The innocent, such as the children, spouse, parents or neighbors of a habitual drug user?

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 10:28 PM

“Win the war? This is a stupid war. This is a stupid war, isn’t it?” he asked. “We’ve lost this war. This war is lost.”

Imagine where we would be if Shep was fighting our wars. Can you fight a war from a convertible?

The best way to win the war on drugs is to penalize the drug user. Throw them in jail, regardless of social status, cold turkey. Give them felonies. That would make rich white coke sniffers equal with inner city party store bandits, who had to steal their drug money

The inner city drug felons had excuses for their condition, like using drugs to stifle the hopelessness of their environment. Their gang membership is familia, the family that diappeared under welfare, and manhood that disappeared when their cities disintegrated. What wrecked the cities? IMHO drugs and political correctness

Decades ago, consensus was that drug usage is bad for a nation. This no doubt sprang from religious values

Libertarians, liberals consider drug usage good, but drug profits bad. They should be called Libertines for their true values. Oh yeah, enough medical management of drug usage will prevent Whitney Houstons. Right. We would end up wth more intrusion into medicine, less privacy, less rights, and a degraded society because drugs wreck people

Heavy drug use creates slugs and parasites, like the opium dens of China. It is overhead and we cant afford it

This brings me back to Shep. The war is stupid because we are not allowed to even criticize the enemy, so we attack the dealers instead. The enemy creates the dealer and replaces them as needed

entagor on February 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Your right, so you are a total supporter of Obamacare right?

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Talk about missing the point!

I fought against Obamacare about as hard as anyone.

How about this…

Step one: Shut down the programs that subsidize stupid behavior

Step two: Discuss the possibility legalizing stupid behavior.

Neither step is easy, and that’s why libertarians and conservatives have had little success with either.

But if you try to take “step two” before you take “step one” you’re going to have even more demand for Obamacare and similar programs. And then your nanny state is going to clamp down even harder on your freedom to abuse yourself.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM

I have wrestled with this a while and don’t see how the outlawing of drugs is any more constitutional than Prohibition or the outlawing of raw milk…

airmonkey on February 17, 2012 at 10:26 PM

.
Prohibition was constitutional because it was effected as amendment to the US Constitution (18th). The House and Senate passed and officially proposed by the 18th Amendment to the states on December 18, 1917. The ratification of the Amendment was completed on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the thirty-sixth of the forty-eight states then in the Union to ratify it. On January 29, acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk certified the ratification.

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Reassure me Mr. DHChron, that you wrote this with tongue-in-cheek.

It is hard to imagine that Libertarians would want responsible Americans to get the impression that cannabis so cripples the minds Libertarian advocates of drug decriminalization.

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I will reassure you when you say something that makes sense :)

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Well, made it home okay, no drunk drivers and I did enjoy that wonderful little Joyita. Just got done reading all your comments and I must say. It went exactly as I had suspected. Looks like we now know which Hot Air commenter’s are more then likely holding. Just one thought and then its off to the other threads, this info that you volunteered in this thread, will be used against you at some point. Dude are you paranoid now, Dude? Oh, one more tune.Two actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAiO0snfVMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7lg_hx-yzE

Bmore on February 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM

My son smokes pot. He’s got an OK job and is finally going to college to further his education. He doesn’t have enough money to buy a house. What does he spend his money on? Pot and cigarettes. I once read a book about 10 former pot smokers. Everyone of them talked about how much time they had wasted. I’ve tried to tell him, but he is just absolutely sure he’s doing just fine. Meanwwhile I take care of his 3 children and wait for him to finally figure it out. I’m so angry and people keep talking about legalizing it. I’m glad I’m 51 and won’t be around to see the destruction of this great country when you get your way.

LL1960 on February 17, 2012 at 10:55 PM

I will reassure you when you say something that makes sense :)

.
Let’s hope your journey to understanding need not begin with detoxification. I can assure you however that neither “the Jews and early Christians (including Jesus) regularly used cannabis in anointment oils”. If your problem persists consider a reputable drug rehabilitation program. ;-)

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM

LL1960 on February 17, 2012 at 10:55 PM

you read a book once? well then, you’re an expert.

try not watching his kids…teach him a little responsibility. By golly, he might “figure it out” a little sooner.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM

I’m sorry Mike but they did indeed. The first reference in the Bible is Exodus 30:23, in which Moses is instructed by the voice of God—emanating from a burning bush—to make an anointing oil of myrrh, cinnamon and roughly six pounds of cannabis (“250 shekels of keneh bosem”) mixed into about a gallon and a half of olive oil.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:03 PM

alk about missing the point!

I fought against Obamacare about as hard as anyone.

How about this…

Step one: Shut down the programs that subsidize stupid behavior

Step two: Discuss the possibility legalizing stupid behavior.

Neither step is easy, and that’s why libertarians and conservatives have had little success with either.

But if you try to take “step two” before you take “step one” you’re going to have even more demand for Obamacare and similar programs. And then your nanny state is going to clamp down even harder on your freedom to abuse yourself.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Very well said. That is what I was alluding to, but you said it better than I. We have to consider the consequences — and what to do about them — BEFORE we legalize these substances. I have not seen one legalization advocate, on this threada, who will even acknowledge the consequences, much less tell us how they propose that we deal with them.

But we’re the illogical ones…. *rolling eyes*

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Meanwwhile I take care of his 3 children and wait for him to finally figure it out. I’m so angry and people keep talking about legalizing it. I’m glad I’m 51 and won’t be around to see the destruction of this great country when you get your way.

LL1960 on February 17, 2012 at 10:55 PM

.

It good to encounter another adult on this board Mr. LL1960. Your three grandchildren are fortunate to have you to depend upon.
.

You are 51 and you are raising a second family at a time when you should be saving and investing for your retirement. Perhaps you can help us understand the financial burden your son’s drug use places upon your family and his children. Libertarians rarely if ever seem to address the social and financial costs that dehabilitating drug use imposes on innocent third parties.

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 11:11 PM

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Another myth promoted by users. here is one discussion Here is another]

Your desperation is showing.

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM

You are 51 and you are raising a second family at a time when you should be saving and investing for your retirement. Perhaps you can help us understand the financial burden your son’s drug use places upon your family and his children. Libertarians rarely if ever seem to address the social and financial costs that dehabilitating drug use imposes on innocent third parties.

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 11:11 PM

yes Mr. LL1960. Keep enabling your son’s irresponsible behavior…I’m sure that will help those innocent children a whole lot.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Sorry. Somehow I messed up that first link.

here it is

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

yes Mr. LL1960. Keep enabling your son’s irresponsible behavior…I’m sure that will help those innocent children a whole lot.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

But he’s “just smoking pot.” A “victimless” crime, after all.

Your hypocrisy is as stunning as your dishonesty.

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM

The war against rape is lost. Despite all we’ve done, and tried educating people about the evils of rape, rape still happens. Therefore, I motion that we legalize rape.

/sarc

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Rape involves a non-consensual party, by definition. Drug use in and of itself doesn’t, never has. Try again, so-con fascist.

Daikokuco on February 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Yep. No one has a right to tell anyone else they can’t use drugs, and no grounds WHATSOEVER to make, let alone support such a point. And the job of government (not that the term applies to the thugs are are incorrectly regarded as such when they [1] fail to uphold the [legitimate] law[s], [2] violate rather than defend the Constitution, and [3] act without the consent of the governed) is, among other things, to protect peoples’ RIGHT to use drugs as they see fit (so long as they’re not violating the rights of others, as, for example, when people drive after intoxicating themselves).

GuitarMark on February 17, 2012 at 11:19 PM

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:14 PM

your fascism is showing…

ahhhh, and I see you’ve linked the official website of…some dude

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

But he’s “just smoking pot.” A “victimless” crime, after all.

Your hypocrisy is as stunning as your dishonesty.

JannyMae on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 PM

don’t put words in my mouth you self righteous windbag. If the boy is spending money on weed and neglecting his children, it’s irresponsible

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

PROBLEM: Mr. LL1960′s son is wildly irresponsible

SOLUTION: big government

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Smith should zip it and just read the news; I for one, couldn’t care less about his opinion.

Oracleforhire on February 17, 2012 at 11:24 PM

yes Mr. LL1960. Keep enabling your son’s irresponsible behavior…I’m sure that will help those innocent children a whole lot.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

.
[eyes roll] Yes Mr. LL1960 teach your chronic pothead adult son a real lesson. Abandon three children to his care! That’s the ticket!
.
You can set about saving and investing today. But for your retirement. You will need to sacrifice and save for years of therapy and drug rehab programs for your three grandchildren and any great grand children they might bring into the world. Yeah that’s the ticket to an emotionally and financially secure future! [eyes roll]

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 11:25 PM

I’m sorry Mike but they did indeed. The first reference in the Bible is Exodus 30:23, in which Moses is instructed by the voice of God—emanating from a burning bush—to make an anointing oil of myrrh, cinnamon and roughly six pounds of cannabis (“250 shekels of keneh bosem”) mixed into about a gallon and a half of olive oil.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Sorry but thats just another pothead myth.

In the third century before the time of Christ, the Hebrew Torah was translated into the Greek in Alexandria, Egypt. The Jews who did the translation used the word “calamou” to translate the words “q’nah-bosem.” If the Jews who did the translation thought that the anointing oil was made of “cannabinos,” the word at that time that meant “hemp,” (Liddell and Scott), they would not have used “calamou.” “Calamos” (the nominative form of the word “calamou”) is a reed plant. Later scholars in the second and first centuries before Christ, as they translated out the remainder of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, also continued to use “calamos” to translate the word.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM

yes Mr. LL1960. Keep enabling your son’s irresponsible behavior…I’m sure that will help those innocent children a whole lot.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

.
[eyes roll] Yes Mr. LL1960 teach your chronic pothead adult son a real lesson. Abandon three children to his care! That’s the ticket!
.
You can set about saving and investing today. But NOT for your retirement. You will need to sacrifice and save for years of therapy and drug rehab programs for your three grandchildren and any great grand children they might bring into the world. Yeah that’s the ticket to an emotionally and financially secure future! [eyes roll]

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM

What happens to his kids while he “figures it out”. Its not about him anymore. Its about them. If he ever does start figuring it out and feeling like he needs to make a change, all he has to do is light up and he doesn’t have to worry about it anymore. He is doing better, but it is taking a long time—that is why I quoted the book about 10 former pot smokers. Smoking pot wastes time in peoples lives and puts burdens on other people. I do not want it legalized. Once you legalize it, there is no going back.

LL1960 on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

don’t put words in my mouth you self righteous windbag. If the boy is spending money on weed and neglecting his children, it’s irresponsible

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Taking care of your own grandchildren isn’t “enabling.” Especially if the only alternative is to stand by, watching the state take the kids away to foster care.

A lot of people deal with this sort of tragedy. They take responsibility for their grandchildren so the rest of us don’t have to — and you have the nerve to criticize them? That’s hateful.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You can set about saving and investing today. But for your retirement. You will need to sacrifice and save for years of therapy and drug rehab programs for your three grandchildren and any great grand children they might bring into the world. Yeah that’s the ticket to an emotionally and financially secure future! [eyes roll]

Mike OMalley on February 17, 2012 at 11:25 PM

no one goes to rehab for pot Mike…get a clue! :)

he’s only coddling his son and making things worse for his grandchildren in the long run.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM

not a myth. Scholars like Sara Benetowa and Immanuel Low identify the ancient Hebrew term, keneh bosem, as the etymological ancestor of the modern word cannabis.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:34 PM

no one goes to rehab for pot Mike…get a clue! :)

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/treatment-centers/rehab-centers/marijuana.htm

http://www.michaelshouse.com/marijuana-rehab/

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:35 PM

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

it is enabling. If he has to watch them because his son is out getting stoned, it’s enabling. Is enabling something to be criticized? darn effin’ tootin. It’s not hate…it’s tough love.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:36 PM

not a myth. Scholars like Sara Benetowa and Immanuel Low identify the ancient Hebrew term, keneh bosem, as the etymological ancestor of the modern word cannabis.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:34 PM

‘Scholars’ have also identified the location of ancient Atlantis.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:37 PM

yes, sharrukin…I realize some people are fooled into believing pot is addictive. Mostly parents worried for their children. There’s been a government propaganda effort against pot for decades. Naturally institutions would be created to deal with this non existent addiction for a tidy profit I’m sure.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:39 PM

‘Scholars’ have also identified the location of ancient Atlantis.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:37 PM

scholars in what! Ancient Alien Theory!

etymologist Sara Benetowa (of the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw)

Immanuel Low (1854-1944), a recognized authority in classical and Semitic lexicography

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:43 PM

yes, sharrukin…I realize some people are fooled into believing pot is addictive. Mostly parents worried for their children. There’s been a government propaganda effort against pot for decades. Naturally institutions would be created to deal with this non existent addiction for a tidy profit I’m sure.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Got any other gems of knowledge you want to share with us?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:43 PM

It’s not hate…it’s tough love. DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Tough love is perfectly wonderful, unless it results in the kids being neglected.

There’s a lot we don’t know about this story. We don’t know if the son is “out” getting stoned, we don’t know what the kids are being exposed to, and we don’t know what their being deprived of.

If you would be comfortable letting your grandkids grow up in misery and neglect, that’s bad enough. But you shouldn’t be hateful to people who feel otherwise.

Yours is the kind of libertarianism that turns everyone off.

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Got any other gems of knowledge you want to share with us?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:43 PM

you win most pointless post of the thread. congrats.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:46 PM

you win most pointless post of the thread. congrats.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:46 PM

No, not at all. This government conspiracy sounds very interesting.

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:51 PM

RightKlik on February 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I’m sorry if you can’t handle the truth RightKlik.

next time I’ll be warm and fuzzy and tell the guy lies.

Go ahead! enable him some more…that’s what’s best.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM

There’s no upside at all for the current drug importers if drugs are made legal. This raises the interesting possibility that the drug importers may keep drugs effectively illegal by killing off any legitimate competition and continuing to smuggle the stuff in.

In other words, having through unwitting price supports established drug gangs so militarily strong that they function as semi-states, we may have lost the ability to legalise drug distribution in the US.

PersonFromPorlock on February 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM

As powerful as the cartels are, they are simply no match for the combined law enforcement power of the US, operating over rigorously enforced contracts between US corporations, given the drop in price that can be expected upon legalization. What is far more likely is more respectable members of families that operate these cartels will go into some element of the industry, such as providing raw materials for finished production in the US.

JohnGalt23 on February 17, 2012 at 11:53 PM

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:51 PM

ha! I suppose you’re going to say the government doesn’t get involved with propaganda.

SoCons are always suspicious of Uncle Sam until he says exactly what they want to hear.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

What is far more likely is more respectable members of families that operate these cartels will go into some element of the industry, such as providing raw materials for finished production in the US.

JohnGalt23 on February 17, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Why wouldn’t they just sell to kids, sell illegal drugs if any still exist, or supply designer drugs that haven’t been approved for sale?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Why wouldn’t they just sell to kids, sell illegal drugs if any still exist, or supply designer drugs that haven’t been approved for sale?

sharrukin on February 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM

For the same reason mafias don’t exist (for the most part) to market liquor to children, or market black market above-legal-proof moonshine.

There just isn’t enough demand to compensate for the risk premium associated with such criminal activity.

I’m quite sure that (when I smoked tobacco) I could have gotten a much better deal buying untaxed smuggled cigarettes rather than dealing with legitimate retailers and paying the tax. And while there were some tobacco smugglers, especially in high-tax states, they aren’t big enough or profitable enough to take over entire governments.

Why not? Because I, and most of smoking America, don’t find it worth dealing with the black market, and all the attendant risks, when legitimate markets are available to us.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

LL1960 on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I am being a jerk LL…I’m sorry about that. I understand you’re in a tough situation, and you care for your grandkids very much. I’m not so pretentious as to know what’s best, but in my experience one learns best when one must learn.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Because Mr LL1960′s son is irresponsible with his freedoms (which includes the freedom to fail – sometimes spectacularly self-induced), Mr LL1960 and his grandchildren suffer. Ergo, Jeddite (and others) must surrender some of their own freedoms.

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM

no one goes to rehab for pot Mike…get a clue! :)

he’s only coddling his son and making things worse for his grandchildren in the long run.

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM

.

This is why I find Libertarians so troubling. It is hard for me to tell where the simple minded ideology segues into inhumane callousness and then in effect into cruelty …

.

No Mr. DrChron I was not suggesting that the grand children would duplicate their father’s pot smoking. Children of substance abusers may just as well replicate their parental role model’s addictive behavior with alcohol or meth or heroin or cocaine or some other destructive hehavior.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM

For the same reason mafias don’t exist (for the most part) to market liquor to children, or market black market above-legal-proof moonshine.

There just isn’t enough demand to compensate for the risk premium associated with such criminal activity.

Ummm, except they do smuggle legal products. CD’s, movies, shoes, computer software, cigarettes, electronics, and yes, booze as well.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

So are all drugs going to be legal?

Any drug at all, or just approved ones?

How do you deal with a drug company that claims their drug is an illicit drug so they can directly market it without going through costly FDA safety trials?

Can they be sold to kids and if not what’s the cut off age?

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM

freedom is just a word to these people…they take it as seriously as I take the Black Eyed Peas.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM

I’m a social conservative, and though intensely anti-drug, very pro free-will. (If God thinks its that important, it must be…) The war on drugs is Kabuki theater that props up a $100 BIL+/year annual budget. The continuation of that extended budget, as well as the budgets of the courts, law enforcement, and prison systems – IS its only function. Produce it, regulate it, tax it, and treat those that decide they don’t want to die. At a net profit. Teh Stupid needs to end now.

Abiss on February 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM

there’s already a system in place for the deadliest of all drugs – alcohol.

legalize, tax, regulate, enforce DWI and age restrictions

it’s that simple

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:20 AM

How do you deal with a drug company that claims their drug is an illicit drug so they can directly market it without going through costly FDA safety trials?

Can they be sold to kids and if not what’s the cut off age?

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM

.
Thank you Mr. Sharrukin for you excellent postings.
.

Over the years I’ve know scientists at the FDA who have privately been quite clear and consistent with me about marijuana. According to them, Marijuana would ever ever ever pass the drug approval process at the FDA because its demonstrated dehabilitating effects and dangerous side effects make it much to dangerous and risky to gain approval in the FDA’s professional scientific drug approval processes.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Ummm, except they do smuggle legal products. CD’s, movies, shoes, computer software, cigarettes, electronics, and yes, booze as well.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:03 AM

So are all drugs going to be legal?

Any drug at all, or just approved ones?

How do you deal with a drug company that claims their drug is an illicit drug so they can directly market it without going through costly FDA safety trials?

Can they be sold to kids and if not what’s the cut off age?

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Uh, those CD’s, movies, shoes they are smuggling are counterfeit… ergo not legal.

Fail.

The tobacco and booze smuggling amounts to peanuts in comparison to the legal trade. Not even a drop in the ocean, and way smaller than the amount of booze smuggled during Prohibition, when the nation was a third the size. And they sure as hell aren’t killing tens of thousands of people and subverting national governments.

Fail.

As far as what drugs are to be legal, that is up to the individual states, who at the end of the day, actually have the authority under our Constitution to prohibit them.

And with all due respect… f**k the FDA. Where exactly do you find in our Constitution the authority of the US Government to tell sovereign states and citizens which drugs are and are not safe?

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM

tru dat Abiss

tru to teh dat

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM

freedom is just a word to these people…they take it as seriously as I take the Black Eyed Peas.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Well, as you said earlier – and has been observed many times by many others – all too many self-identifying SoCons are totally cool with big government when said big government is pushing their agenda.

This particular topic is easy for many of those individuals, because instead of confronting the reality that they’re supporting a big government squashing of individual liberty (vis a vis The War on Drugs), they can look the other way and snidely look the other way and declare “lol ur a pothead and u live with ur mom lolol!!”. So grand to feel so moral and superior.

(and for my part, I dont even smoke the reefer =[ )

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Don’t Bogart that thread my friends, pass it over to me. Guys/gals don’t forget to support Jazz in Allah’s absence by showing up there and telling him what a nice job he’s done with the joint.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Where exactly do you find in our Constitution the authority of the US Government to tell sovereign states and citizens which drugs are and are not safe?

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM

good point. I don’t think the Feds made it illegal because they don’t have the authority. They required tax stamps for pot and never issued any.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Drug ‘doubles mental health risk’
Smoking cannabis virtually doubles the risk of developing mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, researchers say.

The New Zealand scientists said their study suggested this was probably due to chemical changes in the brain which resulted from smoking the drug.

The study, published in the journal Addiction, followed over 1,000 people born in 1977 for 25 years.

UK mental health campaigners said it was more evidence of a “drug-induced mental health crisis”.

The researchers, from the University of Otago, interviewed people taking part in the Christchurch Health and Development Study about their cannabis use at the ages of 18, 21 and 25.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4305783.stm

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Report suggests Marijuana Linked to Risk of Mental Illness

July 30, 2007

The New York Times (opens in a new window, free one time registration required) reports on possible link between marijuana use and psychosis. A new study, funded by the British Health Department, suggests that even occasional use of cannabis could raise the risk of serious mental illness by 40 percent; however, researchers couldn’t prove that marijuana use itself causes psychosis.

At the 2007 NAMI National Convention, Nora Volkow, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, spoke about new research that explores the relationship between substance abuse and mental illness. Volkow explained that there are common factors between mental illness and drug abuse related to genetics, brain development and environmental stressors.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Top_Story&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&ContentID=48792&title=Drug%20Use%20Linked%20to%20Risk%20of%20Mental%20Illness

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:29 AM

ahhhh, and I see you’ve linked the official website of…some dude

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:20 PM

That’s my forum.

Judgmental much?

Yes, anything less than complete agreement with you is fascism. I get it.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

the BBC…where I go for reliable info on everything from pot to Global Warming.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Hey, maybe one of you Hot Air heads can help me out with this. I have always heard that Randolph Hearse had Congress ban hemp because he owned tree farms and wanted to make paper from trees. I have also been told the best paper, most durable quality paper is in old Bibles and was made from hemp. True or False? Don’t forget Jazz, plus we can swap tunes.

Bmore on February 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM

don’t put words in my mouth you self righteous windbag. If the boy is spending money on weed and neglecting his children, it’s irresponsible

DHChron on February 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Yes, of course. Only YOU are allowed to make assumptions about what other people believe. I get it.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

And with all due respect… f**k the FDA.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM

With all due respect…

Minamata Disease
Thalidomide
Mad Cow Disease
Yushō Disease

The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry “You’re not the boss of me”.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Pot Ups Risk for Mental Illness

THURSDAY July 26, 2007 — Smoking marijuana can raise your risk of developing a psychotic illness by 40 percent, British researchers say.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal substance in most countries, including the United States. In fact, some 20 percent of young people report using it at least once a week or more, according to the article in the July 28 issue of The Lancet.

“People who used cannabis had a greater risk of developing psychotic outcome then people who didn’t use cannabis,” said study author Stanley Zammit, a clinical lecturer in psychiatric epidemiology at Cardiff University.

In the study, Zammit’s group analyzed 35 studies that looked at whether marijuana was linked to mental health disorders.

They found that people who had used marijuana were 41 percent more likely to have a psychosis compared with people who had never used the drug. They also found that the risk increased as the amount of marijuana used and the length of time someone used the drug increased.

Those who smoked the most marijuana had a twofold to threefold increase in the risk of developing a psychotic problem, Zammit said.

http://www.drugs.com/news/pot-ups-risk-mental-illness-8783.html

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

That’s a goddamned shame, is what that is.

Now, remind me again why we should use criminal law to stop citizens from engaging in activities that might be harmful to their health? I mean, much as I hate to admit it, ice cream makes me fat. Probably means I’ll die an accelerated death. Gonna drop the hammer on Breyer’s, are ya?

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:32 AM

A joke perhaps? Sorry I forgot my sarc tag.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to lower the flags to half staff in honor of the death of singer Whitney Houston.

JPeterman on February 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

My fault…carry on.

ChrisL on February 18, 2012 at 12:32 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:29 AM

right. so I reference etymological scholars and you reference…you.

forcing your own sense of morality on the hedonistic masses is fascism, pure and simple.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

PROBLEM: Mr. LL1960′s son is wildly irresponsible

SOLUTION: big government

Jeddite on February 17, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I’m glad I’m not the only one that realizes that is the alternative to Grandpa taking care of his grandkids. Should he stick them in the foster care system instead? I thought the conservative principle was that families are responsible for taking care of one another.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:34 AM

With all due respect…

Minamata Disease
Thalidomide
Mad Cow Disease
Yushō Disease

The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry “You’re not the boss of me”.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Do you really want me provide a lit of FDA’s failures? They are numerous.

But once again, if you please, where exactly do you find the authority of the US Government to tell sovereign states and citizens what drugs are and are not safe? I, for one, trust the State of California, or Nevada, or Idaho, to provide me with the necessary information and protection to secure my safety in the marketplace.

I always assumed that those who thought the States incompetent to do so were on the political Left, or small children.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Should he stick them in the foster care system instead? I thought the conservative principle was that families are responsible for taking care of one another.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Am I the only one who thinks this kid might actually learn something if he’s given the chance? Why do you assume he will fail?

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:37 AM

The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry “You’re not the boss of me”.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

There are libertarian intellectuals for whom I have much respect, such as Charles Murray and Richard Epstein.
.

But as a general matter I think you have nailed it Mr. Sharrukin: “The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry “You’re not the boss of me”.
.

allow me to add a refinement:
The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry of a rude adolescent: “You’re not the boss of me”.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:38 AM

I’m glad I’m not the only one that realizes that is the alternative to Grandpa taking care of his grandkids. Should he stick them in the foster care system instead? I thought the conservative principle was that families are responsible for taking care of one another.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:34 AM

And I thought it was conservative credo that one doesn’t ask third parties to sacrifice their freedoms to ameliorate one’s own misfortunes, self-inflicted or otherwise.

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:39 AM

I’m glad I’m not the only one that realizes that is the alternative to Grandpa taking care of his grandkids. Should he stick them in the foster care system instead? I thought the conservative principle was that families are responsible for taking care of one another.

Kudos to him for stepping up and demonstrating the responsibility that his own son, at this time in his own life, seemingly lacks. Does Mr LL1960′s son have any siblings, I wonder? I am quite familiar with Mr LL1960′s predicament. Oh yes, yes I am.

However, it’s not for the government to stomp all over my freedoms in the name of protecting me from myself so that I do not end up like Mr. LL1960′s son.

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:39 AM

allow me to add a refinement:
The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry of a rude adolescent: “You’re not the boss of me”.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:38 AM

And once again:

Where, exactly, in the US Constitution, do you find the authority of the US Government to tell the Sates and their citizens what drugs are and are not safe?

JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I don’t think anyone’s gonna take you up on the JohnGalt :)

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Do you really want me provide a lit of FDA’s failures? They are numerous…
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:36 AM

.
If you first list the FDA’s successes you will grow old before you get around to listing its failures.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Just wait until Empress-Queen Michelle Obama bans high-fructose corn syrup – now there is one addictive drug.

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

the BBC…where I go for reliable info on everything from pot to Global Warming.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Translation: “La-la-la-la-la! I can’t hear you!”

Yeah, we get it. You know it all. Anything that disproves what you declare to be true is illegitimate.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Just wait until Empress-Queen Moochelle Obama I bans high-fructose corn syrup – now there is one addictive drug.

Jeddite on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

allow me to add a refinement:
The snot-nosed twelve-year-old battle cry of a rude adolescent: “You’re not the boss of me”.

Mike OMalley on February 18, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Pretty much. They have grown up in a culture so safe and wealthy that they have no idea where that shield from reality comes from or how it is maintained. They are overgrown children demanding their ‘rights’ without any sense of what those rights entail or what sort of sacrifice and responsibility are required to exercise them.

sharrukin on February 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

hehehe…now you’re sticking up for the BBC!

everything’s bass akwards! Big Government is the bees knees, and socialized broadcasting is the epitome of news media.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 AM

forcing your own sense of morality on the hedonistic masses is fascism, pure and simple.

DHChron on February 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Yes. As I said. You want anarchy. Therefore any limits whatsoever on personal liberty is fascism to you. You proved my point once more.

JannyMae on February 18, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Those who would shape America into a ‘conservative’ utopia are not ‘conservative.’ They’re statists. The political spectrum is not ‘conservatives on the right, and liberals on the left.’ That is a distraction. The true political spectrum is ‘anarchists (no government) on the right, totalitarian statists (all controlling government) on the left.’ Hence ‘the conservative’ – right of center, is a ‘limited government’ proponent. We live in a time where it becomes more critical that a man knows exactly who he is and where he falls on that spectrum. The ‘conservative utopianist’ doesn’t reside where he thinks he resides.

Abiss on February 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6