Video: Bill O’Reilly and I yell at each other about weed

posted at 10:11 pm on January 6, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

For the record, my daughter is only five months old. I wouldn’t even trust her to pack a bowl properly.

In this segment, I felt called upon to defend the glory of the Internet on top of articulating the argument for rethinking the drug war. Bill equates being for legalization with being for all the pot-smoking all the time by all the people. I just don’t think the issue of smoking a bunch of weed (or doing a bunch of texting, which is also at issue, here) need to be law enforcement issues. Not everything I think is inadvisable for my future teen daughter has to be illegal for everyone. I’d rather her not get a tattoo, but tattoos don’t need to be illegal to prevent the downfall of society. Not everything that’s potentially dangerous when abused has to be prohibited by law. Marijuana will be illegal for minors in legalization states, just as alcohol is now. We spend entirely too much money putting too many nonviolent drug offenders in jail, which ironically, can make them into bigger criminals by preventing their reintegration into society after their time in lock-up. Lachlan Markay puts my thoughts on this succinctly.

Yes, there are downsides to marijuana use and possible downsides for society, with which Colorado and Washington will wrestle. That’s how things work in a system of federalism. I don’t usually post myself, but this is a sufficiently interesting generational and philosophical schism on the Right, it’ll be fun to see you guys discuss in comments. Bill says I’m outside the conservative box, and while mine is a pretty libertarian position, I’m not sure my negative take on the drug war is as outside the conservative box as he suggests.

Click to watch:

yelling

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

Because otherwise we’re poised at the top of the slippery slope.

Welcome to the human condition.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 12:02 PM

M240H on January 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM

They promote because of the State of Colorado. Without reservation.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Here is the deal folks….

If you are PRO-legalization your are FOR accelerated IMMIGRATION.

Pot smokers, even casual users, cannot get all the blue collar jobs. It’s a safety issue. We have not been able to fill blue collar industrial job demand for over a decade now. It’s in large because applicants (with skills) cannot pass a drug test.

Kermit on January 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM
heres the deal folks… when drug testing becomes ON THE JOB IMPAIRMENT TESTING, like booze testing,and when they start testing for fatig, (since fatig is the NUMBER #1 cause of work accidents), then i might beleive it really is about safety, and not CONTROL over what people do when the bell rings!!!!!

svs22422 on January 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I am an older conservative/TEA party member and I do not have a problem with personal use of any drug as long as it doesn’t threaten me or my family. But Marijuana is not sellable as a fixed drug amount and the chances of someone getting a much stronger dose that expected is enormous. Imagine if alcohol could be bought in clear bottles with no content posted on them? Just consider the results of a college beer party where the beer contained 25% alcohol? Or 200 proof booze. If they can refine it and label it then it might be a sellable product to the masses but not until then.

inspectorudy on January 7, 2014 at 12:04 PM

He banned Michelle ? !

That’s probably common knowledge around here, but I was unaware of it till I just read your comment.

listens2glenn on January 7, 2014 at 1:37 AM

I thought she banned herself because of Geraldo once saying he would spit on her and O’Reilly continuing to have him on.

cptacek on January 7, 2014 at 12:05 PM

That’s not quite what I’m saying. If you removed the older people from the polling sample, the numbers in support of legalization would be overwhelming. The younger folk …. younger than 65 … realize that the costly brutal authoritarian solution doesn’t work, and they don’t want it. “Young people under 65,” that sounds good to some of those later middle agers that haven’t thought of themselves as that young lately.

Consider this. When pot is legal, and the dark “allure of the illict” fades, it won’t be so cool anymore to smoke it. With it legal, more and more attention is going to be paid to an open discussion of pot’s adverse effects. Education now has been compromised by youth having suspicions that the educators are part of a kind of authoritarian conspiracy, and considering all the overblown “Reefer Madness” type scare mongering appeals, the kids suspicions are almost warranted. Now kids are going to be serious about hearing the downsides of pot. We have to wait for the hype in CO to calm down, but over the long term, just watch, pot use is going to drop, especially among the youth.

So, we can have a crazy police state with higher levels of pot use, or we can scrap the dog shooting SWAT teams and prison guard union$, and see pot use drop. If you think what I’m saying sounds insane, it isn’t. Look at some videos on what happened in Portugal, where they decriminalized ALL drugs over 10 years ago, and drug use and addiction had been reduced: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Porgugal+drug+decriminalization&sm=3

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 3:44 AM

Facts not in evidence. Everything you just started is conjecture on your part. I think it’s just people who want to get high.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Here is the deal folks….

If you are PRO-legalization your are FOR accelerated IMMIGRATION.

[wordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswords]

Kermit on January 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH NO.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Wade, you underestimate the motivating power of state sanctioned drug use. Or state sanctioned anything.
If its unhealthy, the Government should not promote.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Same rationale used by Bloomberg to ban large servings of sugary drinks.

Absence of illegality isn’t the same as sanctioned.

Does the state sanction: Adultery? Lying? Twinkies? Couch-potatoism? Porn? Bull riding? Farting in elevators? Eating dinner without washing your hands? Tobacco? Consumption of undercooked meats? Pork rinds? Running with scissors?

(Understanding your answers may vary based on the state in which you reside)

Arnold Yabenson on January 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

What’s your point?

How does that change the fact that millions of Americans use alcohol specifically to alter their state of mind?

And, egads, CHILDREN ARE ARE OFTEN WATCHING IT HAPPEN!!!!

If we can save ONE CHILD, we must make everything illegal, am I right?

mockmook on January 7, 2014 at 3:53 AM

Not at all. Hell of a straw man you have there.

Moderation is key. Sugar is a poison at high levels. Alcohol is a poison at high levels. Hell, eating too many apples is a poison at astronomically high levels. These items do nothing to you at responsible levels.

Weed is a drug that is meant to alter your state of mind. That’s it.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Wade, you underestimate the motivating power of state sanctioned drug use. Or state sanctioned anything.
If its unhealthy, the Government should not promote.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Same rationale used by Bloomberg to ban large servings of sugary drinks.

Absence of illegality isn’t the same as sanctioned.

Does the state sanction: Adultery? Lying? Twinkies? Couch-potatoism? Porn? Bull riding? Farting in elevators? Eating dinner without washing your hands? Tobacco? Consumption of undercooked meats? Pork rinds? Running with scissors?

(Understanding your answers may vary based on the state in which you reside)

Arnold Yabenson on January 7, 2014 at 12:09 PM

You completely missed the point. The state of NY never promoted Big Gulps, and “Absence of Legality” is a far cry better choice than State Sanctioning. Meaning it better to not enforce the law than to overturn it and celebrate its demise.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 12:17 PM

If you don’t get it, further discussion is pointless. We can disagree.

M240H on January 7, 2014 at 11:52 AM

You’re missing my point. I am asking why ONLY pot? You want all drugs decriminalized. So why would you possibly be okay with only pot getting decriminalized? Unless you later want ALL drugs to be decriminalized?

See my point?

Otherwise, yeah, we can disagree.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Pat Buchanan wonders if America is going to pot. Personally, I think Hot Air is going to pot.

I have not posted on Hot Air for quite a while since I noticed a definitive shift in cultural thinking and comments. I come back from time to time to scan the article headlines, and may read one on occasion. But I think the makeup of Hot Air readers leans libertarian in viewpoints and is backing away from solid conservative principles. I also see a distinct decline in conservative principles when reading some of the headlines and/or articles.

It’s not my blog, so whatever Hot Air becomes in the future is not important to me. But I do miss the old Hot Air that stood behind a set of values and principles that were important to me. All things change in time and this site is one of them. I will move on others that remain in the conservative camp. I refuse to join the populist movement that has taken over this site.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

How’s it hurt you if I’m a junkie?

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

If you cannot imagine how a nation of junkies would look, you need to open your eyes.

Read the book, Flashback.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM
There has definitely been a shift.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM

The problem is a STATE sanctioning the use of weed. Colorado has not only given the green light but has advertised that anyone who would pertake should not FEEL guilt. Its celebrated at the STATE level and the HotAir bosses are wrong to not understand the difference or the long term effects of state sanctioning bad behavior.

Germany sanctioned bad behavior in a completely different situation but in the minds of those German people at the time, it was fine to destroy Jews.

No, I’m not saying that weed should be compared to the Nazism for its crime, I’m saying sanction by the state will always help to promote whatever is (good or bad). Since pot is unhealthy, it shouldn’t be promoted by the state.

Better to quietly relax inforcement than to sanction and promote its use.

MKH, thats where you, Ed and AP have missed the mark on this discussion.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM

And that have already done this in most jurisdictions.

They don’t get that once you sanction behavior you get more of it. When an action is no longer shameful more people engage in that action.

As for those proclaiming the war on drugs a failure, I fail to see the evidence. Is the war on murder a failure because people still kill? War on robbery a failure because people still steal?

We have much less drug use than we would otherwise if the government sanctioned the behavior.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:29 PM

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM

No I’m not. You don’t have a clue WHY there a lot of immigrants have been brought here.

Because of MJ we would not even be able to keep many oilfields open, without having to import blue collar labor and pay them good wages. It ain’t even Mexicans crossing the border any longer. We’re have to go to the Philippines and India to find qualified welders and pipefitters who can pass a drug test.

Kermit on January 7, 2014 at 12:32 PM

You are just getting schooled on this entire thread, time for you to retreat in embarrassment.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM

You are a leftist troll that cannot think clearly enough to come to logical conclusions. Go sit in a ditch and win a darwin award.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:32 PM

I will move on others that remain in the conservative camp. I refuse to join the populist movement that has taken over this site.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Thanks, metro. I agree this site is becoming quite populist.

Not sure if I’ll leave or not. It’s important to know how to state true conservative positions when talking to moderate conservatives, and this site is quickly becoming a bastion for that particular demographic.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Not at all. Hell of a straw man you have there.

Moderation is key. Sugar is a poison at high levels. Alcohol is a poison at high levels. Hell, eating too many apples is a poison at astronomically high levels. These items do nothing to you at responsible levels.

Weed is a drug that is meant to alter your state of mind. That’s it.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM

And then the next thing you will know, they will be dancing.

antisense on January 7, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Why? Why should opium be illegal but not pot? Opium has a long history as a palliative and recreational drug. What exactly about opium makes it “worse” than pot?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM

I didn’t say opium should be illegal, just its large scale production and distribution. Also,I don’t think marijuana should be legal simply because it has a long history as a palliative and recreational drug. I think it should be legal because it also has a very low potential for harm.

When we look at how to deal with recreational drugs, we should consider both the harm that the drug itself causes, and the harm that its prohibition causes. Things like marijuana and caffeine have a very low potential for harm as drugs, while their prohibition is very harmful. Drugs like heroin and crack have a very high potential for harm, but so does their prohibition. That’s why I believe we should treat marijuana differently from harder drugs. With harder drugs, we should find a way to steer users from more harmful things like heroin and cocaine, into less harmful things like coca and opium. If users could legally produce and consume less harmful precursors, it would deprive the hardcore drug market of many of its best customers, and without having to legalize those drugs.

EricW on January 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM
There has definitely been a shift.

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Thanks, metro. I agree this site is becoming quite populist.

Not sure if I’ll leave or not. It’s important to know how to state true conservative positions when talking to moderate conservatives, and this site is quickly becoming a bastion for that particular demographic.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Amadeus & AJsDaddie…Thanks for comments. You are both patriots.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

No one has ever died by an overdose of marijuana.

alQemist on January 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I didn’t say opium should be illegal, just its large scale production and distribution. Also,I don’t think marijuana should be legal simply because it has a long history as a palliative and recreational drug. I think it should be legal because it also has a very low potential for harm.

When we look at how to deal with recreational drugs, we should consider both the harm that the drug itself causes, and the harm that its prohibition causes. Things like marijuana and caffeine have a very low potential for harm as drugs, while their prohibition is very harmful. Drugs like heroin and crack have a very high potential for harm, but so does their prohibition. That’s why I believe we should treat marijuana differently from harder drugs. With harder drugs, we should find a way to steer users from more harmful things like heroin and cocaine, into less harmful things like coca and opium. If users could legally produce and consume less harmful precursors, it would deprive the hardcore drug market of many of its best customers, and without having to legalize those drugs.

EricW on January 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Okay, so your position is to legalize opium poppies and coca plants (and by extension pot, since it’s almost universally used in a natural state), and just make the processed products like heroin and cocaine illegal.

I have to admit this is the most unique position I’ve ever heard.

I must grant you that your position seems intellectually consistent and that’s really all I ask. I don’t know that your position will actually get a lot of mainstream adherence, but I have no disagreement on the grounds of intellectual hypocrisy that is so rife among the pot-only people.

Congratulations on a unique and thought-provoking view of the problem. I can’t say I agree with you, much the same that I don’t agree with the “all drugs legal” crowd, but I can at least acknowledge it to be a reasoned option.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Pat Buchanan wonders if America is going to pot. Personally, I think Hot Air is going to pot.

I have not posted on Hot Air for quite a while since I noticed a definitive shift in cultural thinking and comments. I come back from time to time to scan the article headlines, and may read one on occasion. But I think the makeup of Hot Air readers leans libertarian in viewpoints and is backing away from solid conservative principles. I also see a distinct decline in conservative principles when reading some of the headlines and/or articles.

It’s not my blog, so whatever Hot Air becomes in the future is not important to me. But I do miss the old Hot Air that stood behind a set of values and principles that were important to me. All things change in time and this site is one of them. I will move on others that remain in the conservative camp. I refuse to join the populist movement that has taken over this site.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

So do most of us. It’s why we miss Michelle.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

No one has ever died by an overdose of marijuana.

alQemist on January 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM

or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

alQemist is so typical of people that make assertations without doing a lick of research. I thank njrob for pointing out the ignorance of alQemist. Most of the people that advocate total legalization of marijuana are hedonistic in their viewpoints on the topic.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

And then the next thing you will know, they will be dancing.

antisense on January 7, 2014 at 12:37 PM

That really is your mindset. You think it’s just the old fuddy duddies trying to keep you from having a good time. Instead, it’s realizing that there is a genuine slippery slope here just like there was with homosexual unions. You’re blind to it because it’s not an issue for you. Doesn’t mean the effect isn’t there all the same.

Enjoy the constant dumbing down of society. You’ll get the communist mayor of nyc as president with our current course in society.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

alQemist is so typical of people that make assertations without doing a lick of research. I thank njrob for pointing out the ignorance of alQemist. Most of the people that advocate total legalization of marijuana are hedonistic in their viewpoints on the topic.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Gladly. Thanks for the kind words.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:58 PM

a genuine slippery slope here

The slippery slope is the most abused concept in history. Once people start using it, it’s all downhill, fast. The next thing you know dancing leads to sex.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I’ve had it up to “here” with O’Reilly’s unrelenting belittling of you, Mary Katharine, and of his guests in general. If the day ever comes that he shows others common, respectful courtesy, I may again tune in. Until then, zot to him.

GGMac on January 7, 2014 at 1:03 PM

a genuine slippery slope here

The slippery slope is the most abused concept in history. Once people start using it, it’s all downhill, fast. The next thing you know dancing leads to sex.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Not when we’re talking about like things, fade. We’re talking about why, once you legalize pot, won’t you legalize other drugs? Can you tell me the hard line where you stop legalizing?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Not when we’re talking about like things, fade.

You don’t realize dancing and sex are like things?

You’re doing at least one of them wrong.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:04 PM

You don’t realize dancing and sex are like things?

You’re doing at least one of them wrong.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I don’t dance. Any other snark?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM

You don’t realize dancing and sex are like things?

You’re doing at least one of them wrong.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I don’t dance. Any other snark to avoid the question?

Fixed it.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Y’know, for all this “blurr durrr durrr HotAir is being commandeered by non-statists” circle-jerk fuss-ery, there is an obvious alternative: TownHall. Just stay away from that Mr Schlicter, true-con types.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM
njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:29 PM

I live in Colorado, and I have not seen any indication that the state is “sanctioning” pot use.
It was a statewide ballot issue that legalized pot – as opposed to the legislature voting in the law change. In general, the Dem politicians support it and the Republicans are against it. From what I’ve seen, more cities/towns and counties are NOT allowing legal recreational pot sales than ARE allowing it. The new law just says possession of small quantities and use of same in private are allowed to be legal – it did not mandate that sales of pot be allowed everywhere – so local government entities can say no for their jurisdictions – and many are saying just that.

I personally voted against the legalization, but I am somewhat torn on the issue overall. I don’t like pot, never used it myself, and most people I’ve known who have been pot users are not the brightest bulbs in the box – and many have spent their lives on welfare and other handouts. I’m not making a direct cause/effect statement there – just my observation that the pot users I’ve known aren’t too bright or motivated to do much. Which came first? I don’t know.
However, in my view, prohibition was a failure, as has been the war on drugs so far. So I see a lot of logic in legalizing and taxing pot – and treating it as we dotobacco (which I also don’t like) and alcohol (which I DO like).
I’m just not ready to say that for harder drugs yet, as I do see a difference in their direct effect on people – far more mind-altering than alcohol.
We’ll just have to see what the societal impacts will be in Colorado.
BTW – we’ve had a LOT of burglaries and even some armed robberies of pot shops lately…..

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts and opinions.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM

I don’t dance. Any other snark to avoid the question?

What you call snark was a direct and devastating hit.

The slippery slope is for playgrounds and college coffee houses. We live all of our lives on slippery slopes. Some will sell their souls for simplicity, but that isn’t life or truth.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM

I don’t dance. Any other snark to avoid the question?

What you call snark was a direct and devastating hit.

The slippery slope is for playgrounds and college coffee houses. We live all of our lives on slippery slopes. Some will sell their souls for simplicity, but that isn’t life or truth.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Only in your mind. Nothing in that statement explains why you think pot should be legal and opium should not.

False equivalence is hip and flip, but in the end intellectually barren, like pretty much every populist opinion. But hey, it feels good, so go ahead and do it, dude.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

The slippery slope is for playgrounds and college coffee houses. We live all of our lives on slippery slopes. Some will sell their souls for simplicity, but that isn’t life or truth.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Nonsense. That you are so blind and are unable to see the end result of such actions does not mean everyone needs to be so blind.

You need to educate yourself and learn to see. Not make the rest of us sink to your level of ignorance.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

That you are so blind and are unable to see the end result of such actions does not mean everyone needs to be so blind.

I am perfectly capable of seeing consequences. I am also capable of seeing those consequences have nothing to do with a ‘slippery slope.’ They have to do with choices people might make to take it further. Each one is a choice. People decide.

I lack your blind faith that the way you feel about things must be the way they are.

Seriously, people. I told you I was on the fence. How can you think this kind of argument you’re making (slippery slope and me being so blind and uneducated and ignorant) means anything to someone who is undecided other than to illustrate your poor thinking skills?

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Seriously, people. I told you I was on the fence. How can you think this kind of argument you’re making (slippery slope and me being so blind and uneducated and ignorant) means anything to someone who is undecided other than to illustrate your poor thinking skills?

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM

And your “devastating” sex and dancing analysis is supposed to be the hallmark of critical thinking?

The more I listen to you, the less I think you’re on the fence. You’re pretty much all about legalization, you just don’t want to come out and say it. As I’ve noted before, the majority of folks I know are either pot smokers or pro-drugs Libertarians. When you scratch the surface of the fence-sitters, they usually fall into one of those camps.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Pat Buchanan wonders if America is going to pot. Personally, I think Hot Air is going to pot.
I have not posted on Hot Air for quite a while since I noticed a definitive shift in cultural thinking and comments. I come back from time to time to scan the article headlines, and may read one on occasion. But I think the makeup of Hot Air readers leans libertarian in viewpoints and is backing away from solid conservative principles. I also see a distinct decline in conservative principles when reading some of the headlines and/or articles.
It’s not my blog, so whatever Hot Air becomes in the future is not important to me. But I do miss the old Hot Air that stood behind a set of values and principles that were important to me. All things change in time and this site is one of them. I will move on others that remain in the conservative camp. I refuse to join the populist movement that has taken over this site.
metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM

I agree completely.

bluegill on January 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Here are a couple of examples where the concept of a slippery slope has some meaning:

1) Immigration and amnesty. If we let in millions more people who think differently than we do about our Constitution and our notions of freedom and the importance of the individual, then those people will be more likely to favor bringing in more millions of people who think differently than we do about those things.

2) Welfare and other government largesse. If we convince millions of voters that their lives will be better if they focus on getting more from other people rather than being more productive themselves, then those voters will vote for more programs that will convince more people, and so on.

If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you have to make it that way, or you are just tossing hay.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM

And your “devastating” sex and dancing analysis is supposed to be the hallmark of critical thinking?

The more I listen to you, the less I think you’re on the fence. You’re pretty much all about legalization, you just don’t want to come out and say it. As I’ve noted before, the majority of folks I know are either pot smokers or pro-drugs Libertarians. When you scratch the surface of the fence-sitters, they usually fall into one of those camps.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Well stated.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 1:54 PM

The more I listen to you, the less I think you’re on the fence.

Sigh. The more I listen to you, the more I realize trying to converse with you is a waste of time.

Don’t let AJ smoke pot, AJD, but if he does, it doesn’t mean he’s going to be shooting up, so don’t panic.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

alQemist is so typical of people that make assertations without doing a lick of research. I thank njrob for pointing out the ignorance of alQemist. Most of the people that advocate total legalization of marijuana are hedonistic in their viewpoints on the topic.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Can I see those poll studies you used doing research on the topic before making that assertion?

I mean since you state that as a factual statement you must be able to show that; right?

I’m curious to see the data you used…

gekkobear on January 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you have to make it that way, or you are just tossing hay.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM

If we sanction marijuana use at the societal level because it’s “not so bad” then the next thing is cocaine. That’s absolutely a given; we saw it happen. Did you not grow up in the 70s when pot was winked at and until Belushi died, SNL was basically doing coke shtick every week?

Why do you think it will be any different once pot is legal?

I guarantee you that if marijuana was legal throughout the country, it wouldn’t be long before one of the coasts would start agitating for cocaine, for every one of the same reasons.

That is the definition of a slippery slope.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

The more I listen to you, the less I think you’re on the fence.

Sigh. The more I listen to you, the more I realize trying to converse with you is a waste of time.

Don’t let AJ smoke pot, AJD, but if he does, it doesn’t mean he’s going to be shooting up, so don’t panic.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Actually, the chances that AJ will “shoot up” jump astronomically if he is a recreational pot user. Whether it’s causative or merely correlative can be argued, but to argue otherwise is simply nonsensical.

If you do drugs and you think doing drugs is okay, then you have a much better chance of doing other drugs, including heroin.

If you think drugs are NOT okay, there’s an almost ZERO chance that you will take heroin.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Most of the people that advocate total legalization of marijuana are hedonistic in their viewpoints on the topic.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Can I see those poll studies you used doing research on the topic before making that assertion?

I mean since you state that as a factual statement you must be able to show that; right?

I’m curious to see the data you used…

gekkobear on January 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

The data that pro-dope statements are generally hedonistic? Uh. Just read them. Almost all have to do with getting high, which last I looked was almost by definition hedonism.

Except for those arguing for medicinal marijuana because of its palliative effects, anybody arguing for pot is arguing for getting high. Getting high is hedonistic, since it’s about personal pleasure.

Not exactly a stunning insight.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Never even tried the stuff. Foul-smelling nasty plant.

I’ll stick with booze.

Lanceman on January 6, 2014 at 10:44 PM

This, exactly. Me too; always hated the smell of that crap.

Midas on January 6, 2014 at 10:56 PM

(While others might simply and quietly change the channel on their own TV.)

Tsar of Earth on January 7, 2014 at 2:36 PM

The next thing you know dancing leads to sex.

fadetogray on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Too late. After all, “dancing is just making love, set to music.”

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 2:37 PM

It is not the government’s job to ensure its citizens get into heaven.

antisense on January 7, 2014 at 2:44 PM

If we sanction marijuana use at the societal level because it’s “not so bad” then the next thing is cocaine. That’s absolutely a given; we saw it happen. Did you not grow up in the 70s when pot was winked at and until Belushi died, SNL was basically doing coke shtick every week?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

And if you aren’t old enough to remember, you might want to look into it. I realize it’s over 30 years ago; many posting here might have been toddlers or not even born. But those of us who lived through that era watched as society became ever more drug-oriented, and soon people started dropping like flies. The list of celebrities who have since OD’d is long.

Here’s a quick quiz: which of the celebs who have OD’d in the past 30 years did NOT smoke pot?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:03 PM

If you do drugs and you think doing drugs is okay, then you have a much better chance of doing other drugs, including heroin.

If you think drugs are NOT okay, there’s an almost ZERO chance that you will take heroin.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Oh please.

I’ve known alot of people who smoked pot. Dozens, easily.

I’ve never known one single person who shot up. Ever.

I’m not saying there’s no correlation consistent with what you’ve drawn. I’m saying that someone who is inclined to shoot up is going to do it whether they smoke pot or not. Perhaps your correlation works the other way? Perhaps someone who is inclined to shoot up is more inclined to smoke pot? Think about it.

Finally, mind your own damn business. Until I do anything to harm you or society, you have no say in what I choose to do on my own time. I’m not in a high risk job and if I was I would understand that the consequences of that meant staying clean. If you can’t even trust me to decide that on my own, why would you even trust me with a kitchen knife?

And by the way, I don’t smoke pot. I just don’t think you should have the right to tell me I can’t because YOU don’t like it.

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM

John Adams

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Exactly. While the truly conservative arguments might favor legalization, the current state of our society is such that the consequences will not be pretty.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t legalize it. It does mean that we must fix our society at the same time we’re fighting in the political arena for our freedoms. This can only be done in hearts and minds. It is also one of the main reasons for the very valid argument MKH makes about letting the states handle this stuff – winning hearts and minds is best done when the losers of the arguments can easily go elsewhere and set up their own rules.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 3:18 PM

why would you even trust me with a kitchen knife?

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM

And who says I do trust you with a kitchen knife? That’s what concealed carry is for. ;)

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Why do they call it dope?

Murphy9 on January 7, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Finally, mind your own damn business. Until I do anything to harm you or society, you have no say in what I choose to do on my own time. I’m not in a high risk job and if I was I would understand that the consequences of that meant staying clean. If you can’t even trust me to decide that on my own, why would you even trust me with a kitchen knife?

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM

So heroin should be legal, right?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Congratulations on a unique and thought-provoking view of the problem. I can’t say I agree with you, much the same that I don’t agree with the “all drugs legal” crowd, but I can at least acknowledge it to be a reasoned option.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Thanks. I understand the apprehension that a lot of conservatives have towards marijuana, because of the type of people that normally smoke pot. I’m not a fan of the New Age hippy Occupy culture either. I think heavy usage is just a self-selecting system for that sort of people. Most smokers are occasional users, and far more normal.

EricW on January 7, 2014 at 3:26 PM

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t legalize it. It does mean that we must fix our society at the same time we’re fighting in the political arena for our freedoms. This can only be done in hearts and minds. It is also one of the main reasons for the very valid argument MKH makes about letting the states handle this stuff – winning hearts and minds is best done when the losers of the arguments can easily go elsewhere and set up their own rules.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 3:18 PM

My problem is only with those that say we should legalize pot but not other drugs. They say it because they KNOW that drugs are bad. They just want to convince themselves that pot is not.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM

“If i have a beer, Im not DRUNK
If you inhale marijuana, you more likely are intoxicated.”
TX-96 on January 7, 2014 at 6:19 AM

If you drink marijuana, you’re not drunk.
If you inhale the beer … you’re dead.

kregg on January 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

“If i have a beer, Im not DRUNK
If you inhale marijuana, you more likely are intoxicated.”
TX-96 on January 7, 2014 at 6:19 AM

If you drink marijuana, you’re not drunk.
If you inhale the beer … you’re dead.

kregg on January 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Heh. Okay that there’s funny, I don’t care who you are. :)

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:51 PM

If you drink marijuana, you’re not drunk.
If you inhale the beer … you’re dead.

kregg on January 7, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Hah! Good point!

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM

So heroin should be legal, right?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Nice strawman, but since I’m smart enough to avoid heroin I couldn’t care less if they legalize it.

Now, before you whine about societal ills (again), I will remind you that I’m not responsible for the bad choices of other people.

Oh, I know you nanny staters want to make me accountable for them, but when I refuse to be held accountable or responsible for behavior they’re going to engage in no matter how illegal you make it, you’ll still be left to deal with them.

If you think prison is the best option (as opposed to, say, education and/or rehab), don’t bother me with the bill, ok?

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Can I see those poll studies you used doing research on the topic before making that assertion?

I mean since you state that as a factual statement you must be able to show that; right?

I’m curious to see the data you used…

gekkobear on January 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

The data that pro-dope statements are generally hedonistic? Uh. Just read them. Almost all have to do with getting high, which last I looked was almost by definition hedonism.

Except for those arguing for medicinal marijuana because of its palliative effects, anybody arguing for pot is arguing for getting high. Getting high is hedonistic, since it’s about personal pleasure.

Not exactly a stunning insight.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Thank you, AJsDaddie. I had assumed that most people on this topic knew the definition of hedonism. Not sure what point gekkobear was trying to make, other than I needed to research hedonism and figure out what it meant. Me thinks gekkobear has already had one too many cookies.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 4:46 PM

So heroin should be legal, right?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Nice strawman

,

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I simply asked if you thought heroin should be legal. But let’s rephrase it for you: if someone wants to do heroin in the comfort and privacy of their own home, should it be legal?

but since I’m smart enough to avoid heroin I couldn’t care less if they legalize it.

What’s wrong with heroin? It’s just a drug. Let’s get the nanny-staters out of the shooting galleries!

If you think prison is the best option (as opposed to, say, education and/or rehab), don’t bother me with the bill, ok?
runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Personally, I’m all for rehab for users and really stiff jail terms for distributors.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:00 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:00 PM

The thread is about pot, not heroin, ergo strawman. Attempting to change the subject or move goalposts won’t actually further your argument. If you don’t understand something, just ask. We’re happy to help.

As for the shooting galleries, since I won’t be there I couldn’t care less what goes on there. Unless and until it affects my liberty. When that happens, it won’t be because someone decided to get high, it’ll be because they chose to do something even dumber while they were high. Until that happens, it’s none of my (or your) damn business. Bugger off.

Are you ONLY for rehab for the users? If so, what about the users who don’t want your rehab (and are living their lives just fine without your “guidance”)? Do they get really stiff jail terms as well? What about the dude that gives his girlfriend a joint for her birthday? Isn’t he now a distributor?

These questions are easy to answer if you mind your own damn business, but impossible to answer if you insist on poking your nose in where it doesn’t belong.

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

I wonder how the entire State of Colorado (at least, the ones who voted pro-marijuana) can sleep at night knowing that they’re such terrible hypocrites for voting pro-marijuana, instead of pro-everything.

Perhaps AJSr can enlighten them/us.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 5:32 PM

The thread is about pot, not heroin, ergo strawman.

No, the thread is about legalization of a drug. The status quo is that drugs are illegal. You want to change that and have pot legalized. I want to know if that legalization also includes heroin.

You didn’t answer the question: if someone wants to do heroin in their own home, should it be legal?

Are you ONLY for rehab for the users? If so, what about the users who don’t want your rehab (and are living their lives just fine without your “guidance”)? Do they get really stiff jail terms as well? What about the dude that gives his girlfriend a joint for her birthday? Isn’t he now a distributor?

runawayyyy on January 7, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Rehab includes probation, violation of which means additional penalties. Jail or rehab, your choice.

As to giving someone else dope, if it’s free it’s not distribution. If it’s for sale or barter, or it’s to a minor, it’s a Class X Felony.

Simple.

You might think you have the answers with your “mind your own damn business” but I assure you it’s not so simple.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM

I wonder how the entire State of Colorado (at least, the ones who voted pro-marijuana) can sleep at night knowing that they’re such terrible hypocrites for voting pro-marijuana, instead of pro-everything.

Perhaps AJSr can enlighten them/us.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I don’t worry about how they sleep, only about when they’re going to start legalizing other things.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM

How’s it hurt you if I’m a junkie? Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

If you cannot imagine how a nation of junkies would look, you need to open your eyes. Read the book, Flashback. njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

That’s all you got, go read a book? If you really believed what you’re saying you might be able to answer my question.

How’s it hurt you if I’m a junkie? I’m not saying it’s impossible to answer me without conceding the question, I’m just asking you to answer it yourself.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Why do they call it dope? Murphy9 on January 7, 2014 at 3:21 PM

The gooey stuff you put on pipe threads? I dunno.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 5:39 PM

My opinion is that she is either naïve or a dumba$$.

Amjean on January 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM

How’s it hurt you if I’m a junkie? I’m not saying it’s impossible to answer me without conceding the question, I’m just asking you to answer it yourself.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 5:38 PM

You’re kidding right? How’s it hurt you if I cook up some meth?

By your reasoning, the only laws should be the laws that affect Akzed. Come to think of it, that’s what many folks who want legalization are saying.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM

The economical angle and why employers test for drugs is simple. In the mid 1980′s not counting medical expense, fines, and legal fees DuPont Safety Management Services calculated the daily cost of lost work days at a little over $70,000 which includes affect on other employees and their productivity.

Stoners with wrenches, nuts and bolt 100 feet in the air or operating processes don’t mix.

Kermit on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

You’re kidding right? How’s it hurt you if I cook up some meth?

By your reasoning, the only laws should be the laws that affect Akzed. Come to think of it, that’s what many folks who want legalization are saying.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM

How’s it hurt anyone if someone’s a junkie?

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:10 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM

How’s it hurt anyone if someone’s a junkie?

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Junkies as a class commit far more crimes, including violent crimes, than non-junkies. They also use more social services and thus more taxpayer dollars per capita than just about anybody else.

You’re not really this obtuse, are you?

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Stoners with wrenches, nuts and bolt 100 feet in the air or operating processes don’t mix. Kermit on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Oh, so if pot is made legal, people will start getting stoned at work?

I worked for many years as an HVAC mechanic. People around me were stoned all the time. Pot was illegal. Therefore, the legal status of pot has little to do with people using it at work, or anywhere else.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Therefore, the legal status of pot has little to do with people using it at work, or anywhere else.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Absolute, unmitigated BS. Even most stoners would recognize that if pot is legal more people will smoke it.

And now that we’re down to the very dregs of the argument wioth Akzed and MJBrutus, I’m done here.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:14 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM

So all criminals are junkies?

The profit in illegal drugs is a factor of its illegality. There was no crime wave ever associated with laudanum when it was sold legally.

“Social services” and welfare encourage drug abuse by supplying the necessities of life to people who would have to work for food like the rest of us if there were no welfare etc.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Absolute, unmitigated BS. Even most stoners would recognize that if pot is legal more people will smoke it.

And now that we’re down to the very dregs of the argument wioth Akzed and MJBrutus, I’m done here.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:14 PM

We’ll get the same level and amount of reason from you after you’ve left that we have up to now.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 6:16 PM

heres the deal folks… when drug testing becomes ON THE JOB IMPAIRMENT TESTING, like booze testing,and when they start testing for fatig, (since fatig is the NUMBER #1 cause of work accidents), then i might beleive it really is about safety, and not CONTROL over what people do when the bell rings!!!!!

svs22422 on January 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

You misspelled ‘farting’. I do agree it causes many accidents.

What’s that? You meant ‘fatigue’? Oh… never mind, then.

Marcola on January 7, 2014 at 6:38 PM

This is typical Bill O’Reilly. He’s always a jerk to his guests. Especially when he’s losing the argument. So I don’t know why people like Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, and Mary Katharine Ham keep going on his show.

SoulGlo on January 7, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Sorry. But a lot of dope sales go down behind/near police stations.

I doubt a retail establishment is a hindrance to someone selling harder drugs. Quite the opposite, I would imagine.

Time will tell. We’ll keep our eyes on Colorado.

Lanceman on January 6, 2014 at 11:03 PM

I work in health care. We don’t like marijuana except in pain control situations and certainly not when there are mental health issues.

And you are quite correct – the non-legal dealers will just lace the marijuana with something to make theirs more potent and will still have customers. You certainly aren’t going to be able to get the “good stuff” at the local 7-11.

Oh and the argument about being labelled a criminal? Bah. If people are going to do illegal things (whether those things are silly or not), then accept the fact there are consequences. I don’t care if it’s for “soft” drugs. It’s still illegal and last time I looked “choice” was still on the table.

kim roy on January 7, 2014 at 8:51 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM

You lie.

I told you I couldn’t care less if they legalize heroin. You ignored this answer and then lied about me not answering it.

You lie again.

This thread is about legalizing POT, not “drugs”, therefore your argument is a strawman when you decide to change the subject to heroin.

Honesty really is the best policy. Didn’t your mama teach you this?

Now, if you’d like to have an HONEST discussion of the subject matter, apologize for your earlier lies and we’ll re-engage. M’kay?

runawayyyy on January 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM

. I will move on others that remain in the conservative camp. I refuse to join the populist movement that has taken over this site.

metroryder on January 7, 2014 at 12:19 PM
you can go,but you dont get to take the ball with you. dont let the Hot Air hit you on your way out!!!

svs22422 on January 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Facts not in evidence. Everything you just started is conjecture on your part. I think it’s just people who want to get high.

njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:06 PM

They are in evidence in the Netherlands and Portugal. Or don’t those count?

MSimon on January 10, 2014 at 6:34 AM

I work in health care. We don’t like marijuana except in pain control situations and certainly not when there are mental health issues.

CBDs seem useful for schizophrenia.

http://rockford-for-safe-access.blogspot.com/2014/01/cannabis-cbd-videos.html

There is a high CBD low THC strain called Charlotte’s Web.

MSimon on January 10, 2014 at 6:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4