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

posted at 9:51 pm on January 13, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

The funny thing about these exchanges is marijuana legalization isn’t even a top issue for me, but I will do battle to defend the right of more than half the country to reasonably hold that position without being accused of being potheads and infant pot-smoking advocates. I just feel the real and social costs of prohibition are huge (hundreds of billions in taxpayer money), the Drug War has been a failure (80 percent of Americans agree), we should think about other strategies for non violent drug offenders than jail (80 percent of those polled in Texas agree) and the states are meant to be laboratories of democracy, and will function as such on this issue. I do not deny downsides and dangers exist and am in full agreement about wanting to keep it away from children. The Drug War hasn’t been great at doing that. I’m not personally a big fan of weed, but I do think, though they can be abused, adults can enjoy both marijuana and alcohol in moderation and still be perfectly healthy, productive people.

I wish I had mentioned this this, too, which I’ve mentioned in other O’Reilly segments on this subject. The social cost of marijuana arrests —1.5 million drug arrests, almost half for marijuana, and the vast majority of those for possession only—do fall disproportionately on minority populations even though white people use the drug at the same rate. Incarceration does happen, and the cost can be devastating, and the punishments desperately unfair.

And, hey, good point, Guy (who describes himself as between Bill and me on the issue):

In good news, I have been upgraded from “babbling” to “pettifogging” by Bill. As The Right Scoop notes, no matter which side you’re on, you’ll probably enjoy the fireworks. I’m totally comfortable with disagreement and with reassessing as we watch Colorado and Washington, though my Twitter stream again suggests there are a lot of conservatives who lean libertarian on this issue. Click to watch. Updated with YouTube video:

Exit quotation: “First of all, please don’t mistake my position for that of people who are indifferent to drugs. I’m not indifferent to drugs. I think I’ve been quoted as saying if I could turn a single latch which would make all the drugs disappear from the face of the earth, with the exception of here and there, a vineyard in Bordeaux, I would turn that latch. Now, you say is it inconsistent for a conservative to take my position? I don’t think it is, because a conservative seeks to be grounded in reality. That which works is quantifiable; that which simply does not work, isn’t. If you were to pass a law requiring people to go to church on Sunday, it wouldn’t work. Under the circumstances, you would eventually simply withdraw such a law. My position on drugs is that they are, the drug laws aren’t working, and that more damage net is being done by their continuation on the books than would be done by withdrawing them from the books.”

Correction: I left a “t” out of pettifogging. It’s fixed now.

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

Much of the socon vitriol comes from recognition that they are losing political influence; even among their own party. Don’t fight the dying of the light, ya’ll just run straight into it.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

What teachings, specifically?
Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I assume you’re already familiar with things pertaining to living a godly life and filling one’s mind with things above instead of messing it up. The pastoral epistles especially are chock full of such exhortations, I would guess you’d know those also.
I would also assume you’re not asking about an anti-pot verse since it would be located below the “Thou shalt not drive over 55 mph” verse and the chapter about playing video games.

whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Much of the socon vitriol comes from recognition that they are losing political influence; even among their own party. Don’t fight the dying of the light, ya’ll just run straight into it.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

The inevitable “rationalist” anusocracy secular humanist utopian society is going to be wicked yo.

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Murphy9 on January 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM

LOL!

I think they already are.

kingsjester on January 14, 2014 at 3:03 PM

People still steal. The war on robbery has been a failure. People still commit murders. The war on murder has been a failure. People support legal abortions. The war on murdering the unborn has been a failure. And on and on and on.

You support doing drugs so you’ll create any straw man to support that position. We get it.

You’re also a very liberal republican. So I’m not surprised.

njrob on January 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Last I checked, theft and robbery involves victims.

mazer9 on January 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Last I checked, theft and robbery involves victims.

mazer9 on January 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM

And, it’s illegal.

kingsjester on January 14, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Much of the socon vitriol comes from recognition that they are losing political influence; even among their own party. Don’t fight the dying of the light, ya’ll just run straight into it.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I don’t think that is a fair assessment. I consider myself a socon, but I think that people are in control of their own lives and it is not my position to force them to do what is right. I’d like to encourage them to do so, but if I force them to do right, then it means nothing. Your problem is with statists – people who want to use the power of the state to impose their will on others. And, so is mine.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM

With Panther and the perfesser as poster boys/girls/its for pot soking…it renders all “harmless” arguments moot.
kingsjester on January 14, 2014 at 2:42 PM

I don’t mind that people disagree with me. I just prefer it when people think rationally and posit valid statements. Or, at least, offer an original thought instead of relying on cut & paste jobs. But I’ve known quite a few potheads in my years so I’m not too disappointed at the inability to form a clear, logical thought. It usually takes a long time after they’ve kicked the habit to get their heads clear. But in the meantime it is kind of sad.

whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Is there not the same distinction for heroin?
(Why stop with weed?) – whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Ban cigarettes and alcohol too, right? By the way I am for a ban on heroin and cocaine.

SC.Charlie on January 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Rather fun watching the socons twist themselves into logic pretzels claiming they aren’t using the coercive power of government to enforce their moral beliefs on others. Replace god with Mother Gaia and you have a liberal. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM

As I literally sit here eating pretzels…

There’s nothing specifically “socon” about temperance, whether regarding alcohol or cannabis. There are conservatives and liberals (and Jews and Christians etc) on both sides of the issue. But never pass up a chance to poke Christians in the eye, eh?

I am socially conservative, yet I am appalled at the damage done to people’s lives by treating marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic. Two years in the clink for possession of a pound of pot does much more damage to someone than two years of daily toking could do.

It should not be a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin. No rational argument can be made for that assignment.

Dropping it to a lesser category of controlled substance would reduce the cost to users and society, while keeping it in the “don’t scare the horses” category of acceptable public behavior.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

What teachings, specifically?
Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I assume you’re already familiar with things pertaining to living a godly life and filling one’s mind with things above instead of messing it up. The pastoral epistles especially are chock full of such exhortations, I would guess you’d know those also.
I would also assume you’re not asking about an anti-pot verse since it would be located below the “Thou shalt not drive over 55 mph” verse and the chapter about playing video games.

whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Specifically speaking, of course.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Specifically speaking, of course.
davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Akzed knows his bible; he and have hashed over and debated misc “scriptural stuff” a few times.

whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Specifically speaking, of course.
davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Akzed knows his bible; he and have hashed over and debated misc “scriptural stuff” a few times.

whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I see now why you are reluctant to engage him then.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Oh hell Ms Ham Let’s just legalize all drugs-pass out free needles and be done with it–Seems like A nation of drug addicts would be just fine in her opinion…

Bullhead on January 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I assume you’re already familiar with things pertaining to living a godly life

This is a fine example of circular reasoning.

and filling one’s mind with things above instead of messing it up.

“Messing it up”?! Don’t you mean “things on the earth,” Col. 3:2? Is TV in the “things of earth” category? Do you watch TV? How many hours? Like football? Baseball? Aren’t they things of the earth?

The pastoral epistles especially are chock full of such exhortations, I would guess you’d know those also.

Yeah but others may not, so present those texts for us rather than asking me to do your spadework, huh?

I would also assume you’re not asking about an anti-pot verse since it would be located below the “Thou shalt not drive over 55 mph” verse and the chapter about playing video games. whatcat on January 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Well, drunkenness is condemned in the Bible, especially in daylight, but not all alcohol use is drunkenness. Jesus changed water into wine, so presumably there are people who can celebrate responsibly with God’s approval.

As for the epistles, they do have something to say about busybodies…

1 Peter 4:15, But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM

22 “Each year you are to set aside a tenth of all the produce grown in your fields. 23 You are to eat a tenth of your grain, new wine, and oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, in the presence of Yahweh your God at the place where He chooses to have His name dwell, so that you will always learn to fear the Lord your God. 24 But if the distance is too great for you to carry it, since the place where Yahweh your God chooses to put His name is too far away from you and since the Lord your God has blessed you, 25 then exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place the Lord your God chooses. 26 You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice with your family.

Deuteronomy 14

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM

22 “Each year you are to set aside a tenth of all the produce grown in your fields. 23 You are to eat a tenth of your grain, new wine, and oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, in the presence of Yahweh your God at the place where He chooses to have His name dwell, so that you will always learn to fear the Lord your God. 24 But if the distance is too great for you to carry it, since the place where Yahweh your God chooses to put His name is too far away from you and since the Lord your God has blessed you, 25 then exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place the Lord your God chooses. 26 You may spend the money on anything you want: cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or anything you desire. You are to feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice with your family.

Deuteronomy 14

“… anything you desire.”

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Your tithe money.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM

I don’t think that is a fair assessment. I consider myself a socon, but I think that people are in control of their own lives and it is not my position to force them to do what is right. I’d like to encourage them to do so, but if I force them to do right, then it means nothing. Your problem is with statists – people who want to use the power of the state to impose their will on others. And, so is mine.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Perhaps we have a different definition of social conservative. Christian and Socon are not synonymous; however, statist and socon are nearly identical.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:53 PM

statist and socon are nearly identical. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Huh, would you please supply some examples of this equation you’ve proposed? Just a couple. Thanks.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

As I literally sit here eating pretzels…

There’s nothing specifically “socon” about temperance, whether regarding alcohol or cannabis. There are conservatives and liberals (and Jews and Christians etc) on both sides of the issue. But never pass up a chance to poke Christians in the eye, eh?

I am socially conservative, yet I am appalled at the damage done to people’s lives by treating marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic. Two years in the clink for possession of a pound of pot does much more damage to someone than two years of daily toking could do.

It should not be a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin. No rational argument can be made for that assignment.

Dropping it to a lesser category of controlled substance would reduce the cost to users and society, while keeping it in the “don’t scare the horses” category of acceptable public behavior.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

We aren’t talking about temperance, if you mean it in the sense of moderation. Temperance is an individual choice and not subject to imposition by the state. Prohibition on the other hand is an instrument of the establishment to socially engineer moral behavior. Very different animals.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Huh, would you please supply some examples of this equation you’ve proposed? Just a couple. Thanks.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Sure. Christians, Jews, Buddhist…etc, have a faith and follow it for their own sense of attaining spiritual enlightenment. I have no problem with people preaching or spreading the faith. Just make sure it doesn’t end up in regulation. Social conservative try their best to ensure that their moral beliefs are enshrined in law; DOMA, drugs, and abortion.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Huh, would you please supply some examples of this equation you’ve proposed? Just a couple. Thanks.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Sure. Christians, Jews, Buddhist…etc, have a faith and follow it for their own sense of attaining spiritual enlightenment. I have no problem with people preaching or spreading the faith. Just make sure it doesn’t end up in regulation. Social conservative try their best to ensure that their moral beliefs are enshrined in law; DOMA, drugs, and abortion.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

IOW, no.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM

We aren’t talking about temperance, if you mean it in the sense of moderation. Temperance is an individual choice and not subject to imposition by the state. Prohibition on the other hand is an instrument of the establishment to socially engineer moral behavior. Very different animals. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:59 PM

As you have no doubt forgotten, the Temperance Movement was all about the prohibition of alcohol. Carrie Nation didn’t wield her axe in the name of moderation.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

As you have no doubt forgotten, the Temperance Movement was all about the prohibition of alcohol. Carrie Nation didn’t wield her axe in the name of moderation.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM

No, that is why I said if you meant it as moderation.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Social conservative try their best to ensure that their moral beliefs are enshrined in law; DOMA, drugs, and abortion. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM

So DOMA, drug, prohibition, and being prolife are common to statists and “socons”?

Statists are in favor of redefining marriage, not conservatives. Which statists are in favor or limiting marriage to one man, one woman? Can you name three?

Some conservatives, and some liberals, are in favor of some (if not all) drugs being controlled.

I don’t know of any statists who are prolife.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:29 PM

So DOMA, drug, prohibition, and being prolife are common to statists and “socons”?

Statists are in favor of redefining marriage, not conservatives. Which statists are in favor or limiting marriage to one man, one woman? Can you name three?

Some conservatives, and some liberals, are in favor of some (if not all) drugs being controlled.

I don’t know of any statists who are prolife.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:29 PM

A statist isn’t someone who takes a particular stance on an issue, it is an individual who seeks to use the power government to enforce that position. We were talking about socons, so I mentioned their holy trinity of coercive enforcement endeavors. There really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between a socon and a liberal. They both want the government to act as overlord.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

There really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between a socon and a liberal. They both want the government to act as overlord. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

But you said socons and statists are the same thing. Can you give us some programs of which they share an interest? No?

Does wanting murder and theft to be illegal make one a statist?

What is conservative about gay marriage support? What is one trying to conserve in that instance?

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:41 PM

But you said socons and statists are the same thing.

No he said that socons are statist. Not that they are “the same thing.” Think the relationship between square and parallelogram. A socon is a *type* of statist. There can be liberal statists as well.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM

But you said socons and statists are the same thing. Can you give us some programs of which they share an interest? No? Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Prohibition: First it was the socon “drys” who wanted the government to outlaw alcohol. Then their offspring moved on to pot. Statists can’t function without the state mandating their beliefs.

You want this to be about the morality of an issue in defining statist but it isn’t. A statist, right or left, liberal or conservative truly bows at the alter of big gov. Simple as that.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:58 PM

No he said that socons are statist. Not that they are “the same thing.” Think the relationship between square and parallelogram. A socon is a *type* of statist. There can be liberal statists as well.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Yes, that was my point. Thank you for making it clearer.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Classic. 2 clueless Liberal schmucks attempting to define what a Conservative is.

Reagan defined Conservatism already, cretins.

kingsjester on January 14, 2014 at 5:02 PM

No he said that socons are statist. Not that they are “the same thing.” Think the relationship between square and parallelogram. A socon is a *type* of statist. There can be liberal statists as well.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Yes, that was my point. Thank you for making it clearer.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM

In your statements you have made parallelograms and statists classes. So what you are saying is that all socons are statists.

Also:

Is there not the same distinction for weed?

Tsar of Earth on January 14, 2014 at 2:26 PM

You’re engaging in basic deductive reasoning. This is far beyond the capacity of the Prohibitionist….

libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 2:35 PM

It is beyond my capacity, too. Could you show the syllogism of his argument? What are the premises he he/she used to arrive at his/her conclusion?

Oh, and what exactly is his/her conclusion? Tsar’s statement is interrogatory and not declarative.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Abortion is murder.

Murder should be outlawed by the state.

Therefore, abortion should be outlawed by the state.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Abortion is murder.

Murder should be outlawed by the state.

Therefore, abortion should be outlawed by the state.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:31 PM

All puppets of the establishment have slightly square heads

Socons are puppets of the establishment

Therefore, all socons are blockheads.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Abortion is murder.

Murder should be outlawed by the state.

Therefore, abortion should be outlawed by the state.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:31 PM

All puppets of the establishment have slightly square heads

Socons are puppets of the establishment

Therefore, all socons are blockheads.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Before you go around making syllogisms, you need to take a class on logic.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Any reports today if Ham or OReilly had their burrs removed?

mobydutch on January 14, 2014 at 5:53 PM

ps

Mary K. Ham,

So, you get drafted and or join the Marines.
So, you end up in a rifle company on night patrol and you get ambushed by say a 10 to 1 deal and your outside your fence and in the other peoples woods and the guy/girl next to you has smoked pot for 5 years or so from high school and in fact two days ago before the mission.
He/She just wore out and can not cover his/her field of fire and this due to poor lungs and a bit slower on the reaction with his/her brain due to the pot use. You see the (VC/Islamic whaterver) who is getting closer and closer to you and you only have three rounds left, he is getting closer and this other guy/gal is just staring sort of out of it and then you know it is that last long moment.

What will you think of pot use just then?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 14, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Lies kill.

Truth is life.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 14, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Before you go around making syllogisms, you need to take a class on logic.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:50 PM

My guess is you have a hard time getting your hat to fit.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 6:16 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 14, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Why stop with banning pot? We need to legally require people to exercise and eat right, at least the amount we deem necessary, so that kind of terrible thing never happens.

Eat your peas or it’s the slammer for you!

fadetogray on January 14, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Before you go around making syllogisms, you need to take a class on logic.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 5:50 PM

My guess is you have a hard time getting your hat to fit.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 6:16 PM

My guess is you don’t.

davidk on January 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM

The Marijuana debate sure does a good job of separating the nanny-state moralists from the actual small-government conservatives in the party.

Other than Obamacare, I can’t think of too many laws as impractical as the laws against the use of a naturally occurring weed. At least alcohol production required manufacture, which made it easier to police.

At some point we will look back on marijuana criminalization the same way we look at prohibition. Watch Boardwalk Empire if you want to be reminded about how foolish it was.

mazer9 on January 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM

You can say that again. It’s also a great way to separate those who actually believe in federalism vs. those so-called conservatives who only believe in federalism when it’s convenient.

thirteen28 on January 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM

I see I was too long away from the computer, this afternoon.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 6:48 PM

The Marijuana debate sure does a good job of separating the nanny-state moralists from the actual small-government conservatives in the party.

mazer9 on January 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM

.
You can say that again. It’s also a great way to separate those who actually believe in federalism vs. those so-called conservatives who only believe in federalism when it’s convenient.

thirteen28 on January 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM

.
Which type of neighbor/locality needs the least number of police:

One where all chemical substances are legal for hedonistic pleasure use, or a neighborhood/locality where everyone lives like “Ned Flanders”?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Perhaps we have a different definition of social conservative. Christian and Socon are not synonymous; however, statist and socon are nearly identical.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:53 PM

I’d consider most of the founders to be social conservatives. Yet, they gave us one of the most free societies in the history of man.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Similarly perfect. There is nothing like drugs to bring out the epic strawman in conservatives. Its unreal.

deadrody on January 14, 2014 at 9:15 AM

A strawman is a misrepresentation of a person’s argument. MKH called the war on drugs a “failure,” yet never offered a rationale for what separates success from failure. Most pot legalization advocates contend that what defines failure is that the drug continues to be used. As such, it’s not a strawman. All it means is that legalization advocates make poor arguments.

Now if you don’t like the murder and rape cases because you want to make a distinction between crimes with and without victims, that’s fine. But if you’re going to call something a “failure” as if it rests on empirical evidence rather than first principles, then prepare to be called out on it.

Stoic Patriot on January 14, 2014 at 7:44 PM

I’d consider most of the founders to be social conservatives. Yet, they gave us one of the most free societies in the history of man.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Wrong, the Founding Fathers intentionally established a republic and not a theocracy.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 7:52 PM

But you said socons and statists are the same thing.

No he said that socons are statist. Not that they are “the same thing.” Think the relationship between square and parallelogram. A socon is a *type* of statist. There can be liberal statists as well.
libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM

statist and socon are nearly identical. Panther on January 14, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Yes, that was my point. Thank you for making it clearer.
Panther on January 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM

So one of the big statist commentators around here is now your ally… as you call me a statist…

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM

So one of the big statist commentators around here is now your ally… as you call me a statist…

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Libfreeordie has been advocating freedom of individual choice and you have championed state intervention in personal liberty. What choice did I have?

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

It’s hilarious that on a thread about legalizing weed, in which I state I am supportive, I get called a statist!

When “social conservative” is used by liberals and libertines, the meaning is “people who want to use the state to control other people.”

I e.g. see “gay marriage” as an affront to my liberty, as borne out by the many instances now extant of sex perverts forcing business owners into a choice of either involuntary servitude, or renouncing their religious faith. Google it. For not wanting the state to assume the authority of redefining marriage, in other words, for opposing state action, I am a statist.

I e.g. see abortion as killing an innocent human being. The primary duty of a legitimate government is protecting the lives of innocent people. For protesting the state’s negligence of this duty, indeed, because the state now protects and defends the taking of innocent life, I am a statist.

For arguing in this forum many times that there should be no govt opinion about marijuana, or at most, treating it as a nuisance and not a crime, I am a statist.

The state (i.e. courts) is imposing “gay marriage” on the nation. I protest. Statist!

The state is allowing abortionists to kill innocent people. For protesting this, I’m a statist!

The state is throwing people in jail for possessing pot. I protest this injustice, so I’m a statist!

Okay!

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:19 PM

What choice did I have? Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Any port in a storm, I guess.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I’ve had it up to here with doing things for the children. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.

antisense on January 14, 2014 at 8:24 PM

For arguing in this forum many times that there should be no govt opinion about marijuana, or at most, treating it as a nuisance and not a crime, I am a statist. Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Okay, you are only a little pregnant.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 8:34 PM

And you’re a little stunad.

Akzed on January 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM

What I want to know is why anyone cares what either BO or MKH think about legalizing drugs. Or, for that matter, the opinions of Chris Mathews, The Man in the Moon or the Tooth Fairy.I stopped watching the arrogant O’Reilly years ago and it has a lot to do with his disassociation from the late Bob Grant for politically correct RINO reasons. Grant taught O’Reilly radio technique and was repaid by being buried in an avalanche of RINO rage against Grant who tweaked Christie Todd Whitman the wrong way and O’Reilly stood aside and watched.

MaiDee on January 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM

I’d consider most of the founders to be social conservatives. Yet, they gave us one of the most free societies in the history of man.

besser tot als rot on January 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

.
Wrong, the Founding Fathers intentionally established a republic and not a theocracy.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 7:52 PM

.
Believing government should enforce standards of sexual morality, doesn’t constitute a “theocracy.”

Demanding that you ‘believe in the Christian God’ and join a church, would.

A person doesn’t have to believe in God, to perceive the self-evident “common-sense” benefits in adopting/accepting the Biblical standards of sexual morality, to be a part of our everyday societal standards of “defining normal.”

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

The guy who wants to use the government to sanction and force the public recognition of what was claimed to be a private act claims that all who feel otherwise and resist said government enforcement are statists.

Only in Bizarro world.

njrob on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

The guy who wants to use the government to sanction and force the public recognition of what was claimed to be a private act claims that all who feel otherwise and resist said government enforcement are statists.

Only in Bizarro world.

njrob on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

I see someone has been drinking on a work night.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

A person doesn’t have to believe in God, to perceive the self-evident “common-sense” benefits in adopting/accepting the Biblical standards of sexual morality, to be a part of our everyday societal standards of “defining normal.”

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

You can believe in them to your heart’s content, you just can’t use the legal system to enforce them on others. Must really gall you…I can sense the wrath burning inside you.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

So says the freak who is trying to get the government to sanction all his deviant behavior.

njrob on January 14, 2014 at 10:13 PM

So says the freak who is trying to get the government to sanction all his deviant behavior.

njrob on January 14, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Not all of my deviant behavior, that would be decadent.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Which type of neighbor/locality needs the least number of police:

One where all chemical substances are legal for hedonistic pleasure use, or a neighborhood/locality where everyone lives like “Ned Flanders”?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 7:21 PM

If you *really* want to have this argument…I’ll go there with you.

1. There *is* no “Flanders” Utopia. While your more economically depressed, crime-prone neighborhoods have higher numbers of crime; I’d take two dudes smoking grass on the stoop, couple of 40z, baggy pants and billowy shirts ANY DAY…Compared to some of the freak-show shit that happens in Stepford-ville.

2. It’s usually your Presbyterian Flanders-villes, where some FreeMason has about 17 teen-age male decomposing corpses in the cellar and crawl-space.

a5minmajor on January 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM

A person doesn’t have to believe in God, to perceive the self-evident “common-sense” benefits in adopting/accepting the Biblical standards of sexual morality, to be a part of our everyday societal standards of “defining normal.”

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM

.
You can believe in them to your heart’s content, you just can’t use the legal system to enforce them on others. Must really gall you…I can sense the wrath burning inside you.

Panther on January 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM

.
Sorry I’m late responding (my clothing burst into flames, for some strange reason, and it took a while to deal with).
.
. . . . . Okay then, you’re good with public shaming and stigmatization ?

(as opposed to vice-police, or “threats” of civil war)

Are you okay with Christians expressing their Christianity in all public places ?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Which type of neighborhood/locality needs the least number of police:

One where all chemical substances are legal for hedonistic pleasure use, or a neighborhood/locality where everyone lives like “Ned Flanders”?
listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 7:21 PM

.
If you *really* want to have this argument…I’ll go there with you.

1. There *is* no “Flanders” Utopia.

a5minmajor on January 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM

.
There are neighborhoods where the local police experience “less stress per capita (population).”
I wouldn’t call them “utopian”, nor do I ever expect to see anything qualify as such, in this life.

But these places do exist wherever a “more disciplined” group of Christian believers predominate the population.
.

While your more economically depressed, crime-prone neighborhoods have higher numbers of crime; I’d take two dudes smoking grass on the stoop, couple of 40z, baggy pants and billowy shirts ANY DAY…Compared to some of the freak-show shit that happens in Stepford-ville.

a5minmajor on January 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM

.
All I can say to that is “thank you for your honesty.”

But I haven’t a clue what the “freak-show that happens in Stepford-ville”, is supposed to be.
.

2. It’s usually your Presbyterian Flanders-villes, where some FreeMason has about 17 teen-age male decomposing corpses in the cellar and crawl-space.

a5minmajor on January 14, 2014 at 11:20 PM

.
I haven’t attempted to join “The Lodge” because of some personal disagreement with their “oath swearing” ceremony.

B U T . . . I have a genuine respect for their “philanthropic” work. No one can deny that, not even you.
.
So, where does this premise of “teen-age male decomposing corpses in the cellar and crawl-space” come from ?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 11:56 PM

…I just watched BOR answering his email about this discussion…the criticism on his behavior toward MKH…and his answers…puts him in the ‘full of shit’ column…or ‘smoking shit’ column!

KOOLAID2 on January 15, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Wow! So BOR invited MKH back because he thought he hadn’t finished her off last time. Looks like she won this round too! She harangued him pretty good.

Not that I agree with MKH, but she exposed the inconsistency of his position, which appeared to be a simple prejudice.

As for the war on drugs/poverty/tobacco/racism being a failure, we all know that the only war the US government normally wins is military, so it’s not fair to single out the war on drugs for being a failure. The success of government action is not related to the right or wrong of the issue, but it’s preferred mechanism, which is politicized and bureacratized to death. If getting-out-of-a-paper-bag was a problem, the government would wage a war against paper-bags and lose it.

Stop these endless wars! Get the government out of our affairs. Yes, drugs are bad, but there are 20 other things that matter more.

virgo on January 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM

The biggest upside to MKH’s argument for legalizing ganja everywhere is that it gets some of these slugs out of our state and back home living with Mommy and Dada in California.

In Denver, dealers prior to legalization would not infrequently lace their weed with heroin and create an instant market. I’m not sure they cared if you were an adult or child. I don’t think they can lace an unopened can of Coors. I’ll stick to poptops, sealed corks, and twist-offs when I need a buzz, thanks.

If MKH wants it legalized, it will have to be safely regulated by the feds. There go the billions she just saved.

NoPain on January 15, 2014 at 1:10 AM

Nobody even knew what “warijuana” was until William Randolph Hearst started editorializing against it in a concerted effort to paralyze the hemp industry. And paralyze it he did, as the hemp industry suffered death by a thousand cuts under puntitive taxation.

But why would Hearst have done such a thing, you may wonder? Because after hearing about DuPont’s search for petroleum-based alternatives to hemp fiber which led to the discovery of nylon, Hearst put a shitload of money into the company and became a major investor.

gryphon202 on January 15, 2014 at 6:19 AM

Sorry I’m late responding (my clothing burst into flames, for some strange reason, and it took a while to deal with).
.
. . . . . Okay then, you’re good with public shaming and stigmatization ?

(as opposed to vice-police, or “threats” of civil war)

Are you okay with Christians expressing their Christianity in all public places ?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Public shame away and stigmatize others all you want. I support Christians expressing their view in public…anyone for that matter. Just don’t expect me to agree with what you say, or sit quietly by while you say it.

Panther on January 15, 2014 at 6:46 AM

I find myself bemused by this argument for legalization of Marijuana. Those selfsame people in favor are adamant against smoking tobacco. I see no difference between the two; one is every bit as harmful as the other.

Spots the Dog on January 15, 2014 at 8:27 AM

. . . . . Okay then, you’re good with public shaming and stigmatization ?

(as opposed to vice-police, or “threats” of civil war)

Are you okay with Christians expressing their Christianity in all public places ?

listens2glenn on January 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM

.
Public shame away and stigmatize others all you want. I support Christians expressing their view in public…anyone for that matter. Just don’t expect me to agree with what you say, or sit quietly by while you say it.

Panther on January 15, 2014 at 6:46 AM

.
Give me second to recover from reading that . . . . .

It would seem, … we have an “ACCORD.”

listens2glenn on January 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Sorry Mary Katherine, but on this issue you are wrong.
Not that I always agree with O’Reilly (he has no idea how oil is priced on the marketplace), but I agree with him here.
If the price of enforcement is so high, wouldn’t it also be cheaper to just legalize all drugs? Sure it would…initially. It was cheap to legalize alcohol too (and don’t think I want to ban it, that genie is already out of the bottle), at least until the cost of treatment, police showing up for domestic abuse (and the treatment of victims), and treatment of alcoholics was factored in. Then the price went up and likely exceeds that of banning the substance.
The slippery slope of legalization is that it allows anyone to then say their next favorite drug should be legalized. Sleepy at work? Cocaine or Crystal Meth will solve that. Chronic pain? Heroin is cheaper than Oxy, and far superior to MJ. Seeking a new age religious experience? There are a plethora of Hallucinogens that will aid you in that. The truth is that many abused drugs can be used “medically”–but should they be readily available for self medication? We all know the goal is not medical use, but social use.
You were enraged that O’Reilly would mention your daughter, but should you have considered her? You are in favor of altering her world. While her grandmother may have snuck a smoke in her teens, her mother (and I am not accusing you) probably sampled a bit of booze in her teens, no? Well, she is likely to face peer pressure to try readily available marijuana in her teens. And by then the Left will be arguing that the next “drug du jour” be legalized, and by then you will probably be horrified…but too late.

darkmetal on January 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM

What i would enjoy would be no mention of Fox News and especially that no talent hack MKH. Does she ever smile?

Mr. Arrogant on January 15, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Absolutely comical.

That’s what the pro-prohibitionist position has become – reduced to appeals to the welfare of the children, and appeals to the moral authority of religion.

Couple of bottom lines no one discusses, much less acknowledges – prohibitionits consistently will de-rail the debate by insisting they are looking out for the children, while blythely ignoring that is the entire point of those demanding change. The current system is abysmal with respect to achieving that goal, mention of which suddenly induces a case of ‘I haven’t seen that study’, or ‘I don’t know anything about that’ -or- ‘Of course it’s working – we threw some people in jail, and the cops seized all their stuff!’

The other is the entire approach to the ‘problem’, much less even truly identifying what the ‘problem’ is. What everybody’s bitching seems to distill down to is substance abuse. Insisting that ‘well, we wrote on some paper and put it in a file cabinet, so it’s the law and will fix this’ is simply blind. Because until that is addressed, and it is dealt with as a health, the ‘addiction’ bugaboo will remain. And in case no one really noticed for the past 100 years, if people want something, they’ll figure out a way to get it.

But I know some folks are itching to jump in and protect the children, which begs the question – then why are you in favor of making it easily available to them, oh, and, by the way, also enabling their exposure to other, truly dangerous substances? Which is the net effect of what’s going on now. Simple test – ask a teenager you can reasonably expect to give you a straight answer the following: Which is easier to get? Cigarettes, Beer, or Pot? Dollars to donuts they’ll tell you pot, and for a very simple reason – dope dealers don’t ask for ID. And as long as we continue in our state of denial to this, then we aren’t doing squat to protect anything except for the iron rice bowls of the drug warriors.

And speaking of those rice bowls that de-criminalization and regulation would pretty much render meaningless or un-convertible or justifiable to remain as the ever sucking black hole they have grown to depend on for a pension better managed and funded than Chicago’s. . .we’re spending HOW MUCH to randomly throw the youth of this country either into jail, faux ‘rehab’, or at the very least stigmatize them for the rest of their lives as a ‘druggie’, vastly reducing their prospects and earning potential (then take a breath to squall about welfare). . .while at the same time, continuing to ensure that the federal and state treasuries receive only the merest of crumbs of revenue from the vast, unhindered cash flow occurring daily, a substantial portion of which flows almost directly out of the country, never to be seen again. Shorter version – current policy is bleeding us of our treasure. And our blood.

A LOT of blood. Police officers, non-violent cannabis users and local growers, and far too often, and most inexcusably, totally innocent bystanders. After 80 years, the body count is in the thousands. Consequence of war. War. On ourselves. Brilliant.

Some other cognitive dysfunction on the topic – is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that sometimes the loudest prohibitionists will often turn right around and decry the militarization of the police, the over arching reach of the state, the erosion of Citizens Rights under the 4th – completely ignoring that the ‘drug war’ has been an extremely convenient tool for the less than scrupulous in positions of authority a huge green light to call just about anything ‘drug related’ and they automatically get a pass for some pretty heinous behavior.

Have to wrap it up with asking those in favor of zero tolerance prohibition, who demand to know, without bother to listen to the ‘why’ behind fixing this mess, why I would want “to give pot to kids?”, the following question – Why are you in favor of continuing an internal civil war by Americans, upon Americans, that HAS killed thousands, ruined the lives of thousands more, sends our money overseas faster than Congress dispatching foreign aid, and makes virtually ALL of us potential victims of a 2:30am ‘dynamic entry’ simply because of a human error entering an address on a form. . .

Some bonehead out there needs to come up with an answer to that one, pretty quick.

Oh, and one last observation – a huge congrats to all the parents out there that are being good, model citizens, parroting the prohibition platitudes to their kids, thus being good government agents, and lying to their children.

Wind Rider on January 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Bill interrupted MK’s answer, which was really rude, especially considering MK didn’t interrupt him.

But great wrap-up at the very end by MK.

JimC on January 15, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Legalize it all, let Darwin have his pound of flesh. Honestly so tired of the Right in particular moralizing on this and hysterically advocating (financial) support of a Prohibition which has been an abject failure for decades with an astounding toll in human life. What’s Mexico up to now in their drug war? 70,000 dead? How many here in the inner cities (in fact, if the gangbangers weren’t murdering each other with such abandon in the drug war, the Left would certainly have less ammunition to justify their attempts to grab guns from legal owners) How many innocent Americans have been killed by the DEA because they botch a raid and go to the wrong house?…and that’s supposed to be tolerable? I could be for keeping the stuff illegal if there was even a smidge of evidence the illegality stopped somebody from scoring some dope. But no. Whats the story on the mayor of Toronto? Marion Barry? Every stupid pop star? Or how bout every one of you with high school aged kids KNOWS they know where to score some pot. Epic. Fail. The Right is as stupid about this as the Left and their mindless support for failed social welfare programs.

John_G on January 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4