Comments on: Common Sense Says, "No Thanks!"

Guest Column: Stephen Baldwin & Kevin McCullough: America doesn't want its pot.. American potheads do!

[Baldwin_genepool]

Does anyone copy-edit these editorials? I'm guessing the answer is "no"...

"A major untruth that they spread is that for every criminal it would prevent from being sent to prison, dealing with the increasingly prevalent use by underage users would be doubled or even tripled."

To say that this sentence is unclear would be the understatement of the century. Are the authors (it apparently took two people to write this) stating that legalization advocates are spreading the untruth that underage drug use (or "dealing with" underage drug use) would increase if the substance were legalized? If not, what is the "untruth" being referred to here? There seems to be some pronoun confusion taking place here. My 8th grade English teacher would not approve. And really, "doubled or even tripled"? Well, which is it? Is that just an offhand statement, or do either Baldwin or McCullough have some kind of research to back this up?

"What they also will not tell you is that for every ounce of tax revenues raised, a ton of cost is exacted upon society by intoxicated drivers, child addicts, counseling, rehabilitation, etc."

Ounce? Ton? When did we start measuring money by weight? Could you please be a little more exact? Can you point to any actual figures? This barely qualifies as speculation.

"And the farming argument is just dumb."

This is the one that really floored me. Does this statement belong in a persuasive essay? You're going to allow someone to just say that something is "dumb" and leave it at that? No clarification, no elaboration? This sort of argument wouldn't pass muster on most playgrounds. And yet there it is, afforded its own paragraph.

"What the rabid dealers and addicts will not admit is that the primary reason they are making this push is multi-purposed."

The primary reason is multi-purposed? Are they attempting to say that there are multiple primary reasons?

Please, have an someone give these essays a cursory glace before you post them. It doesn't even need to be an editor; I believe a janitor could have pointed out the problems here. This is embarassing.

[unnamed6]

For all those so oppposed to Marijuana being legalized why not? It is far less harmful than cigaretts and alcohol. It is natural just at GOD in the bible wants us to be. It can grow anywhere because it is a weed. It is no habit forming no matter what some people want you to think. Ask anyone who smokes and they can quit if they want but most don't want to because just like alcohol and cigs. it is a form of release for them to relax. You all need to educate yourselves on the drug and also on cigs and alch. before you judge and why not go for a drug that does not kill you for using, you cannot OD on the drug and those around you will not get cancer as in cigs. You may be impared by being slower yes but just don't drive! Alch and cigs are FAR MORE HARMFULL than pot. So get with it and learn your facts. How about spending your time to get cigs and alch. banned rather than legalizing weed b/c those are FAR worse for anyone!

[merlgrey]

Most intellegent post yet. How do you respond to the 46% who are opposed? They are all just so many cattle, right? Fools duped by tricky dick's neo-Conserivard brainwashing media. How convenient. When the majority is against you then democracy is a bad idea, but when the numbers are on your side then its a good idea. If most people support maintaining stupid policies then I guess we are stuck with them. Unless you are willing to throw the whole democracy thing under the bus. Posted by dangyankee69 at 9:37 AM:

public opinion sways politicians on both side of the isle like the wind. where the public has been failed in this matter is the protection of individual rights and liberties... there is no direct criminal act that harms others in really any drug consumption. its a matter of personal choice. confounding is that it has reached a point where our own tax dolloars are used by government agencies for a propoganda machine that has misinformed the public for many generations. brainwash em while thier young.

[dangyankee69]

Stepping beyond the fatuous and foolish. Anyone interested in how those in the upper ranks of government see the issue should take a look at Gonzales v. Raich (2005). I find it interesting that in the 6-3 split over the decision to support the prohibition of marijuana it was O'Connor, Thomas and Rehnquist who voted to support California's right to legalize. Wouldn't they be considered Conservatives (SDO and WR were appointed by Reagan and CT was appointed by GHW Bush).

[dangyankee69]

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by "Drug Czar" Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

I was wrong again. The law was passed in 1937 not 1933. That's what I get for listening to foolish libs instead of checking their facts. My bad.

[dangyankee69]

As usual, Americans are split almost down the middle on this issue, and you certainly cannot make the absurd statement that those 40% are all "potheads," just many more "thinking" Americans that see we need to change course instead of plowing ahead with MORE OF THE SAME lunacy! Posted by evilbusheviks

Most intellegent post yet. How do you respond to the 46% who are opposed? They are all just so many cattle, right? Fools duped by tricky dick's neo-Conserivard brainwashing media. How convenient. When the majority is against you then democracy is a bad idea, but when the numbers are on your side then its a good idea. If most people support maintaining stupid policies then I guess we are stuck with them. Unless you are willing to throw the whole democracy thing under the bus.

[dangyankee69]

Why must CONServitards always LABEL everyone, and then try cross-hybrids to allow one to be more "liberal" or "conservative" on one issue over another, while still removing personal rights as a "potential" for societal benefit? - Evilbushniks

This from someone who labels everyone that disagrees with them CONServitards? LOL

[dangyankee69]

Only that we should try a different approach than the sickness by CONServitards of MORE of the SAME, and that you seem history-challenged as well, not knowing that marijuana was made illegal in 1933 -- not 1972 like you stated! UNDERSTAND?
Posted by evilbusheviks

Caps? Are you yelling at me? I think you need to read more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions. The statement that the US government has been in a state of conflict over its own policy since 1972 was not based on the belief that the law prohibiting the use of Marijuana was passed in 1972. It was a reference to the since quoted report published by the government calling for the repeal of the 1933 law.

Settle down.

[dangyankee69]

"People's Budget". It was rejected a number of times because of the high amount of seats in the House of Representatives (conservatives). After the vote kept being repetitively rejected by the House of Representatives, [they kept shooting down the policy because it was a new way of thinking, and simply didn't even consider its parameters or probably even bother to look at it because it opposed the traditional views of their stature] David Lloyd George told the king (George V) what was unfairly happening, and the king then threatened the house to "Vote in favor of the bill, or lose position in your seat of the House of Representatives"
Posted by chakahkan808

The British Parliament is composed of two houses. The lower house is the House of Commons and the upper house is the House of Lords. The United States Congress is composed of two houses. The lower house is the House of Representatives and the upper house is the Senate. Just wanted to clear that up.

[goosfraba2]

I formed the opinion a long time ago that, the current, illegal drugs should be legalized, controlled like liquor/tobacco/pharmaceuticals, and taxed appropriately. If people want to "blow their brains out" with that stuff then I say, "Go ahead." This would immediately eliminate the drug cartels and the problems associated with them.

btw, I don't smoke tobacco much less anything else--I protect my lungs from polution as much as I can. I have never used illegal drugs nor would I if they became legal. I do drink beer and bourbon now and again. I'm dead-set against drinking and driving.