May 12, 2009
Common Sense Says, "No Thanks!"
Guest Column: Stephen Baldwin & Kevin McCullough: America doesn't want its pot.. American potheads do!
-
Play CBS Video Video Obama On Legalizing Pot During the first ever online White House town hall meeting, President Barack Obama answered a question submitted online about legalizing marijuana to boost the economy.
-
Video Marijuana Rx Has medical marijuana gotten a bad rap? Dr. Jon LaPook talks with Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Mitch Earleywine on the pros and cons of using medical marijuana for your health.
-
Video Running With Mary Jane Marijuana is a sticky issue for public officials, especially presidential contenders. But today's candidates are increasingly willing to speak out on the subject. Brad Coffman reports.
Sure the debate is raging presently, but it's as fictional in its need as whether pigs can fly or whether Superman was or was not faster than that bullet.
In the modern trumped up controversy over whether marijuana should be legalized for the masses, the biggest canard of all is the supposed demand that exists. As a team that produces a weekly talk radio show now heard on 195 stations, we can earnestly say one thing is definitively true in the discussions we've launched about the revival of the "Should pot be legal?" question: "America doesn't want its pot... American potheads do!"
Almost to a person, callers to our broadcast who have asserted the need for weed's legality are also toking up on a regular basis.
Considering that Stephen starred in "Biodome," one of the more famous marijuana movies of all time, and that he has testified to smoking enough of the substance prior to his conversion to Christianity to fund a third world junta or two, we are able to compare the pleas of the modern marijuana movement and measure them for what they are--cries of economically struggling potheads who want to get high cheaply, next generation be damned.Make Marijuana Legal
Nothing could be more foolish and nothing could be more unnecessary.
We have no desire to prevent doctors from prescribing specified care, or authorizing specific treatments for patients that simply cannot find any more compassionate or effective means. We do, however, also recognize that the medical community has expanded its array of treatments in instances for cancer and other diagnoses that might render the need for marijuana completely useless.
What we oppose with ferocity is making it as common for children to obtain as alcohol and cigarettes are now.
Legalizing it across the board creates easier access for children who we suppose would still be legally prevented from "purchasing" it. This doesn't even preface the fact that cigarettes are now thought of as a greater evil to children than sex offenders.
Marijuana proponents claim that the benefit to society would be enhanced by fewer offenders being sent to prison, tax revenues that would be generated, and the establishment of marijuana farming systems.
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.
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.
And the farming argument is just dumb.
What the rabid dealers and addicts will not admit is that the primary reason they are making this push is multi-purposed. First, they believe having a former user in the White House will give them the cover they need to make this process speedy, efficient, and successful. And second, they are convinced that it will give them easy access to the "high" they want, as well as give the pushers a new line of clientele.
The pot-heads of America believe that their new day has dawned.
But for the sake of our kids and the generations to come, it is still not too late to "just say no!"
(Stephen Baldwin & Kevin McCullough produce Xtreme Radio with Baldwin/McCullough, heard on 195 stations nationally. They can be reached at BMXRadioNow@gmail.com, or at 903.200.HOPE.)
By Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough
Special to CBSNews.com
More From Opinion
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 240 Commentshttp://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/
Our drug war results in staggeringly tragic losses. Drugs, when abused, can be dangerous, but they are not nearly as lethal as the drug war itself.
In addition to the blights of an imprisoned population, lost rights, broken families, and economic waste, people are dying in this war. No, these are not deaths from drugs, but from prohibition.
It is important to realize that the vast majority of deaths on the drug war simply would not happen without prohibition. When drug dealers fight it out over territory and they or their neighbors are killed in the process, it is a sympton of prohibition, much as when we suffered the scourge of alcohol prohibition many years ago. Prohibition makes violence profitable.
When drug users overdose from tainted drugs, it is the result of prohibition. When they die from overdoses because they were afraid to seek help, it is the result of prohibition.
Increasingly, people are dying because of the tactics of the drug war. Military operations are being conducted on our soil, and collateral damage is inevitable.
When drug task forces dressed in black batter in doors without knocking or announcing themselves, the danger to citizens and police alike is enormous. Sometimes the greatest danger is to (or from) the innocent citizen that understandably believes that they are experiencing a home invasion, and rushes to defend their family and property.
Every now and then, a death happens that is particularly grotesque ? that points out the horrific folly of our actions. This page presents some of those deaths.
Many are purely innocent victims of the war ? bystanders who have been mowed down by military drug war tactics gone berserk, and by government agencies? greedy pursuit of the glory and financial gain of drug busts. In other cases, the victim is guilty of something, but their punishment does not fit the crime.
All the victims have two things in common:
Their death was a result of drug prohibition, and the dangerous tactics used in the drug war, and
They didn?t deserve to die.
As you look at those who have died in the war on drugs, remember one thing: There has never been a single recorded case of anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana.
But something that both Baldwin and the legalize-marijuana advocates miss, and this is vital is the issue of property rights. Property rights are so important, yet continue to get overlooked. Does Baldwin even understand that without property rights, freedom is logically impossible? It's easier to understand when you think what is your most valuable possession. For most people, it would be their body and life. Why should anyone have the right to tell me what I can do with my body? Like Baldwin, I am a Christian, but I don't confuse morality with the law, as legalizing morals is not freedom. And for those of us who don't shoot heroin, or snort coke, etc I don't have to condone the use of these drugs (especially with my children) but I don't want to force others not to make their own decisions, and then live with the consequences of such decisions.
And last but not least, I also continue to hear Baldwin that the majority of Americans don't want to legalize pot and other drugs. Again, this is pure ignorance of the basic meaning of the Constitution. Our law of the land was written to protect the minority from the majority, that is why democracy never appears in it. You see Stephen, democracy is mob rule, the exact opposite of freedom. Even if 300 million people were against it, and only 1 person wanted to smoke pot, that person should have the right to do so. Freedom is way more important than drug addicts.
I'd probably back some of these anti-drug groups if they stuck to education and realized the importance of property rights, freedom and choice.
Well, I respond America doesn't want alcohol.. American alcoholics do!
Posted by skylines96 at 9:12 AM : May 14, 2009 ....................................
...............While that may be true for most alcoholics ,,,some of us have had our share,,,I'll stick to pot. And YES we pot heads want our pot ,,,to be legal just like the drugs that corporate America deals out,,,,except the maker of pot ,I TRUST.
Well, I respond America doesn't want alcohol.. American alcoholics do!
So, you would rather millions of innocent Americans be hunted down and put in cages rather than offend your prickly nostrils? Nice. Hmmm. What if just smoking marijuana were illegal? Would you still want to imprison people who cook with it or vaporize it in their own homes?
It removes police from working a minor crime, and gets then working on the serious crimes. It removes the chance of corruption in police or courts. Because it is legal it cuts the price, fewer crimes might be committed to get the price of the grass.
The idea, that children will now be able to buy since adults can, is stupid. They can already buy it legal or not. If you put the dealers out of business because, it is now legally sold then you have only those who will buy it for minors or clerks who will sell it to them.
Instead of using the money for police to stop the flow of pot, why not instead use the money to get people off drugs?
As to the idea that Stephen's conversion to Christianity lets him know what the church should or should not be telling society about which laws we should have, is bunk. The church is here to teach theology, the path to God, and morals, and to bring about reformation of mankind by beliefs not by the force of law. If we hold religion to be the determiner of our laws, then who's religion? I state this as a holder of Master of Divinity degree, something I doubt Stephen Baldwin has.
And I thought "conservatives" oppose government interference!
Turns out that fascists LOVE government interference in their culture wars against anyone who doesn't drink the Repig Returd Kool-aid.
It's ridiculous to outlaw plants that have been used for thousands of years and have established medicinal and recreational uses. We're talking about plants, people! My goodness.
P.S.: I bet you guys don't drink, either.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Alcohol and cigarettes are harder for children to get, than illegal drugs, because you have to show ID to get them. Most drug dealers don't care how old you are.
Cannabis needs to be legalized, plain and simple. Alcohol prohibition didn't work, and drug prohibition's not working.
Albert Einstein
I doubt Baldwin or dangyankee69 would agree with that statement because that is their approach to the War on Drugs.
Baldwin_genepool just smashed everything Steve Baldwin and Kevin McCullough came up with together. It is truly embarassing that this piece took two people to write but I am happy that this was written. Weed is illegal because of lunatics lies from the past and now this generation has to fight back against their hatred and deception.
"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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 240 Comments