Skip to comments.Bill O'Reilly NOT looking out for you--Part II
Posted on 04/16/2013 12:10:24 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
All full of his normal bombast and bluster, on 4/11/13, Bill OReilly once again proved he hadnt a grasp on the subject at hand, whether or not to legalize marijuana.
His plan is to put responsible adults or children who smoke into the legal system, destroying them and their families. He wants to keep feeding the corrupt legal system that thrives off of these offenses/freedoms (depending on your point of view).
He wants these draconian punishments because he feels that pot will destroy anyone trying it, a view responsible for turning more people into...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
The gateway claim is nonsense - research shows that the correlation between earlier marijuana use and later use of other drugs can be explained by a "common-factor" model, that is, a third factor that causes both results, such as individuals' opportunities and unique propensities to use drugs, or more broadly a social or psychological predisposition towards anti-social behavior. (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html, http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors253.pdf)
Also note that the same sort of correlation between earlier marijuana and later harder drugs also exists between earlier alcohol and tobacco and later illegal drugs - so if marijuana is a "gateway" so are alcohol and tobacco.
has been clearly associated with schizophrenia and a host of personality disorders that have ruined or diminished lives.
Association is not causation - it's equally plausible that the mentally ill turn to marijuana in a misguided attempt to self-medicate.
No reputable rehabilitation specialist or addiction professional condones its use.
Nor the use of tobacco - shall we ban that too?
It is especially dangerous when used by adolesents.
Nobody advocates making marijuana legal for minors.
The US has declined markedly since marijuana use has become widespread.
The US has declined markedly since flat-screen TVs have become widespread.
Bit of a dopey or perhaps dope inspired rebuttal.
Whereas your counterpoint is a marvel of research and logic. ROTFL!
You simply dont have the proper cultural perspective.
Which is what?
i would hate to see it legal but sure would like it de-criminalized
I suppose we should ban cigarettes, junk food, alcohol, aspirin, etc., since those have all caused huge problems in society.
Where do you draw the line?
They can be libertine, quasi conservative or liberal on any given day.
In my experience they generally come from the Democrat stable. They are usually somewhat disaffected Dems who cannot join the conservative platform because they despise what they perceive as moral judgments.
Thus they have no core beliefs and are only effective politically at times of political confusion in the rank and file voter.
There is really nothing you can do with a person like this except to avoid electing them, because they will say and do anything that they perceive to be in the public interests or to get elected...
We have several in the GOP already, but as a opinion journalist, they tend to be successful as they only insult a potion of their audience at any one time, reversing the procedure on the following day, article or telecast....IMO This is why O'really still has a broad audience and why FOX employs him. I would not waste time trying to expose what essentially is a man of all seasons and jack of all trades....
“How much freedom does a drug addict who is a slave to drugs enjoy?”
You’re confusing freedoms, here. One is the gubmints business, the other is between man and God or nature or himself, or whatever. One is your business, the other not. Very many choices are becoming the collective’s business, the more gubmint intrudes on our lives. Food, for instance, I assume will be just as regulatable as now is marijuana, considering we’re all responsible for eachother’s healthcare bills. And the logic is tight: if you cost the people more money than the next guy because you’re fat, you deserve to be punished by the state. That is, if the law is not going to be held back by oldfashioned concern for personal freedom, individual autonomy, and justice as traditionally understood.
There’s another way, however. Fatties could pay more for the same insurance. Weed smokers could be responsible for their own actions. We could let the inherent absence of freedom in addiction to which you allude make smoking weed, if ot really is so bad, correct itself, rather than the state further restricting the freedom that’s not there anyway.
Any particular reason?
About as much as an alcohol or tobacco addict.15 Shocking images show the cost of drug addiction
Criminalization of drugs motivates crime by hyperinflating drug prices - and puts the profits in criminal hands.You have no evidence of what drug prices would be. If anything Democrats would slap high taxes on it and grow government. You become a slave to drugs and the democrats.
Your arguments are not valid or even logical. Your suppositions and statements are simply not true or flawed, and your conclusions are wrong and biased. Your advocacy,tone and mask of “freedom” is a bit reminiscent of Janis Joplin wailing about freedom and the joys of drug use. Then again Janis be dead. Better luck to you than Janis had.
Your big mistake is completely ignoring the scourge of drugs on society. The laws of the land are my business. Walking the streets without crime because of drugs is my business too.
15 Shocking images show the cost of drug addiction
Criminalization of drugs motivates crime by hyperinflating drug prices - and puts the profits in criminal hands.
You have no evidence of what drug prices would be. If anything Democrats would slap high taxes on it and grow government.
They haven't taxed alcohol enough to make illegal product competitive - and only in NYC have they done so with tobacco. Should we ban everything that Democrats do or can tax?
And as proof of that you offer only your unsupported say-so. Who do you think you're persuading?
Some people’s motivation here is the love of drugs.
Others is love for America.
What is your “cultural perspective”? I imagine a group of men sitting in a cloud of cigar smoke, drunkly rambling about how irresponsible are those damn, longhaired hippies, before each drives home or into a tree.
Your big mistake is thinking that drug criminalization has done anything but add more problems to the mix.
Some peoples motivation here is telling scummy lies about those with whom they disagree - because they lose every argument based on fact and logic.
The US has declined markedly since we put a man on the moon. We need to stop that.
Your argument is twisting in the wind.
What happened to your cheaper drugs argument?
A little reality reduced fast. LoL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.