TheAgitator.com
23 Responses to “It Would Be Dangerous to Legalize Pot Because….”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Comparing pot to guns is like comparing FOX News to news.
Nice Freudian slip there, saying “recreational youth” rather than “recreational use.”
I assume most Fox News bimbos have “it’s for the children” running on a loop in their heads…
Now the 10thers will be heard.
Would getting shot with a joint really be so bad?
omar, I believe the term is “shotgunned.”
I’m shocked at the widespread scope of the pending legislation in California. Usually… when states ‘decrimanalize’ pot it’s totally a joke… still illegal to distribute or grow, and so loaded with mickey mouse restrictions (Like in NY) as to make it nigh worthless.
But this… this actually legalizes (If possible, in the current federal environment) marijuana.
What I predict? The Police Unions will do anything… bankrupt themselves if need be… to defeat this. This is their BREAD AND BUTTER.
What cracks me up about the endless “it’s for the children” rhetoric is that they are somehow blind to the fact that the use of rec drugs are already happening and have been since, you know, like forever. It’s like they think that legalization creates drug use.
“If it becomes legal aren’t children going to…” -insert anything scary to complete the sentence. “We can’t have pot smoking teenage terrorist!”
The douche bag fox spew guy is what in his late 30′s? Like he didn’t smoke up back in his college days or know close friends who had.
Only users lose drugs
The Judge is fast on his feet. Excellent comeback to the inane “what about the children?!?!?!” question.
Dammit, DaveG, I had a withering response to your comment but I lost it!
Great thinkers like Descartes or Spinoza are against things like marijuana, because it is not helping to have clear ideas; so if the people has to think it is better not to give it some, otherwise there is the way to tyranny.
I like how at the bottom it says “Federal law still prohibits the use & sale of marijuana.”
You know, in case us regular people have forgotten by now. It’s hard to remember sometimes, what with all the pot plenty of regular people smoke.
“kids might shoot each other with joints”
Okay then…There was a massacre in my garage last night!
@ #7 -
Of course it’s likely the ‘Fox spew guy’ knew people in college who smoked regularly, who graduated, and who are now architects or lawyers or doctors or middle managers in some box of cubicles somewhere. It’s possible he even partook himself.
But his bread is buttered by whargarbl, so what do you expect? When they say “it’s for the children!” what they really mean is “it’s for this mini-economy with an annual spending budget many nations would salivate over, it’s for officer pensions and fast cars with blue lights, it’s for tasers and SWAT teams!”
Check out the the initiative we’re going to get on the ballot in WA, I-1068. Lock up the children!
It’s a rare day when I turn on foxnews even while channel hopping, but they do have one or two people worth watching and Napolitano is one of them. Stossel is another. The rest of them bring no intellectual substance to any topic. Their only function is to point at what the democrats are currently doing (no matter what it is) as evil. They are essentially, the PR department of the Republican party.
It’s a bad sign that that interview seemed remarkably non-hostile on the part of the news anchor by comparison to other “debates” on the subject I’ve seen, isn’t it?
#6,
a bankrupt police union, that’s encouraging.
#13
It’s for Wachenhut!
#10 | Judas Peckerwood |
because marijuana causes short term memory loss …
see? think of the kids
I don’t think I understand this parallel universe in which pot in the home is equivalent to guns in the home for the purposes of protecting children, but alcohol is apparently perfectly okay.
What I find funny is that 99.9999999% of the people who would watch Fox News likely support gun rights and would outright refuse to even acknowledge that guns in the home = dangerous (and rightly so), yet it was the go-to line señor douche bag went to in order to tell gun owners why marijuana is bad.
What a tool.
@14 – You’re absolutely right. “It’s for the children” (in context of the drug war) = “It’s for our more and more militarized police force (that we have turned in to a quasi-religious institution) which upholds our myopic view of morality.” I mean what would they do without their precious police force to step all over “undesirables?”
I also find it odd that the extreme right wing is the most vocal about protecting their gun rights so that they might protect themselves against the government, yet are also the segment of society who worships both the military and the police that they would have to fight in said circumstance. I fear many conservatives’ view of what America should be like: a police state in which their form of morality is uphelp at the cost of all else (think Taliban), and any undesirables (gays, dopeheads, non-Christians, prostitutes) are stripped of any rights they have for not being one of “them.”
These people are missing a few screws.
Chris, I don’t think your generalization is all that close to truth. Sensible Washington (the group behind the marijuana legalization inititiative — I-1068 — in WA State) is reporting having gathered 400 petition signatures ( to get I-1068 on the ballot in November) in one afternoon outside a gun show.