Reminder: The Media Isn’t Liberal, It’s Statist

Monday, November 5th, 2012

The Boston Globe today editorializes against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide today, both of which are on the ballot in Massachusetts. Why? Because neither ballot measure gives state bureaucrats sufficient control over over the lives of people who live in Massachusetts.

From the marijuana editorial:

With any other legal drug, patients would expect straight answers — they’d assume, almost unconsciously, that the FDA was protecting them. There’s no such backstop for medical marijuana. Even the wisest physicians wouldn’t have enough data to make definitive judgments . . .

Certainly, any regimen for medical marijuana that’s finally adopted should ensure that only those who demonstrably need the pain relief are getting it.

But in the end, Question 3 isn’t the right answer to a complicated policy issue. There are simply too many inherent problems in asking state officials to oversee a legalized system of growing and distributing a drug that hasn’t been subjected to the federal approval process.

Question 3’s heart is in the right place, and its architects have made a solid effort to learn from the mistakes of California and Colorado. But ultimately, the only truly safe way to legalize marijuana will be through the FDA, with doctors providing prescriptions and licensed pharmacists dispensing the medication.

In the meantime, let the patients suffer, the black markets prosper, and the raids continue. I mean, God forbid we pass a law that gives your average rube the tiniest bit more power to make his own decisions about what he puts into this own body. I mean, what if this law were responsible for someone using marijuana to get high?

And from the physician-assisted suicide editorial:

Reasonable people can disagree passionately about Question 2, but a yes vote would not serve the larger interests of the state. Rather than bring Massachusetts closer to an agreed-upon set of procedures for approaching the end of life, it would be a flashpoint and distraction — the maximum amount of moral conflict for a very modest gain . . .

Instead, Massachusetts should commit itself to a rigorous exploration of end-of-life issues, with the goal of bringing the medical community, insurers, religious groups, and state policy makers into agreement on how best to help individuals handle terminal illnesses and die on their own terms . . .

Physician-assisted suicide should be the last option on the table, to be explored in a thorough legislative process only after the state guarantees that all its patients have access to all the alternatives, including palliative care.

” . . . would not serve the larger interests of the state.” Doesn’t get much clearer than that, does it?

That last bit of emphasis is mine. Interesting what happens when you take these two editorials together. We can’t trust doctors and terminally ill patients to come to a decision about allowing a patient to peacefully, painlessly end his own life, because all of the experts, politicians, and elites haven’t yet decided what’s best for the patient. And we can’t let that same patient relieve his pain with marijuana, because the experts aren’t yet in agreement about the benefits of the drug (in part because the same bureaucratic structure refuses to allow the drug to be used for medical research), and in any case, because the proposed law doesn’t give nearly enough power to government to keep the drug away from people. (The Globe also endorses restricting access to prescription painkillers, by the way.)

The message the Globe editorial board is sending to people with chronic pain and terminal illness is pretty clear: Government power is far more important than your pain. So just fucking suffer.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

59 Responses to “Reminder: The Media Isn’t Liberal, It’s Statist”

  1. #1 |  Pi Guy | 

    The government does not have the authority, and should not have the power, to dictate what we put into or take out of our bodies.

  2. #2 |  Mattocracy | 

    It’s sad when a newspaper runs an editorial that could’ve been written as an opinion piece off of Fox News.

  3. #3 |  Mike T | 

    We can’t trust doctors and terminally ill patients to come to a decision about allowing a patient to peacefully, painlessly end his own life, because all of the experts, politicians, and elites haven’t yet decided what’s best for the patient.

    We can’t trust doctors with this for the same reason we cannot trust them increasingly with organ donations. There is a growing problem (example) of them aggressively declaring people “brain dead” in order to get their organs while they’re still fresh. The medical profession is right up there with government bureaucrats on the list of people that “no right-thinking person would wish to grant discretionary power over life and death to.”

  4. #4 |  Mike T | 

    I think many libertarian supporters of physician-assisted suicide make the mistake of compartmentalizing this issue, when in reality it is part of a broader package of modern medical changes. One of those is the increasing tendency to consider hospital beds a public good, not a good for sale to those who can pay for them. In many jurisdictions, families with the money to keep alive patients in vegetative states are denied this because the hospitals treat the beds as belonging to the community not the buyer. There are also issues of less-than-consensual and informed euthanasia arising in Europe that we must consider. These are especially troubling given the borderline sociopathic morality of mainstream bioethicists (Peter Singer, for example, supports legalized infanticide–not just abortion). That branch of ethics is about as anti-libertarian as one can get in its assumptions about intrinsic individual rights.

    I don’t see how we can, in this current political climate, create a physician-assisted suicide program that won’t invariably end up giving “our betters” some prerogative to decide when it’s “our time.”

  5. #5 |  Randy | 

    It’s sad when a newspaper runs an editorial that could’ve been written as an opinion piece off of Fox News.

    It’s sad that people take shots at Fox News, given that their competitors have championed leviathan government my entire life time.

  6. #6 |  Marty | 

    I love how they write about how important the FDA is, but when Michael Taylor was appointed to lead this department, they didn’t have a thing to say about having a former lobbyist and vice-president of Monsanto in charge of this very influential agency. I didn’t see any mention about the swat raids on whole milk vendors, either…

    ‘Statist’ is exactly right.

  7. #7 |  Mattocracy | 

    …and fox hasn’t?

  8. #8 |  Albatross | 

    Meanwhile those same champions, when holding elected office, invariably GROW government more than their Democratic counterparts. It’s almost as if Fox News is the propaganda arm of the “power by any means” party…

  9. #9 |  Fred Mangels | 

    We can’t trust doctors with this for the same reason we cannot trust them increasingly with organ donations..

    Who someone trusts isn’t for you to decide. It’s for the person in question to decide.

  10. #10 |  Alex | 

    Readers of this blog are well acquainted with people and institutions whose heads ought to explode, but mysteriously don’t.

    Still, this is a doozy.

  11. #11 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I seem to remember a lot of definitive answers the FDA and doctors gave over the last 100 years that turned out to be complete bullshit.

    I also seem to remember the Globe supporting the passing of ObamaCare even though almost no one had read it, debated it, and thousands of questions still remained about how to implement it and what was covered.

    In general, you seem to be owned by the state (body and mind) much like their property. But, it’s really for your own good!

  12. #12 |  tarran | 

    Honestly, if you are a progressive, the Boston Globe is a great newspaper. It’s owned by the same corporation as the New York Times, has the same political biases, but unlike the New York Times, seems to have editors that insist that articles be coherently organized before they are published.

    But, it you aren’t a progressive, their relentless proselytizing for totalitarianism gets old very quick.

  13. #13 |  Mike T | 

    #9

    Who someone trusts isn’t for you to decide. It’s for the person in question to decide.

    And 99% of the general public trusts the state to police medical practitioners and punish them severely when they intentionally violate that trust. But in the fantasy land of most advocates of physician-assisted suicide, that never really happens so clearly I’m just a statist…

  14. #14 |  Nick T. | 

    I’d be really interested to know how many times the Globe’s editorial page has ever used this line of reasoning:

    “There are simply too many inherent problems in asking state officials to oversee a [what the law in question proposes...]”

    To argue against changing the laws/passing new laws in a way that gives the state *more* power.

  15. #15 |  Nick T. | 

    Yeah libertarians think the state *never* punishes doctors…

    Mike T. where do you come down on abortion? Review boards, doctor sign-offs in triplicate, parental notification, waiting period. You support all that right?

  16. #16 |  MH | 

    I think there are some valid concerns about assisted-suicide. But I also think there should be a presumption in favor of liberty: there needs to be a cogent _reason_ for the state to intervene to prevent assisted suicide, not a simple presumption that the patient’s ostensible choice is invalid.

  17. #17 |  MassHole | 

    MA decriminalized possession of less than ounce of weed to the equivalent of an expensive parking ticket by ballot measure in 2008. Anyone without an ulterior motive will tell you that life has gone on just peachy here in the commonwealth since then. But now, if doctors can prescribe it, we need to be all worried about abuse. Such bullshit. The polls are showing it will pass. Fuck the Globe and their pathetic reasoning.

  18. #18 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Ah, but as the term is used these days, Liberalis IS Statism. The so-called Liberals cosistently push for more authority for the State because they believe that this will allow them, the Enlightened, to guide the reast of us.

    They have completely missed that, historically, once the State reaches a certain level of power one of the first things it will do is liquidate the Intellectuals.

  19. #19 |  John C. Randolph | 

    Legalization measures never serve the interests of the state, they serve the interests of the people. That’s why they’re a good thing.

    I look forward to the imminent financial failure of the Boston Globe, and the rest of the legacy-media bootlicking industry. Their demise can’t come soon enough.

    -jcr

  20. #20 |  Dave Krueger | 

    The message the Globe editorial board is sending to people with chronic pain and terminal illness is pretty clear: Government power is far more important than your pain. So just fucking suffer.

    This is why laws restricting pain medications should only be voted on by people who are currently suffering from kidney stones. The fact is that most people have no clue what real chronic pain feels like.

    Most people are enthusiastically willing to sacrifice freedoms that they currently have no use for themselves (and the government is equally enthusiastic in its willingness to accommodate them).

  21. #21 |  Les | 

    Ah, but as the term is used these days, Liberalis IS Statism.

    Sometimes, maybe with labor and environmental issues. But not when it comes to these kinds of personal issues, along with things like civil rights, education, and foreign policy.

  22. #22 |  Cyto | 

    Hi Les!

    I’m not going to quibble on the rest of your post… but claiming that liberalism is not statism when it comes to education is so far from correct that it should be the example in the dictionary for wrong. Holy crap, their entire education policy is “more money to the state schools”. Well, that and “do anything you possibly can to prevent people from educating their children outside of the state schools.

    Without making any value judgment as to whether the alternatives are good or evil, any non-statist position on education would include some sort of mechanism to educate kids in a way other than the current government-run schools. Whether that be vouchers, home-schooling, the elimination of all public funding, whatever…. something other than “all children must be educated in a state-run facility”.

  23. #23 |  johnl | 

    The media isn’t statist it’s authoritarian. Read the business section and you will see a lot of regurgitated PR. Lazy reporters look for credible people to package up quick paraphrasings and CEOs and bureaucrats fit the bill. Eventually the reporters come to see themselves as the spokespeople of the people they have been paraphrasing.

    Mike is correct there is plenty to be aprehensive about with assisted suicide. If we had sane pain management, people would fear natural death much less.

  24. #24 |  Elliot | 

    @Mattocracy, can you name a major media newspaper or station which advocates legalizing medical marijuana?

    Fox News is biased for Republicans. The rest of the MSM is biased against Republicans. All of them are biased for big government, which includes supporting drug prohibition.

    To single out Fox suggests the others are engaging in unbiased, professional journalism. That simply isn’t the case.

    Besides the bias for big government, a good rule of thumb in evaluating the accuracy and quality of a news story is that reporters, overwhelmingly, tend to be lazy and shallow.

  25. #25 |  Larry Brothers | 

    In other words, form some more commissions and panels and think tank groups of experts (none of whom have any experience with weed) and study the situation, as though marijuana just appeared on earth yesterday.

    I weep for this country.

  26. #26 |  Jerryskids | 

    Keep in mind that this is coming from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Keep in mind also that Mitt Romney managed to appeal to enough of these people to get elected governor. That’s about all you need to know to understand what a tiny difference there is between Obama and Romney.

  27. #27 |  JLS | 

    What the Boston Globe (like most Americans) is really against is freedom.

  28. #28 |  el coronado | 

    in re the tired old “real liberalism isn’t the statist control-freak stuff we see today”, at least “not when it comes to personal issues…” argument:

    Kindly direct your attention to the recent ‘Agitator’ post of Tuesday, 30 Oct 2012. Discussing how the undeniably liberal….er, sorry, I gather they now prefer to be called “progressive”… (why not just jump straight ahead to ‘Silky Ponies’?) Obama administration is *much* more aggressive at shutting down licensed Weed dispensaries than the last guy. At a rate “up to 4 times worse” than that evil knuckledragging paleoconservative archfiend Bush. This is liberal love for personal freedom in action? Srsly?

    What liberals do isn’t about ‘freedom in personal issues’, it’s ‘pandering to single issue advocacy groups already prone to vote for Democrats, specifically gays & illegal immigrants.’ Unless of course someone can show me where a prominent (i.e., “national”) democrat is on record as being 1000% FOR rolling back gun control; rolling back hate speech/hate crime ‘can never apply to black defendants’ laws; or boldly pushing for complete weed/drug prohibition abolishment – including the _complete dismantling_ of the (government employee) enforcement/bureaucratic/management/support staff apparatus. Starting with the DEA, for example. And good luck with that.

  29. #29 |  Johnny Clamboat | 

    “They have completely missed that, historically, once the State reaches a certain level of power one of the first things it will do is liquidate the Intellectuals.”

    You say liquidate, I say Corzine.

    As in “My IRA is destined to be Corzined by the State.”

    Or “The foreigner was Corzined by Barry’s murderous sky robots.”

  30. #30 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Les,

    The modern Liberal is for Gay Pride parades, but would have a cow if a Christian evangelical organization wanted to have its own parade, to publicize its view of Gays.

    Now, I happen to think that the Evangelical Christians are wrong about Gays. But that doesn’t mean that the Liberal impulse to stifle the Evangelical message on Gays isn’t fundamentally Statist, censorious, and anti-freedom.

    The modern Liberal believes that everybody should be free to live asa he wants to live, do as he wants to do, and think asa he believes he should think. And that is usually exactly as far as his belief in Liberty goes.

  31. #31 |  Dave Krueger | 

    I have never seen someone who calls himself a liberal or conservative who isn’t a worshiper of the state and, given recent history, its ludicrous to suggest that either one is less vested in big government.

    There are two gangs (label them anyway you wish). As their foremost mission, both gangs sell favors to their favored clientele at the expense of ordinary people. And despite any rhetoric to the contrary, neither one is interested in free markets, civil liberties, peace on earth, or the welfare of the poor. That’s just the stuff they talk about to attract supporters who come from the bulk of the population that responds well to having sunshine blown up their asses. Government is only interested in one thing: government. Since that fact is impossible for the vast majority of people to grasp, tyranny is an inevitability.

    It’s not that any particular government official (or voter) is evil. They aren’t evil. They just have a huge capacity to rationalize (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc, etc).

  32. #32 |  EH | 

    All editorials like this are so much astroturfing by the state.

  33. #33 |  EH | 

    Gah, forgot: it’s the flipside payback for access journalism.

  34. #34 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Dave Krueger,

    it is my strong impression that Conservatives get the short end of this stick, in large part because the Media IS Statist, and it suits their partialities to present Conservatism as if it were Statist, because then they can push the idea that Republicans are just Democrats without any concern for (fill in favorite Democrat cause here).

    Conservatives are for local control of much that Liberals want to see done on a National level (education springs to mind). Conservatives are for having the State refrain from promoting social change. This sometimes takes the form of pushing the State to officially adopt an position that it has, de facto, held for some decades or centuries. This is the “Conservative” thought; the State has always been in this issue, we just want it to stay where it always was. Libertarians should therefore argue that the danger of the change the Conservatives don’t like (can anyone say ‘Gay Marriage’) shows why the State shouldn’t have been in the issue in the first place.

    Modern ‘Liberals’ are agitated about the possibility of forcing their views on people who are wrong thinkers. Conservatives are people who are comfortable as they are and, when pushed by Liberals, push back. Libertarians are people who want the freedom to change OR to stay the same.

  35. #35 |  Afternoon Links « lucystag | 

    [...] Balko continues to remind us all that the media is not left, but statist. (No matter how God damn sycophantic they seem during events like the White House Press [...]

  36. #36 |  Mattocracy | 

    @ Elliot,

    My comment was really about reaffirming the notion that there is no difference between conservative and liberal media. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that one side was better than the other.

  37. #37 |  Mairead | 

    It doesn’t surprise me that the Globe is opposed to our autonomy. It’s owned by the filthy rich, who believe that they should be able to own us, too. Lincoln remarked on it in one of his addresses to Congress, saying that the big disagreement among the owner class was whether only Black people or all working people should be enslaved.

    The sooner we do away with the ruling classes, the better off we’ll be.

  38. #38 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Mattocracy,

    I would argue that the REASON there is so little difference between Fox and the Liberal Media is that Fox has bought into the idea that the Media should be neutral.

    (Aside; if you are including magazines like National Review and radio programs like Limbaugh in you ‘Conservative Media’, then I don’t see how you are claiming that there is no difference)

    Media cannot be neutral. It is impossible to present all the facts about anything in a news story. Some simply do not matter. How long was the grass on campus during the Duke Lacrosse Witch Hunt? Its a fact, and it might actually matter to somebody. Someone has to decide (consciously or not) whether to make note of it.

    Those decisions will be biased. They have to be. The idea that the Media could possibly NOT be biased is so absurd that I’m sure it was an academic intellectual that came up with it.

    This is why I have so little patience with Conservatives who whine about the Media being biased. Of course the media is biased. If you want to get YOUR bias out there, quit schweeming and buy a newspaper, or start a blog, or get control of a TV network. Don’t complain about bias. Get your own out there!

  39. #39 |  Liberty at BU | 

    [...] The Boston Globe today editorializes against medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide today,…   If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it! /* [...]

  40. #40 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #34 C. S. P. Schofield

    Dave Krueger,

    Conservatives are for local control of much that Liberals want to see done on a National level (education springs to mind). Conservatives are for having the State refrain from promoting social change.

    I disagree, but then I am not paying attention to what conservatives say. I’m only paying attention to what they do and what they do is exactly what democrats do and on just as big a scale. And I believe they are just as heavily vested in a social agenda (although, for conservatives it’s more of a moral agenda).

    I think you’re splitting hairs. You’re magnifying tiny differences between conservatives and liberals, but the fact is that very little changes (and rarely for the better) when when control of the White House and Congress swings toward the right. Conservatives constantly croon about limited government and free markets, but it never happens when they have the power to make a difference, just as privacy and civil liberties never improve under democrats. It’s all just talk directly at gullible voters who obediently line up behind their respective candidates completely unwilling to acknowledge (even to themselves) that the king has no clothes.

  41. #41 |  egd | 

    Depends on what you mean by “liberal” and “statist.”

    When Republicans accuse the Media of being “liberal” they mean “Democrat.” And when Republicans say “statist” they mean “Democrat.” The Democrats are no more pro-legalization than the Republicans. From that perspective the Media is both statist and liberal.

    But if you mean “liberal” as in “promoting liberty,” then the descriptor is inappropriate as applied both to Democrats and to the Media.

  42. #42 |  Red | 

    Conservatives are really nationalists and liberals are really puritans. America’s greatness came from an alliance of the nationalists to provide the unity and force of arms and the puritans for the organization and industry they imposed on the workers.

    Neither faction really has the leadership and brains they once did. They’re both walking shells of what they used to be lashing out at bizarre stuff like surgery soda and useless wars everywhere.

  43. #43 |  MH | 

    “But if you mean “liberal” as in “promoting liberty,” then the descriptor is inappropriate as applied both to Democrats and to the Media.”

    I would love to reclaim “liberal” for classical liberalism; to encourage this, maybe we should shift to calling modern liberals progressives. I’m not clear if there is supposed to be any difference between liberal and progressive.

  44. #44 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    egd,

    When the Republicans accuse the media of being “Liberal” they do by and large mean “Democrat”, and they are by and large right. The majority of the media makes approving noises about non-Democrat politicians based (so far as I can see) solely on three criteria;

    1) The degree to which the politician’s policies mirror the policies favored by the Western Intellectuals who describe, or at least used to describe, themselves as ‘Liberal’ or ‘Progressive’.

    2) The degree to which the media perceives the politician as somebody who can spoil the chances of another politician whose policies oppose those of the Western Intellectuals.

    3) Whether the politician is a ‘third party’ candidate whose policies largely agree with the Western Intellectuals and whose campaign is unlikely to throw the election to a Republican.

  45. #45 |  KPRyan | 

    republicans and democrats in power both support Statism – just as the media is statist. I have this argument often with people who label themselves ‘conservatives’ (and nearly every one of those so-called conservatives cannot define the word) but for some reason it seems as if most can’t get their heads around the word: Statist.

    Maybe that’s because it isn’t a word used as an insult by one pol against another, or by a pundit against a pol. If the word isn’t used on tv, it isn’t real.

  46. #46 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    I would like to point out that, at least in my perception, there are two political battles going on in the United States;

    1) The regular fight between the Democrat and Republican parties

    and

    2) An ongoing fight between factions within the Republican party that do reflect differing political philosophies.

    Those factions include, but are not limited to, Social Conservatives, Libertarian-leaning Conservatives who (at least) want more government functions performed locally, and business-as-usual members of the Political Class (who were once called Rockefeller Republicans).

    No matter how that second fight goes, it won’t change in a single election, or even over two or three. It may drag out for a generation.

    The Democrats have the beginnings of a similar fight; the Democrats who got control of Congress back for their party in 2006 were (at least Publicly) Populists, and they got shoved aside and largely ignored (or so it seemed to me). Further, there is already a divide, of sorts, between the Western Intellectual side of the party (which is much concerned with what could be called Idealism, or Doctrinal Purity, depending on how cynical you are) and the business-as-usual Political Class (which is far more concerned with preserving their position than in being pure).

    Changes do not happen fast in our system. We sometimes think that they do, because lazy history teachers like to teach about ‘watershed’ moments.

    If a shift can be made away from Statism (and I’m not totally persuaded that one can), it will be incremental. There IS a difference between Romney and Obama; Romney does not automatically assume that Big Oil is the Devil incarnate. Romney is not beholden to people who believe in ‘Alternative Energy’ regardless of how the math works. It may not be a big shift, but it could be enough to get the economy moving again. With luck, that will in turn shift peoples’ perceptions enough to make another small shift in the next elections.

  47. #47 |  B | 

    While I don’t agree with the Globe’s rationale for opposing the medical marijuana measure, I am a lot less sanguine about medical marijuana than I used to be.

    The experience of watching dispensaries and prescription mills campaign against full legalization here in WA state has been very eye-opening. Medical MJ may have made the drug more socially acceptable, but it also created a gray market and a constituency with a vested interest in keeping it.

    If I-502 (our legalization measure) fails, we need to consider seriously the possibility that medical MJ was tactically useful in the short-term, but probably a strategic mistake in the long-term.

  48. #48 |  MH | 

    I agree liberals and conservatives are both statist, but that wasn’t the original topic here. Radley’s thesis was, I believe, even on the issues where liberals could take a libertarian position, the liberal media still takes the statist position (evidenced here with medicinal marijuana and physician-assisted suicide). So why are the liberal media more statist than the average liberal probably is?

  49. #49 |  Andrew S. | 

    Baptists and Bootleggers, B. Not the first time that’s happened, nor will it be the last.

  50. #50 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    MH,

    The Liberal Media is heavily invested in the Liberal side of the power structure. They support the Democrats more than they support Liberalism because it is the Democrats in government that give the journalists (I won’t call them reporters. Reporters are hardscrabble guys with nicotine stains on their souls. Mencken was a reporter. These twits are journalists) access. Without access, they can’t write their stories, unless they are willing to do real legwork. They didn’t get j-school degrees to do legwork on boring stuff. They got j-school degrees so they could wear Banana Republic bush jackets, hang around in bars, and wait around for the next Deep throat to drop into their laps like a ripe plum.

    So, pot is fine for them, if they like that kind of thing, but much to good for the unwashed. They are quite comfortable with Drug Prohibition because it generates easy stories, and doesn’t affect anybody they know. They side with the Democrat politicians, because they need them, and the politicians push prohibition because they think they need it for one reason or another (maybe to placate the Police Unions).

  51. #51 |  divadab | 

    @B – You say – “If I-502 (our legalization measure) fails, we need to consider seriously the possibility that medical MJ was tactically useful in the short-term, but probably a strategic mistake in the long-term.”

    This is not a horse race! Hemp Flower medicine is MEDICINE! It’s not a stalking horse, it’s about actual patients whose lives are actually improved by this wonderful natural medicine.

    If I-502 fails, Washington’s medicinal marijuana cottage industry will continue. If I-502 passes, Washington’s medicinal marijuana cottage industry will continue.

    I-502 will immediately stop arrests of adults for possession of less than an ounce of hemp flower. This is good. If it doesn;t pass, do you think people will suddenly stop smoking weed?

    Give your fricking head a shake and stop watching teevee – they don’t call it programming for nothing, eh?

  52. #52 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    divadab,

    The important thing isn’t the patients who benefit (or don’t) from smoking pot. The important thing is to end the prohibition on a drug so common that it isn’t unheard of to find it growing (as a weed) in Police property. The War on Drugs does far more damage to us as a society than the presence or absence of ‘medical’ marijuana. It is a threat to our liberties and our civil rights almost unequaled in the whole litany of Government stupidities.

    If legalizing medical marijuana helps bring down the Drug War, then it is a good thing. If it prolongs the Drug War then it is a bad thing.

  53. #53 |  Roget | 

    I totally agree with this article and as a MA resident I and my wife will be voting in favor of both the medical marijuana and right to die.

  54. #54 |  Personanongrata | 

    According to the Boston Globe freedom is just another word for doing what your told.

  55. #55 |  croaker | 

    Libertarian author L Neil Smith has decided to vote against the marijuana initiative in Colorado because it gives government too much power.

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle694-20121028-08.html

  56. #56 |  Cyto | 

    “So why are the liberal media more statist than the average liberal probably is?”

    That’s by design. They see themselves as a part of the state. The all-important 4th estate. They exist to make sure that the proletariat gets the right information. The good ones see this as some sort of divine mission. Because they have the power to control the information flow, they get to set the agenda for the nation.

    Back in the 70′s this was very explicit – and not limited to the news media. The big papers and the network news would coordinate with the TV producers in Hollywood to focus on specific messages: mental hospitals are evil, disabled is a bad word – use handicapped (and later “handi-capable”), child abuse is bad, etc. Every news show would hammer the same story, every sitcom would have characters reading from the pamphlet. Even kids shows would get in on the act. The ABC After School Movie would push the topic. Then the politicians would respond.

    It still happens, but it is much less obvious and much more sophisticated. Also more chaotic with all of the information conduits available.

    The point is, the media believes that they have the power to control the state. So having more power available to control is a good thing.

  57. #57 |  Reminder from Radley Balko | mad libertarian guy | 

    [...] media isn’t liberal; it’s statist. Interesting what happens when you take these two editorials [concerning medical marijuana and [...]

  58. #58 |  Mike T | 

    #15,

    Yeah libertarians think the state *never* punishes doctors…

    Brush up on your reading comprehension, Nick.

    Mike T. where do you come down on abortion? Review boards, doctor sign-offs in triplicate, parental notification, waiting period. You support all that right?

    Complete outlawing on the basis that it is a biologically distinct organism of the genome homo sapien and a general rejection of the idea that people can initiate force against one another.

  59. #59 |  Articles for Thursday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog | 

    [...] Radley Balko: The Statist Media [...]

Leave a Reply