|O'Reilly Factor: Pot Ads in New York City|
Posted by CN Staff on May 02, 2002 at 17:54:52 PT|
Partial transcript O'Reilly Factor, May 1, 2002
Source: Fox News.com
BILL O'REILLY, HOST:
In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, the continuing attempt to legalize marijuana in the America. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana laws is spending a half million dollars to convince people pot is OK. The advertisements feature New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who told a magazine that he enjoyed smoking pot in his younger days. The mayor now says he's against the decriminalization of pot, but the ads are all over town. There they are.
Joining us now from Washington is the executive director of NORML, Keith Stroup.
Mr. Stroup, new statistics say that 60 percent of teenagers in drug rehab right now in America have a primary marijuana diagnosis. And 76 percent of all drug-involved Americans started with pot. What say you about that?
KEITH STROUP, NORML EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Well, on the first point I agree with you. Marijuana is not for kids. I think most people do agree with that. There are all kinds of things we permit in our society for adults to do, but we don't permit kids. For example, sky diving and motorcycle riding and signing contracts and getting married, and smoking cigarettes, and drinking alcohol. So it's perfectly fine for us to discourage the use of marijuana for kids. That does not mean we should arrest adults who smoke marijuana responsibly.
O'REILLY: All right, but if you make marijuana more available by decriminalization, it is going to filter down to children, because any substance that is mind-altering, and that is going to become more plentiful, will filter down. And cigarettes is a perfect example of that. Beer is another example. The more available it is, the more it will get to kids. So I say, why are you, an intelligent guy, spending all this money and your time, actually devoting your career, to trying to market another intoxicant. Why?
STROUP: It's really not to market the intoxicant. That's not the motivation, Bill. It is that we are destroying needlessly the lives of hundreds of thousands of genuinely good citizens in this country every year, simply because they smoke a marijuana cigarette when they relax. There were 734,000 marijuana arrests in this country last year. And 88 percent were for simple possession. You can imagine the damage that did to people's careers, and lives, and students who lost their loans, etcetera. Obviously, we should be spending those law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes, including fighting terrorism.
O'REILLY: All right, now I can't disagree with that. My philosophy is if you want to smoke marijuana in your basement, I don't care. I'm not going to get a search warrant...
STROUP: I heard you say that.
O'REILLY: Yes, and kick your door in. I think that's foolish. And you know -- but I think you're making a mistake. And I will say that. But once you get outside your door, all right, once you take the marijuana outside into the public, thereby endangering me if you get behind the wheel of a car, if you sell the dope to my kid, if my kid sees you smoking, you know, whatever, I then will demand that the authorities protect me and my family from you, the marijuana smoker in public. Am I wrong?
STROUP: I would agree with you on that, Bill. And in that New York campaign in particular, that issue came up, because many of the arrests that occur in New York City are, in fact, for public smoking.
STROUP: We're opposed to the public use of marijuana. NORML is. And we always have been. Our point is simply this. We don't arrest people in New York City for having an open container. We fine them. We give them a citation. We control that conduct without wrecking their lives. We should, in fact, do the same thing with marijuana.
O'REILLY: First offense, I say yes. And I use those fines, by the way, to fund drug rehab.
STROUP: I agree with you.
O'REILLY: I would take all the money that I would fine these people. Now, the other thing is that if you don't legalize marijuana, which I think is a bad idea, I mean again, it comes back to the children having access to yet another intoxicant, another temptation. If you just decriminalize, you still have the drug gangs, the marijuana gangs. Many of which are very, very violent, all right. So what do you do with those people? I mean, big-time weight dealers, you are not saying let them skate, are you?
STROUP: No, no, I'm not at all. In fact, what I would say to you is this. We agree on about 90 percent of where I think our policy needs to be changed. And that is that the first major step is let's stop arresting responsible adults who use marijuana in a reasonable manner. Use it privately. That would eliminate, you know, 650,000 arrests a year, whatever. Now the problem is, we eventually do need to go the second step and to legalize marijuana. And by that, I don't mean no controls. I mean to regulate it, to have age controls.
O'REILLY: You cant. You can't regulate it, just as you can't regulate tobacco and alcohol. Once it becomes legal, once some idiot is able to go down to the little head shop and buy it, then that idiot is going to give it to some kid, because that's the way of the world. Have you been to Denmark and have you been to Holland? Have you been?
STROUP: I've been to Holland.
STROUP: I've not been to Denmark. And by the way, the Holland experiment, I think, has worked rather well, Bill.
O'REILLY: Well, that's what your opinion, but I went over there a couple years ago, and I was appalled. They have the little rock hashish -- rocks out on their -- in the flea markets, the drug flea markets. And these guys are buying them. And these guys don't work. And they take them right out to the high schools and sell them to the kids. Come on. Be realistic. There's a lot of addicted people. And they're going to make a buck any way they can make a buck. And one of the ways they can make it is to sell the substance to children.
STROUP: Let me just make this point, that while there may be ways to improve on the Holland model, the end result is their rates of marijuana use, even though it's allowed to be sold in small quantities to consumers at coffee shops all over the country, it's only about half the level of our marijuana use in this country.
O'REILLY: Well, that's skewed out because their population is so much less, and...
STROUP: No, no, no. I don't mean numbers. I mean percentages.
O'REILLY: That statistic's skewed. And the government won't tell you -- if you go over and ask the government of the Netherlands to tell us about how many kids get caught, they won't tell you. I don't believe them for a second. What I'm saying to you is this. In America, where we have such a drug problem, such a substance abuse problem, if you legalize another intoxicant, that intoxicant inevitably is going to find its way down to the kids of America, many of whom have a terrible problem with marijuana now. It doesn't make sense.
STROUP: My response to that, Bill, is that until we create a legally controlled market, basically legalized marijuana like we did alcohol at the end of prohibition, until we do that, we can't deal with the crime and corruption and violence that is necessarily associated with the black market.
O'REILLY: You got one in 10 Americans addicted to alcohol. All right? That's 10 percent of the population. And you're going to add another intoxicant to get more people involved with substance? It's nuts. I'm telling you, you're right about the decriminalization. If you want to be a boob and stay in your basement and get high, you go ahead.
And you know what the tragedy of that is, Mr. Stroup? A lot of those people are smoking jays in front of their kids. A lot of guys are getting high. And their children and teenagers are seeing it. And it's awful. It's a terrible example. Sobriety is much better than intoxication. And that message is not getting out.
STROUP: I don't question that at all. And let me say this. I think our message to kids or our hope to kids that they will grow up to be responsible adults, our responsibility is to demonstrate to them what that means.
O'REILLY: All right. Our responsibility as a society is to protect children. That is our primary society, responsibility. And you don't do that by legalizing intoxicants en masse, in my opinion.
STROUP: Aren't you suggesting that because marijuana is technically illegal, that somehow it's not around? Keep in mind that we have...
O'REILLY: I know it's around. But it would be more around.
STROUP: Well, but one out of three Americans have smoked it, Bill. 76 million Americans have tried marijuana sometime in their lives.
O'REILLY: All right.
STROUP: That's one out of three adults.
O'REILLY: And one of them is Mayor Bloomberg, who now is riding around on buses. And he doesn't like it very much, but that's the way it goes.
STROUP: But he was a good sport though, by the way. You know what he really said? He said he was sorry we were doing the campaign, but he recognized our First Amendment right to do it.
O'REILLY: Yes, but he also said that he's against legalization and decriminalization.
STROUP: Well, he's a Republican mayor. And I suspect he caught some flack from some people.
O'REILLY: All right.
STROUP: But he didn't seem too upset. I thought he showed a good sense of humor.
O'REILLY: Mr. Stroup, thanks for coming on. We appreciate it.
STROUP: Thank you.
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, May 1 , 2002
Complete Title: Transcripts: Controversial Pot Ads in New York City
NORML's Ad Campaign
Cannabis News Articles - NORML
|Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on May 03, 2002 at 09:45:36 PT|
|for handling these types of morons for the last 30 years. What a punk. Purpose of society is protect children? F-you buddy. If that's true, we're doing a lousy job. We should build a gigantic underground bunker somewhere in the Midwest - as soon as kids are born, they're immediately shuttled there until they're 25 years old. It will be sterile of all germs, only govt-approved educators can come into contact with their kids, they can see they're parents again when they're 25.|
Stroup is one smart guy - he knows that Reilly can spout whatever nonsense he wants, but 70% of the population agrees w/ Stroup - by maintaining his cool, he knows that Reilly will marginalize himself.
I think if you're a fat, ignorant bastard the cops should get a warrant and break the door down and take you away.
[ Post Comment ]
|Comment #6 posted by DdC on May 02, 2002 at 22:59:04 PT|
|All the D.E.A.th worshipers throw stats around like we should see our wicked ways and rally and make cannabis illegal! Duh!|
Every bit they hurl is evidence WoD, especially cannabis prohibition doesn't work. Instead of busting perverts getting kids booze and drugs O'Really wants them written off, as too much trouble for the doughnut munchers to enforce trampling down wild ditchweed bird habitat for more stats to raise bigger budgets Saving the kids?
Patooooooooy! They're saving their own asa's is all....
How the hell do these media puppets sleep at night?
Where's Billy Jack?
Peace, Love and Liberty or the Merchants Spewers of D.E.A.th
Post Comment ]
|Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on May 02, 2002 at 20:29:42 PT|
|So O'Reilly says that alcohol can't be regulated.|
One can see why it is difficult to regulate underage drinking in America -- the parents aren't complying with the law.
The latest gossip item about Jenna Bush in the tabs had her at a restaurant with family friends, and putting forward yet another fake ID, which was refused by the knowing waiter -- I mean knowing it's Jenna Bush and like -- DUH!
So the adult parents of her girlfriend decided to order drinks for Jenna while she kept the drinks discretely at her side sipping them when the waiter wasn't looking.
According to the Enquirer she had some horrendous combination of booze including I think a gin and tonic, a Long Island iced tea, some other ghastly mixed drink and a glass of red wine.
No doubt the responsible adults with her were Republcians.
If Republican adults in good enough standing with the Bush administration to be escorting their daughter to restaurants feel that they can openly thwart the legal regulation of alcohol -- I can see why O'Reilly might argue that alcohol can't be regulated.
But that's no excuse for putting marijuana users -- or growers -- in prison!
Parents aren't doing their job -- there's only one party that should be held legally accopuntable -- and that is -- parents.
The waiter did his job. He refused her service. If the adult Republican parents at the table had done their jobs too -- she wouldn't have been able to drink that night, and alcohol would have been successfully regulated.
[ Post Comment ]
|Comment #4 posted by BGreen on May 02, 2002 at 20:19:42 PT|
|I know the ATF is the enforcement branch of the gov't, whereas the legislators are the actual regulators.|
[ Post Comment ]
|Comment #3 posted by BGreen on May 02, 2002 at 20:16:28 PT|
|"You can't regulate it, just as you can't regulate tobacco and alcohol."|
Um, let's see, big gov't agency called Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. They used to be referred to as "Revenuer's." What COULD their purpose be?
Oh, yeah! They regulate Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms!
Gee, why hasn't anybody else ever figured that out?
[ Post Comment ]
|Comment #2 posted by idbsne1 on May 02, 2002 at 19:34:38 PT|
|He talks out of his ass....making such strong opinions based on ......Feelings....|
"I know how it is, I went to Holland...."...yada, yada,yada....and he calls hash..."rock".....
And lets compare HISTORICALLY in the past 100 years who's Government lies to it's people....the Dutch or the US?
Bill O'reilly is just a dumb, racist, conceited sheep....
Sorry, I REALLY dislike people who think that their sh*t doesn't stink...
PS...Keith Stroup handled the dumbass with the utmost respect and class.....
[ Post Comment ]
|Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on May 02, 2002 at 18:54:07 PT|
|I take issue with Bill O'Reilly saying that it is the primary job of human society to take care of children.|
It is the job of PARENTS to take care of THEIR children, and it is ONE JOB of society to take care of children, but it is not and nor should it be the PRIMARY job of society to take care of children.
Why would we bother producing any works of art or music that can't be understood by children?
Why would we have an adult life in this world at all?
Michelangelo and da Vinci -- that was not about taking care of children. The Renaissance was not about taking care of children. The great works of philosphy and science and even religion have not been primarily about taking care of children.
If they had been -- we wouldn't be able to take care of children, because we'd all be children mentally, we never would have had adult culture or adult society at all.
I want the world to be mother and child friendly but I do not want the world to be MOMMIFIED into creative and intellectual and political stagnation.
[ Post Comment ]