cannabisnews.com: Stop The Reefer Madness Stop The Reefer Madness Posted by CN Staff on May 15, 2003 at 08:23:38 PT By James Travers, National Affairs Writer Source: Toronto Star Talk about an opportunity lost. With the Bush administration making threatening noises in the background, the federal government is about to introduce a new marijuana strategy as stale as '70s dope.A full 30 years after Gerald LeDain courageously recommended treating recreational soft drug use as the minor social ill it is, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is responding with a plan that is so timid, so hallucinatory in its objectives, that it suggests cabinet is suffering from reefer madness. Once Ottawa secures reluctant Washington's approval, those unlucky enough to get caught with 15 grams will be ticketed, not jailed, while traffickers and those carrying 30 grams or more will face the full fury of the law.Oh, sure. Police simply don't have the resources — and certainly should have something better to do — than harassing the conservatively estimated 1.5 million Canadians who regularly roll a joint. And, by now, politicians should know that the decades-old war on drugs can't be won and that bolder, more innovative, more cost-effective solutions are overdue.Instead, government is trying to please everyone as it scrambles to close the yawning gap between outdated legislation and public attitudes. The sorry result will be a law that is unenforceable and will discredit the democratic process by putting government hopelessly out of step with consensual morality.In this case, the government lags laughably far behind that consensus. Somehow, the Liberal government missed the yellowing news that the killer weed is just a myth and that the unintended consequences of muscular anti-drug campaigns are more damaging than the problem. A year ago, the fuddy-duddy Senate, that somnambulant chamber of sober second thought, concluded that a joint is not a starter kit for a future hard drug habit; that addiction is not a significant issue; that public money spent on enforcement is largely wasted.A year before that, the conservative Fraser Institute blasted prohibition as a cause of crime and corruption as well as an unwarranted intrusion into individual rights and civil liberties. Even the commendably cautious Canadian Medical Association found the health effects of moderate use to be "minimal" and criticized disproportionately harsh penalties.So why, then, is a government that was moving toward enlightened policies retreating in such embarrassing disarray? As usual, the answer is found in Washington where caricature law-and-order politicians are intimidating their northern counterparts with signals that liberalization here will mean tighter border controls there.It seems the U.S. wants company in its misery. Fighting a losing battle there now costs an estimated $35 billion a year, fills prisons, kills cops, funds organized crime as well as terrorism and, remarkably, is not making drugs either harder to find or more expensive.Dumb as it is, that strategy sounds a lot like Ottawa's new strategy. Suddenly brave talk about decriminalizing marijuana is morphing into "modernized" penalties as Cauchon reassures the business-is-booming U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency that their war will be equally aggressively prosecuted on the northern front. That's disappointing for both countries. Canada could be seizing the moment to test more promising models and the U.S. should be encouraging, not forcefully discouraging, a little low-risk experimentation. Rather than legislation aimed at pleasing a trading partner, Ottawa should show some backbone by introducing common-sense policies that serve this country. It could finally catch up to LeDain's by accepting that it is hypocritical, not to mention fruitless, to demonize soft drugs while it profiteers on tobacco and alcohol sales.A few simple principles could, and should, guide federal decisions. The stigma of criminality should be exorcised from a benign activity that only the most alarmist still consider threatening, deviant or unacceptably socially corrosive. Police priorities should reflect public concerns, not failed fixes from a country preoccupied with prosecution. Most important, those principles must recognize that North America has a demand, not a supply problem, a problem that can only be solved by removing the easy, unconscionable profits that attract crime and violence. But that's enough dreaming. What Canadians are getting is a strategy that at best is a small, overdue, reform. Its constituent parts will be a possession limit half as high as it should be, an enforcement promise that won't be kept, and more of the sanctimonious preaching that generations take turns ignoring.That will be enough to keep happy the folks at the DEA who spend a cool $1.6 billion U.S. playing drug buster. But it is far less than the Chrétien government led Canadians to expect and far less than they deserve after 30 years of waiting.James Travers is a national affairs writer. His column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: James Travers, National Affairs WriterPublished: May 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Toronto Star Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmOttawa's Pot Plan Overhaul Delayed Two Weekshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16300.shtmlOttawa Delays Introduction of Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16299.shtmlLiberals Feud as Marijuana Bill Delayedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16297.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #48 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 17:11:29 PT Now 56% but O'Reilly Isn't On TV Tonight! Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Yes -- 56% No -- 44% Total Votes: 31422* [ Post Comment ] Comment #47 posted by FoM on May 16, 2003 at 10:26:54 PT Now The Poll is 55% Woo Woo!!! Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Yes -- 55% No -- 45% Total Votes: 28089* [ Post Comment ] Comment #46 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 22:33:04 PT Poll Results One Last Time Tonight: Now 54% Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Yes -- 54% No -- 46% Total Votes: 23875* [ Post Comment ] Comment #45 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 18:03:19 PT OnLine Poll from CPAC Should Canada consider American concerns when passing legislation? YES -- 30% NO -- 70% http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=46&lang=e [ Post Comment ] Comment #44 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 17:38:20 PT Exactly What I Expected O'Reilly called Canada's Prime Minister a PIN HEAD! Canada please don't take that! See what we must live with! [ Post Comment ] Comment #43 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 17:34:32 PT O'Reilly Factor Just quoted that only 38% are in favor. It is at least 51%! [ Post Comment ] Comment #42 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 17:04:37 PT The Marijuana Program from Canada is Starting Now Here's the link!http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=22&lang=e [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by The GCW on May 15, 2003 at 16:33:02 PT Druid + the poll... You'r right, "Interestingly enough, decriminalization does not make the possession of marijuna legal."Here is a Canadian rag that doesn't know it...http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n711/a03.html?397FEDERAL MARIJUANA POLICY WORRIES LOCAL POLITICIANS I quote the 1st line... "It may soon be legal to carry small amounts of marijuana and Delta politicians have some serious concerns." + As I watch the poll postings, I'm reminded of how a stagecoach is out of control and heading for the cliff but then the hero comes and rescues the day by turning the wild runaway around.Green Collar Workers, all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 16:24:35 PT Druid Oh O'Reilly will be so polite to John Walters. John Walters won't go on programs where he has to maybe answer truthful questions in my opinion. I don't want to miss the video that should be on at 8 too that I posted on down further. I'll have the tv and video going at one time I suppose. [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by Druid on May 15, 2003 at 16:20:27 PT Walters on O'Reilly And what do you want to bet that O'Reilly will be quiet and reverent around the Pee Czar? I'd put my money on it that he will not argue or interupt like he does with liberal guests.****************************************"Plus, in Canada the federal government there is expected to unveil legislation this week aimed at decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Interestingly enough, decriminalization does not make the possession of marijuna legal. But instead of mandatory court appearances and the risk of a criminal record, offenders could face fines similar to traffic violations.Could Canada's new legislation have an adverse effect on folks in the United States? We'll talk with U.S. Drug Czar John Walters "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1315,00.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 16:15:51 PT O' Reilly Factor Tonight at 8 PM ET And, Canada moves to decriminalize marijuana. What does that mean for the U.S.? We'll ask the U.S. Drug Czar. [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by Phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 16:11:34 PT 51/50 lol, that doesn't make much sinse [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by Phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 16:10:25 PT 51/50 We're winning, woohoo [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by Phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 15:31:35 PT Anyone on here a member of oriely I would really like to see the comments posted by oriely members, but you can't get to them unless you pay, and I personally don't like the guy at all, but if someone does, and is a member, i'd love to see some posts from the sight.Just a little run on sentance [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 15:22:25 PT Echo Echo Echo I think we have an echo in here! Cool!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 15:21:31 PT Now it's 50%! Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? No -- 50% Yes -- 50% Total Votes: 18455* [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by druid on May 15, 2003 at 15:21:04 PT hehehehe fifty-fifty now :D [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 15:20:37 PT 50/50 IT'S 50/50!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by Phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 15:02:53 PT I feel like i'm at the racetrack I'm refreshing the oriely sight like every 5 minutes.49/51...WOOOHOOOI love seeing direct evidence of the power of the internet! Within hours word spread and you watch the word spread in results. It's kewl. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 15, 2003 at 14:39:58 PT Poll Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? No 51% Yes 49% Total Votes: 17752* [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 14:36:52 PT Hey Hey Hey! 48% Now Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? No -- 52% Yes -- 48% Total Votes: 17719* [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 14:19:29 PT darwin Everyone one doing their part is what will bring change. Yes it is good news. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 14:10:03 PT Heads Up: 7 PM: PrimeTime Politics I don't know if we will be able to get this live but here is the information and a few links. Hopefully we will. All times Eastern / Heure de l'EstENGLISHVisit http://www.cpac.ca for detailed listings and rebroadcast dates and times.All times EasternTHURSDAY, MAY 157PM: PRIMETIME POLITICSBloc MP Claude Bachand explains why his party believes the government should not even consider having Canada join the American missile defence programme. A report on Liberal House leader Don Boudria's appearance before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee earlier today to discuss proposed changes to Canada's political financing legislation. In the second hour, Holly Doan opens the phone lines and asks' "What will happen if Canada decriminalizes marijuana possession?" Call us toll-free at 1-877-296-2722 with your questions and comments. Hosted by Peter Van Dusenhttp://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=22&lang=ehttp://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=160&lang=e [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by darwin on May 15, 2003 at 14:01:11 PT Coalition of the smoking This is great, the cnews community, the Overgrow community, the libertarian community, even communities like the Shroomery all worked togethor on this. This coalition building is what it's going to take to attract politicians to the issue. If Enough splinter groups unite over an issue, one of the main parties will inevitably adopt the issue, or lose out to a third party that adopts the issue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 13:31:22 PT Woo Woo! -- 47% Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No -- 53% Yes -- 47% Total Votes: 16506* [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 13:04:25 PT That's Really Good! -- 46% We might not be large in numbers but we are mighty in Spirit! [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by druid on May 15, 2003 at 12:58:35 PT keep it up! Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No 54% Yes 46% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Votes: 15924 [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Jose Melendez on May 15, 2003 at 12:49:11 PT partial transcript O'REILLY: "I don't care about the pot. I'd decriminalize pot... ......Look, Mr. Crickenberger, the people want to smoke in their basement, I don't care. You smoke pot, you come out, and you get in a car, I care. "CRICKENBERGER: Same here. ........ To answer the above objection:From: http://www.idmu.co.uk/candrivab.htmCannabis and Driving Atha MJ, Blanchard S & Davis S (2000) Abstract Reviews of the scientific literature suggest cannabis may impair performance on certain psychomotor tasks. Cannabinoids are found in an increasing percentage of fatal accident victims. Studies of driving simulators, actual driving behaviour, or culpability analysis applied to accidents demonstrate little impairment of performance compared to the effects of alcohol, some studies even suggest improvements in driving behaviour.IDMU conducts annual surveys via anonymous questionnaires studying drug consumption patterns and other questions relating to psychotropic drug use. Respondents in 1994 and 1998 were asked to state the number of accidents over the previous 5 years, and (1998) the average distance driven per year. Accident rates were compared with estimates of accident frequency from DETR and motor insurance claim statistics. Weighting factors included driving experience, mileage driven, age and sex.Results: Overall, drug using drivers reported 9% fewer accidents than would be expected from a comparable population group. However, younger drug-using drivers showed increased risks compared to their peers, whereas drivers over 25 reported decreased incidence of accidents. Notable sex differences included drug-using women under 25 or over 40 reporting more accidents than their peers, whereas only males under 20 reported increased risks, with males over 25 reporting markedly lower risk.Interpretation: Impairment of driving ability from cannabis appears most pronounced among young drivers, suggesting tasks requiring conscious thought or learning may be most affected, whereas "automatic"’ tasks may be less susceptible to disruption. The overall effect of cannabis on driving suggests a trade-off between mild psychomotor impairment and improvement in driving behaviour. In males, improved behaviour may outweigh any psychomotor impairment, whereas in females there may be less scope for improvement in behaviour, drug-impairment may outweigh marginal behavioural improvements.Recommendations: Current police and forensic procedures commonly fail to establish intoxication or impairment of driving ability. There is an urgent need for a non-invasive roadside test for presence of active drug, rather than metabolites, and for objective tests of impairment of driving ability.Acknowledgements: The authors wish to acknowledge the help and practical support of the following: Hemp Expo, CLCIA, Green Party Drugs Group, Linda Hendry, Howard Marks, Weed World & Bush Telegraph magazines for survey distribution. We are also grateful to Dr Alison Smiley (University of Toronto), the University of Adelaide Dept of Clinical & Experimental Pharmacology and Ms Gazala Akram for source materials and helpful comments Special thanks are due to the thousands of drug users who completed the questionnaires. © IDMU publications April 2001 "I was very impressed... it was an excellent report" - Dr R J Tunbridge Transport Research Laboratory"This is the most comprehensive review that I have seen on this vexed topic, and your own IDMU data are of course very valuable also." - Professor Leslie Iverson Oxford University - Pharmocology Department"Research studies such as this are most welcome in helping us better understand and address this problem....I am grateful to you for sending me this paper, which I found most interesting" - Keith Hellawell QPM , UK Anti Drugs Co-ordinator. From: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread12174.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 12:08:43 PT Up Up and Away! - 44% Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No -- 56% Yes -- 44% Total Votes: 15026* [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 11:41:59 PT Thanks Druid! -- Current Results! Now 43% Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No -- 57% Yes -- 43% Total Votes: 14471* [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by druid on May 15, 2003 at 11:36:45 PT more people to vote on the poll! The Libertarian Party has sent an email out to their members to vote on O'Reilly's poll.************************ VOTE NOW for marijuana reform!Dear Drug War Task Force Subscriber,Bill O'Reilly, America's #1 cable TV news commentator, leading radio personality and best-selling author, is conducting a poll on marijuana decriminalization on his home page.Even O’Reilly supports decriminalization for marijuana – he said so during one of my interviews on his show. But our side is currently losing in the poll.Please go right now to: http://billoreilly.com/index.jspand cast your vote for reform.Thank you!Ron Crickenberger Political Director [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 11:24:15 PT RE: for perspective Bill got SLAMMED!! That ruled. If anyone finds any video on this, i would love to see it, please please please let us know.peace phil [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 15, 2003 at 11:17:09 PT Can't imagine why... ...O'Reilly bothers to have guests. He doesn't let them speak, and won't respond to their questions. What a pompous ass. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 10:57:56 PT Let's Go Let's Go Let's Really Go! Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No -- 58% Yes -- 42% Total Votes: 13747* Please Vote: http://billoreilly.com/index.jsp [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 10:45:58 PT Druid Thanks! We are on a mission today! [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by druid on May 15, 2003 at 10:42:03 PT poll the boards at the Shroomery have stickied this poll for all their readers to vote. And the guys at OverGrow are really voting hard too!Answer Percent No 59% Yes 41%Total Votes: 13395* [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on May 15, 2003 at 10:27:12 PT for perspective Posted by FoM on March 15, 2001 at 16:10:37 PT Should Americans Be Allowed To Get High? Source: Fox News Network O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. And in the "Unresolved Problems" segment tonight, although I believe it will never happen in this country, there is a growing movement to legalize drugs here. Places like Holland and Denmark allow citizens to intoxicate themselves at will, and this is the heart of the legalization issue. With us now is Jacob Sullum, the senior editor of "Reason" magazine, and the author of the book "For Your Own Good." All right, now, you want anybody in America to take any substance and be left alone. JACOB SULLUM, SENIOR EDITOR, "REASON" MAGAZINE: I think that adults should be free to use any intoxicant they want, as long as... O'REILLY: Heroin, cocaine. SULLUM: ... as long as they don't violate other people's rights. I think you have a fundamental right to control your own body and your own mind, and as long as you're not violating other people's rights, you should be left alone, yes. O'REILLY: But how do you know they're not violating other people's rights? SULLUM: Well, at the point where they do, for example, get behind the wheel while intoxicated, whether they happen to be intoxicated on alcohol or on marijuana or on heroin, they can be penalized for that. O'REILLY: But isn't that reactive rather than proactive? We have right now 1.1 million arrests for DWI in the United States every year. So you're saying, wait till they do it, then get them, but allow them to do it. SULLUM: Well, you're suggesting... O'REILLY: That's reactive. SULLUM: You're suggesting that we ought to ban alcohol because some people drive while drunk. O'REILLY: No, no, this is... SULLUM: That's the logical conclusion... O'REILLY: ... (inaudible)... SULLUM: ... is that (inaudible)... O'REILLY: This is a combo here, drugs and alcohol, DUIs, OK, this is not just alcohol. SULLUM: No, what my point is, that it's true, some people do drive while drunk. But the vast majority of drinkers are responsible, drink moderately... O'REILLY: Correct. SULLUM: ... and the same is true of illegal drug users... O'REILLY: But there is a law on the books... SULLUM: ... the vast majority of illegal drug users use drugs in moderation, either occasionally or perhaps once a week. The vast majority of illegal drug users are marijuana users, in fact. O'REILLY: Well, OK, but look... SULLUM: Now, we're talking about (inaudible)... O'REILLY: ... you're getting off, you're getting off the topic in the sense that you believe -- See, I believe public intoxication should be against the law, and it is. If you're intoxicated in public, it's against the law. SULLUM: Not everywhere. I mean, New Orleans would be an example of a place where you're allowed to drink on the street. O'REILLY: You may be allowed to drink on the street. You're not allowed to be intoxicated on the street. There's a blood alcohol level everywhere in this United States. If you're over it, you get hauled in. And I believe that's a fair and good law. You don't. SULLUM: Well, whatever the standard is, the same sort of standard could be applied to illegal drugs. In other words, if you're creating a nuisance because you're intoxicated or while you're intoxicated, it's... O'REILLY: All right, (inaudible). SULLUM: ... you can be penalized for that. If you commit an assault... O'REILLY: That sounds good. SULLUM: ... while you're intoxicated, no matter what drug it happens to be... O'REILLY: That sounds good, but it doesn't... SULLUM: ... you can also be arrested for that. O'REILLY: ... here's why it doesn't work, and just keep -- I want the audience to keep this in mind. What Mr. Sullum is saying is reactive. You react after the fact to person being caught intoxicated and doing an antisocial act. Now, here's why intoxication is so bad and why it shouldn't be allowed anywhere. Over the past 10 years, the number of abused and neglected children has more than doubled, from 1.4 million in '86 to more than 3 million in 1997. All right? Children whose parents abuse drugs are almost three times likelier to be abused and more than four times likelier to be neglected. Society cannot protect those children because they can't go into the home, all right? So if you are going to say, and say anybody can take whatever substance they want, heroin, crack cocaine, regular cocaine, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, you are putting children in danger, and society cannot protect them. And that is the crux of this matter. SULLUM: All right, we could say the same thing about alcoholics. (inaudible) percentage of... O'REILLY: No, look... SULLUM: Hang on, hang on... O'REILLY: You're just dodging the issue. SULLUM: You said -- no, I'm not... O'REILLY: Stay with the powerful drugs. SULLUM: ... the issue is... O'REILLY: Stay with the powerful... SULLUM: ... there's a difference between use and abuse. O'REILLY: Don't wimp out with the alcohol business. SULLUM: No, alcoholics beat their children... O'REILLY: Don't wimp out with it. SULLUM: ... right? O'REILLY: That's a wimpy thing, you always divert... SULLUM: (inaudible)... O'REILLY: ... to alcohol. SULLUM: You're saying (inaudible)... O'REILLY: I'm saying heroin is more powerful... SULLUM: ... (inaudible) what's the difference? In what sense is it more powerful? O'REILLY: ... than a beer? More powerful than a beer. SULLUM: And it's going to make you beat your children in a way that being drunk is not going to? O'REILLY: Cocaine -- sure will. SULLUM: Well, that's a myth. I mean, if you look at so-called crack- related homicides, all right, which I'm sure you've heard about, and you say, what actually happened? Almost never is it the case that a quote-unquote "crack-related homicide" is committed under the influence of crack. Almost all of these crimes are related to the black market. And those conditions of violence are created by prohibition, the same way that we had violence during alcohol prohibition. SULLUM: That's an important point (inaudible), the drug does not cause the violence... O'REILLY: We have a... SULLUM: ... the violence is associated with the black market. O'REILLY: All right. We got you. SULLUM: OK. You want to compound that problem by allowing all intoxicants, all illegal drugs, as powerful as these drugs are -- you know how powerful methamphetamine is. You want to say that's OK, bring it on in, compound the alcohol problem by 10, so that these children, 3 million of them, can be abused, because society can't stop it, can't go in the house. SULLUM: What I'm saying is that the same kinds of moral dis -- and legal distinctions that we apply to alcohol can and should be applied to other drugs. O'REILLY: It's nuts. SULLUM: So we don't say, because some drunks beat their kids or beat their wives or screw up at work or get drunk, get behind a wheel, and kill people, therefore all drinking is banned. We distinguish between responsible and irresponsible use, between moderate drinkers and alcoholics. Furthermore, we distinguish between alcoholics who ruin only their own lives, right, they drink themselves to death, but they still show up for work on time, they still -- you know, they don't beat anybody, they don't drive while drunk... O'REILLY: But this is such a -- this is such a morally... SULLUM: These kinds of distinctions... O'REILLY: ... hollow argument that it makes me shake. SULLUM: Why is it hollow? Explain to me the distinction... O'REILLY: It makes me shake. SULLUM: ... between... O'REILLY: It makes me shake, because what you're saying is that you don't care about these 3 million children... SULLUM: That's not what I said. O'REILLY: ... you don't care about them. SULLUM: We could play back the tape... O'REILLY: You would rather that... SULLUM: ... and I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. O'REILLY: Well, I'm telling you, this is what I'm taking from your argument. Your argument is that any adult in America has a right to intoxicate themselves, period. Society shouldn't intervene... SULLUM: All right, so (inaudible)... O'REILLY: That's what you're arguing (inaudible). SULLUM: ... so are you -- if you -- do you want to ban alcohol? (inaudible), do you... O'REILLY: What I would say is... SULLUM: ... ban alcohol? No. O'REILLY: What I would say is this. You deflect the argument against drugs... SULLUM: Because the principle... O'REILLY: ... by falling back on alcohol. SULLUM: Alcohol is a drug, and the principle is the same. O'REILLY: Right. We have a big problem with alcohol... SULLUM: I want you to explain to me the distinction, what's the... O'REILLY: ... we have a big problem with alcohol. You want to compound it, compound it by adding all of these other intoxicants in, and the kids are going to suffer. SULLUM: All right, let's -- (inaudible) let's step back... O'REILLY: I'll give you the last word, I'm... SULLUM: ... let's step back, OK. Let's talk about the typical drug user. O'REILLY: I don't have time... SULLUM: The typical drug user... O'REILLY: ... (inaudible), wrap up your argument. We're through. And the audience can decide. SULLUM: The typical drug user is not beating his kid. The typical drug user is a responsible citizen... O'REILLY: Oh, yeah. SULLUM: ... and who is using marijuana from time to time, perhaps at that... O'REILLY: All the stats... O'REILLY: All the stats show that as the intoxicants rise in this society, child abuse rises, DUIs rise, and all kinds of other social things, homelessness and everything else. But look, the audience will make up their own mind (inaudible). Thanks for a lively debate, we appreciate it. From: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9023.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 10:18:47 PT Thanks Jose and Everyone Please keep up on this poll and post the results. The numbers have gone up a lot already! We can still win! [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Jose Melendez on May 15, 2003 at 10:16:19 PT catching up... Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No 59% Yes 41% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Votes: 12983* vote now: Should marijuana be legalized? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 10:07:51 PT Current Poll Results Q: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No -- 60% Yes -- 40% Total Votes: 12838* Please Vote: http://billoreilly.com/index.jsp [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by The GCW on May 15, 2003 at 10:01:02 PT I'd like one of those stickers that say, I voted.Thanks, I like those polls. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by John Tyler on May 15, 2003 at 09:51:23 PT Voting Keep voting it is 60% No and 40% Yes with 12,000 plus votes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 09:45:00 PT Please Vote! I just checked my email news and this poll has people fired up. Please vote!http://billoreilly.com/index.jsp [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by phil_debowl on May 15, 2003 at 09:34:48 PT Vote I voted, and i posted the link to a raves listserve i'm a member of. It would be really really funny (not to mention good) if the results were unexpected from his audience! I bet he wouldn't publicize the results. He'd probably act like there wasn't even a poll. May even take the poll down if the results get to be too unfavorable. I wouldn't put anything past that man.peace, phil [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 09:11:26 PT Correction The Canadian News Channel is News World International not what I just said. I really do hope that this news channel is widely available to everyone. We need news without hype. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 15, 2003 at 09:06:31 PT Thanks Druid I never watch O'Reilly. I wouldn't have found this poll. I voted. I hope everyone does. I am becoming an avid viewer of World News International. I barely watch American news anymore. USA News is more like entertainment news to me rather then news with substance. I hope cable subscribers can get WNI and World Link TV. They are really fair and balanced! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by druid on May 15, 2003 at 09:00:39 PT Bill O'Reilly Poll Please Forward Widely and QuicklyWe are currently losing 62% to 38%O'Reilly's audience is likely to be anti reform but if we can win this we could get some very valuable air time and discussion on a very popular radio (and TV) talk show. http://billoreilly.com/index.jspShould marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Yes No ************************** Current ResultsQ: Should marijuana be decriminalized in the United States? Answer Percent No 61% Yes 39%Total Votes: 11854* [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Virgil on May 15, 2003 at 08:35:37 PT Sounds good to me I do not see how an informed person could think much differently. Many are already unhappy with the Liberal Party. I just wonder if this could bring about the demise of their majority. They would have lost me by now. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment