cannabisnews.com: O'Reilly's View: Saying No to the Pro-Pot Lobby





O'Reilly's View: Saying No to the Pro-Pot Lobby
Posted by FoM on January 14, 2000 at 09:08:19 PT
Source: APBNews
The question is simple: Should the government prosecute Americans who use marijuana? The answer is yes, but with an explanation. First off, the pro-marijuana people are becoming increasingly organized and vocal. Through the lobbying group Common Sense for Drug Policy in Washington, journalists and politicians are besieged with statistics and "evidence" that law enforcement efforts to control the sale and use of pot are futile, wasteful and just plain un-American. 
The group points out that nationwide there were 682,000 marijuana arrests in 1998 and that the U.S. is creating criminals out of law-abiding citizens who just want to get buzzed on pot rather than alcohol, which is legal. The pro-pot lobby wails and moans that people are being persecuted for their harmless pleasure by a puritanical and hypocritical society. But the argument doesn't hold up. According to the Office of Justice Programs, less than 1 percent of the inmates in U.S. prisons are there because of marijuana possession convictions, and most of those are repeat offenders who have been caught with a substantial amount of the drug. The usual disposition of pot possession cases is levying a fine or community service with no permanent record of the conviction. It's Not a Freedom: There is no question that millions of Americans are going to use marijuana, and no law enforcement effort will stem that. But does that mean America should surrender to the problem and legalize pot? Would that be beneficial for society? The pot people say yes because the government could then tax the drug and derive income. But I say no, and here's why. Any responsible government has a mandate to do two primary things: provide laws that create stability in society and make sure that a citizen's personal security is paramount. Government does not have an obligation to allow individuals to live anyway they want -- that is license, not freedom. I have no problem personally with Americans who want to intoxicate themselves in their own homes. But when you leave your home intoxicated, I have a big problem with that because that could impact negatively on my family, all other Americans, and me. Marijuana alters the senses, and I do not want stoned people driving or doing business in the public arena. My personal security is not enhanced by having pot sold in stores. It is tough enough these days for parents to raise children in our permissive society without having another intoxicating substance made legal. Most American parents do not want their kids using drugs or alcohol because any sane person knows that their use can damage developing personalities. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean the floodgates should be opened for other intoxicants to come on the legal market. You don't combat one problem by offering different versions of it. That's dumb and creates instability within society. Use Fines to Pay for Rehab: American society should continue to discourage intoxication by keeping pot and other drugs illegal and fining people who use narcotics in public. The money derived from those fines should be used for mandatory drug rehab for any American convicted of a crime that has drugs in his or her system at the time of arrest. In that way, the drug people can pay to cure themselves of this anti-social activity. The fine system should mirror fines for speeding. The faster you go, the more you pay. The more pot you have on you, the more you pay. Repeat offenders should have their driver's licenses revoked as well. Pot dealers should go to jail. There is no excuse for selling drugs in our society, and there should be zero tolerance for it. No dealer knows how the intoxicant he sells will affect the buyer. Selling drugs is a crime against humanity. Don't Follow a Path of Permissiveness: The pot controversy is largely one of self-interest. People who like to get stoned want to do so with impunity and resent the fact that booze is legal but pot is not. Somehow I feel no sympathy. Intoxication is not a good thing for society, and it can be devastating to children. Legalizing pot would be another hike down the permissive path that has brought America tremendous problems with drunken and drugged driving, child abuse and an enormous amount of irresponsible behavior under the influence. Crusading for intoxication on any level seems to me to be selfish and foolish. Enough American lives have gone up in smoke because of drugs and alcohol. Booze is bad enough. American doesn't need to go any higher. Keep pot illegal. By Bill O'Reilly, the anchor of the Fox News Channel show The O'Reilly Factor and the author of the crime novel Those Who Trespass. Posted: January 13, 2000NEW YORK (APBnews.com)Related Web Site:Common Sense for Drug Policyhttp://www.csdp.org/
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by Doc-Hawk on January 15, 2000 at 05:01:41 PT:
Dick Cowan's deconstruction of this drivel
Dick Cowan has skewered them again at:
Facts and Logic are Definitely Not Factors For O'Reilly
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Dankhank on January 14, 2000 at 22:42:13 PT:
Stupidity
I saw and heard OReilly the day he spouted this drivel. It is apparent that he knows nothing about marijuana other than the lies and misinformation he must get from the prohibitionists.We know what alcohol does to humans, little good, much bad.Yet this ridiculous man thinks that we must keep marijuana illegal because it intoxicates. We also know what pot does to humans. A lot of good, and little, if any bad.This isn't a scientific rebuttal, merely an intelligent one based on facts as known and available to all who would search for them.OReilly, you seemed to be a reasonable man until this diatribe against a plant that contributes to peace and harmony.Perceptive viewers will now know the depth of your ignorance and hubris.Shame on you ...
Hemp n Stuff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on January 14, 2000 at 15:20:00 PT
Stirring the s***pot
Mr. O'Reilly reminds me of the character Iago in Shakespeare's "Othello". Someone who takes great delight in the suffereing of others, and never passes up the chance to (as we used to say in the Army) 'stir the s***pot', and not care who gets splashed with whatever foulness is inside of it. In a rather childish attempt (unseemly in an adult) he seems to sense that he can stir soemthing up in the Reform community by goading us.Ultimately, despite his 'lofty' status as a commentator, he is nothing but small potatoes. It is his ideological patrons we must direct our efforts against, not this bulldog-mouth-with-a-puppydog-ass. He'll change his tune soon enough when he realizes he is behind the learning curve on this issue.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Thomas on January 14, 2000 at 12:13:12 PT
Flawed Logic
Mr. O'Reilly's arguement is flawed."...less than 1 percent of the inmates in U.S. prisons are there because of marijuana possession convictions."An arbitrary boundry is set by law stating that a person in posession of "X" amount of the herb or more is 'considered' a dealer whether they are dealing or not. If a person got busted three times with two ounces each time, you can bet that person would be in jail as a convicted dealer without the police every having proved that person was dealing. It is too easy for the government to say they only lock up dealers."I do not want stoned people driving or doing business in the public arena."They already are! Also, studies from Holland show that more liberal laws concerning cannabis has not caused the rate of use to increase. Decriminalization would not reduce society's security."You don't combat one problem by offering different versions of it."Wrong!! The best way to solve a problem is to change the approach when the current one is failing. You would be changing the approach not offering a different version of the same problem."There is no excuse for selling drugs in our society, and there should be zero tolerance for it."So all the executive officers of the alcohol and tobacco industries should be behind bars? I smell a double standard here."American doesn't need to go any higher."It wouldn't. It would just have fewer inmates.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Brad on January 14, 2000 at 10:54:09 PT:
Can we compromise?
There is no such thing as exceptable losses. It upsets me when people say, oh, only such and such % are in jail for it... (and I do believe the given % is wrong). The issue is that why is anyone in jail at all for harming no one ("but themselves", and most don't believe they are harming themselves at all). If you would like marijuana laws similiar to public intoxication laws, I could agree to that. But why harsher penalties for a substance that makes people generally more peaceful and harmless. I worked in bars for 8 years (bartender: noun. a legal pusher), alcohol makes people violent, belligerent, irrational, and stupid. I agree that people should not drive while high. At the very least, marijuana should have laws similar to alcohol. If there was no marijuana, I believe many more people would drink. By adding this calmer substance, we will actually be removing many from drinking alcohol and doing other drugs, and the amount of drug use will probably not go up very much, although it may become more public (if there were Coffee Shops and there were no public intox. laws, etc). I welcome any criticism or information. If you feel you have a rebuttal for me, let me know! You may be right! Thanks.Brad
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: