Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
April 2010
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Archives

Authors

Marijuana is Safer on O'Reilly

MPP’s Steve Fox does a pretty good job on the O’Reilly Factor with Laura Ingraham

Ingraham: We still don’t really know, do we, long term effects of pot use except we do know head and throat cancers…
Fox: [shakes his head] No.
Ingraham … and obviously lung cancers…
Fox: [shakes his head] No.
Ingraham: … all the things that… No? No cancer risks at all for pot smokers?
Fox: No. No, and you can look it up. [crosstalk] Nope. No, there have actually been studies…

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

20 comments to Marijuana is Safer on O’Reilly

  • John Mola

    I saw this a couple days ago…so frustrating to watch. She was completely ridiculous. “Would you smoke pot before this appearance?” And all this crap about surgery and whatnot. Ridiculous.

    He handled it great and hopefully people see through her stupidity.

  • Good job Steve. Hey, what’s it like to be on a talk show where the host cuts you off before you ca-

  • Just me

    Ya I was wondering the same thing, a guy couldnt get a word in edg…

  • DEXtronaut

    Such bullshi-

  • Paul

    This was a tougher interview than the one Napolitano got, but it still have him a good 5 minutes on TV to present his point of view. All publicity is good pub–

  • Well gosh Laura… Where do you get your information from? Care to provide a source for your blatant untruths? Are you aware the US government deliberately hid a study done way back in 1974 showing that cannabis actually fights canc…

  • Ed Dunkle

    Is there any point going on Fox News? The people who watch it will never vote against prohibition unless Bill O’Reilly tells them to.

    Freedom, states rights, blah blah blah

  • ezrydn

    Laura is a fine example of a “regurgitator.” She has no clue, as she so aptly displayed. As far as a host, she spent ZERO time prep’ing for her iterview. Besides, Laura isn’t a reporter. She’s a lawyer. She argued. Steve informed. This is why she’s a failure in a business she’s not trained for.

  • Tim

    I would never go on Fox News or speak to right-wing media on this issue. Here’s why.

    The right-wingers, when confronted with someone who they know they are never going to sway, often take a pass on trying to convince them. The current (right-wing) government in Canada is fond of sending back letters to people who write on an issue to the effect of “Thank you for your opinion. However it seems that you are determined not to vote for me regardless, so I have other things to do.” Yes, it’s arrogant, flippant, and it pisses people off. It is also a good use of resources. Past behavior is a reliable predictor of future conduct, and I save my time when dealing with the media.

    Example: I’ve boycotted Global Toronto news (not Global National news, they have clue) because of their sensationalist reporting. They actually called me up one time, not for an interview, but because they wanted to get some viz of me smoking a joint! I hung up on them.

    We need to determine that stubborn percentage that is not going to change their minds, and shift our resources to those on the fence and to younger people who will be here a lot longer than most crusty old fearful people with prohibition mindsets.

  • DEXtronaut

    Fox needs to debate with Fox more. Next time it needs to be with the REAL Bill O’Reilly and not this crazy bitch.

    Maybe even Sean Hannity.

  • claygooding

    O’Rielly probably ducked the interview,he is anti-pot and knew that Fox would tear his ignorant ass apart,something he won’t allow on his own show.

  • permanentilt

    “I’m trying to understand, I’m just trying to understand”

    Why do I think she is willfully trying NOT to understand?

    Also, Steven Fox is great! He needs to be speaking to the media more. So cool and level headed. Totally unswayed by ignorance. She did interrupt him a lot, but I think the message was quite clear.

  • denmark

    The shaking of the head no was good on Steve’s part, perhaps sign language should be incorporated in these interviews. The signs of NO, LIES, LIAR, WRONG.
    Maybe, just maybe, that would get their attention and they’d shut up long enough to allow the person being interviewed to finish a sentence.

  • jrh

    What we are now witnessing is the dieing death throws of the culture war started by Tricky Dick , Ehanced by the zero tolernce Regan era scocial concervative moral majorty. As the WW2 generation that dominated the poltics of the nation for more than three decades die off and the remaining devided baby boomers that never was able to truely to come to trems with A changing world that they initiated. Thier children and grand children now asend to power. And they are the iheritors of an economy and the deminished manufactoring might that once made this country into the major power in the world.They are the ones that will be the dominate poilitic power that will be the ones that will be willing to embrace the alternatice life style of the hippies of old. And the plant of reknown in the book of Ezekial will come to frution and help save man kind from its own destruction.

  • John Mola

    “I’m just trying to understand.” was just another way of her saying “I’m just trying to slander you.”

  • Scott

    At least once I would love to see someone from our movement nail conservatives on supporting the ultra-liberal New Deal that is the sole constitutional basis for marijuana prohibition.

    Perhaps just toss this in when Fox News (Limbaugh, etc.) is not expecting it:

    “I find it odd that conservatives, who deeply value the Constitution, and who loathe the ultra-liberal New Deal and the corresponding Commerce Clause abuse leading to serious degrees of ‘free market’ interference, continue to firmly embrace marijuana prohibition, a policy ruled constitutional solely by that same ultra-liberal stance.

    Do conservatives understand that to selectively oppose our Constitution is to firmly oppose it, given the inevitable slippery slope (i.e. if you can oppose it once, why not twice? if twice, why not three times? etc.) forcing human beings to draw the legal lines instead, negating the whole point in having a Constitution and liberty as an unalienable right?”

    I really believe that we would make a lot of progress constantly challenging conservative hypocrisy (and therefore their credibility) on their home turf in front of their audience.

    Since conservatives’ credibility relies on supporting the Constitution, whether they really believe in it or not, constantly exposing their anti-constitutional stance here is a great way to offset any opposition they raise. After all, if marijuana prohibition is actually unconstitutional (and any sane person can clearly see that it is upon scrutiny, despite the Supreme Court exercise of judicial activism), then regardless of any other factor (even O’Reilly’s), there is no authority for marijuana prohibition.

  • strayan

    Great story on This American Life about Barry Cooper:

    “Michael May tells the story of Barry Cooper, a former crooked narcotics cop who has turned his interest elsewhere… to busting crooked narcotics cops.” http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

    Busting crooked narcops? Hell yeah!

  • Bryan

    Awesome!
    Nuff’ said…