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 2012
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Archives

Authors

Nobody knows what George Will is saying

… including George Will.

I noted in my discussion of George Will’s latest column that he seemed to be all over the place. My friend from Seattle even called me to ask “what the heck George Will was trying to say.”

It was apparently a real challenge for headline writers as well. Columnists generally don’t write their own headlines – those are chosen by the paper. Here’s a taste of the range of headlines that they came up with for the same column in papers around the country:

  • Legalizing Drugs May Be Worth It
  • 80/20 ratio is a significant factor in U.S.
  • Drug legalization is coming, but at what cost?
  • Weighing ups and downs of drug legalization
  • Weighing pros and cons of drug legalization
  • To legalize or not to legalize: That is the question when it comes to illicit drugs
  • Should the US legalize hard drugs?
  • Take the wind out of drug dealers’ sails
  • U.S. weighs cost of legal pot versus enforcement
  • Drug legalization makes a lot of economic sense
  • Understanding the 80/20 ratio
  • New strategy could hurt drug cartels
  • Drug legalization has pros, cons
  • We may find out whether legalization worth the cost
  • The prices of making drugs illegal
  • Drug policy calls for further review

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

29 comments to Nobody knows what George Will is saying

  • darkcycle

    I didn’t write in the post’s comment section, because it was simply too disjointed and confusing to cogently respond to. It really did leave me scratching my head.

  • Francis

    I’m pretty sure he was saying: “Damn, I really wish I could come up with an argument against legalization that won’t be shredded by a bunch of stoners within 5 minutes of this column hitting the web. Are you sure I can’t get an extension to file this?”

  • Cold Blooded

    I think he just can’t bring himself to say it.

    • Jake

      Seems like that hey… the rationale for ending prohibition makes sense and he begins to follow that logical path.. but then realises what he’s actually saying and tries to back out…

  • claygooding

    Is the man that came up with Just Say NO! now saying YES?

    Most prohibitionist would have kept their mouth shut than ever give any signal that prohibition may have been a mistake.

  • My headline for George’s column:

    George Will: Beyond Obfuscation

  • Jamie

    Can I try?

    Where There Is a Will, There’s a Mumble
    Drugs. Look! Clouds! Ahhh!
    Hippies May Suck, But Paying Taxes For Prisons Becoming Worse

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    It sounds like you’ve got it pretty well figured out Pete. Your only problem is that you expect people to make sense. Quit doing that and see if it doesn’t wash away all your confusion about Mr. Will’s confusion.

    Then again he’s at just about the right age for the onset of Alzheimer’s. He’ll be 71 on May 4, so maybe he’s just losing his mind. In the very early stages of Alzheimer’s it’s the people around the sick person who are confused.

    • darkcycle

      Duncan, does that mean I’ve had Alzheimer’s all my life? Could explain away quite a few things, though….

      • claygooding

        Alzheimer’s could be attributed to Wills and Pat’s recent support/semi-support for legalization,,I am sure that claiming that they are afflicted has crossed Kevin’s mind.

  • George may be confused but Richard Feldman (President, Independent Firearm Owners Association, Inc) isn’t:

    Trayvon Martin, Drug Policy, Civil Liberties, Gun Rights: The Common Thread

    -snip-

    In our zeal to put violent criminals out of business we’ve corrupted our law enforcement community with lure of asset forfeitures, giving rise to financial incentives to bust people after they sell the drugs so they can seize cash and property. Before asset forfeiture laws, standard procedure had been to simply destroy the drugs! This is perverted capitalism in an Orwellian form. Our founding fathers would collectively vomit if they saw what we’ve created in the very name of protecting our sacred individual civil liberty, freedom and personal actions.

    This vicious vortex of crime and violence in the abominable war on drugs, devours more than several billion dollars a year, kills tens of thousands of people, contributes significantly to the number of illegal guns in this country, richly benefits both the drug cartels and domestic gangs and does nothing to decrease drug use — indeed it rather glamorizes it!

    Gun rights activists and marijuana activists are both concerned with civil liberties. Their concern is precisely where the right and left meet: at the radical center. Liberals, moderates and conservatives want the government to back off encroaching on our personal freedom, balance the budget, cut back on our unsustainable world military presence, and re-read the Constitution, especially the part about “limited powers” and those reserved to the states and the people. To borrow from the comic character Pogo: “They would be us!”

    In terms of wasted resources and effort, the war on drugs is largely a war on marijuana. But the connection goes even deeper: The violence associated with the black markets created by prohibition of marijuana provides political cover and motivation in the name of “law and order” to those who would permanently curtail the public’s 2nd Amendment rights.

    Gun owners should understand that much of the impetus to over-regulate and ban firearms would evaporate overnight — along with much violent crime — if they would effectively join forces with the anti-prohibition activists to eliminate the lucrative black market for both drugs and guns by legalizing marijuana.

    -snip-

  • Paul

    I think it is perfectly clear. Logic and the facts show that drug prohibition has failed, and Will is a smart man and a very clear thinker. Will is also socially conservative, and naturally detests drugs and the people who use them. These confused essays we’re seeing is his cognitive dissonance playing itself out before a national audience.

  • Dear George Will:
    Please note the above responses and understand that intelligent individuals scare the bejesus out of most people.
    The same irrational fear took place whenever William F. Buckley opened his mouth or wrote his editorial.
    Therefore ignore them and continue to think intelligently.

  • To Alan:

    Well at least you heard of WF Buckley.
    The fact denotes some literacy.
    There may be hope for this planet Earth yet.

    • darkcycle

      Allan has heard of lots of stuff. He tell us all about it. I’m too busy getting stoned.

    • that the best you can do? Are you just another faux intellectual w/ all the answers speaking down to us common folk? Give us something beyond one liners, non-sequiturs and ad hominem snipes. We can handle it.

      Maybe start w/ Buckley and how adamant he was in his opposition to the WO(s)D and why we are wrong for agreeing w/ him…

  • To Framcos:

    I had your number many years ago when I was a very young JFK supporter.
    I still have fond memories of him.

  • To Alan and darkcycle:

    I have revealed entirely too much of myself with these exchanges.
    It is not time for me to come out of the closet.
    This planet fears what is different from themselves.

    • darkcycle

      That tin foil hat you’re wearing is very becoming…

      • either that or he/she was playing w/ his/herself…

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        DC, it’s been decades since when they paid off Big Foil to substitute aluminum foil for tin foil because tin does block the CIA mind control radio waves. Nowadays only a damn fool wears aluminum head gear thinking that it makes him safe from that threat.

  • Rob

    Calling it “prohibition” loses my support every time. It is obvious you are trying to compare today’s drug policy with alcohol prohibition in the 1930s in order to garner more sympathy. It actually makes you look just as ideological and full of crap as anybody else.