Ethan Nadelmann on O’Reilly

Last night. (Via Meidaite)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Ethan Nadelmann on O’Reilly

  1. mikekinseattle says:

    O’Reilly was no match for Nadelmann. It was a rout and O’Reilly knew it, too.

  2. Rich says:

    Is there another source for this video? The player is disabled (translucent grey overlay) in Safari 5 (Flash 10.1), even if I pick apart the embed code and try loading it alone in a new window (same result, scaled to fit the otherwise empty window).

    Also, some malware associated with the IFRAME seems to be interfering with selecting the embed code; I can only select all of it, not a portion. Perhaps Meidaite is a less reputable source than you think…

  3. permanentilt says:

    SICK! Please put Ethan on TV A LOT MORE! The guy is so good, I think he can win the drug war all by himself!
    (and by “win the drug war” I ofcourse mean gaining control of the market by legalizing and giving addicts hope instead of jailtime, I don’t see why we should wave the white flag by wasting lives and money in the name of business as usual)

  4. fela says:

    I like how Reilly has to keep going back to his %70 statistic, because its all hes got. ITS FOR TEH CHILDRENZ!

  5. so close — but nadelmann blew it again. he had the coherence of thought to point out that most of the neglect and abuse involves alcohol — and then dropped the ball by not pointing out how few cases of child abuse/neglect occur in the first place. as a result o’reilly got to derail the focus and it became yet another round of “yes, but”

    the best counter to any claims about some percentage of some ill involving “drugs or alcohol” involves two parts: first, point out that alcohol is the primary drug involved with whatever mayhem is being addressed, (yea ethan), and then, much more importantly, point out that the number of drug users involved in the particular mayhem being discussed is the minority of users.

    that’s where nadelmann keeps failing — we really need to point out that the scale of mayhem is extremely small and that the vast majority of users for virtually any drug are not causing one damn bit of a problem for anybody.

    fun stat of the day: about 3.5 million people watch o’reilly on any given night — which is on par with the number of lifetime heroin users (~ 4 million)

  6. Stewart says:


    I thought he did a good job of assailing that tall guy who distorts facts and sexually harasses his female coworkers (excuse me, apparently his name is Bill) and his one statistic.

    The point isn’t to criminalize or demonize alcohol (even though it’s far more harmful than most illicit drugs), but to show that we deal with the harms of substance abuse through treatment, not police.

    I agree with absolutely everything you say, alcohol causes far more damage than most people give it credit. Nadelman did exactly what he needed to do from a rhetorical standpoint though; which is reminding us of the accepted harms associated with alcohol, but it is a public health issue, not a criminal one. Also he did only have about 3 minutes to counter O’Moron and his blatant lies.

  7. claygooding says:

    O’Reilly has said before that he would consider marijuana legalization,because of it’s lack of harm but when confronted with legalization of all drugs,he went straight
    Nadelmann is a hell of a spokes person but he is talking to one of the most butting in,his points only counts,news commentators on Fox.
    I would like to see Judge Napoliteno(sp) in the same discussion. He would have attacked it from the constitutional stand and made O’reilly either stand for the constitution or admit he is a socialist. Me thinks.

  8. if ethan is going to accept the challenge, then he needs to learn how to do the job. he didn’t lose because o’reilly is more powerful, he lost because he doesn’t understand judo.

  9. Shap says:

    Can’t disagree more about Nadelmann not doing an amazing job. He was close to perfect. Only thing he did not say was that there was no evidence to support the premise that legitimacy of drugs has ever resulted in higher use. Other than that, it was a smackdown. Would love to watch Judge Napolitano on there next as well. Better yet, he should have O’Reilly on Freedom Watch and beat him over the head with the constitution and the absurdity that is commerce clause jurisprudence.

  10. larrythelugnut says:

    Yeah, it’s a pretty simple retort to the specious child abuse argument: “How does prohibition help those children?”

  11. Chris says:

    Grasping at increasingly short straws. There’s no argument that someone using drugs in the privacy of their own home is no danger to anyone else as long as they stay there, but what about the children in that home? Alcohol does more damage, it wouldn’t have taken much effort to look at the 70% figure more closely but that’s not the answer they were looking for.

  12. Paul United Kingdom says:

    Here is an idea, suppose Nadelmann lifted up a bag and pulled an assault rifle out of it. Then said that it is perfectly legal to buy an assault rifle which is only designed to kill people, but not buy pot, which makes the user happy? Now tell me about the messed up logic.

  13. truthtechnician says:

    That assault rifle idea is actually pretty good.

  14. Sukoi says:

    Aren’t all weapons “assault” weapons? Even in the defense or offence modes, they are still used to “assault” others. Just sayin…

  15. Landis says:

    Agree 100% with you Brian.
    Nadelmann missed a Prime Opportunity. First he could have said, besides the alcohol reference, that the “drug abuse problem” was due to Prescription drugs, not cannabis or other illegal substances. Second, Nadlemann could have said that the “what about the children” mantra was worn-out and ridiculous, although I will give Nadelmann credit for saying that students say it’s easier to obtain than alcohol. Third, Nadlemann did mention Portugal BUT he should have used the recent LEAP blog posting showing a BBC video of how “the sky did not fall over decrimalization.”

    And lastly, I love the O’Moron name.

  16. Nic says:

    The overwhelming trend I saw in this video was this. Nadelmann: “cites Facts A, B, C”…. O’Moron: “that’s BS (cites untruth / distortion of reality)” Nadelmann: “cites Facts A, B, C, again. O’Moron “but that’s BS (cites untruth / distortion of reality again)

    So what I’m getting is the basic trend that I always hear when listening to Reformers go up against Prohibitionists. A bunch of people who can’t distinguish FACT from the FICTION in their head, or a bunch of people who knowingly and willfully LIE. Either way, we are going up against either morons, or sociopaths…How are these people still in power???

  17. ezrydn says:

    On the topic of “abuse and children,” I wonder how ol’ BillyBob would rationalize children being taken from their parents for whatever non-violent, victimless crime, only to end up with some abusive Childrens Services drop-house? How does Prohibition protect these same children by shooting their pets in front of them, or their parents, for that matter?

    Come on, BillyBob. ‘Fess up! Explain how it “helps!”

  18. malcolmkyle says:

    Rich, it doesn’t work for me in Safari either, but works fine in Camino or GoogleChromium.

  19. Jim Rogers says:

    The problem with guys like O’Moron, is that they have been spewing these untruths for so long, they believe them to be true. Without a doubt, Ethan Nadelmann tells it like it is.

  20. Girl, you know it's true says:

    First off, marijuana should just be legal outright.

    Second, people should just have contraception implanted in them until they can pass 5 years’ worth of drug tests (starting at 18). No one needs to be have a child before 23, anyway.

    There should be no right to have child.

    Bottom line: fewer parents, more drugs.

  21. strayan says:

    It’s easier to parent from prison.

Comments are closed.