Art Linkletter, and later Bill Cosby, used to bring small children on and ask them questions. The humor of the show came from the “darndest” things that kids would say.
That’s partially why I like to check out the college editorial pages when they talk about drug policy. Now some can be quite serious and well-informed, particularly if they have a good SSDP chapter there. But there’s always a few that are good for a laugh.
Today we have Staff Writer Shane Smith of The Daily Skiff at Texas Christian University with Legalization of marijuana is a danger to society
Arguments for legalizing marijuana in California were that the drug would help decrease the state’s debt and decrease drug war violence. However, there is no substantial evidence that supports these outrageous claims. [emphasis added]
Well, you see, Shane — we never claimed that “the drug” would help decrease the debt and violence. It’s the change in legal status that makes the difference. No wonder you thought the claims were outrageous (although even “the drug” could probably reduce violence).
Here’s a good one:
By not legalizing marijuana, society is doing its job of protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms. If marijuana were legal, we would see people walking around and going to work high on pot. Society has the responsibility of protecting individuals from those who exceed their individual rights. The decline of Prop 19 does exactly that.
That is one of the most bizarre definitions of society’s role that I’ve ever read. And “protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms” â€” I don’t remember reading that in the Constitution.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, but they should imprison those who take advantage of these rights.
And then Shane turns around completely and torpedoes his own argument:
There is a misconception that making marijuana legal will help the state budget. This is not true at all. The main problem with the argument is that proponents assume that by making marijuana legal, more people will start buying the drug. This is a false assumption. Assumptions like this are dangerous because humans tend to be consistent. Whether or not it is legal, those who smoke pot now will do it again later. Those who do not smoke pot will most likely never smoke the drug even if it were made legal. Marijuana sales would hardly impact the budget in California.
In other words, legalization will have absolutely no impact on marijuana use, but…
The good news is that Californians are smart enough to realize that the legalization of marijuana is dangerous to society.
Shane Smith is a senior secondary education major from Fort Worth.
That’s right. He’s going to be teaching High School.
condensed version. I dont like marijuana and dont use it. So no one should like marijuana or use it. oh and lets add piles of bullshit to this article to make me seem smart like i have a point that makes since. Shane smith go f**k yourself your a dumb prick.
The education system is based on a German model from the 1800’s designed to produce good little citizen/soldiers who will not challenge the system, instead just going along with whatever the PTB want. In that light, this non-thinker will fit right in. He will continue to lie, continue to reinforce the status quo, continue to try to produce good little androids.
Nate Silver weighs in today: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/are-parents-just-saying-no-to-marijuana-legalization/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Hmm, doesn’t everyone know that the CBOE estimates California will pocket between $50 million and $100 million from sales and use tax collected by the medical cannabis vendors?
sorry, here’s the link to CBOE estimate:
Well geez. I’m so glad I didn’t write opeds in my college paper when I was obstinately opinionated about everything while brandishing The Answer to all of life’s issues. Deep down I just knew that I was full to the brim of inexperienced, uninformed, naive, blinkered, coddled, shit. Also, I think my future self kicked into preservation mode and didn’t want to be haunted so publicly by my formative, awkward, toe in the water, brain farts.
I mean, of course I’m still full of shit on some things. Aren’t we all? But shit can turn into rich manure when you educate yourself. You just have to actively want to do so.
Somebody should take away that kid’s pencil ’till he learns how to use it properly.
Yea pot smokers are so violent, who hid the munchies man. The nag champa is all gone we’ll have to make an incense run and pick up some munchies! W00t what violence.
And he will be a teacher in my state. Makes me want to prohibit education.
Better to prohibit stupidity, don’t you think?
Looks like another Sabet hoping to attract the attention of ONDCP and land an equally lucrative position as official (officious) BSer.
Our fine universities produce yet another non-thinking Yes Man.
I don’t know,if prohibiting education works as well as
well as prohibiting drugs,everyone will become honor roll scholars.
we need to end the war on drugs and start up the war on ignorance
stop arresting and start educating!
So, prohibition has no effect on use, but somehow magically protects society. Somewhere, on an abstract, metaphysical plane, Logic curls up in a fetal position, whimpering.
We are doomed.
In case anyone wants to comment: http://tinyurl.com/36sv2w7
FIBRE PLANTS — Hemp, The Children’s Encyclopedia, 1909
You know, mainstream society is so fundamentally illiberal by nature it is constantly amazing to me that classical ideas of liberty and self determination can exist side by side with lock ’em up social conservatism, or even survive at all.
When you think about it, the development of the ides of the Enlightenment are so unlikely as to constitute proof of the existence of a benevolent (but decidedly not omnipotent) God.
What took them so long?
Thanks for the link, malcolm. Good to see the National Review giving that a platform, but you’re right… What took them so long?
I have a question. Why are all the online publications trying to force one to have a Facebook account to register or comment? Since when did Facebook become a requirement? I’m seeing it more and more and as a non-social networker, why is this barrier placed in front of some of us? Any ideas?
ezrydn, I’d say there are two main reasons.
1. ease of implementing a comment section. If you use Facebook as your comment login, you cut out most of the spam, etc., without having to have your own registration system. Facebook essentially does that for you.
2. the ability to increase the reach of your publication through tying it in to social networking. This is particularly useful for young audiences. You can set it up so that comments on your blog or other media source (done through a Facebook account) can then show up on that user’s news feed (usually through an opt-in), which then makes it visible to that user’s “friends” along with a link back to the original media article. This can drive additional viewers to the site, and so it becomes quite valuable.
I know of a young comedy group that has done this and it’s brought a whole lot more regular visitors to their blog in a short time than any paid marketing would have.
Still, it’s not for everyone. What I do is have a Facebook “version” of Drug WarRant, and each post here is automatically posted there (although there’s sometimes a ridiculous delay). That way people can follow Drug WarRant through Facebook, or through here. I still get some of the advantage, so that if someone comments on the Facebook version of a post, it shows up in the news feed there. I have 834 followers of the site on Facebook currently.
If this continues to be an issue, you could essentially view Facebook as an online registration site (like the various independent comment registration options), and create an account, but never use it except for commenting at other online sites. (Just be sure to go into the preferences and un-check everything you can relating to it sharing information, being searchable or giving you notices of events, etc.)
The only reason I have a facebook acct is for the comment sections on most newspaper opeds and articles.
I think I have actually logged into face book twice.
“create an account, but never use it except for commenting at other online sites” Exactly Pete! – one for communicating with family and friends, which can be keept fairly a-political, and a parallel account (based on a different mail adress) for comment sections.
I use facebook as my personal soapbox, not for “social networking”, if I want to communicate with my real social network I use face to face communication, email, and my phone. So the vast majority of my facebook “friends” are people I’ve never met and I view my “wall” (which I “share” will “everyone”) as a way to educate the unenlightened about the ongoing gradual (but increasing exponentially) loss of our rights due to the hazards of voting for big government politicians and said big government’s incestuous connections to big business and big banking.
that should have been “share” WITH “everyone”
Pingback: Was California right in voting down Prop 19?
What about those who don’t use community portals as a sign of nonconformism?
GR INTERNATIONAL IS A REPUTED MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS OF AGARBATTI, INCENSE STICKS, AGARBATHI, INCIENSO, INCENSO AND SAHUMERIO IN INDIA.
Nag Champa Exporters
Pingback: Another Episode of ‘Kids Say the Darndest Things’ - Drug WarRant