AC360: Ex drug czar's fallacies pwned during argument about pot legalization

[Turborama]

Run time: 08:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sQkc2gPbbA   Posted on YouTube: May 07, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 07, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 1429

 
It was also interesting to hear Arnie's thoughts on this.

CNN are certainly giving the debate a lot of airtime, I wonder what Ted Turner's opinions on it are...

(On edit: Just noticed AC's facial expression in the still above, he looks a little 'bleary eyed' lol)

[ImOnlySleeping]

1. Beating people with their own arguments

A beautiful debating tactic.

[droidamus2]

2. Frustrating

What is so frustrating about trying to have a legitimate discussion about ending the prohibition on pot (or all drugs for that matter) is that the anti-pot people are so self righteous and feel so strongly that they are right they are more than willing to lie and make up stuff to support their point of view. The idea that 'marijuana' causes violence and not 'prohibition' is ridiculous on its face. Where marijuana has been legalized (Portugal) or at least laws not enforced (Denmark) there has been a small initial rise in usage and then usage has fallen below the levels in the US. I have no links or facts to back this up but I think this guys claims of the number of people seeking treatment for 'marijuana' if he means marijuana alone are just made up on his part. Many kids end up in treatment for marijuana, which is where he may have gotten this idea, but it is usually not because they have a real problem but because their parents freaked out when they found out their kids were doing any kind of drug. Before somebody says it no I don't support kids doing drugs. The pro-prohibition people believe that they are so right and it is so important to do things 'their way' the literally will not sit down and have a frank open discussion of how to best handle drug usage in this country. Their whole point is to continual propagandize that 'prohibition' is the only way and therefore they believe that any means to an end is okay including lying about effects and consequences.

Of course this makes it incumbent on us that support ending the prohibition to be as honest as we can when presenting our point of view. I think many of the estimates of tax income from the legalization of marijuana, unless you leave personal growing illegal which sort of destroys the whole point of legalizing, are probably greatly overstated.I also think that it sort of leads away from the more salient point that having marijuana be illegal has not worked, is costly both monetarily and with its effect on society and that treating those that have abuse problems as the medical problem they are would be more effective than making every responsible marijuana user a criminal.

[suede1]

3. Great way to end the debate!

[keith the dem]

4. What is the hudson institute's interest in keeping pot illegal?

Do they get money from the private prison industry?

[AlexDeLarge]

7. Good Question. In the Wikipedia entry, it says that they're

heavily involved with Big Pharma and Con-Agra. So, it's not the prison angle that's their bend. It's the legal drugs and loss of revenue from marijuana's possible medical benefits and the loss of revenue in not being able to monopolize the cultivation and market distribution of the grug should it become legal.

[Karenina]

5. VEDDY INTERESTING that ALL the ambient stills

were NON-WHITE smokers... :freak:

[Beam Me Up]

12. I noticed that too. Thanks for pointing it out. n/t

[AlexDeLarge]

6. Let's see, whose opinion would I trust?

A Harvard economics professor or a former Drug Czar from a Repugnican administration? I'd have a really hard time believing anything coming out of the mouth of any former Repugnant administration official. They just simply don't have any credibility anymore.

[Revolution9]

8. it is mopre potent? so what? does it kill you?/

NO!

no matter how strong it gets there is no such thing as overdosing on mary jane!
AND no matter how high you get you are STIL safer behind the wheel than some one drunk on alcohol!

what a canard!

"it's stonger than ever now!"

GOOD!

i want the most out of my money!

[Gamey]

9. When looking at the volume of usage, stronger is better.

It stands to reason that if usage is determined by quantity, then stronger is better because it cuts down on that quantity. One hit versus five.

[tridim]

10. IMO this is why the debate is over and we need to take the next step

We've been having the same debate for almost 40 years and it's always the same. One side is drug war propaganda, and the other side is the truth. Just legalize it as 52% of Americans demand.

[Beam Me Up]

11. Why did Mr. Walters get at least three times the air time as Mr. Myers?

Mr. Walters was allowed to bloviate with his predictable and out-dated drug-warrior rhetoric without interruption. Mr. Myers was allowed only a few seconds to present an opposing point of view. Although he countered Walters' rhetoric directly and factually this presentation can hardly be called a fair discussion or debate on this issue.

The American people have been misinformed for years by the media and the government regarding the inherent harms associated with marijuana use. Typically these harms are exaggerated completely out of proportion with the harms caused by other perfectly legal drugs including alcohol, nicotine and prescription medications. This presentation opens with the assertion that marijuana has now been "engineered" to be far more potent than the ditch weed that was available in the 1960s. Certainly more potent strains have been developed but they were always available. Anyone smoking Thai sticks in the 1960s and '70s would find themselves knocked on their ass for hours. But in point of fact it is an irrelevant claim because the average marijuana user knows how to moderate his dosage. More potent marijuana means less ingestion to achieve the desired effect but this observation is not brought forward in the opening sequence leaving the uninformed viewer with the perception that marijuana, today, is a far more potentially dangerous substance than it was forty years ago. This is a highly debatable contention.

How can we have an open, honest and fair discussion or debate -- as proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger -- about the benefits and shortcomings of marijuana legalization when corporate media continues to distort the presentation of this issue?