coshoctontribune.com— Bill O'Reilly is right. If you remove the digs on George Soros, fear mongering, and disinformation veiled as fact, his Op-Ed, High on Compassion, hits the mark on these important points..
Mar 28, 2007View in Crawl 4
really?? BILL O'Reilly? I'm impressed I watch his show on occassion but he seems to never have anything good to say on the topic of marijuana in general, figured if these were his beliefs I'd at least hear that at some point... either way if he believes these things then what the f**k is the rest of america thinking, he's a close minded, self-righteous prick... like most politicians saying anything about medical marijuana... if he has the right view, when will every one else?
Ummmm, yeah. This is complete crap. Notice how the article doesn't give a link to an actual statement by Bill. Well there is a reason why. Its because Bill doesn't really support medical marijuana. He just wants to seem compassionate while bashing the people who are actually doing something compassionate and advocating for yet more corporate control over our lives. Here is what Bill actually said:"High on CompassionIt seemed like a good idea at the time, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allowed Californians to use marijuana with a doctor's permission to alleviate pain. The act was put on the ballot, and California voters passed it 56 to 44 percent.The biggest bankroller of the referendum was George Soros, the secular-progressive billionaire who champions drug legalization. He pumped about $350,000 into pro-medpot ads, according to published reports.Since the act was passed into law, thousands of pot "clinics" have opened across the Golden State. In San Francisco, things got so out of control that Mayor Gavin Newsom, a very liberal guy, had to close many of the "clinics" because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents.In San Diego, there's another problem. Some high school kids have found a loophole in the Compassion Act. Incredibly, there is no age requirement to secure medical marijuana in California and no physical examination needed either. So some kids tell a doctor they have a headache, pay him $150 for a card, and then buy all the pot they want. Unbelievable, but true.Catherine Martin, a school official in San Diego, actually sent letters to parents in the Grossmont Union School District warning that some students are getting the medical marijuana cards and then selling them to other students. The result: an increasing number of kids arriving at school stoned. Ms. Martin warned parents to supervise their children.San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told me that some "clinics" are even marketing medical marijuana under names like "Reefer's Peanut Butter Cup," and "Baby Jane." Cheech and Chong would be proud.Now, I'm sure George Soros doesn't give a hoot about this, but the unintended consequence of non-prescription medical marijuana legalization is that some kids are making an industry out of it.Sure, pot is available illegally in most places, but now children have a legal option. Why work at Burger King when you can sell pot cards?Of course, there is nothing "compassionate" about kids being intoxicated. It changes them forever. Once a child alters himself with chemicals, childhood vanishes. A national study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says more teenagers are in rehab for marijuana than any other intoxicant, including alcohol.Society needs to rethink its strategy on intoxicants in general. If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases, then doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it.But storefront "clinics" run by irresponsible adults who are aided by corrupt doctors are a joke only a confirmed stoner would find funny.Bottom line: Be careful what you vote for. Compassion can easily turn into chaos."Source - <a class="user" href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/bill-oreilly.html?columnsName=bor">http://www.creators.com/opinion/bill-oreilly.html?columnsName=bor</a>You want to point me to the part of the article where Bill says the war on drugs is wrong because I sure didn't see it after reading the article several times. If you want to see how Bill really feels about the war on drugs, here are a few examples:"Just how blinkered and dogmatic O'Reilly's "common sense" can be is most evident in his relentless cheerleading for the War on Drugs. His rhetoric on the subject rarely goes beyond some variation on "drugs are evil" and on occasion descends into outright demagoguery. Earlier this year, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance appeared on the Factor to discuss the Office of National Drug Control Policy ad that premiered during the Superbowl. The ad, which showed teenagers alternately saying things like "My life, my body" and "I helped blow up buildings," asserted -- much to O'Reilly's approval -- that casual drug users are helping underwrite terrorism.Nadelmann noted that American teenagers' primary drugs of choice are marijuana and Ecstasy, which are not linked to the funding of terrorism. O'Reilly countered that the Ecstasy trade is "run by Middle Eastern guys." When Nadelmann expressed skepticism, O'Reilly proposed a $100 bet.The next day, in his "most ridiculous item of the day" segment, O'Reilly cited a government report which mentioned "the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in Ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties." He gleefully invited Nadelmann to "send a 100 bucks to Habitat for Humanity in New York City....It would be ridiculous not to do that."According to Nadelmann, he never did send a check and never heard from O'Reilly again; but of course, he wasn't the one being ridiculous. It's fairly obvious that when people speak of Middle Eastern ties in the context of terrorism, they are not thinking about Russian- and Georgian-born Israeli mobsters.Confronted with pro-legalization arguments, including the question of what makes illegal substances so different from legal ones such as alcohol and tobacco, O'Reilly tends to bluster his way out. A typical display occurred in his interview with Keith Stroup of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in May.When Stroup pointed out that Holland, where marijuana is legally sold in coffee shops, has lower rates of marijuana use than the United States, O'Reilly testily replied that this was due to Holland's smaller population. Stroup countered that he was referring to percentages, not numbers."That statistic's skewed," O'Reilly shot back. "If you...ask the government of the Netherlands to tell us about how many kids get caught, they won't tell you. I don't believe them for a second."When all else fails, there's the tried-and-true tactic of invoking the children: "In America, where we have...such a substance abuse problem, if you legalize another intoxicant, that intoxicant inevitably is going to find its way down to the kids of America," O'Reilly told Stroup. Based on this logic, one would presumably see no problem with banning alcohol to protect the kiddies, either."Source - <a class="user" href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/28501.html">http://www.reason.com/news/show/28501.html</a>To the author's credit, it is a rather ingenious (or insanely evil) idea to put spin, not on an issue but, on the actual spin artist himself.
whynoMar 29, 2007
really?? BILL O'Reilly? I'm impressed I watch his show on occassion but he seems to never have anything good to say on the topic of marijuana in general, figured if these were his beliefs I'd at least hear that at some point... either way if he believes these things then what the f**k is the rest of america thinking, he's a close minded, self-righteous prick... like most politicians saying anything about medical marijuana... if he has the right view, when will every one else?
gooddaysunshineMar 29, 2007
holy s**t bill o'reilly is right on medical marijuana
phragMar 29, 2007
Ummmm, yeah. This is complete crap. Notice how the article doesn't give a link to an actual statement by Bill. Well there is a reason why. Its because Bill doesn't really support medical marijuana. He just wants to seem compassionate while bashing the people who are actually doing something compassionate and advocating for yet more corporate control over our lives. Here is what Bill actually said:"High on CompassionIt seemed like a good idea at the time, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allowed Californians to use marijuana with a doctor's permission to alleviate pain. The act was put on the ballot, and California voters passed it 56 to 44 percent.The biggest bankroller of the referendum was George Soros, the secular-progressive billionaire who champions drug legalization. He pumped about $350,000 into pro-medpot ads, according to published reports.Since the act was passed into law, thousands of pot "clinics" have opened across the Golden State. In San Francisco, things got so out of control that Mayor Gavin Newsom, a very liberal guy, had to close many of the "clinics" because drug addicts were clustering around them, causing fear among city residents.In San Diego, there's another problem. Some high school kids have found a loophole in the Compassion Act. Incredibly, there is no age requirement to secure medical marijuana in California and no physical examination needed either. So some kids tell a doctor they have a headache, pay him $150 for a card, and then buy all the pot they want. Unbelievable, but true.Catherine Martin, a school official in San Diego, actually sent letters to parents in the Grossmont Union School District warning that some students are getting the medical marijuana cards and then selling them to other students. The result: an increasing number of kids arriving at school stoned. Ms. Martin warned parents to supervise their children.San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told me that some "clinics" are even marketing medical marijuana under names like "Reefer's Peanut Butter Cup," and "Baby Jane." Cheech and Chong would be proud.Now, I'm sure George Soros doesn't give a hoot about this, but the unintended consequence of non-prescription medical marijuana legalization is that some kids are making an industry out of it.Sure, pot is available illegally in most places, but now children have a legal option. Why work at Burger King when you can sell pot cards?Of course, there is nothing "compassionate" about kids being intoxicated. It changes them forever. Once a child alters himself with chemicals, childhood vanishes. A national study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says more teenagers are in rehab for marijuana than any other intoxicant, including alcohol.Society needs to rethink its strategy on intoxicants in general. If marijuana can help those suffering with debilitating diseases, then doctors should have the power to prescribe it and licensed pharmacies should carry it.But storefront "clinics" run by irresponsible adults who are aided by corrupt doctors are a joke only a confirmed stoner would find funny.Bottom line: Be careful what you vote for. Compassion can easily turn into chaos."Source - <a class="user" href="http://www.creators.com/opinion/bill-oreilly.html?columnsName=bor">http://www.creators.com/opinion/bill-oreilly.html?columnsName=bor</a>You want to point me to the part of the article where Bill says the war on drugs is wrong because I sure didn't see it after reading the article several times. If you want to see how Bill really feels about the war on drugs, here are a few examples:"Just how blinkered and dogmatic O'Reilly's "common sense" can be is most evident in his relentless cheerleading for the War on Drugs. His rhetoric on the subject rarely goes beyond some variation on "drugs are evil" and on occasion descends into outright demagoguery. Earlier this year, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance appeared on the Factor to discuss the Office of National Drug Control Policy ad that premiered during the Superbowl. The ad, which showed teenagers alternately saying things like "My life, my body" and "I helped blow up buildings," asserted -- much to O'Reilly's approval -- that casual drug users are helping underwrite terrorism.Nadelmann noted that American teenagers' primary drugs of choice are marijuana and Ecstasy, which are not linked to the funding of terrorism. O'Reilly countered that the Ecstasy trade is "run by Middle Eastern guys." When Nadelmann expressed skepticism, O'Reilly proposed a $100 bet.The next day, in his "most ridiculous item of the day" segment, O'Reilly cited a government report which mentioned "the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in Ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties." He gleefully invited Nadelmann to "send a 100 bucks to Habitat for Humanity in New York City....It would be ridiculous not to do that."According to Nadelmann, he never did send a check and never heard from O'Reilly again; but of course, he wasn't the one being ridiculous. It's fairly obvious that when people speak of Middle Eastern ties in the context of terrorism, they are not thinking about Russian- and Georgian-born Israeli mobsters.Confronted with pro-legalization arguments, including the question of what makes illegal substances so different from legal ones such as alcohol and tobacco, O'Reilly tends to bluster his way out. A typical display occurred in his interview with Keith Stroup of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in May.When Stroup pointed out that Holland, where marijuana is legally sold in coffee shops, has lower rates of marijuana use than the United States, O'Reilly testily replied that this was due to Holland's smaller population. Stroup countered that he was referring to percentages, not numbers."That statistic's skewed," O'Reilly shot back. "If you...ask the government of the Netherlands to tell us about how many kids get caught, they won't tell you. I don't believe them for a second."When all else fails, there's the tried-and-true tactic of invoking the children: "In America, where we have...such a substance abuse problem, if you legalize another intoxicant, that intoxicant inevitably is going to find its way down to the kids of America," O'Reilly told Stroup. Based on this logic, one would presumably see no problem with banning alcohol to protect the kiddies, either."Source - <a class="user" href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/28501.html">http://www.reason.com/news/show/28501.html</a>To the author's credit, it is a rather ingenious (or insanely evil) idea to put spin, not on an issue but, on the actual spin artist himself.