The Campaign For DA

6.12.2015

If Bill O'Reilly Smoked Pot Back In The Day, THEN I'll Believe This




Otherwise, he has been transported to to 1936


26 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://ktla.com/2015/06/11/video-of-santa-ana-police-pot-shop-raid-shows-officers-eating-edibles-attorney-says/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTKTfUHfeKM

Denney Crane said...

Must be a study from an Oklahoma College. They would ban those findings in Kali

Anonymous said...

You don't need to believe him.

You just believe the study.

wordkyle said...

Experts who disagree with you:

A Harvard study.
A Duke University/New Zealand study.
Dr. Sinthu Suntharalingam, a child and adolescent psychiatrist.
Dr. Romina Mizrahi, the director of the Focus on Youth Psychosis Prevention clinic and the head of the research program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto.

You're whistling in the dark if you keep denying (to yourself and others) that pot smoking is harmful.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, wordkyle!

No need in muddying up the waters with scientific studies.

I want everyone to smoke dope!

Anonymous said...

Hey, man! Don't Bogart that joint!

DF Cheech & DF Chong

Anonymous said...

Some of our best songs were written enjoying weed.

DF The Doobie Brothers

Anonymous said...

Dang degenerate youth letting their brains get scrambled and their judgement impaired by something they ingest. Not our generation.

DF Jack Daniels & DF Johnny Walker

Anonymous said...

They have done scientific studies that you can drown in water. You're whistling in the dark if you keep denying (to yourself and others) that water is harmful.

Anonymous said...

7:27 and Barry,

Is there any way you can set your comment age to 15 and over?

Anonymous said...

WTF IS THIS WHISTLING IN THE DARK BS?!?

wordkyle said...

727 - Absolutely no one claims that water is harmless. Pot proponents try to pass marijuana smoking off as a "no consequences" activity. Experts say differently. Try again.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, all your studies concern drug use among adolescents. I would hardly think they're relevant to the legalization debate any more than studies of underage drinking are relevant to the prohibition debate.

But even if they were, see 727. Even if harmful, is it really worth the cost to prohibit it?

Anonymous said...

You don't think the studies are relavant.

Sigh... I don't even know how to counteract that comment.

wordkyle said...

I referenced only those studies because that was O'Reilly's topic. The subject is relevant because pot proponents refuse to see, much less admit, the harm smoking pot does. The standard tactic is to divert the argument using adolescent remarks or baseless ridicule, which is what our host did.

Anonymous said...

What is a "pot proponent" and why are you using that term, wordkyle? Are there "alcohol proponents" or "prescription drug proponents" or "Tylenol proponents?"

What our host was doing was ridiculing the same scare tactics that have been used since the 1930s to outlaw pot. A la Reefer Madness. That marijuana may harm children or adolescents -- is that really an argument for prohibition? How is that a more persuasive argument in the marijuana context than in the alcohol context? Or is it simply an inflammatory OReilly sound bite to scare people who don't know any better?

I am not aware of anyone claiming smoking pot is completely and totally harmless. It would be hard to characterize anything as totally harmless. Alcohol is not harmless. Tylenol is not harmless. An omnivorous diet is not harmless. The real question, is that harm worth total prohibition?

wordkyle said...

348 - You're feigning stupidity to hide your attempt at coyness. "What is a pot proponent?" Google it and see. It's a case where the intuitive answer, even if a person doesn't know the specifics, is pretty close to the actual answer.

What our host was doing is what I said -- diverting attention from the real point O'Reilly made, based on expert evidence and scientific studies. Isn't that that the kind of information to provide to people "who don't know any better?" That you would describe providing scientific-based information as a "scare tactic" is another attempt to divert from the findings.

This line of discussion is based on the proven damage pot does to young people. Having said that, it's relevant to the legalization of recreational marijuana in that children mimic what they see adults do. Children don't have the judgment to know if the adult pot smoker they emulate is stupid, lacks judgment, is a failure at life, or a selfish prick. They also don't know -- or don't care -- about the damage pot smoking does. Legalization of another proven-harmful, mind-altering drug for recreational use provides no benefit to society.

Anonymous said...

To WK, the dickless wonder...

http://www.ibtimes.com/%E2%80%98medical%E2%80%99-marijuana-10-health-benefits-legitimize-legalization-742456

http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2015/02/05/medical-marijuana-can-helpful-surgeon-general-vivek-murthy/

Remember what Newton said, for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The same thing applies to marijuana arguments. For every negative article/study there is a positive article/study.

I prefer to live in a free country. I don't want people with attitudes like yours telling me how to live.

Oh.....you pompous ass.

Anonymous said...

9:49 there you go with common sense again. You should know by now that never works with wordkyle.

Anonymous said...

Marijuana harms children who use marijuana. No doubt. Is that even in dispute?

But if that's your justification for prohibition, then you must support the prohibition of alcohol. Or the prohibition of tobacco. Or the prohibition caffeine. Or the prohibition of fast food. Because all of these substances harm children who use them. And each is a "proven-harmful, mind-altering drug for recreational use."

As to your last opinion, that legalization provides no benefit to society, I'd bet our neighbors south of the border disagree. Because they have been the victims of drug related -- marijuana related -- civil war for more than a decade. I'd bet our neighbors north of the border, who spend billions of tax dollars to officially prohibit a substance that is easily available everywhere, would disagree too. I'd bet patients with certain medical conditions would disagree too.

Frankly, I would expect a conservative to support limited governmental regulation on this issue. But of course, you don't know what your opinion is until Fox News tells you.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle on this one you lose and are wrong.
That is OK.

wordkyle said...

Sorry, kiddies. Your sole argument for legalization is "because I want it." Never mind that children are harmed as they emulate adults. Never mind that potheads became dependent on a drug that had never been legal in their lifetime. The lack of judgment in that one choice undermines the credibility of those who advocate for pot smoking.

I don't advocate prohibition, I oppose legalization of an unsafe product that has been illegal in all of our lifetimes. Pot smoking causes brain damage. Why add another toxic substance to an already-too-stupid population's "okay to use" list? Just because those with poor judgment want it for recreational use?

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, kiddies. Your sole argument for legalization is "because I want it."" -- You must have missed 712 or 225. Because both posts outline arguments for legalization and neither is "because I want it."

"Never mind that children are harmed as they emulate adults. Never mind that potheads became dependent on a drug that had never been legal in their lifetime." -- Same as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, fast food, whatever. You must have missed that post too. Explain to me why children are more likely to emulate adults who use marijuana and less likely to emulate adults who use alcohol or tobacco.

"The lack of judgment in that one choice undermines the credibility of those who advocate for pot smoking" -- So anybody with the gaul to disagree with your opinion lacks credibility? Somehow, this is your most coherent thought in this thread.

"I don't advocate prohibition, I oppose legalization of an unsafe product that has been illegal in all of our lifetimes" -- What? Marijuana can only be either legal (legalization) or illegal (prohibition) recreationally. It can't be both and it can't be neither. Explain how you can oppose both prohibition and legalization.

"Why add another toxic substance to an already-too-stupid population's "okay to use" list? Just because those with poor judgment want it for recreational use?" -- Again, instead of actually addressing the arguments in 712, 225, or any of the other posts, you just ignored the posts altogether. Explain how saving tax dollars spent on prohibition is not a benefit. Explain how perhaps ending or perhaps deescalating the drug wars is not a benefit. Explain how the medical benefits are not benefits.

wordkyle said...

I have no problem with marijuana being used as a legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical purposes. I've stated that several times over the years. That's not what any of the pot proponents are talking about. They simply want to get high. I also have stated several times that just because other dangerous/detrimental/destructive substances are legal does not justify adding another one to the list.

As for "saving tax dollars" and "deescalating the drug wars," a simpler solution exists -- people quit smoking pot. All of the benefits mentioned, with none of the harmful effects of smoking pot. Cheap, effective , and elegant -- but not an option for people who want government action so they can get high.

Anonymous said...

As for "saving tax dollars" and "deescalating the drug wars," a simpler solution exists -- people quit smoking pot. All of the benefits mentioned, with none of the harmful effects of smoking pot. Cheap, effective , and elegant -- but not an option for people who want government action so they can get high.

You sound like a liberal with that kind of idea. Not gonna happen Wordy, so why even throw it out there?

wordkyle said...

A Liberal would insist that the government force people to smoke pot. Speaking out against it, as I have, would be a crime. And they would insist that the government subsidize marijuana production so the price of getting high could be kept low. (And of course, poor people get free pot.)