Print Media

Irritating Lede of the Day


From The New York Times:

SAN FRANCISCO — Perhaps only in California could a group of marijuana smokers call themselves fiscal realists.

NEXT: "Chief Justice Roberts appears particularly in tune with the exercise of national power."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Classic case of projection. It’s the marijuana prohibitionists who are constantly hallucinating.

  2. Sure, there’s nothing realistic about allowing a productive industry to contribute to the economy and the public finances. Nope. Not a thing.

  3. Perhaps only at the New York Times could a group of low-level democrat PR flaks call themselves journalists.

    1. Never forget: They are doing God’s work.

  4. I remember a magazine cover from the ’80s with a headline that went something like, “Why New York hates Washington, Why Washington hates New York, and Why the rest of the nation hates them both”.

    I think you can probably say that about San Francisco and New York now.

    I think San Francisco really does think itself the New York of the west coast, but that’s all false pretenses, at least when it comes to culture. If I could only go out at night in one city on the west coast, I’d choose San Diego or Seattle over San Francisco.

    Hell, I’d pick LA over San Francisco.

    1. Hell, I’d pick LA over San Francisco.

      I’m in San Francisco, and the temperature just rose four degrees and six people’s heads exploded.

      1. That happens when they’re full of sap.

  5. When the inevitable earthquake flattens San Francisco I’ll have a hard time dealing with my contradictory emotions: on the one hand, this was a terrible catastrophe with great levels of human suffering, oh dear those poor poor people, but on the other hand GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE.

    I hope Pelosi’s there when it happens, drinking martinis in an old building made of unreinforced brick.

    1. I hope Pelosi’s there when it happens, drinking martinis in an old building made of unreinforced brick.

      It will be her bowel movement that rumbles the earth. So yeah, she’ll be there.

    2. “I hope Pelosi’s there when it happens, drinking martinis in an old building made of unreinforced brick.”

      You must be a violent, racist teabagger.

    3. Why does Jennifer hate the retards?

  6. I am a fiscal realist!

  7. Well it is going to be an interesting summer. It will be interesting to see how much and to what degree the law enforcement industrial complex will demonize legalization.

    I think it will be degrees of separation between voters and smokers that will decide this. Of course the pot heads, the ones that have managed to register, will vote for it. Medical marijuana users might vote for it.
    But passage will be determined by non-smokers. And, hopefully, it will be someone who knows someone who smokes pot who thinks “Wow, John doe doesn’t seem like an out of control guy, pays his bills, etc,” and will decide to vote for it.

    1. It will also be people who are not hypocrites regarding their personal drug use in their youth.

  8. Marijuana might cause fiscal paranoia, but not fiscal recklessness. There is no better way to guarantee an hour’s deliberation over that $5 DVD in the Wal-Mart bargain bin than some nice sinsemillia.

  9. Honestly, does the mere insertion of “Perhaps” turn naked editorializing into journalism? It’s the same trick they pull by constantly tossing in unsubstantiated phrases like “supporters believe…” and “opponents argue…”

    Glenn Greenwald has done some good pieces on this kind of piss-poor reporting.

    1. Glenn Greenwald has allegedly done some good pieces on this kind of possibly piss-poor reporting.


    2. y tambien:

      Bullshit as fact

      1. Very nice link; exactly what I had in mind.

  10. “…said he had reservations about the prospect of casual users joining the ranks of those with prescriptions.”

    This line cracks me up. I know people who have perscriptions for weed, and they are casual users. The ratio for “medical mariajuana” (in SD and LA) has got to be 100:1 of casual users vs. those with a legitimite medical need.

    The guy quoted lobbies for medical marijuana… can he really be this clueless?

    1. So, it’s about the same ratio as for the legal prescription-only narcs?

  11. “The two major Republican candidates ? the former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman and the insurance commissioner, Steve Poizner ? have said they oppose the bill.”

    Oh the day when repubs will embrace small government and individual freedom. Hey wait a minute, I thought that is what they espouse.

    1. Hell, they espouse both, but practice neither.

      As an aside, it’s nice to see us Libertarians back to knocking both Demotards and Republinuts rather than trying to find ways to align with said Republinuts due to ObamaCare.

  12. Perhaps only in California could a group of marijuana smokers call themselves be the only fiscal realists.

    1. Haha, +1.

  13. Perhaps only in California could a group of marijuana smokers call themselves fiscal realists.

    Excuse me?!

    1. I assure you, Mr. President, your pothead credentials are impeccable. You are not on speaking terms with fiscal reality, however.

  14. It’ll probably boil down to the liberal coast vs the conservative valley(and the north-east, but only 15 people live there).

    I’m waiting to see how the local dispensaries spin this, since if it passes they’ll probably all be out of business… then again they have the supply chain in place to profit if this passes. I think either way though the price is going to plummet soon, though. There are people around here sitting on loads of great pot but they can’t get rid of it for the going rate.

    1. The owner of a chain of local dispensaries are supporting it. It also specifically carves out exceptions for Medical MJ laws, essentially saying that they will still be under existing laws. (which in some cases are *less* restrictive than the ones being proposed here)

  15. Not only LEO are against this, wouldn’t current suppliers/distributors also fund PR initiatives to stop legalizetion?

    1. You mean sort of like this?…..pot-legali

    2. I’m really tired of LEO trying to dictate law by what might make their job easier. Last I heard, we don’t pay them to tell to make laws or give their opinions about laws. I personally don’t give a shit what makes your job easier.

  16. Don’t hate, it’s actually really fun:

    “Perhaps only in Missouri could a group of tax accountants call themselves Methodists.”

    “Perhaps only in Wisconsin could a group of sixth graders call themselves cartoonists.”

    “Perhaps only in Mammoth Cave could a group of guitarists call themselves gum-chewers.”

  17. Remember folks, liberty is all about taxing the shit out of sin. While this proposition is a step forward, it comes with a barrier that prevents any subsequent steps forward.

    1. Which barrier would that be? I mean other than the massive amounts of gment taxation/regulation and interference that will certainly make pot no cheaper than now, and still subject lawful users to police harassment?

  18. Thank you Rhyder, ChrisH and SnarkyD. You turned a rather crappy friday on Reason 180degrees around and made my day.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.