Marijuana

Anti-Pot Activist Concedes Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol

|

CNN

Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project points out that Patrick Kennedy, chairman of the anti-pot group Project SAM, let this slip during his recent CNN debate with my colleague Nick Gillespie:

I agree with the president. Alcohol is more dangerous.

That is not what Kennedy said after Obama made that comparison in an interview with The New Yorker. Here is what Kennedy said then:

We take issue with the President's comparisons between marijuana and alcohol, and we strongly encourage him—a president who has, on many occasions, championed rigorous science—to work closely with his senior drug policy advisors and scientists, who fully acknowledge the growing world body of science showing the harms of marijuana use to individuals and communities.

As I pointed out, Kennedy never actually said Obama's statement was inaccurate (as opposed to inconvenient). But he strongly implied that the president needed to get his facts straight if he was going around saying that marijuana is safer than alcohol. Yet here is Kennedy, the day after Project SAM issued that press release, saying exactly the same thing.

You can concede that marijuana is safer than alcohol and still defend marijuana prohibition—just not very convincingly. Because if you concede that marijuana is safer than alcohol, then you concede that the distinctions drawn by our drug laws—distinctions that send people to prison—are essentially arbitrary. Alcohol is legal and marijuana is not for historically and culturally contingent reasons that have nothing to do with the relative hazards of these drugs. Kennedy acknowleges as much but, like Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, argues that marijuana should be illegal because it is illegal. 

Although Kennedy seems to believe that repealing alcohol prohibition was a mistake, he figures that bringing it back would be politically impractical, and he worries that resolving the inconsistency by repealing marijuana prohibition will result in more drug-related harm. That is not necessarily true, depending on substitution effects and other factors, and it dodges the question of whether such an uncertain calculus can justify the burdens imposed by prohibition. Even if we accept Kennedy's paternalistic premise, can it be fair to treat suppliers of one drug as criminals while treating suppliers of a more dangerous one as legitimate businessmen? Should people lose their freedom for reasons that Kennedy concedes are arbitrary?

Advertisement

NEXT: 9/11 Memorial Sets Admission at $24

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kennedy. Let’s stick with the one on The Independents.

  2. This is why I don’t think that estate taxes are necessary to break up family dynasties. Joe Kennedy was smart and ambitious. He amassed a huge amount of wealth.

    His children were OK (except Teddy). But then they all married vapid gals and the next generation is already diluted.

    I’m sure Pat’s kids are dumber yet.

    Rich guys marry hot women instead of smart hard working women.

    In another few generations the Kennedy fortune will have been squandered on who knows what.

    I’m guessing the Walton Jr.s and Walton III’s are the same.

    Our governor in Sunny Minnesota is another great example of this. Forget about a silver spoon. He was born with the entire service set, yet he is a mumbling imbecile.

    Sure it is painful for normals to watch these idiots blather on and on. We just need to be patient and know that the bill is coming due for them.

    1. The dynastic influence will go on indefinitely. Like the statists always tell you, it’s the institutions that keep the world moving along. They will make sure of that.

    2. Andrew Cuomo’s wife, Kerry, daughter of RFK, is the beneficiary of at least seven Kennedy trusts. Even if the heirs are stupid, the trustees aren’t. Their job is to keep the money flowing.

    3. Rich guys marry hot women instead of smart hard working women.

      Those attributes are not mutually exclusive. My wife is smart, hard working, and sets tight jeans on fire.

      1. You married a garment arsonist?

      2. It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a hot woman to be smart.

        I’ll take the nerd over the cheerleader any day of the week.

        1. Uh, what? You’ve never been involved with, or even know, hot smart women?

          I feel sorry for you, dude. There’s plenty of them.

          1. That’s NOT what I said, nor my point. Sure they exist, but they are few and far between. Hot women (and I’m generalizing) get by on their looks and seldom need to develop their brains.

            You put me in a room full of women from which I need to choose a prospective mate, I’m not gonna start with the best looking. I’ll start with the cute, mousy, geek with the glasses and the book.

            1. Sure they exist, but they are few and far between.

              That describes most good things.

            2. That’s NOT what I said, nor my point. Sure they exist, but they are few and far between. Hot women (and I’m generalizing) get by on their looks and seldom need to develop their brains.

              Uh…

              It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a hot woman to be smart.

              That sounds pretty much exactly like what you said. I also don’t know what you’re talking about considering that attractive people actually tend to be smarter than unattractive ones.

              That makes sense when you think about it. Intelligent people are wealthier which means they eat better food and are more likely to exercise and have good self-control.

              1. That sounds pretty much exactly like what you said.

                Or perhaps it was an exaggeration for effect?

            3. Uh, you just said it again. If a chick is smart, she’s not going to become stupid because she might also be hot. That’s just asinine.

              1. As I pointed out, there’s actually a correlation between intelligence and wealth and there is similarly a correlation between wealth and beauty.

                As a result, smart people are more likely to be good looking than unintelligent people.

                1. I’ll move the goalposts…

                  You are born with potential. That’s intelligence (IQ).

                  You can improve yourself through study. That’s smart (motivated).

                  I contend, the attractive women don’t need to improve themselves because they get by on their looks. (And it’s just my theory.) I personally know very few super-attractive women who I could sit down and debate philosophy with (or who would want to). I know plenty of average looking women that can/will. There are exceptions, of course.

                  Ya know how many smoking hot women graduated in my Penn State Engineering class? 0 But dozens of average looking women.

            4. A nerdy chick is just as likely to be a hottie. She just promotes or doesn’t in a different way.

            5. A lot of hot women are fucking nuts. But that doesn’t mean they are necessarily stupid.

              1. A lot of women are fucking nuts. But that doesn’t mean they are necessarily stupid.

                FTFY

                Also

                TIWTNLW

        2. It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a hot woman to be smart.

          That’s just plain wrong.

      3. So your pants are on fire…OK.

      4. Wait, I didn’t say that there are no smart, hard working hot women. I just said that rich guys don’t marry them.

        If you were a smart hot gal, would you rather marry a smart hard working guy or some idiot who happens to be super rich. Or in the case of you wife, somewhere in between (I kid).

        Like you I have a very smart hottie for a wife. I can’t see her happy married to Mark Dayton, even though he is far richer than I will ever be.

    4. I went to law school with his son. Good dude. Maybe it just skips a generation.

    5. Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations didn’t turn into an aphorism for no reason.

      1. Reminds me of that John Adams quote:

        “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”

        I’m guessing the downturn happens at the basketweavers.

  3. Hypocrites gonna lie. Just look as the liar in the WH.

  4. You can concede that marijuana is safer than alcohol and still defend marijuana prohibition?just not very convincingly.

    Well, you can make your argument slightly more convincing in context if you pine for any and all substance prohibition, which I’m pretty sure Kennedy does.

    1. They don’t want substance prohibition. They want to prohibit the use of substances without permission and/or direction from authority.

      Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

  5. OT, but good enough news to make it worthwhile:
    “Judge: Remove life support for pregnant woman”
    […]
    “A judge on Friday ordered a Texas hospital to remove life support for a pregnant, brain-dead woman whose family had argued that she would not want to be kept in that condition.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/tex…..170747.php

    1. But Jessica Hall Janicek and Heather King, Erick Munoz’s attorneys, accused the hospital of conducting a “science experiment” and warned of the dangerous precedent her case could set, raising the specter of special ICUs for brain-dead women carrying babies.

      I guess some lawyers pass off dystopian sci-fi as argumentation the way John Edwards used to speak for the dead during his medical malpractice cases. So long as one of the sub-Nazgul finds it sufficiently compelling, it doesn’t matter how asinine and irrational the argument.

      1. YEs, much better to use this woman’s body as essentially a potted plant base for the ‘child’ the state wants her to have. Nothing sub-Nazgul about that.

        1. “To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

          1. You’re well aware that your opponents are equating an actual with an actual.

            In the above case it’s actually an actual/potential vs nothing as a corpse in just a pile of nothing.

            1. “You’re well aware that your opponents are equating an actual with an actual.”

              Yes, but I am also aware they are wrong.

              “it’s actually an actual/potential vs nothing as a corpse in just a pile of nothing.”

              If you own yourself then your wishes for your body after death, carried out by your family, should be respected.

        2. Wait 4 weeks, extract the child, pull the plug, give the family the corpse they are so desperate for.

          And the state didn’t “pot” this particular plant. Her husband did. You know, when he put his penis in her without using one of the 14 or so methods of birth control available.

          1. How about this, since people are supposed to own themselves, if the state wants the ‘child’, let them have it now, and let the family take the woman’s body as they and she wish(ed).

            And I think you missed my point re the potted plant base, regardless of who ‘planted the seed’ it is the state that is now forcing this woman, even in death, to lay there as the grounds for growing this possible, potential life. I am not a fan of this ‘slaver’ talk in libertarian circles, but if it was ever warranted, it is here.

            1. Enslavement generally requires a cognizant victim, IMO. This is kinda creepy and unnecessary, but it ain’t slavery unless you want to strip that word of any possible meaning and diminish to nothingness the suffering of actual, live human beings with functioning brains who’ve actually had to endure it.

              1. In my opinion it is in a way worse than enslavement of living people, forcing them to serve the interests of the state even beyond life itself. It is truly horrific.

                1. In my opinion it is in a way worse than enslavement of living people

                  Oh wow, Bo has a contrary opinion. Let me see if I can find my shocked face.

                  If you actually, down where you live, beyond your compulsive, pathological requirement to be contrary think that keeping a dead corpse on life support is comparable to – let alone worse than – enslaving living human beings, all I can say is I’d like to see both tried on you personally and see whether your living mind your dead corpse is the worse for it.

            2. How about this, since people are supposed to own themselves, if the state wants the ‘child’, let them have it now, and let the family take the woman’s body as they and she wish(ed).

              I’m certain they would. Texas was the first state to pass asafe haven law. It is reasonable to believe they could stretch its interpretation to extend to viable offspring.

              And I think you missed my point re the potted plant base

              Other than it being an inaccurate metaphor?

              regardless of who ‘planted the seed’

              Potted plants only exist because someone took the time and effort to create them. Texas didn’t just sneak up on Mrs. Munoz and drop and baby in her uterus.

              it is the state that is now forcing this woman, even in death,

              If she’s dead, how can she be “forced” to do anything? She has no will or intellect to be “coerced.”

              to lay there as the grounds for growing this possible, potential life.

              “Potential”? I’m not sure how long it’s been since your last biology class, but if it is capable of metabolism and homeostasis, then the thing is alive. If a single blood cell meets that criteria, how then do a “clump of cells” not meet it?

              I am not a fan of this ‘slaver’ talk in libertarian circles, but if it was ever warranted, it is here.

              Outside of necromancy, how, does one enslave the dead?

              1. “Potted plants only exist because someone took the time and effort to create them. Texas didn’t just sneak up on Mrs. Munoz and drop and baby in her uterus.”

                You still misunderstand, the potted plant analogy refers not to the original ‘planting’ but to the state using her body as the ‘grounds’ for the ‘child.’

                You yourself (drop of blood, clump of cells) talk as if the state could seize one’s body after death and use it for all kinds of experiments. That you do not see this as egregious because, hey it is a corpse, shows a failure to appreciate self-ownership in my opinion.

                1. You still misunderstand, the potted plant analogy refers not to the original ‘planting’ but to the state using her body as the ‘grounds’ for the ‘child.’

                  And you choose to ignore that Mr. and Mrs. Munoz originally “potted” the plant and intended to nuture the plant to its natural conclusion (viability), until her current condition developed. Now, the family claims that her earlier opinion and their own desires (removal from life support), should override her more recent desire (gestating a viable child).

                  Which intention should hold?

                  You yourself (drop of blood, clump of cells)

                  Still actively metabolizing and able to assert my will.

                  talk as if the state could seize one’s body after death and use it for all kinds of experiments.

                  What do you imagine the state could do with a corpse, outside of dissection and target practice?

                  That you do not see this as egregious because, hey it is a corpse, shows a failure to appreciate self-ownership in my opinion.

                  I know from personal experience that there are dozens of unclaimed corpses a city morgue at any given time. Who has possession of these bodies? Unless someone proves a better claim to the corpse, who has ownership of dead bodies? L’etat.

          2. I can’t believe you’re dealing with this as an abortion issue.
            The woman’s dead; if the state has power to keep a corpse preserved in the hopes some issue comes of if, that’s a state where I’d prefer not to live.

            1. In the grand scheme of things, I care a lot less about what the state does with my body after my consciousness has vacated it than what they wanted to do with it before. Massachusetts or Texas, I’m probably going Texas every time.

              1. PM|1.24.14 @ 8:20PM|#
                “In the grand scheme of things, I care a lot less about what the state does with my body after my consciousness has vacated it than what they wanted to do with it before.”

                How about if the state choses to ignore the agent you’ve appointed?
                How much power do you yield to the state?

                1. How about if the state choses to ignore the agent you’ve appointed?
                  How much power do you yield to the state?

                  My agent should rightly be upset, but the impact it has on me at that point is zip. So all things equal, I’d rather live in a state that disregards my rights after I’m dead than one that disregards them while I’m still alive (and of course it goes without saying I’d rather live in a state that respected my rights both while I was alive and in death, but want in one hand and shit in the other, as the saying goes).

                  Unfortunately for this young lady, it doesn’t sound as if she had a will or any appointed agent anyway – her husband is her agent by default as a result of marriage law. But even if she had, it sounds like the state law in question would have voided it due to her pregnancy. Ironically, it’s almost a kind of feminist statement: as a woman, she could have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, but a man can’t do it for her.

                  1. “it’s almost a kind of feminist statement: as a woman, she could have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, but a man can’t do it for her.”

                    Her wishes, best divined by her family I would say, were that she would not want to carry out a pregnancy under those conditions. That a woman would leave her stated bequests to a man to carry out for her implies no slap to any coherent feminism.

                    1. Her wishes, best divined by her family I would say, were that she would not want to carry out a pregnancy under those conditions.

                      If they have to be “divined”, we can’t be sure they are your wishes. These are best guesses regardless of outcome since she didn’t, from the sounds of the article, leave a will.

                      Anyway, it was a fucking joke. See, because it’s almost like the SOCONZ!!!! are behaving like feminists by not letting a man terminate a pregnancy. They finally agree on something! (Note that they don’t actually agree, and this is the source of the humor in the joke).

            2. I didn’t take it to abortion. I just thought the fanciful storytelling as lawyering was badly done, but now that we’re here, it does raise some interesting points.

              Our learned collegue of the Reason Bar, Bo Cara, asserts that a fetus is not alive, but is merely a “potential” life, and therefore has no rights that need be respected. Taking that as true solely for the sake of argument, if Mrs. Munoz is “legally dead,” and the dead have no rights that the state need respect, it stands to reason that Texas may dispose of her still metabolizing remains as it sees fit, since Moore v. Regents stated that a person does not have a property interest in their discarded cells and tissues, at least while alive. But as a part of a will, a person may convey their remains for the purpose of scientific study. Dying declarations don’t fly in questions of distribution of property and nuncupative wills have strict rules that I’m sure weren’t met if the woman just fell over one day.

              I think it’s more of a property issue than an abortion one, but since abortion is part of the KULTUR WARZ and we must fight the KULTUR WARZ forever and ever, might as well enjoy the fight.

              1. “the dead have no rights that the state need respect, it stands to reason that Texas may dispose of her still metabolizing remains as it sees fit”

                The love of the state in that statement boggles the mind. Does a person own themselves? Even if somehow your self-ownership ended with your death, why would the default be that your remains go to the state? That’s horrific.

                1. Soooo… Are you going to ignore the part where he destroys the foundation of your self-contradicting argument?

                2. Taking that as true solely for the sake of argument, if Mrs. Munoz is “legally dead,” and the dead have no rights that the state need respect, it stands to reason that Texas may dispose of her still metabolizing remains as it sees fit, since Moore v. Regents stated that a person does not have a property interest in their discarded cells and tissues, at least while alive.

                  Wow Bo. If I were a more suspicious person, I would take your selective editing to make my purely legal argument appear like a personal opinion as bad faith on your part.

                  But that would be silly.

        3. YEs, much better to use this woman’s body as essentially a potted plant base for the ‘child’ the state wants her to have.

          Good point. Doing that may anger the gods!!

    2. Axlotl.

      1. +1 ghola

  6. Patrick Kennedy, chairman of the anti-pot group Project SAM

    Remember, Republicans are the American Taliban. Democrats are good and just and socially progressive. They are not neo-Puritans in anyway, and don’t you dare suggest it.

  7. Is not this the same man who under the influence of several drugs crashed his car into a fountain?

    No zealot like a convert I guess.

    1. “Is not this the same man who under the influence of several drugs crashed his car into a fountain?”

      Yes it is and somehow he finds it unnecessary to mention that.

      1. Nothing but the music.

  8. Nice work, Nick.

    I only have one question for you, Nick. How do you resist punching one of the most punchable faces of all time? Especially when the face is on such a douchebag as Patrick Kennedy?

    I know, I know, this is why libertarians can’t have nice things and how it could get you forever banned from the cocktail party scene.

    Although Kennedy seems to believe that repealing alcohol prohibition was a mistake, he figures that bringing it back would be politically impractical

    Politically impractical? It’s impossible, you fucking moron.

    Look, just because YOU cannot control your own drinking, that doesn’t give you the right to ban it, or anything else, for everyone else. Fuck off, jackass.

  9. Ernest Istook (R-OK)

    “Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars warning about drugs, often about marijuana, but these efforts were dramatically undercut by the president’s comments.

    Mr. Obama might as well have rolled that money into a joint and smoked it on national television.

    It is impossible to reconcile that post with Mr. Obama’s failure to enforce federal drug laws against marijuana, and with his statement to The New Yorker about Colorado’s and Washington’s open violation of those laws, namely, “it’s important for it to go forward.”

    Why go forward? The president’s explanation is indeed a head-scratcher: “Because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

    Everyone in Colorado and Washington who puffs up is breaking the law ? federal law. And no law has a perfect rate of arrest and prosecution.”

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com…..z2rMeNVG2i
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    .

    1. Mr. Obama might as well have rolled that money into a joint and smoked it on national television

      If he would have done that, I could almost like him. Ok, I would still despise him, but it would make me despise him a little less.

      Everyone in Colorado and Washington who puffs up is breaking the law

      Fuck off, slaver.

      Ernest Istook (R-OK)

      I’m proud to be an okieidiot from Oklahomaistan…

      1. Everyone in Colorado and Washington who puffs up is breaking the law

        Sweet, I’m going to break the law shortly. Thanks, Ernest!

        1. You Washingtonians and Coloradians are such prima donnas now… Oh, WTF, I’m jealous, I admit it.

          Us Murlandians are still living in the dark ages. And it’s fucking 16 degrees outside! WTF? Cold and a primitive form of statist government? Might as well be living in Russia with Snowden.

        2. Episiarch isn’t waiting until Feb. 4th, he’s having a “super bowl” right now!

    2. Why is the Washington Times so fucking stupid on this issue? All of the sudden people at the Times hate the very federalism that they spend the rest of their time applauding.

      This is the second moronic editorial they’ve run about weed. It’s actually probably dumber than the one Emily Miller wrote.

      I especially love this part:

      Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars warning about drugs, often about marijuana, but these efforts were dramatically undercut by the president’s comments.

      Gee…maybe the answer is to stop spending all that fucking money on pearl clutching advertisements about weed.

      1. “Taxpayers” didn’t spend shit. The scumbags in the government stole their money and spent it on bullshit drug ads. Fuck you, Times. I will think of you when I smoke my first bowl of the night later.

      2. Oh, now I see why they run such idiotic articles. They got a 6000 comment thread out of it.

        I guess there’s no easier way to get tons of traffic to a website than to start an argument between drug warriors and libertarians.

      3. In fairness the fact they ran Istook’s commentary does not necessarily mean the paper itself endorses that view.

        1. Emily Miller is a senior opinion editor at the Washington Times and wrote an article that is almost identical to that one.

          1. I did not know that. Unfortunate.

  10. Well, I suppose Pat knows something about the dangers of alcohol.

    1. And sleeping pills.

      1. He should definitely experiment with combining large doses of both. I mean, who can be an expert without doing the proper research?

  11. They’re both dangerous, let’s ban them both. Also, guns, cars, and bad tempers.

    1. And fountains.

      I mean, who put THAT in the ROAD for heavens sake?

  12. Should people lose their freedom for any reason other than the initiatory use of force, threats of force or fraud?

    1. The answer is no, of course, I only respond to add that unless the threat or force can reasonably imply imminent danger I do not think they should lose any freedom over that either.

  13. I support marijuana legalization, though I doubt it’s safer, in the long term, than alcohol. I would like to see some actual science to support that assertion. But I do consider the cultural consequences of legalization. Pot is considered a SWPL drug, but’s it’s also a ghettotrash drug, and legalization will send the right message to the ghettotrash that their lifestyle is being officially tolerated. Not that there is anything wrong with letting them have their own lifestyle, the problem is that nearly all of them think that the rest of society should have to subsidize it. I can already imagine, the white conservative taxpayer of the future, complaining about the ghettotrash using his money to buy legal marijuana. All told, though, the consequences of prohibition are far worse.

    1. Hi Murikan, how you been?

      1. Crap, did I just spend time thoughtfully responding to American? The “ghettotrash” bit should have been a hint, I guess.

      2. This isn’t the first time someone thought I was “American.” I guess I don’t dress it(libertarianism) up in politically correct terminology like the rest of you do. I was a member of the Libertarian Party and I noticed the fact that it was as white as your typical stormfront conference. I understood the motivations of the individuals who join the libertarian party, and I understand why people like Tony call us “racist.” It is because while, unlike the tormfront folks, we don’t hate non-whites, we define our ideology in terms of protecting the political and economic systems of Western civilization, systems which the typical Black American simply doesn’t have much use for.

        1. systems which the typical Black American simply doesn’t have much use for.

          Doesn’t appear to be the case for most White Americans either, what’s your point?

          1. Liberals have a term “colorblind racism.” Although libertarians call this an oxymoron, it makes sense. The Libertarian Party, the “Tea Party,” and “conservative” organizations are almost wholly White. The taxpayers? White and Asian. “Productive people” in general? White and Asian. And who are the people’s libertarians don’t like? Government workers? Much more likely than private sector workers to be Black and Hispanic.(This holds across all education levels) People on welfare? 70% are Black and Hispanic. Does anyone believe that people do not notice these patterns?

            Doesn’t appear to be the case for most White Americans either, what’s your point?

            Libertarians love reducto ad absurdum logic, where anyone who opposes public schools is equivalent to Vladimir Lenin.

            1. The word is “reductio“. You’d think a self-described champion of Western civilization would know the most basic Latin.

            2. Liberals have a term “colorblind racism.” Although libertarians call this an oxymoron, it makes sense.

              No it doesn’t, and everything that follows these two sentences is idiotic.

              Racism requires treating people differently because of their race. If you’re opposed to government coercion regardless of whether government workers are black or white, then it is not racist.

              Good Lord. You’re obviously not American since he was actually brighter than you are.

              As for your ridiculous and racist argument that black people ‘don’t have much use’ for Western Civilization, how does that square with the fact that Europe itself has pretty much jettisoned its intellectual heritage without scary black people forcing them to do so? The French are more outright socialist than black Americans.

              1. Racism requires treating people differently because of their race.

                Classic liberal tactic, make up a bullshit definition of a word and then criticize anybody who doesn’t use your definition as an “idiot.” Your definition ignores decades of sociology on the subject, which defines racism much more broadly.

                1. make up a bullshit definition of a word and then criticize anybody who doesn’t use your definition as an “idiot.”

                  Yes, that’s precisely what you do when you substitute the plain language meaning of a word with:

                  decades of sociology

              2. As if “socialism” hasn’t been an integral part of Western Civilization since its inception. Not that I’d expect pilt-dumb man, who didn’t even know basic Latin phrases, to know how the Greeks distributed wealth. Much less the history of the Diggers and Levelers of English Civil War era Britain.

                But I’m sure his next post will be about how that’s all due to the perfidy of World Jewry.

                1. France was an autocratic monarchy until the late 1700’s, had a short period of mob rule, and then immediately reverted to a military dictatorship. They then had the monarchy come back, had a short Republic, and then had another violent revolution.

                  They also spent the second half of the 1900’s becoming progressively more socialist.

                  Where is this magical period of liberty in France that is supposedly the heritage of all Western Civilization?

                2. The Eskimos must have no agency. Everything that is done that benefits them just happened to be done accidentally by palefaces, anything that hurts them must be done by evil palefaces, for no reason whatsoever. The real problem is the Chinese, they control Hollywood and they are using it to insert pro-Chinese propaganda into the public life!

                  Note: I am not endorsing hatred against all Eskimos, only realism about them and their leaders.

                  1. For someone complaining about “political correctness”, you’re such a pussy that you can’t even write “Jew” when launching into your idiotic “ZOG” conspiracy theories. Not only that, you probably think your “eskimo” wink, wink, nudge, nudge is clever.

                    Not only are you a coward, you’re a fucking idiot.

                    1. A “coward?” Well, the NSA does collect all our data, something about “fighting terrorists” or whatever. Strange, a much easier method would simply be to not let the terrorists in the country in the first place. But the government wants to treat Americans like potential terrorists. A greatly underreported story has been the role of explicitly Eskimo organizations in suppressing left-wing opposition to the NSA program. But I’m sure that’s all a coincidence. Eskimo influence is not a conspiracy theory, but an easily verifiable fact.

                    2. j000000000000000s

                      Hey, NSA, j00000000000s. Jewy Jew Jew Jews.

                      I’ll let you know when the assassination squad arrives.

        2. we define our ideology in terms of protecting the political and economic systems of Western civilization

          You mean monarchy and feudalism or collectivist mob democracy? Because that’s what the lion’s share of Western history has been. The hill tribes of Southeast Asia have had a way of life closer to true liberty for more than 2000 years

          systems which the typical Black American simply doesn’t have much use for.

          Go fuck yourself.

          1. The hill tribes of Southeast Asia have had a way of life closer to true liberty for more than 2000 years

            Are you being sarcastic? This is like when you suggested that the China lobby has more control over American foreign policy than the Eskimo lobby. It simply does not compute.

            1. Are you being sarcastic?

              What you think is sarcasm is actually your ignorance. Time and time again, you consistently display your poor education in history, philosophy, economics, anthropology, linguistics, and many other fields of human endeavor. Anything I might write won’t “compute” with you as you don’t possess the knowledge to understand and appreciate it. I’ve known people with Down’s syndrome who have a better grasp of history and world affairs than you.

              In the meantime, Read a book and allow the adults to have a conversation without your childish yowling.

              1. Yes, because “lack of government” = “liberty.” Somalia is a libertarian paradise!

                1. Somalia has no government? Somebody should tell this guy.

                  You are so goddamn ignorant. Interacting with you is like seeing the proverbial pigeon playing chess: You hop up on the table, knock the pieces off the board before taking a shit on it, and then you strut around like you won.

                  1. Parts of the country are pretty anarchistic. The point is that there will always be somebody with a big stick who tries to achieve a monopoly on the use of force. It is human nature.

                    1. Parts of the country are pretty anarchistic.

                      Right. Those are the peaceful parts where people leave each other alone. The war and bloodshed are occurring in the cities where the Islamist warlords are attempting to take control of the government…the government…from the TFG.

                      Now that you’ve just proved my point, log off and step away from the computer for awhile.

                    2. Right. Those are the peaceful parts where people leave each other alone.

                      World’s stupidest libertarian statement? People leaving each other alone in Africa. What a riot!

                2. …”Somalia is a libertarian paradise!”…
                  Yes, folks, some idjit just posted this!

                  1. It was obvious sarcasm, dumbass.

                    1. Piltdown man|1.24.14 @ 9:01PM|#
                      “It was obvious sarcasm, dumbass.”

                      No, dipshit, given your demonstrated abysmal ignorance, there are few statements you could make which would be ‘obvious sarcasm’.
                      You’re plumbing the depths of stupidity, so we have every right to presume every stupid statement you post is in dead earnest.
                      You’ve dug the hole; eat the dirt, dipshit.

                    2. No it wasn’t, you fucking liar. You were attempting to disprove my point about the history of Zomia. But because you never heard about Zomia, you decided to reference Somalia. When the absurdity of your statement was exposed, you now claim it was “sarcasm”.

                      How old are you? 14?

                3. Somalia’s civil war occurred after its COMMUNIST government collapsed in the early 90’s.

                  The lesson of Somalia is that massive government intervention is unsustainable and results in anarchy after the government collapses. This is vastly different than a small and sustainable government, which is what America had throughout most of its history.

        3. we define our ideology in terms of protecting the political and economic systems of Western civilization

          I think you missed the boat on this whole libertarian thing. Because we base our ideology on the NAP.

          1. we base our ideology on the NAP.

            To say that the NAP isn’t a product of western philosophy would be to utterly ignore the origins of modern political thought. Of course it’s not exclusive to western philosophy, but in the political context in which we use it it’s largely a product of the enlightenment.

            1. Yeah, I’m not doing a very good job of expressing myself today.

              The point I was trying to convey was libertarian principle doesn’t include racism and bigotry. And him claiming to be a libertarian while being a racist doesn’t track.

              1. I also like that he’s a terrible racist who is basically trying to convince all of us that we’re secretly racists just like him.

                Yeah, okay.

                1. Lol, yeah, libertarians are racist as he’s he’s referring to j0000 conspiracies using code language, because NSA (and who’s ever heard of Tor?) and lecturing us on why black people can’t participate in western civilization. I hope one day he winds up in a thread arguing with Tony.

          2. Because we base our ideology on the NAP.

            Western civilization is not politically correct anymore. So get a three word acronym and that sums it up totally, and then watch as everyone bows down to the three word acronym. Adam Smith? Who’s that? John Locke? Never heard of him. Edmund Burke? Hell, I’ll even throw Ayn Rand in there. The NAP is only as powerful as the arguments in support of it. Libertarians, you may be surprised to discover, are human, their political orientation follows from their psychology.

            Lack of government does not equal lack of coercion. Usually, it is the opposite. Humans are naturally violent.

            1. Lack of government does not equal lack of coercion. Usually, it is the opposite. Humans are naturally violent.

              No shit. That’s why most of the people here argue that government should be around to punish people who use legitimate coercion or violence.

              There are some people here who are actually anarchists, but most of the commenters don’t believe in no government, just in a smaller government that isn’t openly opposed to the rights of citizens.

              Solid strawman you constructed though. Tell me more about these ‘ghettotrash’ you hate so much.

              1. Tell me more about these ‘ghettotrash’ you hate so much.

                It seems every year they get worse and worse. The Trayvon Martin fiasco perfectly illustrated the continuing problem. He was glorified not only by other thugs, but by the MSM and academia. No one wants to live around people like that, that’s why property costs so damn much.

                1. It seems every year they get worse and worse. The Trayvon Martin fiasco perfectly illustrated the continuing problem. He was glorified not only by other thugs, but by the MSM and academia. No one wants to live around people like that, that’s why property costs so damn much.

                  I don’t think Irish meant that literally, you fucking 10-gallon asshat.

              2. Solid strawman you constructed though.

                Don’t give him any undue credit. Even as strawmen go, it was actually a pretty lame one.

    2. Well, smoking is never going to be great for you, but there are other ways to ingest it. I think it depends a lot on what kind of drinker you are talking about. Someone who has a drink or two several nights a week is probably not going to suffer any more than someone with a similar pot smoking habit and possibly less. But I think that it is pretty obvious that someone who gets drunk every day for a long time is going to end up in much worse shape than someone who smokes a bunch of weed every night. I’ve seen plenty of both and there really is no comparison. It’s one of those things that you really don’t need to do research to see, sort of like tobacco being bad for you. At least when used to excess, I think alcohol is more comparable to hard drugs than to pot.

    3. Is pot somehow more “ghettotrash” than booze?

      1. Is pot somehow more “ghettotrash” than booze?

        Budweiser and rotgut vs absinthe and Chateau Margaux. Perhaps someday a similar social stratification of pot will take place.

  14. MNG used to go off on Pilt-down Man on years of global warming threads.

    For you newcomers MNG was unintentional comedy gold.

    1. Global warming is pretty close to a scientific fact. A lot of the deniers base their belief on “I don’t want it to be true,” or “they(Marxists, “the government,” whatever) are responsible for it, it’s a conspiracy!” Seems a lot like creationism to me.

      1. ^Unlike this lame sockpuppet^

      2. Tell us more about colorblind socialism while talking about how much you hate ‘ghettotrash.’

        You know, real scientific arguments.

        1. You are a big fan of ghettotrash, undoubtedly.

          1. I am! They’re playing in the Superbowl, right?

    2. Yes, it’s a shame that John got sole custody of Hit n’ Run after their divorce.

  15. No one in history has overdosed using pot.

    1. Sometime a couple weeks ago my mother got one of those stupid Facebook chain political messages that claimed something like 24 people had overdosed and died on marijuana in CO since the ban had been lifted, and believed it.

      I think I managed to convince her that it was fucking impossible, but I’m not sure. Some people seem desperate to believe that this is going to be the end of civilization.

      1. “Some people seem desperate to believe that this is going to be the end of civilization.”

        I understand the Tonys of the world clinging to the fantasy of the New Soviet Man; that sort of ignorant romanticism has polluted humanity for a long time.
        But I agree here; WIH investment can there be in hating some damn leaf people smoke?

  16. Come on man, lets jsut roll wioth it dude.

    http://www.AnonWork.tk

  17. Rap Man Dolittle said that is very cool indeed.

    http://www.Anon-Stuff.tk

  18. You cannot be anti-marijuana without being anti-everything else that is much more harmful including alcohol. Kennedy looks like a hypocritical fool now.

  19. I don’t care if pot is more harmfull than alcohol. So long as the problems that come from smoking are born by the individual it is no one else’s business. Your life is yours to achieve or fail as you will. My life, and the mistakes and successs in it are not your concern.
    So, with all due respect, Mr. Kennedy, Shut the hell up and leave me alone!

  20. Pot is not safe.

    Neither is alcohol safe. So what?

    It’s nobody else’s business whether adults choose to recreate with pot, alcohol, bicycles or tomatoes.

  21. Ok, so can we finally turn our attention back to Alcohol regulation?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.