Rape

To Reduce Campus Rape, Legalize Pot and Alcohol

Reefer madness in reverse

|

Shmacked
I'm Shmacked / Youtube

Would full legalization of marijuana reduce rape on college campuses? There is an argument to be made that kids who substitute pot for alcohol are less likely to behave violently; increasing access to weed gives students the option to put down the bottle.

Let's call this argument "reverse reefer madness." New York Magazine's Annie Lowrey makes a surprisingly strong case for it in a recent article:

There's a fun thing that economists and public-policy types think might cut back on alcohol-fueled violence, too: the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. The studies are a little thinner and shakier here. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that young people tend to substitute pot for alcohol. They either burn one down or chug one down; more pot means less beer. And there's also evidence that increasing the price of beer nudges young people to switch to pot — with some significant effects, including lower rates of violent crime. "Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship," according to one paper in the journal Addictive Behaviors. "Cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication."

She may be on to something here. As readers of Reason know, there is nothing particularly dangerous or mind-warping about moderate marijuana use; people who smoke pot don't suddenly become violent criminals. And while the overwhelming majority of people who drink do so safely, it's true that alcohol—not marijuana—is the drug most-commonly associated with actual violence. This is especially true of campus rape, the occurrences of which almost always involve severe alcohol abuse.

There are already many good reasons to support the legalization of marijuana—a de-escalation of the financially costly and socially destructive War on Drugs chief among them—but it never hurts to add another. If legal weed has a diminishing effect on the campus rape crisis as well, great.

Lowrey deserves credit for raising this proposition. She also deserves praise for writing honestly about campus rape and the role that binge-drinking plays. Alcohol, she recognizes, is the rapist's weapon of choice, "increases aggression," and "makes victims more vulnerable to abuse."

Keeping all that in mind, Lowrey suggests an all-out war on alcohol as another method to reduce rape. Her vision is essentially a reconstituted Prohibition:

Impose higher taxes on alcoholic beverages. Add extra levies on the purchase of large amounts of alcohol, like kegs or handles. Slap fees on liquor stores that are located near college campuses. Ban the sale of alcohol near schools. Colleges and universities themselves could also try to influence the price of drinking — charging sororities, fraternities, and social organizations for throwing parties, say, or barring them from offering alcohol for free. A college rager with a cash bar asking $5 a Solo cup is no college rager at all, hard though that rule might be to enforce.

And that's where Lowrey and I part company. What she fails to note is that most college students already live under a Prohibitionist regime. Drinking is illegal for the under-21 crowd. Getting caught drinking means paying a fine at a minimum—and possibly facing much worse, even life-altering, consequences. Underage drinkers face massive potential costs, but that doesn't seem to deter college binge-drinking. Lowrey would prefer to hit them up-front with the taxes rather than police them afterward, and maybe that's a more viable approach. Still, making alcohol harder to obtain means driving the culture underground. Fraternities already fill the niche of providing booze to those who can't legally purchase it—has this proved to be a suitable arrangement in the eyes of anti-rape activists? What if they also fill the niche of providing booze to those who can neither afford nor legally purchase it? And I simply don't think it's possible (even if desirable), using the methods Lowrey proposes, to restrict the alcohol supply so completely that everybody defects to pot.

I don't want to create stronger black markets for illicit substances, where the most dangerous kinds of abuse emerge and go untreated. Instead of driving campus drinking culture even further underground—while adding an aura of extravagance to it—let's permit local decision-makers to experiment with a different approach. I expect they would find that lawlessness, excess, and violence are worsened by a Prohibitionist approach, whether the substance is alcohol, marijuana, or anything else.

More from Reason on the case for repealing the National Minimum Drinking Age Act here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ira Stoll on Obama's State of the Union Tax Hike

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. I don’t want to create stronger black markets for illicit substances, where the most dangerous kinds of abuse emerge and go untreated.

    So you want the young, impressionable, weak-minded children to abuse more drugs?? /faints

    1. Why does he hate the children?!

  2. I went to a school that was pretty lax about pot smoking, so maybe my perception is a bit skewed, but is there really anyone in college who doesn’t smoke weed if they want to? Is the legal disincentive any stronger than for underage drinking?

    That said, I think there is something to the idea. At least in my experience, people are a lot less likely to do dumb shit when they are stoned than when they are drunk. And when you combine the two, it tends to moderate the drinking. Of course, everything should be legalized in any case.

    1. Hey Zeb.

      Hold my beer…

      …watch this!

  3. Why don’t we simply ban rape? And college? I guess an enterprising legislature could ban college rape specifically, but I’m not sure you could build the coalition needed for such sweeping change.

  4. “As readers of Reason know, there is nothing particularly dangerous or mind-warping about moderate marijuana use”

    What is that supposed to mean?

    1. I mean really, just look at Nicole. Talk about warped.

      1. I was born this way, jerk.

        1. That’s even worse! Which is, I suppose, appropriate.

          1. I’d like to get high with her.

              1. This was on the panel on the above page. Warning, there should probably be a whole lot of trigger (or barf) warnings.

                1. THIS was what I should have included:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N275m4GD10g

              2. It would be hilarious if the car-fucker was just trolling My Strange Addiction.

                1. The world’s greatest Youtube comment:

                  Supaanimiefan69cabbage4 months ago

                  To be fair if my room mate looked like that I would fuck my car too. ?

  5. “Wow, man, look on the boobs on that chick…maybe I should go up and rape her…or maybe I could have another puff on my doobie…heck with it, another puff wouldn’t hurt…now, where was I?”

  6. “Yo, after a hard day playing football, what I really need is find some fine ass to tap…marijuana? Don’t mind if I do…hmmm, you know, maybe I’ve been objectifying women too much…maybe I should drop football and sign up for some yoga classes…”

    “Jones! What are you up to? Smoking that reefer again?”

    “Uh, sorry, coach, but it makes me feel so mellow…”

    “I’ve seen this problem before…here, have some Miller…”

    “OK, coach…wow, look at the gazongas on that chick.”

    “Great, you’re cured, except don’t look at me while saying that, it creeps me out.”

    1. “here, have some Miller…”

      miller? what are we, dock workers?

      BLACK LABEL

      1. What can I say, he’s a tough coach. Kind of sadistic, too.

      2. You know, the first time that I ever tasted beer, me and my cousin stole some beers from the fridge in my uncle’s garage. To this day, I’m not sure if I thought the taste was so utterly horrible because it was the first time I had ever tasted beer, or because it was Black Label. That’s all my uncle ever drank. And that’s the first and last time I ever drank Black Label.

        1. That’s what my dad drank as well. Mom drank Busch light. I was happy when dad had enough money for a bottle if Beam.

          1. I work with a guy who only drinks Busch light. I’m sure he can afford to drink whatever beer he wants, but he drinks Busch light.

            Well fuck, people make fun of me for liking Heineken. Beer snobs, they’ve gotten almost as bad as ‘wine tasters’, and I hate wine tasters almost as much as I hate proggies.

            1. We always drank Milwaukee light back in the day. We were always playing quarters so it really didn’t matter. I like the craft beers especially a good stout but after one or two crafts I’m back to Miller Light.

          2. When I was younger we visited family in Wisconsin and my great uncle Black Label milkshakes with vanilla ice cream. I remembered this when I got older so of course I had to try it. Its as terrible as it sounds.

            1. My brother-in-law used to mix lime flavored vodka with coke and call it motor oil. It did look exactly like motor oil and probably didn’t taste any better, it was awful.

            2. My dad’s cousin made “white Russians” when I was kid. His were mint chocolate chip ice cream, ice, and vodka mixed in the blender. He let me taste it and I loved it.

              1. Kalua sells those bottled white russians and b52s. Years back I used to get them. I have to stay away from them because I love chugging cold chocolate milk which is what those taste like.

  7. “Ban the sale of alcohol near schools.”

    UC Berkeley had this rule for liquor stores. So there was a liquor store exactly 5,283 feet from campus. Didn’t seem to make a difference.

    1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|1.19.15 @ 7:15PM|#
      “Ban the sale of alcohol near schools.”

      “UC Berkeley had this rule for liquor stores. So there was a liquor store exactly 5,283 feet from campus. Didn’t seem to make a difference.”
      ————
      Remember the collection of liquor stores west of 101 at the Stanford exit? They were exactly 5,280 from the school entrance.
      Hey, at least the undergrads learned how many feet in a mile!

      1. I don’t remember that, but probably because I was already drunk every time I went to Stanford.

    2. Banning alcohol in entire counties didn’t make any difference. Banning it in an entire country didn’t make a difference! And these luddite puritans think they can stop people from drinking by banning it near schools? Idiots.

      1. Prohibition made a huge dent in alcohol comsumption. Also in domestic violence and I would imagine rape.The argument that it made no differnce is absurd. Maybe it was a misguided policy but it was enacted the right way through constitutional amendment and made a lot of differnce.

        1. Sam Haysom|1.19.15 @ 7:57PM|#
          “Prohibition made a huge dent in alcohol comsumption. Also in domestic violence and I would imagine rape.”…

          Something made a huge dent in Sam’s IQ!
          Sam, I want a cite, and I want that cite to include ALL the illegal alcohol consumption and I want proof that your domestic violence claims are correct.
          Naah, let’s just accept that you’re full of shit.

          1. You don’t think Prohibition decreased alcohol consumption any? I think it was an awful policy violative of people’s liberty rights, but that seems to be contrary to a basic understanding of economics…

            1. Bo, I’m sure the opinion of an insufferable twit like you is important.
              To your mom.

              1. It’s not my opinion that your mother finds important Sevo, but something else altogether.

        2. Prohibition made a huge dent in alcohol comsumption. Also in domestic violence and I would imagine rape.The argument that it made no differnce is absurd. Maybe it was a misguided policy but it was enacted the right way through constitutional amendment and made a lot of differnce.

          Citation needed. I especially need a citation given that I’m a bit skeptical that government agents in 1925 had the ability to judge how much alcohol was being consumed illegally. How could they have known how much booze was getting drunk if it was all illegal and underground?

          Here’s an actual citation, buddy.

          The authors estimate that alcohol consumption dropped sharply immediately after prohibition, but then rebounded and, according to the paper, “consumption increased to approximately its pre-prohibition levels during the subsequent decade.”

          The data is very mixed because no one knows how much alcohol was being consumed illicitly.

          1. I don’t see how that could be. Prohibition enforcers were certainly overwhelmed, corrupt and incompetent as can be expected in a federal agency, but surely the raised price of alcohol because of ‘tax’ of it being illegal would discourage some consumption.

            1. http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html

              The major effect of the Eighteenth Amendment was to dramatically reduce beer drinking (and therefore total alcohol consumption). At the same time, prohibition increased consumption of hard liquor (especially among the middle class). The fashionableness of the martini and other mixed drinks among the middle class is in part a historical legacy of prohibition, when criminalization made hard liquor the most available form of beverage alcohol.

              http://object.cato.org/sites/c…../pa157.pdf

              Second, consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been
              declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922.
              Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in
              1933.[6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing
              resources devoted to enforcement.[7] That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1, is to be expected after an entire
              industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while
              consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.

              Bo, we can do this all day. The evidence is mixed.

              1. It makes no sense. When the government bans paying a worker something below X dollars an hour does that increase the number of such employment situations being offered? By this logic we should get the government to start banning all kinds of things under penalty of law.

                1. Bo, you’re ignoring a host of things:

                  1. Government taxes on alcohol. The increased cost of running from law enforcement would be partially offset by not having to deal with government taxes.

                  2. Substitution. As the first article mentions, hard liquor increased and beer decreased. This is because hard liquor is easier to transport due to having more alcohol by volume. Therefore, if you were blowing a lot of money on beer (which has a higher cost to alcohol ratio) you could certainly drink the same amount of alcohol at the same or lower cost because you’re now buying a different type of drink.

                  1. Taxes are a pain, but it’s hard to see them outweighing serving years in a federal pen or being gunned down by some agent.

      2. According to the Wikipedia entry, Finland’s total prohibition paralleled that of the USA not only in time but in results. However, anybody here know what the experience of prohibition was like in Iceland?

        1. I assume it cost more to smuggle booze to Iceland because of its geographical isolation. That might’ve made Prohibition a little easier to enforce.

          But I don’t know for certain.

  8. There are already many good reasons to support the legalization of marijuana?a de-escalation of the financially costly and socially destructive War on Drugs chief among them

    Since we are all libertarians here (at least the cool people are) can’t we simply leave it at:

    What I choose to put in my body is no one’s fucking business but mine!

    Doing it for the social good makes us sound like progs.

    Oh and…fuck off slavers!

    1. “we are all libertarians here”

      Who’s “we,” paleface?

    2. “Doing it for the social good makes us sound like progs.”

      Thank you for making the point in more concise fashion.

      1. But progs are influential, so why not sound like progs?

    3. But what if the slavers don’t fuck off? Got to give them reasons to stop slavin’.

      Liberty is never made primarily by libertarians, but as a byproduct of a wide range of other motiv’ns.

      1. It’s like some people are unfamiliar with long time libertarian arguments about, say, the minimum wage (increases unemployment, especially among black youth), drug prohibition (puts disproportionately high numbers of black men in prison), etc. No, libertarians are only allowed to leap onto a soapbox and yell (rightfully) that these things violate the NAP.

        As a fan of the NAP I don’t see much problem with arguing that progressives (or conservatives for that matter) should see that the violations of it might lead to results they should be against.

  9. I find the phrase “To reduce Campus Rape….” [insert whatever bullshit policy happens to be your pet-issue for the moment]

    … to first require 1) a demonstration that ‘Campus Rape’ is a ‘problem’ relative to ‘rape-in-the-real-world-rape’…

    …and 2) that it is a ‘problem’ that can’t be addressed by students themselves and the colleges they attend, rather than some outside group of hand-wringing activists and Sugar Daddy Big Government working in concert to get up in everyone’s shit and create a One-Size-Fits-All policy-prescription.

    I think the idea of trying to tie in ‘liberalization of drug and alcohol policy’ as part of the current “Rape-narrative” is… well, fucking idiotic.

    Not that i don’t entirely support liberalization of those things.

    its just that those things should be legitimate issues completely apart from the entirely-contrived liberal-media narrative about the victimization of women in colleges.

    i.e. Not everything is either a ’cause of’ or ‘solution to’ … Rape…

    Also – the premise itself justifies the existence of these horrible people who’ve made a career writing idiotic articles about non-existent issues

    1. Gilmore, I think you’re a ‘Conservative Justice Warrior.’ You’re so intent on fighting the cultural war against feminists that you get upset when someone proposes to advance liberty because they’ve tied it to something SJW’s go on about. Soave didn’t make any exaggerated claims about rape on campus, he didn’t say it was particularly bad or an epidemic, he just takes something that shouldn’t be controversial, that reducing actual rape on campus is something people should want to see happen and connects it to a long time libertarian goal.

      1. ” reducing actual rape on campus is something people should want to see happen and connects it to a long time libertarian goal.”

        You ignore the actual point i made to instead make a pathetic appeal.

        which was = the causes are themselves worthy enough on their own to not need justification along the lines of “…and *maybe* it will reduce rape too!”

        because tying the issues together implies that the purpose of de-regulation *is to achieve specific social-justice goals*

        Which shouldn’t be the necessary motivating factor for deregulation. Deregulation, liberalization of choice, etc. is and should be defended on its own merits rather than by piggy backing on some bullshit progressive cause-celebre-du-jour.

        now go make me a sandwich you silly cunt

        1. Pointing out that de-regulation achieves worthy social goals doesn’t mean at all that there are no other justifications for the de-regulation. At the worst it just adds another potentially attractive reason for people to support it. Just stop.

          1. “Pointing out that de-regulation achieves worthy social goals”

            There’s absolutely no evidence that it does. There’s speculation that it might.

            and “at worst” …

            it is tying the very concept of

            whether or not a given policy is a good idea‘ …

            to

            …’whether it achieves the social engineering aims of a hyperventilating class of self-anointed victims who insist on dictating the moral agenda for society

            You are completely wrong that there’s no ‘downside’.

            It is basing the very idea of ‘merits of deregulation’ on ‘its social effect’. Government should not be in the business of engineering social-results by top-down legislation, and saying “X is worthy if it reduces [crime that is already declining on its own to record-low levels]

            “just stop”

            Does actually thinking this through hurt your head? Get a pillow.

            1. It just says that there likely will be this additional benefit to advancing liberty beyond the increase in liberty itself. That liberty ‘works’ for society is hardly something uncommon among libertarian claims, it’s just another reason to be for something.

              But you’ve determined that anyone who thinks campus rape should be combated must be a SJW up to no good, ignoring the actual claim made (Soave does none of the exaggerating of a SJW on this) or the proposed solution (here, advancing a long time libertarian goal).

              1. “you’ve determined that anyone who thinks campus rape should be combated must be a SJW up to no good”

                For an aspiring lawyer, you have remarkably poor reading skills.

                try again

                1. It just says that there likely will be this additional benefit to advancing liberty beyond the increase in liberty itself.

                  A statement Gilmore already answered when he said:

                  There’s absolutely no evidence that it does. There’s speculation that it might.

                  You then say:

                  But you’ve determined that anyone who thinks campus rape should be combated must be a SJW up to no good, ignoring the actual claim made (Soave does none of the exaggerating of a SJW on this) or the proposed solution (here, advancing a long time libertarian goal).

                  I did a quick word search and discovered that (surprisingly!) Gilmore at no point used the term ‘SJW.’ So you’re putting words in his mouth in order to attack a strawman in no way related to Gilmore’s actual argument.

                  1. What’s his beef about Soave referring to campus rape as a ‘problem’ about then?

                    His entire complaint is an oh noes this plays right into the SJW’s hands!

                    Again, it’s like he’s never seen libertarians argue for a policy by noting it will have positive effects other than just increasing liberty.

                    1. “What’s his beef about Soave referring to campus rape as a ‘problem’ about then?”

                      For an aspiring lawyer, you have what should probably be described as a crippling reading disability

                      The above points were numbered and paragraphed for you and everything. Do you study law via pop-up books?

                      nevermind the first 2 paragraphs i wrote, but then there was the little sidebar of adding,

                      “rape as a whole being in secular decline for almost 2 decades *sans* any social-engineering by the federal government”

                      But please, feel free to go on insisting that we should tie our de-regulatory cart to a non-existent rape-horse, and that thinking otherwise is some kind of Social-Conservative anti-crusade

                    2. And since you do have such difficulty reading, i will except relevant portion here =

                      “And that’s the real college rape hoax. Because the truth is that there’s no epidemic outbreak of college rape. In fact, rape on college campuses is ? like rape everywhere else in America ? plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It’s thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that “We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic,”..)

                      According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). (Note: not 1 in 5). What’s more, between 1997 and 2013, rape against women dropped by about 50%,…

                      …This kind of hysteria may be ugly, but for campus activists and bureaucrats it’s a source of power: If there’s a “campus rape crisis,” that means that we need new rules, bigger budgets, and expanded power and self-importance for all involved, with the added advantage of letting you call your political opponents (or anyone who threatens funding) “pro rape.” If we focus on the truth, however …then voters, taxpayers, and university trustees will probably decide to invest resources elsewhere. So for politicians and activists, a phony crisis beats no crisis.”

                      Please go on telling me how there’s no downside to participating in the Phony Crisis game.

                    3. Botard finds a new thread

    2. first require 1) a demonstration that ‘Campus Rape’ is a ‘problem’ relative to ‘rape-in-the-real-world-rape’

      No, just the idea that rape is less tolerable among collegians than among the proles.

      1. Soave doesn’t imply anything of the sort, he just takes something everyone should be against regardless of its relative magnitude to any other such thing and says ‘well, hey, here’s a libertarian friendly way to combat this.’

    3. Well, many states liberalized their consumer fireworks laws in the 1970s to go with the hype of the USA’s bicentennial; patriotism sold liberty rather than vice versa. The Arab oil embargos led states to repeal their laws against hitchhiking, so liberty was sold again on the basis of patriotism and/or environmentalism.

      Sorry, but it just so happens that freedoms often ride the backs of other movements. Grasp whatever straws ya got.

      1. “freedoms often ride the backs of other movements. Grasp whatever straws ya got.”

        Certainly.

        I was just pointing out that it seems that there isn’t really any genuine ‘rape crisis‘ to combat. I’m generally not a fan of stringing my dinghy to a sinking ship.

        If selling the concept of ‘loosening government controls over personal consumption choices’ had the slightest actual prospect of gaining traction by connecting itself to some other successful and burgeoning ‘movement’, I’d be all for it.

        To the contrary = the people associated with this particular ‘moral panic’ are far more likely to use the issue to further circumscribe personal liberty.

        The smart thing to do would be to de-fang the ‘campus rape’ issue by revealing it to be a non-event.

        Then we could get back to the normal business of convincing people that they are the best custodians of their own fortunes, and not the Nanny State.

    4. Can’t we just teach men not to rape? I mean, I had never thought of that until I read it in a hashtag.

      1. “Can’t we just teach men not to rape?”

        I seem to vaguely recall an ‘anti-rape’ program from my youth which was referred to as the ‘Criminal Justice System’.

        Back in the old days, if you raped someone, why = they’d throw you in a prison for years and years. And you’d come out with a social-stigmata that was less than ideal

        From what i understand all of this has been done away with, and rapists are just accidentally stumbling from rape to rape now, and no one even bothers to tell them its *impolite*. How times have changed.

  10. Since we are all libertarians here (at least the cool people are) can’t we simply leave it at:

    1. Shit.

      That was for Eddie. I probably wouldn’t fuck up so much if I smoked weed instead of drinking.

      1. Thank you so much.

  11. It’s amazing how the go-to solution for so many “thinkers” and pundits is always force. ALWAYS. No other option is even considered for an instant. Nope, force is always the way to go. Even when they have a slightly less force-heavy impulse like legalizing something, as soon as they spit that out they then turn and go double on the force to compensate.

    Such intelligent, enlightened minds these people have.

    1. Such intelligent, enlightened minds these people have

      There’s an easier way to say that: luddites.

    2. So, cajole them into allowing something, and then demonstrate that that something worked.

  12. OK thats the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

    http://www.BestAnon.tk

    1. Seriuosly Anon Everyone knows pot makes you horny. Jamaican viagra.

  13. Based on 20+ years of patrol experience I can say that imheaeo … I agree

    People are far less prone to violence after smoking pot vs after drinking, whether it’s assaults towards us (cops) , domestic partners, or other dudes

    Now one could argue those inclined to CHOOSE pot over alcohol were already less inclined to violence (different populations) and I’m not saying there aren’t some issues correlation/causation and different populations but I have seen too many examples of guys who are prone to violence after alcohol but prone to laffing at dumb jokes and hanging out on couch after pot

    We all know cocaine intensifies your personality (but what if you are an asshole) otoh

    Btw, Jon Bones Jones tested positive for cocaine.. Oops

    1. Don’t forget the “smooches” thing. That’s kinda like putting “QED” at the end, right?

    2. Beat it, sock.

  14. Legal pot and alcohol for those 18 years and older would clearly, although indirectly, drastically reduce campus rape. Someone should write a thorough book on this topic…

    1. If there has to be a legal age, I would put it no greater than 15 – especially for alcohol. Responsible consumption should be learned from one’s parents.

  15. This won’t be a serious proposal for them because it doesn’t increase anyone’s power over anyone else or provide any bureaucratic jobs.

    1. No, but there’ll always be a line somewhere to police, so it shouldn’t be a threat to them, just a relocation.

  16. Amotivational syndrome saps the will to rape? Perhaps they should genetically engineer some estrogen in the weed just to be doubly sure.

    1. Just put G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate in the water.

      1. + 1 actual rape culture

        Wait, that sounded terrible. I denounce myself.

  17. Want to reduce “rape” on campus? Based on recent history, it might be a good idea to belabor every feminist on campus with a nine-iron until they scurry for the gate.

  18. You fellows clucked in approval at that French, sharvtzer antisemite said I am the murderer of the four Jews at that hypercacher (kosher market). Well, Israel has killed your buddies in Hezbollah. I hope you’re enjoying that spectacle (snicker). Je suis Zahal (Israeli Defense Forces).

    Now to nuke your friends in Iran before they nuke Israel.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here (I don’t regard myself as cool either. I gave Greg Gutfield’s book to my nephew).

    1. Are…are you trying to say “shvartze”, Underschmuck? It’s kind of hilarious that you can’t even spell Yiddish racial epithets right.

      1. The schmendrick can barely spell in English and you expect him to spell Yiddish correctly?

        1. Speaking of which drerd not dreyt.

        2. Considering that he considers himself Super Zionist, you’d think he might put a little effort in. Maybe he just had too much Manischewitz.

      2. Though somehow not that surprising.

    2. Brilliant satire on the level of Shalom Aleichem. Speaking of which, du zol vaksen vi a tzibbeleh mit dem kup in dreyt. You meeskite chazzer.

  19. p.s. Ironically, Greg Gutfield’s book mentions “Reason Magazine” quite favorably.

    1. Noted.

      Please, do go on.

    2. I rarely see this troll. Do his posts get rapidly deleted?

      Or is he …

      Gamboling???

      1. Nah, he’s been around for quite awhile. Just doesn’t post very often in the last few years.

  20. Scott Walker says he has a Master’s Degree in ‘taking on the big government special interests,’ so Daily Kos publishes an article claiming Scott Walker’s a liar because he doesn’t even have a Master’s Degree.

    He does not get to say he has a non-existent master’s degree. He has not earned one?he does not know what non-traditional students have to sacrifice for their education. He has never wondered if he will have enough money for food after he pays his tuition bill, or if he can afford diapers after purchasing a textbook. He has never slaved away for months on something, putting heart and soul into it, only to have a professor rip it to shreds in less than five minutes, and to have loved ones walk out of your life.

    Clearly Walker wasn’t speaking metaphorically there.

    However much this guy spent on his education, it’s too much.

    1. Wow, that is some hilarious literalism by Kos. Laughable.

    2. Dammit, that’s a Priviledged Metaphor, and we won’t have any of that! Where did I put my canned soapbox paragraph?

    3. Two degrees in be-bop/
      A PhD in swing/
      He’s a master of rhythm/
      He’s a rock and roll king.

      And I don’t think those came from accredited schools…

      1. I await the expos? Kos article.

    4. He has never slaved away for months on something, putting heart and soul into it, only to have a professor rip it to shreds in less than five minutes

      Ummm…because we don’t give a shit about heart and soul?

      1. I get the feeling this guy was a really terrible student who is basically taking out his own intellectual failings on anyone who will listen.

        1. Look at that fucking avatar picture*.

          *I realize the term “avatar picture” makes me sound like I’m 90…but what else do you call it?

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHA! That guy’s published 455 total posts and 118 of them involve Scott Walker.

            Mildly obsessed, aren’t we?

            1. “National Writers Union,” *snort*. I have a few good stories about them I can’t tell here. But: *snort*.

              1. Aw, come on! Don’t leave us hanging!

                1. Sorry, stature of limitations… heh.

          2. *I realize the term “avatar picture” makes me sound like I’m 90…but what else do you call it?

            Just “avatar” usually…or “avy” if you’re trying to be cute.

          1. That video for some reason reminds me of the film ‘Oldboy’, which is equally fucked up.

    5. To be fair it would be really hilarious if some online education service like Liberty Classroom gave him a honorary Master’s Degree in Taking on the Big Government Special Interests in response.

      1. The comments are especially amazing because half of them don’t seem to realize how fucking stupid this is:

        Why are they such born again liars? Is it the parenting,their religiouse beliefs,their genetic disposition to constantly lie? There should be an indepth study on them.
        Walker is a joke! How they keep voting these mindless,bought politicians in is amazing. Could it be mass hypnotising for the weak willed? Walker is the most pathetic excuse for a politician. He will do anything to stay in the good with the Kochs. His soul is non existent as he thrives on being a horses rear end to his constituents. Can’t wait until voters wake up. Maybe when it really starts to affect them it will awaken them.

        I have a high school diploma. No college. Everyone in town knows this, I state that where it is relevant, yet I was re-elected to my village board (city council).

        Something tells me if I were to try for a major office (state senator, governor, &c, and assuming I had the ability to do the job), my lack of college would be used against me.

        Never mind the issue that most any politician leans on experts in various fields to inform their decision-making.

        Maybe its just me, but I would rather have a politician that states he or she needs expert advice rather than one that claims to be an expert (or worse, one like Governor Walker that insinuates through his speech that he is one).

        The fuck’s a metaphor? /Daily Kos

    6. He has never slaved away for months on something, putting heart and soul into it, only to have a professor rip it to shreds in less than five minutes, and to have loved ones walk out of your life.

      Slave away.. at a Master’s thesis? Haha right… I have a master’s degree and I never experienced my supervisor ripping apart my submitted work… maybe this person should not hand in an awful piece of shit thesis? Master’s degrees are not that tough. And if your supervisor is a mean piece of shit, you probably should have figured that out before deciding to team up with him/her.

      And what exactly does “have loved ones walk out of your life” have to do with the first part of the sentence? From this one sentence, I can see why this persons supervisor may have torn apart their thesis.

      1. It almost sounds like they’re projecting sad parts of their own life onto the entire concept of university education.

      2. Master’s degrees are not that tough.

        2 long hard years of coursework. Two. Years.

        1. C’man, HM. That’s, like, 622 days!

      3. You should read the rest of the article. It’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen:

        It would be over 10 years before I would return to a classroom as a non-traditional student, and after my GI Bill expired. I was a 40-year-old single father when I received my bachelor’s degree. I sacrificed a lot to earn that degree to give my family a better life. I worked full time and went to school full time. I gave up time with my then-wife and son to complete assignments. I had a lot of sleepless nights and missed weekends. I had to write papers while on the phone with a divorce attorney. (Want a challenge? Take a course on wealth and power in America while in the middle of a divorce.)

        When I look back at what my education cost me, precious time with my son, and a relationship with a woman I loved deeply, I am filled with rage when I hear that Walker claims to have a non-existent master’s degree. He is no better than wannabe soldiers who parade around in military uniforms claiming to be something they are not.

        I have a feeling that if the woman you ‘loved deeply’ left you as you pursued a college degree, it wasn’t because of the college degree. There were probably some underlying issues there.

        1. Couldn’t possibly be his own behaviour, has to be the slaving over a Master’s Degree…and interestingly enough if the ‘woman you loved deeply’ dumped you for that I’d say you dodged a bullet, but then again divorce and a kid.

        2. Getting a university degree was the easiest fucking thing I ever did.

          I wonder what his grades were like.

          This guy should go into drama.

        3. He really has never heard someone use the “I have a PhD in *fill in some cool/ridiculous thing*” saying has he?

          This guy sounds like a sad little man who is using his hatred for repubs as an excuse to talk about his marriage failing.

          1. And he heroically got a lousy degree in between all those challenges!

          2. He really has never heard someone use the “I have a PhD in *fill in some cool/ridiculous thing*” saying has he?

            No, he sincerely believes that PhD stands for “Pimpin’ Hoes Degree“.

        4. Take a course on wealth and power in America

          I imagine that this particular course wasn’t exactly extolling the virtues of wealth creation.

          1. When I look back at what my education cost me, precious time with my son, and a relationship with a woman I loved deeply

            Probably because Big Ed filled your head with “EDUCATION IS CRUCIAL” and you took that to mean “To the detriment and exclusion of everything else in my life”. The people you fell out with probably resented you putting your fucking education ahead of everything else, all the time.

            Education is important, but like anything else, it’s not everything.

        5. Take a course on wealth and power in America while in the middle of a divorce

          OK… does he say what he mastered, because from that description, I don’t think his degree was going to give his family a better life.

      4. So your master’s thesis was so weak that your advisor took it down in five minutes?

        I guess the people in his life realised just how pathetic he was at that point.

    7. This guy’s Walker obsession is brilliant:

      Scott Walker will not give a decorated Marine Corps veteran a second chance

      My God! That’s horrible! What did this Marine Corps veteran do? Was it some minor mistake that anyone could have made?

      On a cool fall evening in September of 2004, a young man made a mistake after an evening of drinking. He took a swing and broke someone’s nose.

      Uh…

      With that one punch Pizer’s life changed forever. He was charged and convicted of a felony; he had had no prior incidents, and this was his first offense. In the ten years since that night Pizer has gone on to get an Associates Degree in Criminal Justice. However, as a felon he cannot carry a gun, something he needs to be able to do in order to work in law enforcement. The Grant County DA has refused to reduce the charge so that Pizer could work in law enforcement.

      Let me get this straight: The anti-gun, anti-cop Daily Kos has a writer complaining that Walker won’t issue a pardon to a violent convicted felon so that he’ll be allowed to carry a gun and work in law enforcement.

      1. Also, the reason a felon can’t buy a gun is because of laws passed at the behest of leftists.

        So he’s basically arguing that Scott Walker should undermine a left-wing law by pardoning people.

        I don’t even know anymore.

        1. Literally in every one of his Scott Walker articles, Scott Walker did nothing wrong.

          Try this one:

          [He complains about] the accuracy of monthly unemployment data based on a survey of about 3.5 percent of Wisconsin businesses. The more accurate data, based on a census of nearly all Wisconsin businesses, comes quarterly and has a six month lag.
          Walker said Tuesday that gap makes it difficult to use those numbers for making quick responses to the state’s employment needs. He says he is moving forward with a real-time labor management system so the state can react to job needs better.

          That sounds pretty reasonable. If the current way of counting is inaccurate, then you should try to improve its accuracy.

          In other words?”the numbers suck, I need to make some different ones up.” This is truly something I would expect to see in The Onion. The problem can’t possibly be his policies, nope, it is the way we count the unemployed.

          “If I completely put words in Scott Walker’s mouth, he sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t he?”

      2. However, as a felon he cannot carry a gun, something he needs to be able to do in order to work in law enforcement. The Grant County DA has refused to reduce the charge so that Pizer could work in law enforcement.

        How can someone write that and note realize how ridiculous it sounds?

        “However, as a premature ejaculator, Mark E Andersen cannot maintain an erection for more than 30 seconds, something he needs to be able to do in order to work in scat porn. John Thompson Productions has refused to reduce the length of their films to 30 second clips so that Anderson could work as a passive actor in pornography that features urophagia and coprophagia.

    8. Is this like the academic version of “Stolen Valor”?

  21. Is this the defacto TI thread?

    1. De Facto Independents … Assemble!

      1. I guess that means me.

      1. If only we would have got late nite links, an edit button, Kennedy would never have escaped from Matt’s dungeon, and Matt could grow a stache like Stossel, TI would still be on.

        It’s amazing how I can figure this shit out.

        1. Really, if all of them could grow mustaches just a third as majestic as Stossel’s the show would still be on.

      1. I really don’t know how it lasted as long as it did. I tried to like it, I wanted to like it, but no matter what, Kennedy speaking over everyone would ruin it for me. This coupled with them only spending about 45 seconds on a topic made the show unbearable.

        1. Fox decided to go with more Kennedy and less Matt and Kmele.

        2. And Kennedy winds up with her own show. It’s teevee, it’s meant to entertain mindless idiots, nothing else. You can find some intelligent content, but it’s like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

          The best couple of shows was when Kennedy was gone and Matt hosted the show.

        3. Agreed. The few episodes I watched made me kind of embarrassed for Kmele and Matt. The rapid movement between topics and Kennedy constantly overtaking everyone killed the show (Kennedy pushing pet topics like her belief in ghosts didn’t help either).

          I mean, say what you want about Stossel (because he’s got a lowest common denominator approach to introducing libertarian ideas) but he’s a hell of a better showman than them.

          LOOKIT MY BIG DUMB PILE OF PAPER!

        4. Smilin’ Joe Fission|1.19.15 @ 9:28PM|#
          …”This coupled with them only spending about 45 seconds on a topic made the show unbearable.”

          Pretty much the reason I watch some sports (mostly with the sound off) and not much of anything else.

          1. Why do I see Red Foreman each time I read your comments?

            1. Dunno.
              Had to search the name; since I don’t watch TV, it really doesn’t mean much.
              It would help if you mention which sit-com character you compare yourself to. I can search that too.

  22. I have Foxnews on. I’m at my puter, but I can see the TV from here. It’s sort of a self flagellation thing I guess, I don’t have any other way to explain it. My wife is traveling and she typically hogs the TV and saves me from my self abuse.

    Oh well, anyway, they are really getting down with the Romulan Redux puke wagon. There’s been like 4 different talking heads on the last couple hours regurgitating their non-sense about the 2016 POTUS race and not one of them, seriously, has even mentioned Rand Paul.

    1. Good grief, now they’re talking about Michael Moore saying that only cowards would kill someone as a sniper (talking about a movie of course). That’s right Moore, real heroes kill people by government force. Maybe lock them up in a gulag or just tax them to death, that’s noble.

    2. I am baffled by this. Rand is the repubs best chance at winning and if Fox would just get a boner for him like they do for all the other statist candidates, he would have an incredible chance at taking the election.

      1. The GOP establishment do not care about winning the election if it’s not their chosen candidate. They would rather have Hillary win than Rand. Rand is the only GOP candidate that can win and they will do everything in their power to stop that.

        1. I’m surprised that they will even mention his name.

  23. “Campus rape” is a “crisis” only because white feminists and leftists (but I repeat myself) need a cause, because it funnels money and power to campus leftists, and because it’s a way of beating up on and intimidating white men.

    If this new concern were truly about rape, it would not be targeting college students, especially white college students. Remember how feminists use to tell everyone that rape is a crime of power, not sex? The “campus rape crisis” isn’t about rape or sex, it’s about power.

    1. I think there is a possibility that the reason for this bullshit is that many people go to college expecting a reward from doing so. Not that there is anything wrong with that, except when it leaves out the part about learning a valuable skill that makes you an asset to someone or something.

      Even back when I went back to college in the early 90s, it’s amazing how many people were there, not to learn, they in fact despised that idea, but only to get a piece of paper. They seemed to think that made them entitled to something and that they didn’t need to be bothered with learning anything. In fact I still know a few of them and some of the most self proclaimed geniuses among them now work the 3rd shift at Walmart or they haven’t worked at all for at least a decade.

      I think this has worsened now to the point that those same type are actively engaging in all sorts of hatefulness to justify their laziness and entitled feelings. The fact that they are failing at that is making them that much more hateful and malicious. Their ridiculous infant like fit throwing with this SJW crap is the most pathetic shit I’ve ever seen in my life.

      1. A really easy, inexpensive, and fun way to make your life feel like it’s worth something is to join a fashionable cause. It appeals to alienated, horny people in their teens and twenties, smart or dumb, and is a great way to meet sex partners. Such causes are perfect for expressing displaced anger and hatred in (sort of) socially-sanctioned ways, and as we have repeatedly seen, there are plenty of leadership positions available to narcissists and people with other mild mentally illnesses.

  24. Meh. We should legalize both because we should, not that it may have an effect on rape (which I find dubious…)

    1. It’s a cause to get more people on board

      It offends the purists of course but for real world pragmatists we say – fuck you, purists

  25. Weed also makes women hornier and thus will increase the amount of consensual sex available to men.

  26. The only way to really reduce campus rape is to provide universal Community College. No frats at Community College, therefore there’s two fewer years of raping for all college-age males.

    1. My friend’s mother makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her pay was $15622 just working on the internet for a few hours.
      over here. ???????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.