Article: Don’t be fooled – Marijuana legalization is not about advancing social justice
From time to time, I read Fox News for comic relief, because all of it is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever published and I find it really disturbing how goddamn delusional half of the country is, that they blindly believe this crap. In the Twitter-style words of our Orange Führer: Sad.
So I stumble across this opinion piece by these two goofball white guys who are still living in Nixon’s war on drugs days, and I have a problem with literally every sentence of the article. My stance on drugs is a very simple one: it’s your body do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re not bothering anyone else. Obviously I don’t condone deadbeat druggies that drag down society, do crime, violence and are irresponsible with family obligations. It’s also wise to avoid meth and opiates at all costs, and probably anything else that gets cut down and is impure that can cause harm (wait a second… alcohol, a drug, can kill you too). But if someone wants to go and do their drugs and they’re not bothering me, what the hell do I care.
First off here are your “opinion” writers:
Alex Titus, a Public Interest Fellow in Washington, D.C. What the fuck does a public interest fellow do on a day to day basis? This guy looks like a douchedouchedouche.
Alex Entz is a graduate student at Princeton University. He was formerly a policy advisor and speechwriter in Washington, D.C., and is an alumnus of the Philos Leadership Institute. This is what higher level educational institutions are spitting out these days? THis goofball looks like he’s one of those stuck up 60s Nixon war on drugs guys.
I expect cited evidence from scientific publications to back these MORONS’ opinions. I don’t care if I agree with them or not, if it’s being backed up with evidence, I’d respect it a bit more. How is this shit even allowed? Since middle school, we needed a works cited on all writings. We couldn’t just make up whatever the hell we felt like. And that’s what this article is doing. If I handed this shit in as a research paper in middle school, high school, or college, it’d get a big fat F (regardless of content, there are no citations! That is the biggest no-no going!
Now, let’s break down this article:
Four Democratic presidential hopefuls have signed onto a marijuana legalization bill that Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., also a presidential contender, introduced last month. In explaining the bill, Booker assailed marijuana prohibition as an unfair, unjust and failed policy.The aim of these candidates is misguided. Legalizing marijuana will only further undermine poor communities and foster addiction.
How will it undermine poor communities? I will refer you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed
Proponents of legalization are correct to point out the racial and socioeconomic discrepancies in enforcement of marijuana arrests. And yet, that is an argument for decriminalization or changing policing tactics – not for legalization. In fact, statistics collected from states that have already legalized marijuana disprove the beliefs of those who think legalization is a cause célèbre for social justice.
So you’re saying to change policing tactics and decriminalize it, but keep it illegal? What is the point then? It would still waste taxpayer dollars enforcing it, and police will still target minorities more than white men. Also, what statistics were collected? What is your source, gentlemen?
Consider Washington state, where legalizationdid not decreaseracial disparities in marijuana-related arrests. A University of Washington report noted that such criminal justice rhetoric had yet to be supported by data. In Colorado, the number of Hispanic and African-American youtharrestedfor marijuana-related crimes has risen after legalization.
If you actually read the source, the data was inconclusive. How do you quote an inconclusive research paper, assholes? From the final comments: “Six years after the passage of I-502, the criminal justice rhetoric used to promote marijuana legalization in Washington has yet to be supported by data. More and better data are needed. Preliminary findings suggest a decrease of marijuana-related arrests in general but not a decrease of racial disparities.”
This is a good thing. Weed arrests are down, which save taxpayer dollars. The fact that there are still racial disparities in arrests doesn’t have anything to do with weed. This is a policing problem in general and applies to all crimes.
Furthermore, marijuana companies target the most vulnerable communities. Nearly one-third of marijuana is consumed by people in homes with incomesbelow $20,000, and marijuana dispensaries overwhelminglylocatein low-income communities.
Bahahahahah. They cited the “failing New York Times.” Guess it’s only failing when it doesn’t support your viewpoint. Also, if you actually read the NY Times opinion piece linked, it too does not cite it’s research: “Looking at a decade’s worth of federal surveys on drug use, he and a partner determined that Americans with a household income of less than $20,000 accounted for close to 30 percent of all marijuana use, even though they make up less than 20 percent of the population.”
This is based on “a decade’s worth of federal surveys.” Seems legit. But only the poors do the weed tho…
Marketing tactics target children by offering THC-infused gummy bears, brownies and other treats.
I can assure you that people into weed are not interested in targeting children. Gummy bears, brownies and other treats are simply more convenient if you don’t want to stink up the joint. Maybe people have lung issues and don’t want to smoke or vape, but still want their effect. Get LAWST.
Advocates frequently argue that marijuana should be legalized as a source of new tax revenue. But considering that most marijuana is smoked by low-income individuals, such a tax would be regressive in nature.
A contradiction! Up above, they said one third of people with incomes under $20,000 smoke. Last I checked, one third is not “most marijuana smoked”
I guess the following people are low income individuals: Seth Rogen, Bob Marley, Miley, Cyrus, Snoop Dogg, Amy Poehler, Woody Harrelson, Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher.. I could go on and on…
Legalization would also contribute to poverty by hindering a user’s ability to gain meaningful employment. Business owners simply do not want to hire individuals who fail their drug tests.Researchbacks up this point by showing that marijuana legalization has negatively impacted labor productivity by nearly $1,300 per worker.
Why would business owners take on the immense expense of drug testing if there is no probable cause? Sure, if you have a guy coming in all fucked up and can’t do his job, by all means drug test and use it as an excuse to fire the guy on the grounds that HE SUCKS AT HIS JOB. There are certain exceptions – I’d prefer if my airline pilot isn’t blazing it up in the cockpit. But come on… If you are good at your job, it doesn’t require the operation of heavy machinery, precise reaction times and you can carry out your behavior normally / aren’t acting like a paranoid/hyped-up/drunk/drugged out weirdo, I don’t care if you’re on drugs or not. (If yes, maybe do the drugs after work and then don’t let it interfere with your productivity)
And maybe that research paper is correct. I’m not scholarly enough to validate it, but anything can be skewed. But let’s face it, if you’re going into work stoned all the time, of course you’re not going to be as productive. Uh doyyyy, Captain Obvious!
Legalization’s social impacts are damning, too. In Pueblo, Colorado, the percentage of newborns testing positive for marijuanaincreased17-fold from 2013-2017.
Or you could just not smoke weed when you’re pregnant. It’s the same thing as not drinking when you’re pregnant. People do it and there are babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome as well. And alcohol is legal.
Perhaps even more concerning for the state of our communities is that marijuana is extremely habit-forming. Adults who use fewer than 10 times per month and who suffer no problems with substance abuse or dependence account for less than 5 percent of consumption. More than half of marijuana is consumed by someone who is under the influence more than half of all their waking hours, according to drug policy expert Jonathan Caulkins.
Get the fuck out of here, extremely habit forming… Really? According to who? “Drug policy expert Jonathan Caulkins” who is not a goddamn medical professional? You want to know what’s extremely habit forming? Oxycodone being prescribed by big pharma. Consider the following scenario: “Oops I threw my back out, please give me this physically and psychologically addictive pill, under medical guise, that I build a tolerance to and need more and more and can’t function/shake/puke/vomit without. Oh, you’re cutting me off now? Guess I’ll go down to my local black tar heroin dealer to get the same effect. Whoops, I just overdosed and died and die because it’s been cut with Chinese fentanyl.”
Or you could just smoke a fuckin blunt and call it a day. Last I checked, weed isn’t making people shake with withdrawal and seek out shit to inject in their veins and kill them. Yeah, there could be a tad of psychological dependence, but that’s the least of anyone’s concern.
By this measure [the paragraph above], marijuana creates significantly more dependence than alcohol.
Wrong! Alcohol causes physical dependence. A severe alcoholic quitting cold turkey will probably die of complications if not weaned in rehab under medical observation.
Easy access to pot would harmfully impact young people too. Studies show that nearly25 percentof high school seniors would smoke marijuana if it was legalized.
Are they 18? Can they fight in stupid fuckin “wars” over in the Middle East and die for this dumb shit country? Then who cares. Chances are, it’ll be regulated like alcohol and you’ll need to be 21 (which is bs since you’re legally an adult at 18. I’m not saying your brain is developed fully at that time, nor am I saying it’s the best idea, but you’re legally considered an adult).
Also, fuck off. It’s damn near impossible to get alcohol if you’re under 21 and don’t have older connections, fake IDs, etc. It’s easier to get shit illegally than legally.
Research has also continued to show marijuana’s connection to psychosis. In January 2017, the National Academy of Medicine declared that Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses. Higher rates of psychosis will likely lead to higher rates of violent crime.
Prove it. I don’t buy it. Where are the statistics?
So overall, this is a completely bullshit, fear mongering article, written by two asshole morons at an asshole moron news organization. I bet the two opinion writers don’t even agree with their piece at all – they seem educated. You have to be a certified IDIOT to believe all of these skewed facts. They’re probably having a ball writing creative fiction to brainwash 50% of bumblefuck, hick, morons in this dumbshit country.
One of my buddies in high school had an assignment to write a satire piece. He wrote an article promoting human cannibalism. It was hilarious and very well written. If Fox News published that shit, people would believe it.
Sad.
drugsPoliticsStupidity
This Fox News Opinion Piece on Marijuana is Laugh Out Loud Funny, Fear Mongering Ignorance
March 15, 2019
Rants
Comments Off on This Fox News Opinion Piece on Marijuana is Laugh Out Loud Funny, Fear Mongering Ignorance
Portfolioso
From time to time, I read Fox News for comic relief, because all of it is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever published and I find it really disturbing how goddamn delusional half of the country is, that they blindly believe this crap. In the Twitter-style words of our Orange Führer: Sad.
So I stumble across this opinion piece by these two goofball white guys who are still living in Nixon’s war on drugs days, and I have a problem with literally every sentence of the article. My stance on drugs is a very simple one: it’s your body do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re not bothering anyone else. Obviously I don’t condone deadbeat druggies that drag down society, do crime, violence and are irresponsible with family obligations. It’s also wise to avoid meth and opiates at all costs, and probably anything else that gets cut down and is impure that can cause harm (wait a second… alcohol, a drug, can kill you too). But if someone wants to go and do their drugs and they’re not bothering me, what the hell do I care.
First off here are your “opinion” writers:
Alex Titus, a Public Interest Fellow in Washington, D.C. What the fuck does a public interest fellow do on a day to day basis? This guy looks like a douchedouchedouche.
Alex Entz is a graduate student at Princeton University. He was formerly a policy advisor and speechwriter in Washington, D.C., and is an alumnus of the Philos Leadership Institute. This is what higher level educational institutions are spitting out these days? THis goofball looks like he’s one of those stuck up 60s Nixon war on drugs guys.
I expect cited evidence from scientific publications to back these MORONS’ opinions. I don’t care if I agree with them or not, if it’s being backed up with evidence, I’d respect it a bit more. How is this shit even allowed? Since middle school, we needed a works cited on all writings. We couldn’t just make up whatever the hell we felt like. And that’s what this article is doing. If I handed this shit in as a research paper in middle school, high school, or college, it’d get a big fat F (regardless of content, there are no citations! That is the biggest no-no going!
Now, let’s break down this article:
How will it undermine poor communities? I will refer you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed
So you’re saying to change policing tactics and decriminalize it, but keep it illegal? What is the point then? It would still waste taxpayer dollars enforcing it, and police will still target minorities more than white men. Also, what statistics were collected? What is your source, gentlemen?
If you actually read the source, the data was inconclusive. How do you quote an inconclusive research paper, assholes? From the final comments: “Six years after the passage of I-502, the criminal justice rhetoric used to promote marijuana legalization in Washington has yet to be supported by data. More and better data are needed. Preliminary findings suggest a decrease of marijuana-related arrests in general but not a decrease of racial disparities.”
This is a good thing. Weed arrests are down, which save taxpayer dollars. The fact that there are still racial disparities in arrests doesn’t have anything to do with weed. This is a policing problem in general and applies to all crimes.
Bahahahahah. They cited the “failing New York Times.” Guess it’s only failing when it doesn’t support your viewpoint. Also, if you actually read the NY Times opinion piece linked, it too does not cite it’s research: “Looking at a decade’s worth of federal surveys on drug use, he and a partner determined that Americans with a household income of less than $20,000 accounted for close to 30 percent of all marijuana use, even though they make up less than 20 percent of the population.”
This is based on “a decade’s worth of federal surveys.” Seems legit. But only the poors do the weed tho…
I can assure you that people into weed are not interested in targeting children. Gummy bears, brownies and other treats are simply more convenient if you don’t want to stink up the joint. Maybe people have lung issues and don’t want to smoke or vape, but still want their effect. Get LAWST.
A contradiction! Up above, they said one third of people with incomes under $20,000 smoke. Last I checked, one third is not “most marijuana smoked”
I guess the following people are low income individuals: Seth Rogen, Bob Marley, Miley, Cyrus, Snoop Dogg, Amy Poehler, Woody Harrelson, Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher.. I could go on and on…
Why would business owners take on the immense expense of drug testing if there is no probable cause? Sure, if you have a guy coming in all fucked up and can’t do his job, by all means drug test and use it as an excuse to fire the guy on the grounds that HE SUCKS AT HIS JOB. There are certain exceptions – I’d prefer if my airline pilot isn’t blazing it up in the cockpit. But come on… If you are good at your job, it doesn’t require the operation of heavy machinery, precise reaction times and you can carry out your behavior normally / aren’t acting like a paranoid/hyped-up/drunk/drugged out weirdo, I don’t care if you’re on drugs or not. (If yes, maybe do the drugs after work and then don’t let it interfere with your productivity)
And maybe that research paper is correct. I’m not scholarly enough to validate it, but anything can be skewed. But let’s face it, if you’re going into work stoned all the time, of course you’re not going to be as productive. Uh doyyyy, Captain Obvious!
Or you could just not smoke weed when you’re pregnant. It’s the same thing as not drinking when you’re pregnant. People do it and there are babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome as well. And alcohol is legal.
Get the fuck out of here, extremely habit forming… Really? According to who? “Drug policy expert Jonathan Caulkins” who is not a goddamn medical professional? You want to know what’s extremely habit forming? Oxycodone being prescribed by big pharma. Consider the following scenario: “Oops I threw my back out, please give me this physically and psychologically addictive pill, under medical guise, that I build a tolerance to and need more and more and can’t function/shake/puke/vomit without. Oh, you’re cutting me off now? Guess I’ll go down to my local black tar heroin dealer to get the same effect. Whoops, I just overdosed and died and die because it’s been cut with Chinese fentanyl.”
Or you could just smoke a fuckin blunt and call it a day. Last I checked, weed isn’t making people shake with withdrawal and seek out shit to inject in their veins and kill them. Yeah, there could be a tad of psychological dependence, but that’s the least of anyone’s concern.
Wrong! Alcohol causes physical dependence. A severe alcoholic quitting cold turkey will probably die of complications if not weaned in rehab under medical observation.
Are they 18? Can they fight in stupid fuckin “wars” over in the Middle East and die for this dumb shit country? Then who cares. Chances are, it’ll be regulated like alcohol and you’ll need to be 21 (which is bs since you’re legally an adult at 18. I’m not saying your brain is developed fully at that time, nor am I saying it’s the best idea, but you’re legally considered an adult).
Also, fuck off. It’s damn near impossible to get alcohol if you’re under 21 and don’t have older connections, fake IDs, etc. It’s easier to get shit illegally than legally.
Prove it. I don’t buy it. Where are the statistics?
So overall, this is a completely bullshit, fear mongering article, written by two asshole morons at an asshole moron news organization. I bet the two opinion writers don’t even agree with their piece at all – they seem educated. You have to be a certified IDIOT to believe all of these skewed facts. They’re probably having a ball writing creative fiction to brainwash 50% of bumblefuck, hick, morons in this dumbshit country.
One of my buddies in high school had an assignment to write a satire piece. He wrote an article promoting human cannibalism. It was hilarious and very well written. If Fox News published that shit, people would believe it.
Sad.
drugsPoliticsStupidity