Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Scarborough retracts false claim about lefty groups' disclosure. Will Rove and other righties do same?

I suppose this is par for the course. But perhaps it should be part of the discussion that right wing commentators who claim lefty groups and unions are running ads funded by anonymous donors -- just as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other righty groups are doing -- are just flat out lying.

This lie is so easily debunked that Joe Scarborough actually retracted it today on Morning Joe after making the claim and getting corrected. Will Karl Rove and Fox News and others spreading this falsehood or letting it go unchecked do the same?

Scarborough, during a discussion this morning of the Obama-and-Dem-versus-Chamber dust-up, called on President Obama to demand disclosure from unions and MoveOn, claiming "blatant hypocrisy."

But the comparison is totally bogus. Under Federal law, unions disclose far more about their funding than other political groups do, and it just so happens that MoveOn's ads are funded by a Federal political committee that has to comply with the same disclosure requirements that candidate and party committees do.

To his credit, Scarborough corrected his false claim after a MoveOn official contacted him to complain. He acknowledged that MoveOn is a "Federal PAC," admitting: "I shoot from the hip."

So does Rove, but he doesn't readily admit it. On Fox News yesterday, Rove, who helped found two groups that are dumping millions in anonymous contributions into the midterms, compared his efforts to those of liberal groups like the National Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress -- and, of course, the supreme boogeyman, MoveOn.

"Like a lot of liberal groups," Rove said, they "do not report their donors."

This is just false in the case of MoveOn, as we've already seen. And as for the other groups Rove cited, none of them have spent any money on campaign ads this year, according to a recent Post analysis, except for the League of Conservation Voters, which also discloses donors and has spent a tiny fraction of what the Chamber and Rove's groups have spent.

Yet Rove's claim went entirely unchallenged by Fox anchor Brett Baier. Like I said, it's par for the course that Rove won't do what Scarborough did and retract his falsehood. But it would be nice if someone on Fox or wherever else at least tried to hold these folks to even a minimum standard of accuracy or honesty.

By Greg Sargent  | October 11, 2010; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, Labor  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Carl Paladino's Homophobic Extremism
Next: Pat Toomey: Human activity might not be main cause of global warming

Comments

Rove lie?

Fox News covers it up?

What's next, we find out the sun rises in the East?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Unions are against the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

The Chamber of Commerce supports sending jobs overseas, and The Republican Party granted tax incentives for Corps. who would do just that.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"But it would be nice if someone on Fox or wherever else at least tried to hold these folks to even a minimum standard of accuracy or honesty."

Yeah, and it would be nice if gorgeous women found middle aged CPAs sexy, but they don't and they wont; it will never happen.

In Fox's case you are asking them to go against their policy. They aren't there to be accurate or honest; they are there to get Republicans elected.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: Are you aware of any Democrats who turn down soft money contributions?

"KRAUTHAMMER: This is whining squared. First of all... Democrats are also in the game, but they are losing the game, so they are very unhappy. Secondly, the law came from the Supreme Court. It decided that this kind of disclosure is not required...

TOTENBERG: The question is we know from where.

KRAUTHAMMER: ... The implication is that the Republicans are purchasing this election. This is nonsense. One example: Rove has raised $50 million; the unions have set aside $100 million in this election, and the difference is...

PETERSON: I think it's more like $200 million.

KRAUTHAMMER: ...that a union member doesn't have a say in whether it goes to a Democrat or Republican even if he is a Republican. So let's not hear this whining about how the money is (unintelligible). That's not why Republicans lost in '08 and not why Democrats are going to lose in '10."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/09/krauthammer-calls-inside-washington-panel-whiners-over-gop-campaign-contributions

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"The Chamber of Commerce supports sending jobs overseas, and The Republican Party granted tax incentives for Corps. who would do just that."

Liam, pithy and to the point. I wonder how the resident right wingers here can justify the COC's dismantling the American economy. I think it's time the Dems start getting down and dirty and asking the COC and the GOP just whose side they are on, because it's not the American people.

Posted by: filmnoia | October 11, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

sbj, it's a disclosure issue.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 11, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@PaciolisRevenge: "They aren't there to be accurate or honest; they are there to get Republicans elected."

Actually, they're there to get ratings and charge advertisers confiscatory ad rates. Given their ratings vis-à-vis CNN, MSNBC, et al, they are doing pretty well at that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I still remember Rove's utter self-assurance when being interviewed on NPR on the eve of the 2006 elections. He was confident that his numbers were correct. Oops.

The man may be a good strategist and hero to the right, but shall we say his association with facts is coincidental at best.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 11, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

wow so much misinformation in one short thread. Leave me start with paciolis revenge. It isn't your age, or your trade pal. It just isn't.

If union officials are blaming "outsourcing" for their failure then they are lying. I live in the buckle of the rust belt. The jobs that are gone didn't necessarily move off shore. Most of them just plain disappeared. What the union thugs will never tell their members is that American ingenuity puts them at risk. Jobs disappear either because no one needs the skill any longer or because a machine can do the job better, faster and cheaper. High Quality harpooners are not in much demand since we made the switch to petroleum. The advent of CNC machining was the beginning of the end for a lot of American factory workers.

it is a solid plank in the liberal platform that some form of "protection" for the American worker is required. Are we really so weak that we must run for cover? We heard the same dire predictions about how Japan and Germany were going to eclipse us. And what happened?

All "protection" will do is drive up the price Americans pay for things that have import levies slapped on them. The so called "protected" industries then get lazy and sloppy because they no longer have to compete for business. It is a tax on consumers set in place to favor political cronies.

hey, no wonder Liberals like the idea!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj, it's a disclosure issue."

Are you trying to argue that 527s do not exist that support Dem causes and candidates?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj, it's a disclosure issue."

Are you suggesting that liberal 501(c)(4)s do not exist? Or that the Center for American Progress is a 501(c)(4) or that MoveOn was a 501(c)(4)?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

WSJ editorial this am. Dems disclosure complaints are all about intimidating companies into not donating to the COC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

FWIW

Posted by: sold2u | October 11, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"Americans United for Change, the liberal 501c4 group that works both the domestic and foreign policy sides of the political street, has begun airing radio ads in the districts of eight potentially vulnerable House Democratic freshmen, including New York Congressman Michael Arcuri, and praising them for voting for the economic stimulus package last month."

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/6702/robo-calls-a-coming/

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The Sierra Club and PLanned Parenthood both have c4's, don't they?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

sbj, has the center for american progress run any campaign ads?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 11, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

OT: Was just listening to the Ricochet podcast, and learned that, like William F. Buckley, Jonah Goldberg is also pro-legalization (of marijuana).

I wonder how many establishment, not-likely-to-run-for-office conservatives are actually pro-legalization. I'll bet you that it's a lot of them.

Milton Friedman and George Shultz, also pro legalization. Mark Steyn is also pro drug-legalization (and hasn't limited himself to marijuana, either). Steyn says that the war on drugs has corrupted law enforcement in the US. Wow! You learn something new every day.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj, has the center for american progress run any campaign ads?"

No (did I say they had?)

But other liberal 501c4's have. And these organizations existed long before Citizens United - which did not create them. And in previous election cycles it was the Dems who used more soft money to outspend the GOP.

The hypocrisy is staggering. It would appear that the Dems only oppose this anonymous money when they are losing the battle.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

On 501(C)(4)s and 527s.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/index.php?ID=7667

In most cases, the (c)(4)s formed to engage in independent advocacy are not complying with the law. ...

501(c)(4) organizations are supposed to be primarily engaged in social welfare, are not subject to tax on income, and may engage in a limited amount of intervention in a political campaign. Section 527 organizations are designed for political advocacy. Contributions to the organizations are not income, but the organizations are required to disclose contributions and expenditures or face additional tax.

Current advocates of using (c)(4)s as campaign advocacy vehicles are distorting the law and often are mischaracterizing their activities. If they are truly lobbying to promote their social welfare purpose, then they are properly (c)(4) organizations. But if they are engaged in intervention in a political campaign, and they are trying to cloak their activities as lobbying, they are violating both the spirit and the substance of the statute. Under campaign finance jurisprudence, they may be able to use such trickery, but it is usually not accepted in tax jurisprudence. ...

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The union backed goons in Alabama, the AEA, anonymously funded a "Conservative Republican Pact" and ran commercials against a republican governor candidate.

Democrat unions ran commercials that were supposedly from a republican PAC. They lied and misrepresented.

Only after a blogger went after them, was it discovered.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/09/report_aea_paid_for_anti-byrne.html

Posted by: Cornell1984 | October 11, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

OT: Mark Steyn called the DEA America's "absurd para-militarized police", and refers to their rappelling down walls from black helicopters to bust meth labs as being "play acting".

Sometimes I think drug legalization is something on which so many folks actually agree, yet somehow we never get around to making the laws reflect our community agreement.

All right. I'm done. Just blew my mind that Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldber are both pro-legalization.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

the real problem is the tax code. As PR (hope you don't mind that!) points out the code itself leaves room for pushing the edge of the envelop.

A tax system that isn't based on thousands of pages of congressional whim would solve a lot of problems for ordinary Americans.

Of course it might also adversely impact PR's income (and mine too for that matter).


the current tax code is an abuse of the citizen and should be replaced by something that garners the reasonable revenue that a reasonable government needs without the attendant billions spent in simple compliance.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

In response to this:
================

I wonder how many establishment, not-likely-to-run-for-office conservatives are actually pro-legalization. I'll bet you that it's a lot of them.
=================

I rely on a formula that was originally advanced by Andrew Sullivan. I am a fiscal conservative, a foreign policy hawk and social libertarian.

Yet I have major qualms about legalizing marajuana. My primary concern is the death toll on America's highways. We already lose far too many people to drunk driving. I am therefore reluctant to let another group of impaired drivers on the road. I have not seen a persuasive contrary argument but I would be interested.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse


OT: Was just listening to the Ricochet podcast, and learned that, like William F. Buckley, Jonah Goldberg is also pro-legalization (of marijuana).

I wonder how many establishment, not-likely-to-run-for-office conservatives are actually pro-legalization. I'll bet you that it's a lot of them.

Milton Friedman and George Shultz, also pro legalization. Mark Steyn is also pro drug-legalization (and hasn't limited himself to marijuana, either). Steyn says that the war on drugs has corrupted law enforcement in the US. Wow! You learn something new every day.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 1:32 PM.

...................

I am for giving drugs to those who have become addicted to them, instead of letting the drug cartels flourish. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just provide the drugs, and treatment, than it is to continue to pursue the very same failed strategy that created the likes of Al Capone.

Buy up all the Coca leaves, and the Poppies, in conjunction with giving the stuff to addicts, rather than they providing money to the drug cartels. That would also end put a stop to much of the violence, turf wars, and thefts that are committed by addicts, to support their habits. When you bring them in from the cold, then you can start to provide treatment and rehabilitation. Once you have established that you will pay top price for the crops, you can then begin to work with the growers, to switch to other cash crops. Once you make inroads there, and also deprive the Drug King Pins of the the addicts market, you will cripple them.

Prohibition is the Criminal Cartels' best friend.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Why are the unions goons to conservatives?

Just wondering where this cartoonish image comes from.

My take is it comes from the propaganda of conservative elites and those funding the conservative movement to demonize labor in an effort to turn conservative activists against them with the overall effect of pushing their representatives to vote no on any sort of pro-labor laws that would cut into profits of those funding the conservative movement.

What is the reason why conservatives echo the goon characterization of union members?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - Why does that blow your mind?

I would think the true conservative position would be to repeal prohibition.

I've yet to hear a convincing arguement as to why marijuana should be illegal.

I don't think all drugs should be legal though.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"Why are the unions goons to conservatives?"

It's probably just because a very few union activists have attacked Tea Party supporters.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

PaciolisRevenge,

You'd think. Everything about cannabis prohibition is anti-conservative. Here you have the federal government:

...taxing a product out of existence (taxes, oh my)

...criminalizing a source of enjoyment for millions (civil liberties, oh my)

...and eliminating a whole sector of commerce (free market, oh my).

The only reason for keeping cannabis illegal is to funnel huge amounts of money to the Prison Industrial Complex.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

@skip: "I have not seen a persuasive contrary argument but I would be interested."

Well, I'm not trying to persuade, per se, except to note that illegal users of marijuana are the folks most likely to ignore "smoke and drive" laws, as it is. And, while not an argument for driving while intoxicated, THC does not impair nearly at the level of alcohol. And, if that's a primary concern, then alcohol should be outlawed, as it is a much bigger villain than legalized marijuana would be.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"because a very few"

What's that mean? Are you talking about that fight caught on camera between a few union people and some conservatives at that rally a while back?

This started before well this. That video is just a recent excuse.

Why do so many echo this demonizing of union members? Is it just to rally against the straw man in an attempt to legitimize attacking other mostly blue collar workers?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28
My primary concern is the death toll on America's highways. We already lose far too many people to drunk driving. I am therefore reluctant to let another group of impaired drivers on the road. I have not seen a persuasive contrary argument but I would be interested.

~~~~~~~~

So if some percentage of people, once granted a freedom, do something stupid (drive under the influence) then we shouldn't allow anyone that freedom? That is NOT a conservative outlook.

By that logic we shouldn't allow people to drive at all. Or maybe we should outlaw cell phones? Or alcohol?

And equating driving drunk with driving after partaking in marijuana is a false equivalency. My younger, hipper associates say that you can tell the stoned driver from other drivers easily: the stoner is the one with his hands on the wheel at ten and two, his head three inches from the wind shield, going ten miles an hour on the access road.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, the vast majority of modern day conservatives aren't conservatives. They are corporate shrills and pandering phonies with well formed arguments to shift public perception of their true goals.

That's not conservatism. That's just being a cheap politician.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

We do not outlaw beer and booze because of the dangers they pose on the highways, and the same applies to cell phone use.

We can not keep making the unachievable perfection, be the enemy of; The Better Than The Way Things Are Now.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'd really like to know what Greg and his lefty friends would like from the Chamber of Commerce. Then I'd like them to explain what laws (with evidence that isn't pulled out of thin air) have been broken. Failing that, I'm wondering if Greg will support a call for Obama to apologize for acting like a community organizing thug, instead of the President of the United States.

I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by: Bailers | October 11, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"community organizing thug"

Lol.

Because we all know a community organizing thug or two.

Seriously, where do you bozo's get these stupid characters you echo? The back of Limbaughs top 100 racists rants holidays CD?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I want people to vote for any candidate that The Chamber Of Commerce is against, because The Chamber Of Commerce pushes for outsourcing American Jobs to foreign lands.

It is that simple folks; vote for Outsourcing more jobs, or vote for Democrats.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

caricatures even.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The Chamber Of Commerce is Anti-American Workers.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

PR, I'm a social libertarian, not an anarchist. The freedom to smoke whatever is not my concern. We are free, after age 21, to consume intoxicating liquor aren't we? And hundreds of thousands die each year because of this "freedom". And these drunks don't just kill themselves.

No PR, I believe the state has a compelling interest in keeping impaired drivers off the road.

We have an uneasy relationship with alcohol in this country. Prohibition failed but the social cost we bear are still enormous.

Attempt a long distance e-browbeating about individual rights isn't an argument designed to dispell my concern. How many more people will be killed on our roads if we legalize marajuana? don't we as a society have to consider this when making policy choices?

I've heard the "stoners are different" argument and it too is unpersuasive. They are still under the influence of a mind altering drug while at the controls of a heavy and fast moving object while sharing the road with many others who are now needlessly threatened.

As I said, as a social libertarian I would be glad to legalize all manner of intoxicants. but at what price? And who of the innocent law abiding people will pay that price?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

De-criminalizing marijuana is a great topic. Personally, I would also worry about the impact on driving. Driving while stoned is no big deal - but driving while drunk *and* stoned -- veeerrrrry nasty and dangerous. I also would not want our government to depend on the sale of marijuana to fund itself. I can just imagine that taxes would be reduced due to this new funding stream - what happens if folks then stop smoking pot? Marijuana also is unhealthy in terms of bronchitis and some other conditions. Why make something legal when you know it's not healthy? (It's not enough to say that other unhealthy things are legal - we have a choice, now.) And I've seen enough young people go down the tubes because of a fascination (psychological addiction) with marijuana that I would certainly want to see a massive education effort implemented at the same time as legalization. I agree that the prison guards union is a problem and that they have a vested interest in keeping it illegal. It's too bad that when Obama was asked about this he laughed it off as unimaginable. It's rather silly to complain about conservatives who don't support legalization when the head of the Democratic party opposes it. I think we have a decent system in California right now. Those with a prescription can get it at licensed facilities. At the same time we have made it a minor misdemeanor only to possess 1 ounce or less. I don't want to see the stuff sold at the 7-11, I don't want govt to depend on the revenue, I want to see people thoroughly informed about the ill effects. This is something that - like gay "marriage" - will take time.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Most drug addicts will continue to feed their habits.

Would you rather they continue to pour money into making the drug cartels grow ever more powerful, or have the government issue the drugs ,and provide treatment for them to cure their addictions?. The cartels will never offer treatment to their consumers.

At, least, once the addicts have a choice of getting their fix from the government, far fewer crimes will be committed to support their habits, and far fewer people will be killed over drug turf wars.

We have been trying to defeat the drug lords for at least four decades, and they have only become stronger and stronger.

Time to stop doing the same stupid thing, over and over, and expecting a different outcome.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I think they should criminalize alcohol for a decade and decriminalize marijuana and see what happens, for kicks.

Would crime, poverty, accidents, go up/down or stay the same.

And re people driving stoned and drunk. It already happens and neither is legal.

Guns don't kill people, criminals do.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/

http://www.na.org/

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I really enjoy seeing conservatives defend millions of dollars of annonymous spending on our elections - just because it's for Republicans.

Then they hide behind the bogus cannard that "libs do it too! Waaaaahhh!", which considering the difference in actual spending on elections is comparing a pistol to an atom bomb.

Liberals/Progressives support publicly funded elections - where shady outside groups would be prohibited on either side. Conservatives seem fine with possible foreign corporations and governments secretly attempting to influence our elections, so long as they are backing Republicans.

Talk about being unprincipled hypocrites...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 11, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"I think they should criminalize alcohol for a decade."

Them's fightin' words!

Re driving while drink and stoned: I tend to believe - and I may be wrong - that if you broadly legalize something that its use will increase.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

The argument about the dangers of legalizing pot, because of impaired drivers is somewhat specious.

Don't Pot Heads drive now, and in fact, probably drive more, to go make their illegal purchases?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"I want to see people thoroughly informed about the ill effects"

What are the ill effects?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, the vast majority of modern day conservatives aren't conservatives. They are corporate shrills and pandering phonies with well formed arguments to shift public perception of their true goals.

That's not conservatism. That's just being a cheap politician."

I know I'm serving my corporate masters by trying to get scanner codes tattood on every.ones.fore.head.!!!!11!!1!!

Also, OT But the funniest part is he calls it Obamacare!  Dale Peterson, you magnificent B*st*rd!

http://minx.cc/?post=306731

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 11, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Laughing at stuff that is not even funny, and becoming addicted to Cheese Whiz.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

All, Pat Toomey says it's being very much debated how much to blame humans are for global warming:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/toomey_global_warming_may_not.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 11, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Laughing at stuff that is not even funny, and becoming addicted to Cheese Whiz."

You just described 98% of the Republican Tea Party.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The Chamber of Commerce is a front-group for the Radical Right and the Plutocrats. It has been so for 40 years. The Chamber of Commerce works against the interests of America and Americans. Anyone who thinks unions are remotely comparable is nuts. Unions represent working Americans who must band together to have any effective voice in American politics. The Chamber represents corporations and the SuperRich. They have intrinsic power in a capitalist culture and they have more money than unions could ever dream of.

We have the right to know who is attempting to influence our elections. We know who finances unions: individual Americans. Who finances the Chamber of Commerce? Full disclosure NOW!

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

OK Joe Scarborough - whatever the structures are


HOWEVER - the charges by Obama and foreign money is NOT TRUE AND IS DECEPTIVE


Obama has made a serious MISTAKE - he is saying things that he doesn't have evidence for.

Obama has NOTHING.


This proves how little Obama and the democrats have in this election - for anyone who follows this over the years, this is really SHOCKING - THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD MAKE THIS KIND OF BOGUS CHARGES BECAUSE - CLEARLY THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Researchers called for medical guidelines warning that pot smoking can lead to risky sexual behavior, impaired driving ability and ultimately to a strong dependence akin to drug addiction.

"... An estimated 10 million Americans now use marijuana, and because at least one- quarter of them are teenagers, Sidney said it is crucial for doctors and parents to recognize the need for credible advice about pot smoking.

"... The report noted that while marijuana smoking does not cause death, pot smokers make significantly more clinic visits for respiratory infections like coughs, colds and flu than nonsmokers."

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/kaiser2.htm

Here's a good list of the health effects of marijuana:

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "You'd think. Everything about cannabis prohibition is anti-conservative."

See? Something else we can agree on.

@Liam-still: "Don't Pot Heads drive now, and in fact, probably drive more, to go make their illegal purchases"

Folks who are breaking the law now are likely to break the law, period. The folks who aren't breaking the law now, but might occasionally enjoy the legal, recreational or medicinal j (if such were legalized), aren't terribly likely to toke up and go cruising. Because they are respecting the law now, even if they disagree with it.

But the impaired drivers is a poor, and inherently non-conservative argument.

We should outlaw guns in the home, because the most common cause of gun deaths are crimes of passion (relative-on-relative) or negligence (I swear I didn't know it was loaded!). We'd save a lot of lives, if we outlawed the keeping of firearms in the home.

Which is actually a better safety argument than the "don't legalize marijuana because some people might smoke and drive". Better to outlaw driving, which is, statistically, more dangerous than most activities, even when completely sober.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I think it's time to run Reefer Madness on PBS to warn us all of the effects this drug can have on our population.

Then run a reality T.V. show of a college frat party with people barfing all over the place while their friends shotgun and slam endless beers and shots 'till they drop.

I believe they are trying to legislate social behavior.

What's interesting is while states allowing medical marijuana usage has increased dramatically in the last 10 years, teen usage has gone down. You would think with individuals having legal means to acquire it usage would go up right?

Just the opposite.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Seriously, where do you bozo's get these stupid characters you echo? The back of Limbaughs top 100 racists rants holidays CD?"

No Mike, unlike liberals I don't need to read FireDogLake or Daily Kos to get an original thought. Obama is acting like a thug when he decries the Chamber's lack of ethics without any evidence they have done something wrong. Seems to be an ongoing thing with him. How many times has your great leader shot his mouth off, only to be proven wrong?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my corporate worker hating overlords for my next talking point.

Posted by: Bailers | October 11, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"You would think with individuals having legal means to acquire it usage would go up right?"

Hopefully, drug use in general is going down. I'd prefer kids be tokin' it up than doing crystal meth. Or smokin' da crack! If we're losing pot smokers to meth, it's probably a bad thing. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Is pot smoking more harmful to the respiratory system, than cigarette smoking is?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Again with the Obama is "a thug" cr*p. Why don't you take your racist BS and shove it where the sun don't shine?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I hear meth has overwhelmed middle America.

I know last time I visited my family in a small town in Illinois it seemed that town was over run with meth and other cheap drugs that were tearing that place apart.

If legalization of marijuana reduced meth usage, I'd say legalize it. Meth is bad.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I can answer one of your questions sbj3. At least until the American medical system becomes socialized, the health choices made by individuals are generally visited upon that individual alone. If pot use results in bronchitis and people know that, the libertarian in me says that this is their choice and the consequences belong to them.

That isn't the case for my concern about driving while impaired. If impaired drivers only killed themselves and did little material damage to our physical structures then I would have no concern about legalization. But these drivers kill others and destroy a fair amount of our infrastructure too.

Prohibition failed so we can't make alcohol illegal. We've tried to control some of the more devastating effects of rampant alcohol use via strict blood level limits and laws that make it difficult for youngsters to obtain it.

And yet hundreds of thousands die each year. should we then create a situation where an new group of heretofore unimpaired drivers now join us on the highways?

As I said, this is my main cause of concern. Academic arguments are very interesting but what is the practical effect of legalization on our society?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that marijuana is about the most benign intoxicating substance in existence. Not to mention its therapeutic values. The only reason it is still illegal is because the Law Enforcement Industrial Complex makes billions on prohibition. Follow the money. In America you'll never go wrong.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Is pot smoking more harmful to the respiratory system, than cigarette smoking is?"

Doubtful but not determined.

"Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including:

* Daily cough and phlegm production
* More frequent acute chest illnesses
* Increased risk of lung infections
* Obstructed airways

"Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco, however the harmful effects of smoking marijuana should not be ignored. Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer, when smoking.

"... Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk.

"... Even though researchers have yet to "prove" a link between smoking pot and lung cancer, regular smokers may want to consider the risk."

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is acting like a thug when he decries the Chamber's lack of ethics without any evidence they have done something wrong."

That's thug like behavior?

So, when Ice-T used to rap about thug life he was actually talking about making claims of muddying up the waters in politics!

Man, was I so wrong about gangsta rap all these years. All this time I thought he was talking about joining gangs, drinkings fifths on the street while being legit, or something.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Joe Scarborough is a REAL MAN -

He corrects things when he says something that is off


Obama is NOT A REAL MAN - OBAMA IS STILL LETTING CLEARLY DECEPTIVE STATEMENT STAND.

Case closed.


The democrats have a real problem on their hands - first Bill Clinton, now Obama will be branded as liars.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 11, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Skipsaling

“Attempt a long distance e-browbeating about individual rights isn't an argument designed to dispell my concern.”

That was not my intent, if it came off that way I apologize.

“How many more people will be killed on our roads if we legalize marajuana?”

Nobody knows. A better question is how many are killed by marijuana users on the road today? There are already millions of users out there; there should be some sort of statistic.

“don't we as a society have to consider this when making policy choices?”

Sure we do. We would need to do a cost – benefit analysis, and given that the activity that you are concerned about, driving under the influence of marijuana, has been going on for a long time we should have good data for use in that analysis. Personally I’d be amazed if it were anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol. I’d bet it would be on par with talking on your cell phone. But that is just a guess.

“As I said, as a social libertarian I would be glad to legalize all manner of intoxicants. but at what price? And who of the innocent law abiding people will pay that price?”

Our current policy isn’t without its own price, both economic and social. And it isn't working.

SBJ
“Driving while stoned is no big deal - but driving while drunk *and* stoned -- veeerrrrry nasty and dangerous.”

I think walking while drunk and stoned is also dangerous. But mixing alcohol with most any drug is dangerous.

“what happens if folks then stop smoking pot?”

Then I’d suggest you short sell Frito Lay and any other makers of junk food. But I doubt you need to worry about it. It has been illegal for a very long time and those laws don’t stop much of anyone. If making it illegal doesn't stop people I doubt legalizing will either.

“Why make something legal when you know it's not healthy?”

Because it is a free country and because the current law doesn’t work at all and makes criminals out of people who would be law abiding citizens otherwise.

“It's too bad that when Obama was asked about this he laughed it off as unimaginable.”

True. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Both sides have reasons to support it but the current political situation is one where most politicians don’t want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole.


To both of you, you look for a reason to legalize. I’m no expert, but let me try to give you a few:

1) The current law hasn’t worked for generations.

2) Youngsters have a much easier time purchasing marijuana than alcohol. They have for a very long time. Why? Because alcohol is sold by people who get in trouble for selling to minors.

3) The laws on the books cost billions to enforce.

4) There are therapeutic benefits to the substance

I’m sure there are many other reasons, but I’m no expert on this.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Hey guise! Wanna join my thug gayg?

I plan on claiming Rove is a dirty politician without evidence. I've got hand signals n' all.

I just gotta come up with my thug anti-conservative funding gang name.

I-Street Gang. L-Street Crew. D-Street Crew-4-Life. Are just some off the cuff ideas.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

""Is pot smoking more harmful to the respiratory system, than cigarette smoking is?""

Use a vaporizer. Problem solved.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 11, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

@SKIPSTER WHOA!!! We actually AGREE on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"the current tax code is an abuse of the citizen and should be replaced by something that garners the reasonable revenue that a reasonable government needs without the attendant billions spent in simple compliance."

So many loopholes and such a short time...
Where do we start Skip because I'm with you in concept. And here is a starting point...NO POLITICAL ADVERTISING..IS A TAX OR BUSINESS DEDUCTION...for Corps...Unions...NO NON PROFITS COULD BE SET UP FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY and remain NON PROFIT.

Rick the scumbag Scott the R Gubernatorial Candidate here in the Sunshine State averaged 10 Million $ annual earnings each of the past three years. He paid on average 15%....READ THAT AGAIN SCOTT AND Q.B. 15% in taxes!!!! That is about the bracket my employees are in and it's well below the 25% bracket my wife and I occupy.

One of the deductions this scumbag got to take was over ONE MILLION dollars for his astro turf group set up to fight HCR!!!
His current company Solantic makes their $ off of people without insurance and so Scott..despicable Republican that he is...wants to make sure they remain stuck without insurance!!! And so he gets to toss one million into the argument and the rest of us get to subsidize his free speech by giving him a MILLION $ DEDUCTION!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 11, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

So long as pot is illegal, it's easier for a teenager to get pot than it is for a teenager to get alcohol.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 11, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

@PaciolisRevenge: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am speaking as one who used to have a prescription and regularly purchased marijuana at legal dispensaries.

“what happens if folks then stop smoking pot?”

"Then I’d suggest you short sell Frito Lay and any other makers of junk food."

Funny, but perhaps I misstated my problem. In California we were sold on a lottery because it would "save our schools". The state then actually cut the education budget from other revenue streams so that the end result was no increase in money for our schools. I am concerned that the same sort of thing will happen with revenue from marijuana - it's being sold as something that will help solve our budget crisis - it won't.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If you're concerned about education budgets, then you should look no further than the right wing extremists that have turned your state politics into a stalemate.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 11, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Shocking, I know, but I disagree with Kevin on this issue of legalizing marajuana.

Stated as simply as I can, I am concerned that people will die needlessly because we allow a new group of impaired drivers on the road.

yes, there are stoners driving now. And yes some data about thier impact on driving deaths should be available. But that is still not my point. Those folks are part of the baseline measurement.

when we as a society PERMIT the use of this intoxicant a number of people who do not currently imbibe will do so. some portion of them will subsequently drive their autos. they will be impaired, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. By definition Marajuana is an intoxicant. That means that the user is simply not in a state conducive to driving.

so this new group of drivers will head out onto our already dangerous highways.

Pointing out that people currently drive while intoxicated is hardly a strong argument for creating an environment that enables more of that bad behavior.

and yes driving can be dangerous. Again, that's hardly a strong argument for making it more so.

I still haven't seen a persuasive argument. I remain convinced that a serious consequence for leglization will be a larger number of highway fatalities.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"If you're concerned about education budgets, then you should look no further than the right wing extremists that have turned your state politics into a stalemate."

LOL! Methinks you don't have clue one about California state politics.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the biggest problem with obtaining a proper amounting of funding for education in California, because the voters place such restrictions on property taxes, compared to almost all the large states?

What the hell does revenue raising policy have to do with the issue of if it would be better for society to legalize pot, or not?.

Sounds to me like someone has been smoking too much of their own strawman.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

@liam: Exactly how they spend the new revenue is very relevant to the notion of how legalization benefits society.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

@Mike "Seriously, where do you bozo's get these stupid characters you echo? The back of Limbaughs top 100 racists rants holidays CD?"


That made me laugh at loud. Yes wonders where this moronic stuff comes from...while from the morons like bailers of course. LMAO

2cents worth here...if you must say Union goons can you also add corporate thugs. Back in the "day" when Unions still has some power they were attacked repeatedly and violently by hired thugs called "Private Police" like the Pinkertons. Sometimes their political stooges even sent in the National Guard to break up strikes..."goons" were a response to those "thugs"

IMHO there really aren't many "professional" thugs or goons left these days. That's not to say that a group from either side of the debate doesn't get out of hand occasionally it is to point out that people like bailers show their lack of intellectual honesty when they resort to "buzz" words instead of a critically thought response.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 11, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

SBJ - "am concerned that the same sort of thing will happen with revenue from marijuana - it's being sold as something that will help solve our budget crisis - it won't."

In all fairness you don't know that. I'm sure it well help, the question is how much.

What will also help is not having to spend billions enforcing laws that do not now, and never have, worked.

~~~~


SkipSailing says, "I remain convinced that a serious consequence for leglization will be a larger number of highway fatalities."

What are you basing that on? I'm not saying you are wrong, but how big of an issue is this? Is it worse than billboards that distract drivers? Is it worse than cell phones? Is it worse than alcohol?

I maintain that in a free country you need a valid reason to take away a citizens freedoms. How to quantify such things is tricky, but our society has dealt with such things before. If the math behind alcohol and cigarettes states that they should be legal then you will have a hard time justifying marijuana being illegal.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse


@liam: Exactly how they spend the new revenue is very relevant to the notion of how legalization benefits society.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 11, 2010 3:21 PM

.............
Rubbish. You have been smoking too much of your own strawman.

The real question is; would it be better for society to have pot usage legalized and regulated, like Cigarettes and Alcoholic now are, or would it be better for society to let the Drug Gangs maintain control of the distribution and all the net revenues.

As things now stand; pot is being smoked, and the government collects no revenues on it; so there goes your comparative revenues strawman, up in smoke.

I have no personal bias in the discussion, since I have no interest in ever smoking anything. I think it is crazy for people to keep sucking scorching micro embers into their lungs, and thinking that it is good for them.

Are you listening to me President Obama. Stop messing with your respiratory system, to indulge a minor habit that you need to kick, before you become much older. Do it as an example to all the young people out there, and for the sake of your own health, and longevity.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing: "Shocking, I know, but I disagree with Kevin on this issue of legalizing marajuana."

And Jonah Goldberg, and Mark Steyn, and William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman and George Shultz. It's not like I'm alone on our side of the aisle.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

The Drug Cartels are strongly against the legalization of currently banned substances, and we know how civic minded they all are.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "Are you listening to me President Obama"

While I wouldn't blame him for smoking, he says he quit. There's no credible evidence to the contrary. That being said, he's probably still ingesting plenty of nicotine through gum or patch, which really doesn't do much to help folks kick the habit permanently. And if you've ever quit a long term smoking habit . . . well, I don't know that I would have wanted to be president first year out after kicking the habit. Not good timing.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

This is a fun discussion.

But the biggest benefit to the country, by far, in legalizing cannabis is the legalization of hemp for industrial and comestible purposes.

Legalization should happen for any number of reasons, but when you add industrial hemp to the equation it is obvious how insane it is that cannabis is illegal.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 11, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Kevin said:
"Actually, they [Fox] are there to get ratings and charge advertisers confiscatory ad rates. Given their ratings vis-à-vis CNN, MSNBC, et al, they are doing pretty well at that."

Not an adequate explanation. There is no example where a Fox media entity pushes anything but a rightwing narrative.

Then there's Ailes who has never done anything in his adult life other than forward Republican electoral opportunities.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 11, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

For those who support what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing:

https://secure.uschamber.com/join/business/donate.htm?n=t

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 11, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I loved "Those Darn Plutocrats" when I was a kid!

One of Disney's best...watched it over and over!

Posted by: tao9 | October 11, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Kevin maybe those guys you mention have a compelling argument to offset my concern.

And PR, the issues that you mention are again part of the baseline. Cell phones no doubt contribute to our highway fatality problem. As to bill boards, especially I think the new electronic ones where the message changes.

it is true that we have legalized another very powerful intoxicant and we are paying a huge price as a society. I'll repeat myself here: as a social libertarian I strongly believe that the government must have a compelling reason to deny anyone's freedom. Assuage my concern about a new group of intoxicated drivers and you'll get my wholehearted support for the legalization of marajuana.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 11, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Cigarettes create more stress than they alleviate. Having worked with several long time office smokers, who had to go outside to smoke, once the laws where changed, let me tell you; you never saw so many people go through so many mood swings, in all your life. They were restricted on how often they could leave to go smoke, and after they came back in, they were happy and relaxed, but as time passed, before they could go out again, they became irritable, and difficult to work with.

After all; don't most addict end up using, not for the pleasure they derive, but instead to avoid suffering the pangs of being strung out?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "The Drug Cartels are strongly against the legalization of currently banned substances, and we know how civic minded they all are."

That's one of the primary reasons that Mark Steyn is pro-legalization (and of more than marijuana). He thinks America's War on Drugs has created a bunch of narco-states. And I think it's a decent argument for legalization as well, but in the case of marijuana, I think it's just vilified unnecessarily. I sure think it's nonsense that it's illegal while cigarettes and alcohol are not. Or, not rational. I'm pretty much sure alcohol and cigarettes have no benefit to folks doing chemotherapy or glaucoma sufferers. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "After all; don't most addict end up using, not for the pleasure they derive, but instead to avoid suffering the pangs of being strung out?"

You get addicted to the stress/relief cycle. You need the itch of the addiction for the addiction to be scratchable. The stress of the addiction is a contributor to the relief, and it's rarely as enjoyably when you're in a situation where you can indulge to your heart's content.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I think we should first focus on driving the Cocaine and Heroine Cartels out of business. The way we have been trying to combat them for the past forty years has failed miserably, to the point where regions of Mexico, Columbia and Afghanistan have become autonomous narco-terrorist regions.

That is why I called for buying up all the coke leaves, and Poppy crops, by paying a high price for them. Deprive the Cartels of the raw crops, as much as possible. On the other end of the supply chain; offer almost free supplies to America's hardened users. That will reduce the amount of thefts that are committed to support their habits. It will also take away most of the street gangs revenues, and reasons for turf war gun violence. That will in turn, reduce our prison populations greatly, which will probably save us more in taxes, than we will have to put into producing the drugs, and providing addiction withdrawal treatment for addicts.

This is the only way we can prevent the Drug Lords from becoming even more vicious and stronger.

Prohibition created Al Capone. We need to learn from our own past failures, instead of continuing to repeat them.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Not an adequate explanation. There is no example where a Fox media entity pushes anything but a rightwing narrative."

You mean the news entities, right? Because Fox exhibits a fair amount of liberalism, from liberal entertainers, on the Fox network.

You can certainly argue that the medium is the message, but the end goal is ratings and confiscatory ad rates. And Fox News has beat every other competitor in that space. Focusing on the suspected conspiracy, other than the normal invisible hand, is not compelling to me.

It's the invisible hand: Hey, people like to watch Bill O'Rielly jabber on for an hour! Sean Hannity's weird, rectangular looking head doesn't turn viewers off! People want to pay us money to have Glenn Beck point at blackboards!

I think a focus on a conspiracy of wealthy propagandists is a diverting response to, and a distraction from, the fact that more people to choose to watch Fox for news, more of the time, that most other news sources put together. Fox News is fundamentally a creation of the views--a very demand side proposition, I know--rather than a tool of wealthy right-wing propagandists. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more advocacy for Republicans, and much fewer recipes, gadget segments, news about stuff that doesn't involve electing Republicans, and commercials, given that most of the folks views in segment A that aren't there in segment B left during the commercial.

The rightwing narrative Fox is pushing is a profitable one that attracts viewers and thus ad dollars. It is a commercial enterprise. While, admittedly, they might also make some money with a music channel or a cartoon network, I think there was a niche there, and they filled it, and found a way to provide a product to people who wanted it and weren't getting it (or not getting it to their satisfaction) anywhere else.

One might as well argue that there is a nefarious conspiracy about MSNBC, CNBC, CNN or CMT. But, at the end of the day, they are channels that produce entertainment product and attempt to make money doing that by selling ads. If anything, Fox is more flagrant about it that anybody--I don't think there's been another news channel that attempted to shoe-horn a comedy show into the schedule.

In any case, if they are up to something, they clearly aren't getting away with it. I can't go anywhere on the internet without be regaled regarding the propaganda of Faux news. Hard to be a real source of right wing indoctrination if everybody is on to the nefarious plot. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The question is does the intelligence and sanity that Lisa Simpson exhibits, fully counterbalance the lachrymose one who keeps millions of people trapped in the depths of his blackboard jungle?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 11, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Skip and SBJ - I'm not sure if you are even on this thread anymore, but I found a useful link on the subject we were discussing:

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

•Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box”. New York. (1995):36.

•Swan, Neil. “A Look at Marijuana’s Harmful Effects.” NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14.

•Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7.

•Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.


http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 11, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "The question is does the intelligence and sanity that Lisa Simpson exhibits, fully counterbalance the lachrymose one who keeps millions of people trapped in the depths of his blackboard jungle"

Well, ratings-wise, I'm pretty sure Family Guy and American Dad do better than Fox News, at least most of the time. And the Simpsons? Gotta be much better.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 11, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"like bailers show their lack of intellectual honesty when they resort to "buzz" words instead of a critically thought response."
Posted by: rukidding7
_________________________

So now that you put up an entire post just insulting me, for supposedly not having any intellectually honest thought, where is yours?

I didn't see ANYONE refute my initial post: that there isn't any evidence that the Chamber of Commerce did anything wrong, and that it isn't stopping the President from making something up to make them look bad.
Or for Greg To continue saying it's about disclosure, when there is no need to disclose anything. Only people who are grasping at straws are screaming about disclosure.

Posted by: Bailers | October 11, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

If I were a right winger, I'd want to legalize pot. Keep people drugged, that's the ticket.

Posted by: MagicDog1 | October 11, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

The game is to throw as much mud as possible and see what sticks--knowing that the Election Commission is tied at two members from each party and won't even consider the matter (assuming approval of a fifth) until after the election. Unlike in the Swift Boat era, contributions from bloggers and bird-doggers, along with fine reporting like yours, may help foil much of this.

Posted by: patr2 | October 12, 2010 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company