Dems Have Their Crazy Uncle, Too

Ron Paul shouldn't get all the attention. I haven't heard this one in awhile.

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel told a group of high school students on Sunday that marijuana is safer than alcohol.

Speaking to a group of students at Phillips Exeter Academy, he said that he believes people should be able to buy marijuana in package stores.

"Alcohol is a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and I'm sure a lot of you have tripped out on alcohol," Gravel said. "It's a lot safer to do it on marijuana."

Comments

[Sara]

What is so crazy about that? I'd rather be around a hundred pot smokers than one drunk. Alcohol is the cause of the majority of violence and especially violence against women and children. I've not heard of any men beating their wives because they smoked a joint. Besides, alcohol rots the liver, marijuana is proven to have beneficial medical uses, especially for those who suffer nausea after chemo and alcohol is terribly addictive on the physical level, not so pot. Alcoholics and drunks are disgusting individuals, those high on pot are mellow and usually in a good mood or just want to go to sleep.

[TheSpartan]

Not the right thing for a serious candidate to say, but also not wrong.

[Neil]

Gravel should have talked to Laura Bush before she got into the car drunk and killed Michael Douglas

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"Gravel should have talked to Laura Bush before she got into the car drunk and killed Michael Douglas."

YEAH, Like , she had this accident when she was 17 (no report shows any alcohol abuse btw) and she should be held accountable all her life because she has so much power and stuff. I mean like we hold certain senators accountable for driving off a bridge drunk and leaving a poor girl to drown. I'm sure at 17, years before she met GW, that Laura knew all about the political ramifications of her actions and did everything she could to cover it all up. Because afterall, no one else ever did anything stupid when they were in high school.

[Sara]

What the heck does what happened to Laura Bush 45 years or more ago have to do with Mike Gravel in 2008? I do not understand a mind that works that way or tries to make an argument like that? Do any of these BDSers ever think forward? Or do they all live in someone else's past with very selective memories? What are you going to do for a life after Jan. 2009?

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"What are you going to do for a life after Jan. 2009?"

Sara, that's when thier selective memory kicks in. Dont forget that any failed demonrat policies will be blamed on the former administration, not thier own.

[Fred Beloit]

Long-time male pot heads and drunks look remarkably alike. They all look like Willy Nelson. Why is that?

[Sara]

"They all look like Willy Nelson."

LOL. You're right, of course. Although I might have used Kris Kristofferson as the model.

[seekeronos]

Not for nothing, but the whole pot vs. alcohol thing is something I could agree with.

Our prisons are swimming with folks convicted of pot possession convictions or low-ball dealing (pot only) convictions.

Yeesh. Slap them around a few times with a bamboo or rattan cane, or put them in a pillory for a weekend and then let them get on with their lives... and let's save the cell space for serious offenders like pedos and rapists.

Or better yet, decriminalize it and be done with it. It's not like potheads hurt anyone else but themselves.

[Fred Beloit]

"Not for nothing,..."

Seek, haven't heard that expression since I moved south. Another great NY area expression is :"Oh him. He thinks who the hell he is." I guess this is the answer to the rhetorical question: "Who the hell does he think he is?"

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"Seek, haven't heard that expression since I moved south."

Fred I insist I be allowed to move where you live. It's becoming like Long Guyland around here...

[seekeronos]

Ehhh. What can I say... the accent rubs off on ya after a while, y'know? :P

[seekeronos]

And if I were to spell it as it should be properly intoned, I'd have said:

"Not for nuttin'."

[rwilymz]

"Alcohol is the cause of the majority of violence and especially violence against women and children."

Ahh. People don't abuse people, alcohol does? Izzat it?

"Besides, alcohol rots the liver"

All kinds of things do. Including tylenol. Does tylenol cause abuse of women and children as well?

"marijuana is proven to have beneficial medical uses"

"Proven"? Actually, no it hasn't. There is rampant anecdotal evidence that it is among the best anti-emetics around [and there's virtually no analgesic properties associated with it], but it isn't "proven" ... mostly because even in those countries in which medical testing is allowed, they cannot accurately isolate the active ingredient[s]. If you can't isolate the compounds, you can't dose it and without dosing you can't test for side-effects. Without ANY of that, the FDA will not accept it [they took forever to allow vioxx, and look how much liability THAT is attracting...].

They've come close to isolation, but those who smoke pot versus those who take canubinol [?] pills in double-blinds report that smoking pot to the same level of serum TCH report more efficacy. Hence the problem; it is ragingly irresponsible medical science [in this day and age] which advises taking unknown amounts of an unclearly defined "medicine" and which will have unknown side-effects. "Smoke two joints and call me in the morning" is what a shaman prescribes.

"alcohol is terribly addictive on the physical level"

Not really. Compared to how much, how often, and the share of the population who uses it, alcohol is among the *least* addictive of the pleasure substances we consume. Of alcohol's users [around 80% of the adult population], only 8-9% are addicted.

More addictive. by rate, is cocaine, heroin [and the rest of the opiates], nicotine and caffeine. By rate, nicotine is the most addictive at over 90% of those who use it for even a short period of time getting hooked; by speed of addiction, I believe that cocaine wins out. The most common addiction is caffeine at around 25% of the total American population, including children. Thank the soft drink industry.

"those high on pot are mellow and usually in a good mood or just want to go to sleep"

...discounting the cumulative brain damage they do to themselves.

One of the most ironic aspects of this whole issue is the raging hypocrisy our nation displays upon it.

We are falling all over ourselves in passing laws that protect us from ourselves, even if there is merely an infinitesimal chance of actual harm coming. Seat-belt laws and the violations of our Constitution we rationalize to get there, for example. Yet the anti-ambition spawned by smoking pot [another way to describe "mellow" and "wanting to go to sleep"] is perhaps one of the best ways to set a guy up for a life of being a loser who offers fries with that.

Of course, you can make the argument: "His life, his choice" -- and I'd go along with that. But it's also "his life, his choice" for seatbelts. The only one he's trying to risk is himself.

On top of which, we as a nation are falling all over ourselves criminalizing smoking [tobacco] because it smells bad and has rampant [and hyperbolized] "second-hand" effects. On top of all those primary effects that we, as a nation, feel compelled to protect the primary users from contracting. But we're trying to rationalize pot smoking in pretty much the next breath -- or wheeze, if you will.

Are we going to be libertarian and allow people to smoke what they want and drive beltless? or are we going to be a nation of busy-body we-know-better-than-yous?

Doing both is hypocrisy. *Populist* hypocrisy, but hypocrisy nonetheless.

[rwilymz]

I grew up in upstate Nee Ork, around Binghamton, where many of you Lawn Guylanners went to college. They always said, and we always heard, "Lawn Guylan". We always said Nee Ork whereas they said "Noo Yawk".

Sometimes they added a "yoo fawkin aaaa SWIPE", but I believe that was just an embellishment.

[seekeronos]

"--- Are we going to be libertarian and allow people to smoke what they want and drive beltless ---"

Sure. Go for it, I say. But OTOH, I won't be happy if my premiums going up to cover some jokers who decide to seriously injure themselves by driving beltless.

A free-market approach could apply: the insurance company penalizes the beltless driver over the belted, while the law doesn't say boo about the belts. But best practices might dictate using a belt (based upon actuarial studies of mortality rates from beltless collisions, etc.) such that the ins. company could refuse to pay benefits.

Except where to point the blame if the other driver t-bones you while he is sauced up. Maybe that's not the best example, what with New York's no-fault insurance laws...

Perhaps personal responsibility should go back to the people, and not be dictated by mandate.

Like the old libertarian idea of "Do what you like... and if you hurt yourself, I might help you out of kindness. But hurt me by way of your irresponsibility, and we'll be singing a different tune".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Accent-wise, we'uns in the Hudson Valley must be in that transition zone between NYC and B'ton... (by way of Rte. 6/17) although there are a lot of migrant Manhattanites bringing that dreadful Noo Yawk drawl up here.

[Fred Beloit]

That seek, he thinks what the hell he is.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh Oh. Just realized I was wrong. It should be, That seek thinks who the hell he is.