Bill O’Reilly Bets John Stossel $10,000 That Prop 19 Loses

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,639
14,366
113
Low Earth Orbit
Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly bet guest John Stossel $10,000 (to a charity of the winner’s choice) that Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would make marijuana legal for all adults, will fail. Stossel, who supports Prop 19, said that it’s time to end marijuana prohibition because “it’s a war on our own people.”

“A war on our own people?” asked a bewildered and defiant O’Reilly. “What does that mean?

They’re breaking people’s doors down?”Yes, Mr. O’Reilly, that’s exactly what it means. Below is video of a Feb. 11 raid in Columbia, Missouri, in which a SWAT team broke down a family’s front door, terrorized a 7-year-old child, and shot and killed one of the family’s dogs. The reason for such tactics? The officers found a pipe and a small amount of marijuana.


More than 800,000 Americans – nearly one every 37 seconds – are arrested every year for possessing marijuana, something that’s safer than alcohol. It is a war on our own people, Mr. O’Reilly.

In another poor and puzzling attempt to defend our failed status quo, O’Reilly tried to compare marijuana to tobacco, by saying “marijuana is exactly as addictive as tobacco.”

Once again, he’s wrong. From TIME magazine yesterday: “Estimates vary, but compared with tobacco, which hooks about 20% to 30% of smokers, marijuana is much less addictive, coming in at 9% to 10%.” According a 1999 report from the federal government’s Institute of Medicine, “Compared to most other drugs … dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare … [A]lthough few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”

More importantly, tobacco is responsible for killing more than 400,000 Americans every year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marijuana kills no one. But tobacco is legal – and few families have their doors broken down, children terrorized, and pets murdered because a parent is in possession of a cigarette.

And according to the most recent poll, it looks very likely that Mr. O’Reilly could soon be out $10,000. SurveyUSA shows Prop 19 leading among California voters 48 to 44.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
O'Reilly might just be right. We'll just have to wait and see on that one. It would be interesting if Prop 19 passed if for no other reason than to see what would happen when an illegal drug is completely legalized. If it is anything like what happened when drugs like opium were legal then I see little but increased problems for California.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,639
14,366
113
Low Earth Orbit
Prop 19 passed if for no other reason than to see what would happen when an illegal drug is completely legalized.
It will be just like the end of prohibition with violence and gangs out of the loop.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
O'Reilly might just be right. We'll just have to wait and see on that one. It would be interesting if Prop 19 passed if for no other reason than to see what would happen when an illegal drug is completely legalized. If it is anything like what happened when drugs like opium were legal then I see little but increased problems for California.

I don't know a LOT about drugs, but, I do know that the addictiveness, the high, and the physical detriments, are all different between opium and pot, so, I have a hard to seeing how it would be anything like when opium was legal.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
1917 1.3% of Americans were addicted to drugs. Prohibition came in.
1970 1.3% of Americans were addicted to drugs. Nixon started the DEA and made the war on drugs a house hold name.
2010 1.3% of Americans are addicted to drugs. Over 1 trillion dollars has been spent on the war on drugs from 1970 to present day.

In the last ten years, through awareness, taxation and harm reduction 50% of the smokers who were addicted to tobacco have quit for good.

It's time to stop the foolishness and take a realistic approach to drugs in North America.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I don't know a LOT about drugs, but, I do know that the addictiveness, the high, and the physical detriments, are all different between opium and pot, so, I have a hard to seeing how it would be anything like when opium was legal.


Take a good look at the real problem drugs in Canada. In approximate order they are alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, and non-prescription drugs. The abusers of these drugs far outnumber the abusers of illegal drugs. What they have in common is that they are all legal. Legalization of any drug makes it more widely available even to those who are supposedly not supposed to use it, such as children. I very strongly suspect that legalizing marijuana would result in increasing its use, especially among minors.

I used opium as an example of a drug, that although not legal in China during the early part of the 19th century, might as well have been due to its widespread use and the fact that the British twice went to war with China in order to force the Chinese to allow British opium merchants to sell the drug in China.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Take a good look at the real problem drugs in Canada. In approximate order they are alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, and non-prescription drugs. The abusers of these drugs far outnumber the abusers of illegal drugs. What they have in common is that they are all legal. Legalization of any drug makes it more widely available even to those who are supposedly not supposed to use it, such as children. I very strongly suspect that legalizing marijuana would result in increasing its use, especially among minors.

I used opium as an example of a drug, that although not legal in China during the early part of the 19th century, might as well have been due to its widespread use and the fact that the British twice went to war with China in order to force the Chinese to allow British opium merchants to sell the drug in China.

Based on what?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Based on what?

I assume your question meant to ask what evidence is there that legal drugs cause the most problems and that is the way I will answer it. It is a relatively simply matter really. Drugs that are legal are easier to obtain and therefore likely to be more widely used. If they are used improperly they can create a wide variety of problems from addiction to overdose along with numerous health problems. If you look at statistics on problem drug users in Canada the big four are the legal drugs. The fact that 20% of Canadians still smoke should make that one obvious - but if you wish you could check lung cancer rates. You might also want to look at the number of alcoholics in Canada (currently estimated at about 4% of the population over the age of 15.

Alcoholism in Canada

Here are a few links that explains the matter better.

Page 5 - Straight Facts about Drugs and Drug Abuse [Health Canada, 2000]

Prescription Drug Dangers

By contrast, dangerous drugs like heroin affect a much smaller percentage of the population. In 2006 it was estimated that there were about 125,000 heroin users in Canada or about one half of one percent of the population over 15.

Changes in illicit opioid use across Canada -- Fischer et al. 175 (11): 1385 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

Hope that answers your question.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I assume your question meant to ask what evidence is there that legal drugs cause the most problems and that is the way I will answer it. It is a relatively simply matter really. Drugs that are legal are easier to obtain and therefore likely to be more widely used. If they are used improperly they can create a wide variety of problems from addiction to overdose along with numerous health problems. If you look at statistics on problem drug users in Canada the big four are the legal drugs. The fact that 20% of Canadians still smoke should make that one obvious - but if you wish you could check lung cancer rates. You might also want to look at the number of alcoholics in Canada (currently estimated at about 4% of the population over the age of 15.

Alcoholism in Canada

Here are a few links that explains the matter better.

Page 5 - Straight Facts about Drugs and Drug Abuse [Health Canada, 2000]

Prescription Drug Dangers

By contrast, dangerous drugs like heroin affect a much smaller percentage of the population. In 2006 it was estimated that there were about 125,000 heroin users in Canada or about one half of one percent of the population over 15.

Changes in illicit opioid use across Canada -- Fischer et al. 175 (11): 1385 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

Hope that answers your question.

I'm sorry, but this seems to be an apples and oranges argument to me. We're talking about Cannabis rather than Heroin and it's well known that the major distribution point in our society is public high school. If you were to ask if it is easier for a child in school to get for example, Heroin compared to Alcohol, the answer would be Alcohol hands down. Heroin isn't anywhere near as available as Alcohol, nor is it desired as much. Ask the same question about Cannabis and Alcohol and the answer in most cases would be Cannabis easily.

Alcohol has only a few sources for children, which would be parents or adults who will break the law to purchase Alcohol for them. They can't buy it easily at a retail location in, Canada anyway, with strict regulation and enforcement in place. While Cannabis is widely available through a number of students in any public school you care to visit.

So I find it difficult to accept what you are saying about Opiates in comparison to Heroin as an argument against taking Cannabis into a regulated model like Alcohol. Not in the US and Canada at least.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I'm sorry, but this seems to be an apples and oranges argument to me. We're talking about Cannabis rather than Heroin and it's well known that the major distribution point in our society is public high school. If you were to ask if it is easier for a child in school to get for example, Heroin compared to Alcohol, the answer would be Alcohol hands down. Heroin isn't anywhere near as available as Alcohol, nor is it desired as much. Ask the same question about Cannabis and Alcohol and the answer in most cases would be Cannabis easily.

Alcohol has only a few sources for children, which would be parents or adults who will break the law to purchase Alcohol for them. They can't buy it easily at a retail location in, Canada anyway, with strict regulation and enforcement in place. While Cannabis is widely available through a number of students in any public school you care to visit.

So I find it difficult to accept what you are saying about Opiates in comparison to Heroin as an argument against taking Cannabis into a regulated model like Alcohol. Not in the US and Canada at least.

You are actually supporting my post by acknowledging that marijuana is widely used because it is widely available. Marijuana may not be legal, but it is so widespread it has quasi-legal status. However, complete legalization would probably result in even greater use as it would be even more widely available. Simply stated there are many who will not use a drug if it is illegal or hard to obtain. Legalization removes that barrier. Currently those who wish to use marijuana have to find a dealer they can trust. Of course, the police are also after the same dealers. One of the results of this is a higher price for the product as well as variation in quality. There are many who might use marijuana who might not use the drug due to its criminal connection and fear that it might not be safe. Start selling the product in the same way tobacco or alcohol is sold and sales will almost certainly increase.

I did notice that you did not refute any of the articles and data I supplied dealing with other drugs like alcohol and prescription drugs. These drugs are problems because they are widely used by the bulk of the population and they are widely used because they are legal. I cannot prove it, but I suspect legalization of marijuana in California might have the same result.

So far as alcohol is concerned we already have one example of what legalization can lead to. In Alberta when the drinking age was 21 most liquor bootlegged to those under age was sold to high school students (Grade 10 and up) and to those members of the population over 18 but under 21. When the drinking age was lowered to 18 one of the effects was to make it available to a younger groups of potential consumers, namely those in junior high (aged 12 to 14). This was due to the fact that prior to lowering the drinking age very few junior high students knew anyone who was 21 or older; however, they did know many students who were 18 as these 18-year-olds often went to nearby high schools or even to combined junior-senior highs.

The conclusion seems quite clear - make a drug more widely available and more people will use it. Make it legal and you really increase its availability.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Everyone keeps saying we won't know what will happen if all becomes legal.
That is not so, there will be an initial rush and then it will balance itself just as
booze did. The difference is we will have a better idea of how big the problem
is because people won't feel the need to hide behind denial for legal reasons.
It is like the smoking laws. All those under 19 are breaking the law if caught
smoking cigarettes. They now do surveys and find most young people don't
smoke. Is that so? Probably not, if someone thirty or more asked if you were
breaking the law, would you tell the truth? When you were young would you
have said yes? Likely not.
I don't like the idea, but I believe its the only way to get control of the real, lets
say collateral damage. We know who we can help and who we can't right
now we don't really know how big the problem is.
I have a saying, you do not know the size of the solution required until you
know for sure the size of the problem.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Stossel and O'Reilly were at it again tonight....and they both gave good argument for their respective sides....Gotta admit....I'm on the fence on this one......

Does that make me a centrist???? or just undecided....;-)