HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Patrick Kennedy's SAM spa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:07 PM

Patrick Kennedy's SAM spam, redux

Now on tape. Had such an effect on me, I had to write him a letter.

Dear Paddy -

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are the face for liberals who don't want to admit they oppose allowing people who use marijuana to have the same rights as those who use alcohol or tobacco. Because, face it, that's inequality; this is what people like you, Paddy, are marketing to the public...unequal application of the law.

But you do it under the guise of care about the general population, and most especially, as with all the right wing attacks over the years.. the emotional appeal is "think of the children"... as though everything that might somehow not be right for children should be prohibited to adults.

That's a stupid fucking argument. But that's the argument that's being made, basically, because any time marijuana opponents want to argue with fact, they lose.

Because the reality is that in every issue that you, Paddy, bring up, the argument has no merit.

(Paddy is worried because marijuana is on the way to legalization. He's suddenly paying attention after more than a decade of changes that the American people have voted for - in 18 states that allow regulated medical marijuana - and 2 that now intend to have legal marijuana.)

To your claim that "we don't need a new legalized drug," Patty.

Tell the truth. You don't really mean this. You don't really mean that pharmaceutical cos should not do research and create drugs intended to help others (tho, in reality, the side effects of these many, many legal drugs are far, far, far more harmful than anything related to marijuana...) but, tell the truth.

The truth is that you were addicted to a pharmaceutical drug, not marijuana. The truth is that you don't know the first thing about the lives of those who are not addicts. Why don't you focus on making pain killers illegal? Oh, because some people use them responsibly. So everyone shouldn't have to suffer because a few have a problem with addiction. That's common sense - that you seem to be unable to supply when it comes to the issue of marijuana. You don't oppose bringing new drugs onto the market, even if they cause addiction, because, at least in that case, you can recognize that not everyone reacts to things in the same way. But you seem unable or unwilling to apply this same common sense to marijuana. It's almost like...madness. Reefer Madness. redux.

The truth is - You are targeting marijuana - not all drugs. The truth is that marijuana isn't even a drug. It's a plant. It's not processed, like poppies, to make a drug. It's a plant in its natural form.

You want to keep a plant illegal, Paddy, not a drug.

The basic dishonesty begins with the claim that marijuana is a drug. Nutmeg isn't a drug, nor are bananas. Both have psychotropic properties. Not illegal. Poppies that are used to make heroin are legal to grow in the U.S. It's illegal to make heroin. The plant is not illegal. You support the idea that a plant should be illegal. Not a drug. Of course, Paddy, you didn't begin this basic dishonesty. It started with Nixon and his desire to get rid of his enemies (those enemies included your dad, while those who have consistently been pro reform of marijuana law were also those who supported your family members when they ran for office.)

Your reasoning is faulty because it is marinated in right-wing ideology.

But let's talk about illegality and what it means. What happened when alcohol was illegal?

A lot of crooks made a lot of money smuggling alcohol. You may have known one of them. One of them was your grandfather. That's why anyone cares to hear anything you say, because your grandfather made money smuggling alcohol. He bought legitimacy with his money and sent his kids to good schools. But, face it, he made his money off of alcoholics, some of them, and, if you are so up in arms about this issue, why don't you give away your inherited wealth and ask your family members to do the same?

Otherwise, it's like you're complaining about the competition.

But back to reason. The first nationwide organized crime syndicates came into being because of prohibition. Women began to drink, more than ever before, because alcohol was illegal and with that came a certain cache. More people died from poorly made alcohol. Government corruption was rank and file since ALL WASHINGTON POLITICIANS had access to booze IN THEIR OFFICES. After alcohol was made legal, crime plummeted. The prohibition was the cause of the crime.

But, you are proposing to maintain another two-tier quasi-legality - those who have money don't have to worry and can do whatever they wish regarding bad law. Those who are everyday folks have to face consequences those in your social set will never know.

That's just wrong. It was wrong when Dan Burton's son got off after caught transporting LSD. Wrong when Mitch Daniels was given a slap on the hand for dealing drugs in college. It will still be wrong when a black guy on the street is targeted and given an arrest record while your children's friends can indulge as they wish with no consequences at the private homes and private pool that privilege bring.

That's not the kind of Democrat I want to see speaking about any subject, one that supports a two-tier version of justice, whether it's based upon the substance (alcohol vs. marijuana), or the citizen (a poor kid vs a rich one.) That's like the Jim Crow South Democrat during segregation. Don't be that person, Paddy.

You conflate the problems of alcohol with marijuana. Marijuana is not related to incidences of domestic abuse. That's your family's brand, son, not the effect of marijuana.

If you're worried about "big marijuana," like big tobacco, as an entity in American society... and, so interesting, isn't it, that the heir of big alcohol worries about this... but anyway, if you're worried about that - limit the number of acres that can be used for recreational marijuana, or make it a product that may only be grown by farmers who live on their land - give them something to grow that the agri-bizzes can't. Obviously regulation isn't the issue - you want marijuana regulated to the point of keeping it illegal.

Let agri-biz grow hemp, instead, and compete with the petrol industry over plastic products. Wow. What a great p.r. stunt for agri-biz - to grow something that requires little to no pesticides, that can be used for virtually any petrol-based product... now that would be something worth talking about.

Here's the truth, Paddy, and all you other Democrats who oppose legalization. Anslinger is dead. thankfully. And the American people are burying his corpse with the repeal of laws that were then and are now based upon lies.

Reactionaries are not going to rule this day.




15 replies, 1037 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Patrick Kennedy's SAM spam, redux (Original post)
RainDog Jan 2013 OP
vt_native Jan 2013 #1
RainDog Jan 2013 #4
life long demo Jan 2013 #2
RainDog Jan 2013 #5
djean111 Jan 2013 #3
dsc Jan 2013 #7
RainDog Jan 2013 #8
dsc Jan 2013 #9
djean111 Jan 2013 #11
RainDog Jan 2013 #13
Ohio Joe Jan 2013 #6
ms liberty Jan 2013 #10
RainDog Jan 2013 #12
RainDog Jan 2013 #14
RainDog Jan 2013 #15

Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:15 PM

1. Good post

Hey Patrick, enjoy your Ambien, you dick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vt_native (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:29 PM

4. I don't think it's necessary to name call

Maybe Patrick reads DU and he'd like to talk about this. I'm just an average, everyday citizen, but I've read the research (not just about addiction - that's what Patrick has focused on because that's his issue.) My concern is the science behind the law - the justification.

anyway, I'd welcome a discussion of this. that won't happen with name calling.

I'd also like to see Patrick Kennedy and Michelle Alexander debate this issue. That would be a good conversation to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:23 PM

2. I have one little change I would suggest

He is Pat or Paddy for Patrick, She is Pat or Patty for Patricia. Otherwise I agree with the comments. Alcohol imo is a much more dangerous drug responsible for destruction in so many families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to life long demo (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:46 PM

5. done.

I'm not Irish.

Yes. Alcohol is far more dangerous as a substance for adults to use for recreational purposes. That's fact.

It is impossible to overdose on cannabis in its natural (plant) form. The effects of cannabis are different than alcohol - the two experiences are not the same.

But, most importantly, anyone can make wine or beer at home, and some do. They do it for themselves, for a hobby, not an income. Those people are not subject to arrest. If you're an avid gardener, like Michael Pollan, for instance, and would like to grow this plant - that's illegal.

It's insanity disguised as law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:24 PM

3. Who the heck is he to be telling anyone what to do?

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:02 PM - Edit history (1)

He certainly doesn't bring anything good to that Kennedy legacy thing, that's for sure.
Nothing worse than an ex-addict who presumes that everyone else must be addicted to whatever it is, too.
Apologies to ex-addicts - a couple in my family went around taking drinks out of everyone else's hands and generally were pains in the ass. Not a matter of not drinking in front of them, either - rooting through the house for any alcohol so they could triumphantly throw it out.
I edited because I worded my first post rather stupidly and insultingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:50 PM

7. wow guess people like me should just be shot

Incidentally some famous ex addicts. Ann Richards, John Larroquette, Aaron Sorkin to name three. Guess the world would be better off without them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:52 PM

8. stop trying to escalate an insult

it's a huge, huge leap to an insult to "should be shot."

don't play that kind of game.

I don't have anything against addicts. I know and love some, as do most other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:53 PM

9. He said, nothing worse than an ex addict

that would make us worse than Hitler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:58 PM

11. I apologise profusely, and will edit my post.

What I meant was, an ex-addict telling others what to do. I have been acquainted with some quite Draconian folks in that regard.
Didn't seem to quite get it that some people can have a drink or two without going on to have ten. So - no one can drink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:01 PM

13. I'll be happy to delete my post then, too

I don't want to get into name calling here. None is necessary, on that person's side, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:49 PM

6. K&R - nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:54 PM

10. K&R...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:00 PM

12. FACT: Marijuana and IQ

IQ tests themselves are debatable, but let's not go there. Let's focus on whether or not marijuana use causes lower IQ. (This is one of SAMs claims.)

This study from the Canadian Medical Association indicates that dose and frequency are the issue.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.abstract

Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).

This study did not have a huge sample size, but the most astonishing result, it seems, is that light marijuana use resulted in a gain in IQ that was greater than the loss in heavy users and greater than the gains from either former users or non-users.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:04 PM

14. FACT: Oxycontin is FIVES TIMES the "gateway drug" as marijuana

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/top-ten-cannabis-science-stories-2011

Prohibitionists have been using the “Gateway Drug” scare for years to frighten the public about legalization. Despite every study blowing the concept out of the water, it still resonates with a large segment of the voters. So I decided to take a look at the data to find out which drug is really the one with the greatest correlation to hard drug use, and it definitely wasn’t cannabis!

We cross-referenced the NSDUH numbers based on whether someone had ever tried marijuana. We found that only 1.5% of people who have toked became monthly cocaine users. For ecstasy, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, and PCP, less than 1% of the people who’ve tried pot are using those drugs regularly. Meanwhile, 2.9% of the people who’ve ever tried an legal analgesic (pain reliever) are regular cocaine users. For ecstasy, crack, and meth, more than 1% of who tried analgesics are regular users. People who tried analgesics are more than twice as likely as people who tried pot to use heroin regularly and three times more likely to use LSD regularly.

But if opponents want to cling to the idea that we should do everything in our power to stop someone from smoking that first marijuana joint, lest they become illegal drug addicts, then it is time to prohibit Vicodin, Lortab, Lorcet, and Oxycontin, those powerful legal opioid pain killers. The first Vicodin/Lortab/Lorcet leads to almost three times the risk of becoming a non-pot illegal drug user than the first joint and almost the same risk as smoking a joint every month. That first Oxycontin is more than five times the risk for drug abuse than the first joint.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

15. is this post an ad hominem attack?

looking for evidence of such a claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread