I heard that S.E. Cupp had written the "
Stupidest Possible Column on Pot," so I figured it must be a real doozy to be stupider than David Brooks's pot column. It is.
Opinion
I'm not sure there is any such thing as a liberal orthodoxy, but whatever.
As Colorado continues its successful rollout of new state marijuana laws, it's not just potheads who are eager to see if legal weed can work. Politicos, too, are wondering how all of this will shake out.
Will pot smokers become a sought-after voting demographic? Will Republicans look like school marms if they oppose legal marijuana? Will liberal supporters suffer when the law change inevitably creates more drug users?
First of all, "school marms" would be a HUUUGE improvement in Republicans' public image. Currently, they're seen by most Americans as self-righteous troglodytes with serious anger issues and persecution complexes.
Second, why would the "inevitable" creation of more drug users cause "liberal supporters" to suffer? She doesn't say.
That all remains to be seen, but some obvious extrapolations make it clear that the legal weed experiment could at least put the politics of progressivism - all the rage in liberal circles now - in a tricky spot
Um, since "liberal" and "progressive" mean pretty much the same thing, it's really a weird thing to say that progressivism is now "all the rage" amongst liberals. It's like saying that the NFL is all the rage amongst football fans.
For one, there are glaring inconsistencies between the liberal argument for pot legalization and positions on other issues. An obvious one is gun control.
Well, it's not obvious to me, but that might be because I'm a "normal" person. You know, "sane."
The same argument used against guns is used for pot: that legalizing pot and making it more available will reduce crime.
I've read that sentence five times and I'm still not sure what the hell it's supposed to mean. Is she trying to say that legalizing guns, which are already legal, and making them more available will somehow reduce crime? I just read it five more times and I still have no idea.
We're told pot users will "responsibly" use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes. But what barometer are they using to determine that persistent recreational drug users, who have presumably broken the law before by possessing marijuana, are responsible people? And why aren't lawful gun owners afforded the same level of trust?
Why? Really? First of all, THEY ARE. Thanks to the lobbying efforts of the gun industry, pretty much anyone can legally own a gun. And we're all just supposed to trust that they will act responsibly. Even though. . .
Kentucky Legislator Accidentally Fires Handgun Inside State Capitol
Father Faces Manslaughter Charges After Baby Dies Of Gunshot To Abdomen
Man Accidentally Shoots Self, Friend In Busy Restaurant
Father Shoots And Kills 14-Year-Old Daughter, Saying He Mistook Her For Burglar
Oh, hell, just go on Twitter and check the hashtag #GunFail, you'll see a million examples of why "lawful gun owners" maybe don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If progressives want to keep gun control in the crosshairs - and many have said they do - they'll have to reconcile this intellectual incongruity.
No, you will. You will have to somehow get your head around the fact that there really is no similarity at all between guns and pot. Until a father accidentally kills his two-month-old daughter with a joint, there is no comparison. Until a pothead goes into a movie theater and kills a bunch of people with marijuana smoke, they have nothing in common. Until a Congresswoman gets brain damaged by a bong-wielding lunatic, there is no comparison between pot and guns. So for "liberals" to treat them differently is entirely logical and sensible. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether pot should be legal or what restrictions should there be on gun ownership, but it's two totally separate discussions.
One liberal whose positions are at least consistent is Michael Bloomberg (yes, I meant liberal).
Yes, I know you meant it. That's why we're laughing.
One liberal whose positions are at least consistent is Michael Bloomberg (yes, I meant liberal). He opposes guns and legal pot, even going so far as to once call medical marijuana "one of the great hoaxes of all time."
You do know that Bloomberg has no medical or scientific background, right? You know he is in no way qualified to comment on the efficacy of medicinal marijuana, right? And that he's an asshole, right?
But for other Democrats who, like him, promote an expansion of the health nut state
Health nut state? Wanting people to have access to doctors makes one a "health nut?"
But for other Democrats who, like him, promote an expansion of the health nut state, but want to also support legal marijuana use, does it really work to rail against trans fats and restrict the smoking of cigarettes but allow pot smoking (and the sloth and munchy-induced snacking that comes with it)?
Don't expect Michelle Obama or Felix Ortiz, the New York assemblyman who proposed banning salt in restaurants, to rally for weed any time soon.
So then that WOULD make them consistent, wouldn't it? Ms Obama and Mr. Ortiz, who both promote healthy eating are NOT supporting legalized pot. Isn't that consistent?
Don't get me wrong; conservatives are confused, too. While there's obvious support among libertarians, others worry about the moral implications of legalizing risky behavior simply because people are "going to do it anyway" and letting go of the last vestiges of Nixon and Reagan's war on drugs.Yeah, why would you want to abandon that highly successful policy? And for that matter, why did we ever pull out of Vietnam? We could've won that war! Damn you, liberals!
And we certainly can't legalize any behavior that is "risky!" That would be as irresponsible as encouraging young people to forego getting health insurance because they're young and healthy! And legalizing risky behavior is sort of the opposite of the "nanny state" which conservatives constantly decry.
But as the left struggles with its identity - is it the party of Bloomberg or Bill de Blasio?Oh, Jeezus. . .
First of all "The Left" isn't a party. Secondly, DeBlasio is a Democrat, Bloomberg is a Republican. Thirdly, Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?
Trick question, of course she is. Because while she thinks she's pointing out this huge logical inconsistency on the left - that they supposedly want pot legal and guns illegal - she wants guns legal and pot illegal, which by her standard, is exactly as inconsistent as the left's positions. A not B is exactly as inconsistent as B not A.
Of course, neither position is actually inconsistent because, as normal people may have noticed, pot and guns are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!
There's more weirdness and stupidity in Cupp's column, but there's anly so much I can take.
Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pot-put-progressives-tough-spot-article-1.1568639#ixzz2prFpE4t7
