Stephen Baldwin: The Desperate Talking Head of Prohibition
Two days ago I glimpsed past a mention of another Stephen Baldwin debate. At first I thought for sure this wasn’t a new article, since who in their right mind would put Baldwin in any position of authority after his failed attempts at logic while debating Ron Paul back in March, or being embarassed on Larry King Live while attempting to convince Montel Williams that marijuana should remain illegal. Sadly, my hopeful assumptions were made in vain as this was indeed a new peek inside the twisted, desperate world of fallacious prohibitionist syllogisms.
The format this time was a guest column pro/con opinion piece run by CBS News.com. On the pro-side, we have the friendly, familiar face of Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Nadelmann does a wonderful job at providing a serious response to a serious issue facing our country (if not the world). He provides a clear, concise viewpoint which is complimented by various references to current events and statistics.
On the con-side, we have a co-written piece by Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough; I can only assume that the task of putting 500 or so different words side by side was a bit overwhelming for any single prohibitionist? For those of you not familiar, Stephen Baldwin is an actor who became a born-again Christian after his cleaning woman prophesized that Stephen and his wife would have their own ministry in the future. He has since “turned his life around” and one of his major targets is marijuana (perhaps no one told him that marijuana is not a sin?).
Stephen’s partner, Kevin, is quite the colorful, loving character as well. You may be familiar with some of his articles, including, Why Liberals Still Think Like the KKK, Obama as Hitler, Why Liberals Despise American Patriots, and–my personal favorite–Obama: America’s first Gay President?. Yes, this is who Stephen chooses to associate himself with because, as we all know, the answer to “WWJD” is, “Hang out with people who know how to write passionate hate-pieces.”
I will be responding to Stephen and Kevin’s article on a point-for-point basis, per my usual style. I want you to pay attention, however, to the overall condescending, patronizing tone used throughout the article. This is a common technique by prohibitionists as it helps create a more friendly and open “voice” for the reader, which helps to make an emotional connection in hopes of gaining support for beliefs which can not stand on their own merits. In other words, when faced with debating about a topic of which the individual in question has no education or authority, some choose to compensate with charm and quips.
America doesn’t want its pot…American potheads do!
Sure the debate is raging presently, but it’s as fictional in its need as whether pigs can fly or whether Superman was or was not faster than that bullet.
Right out of the gates, the authors waste no time destroying whatever legitimacy their article might have contained with this childish over-simplification of the issue. Gentlemen, by “potheads”, are you are referring to the millions of tax-paying American citizens currently using marijuana, the farmers who would like to be able to grow a crop as versatile as hemp, or even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who both supported marijuana?
Perhaps the authors are referring to all those “potheads” who were not as blessed as others to be free from various medical conditions which only marijuana seems to treat effectively. Or maybe they just meant all those people who would rather use a safe recreational substance rather than dangerous alternatives.
In the modern trumped up controversy over whether marijuana should be legalized for the masses, the biggest canard of all is the supposed demand that exists. As a team that produces a weekly talk radio show now heard on 195 stations, we can earnestly say one thing is definitively true in the discussions we’ve launched about the revival of the “Should pot be legal?” question: “America doesn’t want its pot…American potheads do!”
While Nadelmann relied on studies and statistics, Stephen and Kevin seem to feel their personal observations stemming from their radio show discussions are more than sufficient enough to draw correlations from. It is also worth remembering that people who listen to their show most likely align themselves with a similar ideology. In other words, any feedback they received regarding marijuana via their listeners is most likely on par with polling PETA members about their feelings towards the beef industry.
Almost to a person, callers to our broadcast who have asserted the need for weed’s legality are also toking up on a regular basis.
Once again as I reach out in an attempt to find logic in this statement, I feel nothing but a warm breeze. Why does it matter whether or not a person uses marijuana? While there are many people who openly support marijuana without using it, there are supporters who owe their passion for marijuana legalization to first-hand experience of just how safe and helpful it is.
Considering that Stephen starred in “Biodome,” one of the more famous marijuana movies of all time, and that he has testified to smoking enough of the substance prior to his conversion to Christianity to fund a third world junta or two, we are able to compare the pleas of the modern marijuana movement and measure them for what they are — cries of economically struggling potheads who want to get high cheaply, next generation be damned.
Nothing could be more foolish and nothing could be more unnecessary.
Yes, Stephen, I know you had a role in a 3.8/10-star movie that included references to marijuana culture. And yes, I know that you admit to being one of millions of Americans who have used marijuana. What I do not know, however, is why you feel any of this constitutes a viable argument against marijuana. All I see is more pathetic attempts at relating to your readers or convincing them that your opinion is relevant, all while providing absolutely nothing of substance or merit (things I like to call “facts”).
We have no desire to prevent doctors from prescribing specified care, or authorizing specific treatments for patients that simply cannot find any more compassionate or effective means.
Again and again I have heard Stephen and other prohibitionists try to make themselves sound more compassionate by attempting to claim that legalization of marijuana and medical marijuana are two completely separate entities. The fact is, however, that medical marijuana is directly hindered by marijuana’s overall stigma (perpetuated by prohibitionists). This, in turn, leads to confusing state laws, conflicting federal laws, and an ever-growing list of legitimate medical users who have fallen victim to the War on Drugs.
We do, however, also recognize that the medical community has expanded its array of treatments in instances for cancer and other diagnoses that might render the need for marijuana completely useless.
The authors are correct in their claims that the medical community has indeed expanded and progressed heavily when it comes to treatments for cancer and other diseases. What they fail to mention is that a fair number of these studies revolve around the amazing medicinal value of marijuana and its chemical constituents, such as the recent study regarding killing brain cancer cells with THC. As illustrated by the ever-expanding resource of studies on this site, marijuana continues to prove itself as an efficient, effective, safer treatment for various conditions and diseases.
But what about the authors’ claim that new drugs may soon “render the need for marijuana completely useless”? I have no doubt that science will continue to develop more and more precision-drugs and I completely welcome this! However, this in no way implies that marijuana may somehow become obsolete. First, consider the fact that marijuana is a natural substance, which means it has a diverse genetic and chemical composition. What does this mean? Put simply, your body is fairly smart and has the ability to build tolerances to chemicals it runs into frequently. This means that medicines may come along that synthetically replicate the properties of marijuana, but due to them being less diverse in composition, they can never treat a person in the same way their natural counterparts can. Similarly, claiming that man can somehow replace the need for marijuana is like claiming there is no longer a need for sugar when SPLENDA® brand sweetener is available.
What is so wrong with having choice, especially when one of the choices is natural, cheap, and–based on modern studies–safe?
Further, let’s not forget that professional drug-dealers with degrees (i.e. Doctors) are not a luxury that all Americans are privy to. As I already discussed in a previous article, marijuana is inherently compassionate in that it does not discriminate based on social/economic status. Whether you are Sir Richard Branson or one of the 46-million+ Americans without health insurance, marijuana offers an affordable and effective alternative to the for-profit pharmaceutical industry.
So, Stephen and Kevin, who are you to say that those of us in lesser tax brackets are not deserving of compassion?
What we oppose with ferocity is making it as common for children to obtain as alcohol and cigarettes are now.
Legalizing it across the board creates easier access for children who we suppose would still be legally prevented from “purchasing” it.
When I was in high school, I had ample opportunities to use marijuana. Not because marijuana was simply “popular”, but because it was much easier to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes. The reason is simple: people who sell marijuana, unlike regulated establishments like Liquor stores, are under no pressure to check ID before making a sale.
The irony is that as much as you claim you somehow care about children, you don’t seem too concerned about the many children suffering around the world due to prohibition. You don’t seem to mind that your ignorant assumptions about recreational marijuana use also impede the progressive hemp movement which could help so many. And you definitely don’t seem to care about the many children caught in the middle of your War on Drugs.
Apparently even you do not fully believe your ramblings, as illustrated by your confusing statement, “…who we suppose would still be legally prevented from ‘purchasing’ it.” If you suppose that children would not be able to purchase it, then where is your argument? That is the point. That is why it is safer to regulate marijuana than it is to let the black-market handle things. Regulation creates a safer, cheaper, legal alternative to the black-market, essentially creating an environment in which it can not afford to compete/exist. With regulation, your average child can no longer buy a bag off a friend from class and, instead, must find a way to deceive a licensed facility.
Will some find a way? Of course, but a fraction of children will always find ways to defeat our attempts to control their actions. Some children will try to use marijuana no matter what, so why would you want to make it easier for them by removing regulatory obstacles? The reality is that the vast majority of children who currently have easy access to purchasing marijuana have such access due to prohibition; access that would be removed under a regulated structure.
This doesn’t even preface the fact that cigarettes are now thought of as a greater evil to children than sex offenders.
I have no doubts that cigarettes are a bigger danger to children simply because they have been proven to cause so many diseases. The key fact to remember is that “cigarette” refers to tobacco cigarettes, not marijuana. If the authors wish to contest this point, they should show me the facts.
Marijuana proponents claim that the benefit to society would be enhanced by fewer offenders being sent to prison, tax revenues that would be generated, and the establishment of marijuana farming systems.
You forgot to mention the benefit of placing Americans’ freedoms and independence above the needs and profit margins of the corporations who first lobbied to make marijuana illegal rather than compete with it.
Ladies and gentlemen, please hold tight as we descend into desperation as the authors cowardly attempt to resurrect Reefer Madness-era fear mongering. Young children, pregnant women, and persons with heart conditions may wish to avoid subjecting themselves to the following logic:
A major untruth that they spread is that for every criminal it would prevent from being sent to prison, dealing with the increasingly prevalent use by underage users would be doubled or even tripled.
This was the authors’ moment to provide a shred of citation or reference to back up their point, but they failed to do so and thus failed entirely. The first question would be whether or not the statement above is true regarding increased use among underage users. The second would be whether or not this correlation would increase underage use by 200-300%.
Logically, it is safe to assume, as I already said, that when you replace black-market drug dealers with regulated facilities you dramatically decrease the opportunity for children to use marijuana. Logic is fun, but data is better so let’s compare ourselves with a country that has decided to regulate drugs, like marijuana, such as the Netherlands. When we compare US marijuana use with Netherlands marijuana use, we see an interesting picture:
Netherlands Marijuana Use compared to United States
Where are the higher rates of consumption? It would appear that increased usage is just another irrational fear, but I would love to see the research the authors’ are referencing (though I do not believe it actually exists).
The other issue worth noting when it comes to the legalization and supposed increased usage among users is whether or not it is even an issue to begin with. Sure, if you allow yourself to view marijuana in the same mindset as you view alcohol or tobacco then you may feel there is an obvious requirement to keep it as restricted as possible. The problem is that there is no evidence to show it is nearly as bad as alcohol or tobacco.
A bar graph based only on the physical harm means of substances. (Click to Enlarge)
What they also will not tell you is that for every ounce of tax revenues raised, a ton of cost is exacted upon society by intoxicated drivers, child addicts, counseling, rehabilitation, etc.
Another bold claim made even more bold by failing to provide any references or citations. First, legalized marijuana would not increase car accidents. Second, marijuana does not cause chemical dependencies and is not addictive. Third, many counseling and rehab centers are a product of prohibition and exist primarily due to people being nearly forced into them after being arrested for marijuana. As I pointed out in my de-filtering of the Miron/Walters debate on CNN, often times a person has the choice of rehab or a comparatively harsher sentence of jail time and/or fines… who wouldn’t choose rehab? It is another desperate attempt to invent evidence by prohibitionists. Thankfully, we could save tax money after legalization and allow only those who truly need rehab to sign up.
And the farming argument is just dumb.
Really? That’s all? One of the biggest reasons to legalize marijuana and you shrug it off as “just dumb”? I wasn’t aware that giving thousands of Americans jobs in the prospective hemp industry was “just dumb”. I had no idea that potentially weening ourselves off our petroleum addiction was “just dumb”. I also had no idea that the plant touted by our own government as an essential crop to win World War II was “just dumb”.
What the rabid dealers and addicts will not admit is that the primary reason they are making this push is multi-purposed. First, they believe having a former user in the White House will give them the cover they need to make this process speedy, efficient, and successful. And second, they are convinced that it will give them easy access to the “high” they want, as well as give the pushers a new line of clientele.
First off, the last three presidents have admitted to using marijuana, yet it was not legalized. Obama has already made it clear he has no intentions of directly legalizing marijuana and, in fact, he laughed at the idea. The current push we are having in the legalization movement was bound to happen sooner or later, as prohibition always fails sooner than later. Second, what is wrong with feeling good? Some people relax with tobacco, others with alcohol or coffee. What is wrong with those individuals who would like to responsibly use a substance without being labeled a criminal?
The pot-heads of America believe that their new day has dawned.
But for the sake of our kids and the generations to come, it is still not too late to “just say no!”
A new day has dawned. People are starting to realize that they were duped by their own governments. Science is finally prevailing and dismantling prohibitionist arguments one by one. So for the sake of our children and the generations to come, for the sake of neighboring countries’ children, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our liberties, for the sake of the sick, for the sake of the impoverished, for the sake of truth, for the sake of stopping our war against American citizens, and for the sake of respect for the constitution of these United States of America, just say no to ignorance and yes to RE-legalized marijuana.
Want to share this link on your site/blog? Copy and paste this code:
