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.
