CNN Anchor Shamelessly Lauds Mayor Bloomberg's Newest Smoking Ban
By Matt Hadro | May 24, 2011 | 16:05
CNN anchor Randi Kaye finished her Tuesday news hour with a giddy monologue praising the newest smoking ban in New York City. The ban, signed into law by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in February, took effect Tuesday and outlawed smoking in city parks, public plazas, beaches, and boardwalks.
"Yes, say what you want about Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban on, oh, about 1700 parks and 14 miles of beaches around New York City, but I think it is a great idea," Kaye gushed, effectively wagging her finger in front of all members of her audience who disagreed with the ban.
(Video below the jump.)
This wasn't the first time Kaye posed as a cheerleader for greater government regulation of certain industries. Back in 2007 she advocated gun control as a solution to Philadelphia's crime problems.
As if Bloomberg's 2002 indoor smoking ban wasn't comprehensive enough for her, the anchor-turned-cheerleader welcomed the new law with open arms – although complaining that it wasn't harsh enough. "Why didn't you include sidewalks in this ban, mayor?" she whined.
Kaye explained that she enjoys the fresh air when going for a run in city parks, and that smoking ruins the experience for her, and related her "battle" with second-hand smoke. After she advocated that smokers take their tobacco indoors and added "that is still legal, at least for now," one could only wonder if she was crossing the line from journalism over into advocacy.
[Click here for audio.]
"Sure, smokers argue they pay taxes too and should be able to light up wherever they want. But are you also going to pay our medical bills when we get sick from your second-hand smoke?" the anchor argued.
"If you want to smoke, smoke in your apartment. That is still legal, at least for now. But please, do us all a favor and keep your windows closed," Kaye concluded in one last haughty bit.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on May 24 at 2:58 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
RANDI KAYE: Time now for my "XYZ." And I have some good news. New York City's parks and plazas and nearby beaches are now officially smoke-free. Yes, say what you want about Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban on, oh, about 1700 parks and 14 miles of beaches around New York City, but I think it is a great idea.
Why? Because I am a New Yorker, and when I go for a run in Central Park, I like to smell the fresh flowers and the fall foliage when the leaves turn, not people's second-hand smoke. Central Park is a park. It is not the city's ash tray. For years, walking through Times Square and other plaza areas around Manhattan I've battled second-hand smoke. I've actually crossed the street to avoid people walking and smoking in front of me. Why didn't you include sidewalks in this ban, mayor?
Well now officers can write $50 tickets to anyone who lights up in areas that are now off limits. Sure, smokers argue they pay taxes too and should be able to light up wherever they want. But are you also going to pay our medical bills when we get sick from your second-hand smoke? It's time to stop flicking your ashes on city streets. If you want to smoke, smoke in your apartment. That is still legal, at least for now. But please, do us all a favor and keep your windows closed.
# # #
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I HATE these Govt enforcements!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:29pm.
I want to smoke wherever the Fu*k I want to! And every week theres some other lib group wanting a smoking ban at somewheres else, and then every other town follows! Pretty soon it wont be legal! Where else is there to smoke at? BTW, Im going out for a smoke myself now, cause all these pronouncements make me want to smoke EVEN more!
That Bloomberg is a good
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:28pm.
That Bloomberg is a good conservative.
As a die-hard conservative reader said here last night, "but Conservatives understand that, sometimes, it is desirable, even necessary, to regulate and control the behavior of others so that all of society will benefit."
Really?
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:38pm.
Who said that? Anytime a Liberal calls someone a "good conservative" you know damn well the liberal is blowing smoke up your a$$.
CobraMan
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:55pm.
CobraMan did:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/23/morning-shows-bombard-pawlenty-attacks-liberal-republican-demand-hig#comment-1492129
Ah yes, Satchmo, is trying to
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:03pm.
Ah yes, Satchmo, is trying to compare illegal narcotics to the banning of smoking in public places. Pretty pathetic and sad, Satchmo, even for you.
Nice try, though.
There's no trying about it;
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:25pm.
There's no trying about it; it is the exact same thing for the exact same reasons: controlling behavior. But this is, I am told, what conservatism is. Why, just today I had another self-professed conservative tell me that he thinks alcohol should be outlawed, even as he claimed he was for smaller government. But I would never, ever expect you to understand.
No one understands you Satchmo
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:08pm.
In one thread you are a champion of state's rights, the next you call NCCop a soldier of tyranny for enforcing STATE drug laws. You are either a liar or a very stupid hypocrite.
The exact same thing for the
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:22pm.
The exact same thing for the exact same reasons? Really? They are trying to outlaw cigarettes because tobacco street dealers are engaging in firefights in our communities with children getting shot left and right?
They are trying to outlaw cigarettes because tobacco dealers control city blocks and use murder and torture to keep a tight grip on them?
They are trying to outlaw cigarettes because people get hooked on them immediately and destroy their and their entire family's life just to get one more cigarette?
As usual, you live in a fantasy world and have absolutey no conception of what goes on in reality.
But I would never, ever expect you to understand.
Your argument makes no sense
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:06pm.
Did we make drugs like cocaine illegal because there were gunfights in the streets over them when they were legal? Ummmm, no. Those began AFTER they became illegal. There are no gunfights in the streets over tobacco territory because cigarettes are legal....for now at least. Make them illegal, and see what happens. I suspect it will work out at least as well as Prohibition did.
Next up...gun control. It's for the children, you know.
It does make sense, however,
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:03pm.
It does make sense, however, I failed to elaborate as much as I should have. You are right, back when drugs like cocaine were first made illegal the violence wasn't as prominent, but there was some violence. It was the 80's that really saw the violence skyrocket when crack cocaine was introduced. They were first made illegal because of the ease that people could get hooked on them.
That doesn't mean my argument doesn't make any sense. The punishment for violent crimes associated with illegal narcotics became more severe because of the explosion of violence, like the kind I mentioned. Simply making them legal won't solve anything.
Also, the violence associated with alcohol didn't disappear with the end of prohibition. Illegal liquor houses are prevelant in every city and are known for violence. We've had a homicide this year inside a liquor house. It didn't necessarily stop the violence surrounding liquor, just transferred the violence to a street level.
As soon as people start dying from an overdose from smoking ONE cigarette, as soon as people start craving a cigarette so bad that they are mugging and killing people to get money and as soon as smoking one cigarette sets you on a path to sell all of your belongings and completely destroy your life, maybe I'll agree.
Until then, you're comparing apples to oranges.
It's not going to get
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:43pm.
It's not going to get through. Ever.
Well, I guess that's easier
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:45pm.
Well, I guess that's easier to say then trying to defend your position, which you obviously can't.
Well done.
BEEP BEEP***MAJOR HYPOCRISY ALERT***BEEP BEEP
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:45pm.
Mr. Freedom, my ass.
Now why don't you give us a lecture on the constitutionality of taxing the living shit out of a legal product then basically outlawing it.
I can't wait for this one.
Oh, no. This is what I was
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:56pm.
Oh, no. This is what I was told conservatism is:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/23/morning-shows-bom...
I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I'm libertarian.
Lame-O-Rama.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:04pm.
You make a post 180° from the crap you've been spewing here for six months and linking to someone else's comment is the best you can do?
That's "sad."
What's sad is your failure to
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:53pm.
What's sad is your failure to recognize sarcasm.
Sorry to hear that there is no longer any wind in NYC.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:40pm.
"Smokers pay taxes, too"? You bet your butt they do, honey. As in $60 TAX PER CARTON in Bloombergville. Or $2,000 of taxes per year for a pack-a-day-smoker. Guess she inadvertently left that out.
But I'm glad she enjoys "smelling the fall foliage" when running in Central Park.
New York City Passes Law to Begin Executing Smokers
Submitted by HollyW on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:37pm.
A story in the Daily Rash claims that Bloomberg's new law will allow smokers to be executed! http://www.thedailyrash.com/?p=5908
So
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:44pm.
Don't go to NY if you don't like it. That's why we have 50 different states with 50 different constitutions resulting in 50 different sets of laws.
Thats funny
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:58pm.
One of our resident libtards suddenly supports states rights.
Is libtard the best you can come up with?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:05pm.
It's about as original as proclaiming "troll!" While you're busy being original, maybe you'd like to find an example to support your observation.
Well libtard troll
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:09pm.
You are a liberal yes? Nuff said.
50 different states all
Submitted by kg on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:05pm.
50 different states all battling liberals who want to rule the people and force them into their way of thinking, acting and lack of morals.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
That's right
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:21pm.
Just like conservatives.
Wrong, as usual, Irish-lib-troll, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:09pm.
all your time here and you still can't distinguish between conservative common sense and liberal flights of fancy.
Either you are exceedingly selective, or considerably biased.
MD
Really?
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:36am.
Who's administration just appointed a MInistry of Truth czar, whose job it is to 'correct' dissent? What party does the first wookie belong to? The woman that just had potatoes banned from lunches, along with appropriate amounts of protein? sugar? salt? smoking? Crosses at memorials? Coconut oil for movie theatre popcorn? Beef-based oils at fast food joints, followed by trans fats, followed by toys, followed by cartoon characters? The soundtrack to Purple Rain? Who attempted to define protest signs as 'weapons' in an attempt to 'ban' them? "wrong' info about Obamacare? Y'know, that law of absolute perfection that we just had to pass, and now is being waived for the fortunately connected. The displaying of the American flag in classrooms? Which party attempted to outlaw independent campaign ads 60 days before elections, allowing the "objective" media to be the sole arbiters of the outcome of the race? Who is constantly trying to disarm the people? Who calls the right for a redress of greivances "nazism" and "racism"? Who wants to tell you what light bulb to use, that you should get used to public transportation, how comfortable your home climate should be, how much water you can use, how much enforced "charity" you're responsible for, how many third-world racists you should tolerate and pay for? Many,many more I'm leaving out. Who is it, Irishman? Conservatives? really? Who?
Yes really
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:57am.
Outlaw abortion, mock science, screw the environment, every man for himself, lower taxes for the rich, even lower for the filthy rich, liberals have ruined the world...
And your clarion call: if you're not Christian, you have no morals.
Yes, just like conservatives.
Don't forget Irishman, we
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:00am.
Don't forget Irishman, we hate gays, muslims, immigrants, the poor, blacks, hispanics, asians....
I mean, if you're going to spit out ignorant talking points, make sure you cover them all.
zzzt
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:05am.
Hate and fear are 2 different emotions.
Dynamite drop in, Irishman!
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:16am.
Dynamite drop in, Irishman! That broadcast school has really paid off!!!
Broadcast School?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:22am.
Nice try.
This is the 25 time retread troll guttermouth.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:17am.
You may have seen him before. He has been here as ---
guttermouth
toughermutt
omo
Q
One
StewMckin
One of the hobbits name
I crush kittens in crush fetish videos
Rush to Judgement
Another Dead Kennedy
Let's talk about pedophilia. I like to talk about that.
4 other anagrams of guttermouth
pickles and peppers
Anyone remember the rest?
Typical lying lib
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:18pm.
You clearly have no morals, Christian or not.
It's very telling though that you equate(and apparently support) murdering children with being non-Christian. That's actually a compliment to Christians. Good job, lol.
Nice
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:23pm.
That sure is a whole lot of imagination in your post. Let's talk when you come down from that high horse you're posting from.
Actually ckc makes a very
Submitted by ant on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:17am.
Actually ckc makes a very good point. Is The Vet correct? Did you once go by the handle "Q"? If so, I wouldn't admit it, Q may have been the biggest and most cowardly asshole of a troll ever to lurk around here.
Q was one of them.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:58am.
You can see SickofLibs address him as Zippers here.
Just as well
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:28am.
You can see sol addressing dozens of randoms as "zippers." He's actually 0-1000.
Yes. You would know.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:32am.
You, the user that has been here 9 weeks would know all about the various accounts SickofLibs has outed. Wouldn't you? Huh? SickofLibs has identifed 23 Dead Angry Black Man Zippers accounts OVER 10 weeks ago. Many years ago. But you the 9 week user would know all about the history of Dead Zippers wouldn't you? Oh, that's right. You iz he.
Even after you have been cold busted 25 times, you continue to lie. Whatever, fill those diapers and whine about how the trolljegeren pick on you. You do that so well too.
Ah, what a day you've had here, Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:16pm.
The "don't call it Obama's limo" thread was a true classic.
But hey, at least you have that California medicinal marijuana script for comfort.
So spark one up, relax, and then get the hell out of the dog park. You don't won't to be here after dark.
Meow.
You're killing me!
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:41pm.
Between this post and Vet's on "that other thread" you've got me in stitches. It's funny because I've got L&O on in the background with someone bleeding on the ground and you 2 have me LOLing! What does that last line even mean?!?!
Whoople Dooplez. iz guttermutt liez again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:07pm.
The Irishman heah: ...you 2 have me LOLing!
The Irishman: You won't ever find a post of mine using LOL or ROFL, or any variations of such. "Hahahahaha" is the sound of laughter - LOL doesn't work for me.
oppz. iz lie aginz.
In other words, Vet
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:21pm.
He's a lying, liberal hypocrite(redundant, I know). What are the odds, lol.
I don't smoke so it's fine by me.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:21pm.
There's no such thing as "smoker's rights". A city, town, county, and state should have the ability to govern themselves. If an activity is a danger to its citizens than the citizens have the right to ban that activity. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be dangerous. If you don't like the smoking ban- mount a campaign to rescind it. It's your right to try and reverse it according to the Constitution. Good luck.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
"Secondhand smoke has been proven to be dangerous."
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:59pm.
Name one person who ever died from it.
I don't smoke so it's fine by me.
Thank you for being the very definition of useful idiot, because it won't be long before the government pleasure commies come after something you like, and don't be surprised if no one speaks up for you when it happens.
BTW: Which part of the concepts of freedom and liberty do you not understand?
-Dave
Smoking bans have been approved locally
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:17pm.
The fed had little to do with THIS particular subject, witch is nice. Well, other then make it unaffordable, and used our tax money to demonize it?
I do like the smell of a cigarette free restaurant. I am suprised at some of the more draconian outside smoking bans.
But seriously, if you smoke, you should quit
Smoking is dangerous on a beach, Blofeld?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:22pm.
Really?
You must have some wild parties.
"I'm grilling the steaks now, everyone put your facemasks on if you didn't arrive with one."
So CNN anchors can't have
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:25pm.
So CNN anchors can't have editorial moments on air?
But 24/7 bal
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:38pm.
Aint that a bit much?
crypto-dummy trolls can' fill in subject lines or tell the truth
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:10pm.
Still waiting for you to tell us why you heart 2 cop killers crypto-dummy.
The Mayor is a jackass hypocrite-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:04pm.
lets ban the sale of tobacco-if you really mean all this nonsense.
And rid yourselves of the taxes collected.
that will tell me you are for real-when tax money must be collected for toilet paper to replace the funds.
i hate street signs and addresses-visual pollution-just like tobacco.
Great idea Jimmy
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:34pm.
I agree
It's the Government Hypocrisy about smoking...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:48pm.
...that irritates many of us.
If smoking is so awful, it should be banned, but the government won't do that because it needs the tax money.
Either outright ban it, or let the marketplace decide where people can smoke.
If I want to run a bar where smoking is allowed I should be able to do that. If you don't like smoking, don't come to my bar,
I guess the bus fumes and
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:42am.
I guess the bus fumes and other state vehicles, like the parking authorities, exhaust don't bother this twit while she's jogging.
Hey, smokers. . . .
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:09am.
Get together with smoker friends and take over one of those city gardens and grow your own tobacco. No taxes, chemical free smokes, custom blends. More and more people are doing just that. And just imagine the liberal outrage over a tobacco co-op.
Just a suggestion.
Or Roll your own
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:27am.
The only tax you'll pay is state sales tax.
With taxes at $3 a pack
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:31am.
Many in Florida are going to tobacco shops, where one can buy tobacco, cigarette papers, and filters, and "rent" the machine to put it all together. At a 60% savings over store bought (and taxed) cigarettes.
How long these stores will be able to get away with this is debatable. Not long, I'd guess.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Cigs....
Submitted by adamsmith on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:36am.
$3 a pack was before Obama. Around $23 a carton(10 packs) during most of the Bush Administration. They went up to $58 a carton( liberals once again looking out for the poor) shortly after Obamalinsky was coronated. Then they have the nerve to lie and say second hand smoke is harmful, when those studies were as phoney as Obamalinsky's Birth Certificate, Non-existant school records, etc....Anymore, as a protest, I will light up any damn place my heart desires. The people have been beaten into compliant sheep so badly by the government at this point, no one will say or do a damn thing about it. Call a cop? Yeah, they're gonna rush right over to give me a ticket. See if they can make it in time before I finish it and blame some Liberal idiot for "breaking the law"....Amerikkka, ain't it grand?
Where?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:39am.
I paid $1.75 before Bush, around $3.50 during the Bush years, and less than $5 now.
They will probably will ban "loose" tobacco next.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:10am.
Finished cancer stick, fine, but materials to make, illegal.
DFTT, as a liberal, I think
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:41pm.
DFTT, as a liberal, I think that's a great idea. If you're going to be smoking, at least bypass the Morris/Reynolds monopolies, just as home brewers bypass the flavorless, stupid-commercial-airing Bud and Miller juggernauts. As long as you enjoy the fruits of your labor where I'm not going to get an inadvertent lungful, I say go for it.
Well, let's just change the
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:10am.
Well, let's just change the world to suit this liberal fool.
It may seem overblown when
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:29pm.
It may seem overblown when someone compares cigarettes to the more potent narcotics upon which the Drug War is waged, but I think the comparison is pretty much valid. How can one approve of the handing down of mandatory jail terms (in some jurisdictions) for the mere possession of half a gram of heroin or cocaine, but cry foul when laws are made about nicotine usage? Why exactly is it just dandy for the government to say you can't inject yourself with refined opiates, but it's borderline fascism for it to dictate where you may or may not inhale smoldering tobacco cut with a couple hundred chemicals?
Now, despite the fact that I think smoking cigarettes has got to be one of the stupidest activities a person can engage in, I don't wish to see it made illegal. As a CONSISTENT civil libertarian, I think all drugs should be decriminalized, and those that do not run a significant risk of immediately killing the user ought to be produced, regulated, age-restricted, and taxed to holy hell. New revenue source, eradication of illegal cartels and associated violence (even though alcohol and cigarettes are prohibitively expensive, there isn't exactly a booming industry of gun-toting bootleggers providing an alternative), freed up jail space for violent offenders. Everyone wins! The problem, of course, is that because of the all hand-wringing and misguided DARE-era propaganda, most politicians know that this position is career suicide.
But okay, so my point: Even if heroin and cocaine were decriminalized...does that mean we would have to tolerate addicts shooting up and snorting right out in the open, in parks and bars and street corners? Of course not. Nor do we tolerate public consumption of alcohol, except in highly restricted and licensed areas. And none of those drugs affect the breathing capacities of people nearby.
JasonC,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:42pm.
IYDM, a question. Would you be willing to support a mandatory increase in any crime committed under the influence of narcotics if all drugs were made legal?
'Nostic
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:45pm.
Are you asking for a mandatory increase in sentencing?
Mandatory increase?
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:49pm.
Not personally but I have heard comments by individuals that it may be the only way that certain drugs could ever be legalized. Just a question.
I think
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:15pm.
Decriminalizing drug use is about as likely as seeing Roe v Wade overturned in our lifetimes. But theoretically driving under the influence is driving under the influence, no matter the drug of choice. Consider gun control. The majority of gun owners are responsible, but the few who abuse this freedom end up in prison because they do not know how to follow the law. Same goes with drug users. There's a safe way to use and an unsafe way, and if you can't follow the law you lose your privileges.
Irish,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:28am.
I tend to agree with you despite the fact that I have seen what really happens when a nation tolerates drugs to the extent the Scandavian nations have gone. However, if drugs are ever legalized it will be under restrictions because the politicians will never jump in without testing the waters.
True
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:59am.
Politicians pretty much won't let us do a thing if they don't get to regulate it. Drugs would be no different, perhaps benefiting users in some cases by providing cleaner drugs from reputable retailers rather than mysteriously laced drugs from a dealer.
Of course I only wish for the drugs I've tested (they all fall near the bottom of the danger meter) to become legal which I'll happily admit is a highly hypocritical position to take. I just can't imagine a time when methamphetamine will be anything but a completely destructive drug, and making it even more available to the public is frightening. And not just because that s*** makes your teeth and skin rot.
I'm guessing you mean a
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:47pm.
I'm guessing you mean a mandatory sentencing increase? Not really. A committed crime is a committed crime. Unless the drug usage can be clearly linked to the crime - vehicular manslaughter versus same-while-intoxicated, for instance. But if you break into someone's house or assault someone, I don't believe your drug or alcohol blood level should really be a factor one way or another. I'd prefer to see the action itself punished, rather than chasing speculations about whether recreational chemistry "made" the person do it.
Oh look. Binky Braveheart is back.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:48pm.
Just in from protesting the Libya war milquetoast? Must suck for you. Another President, another war for you to stand out in the rain in your code pink t-shirt and panties. You are out there protesting right? I mean, it is not like you would just protest wars started by Republican presidents, right? Let's hear it. You got another badge right? Proudly tell us how you were against this war right from the beginning even though you did not bother to come here and say so when it started. Nah, you have been oddly mum about a Democrat President's war. You iz not partisan hypocrite at allz. You is good liberalz. It is better to come here and whine about big brand beer companies than proudly telling the class throughout 25 posts that you bravely bravely bravely opposed the war. Of course, there is not a Republican in charge to hate on so ahhh what the hell....
Wait, who now? Gosh, I think
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:33am.
Wait, who now? Gosh, I think you must be confusing me with another poster. He sounds like a real jerk though. Calling himself "Braveheart" and bragging about protesting with Code Pink? Hope you find him and take him down a peg or two.
I wouldn't. The crimes are
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:06pm.
I wouldn't. The crimes are already against the law whether one is under the influence or not. This falsely assumes that drug use is the cause of crime.
Stachmo,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:33am.
But isn't that the core of the issue - the belief that crime will sky rocket if drugs were made illegal. Those who believe must contend that any increased crime is due to the influence of drugs in one manner or another.
But the belief that
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:35am.
But the belief that illegality makes violence sky rocket has little if anything to do with people under the influence of the substances; it refers to violence on the part of the black market distributors and retailers.