CNN Reporter Promotes Pro-Pot Study: ‘Our Friend Marijuana’

Photo of Scott Whitlock.

Playing into the stereotype of what conservatives think liberals are interested in, CNN reporter Stephanie Elam introduced a new study on pot by calling the drug "our friend marijuana." Elam, the guest business reporter on Tuesday’s "American Morning," discussed a report from the Marijuana Policy Project [MPP]. The pro-legalization group claims that pot is the most valuable cash crop in the United States, far exceeding corn, wheat, and other products. This information seemed to animate Elam and guest host John Roberts:

John Roberts: "Corn and soybeans have nothing on America's largest cash crop, and get this: you can't even buy it at your grocery store. Twenty-four minutes after the hour, Stephanie Elam is minding your business this morning. Morning to you."

Stephanie Elam: "Good morning. I wonder how many people are tuning in now."

Roberts: "Yeah. What are we talking about here?"

Elam: "Our friend marijuana."

Roberts: "Oh!"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Elam: "Yes. A lot of people's friend, I should say. In the U.S., it actually exceeds $35 billion. Now, this information, I should say, is coming from someone who is advocating the idea of legalizing marijuana. But they're saying marijuana here is actually -- in the U.S. the market value exceeds $35 billion, and that would be greater than the value of corn, soybean and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops."

Roberts: "Hey, if you could make it into ethanol, maybe it would work."

Elam: "Then maybe there would be more people going for it. Now, a third of the harvest comes out of one state. You guys want to venture a guess which state?"

Soledad O’Brien: "California."

Elam: "Indeed. It is, indeed, my home state."

O’Brien: "I lived there for a long time. I know."

Shortly thereafter, the conversation shifted to another popular topic among liberals, increasing taxes on products. Specifically, Elam and Roberts indicated that legalization could be an act of of good citizenship:

Soledad O'Brien: "So, is this their strategy? We could make a lot of money if we'd legalize pot? Is that the--"

Elam: "Well, this man's angle is if they do this, and it's become something that could be treated like alcohol, and then, therefore, the government could tax it. And it would be another way for them to gain money."

O’Brien: "I get it."

Elam: "But they're saying--"

O’Brien: "Big numbers."

Elam: "Very large numbers. But it's an interesting idea."

Elam did state that MPP is a pro legalization organization, it’s also interesting to note that their website encourages supporters to "party at the Playboy Mansion" and is promoting a new ad that asks whether "Rush Limbaugh should go to jail."

Many conservatives may find it hard to resist making the joke that CNN’s fondness for marijuana would explain a number of their reports and odd claims.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on December 19 at 8:25am, follows:

John Roberts: "Corn and soybeans have nothing on America's largest cash crop, and get this: you can't even buy it at your grocery store. Twenty-four minutes after the hour, Stephanie Elam is minding your business this morning. Morning to you."

Stephanie Elam: "Good morning. I wonder how many people are tuning in now."

Roberts: "Yeah. What are we talking about here?"

Elam: "Our friend marijuana."

Roberts: "Oh!"

Elam: "Yes. A lot of people's friend, I should say. In the U.S., it actually exceeds $35 billion. Now, this information, I should say, is coming from someone who is advocating the idea of legalizing marijuana. But, they're saying marijuana here is actually -- in the U.S. the market value exceeds $35 billion, and that would be greater than the value of corn, soybean, and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops."

Roberts: "Hey, if you could make it into ethanol, maybe it would work."

Elam: "Then maybe there would be more people going for it. Now, a third of the harvest comes out of one state. You guys want to venture a guess which state?"

Soledad O’Brien: "California."

Elam: "Indeed. It is indeed, my home state."

O’Brien: "I lived there for a long time. I know."

Elam: "California. California would be the one; $13.8 billion worth, they're saying would actually come out of California there. And that would be more of the value of the state's combined market value of grapes, as well, as hay and vegetables."

O'Brien: "So, is this their strategy: we could make a lot of money if we'd legalize pot? Is that the-"

Elam: "Well, this man's angle is if they do this, and it's become something that could be treated like alcohol, and then therefore, the government could tax it. And it would be another way for them to gain money."

O’Brien: "I get it."

Elam: "But they're saying--"

O’Brien: "Big numbers."

Elam: "Very large numbers. But it's an interesting idea."

Roberts: "It follows along that whole thing that if you want to put the drug cartels and the poppy growers in Afghanistan out of business tomorrow, you legalize all this stuff and you can make huge profits."

Elam: "And some argue that doesn't really work as well anyway. For countries where opium or same thing, coca -- it's not having the same effect."

Roberts: "There's a little moral problem with that whole thing."

O’Brien: "I was going to say, then there's the moral argument that's not going to hold up on that one."

Elam: "They don't want it to be treated like LSD or heroin, because they're saying there's no actual benefit from there, whereas marijuana has shown to have some benefits. But still, it's -- I don't think it's really going to help."

O’Brien: "It's big numbers. The numbers they cite are 50 percent more, they say, worth of marijuana than the next type, which is what, corn or something"

Elam: "Corn, yes, soybean. And on top of it, in a dozen states it's also believed to be the top cash crop, as well. So it's spread across the country whereas it may have been in little areas before. Now it's everywhere."

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think that drugs should be

I think that drugs should be legalized in America.  There's no real evidence that legalizing it would actually lead to an increase in use.  For the same reason that prohibition didn't work the war on drugs doesn't and can't work.  The war on drugs costs us billions and billions of dollars with no results.  Education is the answer to this problem.  You can't sell drugs if no one wants em. 

I tend to agree with the abov

I tend to agree with the above poster -- not that all drugs should be legalized, but the less government intervention the better. That's what conservative politics is all about, right?  My feeling is people who want to destroy themselves will find  a way to do it.  Pot's illegal, so they guzzle Robitussin. Put Robitussin behind the drug store counter and they'll find something else.

The entire taboo behind illicit drugs is much of the reason for their appeal, in my opinion. And this is coming from someone who hates drugs, hates the drug culture and has never used any illegal drugs (I even avoid Tylenol).

Exactly, my body is my domain

Exactly, my body is my domain.  I don't think the govt should be able to give me a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt and I don't think the govt should have a say as to what I put in my body.  Personally, I don't use drugs but I still think they should be legal.  Laws concerning what individuals do with their own bodies are contrary to the idea of individual freedom. 

When what you put in your bod

When what you put in your body, causes, can cause, medical emergency, paid for by the state, taking away personnel from those who are sick, injured and in dire need of emergency services, and your behaveiour, illegal, legal, causes others to pay, taxes or time or need, then the goverment should tell you what you can and cant put into your body. Up to a point. And illegal drugs are illegal for a reason.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Sorry B&D, I gotta go with th

Sorry B&D, I gotta go with the other posts above. While not all drugs can or should be legalized, pot is definitely on the should be legal list.

We waste a lot of jail space and tax dollars trying to stop average people from taking a "hit" every now and again. Crack, meth, heroine, etc..., too much collateral damage but pot is definitely safer. Even **safer than alcohol and we all know prohibition didn't work when they tried to take that away.

** We do lab studies

Well, if you finally get it l

Well, if you finally get it legalized then of course we always have thousands of supportive Christian outreaches like AA, etc just ready and waiting to pick up the tragic pieces, as usual...

You'll just have to out-vote us...and then it's brain-trashing, life-ruining PARTY TIME...!!! YEE-HAW...

We waste a lot of jail space

We waste a lot of jail space and dollars trying to stop peoplr from committing rape and murder.  Do you suggest us ending law enforcement as is seems to be a big exercise in futility?

I'm sorry, but I like the United States being the world's premier society and cutting-edge civilization, not a society with burnouts and masses of people who want to "check out" of society in the name of the hippie lettuce.  If you don't think that would happen, I suggest you head on up to AK. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Not in Jessica Lunsford's c

Not in Jessica Lunsford's case "we" didn't...The cell that should have contained her rapist/killer instead contained a nonviolent "criminal" with a minimum mandatory sentence. Crimes with individually discernable victims are different from more-recently-invented "crimes" whose "victim" is "society" for some of us. As for Alaska, maybe a few of its (and the entire USA's?) problems just might be from porker-Republican crook-politicians trying to build a bridge to nowhere, but I think I can trust you to somehow find a way to blame that on Alaska's weed-smokers, too. 
JMR

All that was needed was to th

All that was needed was to throw Jessica's rapist/killer in The Chair to begin with, but it is much easier for you to blame thetaxandspenddrugwar than to blame your own state's judicial system, I suppose.  Unlike you, I really don't want a society full of burnouts and wasted lives. 

AKs problems indeed stem from those feeding at the trough (Stevens!!!), but also from the government not permitting further oil drilling in the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve (as I call it).  As for their Libertarians...I would like to know why every single one I have run into is a burnout or a current drug user.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Two wrongs don't make a right

Two wrongs don't make a right.  If I do drugs and mess up my body I don't think the state should be the one paying for my medical bills.  They shouldn't be the one paying the medical bills precisely because that gives them the ability to treat us citizens as children by telling us what we can and can't do to our own bodies. 

Also, if you're so worried about the cost to society as a whole you should clearly be for prohibition.  Alcohol alone kills more innocent people and costs the public much more than any other drug.  There are negative third party effects to every personal action.  To argue that marijuana use by individuals has a significant impact on the public is ludicrous as alcohol clearly has a much greater negative impact on society as a whole and yet alcohol is legal.

Try drinking a beer or other

Try drinking a beer or other alcholic beverage down the street. I know we have all done it, but it is easier to get caught drinking a beer while driving than smoking. I am not worried about the cost to society, so much. But the effects it has on legitmate persons. Children are the largest collection of affected victims of drug and alchocol abuse, as a group. Alchocol is legal, perhaps it shouldent be, but it is and contributes to the rate of abused children. We have one drug that is legal, lets not complicate, and make it easier for parents to neglect their offspring with drugs. Marijuana would do just that.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Pot being illegal doesn't sto

Pot being illegal doesn't stop anyone from buying and using it. Same as when alcohol was banned. And abusive parents will be abusive whether they use legal or illegal drugs. That's why it doesn't make sense to be pooring billions of tax dollars into a war on pot. We'll never be able to stop people from using. Perhaps we should use those billions of dollars to educate rather than locking people up for minor possession of pot.

We'll never be able to stop p

We'll never be able to stop people from speeding.  Should we lift all speed limits and curtail law enforcement?

And you may not notice, but Prohibition is not necessarily dead.  I don't know about your neck of the woods, but here in TX, Prohibition is a matter turned over to the counties.  There are many "dry counties" here in TX where, much to my chagrin, I find out about only after hitting their local supermarkets and not finding any alcohol for sale.  Additionally, in TX you may not purchase alcohol from a store from midnight to 7 a.m. on weekdays and from midnight to noon on Sundays.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

1. Got proof?2. "'Prot

1. Got proof?

2. "'Protect the Children' is the root password to the US Constitution." -- Timothy C. May said it well on cypherpunks in the early '90s. If you want the government to protect children, the only way they'll ever do that is to treat all citizen-units as children in a giant, one size fits all "solution" that's not-working.
JMR

Yep and history says, as wi

Yep and history says, as with alcohol prohibition (attacking Catholic immigrants) that reason's politically-incorrect name is bigotry. And I love how a study can become "pro pot" just by pointing out the numbers of an obviously-failing big government program when "conservatives" happen to worship it. Funny funny funny!
JMR

It can't be failing.  The Un

It can't be failing.  The United States remains the world's premier, cutting edge civilization, not a society filled with Needle Parks and burnouts as far as the eye can see.

And as for Prohibition being strictly an attack on Catholic immigrants, I would sure love to see the proof.  The phenomenon peaked in both Europe and North America in the 1920s, and in the United States, temperance/Prohibition movements were always a phenomenon in public life from virtually the founding of the nation all the way until Prohibition.  Indeed, there is still a Prohibition Party.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

not a society filled with Nee

not a society filled with Needle Parks and burnouts as far as the eye can see.

I'm sorry to inform you, our Moonbat Governor (Corzinebat) just signed that into law here in NJ a few days ago.   :-(

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience."  --Lynn Wooley

On NJ and AK

I've been to NJ and quickly came to the conclusion that it is an insane asylum.

And up in AK, if you are stopped by the local Keystone Kops, and they see you have an ounce of the Hippie Lettuce with you, you will not be arrested, as that is perfectly legal, per a 1975 AK Supreme Court decision.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

"It can't be failing&q

"It can't be failing" -- Ok, here's the Advocates For Self-Government's take on the same study. Judge for yourselves, folks! Annoying-part emphasis mine. :)
JMR
MPP Report: Does Prohibition of Marijuana Protect Teens?

Keeping marijuana out of the hands of children is one of the most frequently-
cited reasons for outlawing marijuana. And most responsible adults agree with
that goal.

But do current U.S. marijuana laws effectively deter marijuana use by teens?
Would re-legalizing marijuana lead to an increase in use by young people?

A new report by the Marijuana Policy Project indicates the answer is no. In
fact, says MPP, "empirical evidence ... shows that marijuana prohibition may
actually be responsible for increasing teen marijuana use."

Further, marijuana prohibition may actually encourage teens to experiment with
far more dangerous drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.

Among the report's major findings:

* Marijuana prohibition has not prevented a dramatic increase in marijuana use
by teenagers. In fact, the overall rate of marijuana use in the U.S. has risen
by roughly 4,000% since marijuana was first outlawed. 16.5% of eighth-graders
report having tried marijuana.

* For three decades running, about 85% of U.S. high school seniors have
reported that marijuana is "easy to get" -- and easier to get than beer --
despite a near-tripling of marijuana arrests since 1991.

* Independent studies by RAND Europe and the U.S. National Research Council
have reported that marijuana prohibition appears to have little or no impact on
rates of use.

* Since Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, the rate of
past-year marijuana use among 16-to-19-year-olds has dropped from 24.7% to
21.8%.

* In the U.S., rates of teen marijuana use in states that have decriminalized
adult marijuana possession are statistically equal to rates in those that have
retained criminal penalties. The latest state to decriminalize marijuana,
Nevada, has seen a drop in teen marijuana use since the decriminalization law
took effect in 2001.

* In the Netherlands, where adults have been allowed to possess and purchase
small amounts of marijuana from legally regulated merchants since 1976, the
overall rate of marijuana use remains less than half that in the U.S.

* Government surveys consistently report rates of marijuana use by U.S. teens
to be as high or higher -- often much higher -- than teens in the Netherlands.

* Paradoxically, prohibition may increase the lure of marijuana for young
people and diminish the effects of anti-drug education by forcing educators to
make claims about marijuana that teens recognize as false.

* Prohibition may actually encourage teens to move from marijuana to hard drugs
-- the so-called "gateway effect" -- by putting marijuana into the same illicit
market as drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine. In the U.S., the rate of past-
month cocaine use among 15-to-16-year-olds is triple that of their Dutch
counterparts, and U.S. teens are nine times more likely to use amphetamines
than are Dutch teens.

The entire MPP report is available here:
http://www.mpp.org/atf/cf/%7BFC4E88DF-6ACE-4AA6-851C-0688A929D3C5%7D/TeenUseReport_11_2006.pdf

* * * Yep...Such an effective policy, these days the drugwar's giving even the Iraq-war a run for its money! Keep worshipping!! As for antiCatholic bigotry, let's see, this and this and this result from an easy search. Google is your non-history-impaired friend.

Your blind faith in Google is

Your blind faith in Google is exactly what gets you into trouble in making history arguments.  I recommend going to bookstores and libraries and read these things called BOOKS for slightly better quality of information.  But then, evaluating sources has clearly never been a strong point of yours. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

That's right--it's about as m

That's right--it's about as much as our business as nothing.  As long as a user doesn't drive or put others in possible harm, I could care less.  It's not my business. 

But with marijuana being a "friend," I submit to all of them--explains why this group is so shallow and unintelligent--been using the stuff, been killing off those brain cells.    

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

This is an interesting debate

This is an interesting debate. Here are some stats from where I work (with abused and neglected children who are in the system): Approx. 85-90% of all abuse and neglect cases, which end up in front of a Dependency Court Judge, involve drugs and alcohol on the part of the offending parent. That is staggering don't you think?

I don't think legalizing drugs would change that fact. We talk a lot about this problem in the office and no one seems to have the answer. That was my soap box for the day. Thanks

The numbers you just quoted m

The numbers you just quoted mean absolutely nothing.  Association is not causation!  People who do drugs and are alcoholics could very likely have other characterstics in common that would make them more likely to abuse their children.

What do you mean by "yo

What do you mean by "your quote means absolutely nothing"? One does have something to do with the other. Because they are drug addicted the court deems them to be neglectful. Give that speech  to those children who have parents who don't give a flying flip about their well being because they are too high to even notice that they exist. You have no idea about you are talking about.

Would a politician supporti

Would a politician supporting the legalization of "Mary Jane" be a...

Pot Pol?

Ouch, sorry guys. And I'm not even on drugs.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

Maybe we should legalize it.

Maybe we should legalize it.  It is, after all, our largest cash crop, and then we can tax it!

And we all know that higher taxes lead to prosperity!

/Sarcasm Off

sphigel- I gotta dissagree- t

sphigel- I gotta dissagree- the war on drugs has had tremendous impact and saved millions of lives as well as saved billions in added health costs- I also don't want paranoid people waiting on me wherever I go or driving transportation or working in high risk jobs- legalizing drugs would ensure that this would happen much more so than it does now- and the argument that drug use wouldn't increase- I absolutely dissagree- Kids wanting to buy beer can't do so now until 21- IF they could buy at any age- beleive me- there would be a LOT of kids doing so- same with drugs

http://sacredscoop.com

You're conflating age-of-us

You're conflating age-of-use laws (which are somewhat effective for alcohol, hence teens consistently report the illegal stuff's easier to obtain) with prohibition laws (which not only don't work, they're counterproductive -- see above). "The power to tax is the power to destroy." If you want to destroy drug use you should be for taxing it, but for some reason drugwar-worshippers seem to want to throw money at trying to prohibit the drug problem even when throwing money's clearly not-working & making problems get worse.
JMR

I watched a show last night o

I watched a show last night on the history channel that talked specifically about the war on drugs and how they became illegal in our society. They talked about how in the late 1800's and early 1900's cocaine was widely used much like ibuprofen is today and that a huge majority of the population consumed cocaine in one form or another.

The opium problem China was experiencing at the time gave the government the idea to create a blanket banning of all drugs, especially cocaine. Even caffeine was considered. This along with many other political and economic reasons is why the government moved to control the flow of drugs to the citizens. The government soon realized that they created a huge unexpected side effect of this strategy. The drug trade black market was born because of the simple fact that such a large portion of our society unwittingly had become addicted to the drugs.

This did a few things. First, it gave foreign criminals the ability to cheaply produce a product 17,000 times more valuable than what it cost to make. Secondly it created a dramatic increase in spending to try and police the flow of drugs. Since the prohibition of drugs in 1914 there has never been any substantial success to stop the flow of drugs to our society.

The government decided to use a 3-stage program to stop drugs. First, greatly increase the penalties to people who are caught using them. Second, increase funding to police the drugs. Third, overly exaggerate the effects of drugs to scare people from trying them even once.

Unfortunately history has shown that this strategy does not work and additionally only makes the criminals more powerful and causes the government to spend increasing amounts of money to police drug trafficking. Every year since the war on drugs started our government has annually increased the budget to fight the flow of drugs. This strategy is just not working and never will. Nearly one hundred years of history should prove that to us. It also has the side effect of providing funds to foreign criminals, many of which support the ideals of our enemies.

In effect by having prohibition of drugs our country is funding terrorists by allowing them to make $17,000 for every $1 of investment into the drug trafficking industry that has been created to provide something that a portion of our population will always want as long as the system stays the way it is now.

The show also discussed how the majority of the violent crimes associated with drug use occur in the distribution of the drugs. This means that the while there is violence associated with the use, crime as a whole would be greatly reduced if legitimate companies provided certain drugs like marijuana to the public. This could free funds to promote more awareness to children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol as well as treatment for abusers.

Personally I do not use drugs and do not feel it’s a good thing that people use them. I also think that tobacco and alcohol are serious problems in this country.

Me feelings overall are that the government is creating more problems by continuing to have this prohibition than if they legalized it and took a huge industry away from the drug cartels and put it into the hands of legitimate tax paying companies.