Feel free to use any or all parts of this. Sorry about the excessive length, but I had a lot to say.
I don’t even know where to begin with this article. I guess the best idea would be to go through the entire article piece by piece, and then express my overall disgust. The first thing that really gets to me and plagues me throughout the article is the condescending tone used when referring to Mr. Jeffrey’s ideas merely because he smokes pot. Thrown aside are the facts that he graduated from Princeton University, started a national organization comprised of thousands of people who share his thoughts and goals, and that he is an up and coming politician. So already you can see that I am capable of reading Mr. Jeffrey’s biography page on his website as well as Michael He, nevertheless, combining that with the knowledge that he smokes pot does not put me in any position to pass judgements about the man; let alone talk down to him. Furthermore, as Michael He mentions, a large part of Mr. Jeffrey’s campaign is to empower the youth of our society. I think that it is extremely disrespectful and ignorant to trash someone who is trying to give people who think they have something to say (but really don’t as the case may be here), the chance to do so. Not to get personal, but what the hell has Michael He done to warrant passing such judgements about a man who has accomplished so much, and has such high aspirations for the future, even if his dreams do not coincide with He’s. But let’s not get hung up on one issue, as there’s plenty here to talk about. Next we can discuss the illogical, irrelevant (look, I can spell it too), drastically exaggerated analogies and examples provided by the esteemed author. Particularly amusing was the comparison between smoking pot and murdering people. And I quote, “Tens of thousands of murders happen a year, should we strike murder from the books as a crime?” Are you kidding me? How can you actually compare a crime punishable by death, to that which is 99% of the time simply a misdemeanor. Obviously nobody is suggesting that we eliminate murder as a crime. In fact, by raising the topic of murder, you have helped to clarify Mr. Jeffrey’s point: in comparison to a lot of the other stuff going on in our world, marijuana isn’t that bad. As Michael He continues, he attacks Mr. Jeffrey for his statement that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Providing irrefutable evidence, Michael seems to believe the contrary. However, accepting one study performed to be the overriding authority on the matter is, to use one of He’s words that is intended to assert his intelligence and justify his ridicule, “preposterous”. In order for any type of final conclusion to be made on the issue, years and years of research must be done; you can’t take the results of one study. I’m sure if I wanted to I could go online and find hundreds of studies that stated the contrary. Michael He continues his assertion of knowledge by stating, “smoking of marijuana causes head, neck, and lung cancer.” No shit; so do cigarettes, and alcohol tears apart your liver. Thanks for the medical update. The fact remains that right now, nobody knows which is the worst for our bodies, merely that all three affect us differently. Concluding this idea, He writes, “So please, vote for this man if you would like to die.” What kind of comment is that? I don’t even want to touch that one. Nearing his conclusion, Michael He again completely misconstrues one of Scott’s major points. Jeffrey explains on his website (apparently He’s only source of information) that marijuana is a gateway drug simply because it is illegal. It is one of, if not the least harmful of illegal drugs, but nonetheless, its status of illegality means that it must be procured through a drug dealer. Scott continues to explain that once united with the drug dealer, one will be more inclined to buy other, harder drugs, under influence of the drug dealer, perhaps friends, and most importantly, their own curiosity. By legalizing marijuana, Scott explains that you would eliminate the drug dealer, and a good amount of the temptation that might occur to try other drugs. (Obviously if people wanted to they could still get their hands on harder drugs.) And again, the patronizing, sarcastic remark that follows He’s feeble interpretation of Scott’s theory is uncalled for. (Hey look, I can use big words too. Does it make me seem smarter?) I absolutely love Michael’s last example. His reference to the kingdoms of the middle ages was so out of place, I had to stop reading and laugh for a second. Once I finally read the paragraph and understood his point, I again had to stop reading and laugh. First, there is no place for a comparison of our society and its laws and practices to those of the middle ages. That aside, lets say this example does somehow have a place here. First, not all royal families were hated. Furthermore, if kings were hated, it’s probably because they ransacked villages full of thousands of innocent people, not because they pardoned a family member every once in a while. Which raises the next point: we still pardon people. Ever hear of midnight pardons? That would be the reason that Marc Rich, a close personal friend of former President Clinton and a man who happened to owe millions in back taxes to the government, was able to escape jail time. Our king (read president) at the time didn’t want to let his buddy go down, so he excused him. So I’m pretty sure that would completely ruin your arguement, but thanks for trying. This article that I just finsihed reading was absolutely ridiculous. It read like that of an uneducated eighth grader who passed it out to his friends, because the school newspaper wouldn’t even take it. Furthermore, there are so many issues that go untouched: such as the entire economic situation. For instance, if legalized, the government could tax the hell out of marijuana, making them a ton of money. In doing such, many of the costs that inflate the price of marijuana to its consumers would be eliminated, such as travel, and most importantly risk. Marijuana is expenisve because it has to be worth the risk of getting caught for whoever is providing it. I don’t even know that much about this entire issue, but at least I have the commons sense and common courtesy not to trash people who actually do. I could care less if you disagree with his opinions, at least have the decency to give the guy some credit. Just because he smokes pot and you don’t in absolutely no way does that make you better than him.