 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
I got this from Jacob Sullum via email beginning with Sullum's commentary to me:
Here's a transcript. As you can see, the exchange (if it can be called that) was not very substantive, but it did generate interest in my book. My favorite part was when O'Reilly warned me to stay away from his family.
__________________________________________________
__
Jacob Sullum
Senior Editor, Reason
Columnist, Creators Syndicate
jsullum@reason.com
www.reason.com
>Fox News Network
>SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:48)
>May 28, 2003 Wednesday
>Transcript # 052806cb.256
>SECTION: News; Domestic
>HEADLINE: Back of the Book
>Interview With Author Jacob Sullum, "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day,"
>GUESTS: Jacob Sullum
>BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly
>BODY:
>O'REILLY: In the "Back of the Book" Segment tonight, a new book entitled "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use." Joining us now from Washington is the book's author and the senior editor at "Reason" magazine Jacob Sullum.
>Well, you know that I think you're crazy on this, but I -- I do want to hear your point of view. But I want, you know, you to just straight up address this, that you don't feel it's inherently wrong for people to use chemicals to alter one's mood or mind?
JACOB SULLUM, "REASON" MAGAZINE: That's right. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. It all depends upon how you do it, just as with alcohol. We judge people's behavior by its consequences by whether they do it moderately or to excess, by whether they do it responsibly or not, we should also judge other kinds of drug use that way.
>O'REILLY: All right.
>SULLUM: And, in fact, just as with alcohol, the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs are not addicts, are not heavy users, and they're not posing any kind threat to other people, nor...
>O'REILLY: Well, that's fine.
>SULLUM: ... nor are they harming themselves.
>O'REILLY: That's -- well, that's your opinion. I don't know if that's true or not.
>SULLUM: It's not just opinion. This is based upon data that's available from the federal government. If you look at patterns of use, you will see...
>O'REILLY: Well, you can spin any -- you can spin data any way you want.
>SULLUM: No, this is quite plain.
>O'REILLY: We got -- hey, Mr. Sullum, this is a discussion, all right. You let me get my points in. I'll let you get yours in, all right. Let's get that straight up. Now you've have 27-million alcoholics in this country, all right. You've got 10-million people who are drug dependent, either illegally or on prescriptions. That's 37-million Americans that have trouble in their lives because of chemical dependence. Now why would you, an intelligent guy, want to put forth a theory that intoxicating oneself is beneficial? Why would you want to do that with the enormous social problems that we have in this country?
>SULLUM: Well, I think that the desire to alter your consciousness is a basic part of human nature. It's a basic drive...
>O'REILLY: Not mine.
>SULLUM: ... just like the drive for food, the drive for sex. Now both of those things can lead to problems, can lead to excess, but we don't, therefore, say we should never eat, we should never have sex. What we do...
>O'REILLY: I've never heard anybody say that altering...
>SULLUM: ... is we try to...
>O'REILLY: ... one's consciousness is a natural drive. I mean we..
>SULLUM: Really?
>O'REILLY: ... have thirst, we have hunger, we have sexual...
>SULLUM: You need to do a little more reading then because Ronald Segal published a very widely read book on intoxication several years ago.
>O'REILLY: And he's...
>SULLUM: He's a psychopharmacologist...
>O'REILLY: And he's the...
>SULLUM: ... at UCLA. This is a point that has...
>O'REILLY: All right. You can believe that. It's not -- it's not widely accepted by biologists that intoxicating oneself is a natural drive.
>SULLUM: If you look across cultures...
>O'REILLY: I'll put that right on the record.
>SULLUM: ... you will find consistently that people find ways throughout history and across cultures to alter their consciousness.
>O'REILLY: Yes, they find ways, but it's bad for them.
>SULLUM: No, it's not always -- it doesn't always involve drugs. Well, I would argue that in moderation is not bad for them. It's good for them. It's good to have...
>O'REILLY: But why do you want to push this? See, look, we've got a tremendous problem with children and substance. Tremendous. Why do you want to push this?
>SULLUM: I -- I want -- I'll tell you.
>O'REILLY: Why not say, look, if you have to do it, do it privately. If you have to. But why encourage it? I think that's so irresponsible.
>SULLUM: Because -- I'll tell you why. The war on drugs imposes tremendous costs on all of us, but people are reluctant to consider alternatives to it because they're afraid that if we allow...
>O'REILLY: And the alternative is do your own thing.
>SULLUM: Excuse me. If we allow...
>O'REILLY: Intoxicate yourself if...
>SULLUM: If we allow drugs to be legal, then everybody will be addicted, everyone will be criminals, and everyone will create problems, and, in fact, what I'm trying to show is that that's not the case, that it's a small minority of users who end up creating serious problems for themselves and others, and...
>O'REILLY: Thirty-seven-million Americans is not a small minority.
>SULLUM: ... that this is a problem...
>O'REILLY: Thirty-seven million.
>SULLUM: You're counting alcohol as well.
>O'REILLY: Thirty-seven -- look, 37-million Americans have trouble with substance. Their lives are out of control.
>SULLUM: This is...
>O'REILLY: It's not a small problem.
>SULLUM: OK. But you're including alcohol. The fact that alcohol can be abused does not mean that alcohol should be illegal.
>O'REILLY: It's all the same thing!
>SULLUM: The biggest...
>O'REILLY: You've got a million...
>SULLUM: The biggest component of what we're talking about...
>O'REILLY: ... drunken-driving cases every year. A million.
>SULLUM: The biggest component of what you're talking about involves legal drugs. My point is...
>O'REILLY: It doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal.
>SULLUM: ... the fact that a drug can be abused -- well, it does matter.
>O'REILLY: Pinheads like you are encouraging intoxication...
>SULLUM: It matters...
>O'REILLY: ... when it's one of the worst things in our society.
>SULLUM: It matters if people are going to prison for doing something that doesn't violate anybody else's rights.
>O'REILLY: Hey, I don't care about that. I care about the dead...
>SULLUM: Well, you ought to care about that.
>O'REILLY: ... guy in the street being run down by a drunk driver, whether it's heroin or gin doesn't matter, and you are encouraging it.
>SULLUM: It matters whether you can draw a distinction between use and abuse, whether you can say that if you drive while intoxicated, that is unacceptable. But, if you do it at home in moderation, you may do that, and we're not going to bother you, we're not going to arrest you, we're not going to put you in prison.
>O'REILLY: Look, you irresponsible libertines cause so much damage to this society, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I'll give you the last word.
>SULLUM: Well, my message is not a message of libertinism. It's a message of responsibility, and I'm saying we should apply responsibility across the board, regardless of the current legal status of the substance and that...
>O'REILLY: Let me break this to you gently, all right.
>SULLUM: ... temperance is better than abstinence as...
>O'REILLY: Getting intoxicated is not responsible. Let me break this to you. Getting intoxicated is not responsible.
>SULLUM: So you don't drink.
>O'REILLY: Correct.
>SULLUM: You don't drink coffee. You never drink alcohol. You don't smoke cigarettes.
>O'REILLY: Oh, stop it. I'm not even going to get into it. I'm not a hypocrite. Mr. Sullum, you're not either. You want to get stoned, have a good time. Don't get in a car, and don't come near my family.
>--END--
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
O'Reilly's favorite "rebuttals" to data are "that's your opinion" and "that's spin". It was funny when Sullum asked O'Reilly if he drank coffee or smoked tobacco and O'Reilly said he wasn't a hypocrite. Huh? Why are certain methods of altering one's mind "natural", i.e., okay with Bill, while others aren't? He calls pot smokers "weak" and supports this accusation by pointing out that they are using mind altering drugs, i.e., mind altering is "weak". Talk about people into mind control, O'Reilly wants people punished for not having the state of mind he requires of them?
Sikander, I'm not sure what good points O'Reilly offered. When he runs off on rants about the number of drug users in rehab, he never explains that the courts try to divert users away from taking up even more jail space by offering them "rehab". If alcohol users were coerced into rehab, the numbers of "alcoholics" needing rehab would skyrocket. To which I will quote Bill, himself,  "Well, you can spin any -- you can spin data any way you want." And then Bill likes to mix up groups of drug users, 37 million Americans with a chemical dependency, 27 million with alcohol and another 10 million with illegal drugs AND legal prescriptions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Bill O'Reilly on Drugs"
I don't want any of what he's smoking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Berzerker,
Look, for the most part, I think O'Reilly is one of the better talking heads, especially when he hammered NASCAR about Jesse Jackson.
But he has a point here, think of the concept, "mind altering drugs". That concept in itself takes away your ability to not abuse them, especially something as lethal as crack or heroine. Be honest here if, you are in a car with somebody who has just, "altered their mind" would you ride along on a trip of 100 miles? When you use these drugs, alcohol included it is at the expense of self-control. I drink beer and in many cases more than I should have and in alot of cases I never felt I lost control until I tripped on something that I shouldn't have or do something else stupid. Trying to make even more dangerous drugs legal is as dumb as it gets.
O'Reilly has had problems since I have watched him with facts, remembering when he told the Ambassador from Saudi that why doesn't he stop all the terrorist teaching schools in Saudi and the Ambassador politely said, name one. O'reilly didn't have any facts to back up his claim and on national television that is deadly to your creditability. But since then I have seen him back up his claims with data, but I personally did not see this episode.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2003 06:57
Scarborough is pathetic, he doesn't even pay much attention to his guests, so it's quite sad/amusing to see why Congress is so messed up. I like Chris Mathews, he's a tough, but rude, albeit pretty consistently rude interviewer. O'Reilly's in between, at least he tries to debate. And I like his scrutiny on Jesse Jackson...
words...just like good 'ole Freddie Boy.
|