Keep Austin Corporate

are you crazy?? how is that NOT condoning drug use?? he's saying it's okay to smoke weed just as long as youre not a "stoner".

"Like a brain surgeon who drinks a martini when he's not on call, the successful kids in your school may smoke pot on occasion"

successful kids smoke every now and then. smoking pot every now and then is ok. how is that NOT condoning drug use?

Keep reading pinhead. How is that NOT condoning drug use? KEEP READING.

"Stop right now.

You know what I always say: Don't do things that prevent success."

Did you even read the article? I doubt it. If you take the first paragraph out of context, it looks like he is condoning drug use. If you CONTINUE to read, you see that he is NOT condoning drug use.

Lay off the pot and eat something better than just twinkies, bro. It's rotting your brain.

If you watch that whole video Bill O'reilly asks,

"Do you think I'm condoning drug use?"

The kids response was, "No, and neither were these people." (the lecturers.)

YOU HAVE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT!

Must be a stoner thing than, bro. That response is totally taken out of context as well.

Stoners ...

I don't agree with much of what O'Reily says, but that is inconsequential since my point in posting here is to let you know that saying someone is "taking things out of context" and "proving" this by taking something else out of context is not a valid way to prove a point.

Basically, you are proving yourself to be unsophisticated and incapable of thought by missing the very valid point that the high-schooler was making. First, O'Reiley was in the wrong by claiming the speaker had said he would do ecstasy with students. Further, O'Reiley, by his own measure used against the speakers, was condoning recreational drug use in his book. In fact, by creating a peer-group scenario, I would argue that O'Reiley's statement is equally suggestive as the panelist (Dr. Becker) who encouraged safe use with the stated knowledge that many kids would experiment with drugs.

Both you and O'Reiley seem to think it is "pinheadish" to return to source material to prove a point by citation rather than nebulous bullshitting. I will now substantiate my claims at length.

As with most partisan hack apologists, you (DJFelix) miss the entire point of the conversation and use this to distort the truth. O'Reily clearly is saying in his book that some drug use is ok, but that being constantly under the influence, or over-using (being a stoner) is not conducive to getting things done. You cannot possibly disagree with this, yet you have somehow.

Lets go ahead and analyze his short passage. He allows that many kids experiment with drugs. He also allows that some kids who are "doing well" (nebulous, but I think the point comes across that these kids are getting good grades etc.) smoke on the weekends (and one would assume are drinking as well but thats neither here nor there).

So, there we have it. O'Reiley clearly states that drugs can be used and experimented with by "normal" "motivated" kids. This is not condoning drug use per-se, but it surely isn't damning it as the worst thing in the world. He is however warning against addiction/habit forming. This line of reasoning is exactly the same as that promoted by the speakers in warning about the consequences of *heavy* drug use.

The following line of "then stop right now" is a not so subtle challenge to the claim that weed isn't addictive. It is not an edict to stop all drug use, as is made clear with his prior admission that achievers can use drugs. However, it still is in line with the overall message (and context) that while drugs can be consumed in moderation, their over-use is damaging and should be avoided. Indeed, he follows this by saying "don't do things that prevent success." Now, according to his prior statements, the kids "rocking" the teenage world can do so even when they are smoking over the weekend at a party. Thus, to the extent that he allows for experimentation, if he claims the speaker was condoning drug use by talking about fringe medical uses of ecstasy, Bill too is guilty of condoning drug use. His standards cannot change because it is convenient for his show.

All O'Reiley was expressing was to not put drugs before something substantive in your life. For that I applaud him, but he is contradicting himself in his crusader approach to this school event.

Simply put, O'Reiley is eschewing the Reagan era "Just Say No" mantra (a failure) in favor of what I would agree is a more enlightened stance, then doubling back and screaming bloody murder at the school. As the astute high-schooler observed, he is not condoning drug use so much as pragmatically petitioning against over-consumption without crying abstinence...just as the speakers did, albeit more colorfully and candidly.

By the way, whoever you are, I would be careful to deride "stoners" as there are plenty of people in the world who are more intelligent and capable of rational thought than you who themselves partake. I know Cum Laude high-school inductees, and Pi Beta Kappas at top 10 universities who have "used mary-jane as their muse" (lifted from Mad Men).

Oh, and "then" is different entirely from "than." You look like an even bigger idiot when you not only mangle comprehension, but also the English language.

Q.E.D. (that means quod erat demondstrandum or "that which was to be demonstrated")

I hope you take this opportunity to engage more deeply with your world by seeking out information and thinking critically for yourself. Everyone would benefit.

link to transcript of the panel: http://www.bvsdwatch.org/content/view/91/1/