Want Pot? Get a prescription

| | Comments (7)

I thought this editorial, Questions about pot, was very intersting and written in such a way that I had a hard time telling the bias. It's from the Washington Post.com so I don't know if you have to be a member to see it, but it went over the recent ruling that people with a prescription for pot that get it filled legally can no longer be harassed by police.

The editorial was leading on that this is the first step towards legalizing marijuana, but more tests need to be made, more discussion hashed out, and FDA needs to approve. I won't share my opinion on legalizing pot, but this article did remind me (and I drew my own connection) that the effects of tobacco are just as harmful as pot (in different ways), yet it's legal.

I especially liked the ending though: "The medical marijuana controversy may be moot in the near future because of a drug known as Sativex, a spray mist approved for conditional use in Canada and the United Kingdom that delivers the active ingredients found in marijuana. If cleared by the FDA, patients will have some confidence that it is safe and effective."

I didn't know about this and no matter what side the person is taking a stand from, I think it is good that the writer included this fact because, if approved and effective, it should really destroy the debate on both sides.

SO 

7 Comments

Josie Rush said:

Aja, I also picked an article where the bias was...well, in my article's case the bias was a little more obvious, but in both of our editorials, there was no malicious opinion-pushing. Sliding in some facts and calmly stating opinion makes for a much better editorial than those where the writer seems to lose his/her cool.

Dave said:

Josie, I definately agree. Cool use of facts is far more useful than maliciousness. Then again, I also tend to consider it effective if you can calmly, and coolly, make the opposing argument look extremely foolish.
That bit at the end is news to me as well, and was useful to defuse the entire argument. Actually the Justice Department's change is also news to me too. I was wondering when they'd change that. I'd always thought it was a bit silly to have state and federal laws so drastically different (or in the event they are, the federal laws should ALWAYS be less stringent). Take speed limit for example: federally there is none (though I think they kind of bullied Montana into setting it at 75, previously it was "whatever you feel is safe and reasonable" or something like that), then states have a maximum that applies to the entire state, then cities and counties set lower limits for various other places. It would be silly if the state set a limit lower than the lower levels of government. AND, just because I'm at a Catholic school, I'll point out that this idea of subsidiarity is one of those Catholic Social Teachings that we've heard so much about....4th one if I'm not mistaken.

Aja Hannah said:

Wow! I didn't even remember anything about CST. Good tie in. I suppose this is why we're in a liberal arts institution.

And I suppose those editorials/letter to the editor where the person does lose their cool is just not published.

Dave said:

Aja, I think letters to the editor where the writer loses their cool do get published more frequently than editorials of that sort.....people who write inflamatory editorials get radio or television shows.

Aja Hannah said:

Maybe the newspaper publish these stories then (the ones that say bad things about the paper) because they want to show the ignorance of some people or a strong opinion they agree with but can't say because they're "objective"

Josie Rush said:

I think it's also a little like what Dr. Jerz says: A sure way to make the news is to slam the door in a reporter's face on-camera. People love to see drama. If someone is really bashing a certain topic, it may attract more readers. That's really the name of the game, isn't it?

Dave said:

I definately agree, as far as attracting readers, nothing works like drama.

Also, if an editor feels strongly about an issue, and wants to promote their view, they can very easily make their perspective look appealing by publishing a letter from the opposing side, written poorly by a rabid jibbering lunatic, right next to a calm, rational, eloquent letter by their side.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

 

Recent Comments

Dave on Want Pot? Get a prescription: I definately agree, as far as
Josie Rush on Want Pot? Get a prescription: I think it's also a little lik
Aja Hannah on Want Pot? Get a prescription: Maybe the newspaper publish th
Dave on Want Pot? Get a prescription: Aja, I think letters to the ed
Aja Hannah on Want Pot? Get a prescription: Wow! I didn't even remember an
Dave on Want Pot? Get a prescription: Josie, I definately agree. Coo
Josie Rush on Want Pot? Get a prescription: Aja, I also picked an article