The New York Times‘ marijuana legalization editorial (7/27/14) got a lot of media attention. Unsurprisingly, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wasn’t a big fan of it; and on his July 28 show, he attempted to debunk the paper’s position via clever editing.
“Over the weekend, the New York Times called for the USA to legalize marijuana all over the place,” O’Reilly declared. “No surprise, that paper’s far left on its editorial page, so its stance is predictable.” Actually, the paper called for a federal repeal, leaving it to the states to decide what to do about marijuana’s legal status. And given that a majority of Americans now support legalization (Gallup, 10/22/13), it’s hard to call this a “far left” position.
But then O’Reilly gets to the real issue:
The real reason, the unspoken marijuana play, is contained in the Times editorial, quote: “The social costs of marijuana laws are vast…. The result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals,” unquote.
There you have it. The left believes American law enforcement targets African-Americans for drug prosecutions. Therefore, they want drug sales to be categorized as nonviolent offenses and marijuana to be legalized. It’s about race, not drugs.
(cc photo: Rusty Blazenhoff)
O’Reilly calls this the “unspoken” issue in the Times‘ editorial–but it’s quite plainly stated in the piece. What he seems to be saying is that the idea that marijuana laws are racist is a myth. The Times asserts that marijuana laws are racist, but Bill O’Reilly has some numbers that he thinks show something else:
Now, some facts. According to the US Sentencing Commission, about 5,000 criminals were sentenced for marijuana offenses in 2013 at the federal level; almost 98 percent of them for sale. Average prison time, 41 months; and here is the kicker; 63 percent of those convicted on the federal level were Hispanic. Just 11 percent black.
Only 5,000 people were sentenced in a year? If that sounds way off, it’s because it is. O’Reilly is talking about federal sentencing, a tiny slice of the drug cases. And these are, as he notes, almost exclusively about drug trafficking. It’s a classic misdirection.
But the real issue here is that O’Reilly has edited the Times editorial in order to make it easier for him to debunk. Here’s what the paper actually wrote–the bold section is what O’Reilly sliced out of his commentary:
The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to FBI figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.
When you look at those figures–over 600,000 arrests in one year–it is plainly evident that there is a racist pattern to marijuana arrests. An exhaustive ACLU report (6/13) found, “Marijuana use is roughly equal among blacks and whites, yet blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.” For more on the obviously racist application of drug laws, read this Wonkblog piece (6/4/13) based on the ACLU’s findings.
O’Reilly is correct that this is “about race, not drugs.” He won’t accept the plain reality of the drug war’s obvious racism–and he’s willing to deceive his audience so that they won’t see it, either.
No one with a fealty to them will ever accuse O’Reilly of being a factist.
However, a slight change in the spelling of that term may well produce a different result.
Very well thought out comment Doug.
You can challenge the methods of enforcing drug prohibition but if you stand up to racism and inhumanity within the law you’re a threat.
I wish there was a way we could witness the meeting where Bill O’RileMe and his co-writers compose his talking points for the prompter scroll. Is there a “pregnant pause” when one of the persons involved decides to edit the Times editorial to make it fit Bill-O’s predetermined thesis? Does anyone at Fox gaze over the passage in question, lingering over it a bit too long before applying the red marker? “If I take this out, I will be deliberately misleading the viewers/listeners” – does that notion flit even briefly across any mind on Fox’s payroll? Nah — they just cut the offending passage out because they have a shrinking number of elderly Whites to frighten and anger. That is Job One.
O’Reilly is a fuckin liar and just another Rupert Murdoch whore.
Maybe we should have Bill stop eating the Pysilocibin mushroom.
No wait, even that wouldn’t account for it. Fux Snooze (and it’s legion of moron trolls) is the furthest departure from reality that can be had, even using psychotropic pharmaceuticals.
at what point is something criminal committed? … the guy LIES … outright … isn’t some of his BS ‘incitement to riot’-type stuff? … freedom of speech is not freedom to slander
isn’t some of his BS ‘incitement to riot’-type stuff?- Duncan Bray
We could only wish that the courts would see it this way. But as long as we have the Gang of Gangs in the courts, the rethughlicans can outright tell you to start a revolt, and will not be held accountable. They can actually tell you to Target people for killing, but since they didn’t put then gun in your hand and pull the trigger for you, they are held blameless.