Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day: The Oregonian's Bryan Denson

Posted by on Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:30 AM

Bryan Denson at the Oregonian—the award-winning Bryan Denson—had a huge piece in Tuesday's paper about heroic efforts to eradicate illegal Mexican "marijuana plantations" on public lands. It's the usual drug war stenography/stupid fucking credulous hackery: only "authorities" are quoted, no comments are sought from anyone on the other side, and nowhere in Denson's 1200-word, 28-paragraph piece—not in one paragraph, not in one sentence, parenthetical, or subordinate clause—is anyone allowed to question the efficacy of America's Never Ending War On Drugs. The authorities are out there tearing up pot plants and chasing down illegal immigrants at great expense to the public and, hey, that's pretty much all the public needs to know. Is any of this shit working? Is pot any harder to find? Is it more expensive? Has a dent been made in demand? How much do all those "helicopter flyovers" cost anyway?Denson isn't telling. But Denson allows some doubt—or pretends to allow some doubt—to creep in at the end:

It might seem wasteful to spend scarce public resources seizing pot plants, especially in a state that tolerates the drug.

Yeah, this war on pot might seem wasteful—particularly when you consider that we've been waging this war for forty-odd years and pot is cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than it has ever been, all points Denson goes out of his way to avoid considering. But while the war on pot might seem wasteful to an informed Oregonian reader—a reader who got informed elsewhere—we must keep fighting the war on pot because "government authorities here" tell Denson that profits from "West Coast marijuana plantations" fund violent Mexican drug gangs. (Kind of like profits from the illegal gin trade once funded violent American gangs in the 1920s?) And gangs are bad. And illegal grows are bad. And violence is bad. Legalizing and regulating and taxing pot would end the violence, put the drug gangs out of business, and stop illegal grows, but Denson doesn't go there. The Oregonian's readers do:

We could just legalize pot so American farmers can grow it without fear, and without trashing the environment while doing so. We can tax that to help close budget gaps, and we could reduce state costs by not incarcerating people who grow it. Seems too easy though...

This progressive defers to the late leading Conservative William F. Buckley and his eloquent argument for the legalization of marijuana. Look it up. A Conservative we can believe in.

Taxing and regulating marijuana would eliminate the blackmarket thereby pushing the cartels out of the massive market, just like alcohol production and distribution were no longer handled by bootleggers & the mafia when alcohol prohibition was repealed. This war has been a collosal 40+ year failure and it has led to countless instances of our freedoms being trampled upon and our tax $ squandered.

If you want to get both sides of the story on the War On Drugs—and there are two sides to this story, despite all the stupid fucking credulous hackery—you have to delve into the comments. Pro-legalization arguments are all over the comment threads when a daily paper writes up a pot bust. Why can't they ever appear in the stories themselves?

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
why? same reason we're not going to get a public health care option. our so called "leaders" are all a bunch of fucking pussies.
Posted by taint on September 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM
2
Did Denson mention that there are no toilet facilities or running water for the workers who pick and pack the weed?
And that we must wipe our asses with the product?
And can't wash our hands after?
And also blow our noses on the weed?
(Why do you think schwag is usually brown?)

Now you know.
Posted by Pedro on September 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM
seandr 3
"Why can't they ever appear in the stories themselves?"

Because Bryan Denson didn't have the balls to deviate from the status quo.
Posted by seandr on September 30, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Max Solomon 4
likely because his editors won't allow it because the paper's owner's won't allow it. just say no, ok?
Posted by Max Solomon on September 30, 2009 at 8:00 AM
5
"Why can't they ever appear in the stories themselves?"

gee.... we don't know-

why do no stories about health effects of anal intercourse ever make it into Slog?
Posted by Leaky Assed "Editors" on September 30, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Baconcat 6
@4: The Boregonian has only slightly more editorial integrity than the Portland Tribune. Slightly.
Posted by Baconcat on September 30, 2009 at 8:10 AM
onion 7
Illegal grows ARE bad. Combating them with legalization of drugs is a great idea.
But combating them by....letting them happen? Not a great idea. A very bad idea.
Posted by onion on September 30, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Urgutha Forka 8
If pot gets legalized, the next thing you know, we'll have high fructose pot syrup in everything.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM
9
Before I make my argument I want to say that I support full legalization. Unfortunately the picture is not as rosey as other supporters of legalization make it (Dan) but I believe we need to stick to the rational arguments and facts.

My main concern is that full legalization will not eliminate the black market. After legalization there would still be an entire economy in Mexico built around growing and transporting the marijuana. They will still want to bring their pot to market. At the same time we progressives are talking about 30-50% tax rates. This would still bring down the cost of pot to the consumer but it would also make a HUGE financial incentive to smuggle it across the border and avoid tariffs and taxes.

If you can buy black market pot for half the price someone is going to go for it. Sure many people would buy the taxed product but there would still be large amounts of money flowing into organized crime. The same smuggling scenario happens with anything taxed including tobacco.

With this said we still need to legalize it. The situation will be much better but we need to find the sweet spot in the taxation rate. If we crank up the tax rate we will turn up the crime. If we keep taxes low we will stamp out the criminals but then we wont have the silver bullet bailout that Norml and others claim would come from tax money.

The answer is obviously somewhere in the middle. Legalize it, tax it, and most important of all is let the adult users out of jail and the entire justice system.
Posted by anonanonanon on September 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM
10
Running low, Dan? You sound overly agitated. I wish there was some hash around...that would calm Slog down real good.
Posted by Massive Attack on September 30, 2009 at 8:44 AM
11
Deja vu. Do you guys just keep this boilerplate rant around and plug in a different newspaper and writer each time?

Copy and paste is a wonderful thing.
Posted by bigyaz on September 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM
12
@9 - contrast the situation with alcohol and tobacco, both of which are taxed and regulated. Yes, there is a black market in untaxed alcohol and tobacco, but how big is it? How much law enforcement resources does it suck up? How many lives are ruined? If someone wants pot, the black market is there only choice. If someone wants booze or cigarettes, how many people go looking for a "dealer"?
Posted by Don't you think he looks tired? on September 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM
13
Um, dude, pro-legalization articles appear in print, maybe not in your west coast local papers, but in quality publications like the economist they do. Also notice the caption under the picture

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta…

Posted by MCB on September 30, 2009 at 9:31 AM
14
@9 - yeah, look at all those tobacco and booze smugglers shooting up ciudad juarez and el paso. look at all those tobacco and booze smugglers locked up in federal prisons. look at the hundreds of millions of law enforcement dollars spent fighting tobacco and booze smuggling.

riiiight.
Posted by pffft on September 30, 2009 at 10:08 AM
elenchos 15
Forcing readers to delve into the comment section is just cruel.
Posted by elenchos on September 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Will in Seattle 16
It's not like our cities, counties, and states are going bankrupt from prosecuting the War on Drugs ...

oh, wait, never mind.

(in 1990 the county budget had 10 percent for police, jails, and courts - now it's just under 50 percent - yes, this means you are paying for this insanity, even if you rent)
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM
MR. Language Person 17
Yeah, yeah, the war on drugs is bad, but this "hack" is only covering one part of the drug issue, and no one can deny that these gangs growing pot on public lands are a problem that we need to combat. First, it's public lands they are damaging, and secondly, they can be quite violent in defending their crops, with guns, traps, etc. This article was about that story. Not every story can cover every issue relating to a topic.
Posted by MR. Language Person on September 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM
18
@17: Only after one balancing quote, one voice pointing out that the fastest, surest way to stop illegal grows once and for all is legalization, regulation, taxation. It's a 1200 word story -- he couldn't spare 10 for that? Or 20? Or 100? It's such an obvious leap -- such an obvious point -- that readers leap on it in comments.
Posted by Dan Savage on September 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM
19
18
gee Dan, what if you edited Slog for a change and not Oregon papers?
Posted by Thinking Outside the Box! on September 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM
MR. Language Person 20
@ 18. Good point.
But does every story require an opposing viewpoint? Does a story on evolution require a counterpoint covering intelligent design, just because a majority of the people in this county are stupid fucks who don't believe in "Darwinism?"
Posted by MR. Language Person on September 30, 2009 at 7:20 PM
21
@20 when you are writing a news story it's probably a good idea to assume the reader doesn't know anything about the topic prior to reading it. let's say you were tasked with writing a 1200 word essay on evolution. wouldn't you include a sentence or two that recognizes the fact that many people in the world do not believe in evolution due in large part to their religious beliefs or as a result of misinformation? it's not what the story is about but it definitely is pertinent information.
Posted by DeathatSea on October 1, 2009 at 1:26 AM
MR. Language Person 22
No. If I'm writing an article about a new discovery about how genetecists have discovered a new way that DNA transcription works, revealing new information about how species evolve, I am not going to include a paragraph in there that says, "Some people don't believe in evolution, blah blah blah." They are not scientists, do not understand the argument (how biology works) and do not deserve to be mentioned. Now a story on evolution and society, sure. Same here, a story about drugs and society deserves a mention about how effective the drug war is, but not about a specific policy on something that is really quite dangerous all by itself.
Posted by MR. Language Person on October 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM
23
well, it's a good thing you are not a journalist then since people reading your articles wouldn't get the whole story. at least i hope you're not a journalist...if you are then i'm sure you could take a class at a community college on journalism to clear up your misconceptions.
Posted by DeathatSea on October 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy