Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Opinion: O'Sullivan

Re: “O'Sullivan

If Ms. O'Sullivan means "Democratic" with a big "D" then maybe she's right.

Otherwise, her words might be a little different but the melody lingers on and I've heard it before.

Paul Ehrlich, the man that Dr. Thomas Sowell calls the Teflon Prophet, said in his 1968 book, "The Population Bomb":

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

Dr. Ehrlich also said: " A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies -- often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance of survival...

Undeterred by these failing predictions, he regurgitated the same garbage in a follow-on book, "The Population Explosion" in 1990.

In it he concluded, "(We need) compulsory birth regulation... (through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.

Cathy, meet Paul. Paul, meet Cathy. You two have a lot in common; you're both loons.

Posted by Wes S. on 05/02/2009 at 4:29 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Rory Donner wrote:"So what are you proposing O'Sullivan, eugenics?"

-voluntarily stopping our population growth before nature does it for us is not eugenics...

Posted by AtticStattic on 05/02/2009 at 11:26 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Kirsten J said:"What is needed, however, is improved resource production and distribution."

--yeah, that'll solve the problem---let's just use up what limited resources we have FASTER and more efficiently; then the earth can get back to business without us---sounds like a plan...

Posted by AtticStattic on 05/02/2009 at 11:21 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

I read, I try to absorb what is being said, and I have to agree with Catherines's article. I also agree with "Is It Just Me", I do not agree with az4normal.com, as I have heard his reasoning before. I took a little survey of allot of folks that I work with, because I thought my way of thinking about legalizing drugs MAY be wrong, giving the benefit of doubt, and the consenseous of what the issue was, I asked them and I quote, "Do you think pot should be legalized"? Most of the people I spoke to didn't seem to have a problem with it. Some even said it was being used for medicinal reasons for glucoma, etc. "So", I said, "You wouldn't opposed legalizing drugs or controlled substances of any kind?" and they said, "Well yes, I would, but we are only talking about Pot here right?" I said "Yes". I interviewed at least 40 of my coworkers, some were for it, saying that "Marijuana is the least harmful drug on the market, and is used even for medicine", and the other half said, "NO, not only no, but HELL NO!, what kind of a question is that?" Of course I explained that I am not a liberalist that condones any kind of legalization of ANY controlled substances, but I am with you Catherine, I really fell that your "Granny" is right. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. The intellects that are proposing legalization to get cartel warfare off the streets and BLOOD, off of our streets actually think that legalizing these substances will end all of that, To me, that is be delusional. The cartels will still fight amoungst themselves to see who could land the biggest contract deals. Yes, drugs are big revenue, and to me, it appears that is is all about the almight buck that "We Need" at what cost? I assume that these are the same people that took prayer out of schools, and are demoralizing this great nation. I think if these folks want to legalize pot, or any other substance, should move over to Amsterdam, or better still, move down to Mexico, then they can finally say that there is no problem living down there because drugs are legal...even though there are cartel wars, corrupt government, and the police are on the take....naw, legalizing drugs is really working down there isn't it? Wow, its all under control. I liked your article, and I find in insightful.

Posted by Gary W. Halsey Sr. on 05/02/2009 at 6:44 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

I agree. Unfortunately, the belief in Magic, oops, Religion has an unbreakable hold on America.

Posted by Chris99 on 05/01/2009 at 5:59 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

I seriously doubt over-population is a myth. I hitchhiked 9,000 miles 15 years ago, a new driver each day. My informal survey, I asked each driver what they thought of where they lived. My memory is that every single one said, "The population has gotten lots bigger over the last 10 years, and over the last 5 it has exploded." This was in all regions of the country.
I agree. We need drastic measures in curbing population. But the most basic right as people seem to see it, is having as many babies as they can afford to feed.
What do we do? I don't know. Get the problem in front of people, allow them to curb theirownselves.

Posted by maxw on 05/01/2009 at 5:36 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

This column is chilling, but not in the way the writer intends. Rather, it is chilling to envision United States' citizens even having to defend rhetorically their _inalienable_ right to determine the size of their families (that would be "liberty") and the equally _inalienable_ right to life (that would be, um, "life") -- that is, the rights to reproduce and not be killed in abortion. Green fear-mongering pales in comparison to the threat of the loss of our basic liberties. Our Founders must be spinning in their graves!

Overpopulation is just as much of a hoax as it has always been; most of the world isn't even replacing its population. What is needed, however, is improved resource production and distribution. The earth _has_ the resources our population needs! Let's not solve the problem of poverty by killing the poor!

Thank God for charities like those of the Catholic Church that help the poor all over the world, regardless of faith. And, thank God that the Church has preserved and furthered knowledge throughout history, from Middle Age Benedictine monasteries to the modern Vatican observatory!

And, yes, I am a proud Catholic, a Mom of four gifts from God in four years -- and yes, my husband and I are open to having more children, however many God wishes to bless us with. And, no, the government _will not_ force us to surrender our God-given rights, and even less so will misguided earth-worshippers! Martyrs have died for a lot less than this. And, there are many, many families just like ours...

Observe: Humans have free will and can love; we are not mere animals, lions to be forced onto the Pill! To put it spiritually, we are made in the image and likeness of God, whether we deform that image miserably by sin or not. Why would we ever choose to exchange such a dignity from God for regarding ourselves as nothing more than animals in a zoo?!

Posted by Kristen J on 05/01/2009 at 12:17 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

So what are you proposing O'Sullivan, eugenics?

Posted by Rory Donner on 05/01/2009 at 7:55 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Amen, Ms. O'Sullivan. I have forever muttered jokingly, "They should put something in the water..."
Unfortunately, the human race has overrun the earth to the point that the damage is probably irreversible.
Overpopulation is yet another legacy of the plague that is religion. Using superstition to guide your existence is the very definition of insanity, yet we continue to allow holy con men to insist that we "be fruitful and multiply."
The Roman Catholic church is one of the worst offenders. The entity which most vocally condemns abortion is -- by virtue of its idiotic opposition to birth control -- ironically the greatest promoter of that unfortunate procedure.
The human race continues to astonish with its uncanny dedication to willful ignorance.

Posted by RogerRabbit on 04/30/2009 at 7:02 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Both brain and lung tumors are reduced from a particular chemical in marijuana- the part that gets you high. That's right, the THC. Heaven forbid we should prevent children from getting a head start at combating exposure to toxins. Why share a toke in a controlled environment when they can have that same sense of adventure and excitement of getting away with doing something "bad"? After all, why should they get the good stuff you smoke at home?

Posted by J.T. Waldron on 04/22/2009 at 9:28 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Has she called anyone else an "Addict?"

O'Sullivan IS a "Chemical Bigot." It is a term taken from an article you can find here... http://www.chemicalbigotry.org/blog/mary_j…

In my own opinion, the war on (some) drugs is a form of apartheid (meaning, the state of being seperate), of strict segregation and discrimination against almost everything except alcohol, etc. There are also far worse things for our youth, like American Football, with its "brain-slap" and high rate of spinal injuries, knee injuries, concussions, etc. If we were really worried about our youth, American Football would be banned, too.
I have attempted to discuss some facts/figures and my own personal story with illness and cannabis with O'Sullivan...in response to me, she says simply, that I am an "Addict." She is rude and ignorant.
In places like New Mexico, where there are medical marijuana laws...you may only qualify for this medicine if you have one of five diseases...Cancer is one, and the other four are just as extreme. Even if you are a card-carrying medical user, this does not protect you from failing a pee-test at your job or having your home, car, etc. possessed by the DEA, FBI, ATF, etc. If you are a card carrying member, your UPS, Postal Delivery person, Electric Meter reader person, Gas meter reader person, and any and all neighbors potentially are a threat to your safety if they report a flower pot growing a stigmatized plant in it somewhere on your property. Their ignorance and fear leads to YOUR arrest...guilty until proven innocent...your door can be kicked in...assault rifles aimed at your face, wrists cuffed, countless legal fees later, you are free with PTSD., even though, your doctor signed your prescription...it is still Guilty till proven innocent.
O'Sullivan MUST at LEAST read the definition of a "Bigot."

Posted by crackedlibertybell on 04/21/2009 at 6:19 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

I appreciate your passion, Catherine, but you are not very well informed about cannabis. It is not poison, it is a virtually non-toxic herb. Evidence of use does remain in the body fat for days or weeks, but those remnants are not producing any mood altering effect. Black tar heroin and pot do not go hand in hand...etc.

Your arguments are, ironically, paranoid. Geez, Catherine, do a little research.


Posted by Bradson on 04/19/2009 at 10:16 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

As long as it is disproportionately black, latino and asian kids getting the punishment while white kids get to walk or go to "rehab" with a slap on the wrist while drugs are plentiful and widely available and cheap, then what you are proposing is a continued racist system that punishes some terribly, putting them on the other side of the law for good. If the author really favors this kind of injustice, then status quo it is. If you want social justice, medical and legal rationality, then legalize all drugs and sell them at the store like booze, which kills more people than the illegals combined.

Posted by Phil Graves on 04/17/2009 at 11:27 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

This is a false argument, obviously marijuana could be legalized for adults while remaining illegal for children.

The real argument is whether such legalization would reduce the desire of kids to experiment with it, reduce their access to it, and reduce their exposure to hard-core criminality while seeking it.

Posted by guymac on 04/16/2009 at 8:02 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Two comments here:

First, you seem to stereotype everyone who uses marajuana. Well you tell that to those who have cancer, AIDS, and other illnesses who benefit from the anti-emetic (anti-nausea) properties of pot.

Second, I find it curious that most every article you write always includes one expletive (never none, never two.) You seem to have to drop the "f-bomb" in every article. Is that how you speak to your children, or your mother? Do you say "Clear your f*cking dishes off the table" to your children? Do you call your mother and say "Hey what the f*ck are you doing today?"

A competent journalist can write a good article without using the expletives; give it a try sometime.

Posted by Gary85710 on 04/12/2009 at 11:16 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Catherine, I think closer observation will reveal that American "potheads," on the whole, are much less materialistic than non-potheads, so I'm missing your garbled point here...oh, wait, hang on, I have to go do a bong hit...

Posted by David Kish on 04/08/2009 at 9:12 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Gad! First the simple-minded garbage by Leo Banks and now this collection of long-ago-debunked stereotypes and assumptions. Since when did the Weekly start recruiting its writers from the Arizona Daily Star's online comment section?

Posted by elbeso on 04/04/2009 at 3:04 PM

Re: “O'Sullivan

We want to outlaw transfat, plastic bags and foie gras, but legalize pot, crack and meth....i just don't get it.

Posted by Is it Just Me on 04/04/2009 at 9:59 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

I usually enjoy your eclectic articles, Catherine, but wow, someone needs a nap and some quiet time.

The 'potheads' you know that you rail against were probably stupid and obnoxious before they did pot.

The worst problem with drugs has always been and shall always be the prohibition of them.

Some people will get their kicks from almost anything, so wouldn't it be better to have them be able to freely contact a doctor for treatment if they develop issues, instead of criminalizing their lives, filling our jails, and destroying their families? Don't fear the reefer. Awaken from the madness!

We have a thousand Al Capones right across the border from us now, and many more than that inside our country -- the true result of prohibition -- because it is insanely profitable. The violence, the killings, the corruption of our government and police forces, gangs, guns, and no-knock-shoot-first raids have ravished our liberties and turned our neighborhoods into DMZ's.

What we've done for the last 70 years is the opposite of what we should have been doing about drugs and abuse.

You would be surprised at how many people in this city and many other cities across the nation use pot. It surprised me, and keeps surprising me at how prevalent it is. You cannot get rid of it; its even in our maximum security prisons(!) so we all should minimize the damage it causes in society by bringing it out of the alleys and slums.

Hemp is supposed to be a healing herb, not a drug. It should be utilized medicinally instead of recreationally, but there will still be those who seek to get high... at least an 'overdose' of pot won't kill them.

RE-Legalize and regulate hemp products, and the real danger of pot will soon subside.

Posted by az4norml.com on 04/04/2009 at 1:26 AM

Re: “O'Sullivan

Me, I haven't smoked in years. My difficulty in quitting, the way it ruined my life while smoking, makes me feel pot is far worse of a drug than its reputation. Still, I hope you are right, that it is on its way to being legalized.
We need the revenue, we need the eco-friendly paper, oil for plastics, and textiles. We need to hit the Mexican drug market a huge blow. Maybe, just maybe, getting ride of the thrill of illegal use will knock away pot's being a gateway drug. (Or, maybe the thrill of illegal behavior will make coke more used, dunno.)
My main concern is cops not being able to give a test to see if drivers are currently stoned. Maybe the demand for such a test will rise, along with $ for research, and legalizing it will help us get such a test.

Posted by maxw on 04/03/2009 at 3:14 PM

© 2014 Tucson Weekly | 3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 | (520) 294-1200 | Powered by Foundation