cannabisnews.com: Partial Transcripts - O'Reilly Factor
Partial Transcripts - O'Reilly Factor
Posted by FoM on January 25, 2001 at 15:26:41 PT
Program Aired January 24, 2001
Source: Fox News
O'REILLY: In the second Unresolved Problem segment tonight, drug trafficking. The movie Traffic is getting a lot of attention. Its thesis is that America's getting its butt kicked in the war on drugs, and Mexico is partly to blame. After seeing the picture, former DEA supervisor Michael Garland told The New York Times that, "The Mexican state police are far more likely to be trigger men and kidnappers for the cartels than the quiet heroes they are in the film."
Joining us now from Washington is Donnie Marshall, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. So you saw the movie. Mexico is painted as the primary villain, and America is basically we can't control the situation. Fact? Fiction? DONNIE R. MARSHALL, DEA ADMINISTRATOR: Well, Mexico presents really some significant challenges for us, and they are the major producer right now in the or the major transit country, at least, for drugs coming into this country, and I have to say that the portrayal of that aspect of the drug of the drug-trafficking situation is pretty accurate in the movie Traffic. O'REILLY: Now why hasn't the Justice Department then in the last eight years why have they been so lenient in their, number one, press releases about Mexico and, number two, the certification that it's a partner and the NAFTA business? You know, we don't we don't hear a lot of criticism about Mexico or we didn't under the Clinton administration. MARSHALL: Well, you do hear a lot of criticism, and you hear a lot of debate on both sides, Bill, in this in the certification debates. Basically, the my job is law enforcement, and when I'm asked to comment on certification, I I comment on the law-enforcement results in Mexico and, frankly, those results have been too few and far between. I hope that that situation is is looking up a bit under the new Fox administration. O'REILLY: All right, but hope isn't going to stop children from getting heroin and cocaine and other drugs that hurt them, and that that that's what really gets me angry because I don't think the U.S. government's doing enough to stop the drug trafficking from coming in or to deal with people who trade in narcotics in this country. I think they should have coerced drug rehab like they do in Alabama. I think that the way dealers should be life in prison those kinds of things. I also have called for stepped-up military presence on the Mexican border. Would you oppose that? MARSHALL: Well, you you mentioned a lot of different aspects of it and, Bill, it is a complicated issue. It's it's a social problem. It's a health epidemic. It's a criminal conspiracy all rolled into one, and I think we need to use all the tools that we have to fight the drug barons that bring these poisons into our country. You're absolutely right. These criminals prey on the young and the weak and the and the vulnerable people in our society. We see that depicted very graphically in the movie Traffic. The Caroline, the young lady who falls into drug addiction and the consequences that she faced are so terrible, I don't think that the vast majority of people realize how terrible that is. The criminals that prey on people like Caroline should be called to task for their crimes and they should pay for them. O'REILLY: Yeah, but now we have legislation, "Oh, we want we want to delineate the sentences between powder cocaine and crack." This is nonsense. I mean, people who sell poison should be treated as harshly as people who rape and hit you in the head with a with a hammer. It's a violent crime. Yet our society doesn't see that. But let's get back to Mexico. I mean, we have a terrible situation down here. I talked to Governor Bush about it. He doesn't seem to really know what to do. You don't really know what to do in the sense that, you know, I want to put the military on the border. I want to have them helping the Border Patrol down there. I want to use the resources of the United States to make it more difficult to for these drugs to come in and, right now, it's not difficult. Where am I going wrong here falling for that and why don't we have it? MARSHALL: Well, I think that the you know, you say that we need to use all of our resources, and you're absolutely right. We need to use all of our resources. There are things that the military can do. There are things that the military are doing in terms of logistical support and that sort of stuff. We do traditionally in this country use the military as a as a military force to defend and fight wars. We traditionally don't use the military against our own citizens. They should be in a support role. This is a law-enforcement issue, and we are are doing plenty. We we conduct have conducted operation after operation year after year. O'REILLY: But you can't stop it. You can't that's a... MARSHALL: Well... O'REILLY: I know look, I know you guys do good work, and I know you try hard, but you can't stop it, and the and I don't think the military can stop it either, but it can cut down on it. Why, for example, are DEA agents not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico? Do you have a reason why they're not allowed to do that? MARSHALL: Well, I'm not going to comment on the security of DEA agents in Mexico. O'REILLY: But they're not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico under Mexican law. MARSHALL: That's a very sensitive issue, and we take we take a lot of steps to protect the security of our DEA agents in Mexico. But but let me say this. This is a very complicated social problem, and there's no easy answers, but there are things that we can do. You know, you talk about the movie Traffic and there was one scene in there that that really puzzled me when we're looking at the drug czar on the airplane and he's looking for ideas. You know, we've got a lot of good ideas out there. This is not rocket science. We can win the drug fight. We can reduce this drug fight. You know, we did this in in the between the '80s and the early '90s. We reduced drug use in this country by 50 percent. Law enforcement had a lot to do with that. But so does education, prevention, and treatment. O'REILLY: Look, I I know all that, but I'm telling you and I think that the people are with me on this you're not stopping the drugs from coming in from Mexico now. They're coming in. The price of heroin and cocaine in the major cities of this country has never been lower. Never been lower. Anybody can go out and buy this stuff. A 9-year-old child can get it. And it's coming in. You guys are all hopeful, education, blah, blah, blah, this and that. This needs strong, coordinated, tough measures. It's not happening, Mr. Marshall. I hope it will under the Bush administration. I'm not optimistic. I'll give you the last word. MARSHALL: Well, the last word is I am optimistic, Bill, and I'm sorry you don't share the optimism. I believe that this is a fight that we can win, as I said, that we we reduced drug abuse by 50 percent in this country from the '80s to the '90s. President Bush has said that he will use his office as a bully pulpit to spread the the message that drug abuse is wrong, that it is dangerous, and it's unacceptable in our society. He said that he will enlist anti-drug leaders at every level of his government and in every Cabinet of his government. We he has said that he will focus attention on this problem, that he will he will address it by utilizing law enforcement, by drug prevention, drug treatment, all three of the necessary elements... O'REILLY: All right. MARSHALL: ... of the triangle, and I believe that that we will be successful. O'REILLY: I hope so, Mr. Marshall. We appreciate your time. And remember two words three words: "coerced drug treatment." Got to force them to get it. Thanks a lot. We appreciate... MARSHALL: I don't disagree with that, Bill. Thanks for having me. O'REILLY: Well, we'll we'll talk about that again. I hope you'll come back, and we'll we'll do the coerced drug rehab from top to bottom. Thanks again. MARSHALL: I'd be happy to do that. Thank you. This partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 24, 2001, was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Source: Fox News, The O'Reilly FactorProgram Date: January 24, 2001Copyright: News Digital Media 2000. Website: http://www.foxnews.com/channel/oreilly/main.sml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #14 posted by Don Corleone on March 21, 2001 at 13:56:59 PT:
Why can't he just admit he's a Republican?
I don't have a problem with how he see's the world, we all have our views. I just wish he would put off the "fair and balanced" mantra. Because he's NOT fair and balanced. He's fair with an obvious tilt to the right. If he could just admit it. . . . .
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 15, 2001 at 16:13:54 PT
Transcripts: The O'Reilly Factor
Source: Fox News, The O'Reilly FactorProgram Date: March 13, 2001Copyright: News Digital Media 2000. Website: http://www.foxnews.com/channel/oreilly/main.sml Should Americans Be Allowed To Intoxicate Themselves? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9023.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by rabblerouser on January 26, 2001 at 12:29:16 PT
Hot air balloon
Bill O'reilly's drug is his ego. His face on a screen for everyone to see is all that matters to him. The content under discussion is the farthest thing from his pea brained mind. I certainly do not take him seriously, he is a bona fide idiot. How he got his job is beyond me. More of the insanity that exists on the televsion wasteland and that is all. A mouthpiece for the morons who think he is great. Get a grip antis, you will fall prey to the mass insanity that Dr. Timothy Leary has predicted. It is beginning, whether you want to beleive it or not. If there ever was a sin of omission this is it; they fail to open up their minds, their hearts, their spirits and especially their eyes. With the history of alcohol prohibition in clear cut view they have blind myopic vision. "What will be has already been done for there is nothing new under the sun."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Robbie on January 26, 2001 at 09:56:19 PT:
Right on!!
M Segesta, thanks for the link! The "13th step" article is definitely what I wanted to say though I couldn't articulate it...Traffic was a double-edged sword.Sure, it wore on its sleeve the fact that the Drug War is a futile mess, but it also harped on the theme that prohibs and antis continuously harp on...any drug use is abuse (only the illegal drugs, of course.)It never occurred to me (or at least I didnt see it) that the drug-czar daughter's problems were typical of the worst examples of addiction. I suppose that if she had smoked pot, done heroin, freebased, drank alcohol, had sex, etc., then sailed through high-school, college, got a cushy job at 23, stopped all her drug use by 25, and had a successful, fulfilling life...well, that's just too typical of drug use and nobody wants to see that.That was the duality that Traffic had that bothered me. While the debate "may" and I repeat "may" be stirred by this movie, its more likely that antis and prohibs will use it to stipulate why their moral crusade is increasingly justified.As to the matter of Bill O'Reilly? Don't let it get to you anybody...Bill O'Reilly is paid to say the sorts of things that he says. Just like Flush Limbo, just like Howard Stern, even Bill Maher. They're pushing some people's buttons in order to get ratings, which, of course, relates to that bottom line...money.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by m segesta on January 26, 2001 at 07:09:12 PT:
O'Reilly typifies ubiquitous misconceptions.....
Bill O'Reilly typifies the seemingly ubiquitous myths about drugs, their use and abuse in this "interview". What's more alarming is that these myths are not present only in pieces like this, where the hysteria is easy to detect, but even in works that are lauded by reformers as being accurate and appropriately critical of the WoSD.To wit: this piece below from Reason magazine about the drug myths which are more subtly endorsed in the movie Traffic, which has received widespread praise even around these pages on C-News. I must agree with Mr. Gillespie that there is no reason (no pun intended) the film should use "Reefer Madness" techniques in portraying the substance use by the character of the drug czar's daughter.The most unfortunate consequence of this is that even on those rare occasions when we are blessed with "accurate" depictions like Traffic, the public still sees things which are untrue, and, more distressingly, support the WoSD with an insouciance that can at best be called dangerous because it's so hard to spot, even for reformers like those here..Link to "The 13th Step": http://www.reason.com/0103/ed.ng.the.html FoM -- Please post this article to the main board if you feel it is apropos.Take care and be well,M Segesta
The 13th Step
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by dddd on January 26, 2001 at 01:36:31 PT
slumber?.....nope
Dankhank....you are a true patriot,and a real trooper for the cause...Thank You!Keep on keepin on,,,but dont fry yourself too badly in the processsincerely..................dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by dankhank on January 26, 2001 at 01:10:12 PT:
Can;t sleep
I've been logged on to the web for 11 hours now. I can't sleep knowing this totally evil man has a national audience.Listening to MP3's, right now ... "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield, quite appropriate.I am up to probably 20 e-mails to that idiot, stories from here and elsewhere, forwarding email I got from Million Marijuana March organizer Dana Beal about the 90 or so cities signed on for now.I have eight or nine e-mail accounts, so I can spread the wealth and not be so obvious about spamming. :-)There is much he needs to know, not the least of which is love for his own children.Now I am hearing "Lucky Man' by Emerson, Lake and Palmer also quite appropriate.It's 3:20 AM here in Oklahoma, guess I will stop. gotta work today, guess it will be a coffee day, unless I can toot a little ...aaah can say no more ...Night all ... and fight the fight ...
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by dddd on January 25, 2001 at 22:56:13 PT
dea administrator
So the dea will provide an "administrator" to talk to this O'Reilly jerk,,but no one to dicuss the issue,or debate with anyone else.I hate to think of finding pleasure in the misfortunes of others,,but I would just love to see O'reillys' kid get sentenced to some absurd jail sentence for drugs.His reaction would be the same as all the politicians whose kids get busted.All of a sudden everything is different,,Their kid is not like all the other drug dealers and users.Their kid is a good kid who just made a few mistakes,,there's no need to lock my kid up,,he doesnt belong in jail
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by dankhank on January 25, 2001 at 22:11:47 PT:
Evil man that knows no bounds ..
O'Reilly hit a high thurs. night, and it wasn't pot induced.He castigated a very nice woman from FAMM, family's against mandatory minimums, about the "drug sellers" being violent.He also said that he was in favor of locking his daughter up for 20 years if she sold drugs.I have sent him 4 e-mails already, one with personal comment and 3 with stories I have save, mostly from here.He mentioned the "Culpepper report" as being HIS reference.I will look it up. we need to know who pays the bills at that place ...
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Lehder on January 25, 2001 at 19:06:46 PT
coerced treatment
Someone here recently suggested that when in Amsterdam, visit the Christian Torture Museum. The torturers and inquisitors of the medieval age were, according to their belief, not ignorant sadists but rescuers and benefactors. Their theory was that under sufficiently cruel torture the heretic could be made not only to mumble the slogan they needed to hear, but to *truly believe* its nonsense - as needed for salvation :1+1=3, believe it, it's good for you and a lot better than the eternal damnation we're saving you. See how this works?"Treatment facitities" were long available in the Soviet Union for the "mentally ill", meaning those who were less than ardent socialists and communists. Solzhenitsyn wrote a book about these joints titled "Cancer Ward". The "ill" were typically treated with mind-bending and debilitating drugs, concoctions nothing like what a reasonable person or even any modern drug addict would care to take. Millions of people had to be rehabilitated in this manner in order to protect the communist system.In this country the religion that you MUST believe is the drug warrior's ideology that drugs destroy lives, that marijuana is an addictive narcotic, that drugs are destroying the world, that only the government's programs of prison and "treatment" can save society, can save America. Forced treatment is no different from torture or cancer wards. The whole idea is to grab you when you're weak and frightened - like under arrest and facing 25 years to life - then break you down psychologically with isolation from all that's familiar to you and constant yelling in your face until you BELIEVE THIS SH*T.There are not enough voluntary treatment programs available for people who want them and there should be, and they should be free. But the coerced "treatments" these pigs want to impose are a return to the dark ages.It's no surprise that people of this mentality will not meet us in debate. They face their opponents only in torture chambers.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by observer on January 25, 2001 at 17:54:53 PT
''Coerced Drug Treatment''
O'REILLY: ... Its thesis is that America's getting its butt kicked in the war on drugs, and Mexico is partly to blame.Was that really "its thesis"? Or are we being treated to a little spin from "Doctor" O'Reilly? O'REILLY: Yeah, but now we have legislation, "Oh, we want -- we want to delineate the sentences between powder cocaine and crack." This is nonsense. I mean, people who sell poison should be treated as harshly as people who rape and hit you in the head with a -- with a hammer. It's a violent crime. Yet our society doesn't see that. . . . [W]e conceptualize self-medication -say, with marijuana -- as self-poisoning rather than as self-pleasuring, and then rely on this image of the drug as poison to justify using state power to punish people who possess marijuana. Although in his important study, The Scapegoat, Renι Cirard does not refer to drugs as scapegoats, he remarks -- apropos of our scientific progress from the Middle Ages to the present -- that "frequent references to poisons" has remained a constant feature of the imagery and rhetoric of scapegoating. "Chemistry," he concludes, "takes over from purely demoniac influence."13 The chemistry that takes over, I would add, is not pharmacological chemistry, but ceremonial chemistry.Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.62-63http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339 O'REILLY: I hope so, Mr. Marshall. We appreciate your time. And remember two words -- three words: "coerced drug treatment." Got to force them to get it. As the Christian concept of sin carries with it its own deterrent of suffering in hell, so the scientific concept of disease carries with it its own deterrent of suffering on earth. Moreover, if it is true that nature rewards faithful believers in medicine (and especially those who seek prompt and properly authorized medical care for their illnesses) with a long and healthy life, is this not inducement enough to insure true belief? Why should the State use its police power to impose medical dogma on nonbelievers, when, if left alone, such heretics are sure to suffer the ravages of bodily and menta deterioration? Today, the zealous psychiatrist counters this challenge by affirming his limitless medical obligation to his "sick" brother whom it is his duty to "treat" for his dread disease. Since the madman cannot usually be cured by persuasion alone, the use of force -- justified by the lofty therapeutic goal -- is in order.Witnessing the tragic consequences of this logic translated into everyday life, we ought to emulate the wisdom and the courage of our forebears and trust men to know what is in their own best medical interests. If we truly value medical healing and refuse to confuse it with therapeutic oppression -- as they truly valued religious faith and refused to confuse it with theological oppression -- then we ought to let each man seek his own medical salvation and erect an invisible but impenetrable wall separating Medicine and the State.** A new Constitutional Amendment, extending the guarantees of the First Amendment to medicine, would have to state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of medicine, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof At this time in our history, anything even remotely resembling such a declaration would seem to be quite impossible, for Organized Medicine is now as much a part of the American government as Organized Religion had been of the government of fifteenth-century Spain. Still, a small beginning in this direction might perhaps be made.Thomas Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, 1970, p.178http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815604610/ This totalitarian, O'Reilly, would be right at home in Soviet Russia or perhaps in a communist Vietmanese propaganda cadre urging that the state "re-educate" wicked capitalists. Just fill in slightly different blanks ("doper" for "capitalist", "drug-warrior" for "loyal communist party member").
fight back! here's one way...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 25, 2001 at 17:25:55 PT:
News Brief: Make Policy, Not War - Audio
Source: Salon.com (US Web)January 25, 2001Copyright: 2001 Salon.comAddress: 22 4th Street16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103Fax: (415) 645-9204Contact: salon salonmagazine.comWebsite: http://www.salon.com/Forum: http://tabletalk.salon.com/Feedback: http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/http://www.salon.com/audio/nonfiction/2001/01/25/housman_fratello/index.htmlModerated By Stephan CoxIn this interview, Salon Audio host Stephan Cox discusses new drug policies with two people on the front lines of America's "war on drugs." Robert Housman, former assistant director of strategic planning with the Clinton administration, believes the threat of jail time is a significant deterrent in drug-related crimes. Dave Fratello, on the other hand, is the author of Prop. 36, a successful California ballot initiative that offers treatment instead of jail time for nonviolent drug offenders. Hear their thoughts on this complicated issue.Interview with Robert Housman and Dave Fratello Download: MP3 [4.0 MB] Stream: Real Media Duration: 8:27 http://media.salon.com/mp3s/drugwars012501.mp3http://media.salon.com:8080/ramgen/drugwars012501.rm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Calling BS on January 25, 2001 at 16:07:27 PT
more money, more failure
These guys are right. We should stop those pushing harmful poisons on the vulnerable. Throw the McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's Boards of Directors in jail. More people die of obesity-related problems than all other health problems put together.I know a way that will completely shut down EVERY SINGLE DRUG DEALER IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Legalize all drugs.Can't wait to see Dubya take the bully pulpit on drug use. "We can't get any more good blow in this country, what the heck is going on down there anyway?"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 25, 2001 at 15:41:22 PT:
Same Old Propaganda
"We traditionally don't use the military against our own citizens."There's a reason for this. It's the law, Posse Comitatus. Too bad it's been ignored, leading to murder of goatherders on the Texas border (American citizen, no less)."President Bush has said that he will use his office as a bully pulpit to spread the the message that drug abuse is wrong, that it is dangerous, and it's unacceptable in our society. "When Dubya addresses this, and fails to say anything about alcohol abuse and drunk driving, he will be continuing to prove himself to be the paragon of hypocrites.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment
Name: Optional Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL:
Link Title: