Posted on November 7 at 4:35 p.m.
Pantheon, you are so persuasive. Your sarcastic response doesn't actually offer up why you believe what you do. And telling connerm to die in a fire was a nice touch.
Posted on October 24 at 10:36 a.m.
How about a compromise...
Kaaaaaaaaaaayy YOU! Rip his #$%^ing head off!
Posted on October 23 at 12:37 a.m.
Actually the Kansan does receive state funding from the Student Senate media fee.
The reason the University can't censor it comes from the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities Article 16: "The student press must be free of censorship. Its editors, managers and contributors must be protected from arbitrary sanctions (Art. 22--E) originating outside the student press."
But I agree it's not the Kansan's place to lead the charge to change a tradition. The Kansan should report the news, not create it.
On Stewart: Newspaper shouldn’t back the University’s demands
Posted on October 8 at 1:17 a.m.
Joe Schuster sounds like Nick Naylor from "Thank You for Smoking."
On one hand we have a media liaison representing a "sun tanning organization" who says tanning is ok, and on the other side we have the director of dermatology at KU med and the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheet...) saying that tanning is bad and shouldn't be used for cosmetic purposes.
Posted on September 29 at 11:33 p.m.
Sonya, thanks for your response.
Posted on September 26 at 11:20 a.m.
This is a well-written, well-though-out editorial that makes a very good point. I was in attendance at the marijuana debate and was wondering why Mr. Hager was going on about hemp when the topic was legalization of marijuana. I guess that's what you get when you have a speaker who has done drugs for the last 30+ years.
However I would like to question the author about one statement. You said "The health risks that justify the illegalization of marijuana aren’t present in hemp." Are you saying the health risks of marijuana do justify its criminilization, or simply that there are no health risks with hemp?
Posted on September 19 at 3:33 p.m.
Mr. Hager,
Fine, whatever, the pharmaceutical companies are running the government.
The question is, do you think that is a more effective argument than talking about the cost of the drug war and the money it funnels into organized crime?
I do not. I think it detracts from it as most of the people you need to convince think about things too simplistically and have too short of attention spans to follow your reasoning.
I think you need to stick to fact and not theory in the marijuana debate.
On Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Posted on September 19 at 3:07 p.m.
The PDFA main page has more links about abuse of legal pharmaceuticals than anything else. How can you say they never talk about it?
Anyway, that's not even the point. Regardless of how you feel about the pharmaceutical conspiracy, all connerm and I are saying is that it isn't an effective argument and detracts from better arguments.
On Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Posted on September 19 at 2:49 p.m.
From Wikipedia:
"Conspiracy theory
A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations."
Your assertion that pharmaceutical companies are the ones behind the criminalization of marijuana is a conspiracy theory.
No one can deny that special interests have long played an unfortunate role in American politics. But your theory that the pharmaceutical corporations are behind the drug war isn't gong to convince mainstream America to legalize marijuana.
On Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Posted on November 19 at 1:26 a.m.
What a dumb rule. Almost every house I know of has more than 4 people living in it.
On City ordinance displaces students