Originally posted by: tcsenter
Is that paragraph relevant to the story, or is it just there for the people against legalizing MJ to be able to say "damn hippee potheads". It seems like it's sole purpose is to discredit the people that supported him as nothing more than potheads. Oh well..
I would say the paragraph is there to show the medical marijuana movement for precisely what it is: a bunch of potheads exploiting the suffering of others to legitimize pot.
Ever been to a medical marijuana rally? Its like 200 young healthy potheads fighting over who's gonna get their picture taken with the one or two sick people in a wheelchair. You get comments like "So dude, I need pot because I like have allergies. What is your marijuana needing medication condition?" (giggle giggle)
PUHLEEZE!
I won't disagree with that, but there are a good many people who don't support prosecuting people for recreational or medical use of MJ who do not fit that profile. However it seems anytime this issue comes up, they focus on the type of people you mention for no other reason than to further a stereotype. There are probably a larger amount of Americans than you think that would not be against legalizing pot, or even just legalizing for medical use only, but don't attend those rallies. By always pointing out that, in their view, the supporters of this movement are of the type of person you mention, they are indirectly trying it discredit the solid reasoning behind it.
Let's say that for arguments sake, the people supporting this man were dressed in business suits and driving Mercedes and BMW's...would they point that out? My whole point is that that paragraph is not needed to simply report the basic facts of this story, it is added for a reason.
Edit:
Whenever you generalize about a certain group of people, and decide because of how you see them, that they don't deserve to be listened to, you lose out IMO.