It must be true, because a authentic, credentialed New York Daily New Columnist and CNN approved atheist spokesperson, S. E. Cupp, who would never vote for an atheist as President because – well I’m not really sure why, but I’m no doubt her position cemented her journalistic integrity, or something – has come out to make the all important point that legalization of marijuana will destroy any politician who supports both it. Or worse, it may very well increase the crime rate, something that gun ownership has been shown to decrease. No really, she wrote that, or at least that is how I interpret the argument she makes in her column:

[S]ome obvious extrapolations make it clear that the legal weed experiment could at least put the politics of progressivism – all the rage in liberal circles now – in a tricky spot.

For one, there are glaring inconsistencies between the liberal argument for pot legalization and positions on other issues. An obvious one is gun control.

The same argument used against guns is used for pot: that legalizing pot and making it more available will reduce crime. No good liberal would say the same of guns, though there is substantial evidence to prove more guns equal less crime.

Gee, I wasn’t aware of any reduction in crime that had been definitively linked to increased gun ownership. I wish she would point me to some study that proves her contention. I tried, but all I found was this survey of research studies by a bunch of libtards at Harvard which indicated that gun ownership correlates highly with an increase in homicide rates:

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

Well, what do you expect from snobby Harvard elite socialists? They don’t understand ordinary Americans. Hell I bet they haven’t even heard about Duck Dynasty, much less watch it. Besides, guns are LEGAL (it’s right there in the Constitution ya’ll), and gun owners – excuse me, responsible gun owners – never commit crimes, while pot smokers on the other hand …

We’re told pot users will “responsibly” use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes. But what barometer are they using to determine that persistent recreational drug users, who have presumably broken the law before by possessing marijuana, are responsible people?

I must confess, that is one impeccable logical argument Ms. Cupp makes. Pot smokers have already demonstrated their clear propensity to commit criminal acts because they purchased and or possessed (even if they may not have inhaled) marijuana, so undoubtedly they will go on a murderous crime spree with their deadly large capacity doobies. I’m mean, there is so much evidence that pot smoking leads to the commission of felonies and other high crimes and misdemeanors, especially if you are (ahem) not a member of the fairer skin toned demographic (otherwise known as Real Americans), if you get my drift.

So, all you progressives/liberals/sane people who support both marijuana legalization and reasonable regulations on guns, you are in for a world of hurt. Hell, you are in for a world of hurt even if you just support marijuana legalization. You can’t even imagine what the consequences might be from allowing a known class of criminals to suddenly be legally allowed to partake of these dangerous substances. Unleashing these hordes of known criminal miscreants on society could lead to – well god only knows. Why something like this has never happened before in our nation’s history. Or has it?

… Prohibition created a vast illegal market for the production, trafficking and sale of alcohol. In turn, the economy took a major hit, thanks to lost tax revenue and legal jobs. […]

By Dec. 5, 1933, when [Prohibition ended], even people who had vocally supported Prohibition had changed their tune dramatically. Their opinions about the evils of alcohol remained, but they had realized the effects of Prohibition to be far-reaching and perhaps worse than alcohol itself. According to famous tycoon John D. Rockefeller, “Drinking has generally increased, the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has been recruited and financed on a colossal scale.”

Yes, the legalization of one of the most addictive drugs nearly destroyed – oh wait, excuse me. The criminalization of one of our most addictive drugs fueled an increase of violent criminal activity, made criminals out of millions of Americans and generally harmed our economy. On the other hand, repealing the ban on that same drug …

Yes, I understand S.E. Cupp’s argument against the legalization of marijuana much better now. Better we should all own massive amounts of firearms and be allowed to proudly take them anywhere we please – schools, churches, bars and restaurants, and large shopping malls – than anyone for any reason be allowed to indulge in the legal use of marijuana. After all, who hasn’t seen this well known documentary that demonstrates beyond all doubt the madness and violent crime sprees that unfettered use of Mary Jane (as some people refer to this toxic substance) would create across our nation.

Hey, just ask David Brooks. He’ll tell you what damage it did to his life before he fortunately weaned himself from its savage influence on his behavior.