Marijuana Lobby Grows in Sophistication (After you smoke a joint, I do Too!)

FOX News ^ | Friday, January 28, 2005 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[mugs99]

Fine. Then point out today's lies

Sure, I'll give you a freebie.
"Marijuana is a gateway drug to Cocaine"

Don't expect me to fill the thread with a marijuana myth list. I'll continue to epose myth and propaganda as it's posted, with verifiable documentation.
...

[robertpaulsen]

"appropriate governmental justification" was never given for the drug wars prohibitionary 'regulations'."

The USSC acknowledged that Congress did just that.

Read the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 -- it's right there in front of your face.

You have no excuse making such ignorant statements.

[robertpaulsen]

"Marijuana is a gateway drug to Cocaine"

Do you deny that, for some, it could be?

I rest my case. Next time be more specific and cite a current government sponsored quote -- you know, just like you did with Anslinger.

I'm not going to dick around with your generalities. You're wasting my time.

[tacticalogic]

"appropriate governmental justification" was never given for the drug wars prohibitionary 'regulations'."

The USSC acknowledged that Congress did just that.

Provided you accept the premise that a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution is "appropriate".

[jonestown]

And as you well know robert, but refuse to admit, "appropriate governmental justification" was never given for the drug wars prohibitionary 'regulations'.
- None is possible. Such fiat prohibitions on articles of 'dangerous' property such as drugs [or guns] are unjustifiable infringements on our individual rights to life, liberty & property.

The USSC acknowledged that Congress did just that. Read the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 -- it's right there in front of your face.

Congressional 'findings' of authority do not equal "appropriate governmental justification", nor do USSC acknowledgments of nonexistent Constitutional powers..

Our Constitution is clear on the matter. - Our rights to life, liberty, & all sorts of property are not to be infringed, - and while States can reasonably regulate usages of articles of 'dangerous' property such as drugs [or guns], fiat prohibitions deprive us of due process.

Your feigned ignorance of the issues involved is shameful.

[mugs99]

Next time be more specific and cite a current government sponsored quote -- you know, just like you did with Anslinger

No problem. The government has granted our taxmoney to many researchers to prove the evils of marijuana. The government never publishes the scientific findings that prove the opposite. The government, and people like you, have to resort to myth, propaganda and generalities like your "for some" comment.

Lynn Zimmer, a sociologist at the City University of New York, and John Morgan, a physician and professor of pharmacology at the CUNY Medical School, provide extensive references on this topic.
I'll skip past the science and go directly to their analogy:
"Most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter."

I'm not going to dick around with your generalities.

I back up my "generalities" with fact from scientific literature and historical documentation. You back yours with myth and propaganda.

You're wasting my time.

You keep saying that, yet you still post to me....
...

[Know your rights]

"appropriate governmental justification" was never given for the drug wars prohibitionary 'regulations'."

The USSC acknowledged that Congress did just that.

The same USSC that gave us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas? As a conservative, I'm unimpressed.

[mugs99]

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a conservative, has written a great book on this subject...Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When The Government Breaks Its Own Laws. According to Napolitano, "The government is not your friend".
We have too many USSC decisions that break Constitutional law.
...

[robertpaulsen]

"The government never publishes the scientific findings that prove the opposite."

Aha! The lack of publishing to the contrary proves your point.

I'm ... speechless. I cannot argue with your "logic".

[jonestown]

Tyrany of Legislating Morality
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338956/posts

[PaxMacian]

It is not earwig, but earthworm.


"An interesting use in the sixteenth century -- source of the name Angler's Weed in England -- was locally important: poured into the holes of earthworms [it] will draw them forth and...fisherman and anglers have use this feat to bait their hooks."
Quoted from:
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj001.htm

[mugs99]

ROFL!
Aha! Right back atcha...
The government doesn't publish results they don't like in the WOD media releases. I go to the source...That should be obvious from the references I use.

For example, the DEA published data showing drivers under the influence of marijuana have the same culpability as drivers under the influence of alcohol. This bogus data is used by the media and every other anti marijuana publication. When you go to the source of the data, the US Traffic Safety Administration, you find that drivers under the influence of marijuana are safer than those with no alcohol or drugs at all.

This is true in every other country that has studied drivers under the influence of marijuana. Toronto University and the University of Adelaide have both done extensive research to find out why marijuana drivers are safer. They both reached the same conclusion. People under the influence of marijuana drive slower and are more cautious.
...

[robertpaulsen]

"When you go to the source of the data, the US Traffic Safety Administration, you find that drivers under the influence of marijuana are safer than those with no alcohol or drugs at all."

As I said before, I'm speechless after reading yet another one of your posts.

[mugs99]

As I said before, I'm speechless after reading yet another one of your posts

LOL! Speechless?

The WOD media references the NHTSA as a data source. When you search the NHTSA all you find is a 1992 analysis of accidents in which the drivers were killed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported: "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drug-free drivers"

They took blood samples from the dead drivers, so there's no guessing involved. The exact same results were obtained in every country that studied driving under the influence of marijuana including Germany, Canada and Austrailia.

I can post many more verifiable sources if needed.
...

[ActionNewsBill]

Unfortunately,all you pro-pot people,when talking about how it was medicinally used 300 years ago,don't know what you're talking about and should just keep quite.

Well, not all of us were around back then. ; > )

[robertpaulsen]

"The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drug-free drivers"

That's different than, "... you find that drivers under the influence of marijuana are safer than those with no alcohol or drugs at all." The responsibility rate is "who caused the crash".

Actually the report concluded:
1) "Alcohol is by far the leading cause of drug-related traffic accidents, while marijuana poses negligible danger except when combined with alcohol.
2) The marijuana test they used only detected the presence of marijuana, not the strength nor whether it impaired the driver.
3) A person who tested positive for marijuana because they smoked it a week ago is not "under the influence".
4) When comparing the drivers, the results were "not statistically significant".
5) Only an idiot would conclude that smoking marijuana while driving makes them a safer driver.

[mugs99]

The responsibility rate is "who caused the crash".

Drivers under the influence of marijuana caused fewer crashes. They are safer.

A person who tested positive for marijuana because they smoked it a week ago is not "under the influence".

Again, you try to propagandize the data. They used blood samples from the dead drivers. They were legally "under the influence" and could have been charged as such had they lived. A blood sample will not test positive for marijuana any longer than it will test positive for alcohol. Do you work for the DEA?

When comparing the drivers, the results were "not statistically significant".

They become "statistically significant" when you find the same results in every other country that has researched this. I gave you two other sources. Same results. I even left it easy for you. I didn't use any source that was spectacularly lopsided to make my case, like the German study. The DEA paid the German Dept of Trans to research this using live drivers on the autobahn and in city traffic. They used Germany because they could not get authorization to do it on our highways
They used drivers under the influence of marijuana, alcohol and no drugs or alcohol at all. The marijuana drivers scored lower in the cone tests than drivers with no alcohol or pot, but higher on driving in city traffic and the autobahn, although they did get honked at a couple of times for driving too slow.

Only an idiot would conclude that smoking marijuana while driving makes them a safer driver

I'll grant you that these tests were done using better than average drivers, but you quoted it yourself....Driving under the influence of marijuana only presents a "negligible danger"

Only an idiot would be duped by WOD propaganda.
...

[eno_]

If that were all the slacker spice did, you'd have a good point there.

Compared with...

booze

hydrogenated fats

cigarettes

daytime TV

...where would you put the ill effects of Demon Weed?