Marijuana Demystified: 5 Health Myths Debunked

Medical Daily ^ | Aug 20, 2014 | Anthony Rivas

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a typical instance where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. THEY DON’T COLLECT INFORMATION ON POT SMOKING when information is gathered on every cancer patient in the nation. (Did you know that? —it’s mandated by law.) If the pot smoking is not listed via an ICD-9 code, the information is not recorded for the patient, as that would be considered a violation of their privacy, and as drug use, it is covered even more strictly by the medical record privacy laws. I can guarantee you anecdotally after reviewing thousands and thousands of cases that regular pot smokers have a LOT of extra head and neck cancers. We are, however, forbidden to gather that information.

Did not know that. It makes sense though. To hear the Libertarians tell it, Marijuana is God's gift to mankind and will bring us World Peace, heal the sick and revive the dead.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sounds like 0bamian collectivism to me - how do these "harms to society" constitute an authorization of government coercion?

Because they are fatal to society when they are allowed to grow.

[The_Reader_David]

Did you read my post? Yes, we tried banning alcohol once, and it created the same problems that banning other psychoactive substances has: deaths due to impurities in the alcohol supply because it was being produced by unregulated criminals, rather than legitimate businesses regulated for product safety; the trade going into the hands of increasingly ruthless criminal gangs as the level of enforcement increased; eroding respect for the rule of law by making criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens who frequented illegal establishments to get their drinks.

We were “without dope” in the 60’s? Which 60’s was that the 1660’s?

We’ve been trying “bann[ing] it for good”, and when the “ban” by Federal fiat didn’t work, we’ve shredded the Constitution to chase dealers with no-knock warrants, “criminal forfeiture” laws that seize even innocent people’s property without benefit of due process if its “associated with drugs”, made drug crimes into scarlet letters that prevent people from taking out student loans, instituted urine tests to toss even casual users out of jobs,...

“Ban if for good, get rid of it,” is the same sort of policy prescription the left usually makes: an idea that sounds good but depends on changing human nature or the laws of economics to have any chance of success.

[ConservingFreedom]

Sounds like 0bamian collectivism to me - how do these "harms to society" constitute an authorization of government coercion?

Because they are fatal to society when they are allowed to grow.

That's not what happened in the USA when drugs were legal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, a dead end topic. Marijuana Prohibition is dying. You’ll get over it. Or not, I don’t care.

And yet here you are, expressing your absence of caring by continuously commenting on the topic.

As Shakespeare said: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

[Norseman]

When a website in the opening paragraph spells “war on drugs” as “war no drugs” and even links to the phrase without figuring it out, I’m sorry, I quit reading at that point.

[Christie at the beach]

>>> In a free country, the individual and not “society” is the measure. If the shoe fits ...

I don’t agree to live in a society where anything; as in any behavior is pressed/mandated as being ok to do. You are calling for protections by a government that you claim are far overreaching. Even the Founders mentioned God and mortality for a free society to exist i.e. a lasting foundation for a society’s populace comes by a standard. You are so busted. People as you are liberals through and through. You want it both ways and or by an extreme version.

[ConservingFreedom]

I appreciate you trying to talk sense into these nanny state drug warriors, but these brainwashed yahoos are immune to logic when it comes to this topic.

I'm actually talking over their heads to undecided FReepers. The nanny-statists almost make my case for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not to mention that people's poor diets and sleep habits are also paid for in healthcare - do these 'conservatives' want government monitoring our fridges and setting our bedtimes?

Yes, stopping dopers from being a burden on society is exactly like the government spying on people's eating habits.

I dare say eating has been around a lot longer than doping, but that's just my crazy view of history.

[ConservingFreedom]

I don’t agree to live in a society where anything; as in any behavior is pressed/mandated as being ok to do.

"Legal" is not "OK" - insulting one's family and cheating on one's fiancee are legal. Or do you want to ban those too?

You are calling for protections by a government that you claim are far overreaching.

I'm calling for government to leave pot sellers and users alone - and no more "protection" than a social drinker or non-burqa-wearer enjoys against a Muslim who would force his own moral code on her.

Even the Founders mentioned God and mortality for a free society to exist

But they never said government could make people moral.

[Christie at the beach]

When your little groupies, go to rehab, who pays for that.

[ConservingFreedom]

The unspoken question is, “yes, but we have to pay for it in healthcare.” Ask me that question and my answer will be that we should not have to pay for other people’s healthcare.

Not to mention that people's poor diets and sleep habits are also paid for in healthcare - do these 'conservatives' want government monitoring our fridges and setting our bedtimes?

Yes, stopping dopers from being a burden on society is exactly like the government spying on people's eating habits.

As far as the healthcare burden argument goes, it's the same one.

[ConservingFreedom]

When your little groupies, go to rehab, who pays for that.

I'm against taxpayer-funded rehab. If you are too, then fight that - or does it make sense to you to ban Big Gulps because of taxpayer-funded obesity treatment?

[A CA Guy]

Make people get a prescription (not a note) from a real doctor of record for a real condition and get the pot through a real pharmacy and you may be on to something.

Also make sure they can't get the crap for a headache, unprovable back injury or for minor health issues of the day.

I have zero problem with the 3-4% of legitimate use, the rest is all recreational drug abuse no matter what holes you think you are digging.

[DiogenesLamp]

Psychoactive recreational drugs are bad. Keeping them illegal makes them worse, not just for the users, but for society as a whole.

Yeah, except for the fact that history doesn't agree with your theory there. China did it your way, and it collapsed. A small scale experiment in Zurich Switzerland did it your way and also collapsed.

This is what it looked like before they re-criminalized it.

None of the dire things drug warriors predict would happen under legalization were true in the 19th century when the government didn’t prevent trade in or use of marijuana, peyote, cocaine or opiates, includ laudanum (tincture of opium) which was suprisingly popular.

And about this you do not know what you are talking about. You are simply repeating the endless Libertarian drivel on the subject. Drugs were neither widely known or widely available prior to the civil war. The ones that were known were rightly considered medicines and used for medicinal purposes.

During the civil war, there started to be greatly increased demand for Opiates and Cocanoids to be used as pain killers. After the civil war, the nation had 400,000 addicts on both sides. Shortly thereafter Pemberton started marketing his French Wine Coca which was becoming increasingly popular, and later he came out with Coca Cola which gave everyone a nice dose of cocaine in every drink.

The problems with drug addiction were just getting started by the 1890s when Doctors started writing about various addictions.

It is literally a bald faced lie to keep repeating that garbage about the stuff being legal and there were no problems. Yes, there were problems, and they were getting worse with each passing year, but the Drug legalizers simply keep repeating that same crap, and they have now got so many people believing it who ought to know better.

Just what the F*** do you think would have happened had Coca Cola continued to contain cocaine? Do you really think that we wouldn't have had a huge mass of the population addicted to the sh*t?

Un-Freakin-real what some people are willing to believe.

[ConservingFreedom]

Make people get a prescription (not a note) from a real doctor of record for a real condition and get the pot through a real pharmacy and you may be on to something.

I'm all for it - but the federal government won't allow it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The legality of pot would impose no requirements on anyone - anybody who doesn't want to smoke it could continue to not smoke it.

And here you misstate the consequences again. A big chunk of the smokers would become unemployable and the rest of us would have to pay for their food, shelter and upkeep.

We would also have to pay for their children as well.

And none of this addresses all the stealing that would occur as a result of having so many unemployed lazy bums.

[ConservingFreedom]

they were getting worse with each passing year

You told me there were no good records from that time - so what's your evidence for this claim?

[ConservingFreedom]

A big chunk of the smokers would become unemployable

Evidence? Seems to me that anyone who loves pot that much is already smoking it, making legalization a moot point.

[DiogenesLamp]

I concur too. For a pro liberty website, FR seems to have many anti-liberty opinions. I don’t see how Conservatives who are against government regulating everything, would approve of laws that criminalize ADULTS in the privacy of their homes from using marijuana.

I like the liberty of keeping my own money instead of paying it to the state to take care of worthless bums who smoke it in their own homes.

You want liberty to be a dope head? Get your f**king hand out of my pocket! And keep it out! And don't have any children who are going to end up in my pocket either!