Posted on 06/15/2006 4:53:24 PM PDT by Wolfie
So you're claiming it?!
I can, but I'd prefer to stay on topic. You claimed that government intrusion based on health concerns is not proper. I said you're wrong. Are you now changing your mind?
LOL, well I guess we can split hairs all day, but there is a relevancy to the difference of being strongly for something and being "somewhat" for something. Or let me ask the question, why would someone be "somewhat" for legalizing pot, why not be "strongly" for legalization? Does that mean they are kind of for it, but still have some reservations about legalizing pot?
The poll asked, Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree. It was asked that way for a reason. The poll points out that people who feel strongly about this issue oppose legalization 2:1.
You distorted the response to fit your agenda. I thought it was important to point that out.
Your dumbest statement to date. And that's saying something.
Incorrect as usual.
I can,
I'll believe it if and when I see it.
but I'd prefer to stay on topic. You claimed that government intrusion based on health concerns is not proper. I said you're wrong.
Which means one of three things:
If you'd have anyone believe the third, you got some 'splainin' to do.
So you keep claiming ... but not supporting. What is the relevancy you claim?
Or let me ask the question
When you've had the decency to answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Correct.
yet that's how you reported it.
Incorrect. I made no claims about details of the poll.
Another unsupported claim from robertpaulsen. And that's saying nothing new or surprising.
What?! You stated, "... support for that is at 41%". 41% is what I call a "detail".
You mischaracterized the results of the poll. That's dishonest.
Your semantic gyrations never fail to amuse.
You mischaracterized the results of the poll.
Rubbish. Give it up, man, that dog ain't huntin'.
Well?
Now you're trying to parse this into "if the government does "A" then they must do "B" and if you don't allow them to do "C" you're a hypocrite".
Admit you were wrong and let's move on.
I lost total respect for the FDA over 20 years ago over a similar issue. This is so "not news" that I am sorta wondering why I am even posting on this thread.
>>In this case, the extracts of the plants have a medical use, whereas the plants themselves contain dangerous compounds.<<
which is why this analogy does not work. I know where you are going with this, but the problem is that Marijuana is just not that dangerous.
I have not touched the stuff since 1977, and think it is pretty stupid (and you'll get more stupid if you do it) to smoke it for the purpose of getting high. That said, you may find it interesting what got me to open my mind to getting high in the first place:
I was a goody-two-shoes in my senior year of high school (1972) and did a report on the evils of Marijuana. Guess what I found out? Like the "theory" of evolution it was pretty much all smoke and mirrors. It was all about what was possible as opposed to what was empirically verifiable. Thre really was no remotely solid evidence for direct negative effects.
Less than a year later a really "hot" chick wanted to get high. I did...
Kinda sounds like a bong.
>>If you'll allow the author to make these unsupported claims, <<
I've been watching the FDA for quite a while. Although the author does not support the claim directly, it is like saying the earth revolves around the sun. You really don't have to support it. There is plenty of support, although some people in primitive tribes probably still think the sun revolves around the earth - unless they have google access.
>> Inhaled smoke from MJ is harmless compared to many FDA approved drugs' side effects. Pretty weak argument there.<<
Wow, I forgot about that. You nailed it. Look at all the drugs that have been forced off the market because of SERIOUS side effects in no small number of people, yet marijuana is BAAAAD. The FDA is a shilling joke, and it is quite obvious to anybody paying attention.
Two things:
1. What would the health risk of tobacco be if the average person smoked half a cigarette or less per day?
2. Is there an offsetting health benefit to smoking tobacco comparable to those scientifically attributed to Marijuana?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.