Posted on 09/03/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by atomic_dog
10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997
8) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana — implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition — the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century — reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II: DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
Try Colorado. They decriminalized weed long ago. And Boulder is just one small part of that state.
Oh, and they are also very pro-gun and pro-liberty in general. That state attracts a lot of folks who despise overweenining statists such as yourself.
You may have the last word, because it's waay too nice a day to get drawn into your typical drug warrior tarbaby debate.
Your defense of sodomy and gay marriage seems pretty NORML for dope advocates.
Your pretense of opposition to welfare fits poorly.
One of Colorado's chief avowedly gay same-sex "marriage" advocates, a Boulder activist named Rick Cendo, feels that he already has, in effect, "a working same-sex marriage."http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
Talk like that makes me want to keep the issue with the States so I don't have to help foot the bill for your pet peeve.
States make 99%+ of pot possession arrests, beggar of questions.
As for welfare. The money to pay those on welfare has to come from somewhere. Taxation is theft. It is also too easy for people to get on welfare and stay on it. People on public assistance should lose their Right to vote for more of the same. Kicking the able bodied, or those in the midst of drug induced self destruction, should be kicked off the welfare roles right now and put to work doing some of those things our President says we need illegals to do.
It isn't pretense. It principle. I have them, you apparently don't. Of all the topics you've seen me post on, I always take the same line with my positions. Pro-freedom. Pro-individual responsibility. Small government.
You, however, approve of State level gun bans, Federal gun bans under guise of the commerce clause, approve of the drug war absent Constitutional authority, approve of the current IRS tax system and it's attendant abuses, are against private property Rights, ect...
Is there ANY expansion of government power that you DON'T like?
Like people on drugs?
Nice foot shot.
I have a bunch of stuff I need to do before 5PM, so I'll leave you to your or devices. Try not to pee in the corners again will you?
Testing positive for drugs should be an automatic disqualifier.
You were saying?
Never mind, this is normally the part of your argumentitve style that you begin to hop around like a pat of butter on a hot griddle. Pretty pointless from here on out...
Too much time among the bureaucratic elite in the beltway's ivory towers takes it's toll.
Penalize drug use?
Nice 180!
What state is that, beggar of questions?
Bigger guns then. That's the issue. What's that have to do with the government anyway?
Wll, yes, but only because 99.9% of people NOT in jail have broken the speed limit. You might be interested in The Dangers of Bread:
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
I suggest you learn how statistics work and how they can be misleading before you try to use them to prove your point.
You aren't capable of arguing this logically.
It also shows where the SCOTUS went outside it's authority by saying Fed Law trumps State law absent the requisite Constitutional authority for the FedGov to wage a "war on drugs" as they did with alcohol prohibition.
As I said, you are not CAPABLE of arguing things logically. THis lends credence to the hypothesis that your only purpose on this webforum is to TROLL.
Really? Can you point out some of the threads here on FR from the likes of NORML that condemn something other than the drug war? Or any of the other pro legalization groups for that matter? While I am sure there are some around here on FR, I'm willing to bet that the ratio of pro-drug articles to anything NOT pro-drug is 5:1 or more.
Perhaps I am a bit bitter; I used to be a Libertarian because I liked their supposed ideals. But the more I got involved, I learned it was all about the drugs. Cost of the drug war, DuPont conspiracies, cheap rope and clothing, more renewable than timber, blah blah blah. I know for a fact that most of those spouting that junk didn't give a fig about any of it. They just wanted their pot legal and cheap.
And in the end, I realized just how hollow the Libertarian party is, and how one dimensional hemp advocacy groups are. They are a sideshow in American politics.
Now let's discuss the part where you try to shoehorn me into believing something I don't believe... Let's see, where is that quote...
You, however, are the typical cafeteria conservative, who believes in limited government as long as it doesn't limit what you want government to do.
I am going to put this bluntly. You don't know me, you don't know my political background and you don't know my political beliefs. Putting words in another man's mouth makes you a poor rhetoritician. Ya dig?
APf
If that was all you got, then you didn't learn a damn thing.
Back before the party got hijacked by "anti-war at all costs" types, the very first issues discussed at the weekely meeting was property Rights, followed by a discussion on commidity based currency, and a lengthly discussion about trying to get some kind of a demontration together where we'd get a few thousand gun advocates to go on an armed march through downtown Austin replete with jokes about the cops having a bit of a conniption over signing the parade permit. Drugs were a side item.
Even today, the LP is about a lot more than just dope the same way the GOP is about a lot more than just "conserving" the Constitution. However, neither is what it once was and both have "abonadoned" their base. Don't even get me started on the communist Democrats....
Your positions on this thread make it quite clear that my quote fits you well. Oh, and I'm not a Libertarian. I just believe that the same logic that allows the feds to outlaw medical marijuana in California, when that activity neither involves commerce nor crosses state lines, is the exact same "logic" that liberals have used to create the federal beast. So like I said, you belive in limited government unless it limits what you want government to do.
Welfare isn't a reward for drug use, beggar of questions.
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.