Posted on 06/04/2007 11:35:52 AM PDT by cryptical
Most do. I believe the combined number of alcohol abusers and alcoholics is around 10%.
I would hate to see the types of parties you go to.
Murdering all 6-year-olds worldwide will bring about world peace. Do you favor the murder of all 6-year-olds? Feel like answering that question?
"Evidence of someone prostituting for pot please?"
Where does a prostitute get the money to buy pot? I rest my case.
"Gee but what if they find a couple of lawyers, a couple of city administrators and an arts administrator that smokes it, what then?"
How can they if everyone is smoking marijuana in the privacy of their home? Are YOU describing the average pot smoker?
Of course. I was simply pointing out that age group does not represent the typical pot smoker -- hardly "commonplace and unremarkable" as the article alludes.
I lack the omniscience to comment on that matter intelligently.
I hate to see the types of parties I go to.
Omniscience is not necessary. Just the ability to read a chart.
| Table 3. Past month use of marijuana, by age of respondents: 1979 to 2001 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage reporting use | ||||
| Year | 12-17 | 18-25 | 26-34 | 35 and older |
| 1979 | 14.2% | 35.6% | 19.7% | 2.9% |
| 1982 | 9.9 | 27.2 | 19.0 | 3.9 |
| 1985 | 10.2 | 21.7 | 19.0 | 2.6 |
| 1988 | 5.4 | 15.3 | 12.3 | 1.8 |
| 1990 | 4.4 | 12.7 | 9.5 | 2.4 |
| 1991 | 3.6 | 12.9 | 7.7 | 2.6 |
| 1992 | 3.4 | 10.9 | 9.3 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 4.0 | 11.1 | 7.5 | 2.4 |
| 1994 | 6.0 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 2.3 |
| 1995 | 8.2 | 12.0 | 6.7 | 1.8 |
| 1996 | 7.1 | 13.2 | 6.3 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 9.4 | 12.8 | 6.0 | 2.6 |
| 1998 | 8.3 | 13.8 | 5.5 | 2.5 |
| DATA BREAK | ||||
| 1999 | 7.2 | 14.2 | 5.4 | 2.2 |
| 2000 | 7.2 | 13.6 | 5.9 | 2.3 |
| 2001 | 8.0 | 16.0 | 6.8 | 2.4 |
| Note: The survey was conducted in 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, and 1990–2001. Data Break: Changes made to the design and execution of NHSDA in 1999 make the 1999, 2000, and 2001 data incomparable to previous years. However, the 1999, 2000, and 2001 data are comparable to each other. Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. |
||||
NO.
Where does a prostitute get the money to buy pot?
Angain not answering the question but posting another question.
Are YOU describing the average pot smoker?
NO. I'm trying to get back to the content of the article. But I'm sure all you'll do is post more stupid bait questions.
Assumes facts not in evidence
It showed teen use to be double.
Assumes facts not in evidence
The citizens believed it and passed a voter-driven initiative to criminalize marijuana.
Assumes facts not in evidence
You don't want to believe it so you find excuses not to. Classic cognitive dissonance.
Nope, I don't care about the study one little bit. I'm just amusing myself by pointing out that you're slinging bull from some talking points memo about a study that you've obviously never read and whose author you can't identify.
Funny thing is, it took me under 5 minutes to identify the study sufficiently that I could obtain a copy of it if so desired. That your talking points don't sufficiently identify it leads me to believe that whoever put them together is afraid that someone will actually find it.
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse. (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title
It seems like the Controlled Substances Act uses (or should use) a drug's potential for harm or possibly for good to determine it's scheduling, not how long people have been using it. And besides, Native Americans have been using peyote since before Columbus came to America. Under your logic peyote should be legal.
Well, there you go.
No. I believe my point was that you cannot compare marijuana to alcohol and tobacco (ie., since alcohol is legal marijuana should be legal also). The reason being that alcohol is part of our culture. Smoking marijuana was (and is) part of the sub-culture.
"It seems like the Controlled Substances Act uses (or should use) a drug's potential for harm or possibly for good to determine it's scheduling, not how long people have been using it."
Yes. Its potential for harm or good is one factor. The history of the drug and the state of knowledge are two other factors.
That list is not "pick one of the above". There are 8 factors. All are evaluated.
"And besides, Native Americans have been using peyote since before Columbus came to America. Under your logic peyote should be legal."
It is legal when used by the Native American Church in religious ceremonies.
Under 42USC1996a, Traditional Indian religious use of peyote:
"1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State."
Well we have a vast knowledge of marijuana and it's effects, and it points toward marijuana being beneficial in treating disease. Of course, the government has continued to ignore this evidence, insisting that THC is only beneficial when it is taken out of the marijuana plant and put into pills. The "history and current pattern of abuse" shows that marijuana users are not prone to the destructive behavior of alcohol abusers. The rest of the factors all point to the drug's potential for harm.
No we don't. I think they just recently discovered that marijuana may contribute to psychological problems such as schizophrenia and depression.
Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate each one of those eight factors as they relate to marijuana vs alcohol. It's really a waste of time.
That's all right, I'm sure there will be other drug threads.
There it is. Drinking is my culture, smoking is your culture. Since I'm better than you, and I declare you a 'sub-culture' My culture can get drunk, but your culture can not get stoned. Understand now?
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.