Support States' Rights - OK Medical Pot

Real Clear Politics ^ | 6/25/2006 | Debra Saunders

[donh]

Ever heard of the '60's and 70's? Social unrest? The fabric of society unraveling? Do you think maybe widespread drug use, including marijuana, had anything to do with that period of history? I think so.

oh, THIS is the rigorous science. Marijuana caused people to hate the viet nam war, and riot at the Chicago convention--it had nothing whatsoever to do with a venal, corrupt president fighting an unpopular losing war of aggression with a compulsory draft, half a world away from home. Of course, what could I have been thinking--how scientific of you.

[donh]

Yeah, when only social deviants and those on the fringes of that great society smoked pot. Those were the days. I hope to return to that time when only social deviants and the stupid smoke pot or advocate it's legalization.

Yea right. Pot was legal as air, and very commonly prescribed by doctors for such things as easing woman's time of the month woes, as it had been, ever since the time of Galen. When the Marijuana Stamp Tax act of 1937 was proposed, the AMA was astonished, and put on a full court press to oppose taking such a mainstay of everyday medicinal advice off the market. Sheesh how can you pack so much unalloyed ignorance in one sentence?

[donh]

Where are you getting this information?

I cited my main sources. Most of that stuff about Washington is in "Licit and Illicit Drugs". By Consumer's Union.

[donh]

Yeah yeah yeah. Everyone who smokes pot thinks that everyone else smokes pot too. Betsy Ross's flag was made of hemp..blah blah blah. Liberals just love to rewrite history, or at least spin it to their advantage.

yea yeah yeah. So your "scientific" argument boils down to you hate hippies, and hippies like marijuana, so you hate marijuana. Drug warriors just love to rewrite science, or at least ignore it, to their advantage.

[donh]

smoking pot does make you less healthy and more susceptible to other diseases.

Balderdash, there is no compelling statistical evidence that pot users in legalized regimes have any different health profile than non-users. Pot users that get thrown in jail take some understandable health hits.

[tacticalogic]

"Drug warriors" aren't making knee jerk decisions. We've looked at the evidence, weighed it, and decided that those who advocate the legalization of smoking pot for "medical" reasons are propagandists for the left who only want pot legalized so they can get high without fear of prosecution. Medical marijuana is their cover.

You've also apparently decided that you can use the "New Deal" living document Commerce Clause to do it and somehow be immune to the consequences.

[Beckwith]

I got a question for you robertpaulsen.

Every time a thread comes up with the subject of Marijuana you show up with your hysterical rantings.

What qualifies to speak on this subject?

Are you a doctor, a cop, a prosecutor or a lifelong member of the DEA? Have you ever smoked herb? You got a lot of opinions but you know what they say about opinions.

Where are your bona fides?

I'm just curious, because most of what you have to say comes right out of Reefer Madness and I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

[donh]

reasons are propagandists for the left who only want pot legalized so they can get high without fear of prosecution. Medical marijuana is their cover.

Oookay, thank god the drug warriors never utter anything that sounds like an unprovable conspiracy theory.

[tacticalogic]

Soros is behind all of it. The RWJF doesn't exist.

[robertpaulsen]

"Every time a thread comes up with the subject of Marijuana you show up with your hysterical rantings."

Since it's convenient, let's simply use this thread. Point out my "hysterical rantings". Then we'll compare them to donh's posts.

I rest my case. Oh, if you wish to challenge any statement I make on this forum feel free.

In looking back on this thread, I've posted more facts, more quotes, and more cites than all the other posters combined. Your accusations carry no weight with me unless you can back them up. You can't. Go bug someone else.

[Beckwith]

I've posted more facts, more quotes, and more cites than all the other posters combined.

OK, you're sitting in a dark room with reams of anti-Marijuana documentation and what apparently is an obsession with the subject.

My question to you is what experience do you have with the subject matter? What qualifies you to speak on this topic?

[donh]

Since it's convenient, let's simply use this thread. Point out my "hysterical rantings". Then we'll compare them to donh's posts.

I rest my case

...on blovated thin air. What have you brought to the party that matches in gravity, accepted authority, or throw-weight of facts, the Nixon Report, the Young Commission report, the Acadamy of Sciences Report, or "Licit and Illicit Drugs"? Like most drug warriors, you live on a dream planet where your lame and insulting, unfounded, and fairly ignorant opinions carry the weight of gold.

[DouglasKC]

Marijuana caused people to hate the viet nam war, and riot at the Chicago convention--it had nothing whatsoever to do with a venal, corrupt president fighting an unpopular losing war of aggression with a compulsory draft, half a world away from home.

Wow...you really are a liberal! How is it you've survived so long on Freerepublic without being zotted?

[DouglasKC]

Balderdash, there is no compelling statistical evidence that pot users in legalized regimes have any different health profile than non-users. Pot users that get thrown in jail take some understandable health hits.

Oh please, let's not insult the intelligence of the readers on this forum. You honestly think that repeatedly holding the smoke from a burning plant in your lungs doesn't adversely affect your health? Oh no, I forgot. It makes you healthier because it's "medicine". Right.

[donh]

Washington experimented with different kinds of hemp. In his diary he mentioned English hemp, India hemp and hemp from Silesia, all grown for fiber and seeds

Why was he experimenting? Why did he want to experiment with Indian Hemp?

[donh]

Oh please, let's not insult the intelligence of the readers on this forum. You honestly think that repeatedly holding the smoke from a burning plant in your lungs doesn't adversely affect your health? Oh no, I forgot. It makes you healthier because it's "medicine". Right.

I didn't say it doesn't affect your health--I said the effect was statistically insignificant, for the reason, obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been fried by uxorious anti-drug propaganda, that marijuana doesn't addict you to the extreme degree that tobacco does. But I'm game, show me the stats and I'll retract. Show me the massive clinics where they treat marijuana-induced lung cancer victims. Maybe you can find them if you look next door to the clinics where they treat the 100,000 or so mortal victims of tobacco, a legal recreational drug, each year.

[donh]

Wow...you really are a liberal! How is it you've survived so long on Freerepublic without being zotted?

Huh? So I'm a liberal because I oppose the existence of a federal agency that can tell citizens what they can or can't put in their bodies. Whereas, you think you qualify as a conservative while supporting that agency, because it promotes the welfare of the state or the people as a whole. That's straight out of the communist manifesto--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

So, you support communist schemes to improve the State and the common people by depriving people of such a rudimentary right as to dispose of their own bodies as they see fit, but I'm the liberal.

Hogwash. The shoe is on the other foot. I'm a jeffersonian republican, your a commy symp.

[DouglasKC]

Yea right. Pot was legal as air, and very commonly prescribed by doctors for such things as easing woman's time of the month woes, as it had been, ever since the time of Galen.

They also sold tapeworms as a weight loss devices, put cocaine in patent medicine, and at one time doctors claimed that cigarettes were healthy too. Medicine has come a long way since those days. Except for potheads. They're making the same claims as tobacco companies did in order to push their product.

When the Marijuana Stamp Tax act of 1937 was proposed, the AMA was astonished, and put on a full court press to oppose taking such a mainstay of everyday medicinal advice off the market. Sheesh how can you pack so much unalloyed ignorance in one sentence?

Again, you're living in the past. AMA Decides Against Endorsing Medical Marijuana

[DouglasKC]

Huh? So I'm a liberal because I oppose the existence of a federal agency that can tell citizens what they can or can't put in their bodies.

No, you sound like a liberal because of what you said here:

Marijuana caused people to hate the viet nam war, and riot at the Chicago convention--it had nothing whatsoever to do with a venal, corrupt president fighting an unpopular losing war of aggression with a compulsory draft, half a world away from home.

Sounds just like Jane Fonda and every other leftist during the 60's.

[DouglasKC]

I didn't say it doesn't affect your health--I said the effect was statistically insignificant, for the reason, obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been fried by uxorious anti-drug propaganda, that marijuana doesn't addict you to the extreme degree that tobacco does But I'm game, show me the stats and I'll retract. Show me the massive clinics where they treat marijuana-induced lung cancer victims. Maybe you can find them if you look next door to the clinics where they treat the 100,000 or so mortal victims of tobacco, a legal recreational drug, each year.

Marijuana Dangers: Get Help Now!!