The question is -- can you support your statement with any studies, facts, papers, cites, polls, anything? Other than your vague reference to "contemporary statistics", that is.
Nixon Commission - 1972
DEA's Young Commission - 1988
"Licit and Illicit Drugs" by The Editors of Consumer Reports
"Marijuana Reconsidered" Lester Grinspoon, MD.j
All of these reports, unlike DEA and NIST reports, are careful about their scholarship and citations.
The Nixon Commission and the Young Commission were, of course, thoroughly packed by the administration with scholars and scientists pre-disposed to hate marijuana, but, being honest scientists, failed to condemn marijuana on it's track record, which, as per the DEA's Judge-Advocate Young, after a year of exhaustive analysis of the valid scientific research, declared marijuana, accurately, to be, on it's track record, safer than most of the things on the grocery shelf. How many people do turkey eggs and aspririn kill every year? About 1000. How many people does marijuana kill every year? About 0--and that's with generously factoring in those two bogus reports you just caughed up.
It's a common argument now, and it was a common argument in 1972, before the Nixon Commission, and it was probably a common argument in Freud's time to Plato's time, when marijuana was being widely prescribed by medical doctors for such things is minstral distress, with about as great success and confidence as aspirin is now. The AMA was astonished by, and deeply opposed to, the Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937, which was the first foray against marijuana.
I have not seen it anywhere else, even from all the Soros sponsored groups trying to get it legalized.
I doubt that your perceptions are an accurate measure of the pervasiveness or longevity of this argument.
The question is -- can you support your statement with any studies, facts, papers, cites, polls, anything? Other than your vague reference to "contemporary statistics", that is.
I am quite accustomed to this form of drug warrior bluster--and I am equally accustomed to how quickly it turns into anti-scientific, anti-scholarly bluster when the cards are honestly dealt on the table.
The incontrovertable fact is that there is nothing about marijuana, of a widely accepted scientific or statistical nature, that justifies the anti-marijuana laws, in the face of the harm done by even such commonly tolerated substances as coffee, tea, sugar, living room tv sets, turkey eggs, unbanastered staircases, and meat fat. As legislators and federal officers tacitly acknowledge when it's their own kids that have been swept up in marijuana busts.