Posted on 06/23/2011 3:46:24 AM PDT by lbryce
I agree very much that more study is indicated but as long as cannabis is kept illegal and denigrated, who is going to admit to long-term use for longitudinal studies? Frther it is so hard to isolate and control all the variables and factors that someone with a gene mutuation encounter throughout life and I just don't think they will ever be able to say definitively that Eureka! Yes! This is the one drug out of all the drugs, alcohol, food additives this person ever ingested that kicked off that mutated (and rare) gene
As a result, people shrieking about the danger of weed smoking just look foolish and clueless to the large numbers of people who have tried or use cannibus regularly. And to make things worse it convinces people who quite sensibly support states rights to turn around and support the heavy hand of the federal government beause they've been frightened by the terror of climate change smoking weed.
You’re welcome.
I purposely put in references that included what I call “hedge words.” Scientists are trained to include the acknowledgement that their interpretations are subject to change; unfortunately, too many state their conclusions as the final word on the matter.
It’s actually fairly straightforward to determine that a particular disease, e.g. schizophrenia, has X% genetic component, and Y% environmental component (meaning that in the absence of X, Y, or both, the disease does not occur). Trying to determine exactly what the environmental component is, OTOH, very tricky.
Well said. Turning to other scientific disputes, once that ellusive "gay" gene is discovered that might be an interesting question too... unless there isn't one. Ah yes, nature and nurture, the two "n-words". ;-)
Can you tell us where you stand on that issue, and why?
State issue. Control of food and cunsumables is not authorized by the Constitution. However I still believe it should be criminal on the state level. Transporting it across state lines from a doper state to a sane state should be a federal crime.
Yes. and Yes. However the incidence of people drinking alcohol committing crimes is so much lower than the incidence of dopers committing crimes. (once you discount DUIs. I should have been more complete in my original post)
John O ->Every pot smoker I've ever met has been or become a dope head. They've let the drug make them into losers. Every last one of them.
C of a C->That is most likely incorrect. Chances are, without even knowing it, you've met some successful, non-dope-head people who smoke marijuana;
It was said in an earlier post that I need to get out more. This may be true. I live in a very conservative area and I associate almost entirely with church going Christians. The people who I know are dopers are also losers. I do not know of any others who smoke. The people I would suspect of being even occasional dopers are the sort of people who I count as losers anyway.
Even if it's just in transit from one "doper state" to another?
This is straight Liberal Dogma.
No. this is an accurate telling of my experience. Your mileage may vary but I do not know any non-loser dopers.
... Look how well THAT'S worked out.And you're good with that?
Did you read my original post?
... Turn in you Smaller Government decoder ring. You failed the Freedom Test.
Again, did you read my original post?
When I meet a non-loser doper (in person) then I'll change my mind. So far I have not. I have seen some incredibly brilliant people (in college) throw their futures away because they'd rather get high. I know of no one in my geographic area that smokes who is not a loser. As I said in an earlier post, Your mileage may vary.
Some of them were, some of them were not.
I absolutely agree with your first preconditon, but the second is a bit extreme.
Upon further thought you are correct. Because of how they define "crime" the second is extreme. How about if they commit a violent crime (including armed robbery etc) or a crime resulting in death of another person (vehicular manslaughter etc). Still needs tuning but it's getting closer
Even if it's just in transit from one "doper state" to another?
Note that I said Sane state. However I don't know at the oment howthe fedgov could provide a secure border to the sane state while allowing the same material to be transported to a doper state. I've not spent much time thinking on this yet. The key point is if a state wants to keep it out they should be able to and the fedgov should help.
If as state wants to ban posession of a particular item, say whiskey, or hand grenades, or marijuana, they have the authority to do that. The original intent of the Commerce Clause is not for the federal government to assist the states in interfering with commerce that passes through their state, but to prevent them from doing it. Under what enumerated power do you submit the federal govenment should assist the state in preventing it?
Do you have any evidence that marijuana users commit more crimes (other than the crime of possessing/using marijuana, of course) than drinkers? Why do you discount DUIs?
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.