It's Time to Rethink Marijuana Laws

Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | July 9, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[Moonman62]

An unusual title considering the article is a regurgitation of the same prattle I’ve seen on the internet for over a decade.

[A CA Guy]

This isn’t 1920 and alcohol is still illegal if you abuse it as defined by law, just as the recreational drugs all are from first usage.

You can drive, operate machinery, handle watching children and man other things while intoxicated. Same for recreational drugs.

[tacticalogic]

Got to playing one of those word association games in a restaraunt the the other day, and kind of got stuck on it. Looking over the menu, I saw House Salad and thought - lettuce and Vicodin.

[A CA Guy]

You CAN’T operate machinery, watch children and so forth.

That was the point. Missed the “’t”

[tacticalogic]

That’s a good explaination if you don’t care if the term “intoxicated” really means anything.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Good. You’re here for this.

[papertyger]

Why not rethink prescription drug laws and speeding laws while we are at it?

That's a real good idea.

Frankly, since the government started screwing around with my drug of choice, I've become convinced all the drug laws are a cover for statist tyranny.

I can't get sinutab without a friggin cavity search, but strangely the fact we took over the country that produces most of the heroin in the world doesn't seem to be connected to the war on drugs.

:Why is that?

[Eric Blair 2084]

Ping. This should really be an Algore hypocrisy ping, but since I don't know of one on FR that doesn't relate to Global Warning...tag you're it.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible, or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated. It essentially requires a system of checks and balances, like that explicitly incorporated in our Constitution..."

-- Milton Friedman, The New Liberal's Creed: Individual Freedom, Preserving Dissent Are Ultimate Goals," May 18, 1961

[bajabaja]

Your stats are wrong ... see if anyone else repeats these ... before a nanny state ping ...

Here are my stats, which show a greater lifetime risk of contracting lung cancer from smoking tobacco.

Bureau of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa, Ontario.

Life table methodology was used to estimate the probability of developing lung cancer by smoking status. Lifetime risks of developing lung cancer were estimated for six hypothetical cohorts (males, females, male current smokers, male never smokers, female current smokers, and female never smokers). Estimates of smoking mortality and incidence rates were calculated based on Canadian rates observed over the period 1987 to 1989. It was found that 172/1,000 of male current smokers will eventually develop lung cancer; the similar probability among female current smokers was 116/1,000. For those who never smoked on a regular basis the lifetime risk was substantially reduced. Only 13/1,000 males and 14/1,000 females in this category will develop lung cancer. When smoking status is not adjusted for, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is approximately 96/1,000 and 43/1,000 for males and females respectively.

PMID: 7895211 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Source link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7895211&ordinalpos=29&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Do you have other stats to contradict these, which are borne out again and again in the medical literature?

And what is this about the nanny-state?

Nothing in my post mentioned prohibiting anything. I asked a question about cancer rates. That is a scientific question, not a political one.

Maybe you're smoking something and you read my post in a way it was not written or intended. You don't have to admit anything. We will know ....

You have a source that shows that smoking tobacco presents less than the lifetime risks in this fairly typical study, I would be glad to learn of it.

And yes, I worked in a radiation therapy/oncology unit to put myself college. I do see the reasons for not inhaling heated air and chemicals into one's lungs. But I also recognize that each individual has a right to do what they wish with tobacco.

Let's confine things to the facts here, not your misunderstanding regarding what was not asked.

[A CA Guy]

For most, “intoxicated” is a well known dictionary word that needs little further definition.

1. To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.
2. To stimulate or excite: “a man whom life intoxicates, who has no need of wine” Anaïs Nin.
3. To poison.

[tacticalogic]

In the context it was used, it’s simply interchangeable with “illegal”.

[pandoraou812]

ping

[A CA Guy]

To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance is a result of chemical use. It is always criminally illegal for recreational drugs and criminally illegal for alcohol if it is abused in certain ways as well.

Use common sense an stay away from recreational drugs and use alcohol if you wish any at all with common sense.

[gcruse]

” Why is it that pot-heads only care about the pot laws?”

Gee, I don’t know. Why do special interests care so much about their special interests? We may never know the answer to this mystery.

[gcruse]

“excite by the action of a chemical substance’

Congratulations. You’ve just outlawed perfume.

[A CA Guy]

In cases like OJ, you could have a point.

[A CA Guy]

Does perfume stupefy?

[tacticalogic]

OK. Any illegal drug use is criminal - duh. Any illegal drug use will render you intoxicated? I don’t think so.

[TigersEye]

Why is it that pot-heads only care about the pot laws?

Nonsense. I care about gun laws too. ; )

[gcruse]

If it doesn’t excite, it’s a waste of money. But whether it stupefies depends on who she is and who you are.