FOAD Bigots

(Way Back Jack) wrote.


What studies? All I see is an opinionated allusion from a pothead.
Please be specific. And how can we study people who are doing
something illegal? Do we arrest them after the study is completed, or
let them skate away? I'm especially interested in the study
underwritten by the US govt.


"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic
use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the
criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard,
since it may expose the users to violence and criminal
activity." The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and
Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health.
http://www.ukcia.org/lib/kaiser1.htm

Studies underwritten by the US Government are usually fudged
by the DEA inspired researchers to magnify any adverse affects
on the test animals, including smothering the monkeys in smoke,


Like I said earlier, if it can be shown that drugs harm only the
person taking them, let's legalize and tax them.

We have legal drugs that already adversely affect not only the
user but those folk involved with them, alcohol, tobacco and caffiene.

Cannabis on the other hand:

In 1969, Nixon commissioned a study on marijuana that
recommended marijuana be decriminalized. Nixon rejected that
conclusion out of hand. More recently, a law counsel to the
DEA, Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, on Sept. 6,
1988, filed a report that marijuana was factually and
truthfully less dangerous than aspirin. That report, too, was
summarily repressed and rejected.

Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast
majority of individual users and its actual impact on society
does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and
firmly punish those who use it.
For these reasons, we recomend to the public and its
policy-makers a social control policy seeking to discourage
marijuana use, while concentrating primarily on the prevention
of heavy or very heavy use. -- The Report of the National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse 1972

I snipped the rest of the rational remarks.
The following material is included for the more uninformed lurkers
and prohibitionists. All of it is from U.S.A. government sources.

** Begin copied material from Usenet **

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want
you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar
http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for
ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

...America just celebrated 90 years of Federal drug "control"
(the Harrision Narcotics Act was passed on December 17, 1914) --
when do you suppose this prohibition stuff will start to "work"?
Brian Bennett, Thursday 17 December 2004

** End copied material from Usenet **

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

(Way Back Jack) wrote.


snip

Be specific.

Alcohol was more ingrained into American society. Prior to 1919, it
was legal. Taking it away was a major disruption to many people.

Far less people percentage wise use pot, and, as far as I know, it has
never been legal in the US.

See the difference?

Cannabis was so legal prior to 1937 that it was included in
the US Pharmacopeia. By the way lots of states had legislated
against the herb on the basis of the racist yellow journalism
of the Hearst newspaper syndicate.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:24:24 +0200, Eric Johnson
wrote:

On 7/26/05 1:12 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


A male with 20% BF is more likely to contract certain degenerative
diseases than a male under 10%: elevated BP, type II diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and cerebral vascular disease.


In an among a hundred other factors.

Independent of other factors, some of which are attributed to or
aggravated by obesity.

In your case:

reefer = munchies = obesity.

My bill will be in the mail.

What studies? All I see is an opinionated allusion from a pothead.
Please be specific. And how can we study people who are doing
something illegal? Do we arrest them after the study is completed, or
let them skate away? I'm especially interested in the study
underwritten by the US govt.

Like I said earlier, if it can be shown that drugs harm only the
person taking them, let's legalize and tax them.


On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:23:29 +0200, Eric Johnson
wrote:

On 7/26/05 1:11 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


There are also nine or ten studies from white Anglo-Saxon protestant western
industrialized democracies, including the usa, which show cannabis does not
form a danger to the motoring public.

It's my understanding that many have questioned the methodology of
pro-reefer studies, and the motivation of those undertaking same
Yes, the motivation of reformers or scientists conducting research where the
results do not confirm your prejudice has to be suspect.

But then so does yours:

Dated: September 12, 1997
Published: September 15, 1997, Reno Gazette Journal


Bruce Bledsoe
Reno Gazette-Journal
P.O. Box 22000
Reno, NV 89520

Dear Mr. Bledsoe:

Lo these many years have I argued with heart and soul against our country¹s
policy of drug prohibition, AKA the war on (some) drugs. Though these
arguments have taken place in many fora with differing people, one main
characteristic usually appears. My motivation for advocating drug law reform
is questioned.

This questioning usually takes the form of an accusation ( Steve Forbes
and Rush Limbaugh) that all I want is to be able to use drugs without going
to jail. This accusation is usually accompanied by some ad-hominem label
such as "druggie," or ³pothead,² or Rush Limbaugh¹s favorite, ³long-haired,
maggot-infested dope-smoking FM type.²

This in my opinion is the prohibitionists¹ attempt to grab the moral high
ground on this issue. By giving drug law reform advocates these labels,
prohibitionists hope to discredit any information disseminated by reform
advocates.

In order to return the favor, and perhaps restore the moral high ground to a
more balanced proposition, I have analyzed the possible motivations to
support prohibition. These are more complex to categorize than the above
simplifications. Thus:


A person supports prohibition because he/she:

1. Has not seen the evidence (Most prohibitionists).

2. Refuses to examine the evidence (G-J Editorial Staff,
Way Back Jack).

3. Examines the evidence in an irrational manner due
to the influence of politics or religion
(Rush Limbaugh, Way Back Jack).

4. Benefits from the status quo (Criminals, Criminal
Justice System players, Politicians)

5. Has a psychological need to control the behavior of others
(Bullies, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao Tse Deng, Saddam
Hussein, Way Back Jack).



In the ad-hominem terms which prohibitionists use so frequently, if one
supports prohibition as public policy, one is likely ignorant, or
closed-minded, or irrational, or corrupt, or psychologically unbalanced or
perhaps any combination of the above. Thus the credibility of the average
prohibitionist seems also to be severely restricted.

Now that we have spent a decade expressing our mutual disdain and exchanging
increasingly bitter and divisive invective, would it be possible to begin an
honest, open public debate in Nevada as to whether or not prohibition is
sound public policy?

In my opinion, support for which copious evidence exists, the American
experiment with prohibition, in whichever phase or epoch referenced, has
been and continues to be a total failure, even to reach its own stated
goals. This experiment in social engineering has been destructive and costly
to both individual lives and to the quality of life generally, as it is a
morally and intellectually bankrupt concept from its very inception.

Further, copious evidence exists to show that other rational methods of drug
control policy exist, namely the Harm Reduction Model, and that this model
has produced vastly better results than the U. S. policy of strict
prohibition.

As to the issue of drug use in our society, if a person uses drugs, it is
reason to call the priest or minister, not the police or the executioneer
(Newt Gingrich is quoted recently saying, ³if you deal, we will kill you²).
There is an enormous difference between the two actions. I continue to be
surprised at the number of people, responsible and otherwise, who advocate
violent solutions to this ³problem.²

The challenge, then, is to those who continue to support prohibition. It is
your experiment, you defend it. Produce the results which show it has been
effective. Enter into debate and communicate these results to the public at
large. Stop using ad-hominem attacks against opponents of prohibition in
place of substantive, affirmative arguments inclusive of evidence to support
your position.

Is your position so vapid, so utterly worthless as to be indefensible?

Best regards,
Eric Johnson, Reno


The studies were mostly done by governments, including the one paid for by
the USA.

Given the widespread geographical and cultural differences, these studies
are remarkably congruent.

Is everyone morally corrupt except you?

What is -your- motivation for your positions as stated thus far?

ej

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:10:35 +0200, Eric Johnson
wrote:

On 7/26/05 1:11 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


In moderation, it can increase HDL an thus be beneficial.

But no, it doesn't get a "pass." It has health consequences and is
frequently involved in domestic violence.


But it is used by nice guys like you and the french, so it has to be legal.

Hypocrite.

They tried making it illegal, but the problems outweighed the
benefits.

Ask your gramps about the Volstead Act, commonly called "Prohibition."

I've used alcohol a long time and one day it may affect me adversely.
One thing I NEVER do anymore is drive after drinking.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy my one case of beer per week ----
Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

On 7/26/05 5:08 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


Independent of other factors, some of which are attributed to or
aggravated by obesity.

In your case:

reefer = munchies = obesity.

My bill will be in the mail.

Save it.


I have lost 22 pounds in the past year and I am currently speaking to my
doctor about lack of interest in food.

And given the neuromuscular disease I have, that is very hard to do.

So in my case reefer=lack of pain =work+play=life.

Try and beat that trig.

ej

On 7/26/05 5:08 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


What studies?
Home News Archive 1999 Marijuana Induces Minimum Driving Impairment
Compared to Alcohol, Toronto Study Says

Marijuana Induces Minimum Driving Impairment Compared to Alcohol, Toronto
Study Says

April 1, 1999 - Toronto, ON, Canada

Drivers under the influence of marijuana pose far fewer risks on roadways
than do drivers intoxicated by alcohol, a new University of Toronto study
suggests. The study corroborates earlier research demonstrating that
marijuana is not a significant causal factor in traffic accidents.

"The failure of the Toronto University researchers to observe a significant
effect of marijuana on driving culpability is consistent with findings from
earlier studies," NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said.
He noted that a May 1998 study by the University of Adelaide (South
Australia) Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology determined,
"There was no evidence of any increase in the likelihood of being culpable
for [automobile] crash[es] amongst those injured drivers in whom
cannabinoids were detected. ... [Their] culpability rates were no higher
than those for the drug free group."

Toronto researchers analyzed new data as well as several controlled
international studies and concluded that marijuana-impaired drivers
compensate by driving more slowly and cautiously.

"The more cautious behavior of subjects who received marijuana [in studies]
decreased the drug's impact on performance," said Alison Smiley of the
University's Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department. "Their
behavior is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who
received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."

The new study appears in the March issue of Health Effects of Cannabis, a
publication of Toronto's Center for Addiction and Mental Health.

Previous marijuana and driving studies performed in the U.S. by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also found "no indication
that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

All I see is an opinionated allusion from a pothead.

Even after that?
Please be specific.

Do you need more?

And how can we study people who are doing
something illegal?
The US study was done in the Netherlands in 1990, where pot is legal since
1979. Canada and Australia have less freakish governments who want to have
data. So they allow such studies.



Do we arrest them after the study is completed, or
let them skate away?

In the Netherlands, Canada, and Australia, they get to walk.

I'm especially interested in the study
underwritten by the US govt.

Done in the Netherlands as noted.



Like I said earlier, if it can be shown that drugs harm only the
person taking them, let's legalize and tax them.

Fine. We'll show you the evidence like above. But will you accept it or call
it liberal rubbish when it does not say what you think it should?

ej

On 7/26/05 5:08 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:10:35 +0200, Eric Johnson
wrote:

On 7/26/05 1:11 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


In moderation, it can increase HDL an thus be beneficial.

But no, it doesn't get a "pass." It has health consequences and is
frequently involved in domestic violence.


But it is used by nice guys like you and the french, so it has to be legal.

Hypocrite.

They tried making it illegal, but the problems outweighed the
benefits.


And the difference between now and then is?


Be specific.

ej

On 7/26/05 5:08 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


Ask your gramps about the Volstead Act, commonly called "Prohibition."
My grand father's are both dead, both from Utah, both were drunks, and both
died of alcohol related illnesses.

ej

On 7/26/05 5:08 PM, in article , "Way
Back Jack" wrote:


I've used alcohol a long time and one day it may affect me adversely.
One thing I NEVER do anymore is drive after drinking.
Good for for you!

ej