JUNK SCIENCE ALERT! - Cannabis "could kill thousands"...or m

[redstar2000]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/2995275.stm

Capitalist "scientist" exploits the "fear factor" in the "war on drugs".

Are you scared yet?

:cool:

[Dirty Commie]

'If ya legalize it and don't criticize it I will advertise it'
-Peter Tosh
'sow the hemp seed!'- George Washington(I think he said it, one of the founding fathers did.)

[Anonymous]

How exactly are these scientist capitalistic? There are many capitalists who support the legalization of marijuana. Myself included.

[Liberty Lover]

I hate pot smokers. I want to see all you stupid fucks kneecapped before you get the chance to go and infect others.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 12:34 am on May 3, 2003)

[Dirty Commie]

Liberty lover, I would be more than willing to tell you to.....

















































GET THE HELL OUT IF YOU ARE SUCH AN ANTI-PEACE, ANTI-MARX PEACE OF....



































SELF DENIAL POT SMOKER!!

[Anonymous]

While I don't think smoking marijuana is a very good idea, and don't intend on doing it myself, I do believe legalization is the best course to take when you have government agencies cracking down on civil liberties and marxists guerillas in Colombia making money of the stuff. Believe me, I don't like it any more then you do.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 7:44 pm on May 2, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"How exactly is [this] scientist capitalistic"?

A fair question, DC, and I made an assumption that could be wrong.

My assumption is that you don't get to write editorials for the British Medical Journal unless your general social/political/economic views are certified orthodox.

I'll admit the possibility that I could be wrong in this particular case; maybe when he's not scaring people for a living, he's a poll watcher for some Trotskyist sect.

But I think that's pretty unlikely, don't you?

:cool:

[canikickit]

I hate pot smokers. I want to see all you stupid fucks kneecapped before you get the chance to go and infect others.

Yeah, "pot smoker" is quite catching at this time of year.

[Tkinter1]

Red, Don't you think you've blown this article a little out of proportion? He's made some pretty logical assumptions, not outlandish claims. His(and the articles) word usage also would indicate that he hasn't even concluded his research yet... Using words like
"could", "may", "assumming", etc...

[Politrickian]

If Marijuana is as bad as tabacco, then how come tabacco is legal and Marijuana isn't?

[synthesis]

Marijuana isn't as bad as tobacco, because marijuana causes $12 billion worth of damage to the economy annually simply for persecuting the smokers (most of whom are only guilty of possession) which could obviously be circumvented by legalization, while tobacco causes $100 billion worth of damage to the economy annually due to the healthcare that the smokers require which could be significantly decreased by limiting tobacco use.

Plus, tobacco kills 450,000 people annually, while marijuana has never killed a single person. Ever.

Regardless, I don't think legalization is a matter which pits socialists against capitalists. It represents more a feud between liberal capitalists and conservative capitalists.

Liberal capitalists, seeking to strengthen small businesses, primarily want to legalize hemp because of the 20,000+ industrial uses that the newfound hemp entrepreneurs could utilize.

Conservative capitalists, looking to conserve both their tobacco/alcohol holdings that marijuana legalization would create a large dent in, and their existing agricultural, textile, and numerous other holdings that hemp legalization would create large holes in, intend to keep it outlawed and hopefully increase punishment for 'offenders.'

Neither route is particularly 'socialist.' Either way, the capitalists will win. Therefore, I take the side of legalization simply because I enjoy smoking the stuff myself.

[CubanFox]

Weed won't kill you, but unlike tobacco, it fucks your mind over. I'm not sure if I'd rather die of cancer or have a fucked over mind for the rest of my life.

[redstar2000]

Tkinter1, he not only hasn't "finished" any research, he hasn't even started any.

He is blowing smoke out of his ass...to scare people! That's not science, it's demonology!

And it's utterly contemptable.

DyerMaker, I don't really feel in the mood to go through the whole debate on tobacco use again; so here is the link to the enormous thread on the subject...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...c=2132&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=17&topic=2132&start=10)

:cool:

[synthesis]

I don't want to bump that thread back up to the top... but I don't want to hijack this thread for something like that, especially not when it could potentially resurrect something that apparently pissed a lot of people off a while back due to the amount of the board it consumed.

So all I'll say is that I'll look into your 'autopsy' claim... but my point still stands that many people have died of tobacco, while no one has ever died of marijuana. And my 'fiscal damages' numbers were never really refuted... nor am I sure why you'd really want to. The marijuana-tobacco relationship was not the point of my post, and I support legalization of both.

[Tkinter1]

Red,

He's only talking about the Ifs.

"IF, as many scientists suspected, regular cannabis smoking was as dangerous as tobacco smoking in the long term, the annual death toll from using the drug could be substantial."

He's only saying that if marijiuana is found to be just as detrimental to health as cigarettes, then that would crush the myth that marijuana is harmless. He's just making people aware of a possibility.

He's not making anything up. What be his motives to do so?

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:33 am on May 3, 2003)

[truthaddict11]

but science reports real ones have said the Marijuana is safer than Tobacco and Alcohol.

[redstar2000]

Tinkter1, personal motives are always speculative. But what I have noticed about contemporary neo-puritans is that they harp on the "harm" of whatever "vice" they wish to prohibit.

They no longer can say something is a "sin" without losing credibility (at least in civilized countries), so they have to make it a "health danger".

But, in real science, when you say something is a "health danger", you're supposed to have evidence to support that claim. What if you don't have any?

Well, you can always say it "might" be a "health danger". That's "safe". Anything "might" be dangerous.

The particular motivation of this wanker might be found in what the BBC added to their story; England is moving (slowly) towards legalization of marijuana...soon hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in that country are not going to be imprisoned for their chemical preferences.

Ohmygod!!! Something must be done or the whole country will be getting high...instead of, perhaps, doing its duty as a permanent junior partner of U.S. imperialism.

Or, perhaps his kids like to get baked once in a while...and this is his way of fighting that.

Motivations? Who knows?

:cool:

[Moskitto]

tobacco is worse than cannabis, tobacco contains 2000 known carcinogens compared to only 700 for cannabis, and cannabis is not physically addictive only psychologically addictive so it's a bit easier to stop, and cannabis smells a bit more appealing than tobacco, the only problem with cannabis is that it has quite a bit more of an effect on driving, but that's the same with tobacco.

Of course, i'm not advocating an either/or policy with regard to drug use, but I see no good reason to ban cannabis other than "it's a gateway drug" which it wouldn't be if you could buy it from normal shops, I don't remember the last time I went to a shop to buy chocolate and was offered heroin ;)

[Moskitto]

i was actually told by my dad that if someone who i trusted offered me cannabis just for 1 smoke and i was sure i wasn't going to get drug tested, it's worth doing.

[Invader Zim]

I personnaly am for legalisation, as there is no point in restricting it.

However what the hell is this rubbish?: -


Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:59 am on May 3, 2003


My assumption is that you don't get to write editorials for the British Medical Journal unless your general social/political/economic views are certified orthodox.



Tell me where you get that from. Do you personally know several writers for the BBC or the major medical Journal, to know that they only use articals from conservative or capitalist sypathisers. Is there some sort of test they must take first to analyse there political opinions. Those with a conflicting idiological belief to the norm being rejected only those scientists of a conservative nature being employed to eductate masses.

Could you possibly back up your ridiculous statment or as usual are you talking out your arse?

I think the latter the most likely.

:cool:

[redstar2000]

Setting aside your personal abuse, AK47, I believe there are a number of works available on the "sociology of science" that you would find instructive.

Briefly, science is not something that exists in the Platonic realm of ideal forms. It is part of capitalist society like everything else; it is shaped by the material and ideological demands of that society.

Scientists are real people, like all the rest of us. They have human ambitions that are, in large part, consistent with the prevailing social order: a better job, more money, public awards, control over research projects and even their own corporation, etc., etc.

Where possible, they have been known (some of them) to "tell their employers what they want to hear" regardless of the data. Some have been caught "massaging the numbers" to get the "right answer" and a few have even been caught faking the data entirely.

Since it's not practical to replicate every experiment, there is room in science for falsehood to be temporarily accepted as truth...and if it gets you a valuable promotion, some will yield to temptation.

Beyond this, there is the academic network that exists in every field. People know each other, have sometimes strong opinions of each other, participate in both formal and informal groups, etc.

Consequently, it is tremendously unlikely that anyone of pronounced anti-establishment views would be allowed to write an editorial for the British Medical Journal or any prestigious academic publication. They would never be invited to do so. They would not be considered part of the "pool" of "acceptable" persons.

Is that clear, AK47?

And by the way, lackies of U.S. imperialism that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :cheesy:

:cool:

PS: DyerMaker, that "fiscal damage number" on tobacco use did come out of some neo-puritan's ass...think what kind of research would really be required to make a number like that meaningful. It's a "guess" multiplied by an "estimate" multiplied by a "speculation" multiplied by a "conjecture" multiplied by a "presumption", etc., etc., etc. For all we know, the true "cost" of tobacco use annually is $1.27. :cheesy:

[synthesis]

PS: DyerMaker, that "fiscal damage number" on tobacco use did come out of some neo-puritan's ass...think what kind of research would really be required to make a number like that meaningful.

Sorry, redstar... I think I'll take this scientifically-backed projection over your unbased assurances that the facts prove otherwise. Perhaps you should start working on factual refutation right about... now.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/19...16/smoking.html (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html)

[synthesis]

This is the exact method by which they reached their conclusion, the same way all such studies are conducted.


Estimates in the report of "smoking-attributable expenditures" (SAEs) are derived from 11 equations that link smoking history with health in two ways: (1) the likelihood of a prior treatment for a tobacco-related disease (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and arteriosclerosis); and (2) self-reported poor health. Other calculations then analyzed the impact of self-reported poor health on direct medical expenditures.

Miller accounted for the impact of 11 such factors: age, gender, region of the country, education, income, body mass, seat belt use, smoking history, self-reported health status, previous treatment for tobacco-related diseases and type of medical expenditure.

"These are the best federal and collective state data. It's the best we can do at this point to estimate the impact of smoking on health costs in all 50 states," said Miller.

[canikickit]

Do you personally know several writers for the BBC or the major medical Journal, to know that they only use articals from conservative or capitalist sypathisers.

You should read up a bit on some of the tribulations John Pilger has gone through trying to get his work into the public viewpoint. He has gotten it through (with varying degrees of censorship), but I sincirely doubt that the likes of the British Medical Journal are quite as open.

It would be foolish to imagine that Pilger is the only one.

It makes sense, if you consider it. Don't let your nationalistic tendencies cloud your judgement.

Redstar, seeing as this seems to be turning into an anti-smoking dia-thread....any thoughts on why I felt like shit after smoking for a couple of moths and started feeling better when I quit (considering there wasn't any significant change to my exercise habits)? I don't care what the scienticians have or haven't shown to be or not to be true, I just know that I feel physically better when I don't smoke regularily. Maybe you should quit for a few months and see how you feel? :wink: (and yes, I am a neo-puritan bastard).

(Edited by canikickit at 2:38 am on May 4, 2003)

[redstar2000]

It would be helpful in these discussions if people would at least read the links they post, DyerMaker.

Your link claims the health costs of smoking were $72 billion, not $100 billion as you wrote in your post on page 2 of this thread. Can I keep the change?

Secondly, the principal assumption of the document is that an illness or death was "caused by smoking" when that is often the core of the dispute. Here's my link...

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

Canikickit, I have no idea why you should feel worse while smoking cigarettes than while not smoking them...but if that's the case, I would certainly encourage you not to smoke. Why spend money to feel worse?

If you truly have become infected with "neo-puritan's disease", I urge you to seek immediate treatment. One look at Moskitto's posts should make you aware of what happens to your brain if the disease is allowed to progress. :cheesy:

:cool:

[synthesis]

It would be helpful in these discussions if people would at least read the links they post, DyerMaker.

$100 billion is simply another number I have read from another study, produced by a seperate but credible source. I didn't feel like hunting down a source that fit to the $100m, so I merely searched for it on Google and picked the most credible link on the very first page.

If you truly have become infected with "neo-puritan's disease", I urge you to seek immediate treatment.

I'd rather have "neo-puritan's disease" than emphysema. Call me, intelligent, if you like :biggrin:

[redstar2000]

<yawn> Pick any number you like, DyerMaker, one's as "good" as any other.

If you are afraid of getting emphysema, move far out into the unspoiled wilderness, if you can find any...and avoid smoke of any kind, even fireplace or campfire smoke.

If you wish to equate neo-puritanism with intelligence...that's a real shame and I have no further advice to offer.

:cool:

[synthesis]

I'm not trying to make a case for tobacco criminalization here, redstar.

I have no agenda whatsoever with regards to tobacco; my purpose for engaging in these arguments is to display the folly of complete legalization of tobacco for non-minors while prosecuting marijuana as a class A substance.

Do you deny that tobacco smoking costs the state big time due to the healthcare required by nicotine's subjects? I think it would be in all of our best interests, in a socialist state, to discourage tobacco smoking - through information spreading and not necessarily enforced law - so that the health care money could go to cancer patients, schizophrenics, and the elderly, rather than tobacco smokers.

[Ghost Writer]

Okay, I'll lie to you. Pot smoking is 100% safe and has no detrimental side effects. Inhaling smoke that has more carginogens in it than cigarrete smoke is absolutely safe. Users should continue smoking without any health concerns, whatsoever. Numbing the mind is always a good idea, and there is no reason to suspect that you could permanently alter the physiology of your brain.

"You know what being high is now, but how exactly does it make you high? Well this is how it works...in your brain there are receptor sites with cannabinoid receptors, which are activated by cannabinoid neurotransmitters. If you remember, cannabinoids can mimic the effects of neurotransmitters and thus attach themselves to neurons and send messages through them. The cannabinoid receptor sites are located in the cerebellum, basal ganglia and hippocampus, and when the cannabinoids copy the effects of the neurotransmitters, they are able to alter regular brain functions in these locations like memory and coordination. This explains why when you are high, you are disoriented and dizzy.

Chronic (no pun intended) users' hippocampuses will become so damaged after years and years of smoking that it will cause their mind to dull and it will be hard for them to form sentences."-Source (http://www.dbzgt.net/thc/mental_effects.html)

[CubanFox]

For I once I agree with you, GW. People who say pot is totally harmless are morons. I say; smoke it all you want but be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

(Edited by CubanFox at 12:14 pm on May 4, 2003)

[Moskitto]

The Redstar Equation

IF("Pleasure Factor">0,"Good Activity","Bad Activity")

IF("Evidence"="Danger",(IF("Activity"="Good Activity","Neo-Putitanism",FUNCTION=Fine),FUNCTION=Fine)

So, I wouldn't bother.

[redstar2000]

The story is told that when the great French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a guest at the court of Catherine the Great, he was challenged to a public debate on the existence of "God".

Supposedly, his Russian opponent set up a blackboard in front of the audience, scrawled a short mathematical equation on it, and said "Therefore, God exists! What do you say to that?"

And Rousseau retired in confusion. :confused:

Me too!

:cool:

[Moskitto]

well, this started with a discussion about cannabis being dangerous, then it goes onto whether anti-smoking campaigners are "nro-puritans", now we seem to be onto equations, what next? do you wish to discuss the moral and ethical issues of the use of recombinant DNA?

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'd prefer a deep analysis of the process by which RNA functions in conjunction with DNA in multi-celled organisms...

--- G.

[Totalitarian]

OVER-GROW THE GOVERNMENT!!!!

BOTANARCHY!!!

[Urban Rubble]

Ghost Writer

I know you think everyone on this board is a fucking moron, but don't for a second think that you can confuse me with your "big words". Your post was BULLSHIT pure bullshit. First off : "Chronic (no pun intended) users' hippocampuses will become so damaged after years and years of smoking that it will cause their mind to dull and it will be hard for them to form sentences".

That phrase stunned me. Do you really believe that ? Hard to form sentences ? That's fucking funny. My uncle is a professor of Geology at the University of Washington, he has smoked pot almost every day for 30 years, needless to say he can form sentences just fine.

The thing is, sure, weed may be bad for you but anyone that tries to claim it is bad as tobacco is either an idiot or they are kidding themselves.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 10:02 am on May 5, 2003
OVER-GROW THE GOVERNMENT!!!!

BOTANARCHY!!!
That's brilliant. I think you just created a new ideology :biggrin:

Botanarchist - I like the sound of that ;)

[Dirty Commie]

I am now an official botanarchist.
I am drafting the Botanarchist Cook Book.
It is two hundred pages of pictures (moslty in crayon by my baby sister) of trees rigged with fire crackers.
And of cannibus fields growing in Nebraska.

[Urban Rubble]

No reply Ghost ?

[CubanFox]

We must get hold of these Botanarchist Cookbooks to overthrown the logging class.

[Ghost Writer]

In a study, appearing in the April 2 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the IQ scores of 70 potheads, both before and after they started smoking pot, were compared against each other. Those who currently smoke more than five joints a week, demonstrated an approximately 4 point drop, in their IQ scores. Yes, pot smoking can affect your mental acquity.

In addition, the testaterone levels of male users drops, and they may suffer from a low sperm count, and a higher pitch voice. Don't believe me? Go to the literature.

Finally, British Medical Journals have detailed the chronic effects that marajuana use can have on the lungs. The instances of bronchitis, and asthma are above those of even cigarette smokers.

I think it would be safe to say that marajuana has a detrimental effect on the mind and the body. Any dumbass should concede that point. This reminds me of the rampant denial that took place prior to the public campaign against tobacco. At least, tobacco smokers admit what they are doing is unhealthy. The sad thing is that pot smokers still sound like the tobacco executives did before the lawsuits. I assume the large amount of disinformation that is circulating, often put out by interests like NORML, is a conserted effort, by those who benefit, to keep their customer base ignorant of the long term side effects that the drug can cause.

I am for legalization. However, I think there ought to be a massive educational campaign waged, in order to allow people to make a educated decision on the matter. Otherwise, the marajuana profiteers wil be just as guilty as the tobacco companies that lied to the world for years.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 8:56 am on May 7, 2003)

[CubanFox]

I agree with you. Legalize the stuff, but make people aware that it can fuck your mind over.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:56 am on May 4, 2003
Setting aside your personal abuse, AK47, I believe there are a number of works available on the "sociology of science" that you would find instructive.

Briefly, science is not something that exists in the Platonic realm of ideal forms. It is part of capitalist society like everything else; it is shaped by the material and ideological demands of that society.

Scientists are real people, like all the rest of us. They have human ambitions that are, in large part, consistent with the prevailing social order: a better job, more money, public awards, control over research projects and even their own corporation, etc., etc.

Where possible, they have been known (some of them) to "tell their employers what they want to hear" regardless of the data. Some have been caught "massaging the numbers" to get the "right answer" and a few have even been caught faking the data entirely.

Since it's not practical to replicate every experiment, there is room in science for falsehood to be temporarily accepted as truth...and if it gets you a valuable promotion, some will yield to temptation.

Beyond this, there is the academic network that exists in every field. People know each other, have sometimes strong opinions of each other, participate in both formal and informal groups, etc.

Consequently, it is tremendously unlikely that anyone of pronounced anti-establishment views would be allowed to write an editorial for the British Medical Journal or any prestigious academic publication. They would never be invited to do so. They would not be considered part of the "pool" of "acceptable" persons.

Is that clear, AK47?

And by the way, lackies of U.S. imperialism that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :cheesy:

:cool:

PS: DyerMaker, that "fiscal damage number" on tobacco use did come out of some neo-puritan's ass...think what kind of research would really be required to make a number like that meaningful. It's a "guess" multiplied by an "estimate" multiplied by a "speculation" multiplied by a "conjecture" multiplied by a "presumption", etc., etc., etc. For all we know, the true "cost" of tobacco use annually is $1.27. :cheesy:


Briefly, science is not something that exists in the Platonic realm of ideal forms. It is part of capitalist society like everything else; it is shaped by the material and ideological demands of that society.

Then explain to me how famous leftist scientists managed to become great men recognised as experts in there fields, men such as Albert Einstein, a great scientist also a famous leftist, gain great respect from all scientists in the most capitalist nation on earth, the USA, not to mention the great respect from British scientists.

Where possible, they have been known (some of them) to "tell their employers what they want to hear" regardless of the data. Some have been caught "massaging the numbers" to get the "right answer" and a few have even been caught faking the data entirely.

I have bolded the most important part of that paragraph, the "some of them", unless you wish to generalise an proffesion then you will know that the actions of some individuals does not mean that the entire scientific world is corrupt. So unless you can catagorically prove that that scientist is corrupt and is lying through his teath to get a premotion then you are making a wild generalisation. Again i ask you to back up what you say.

Consequently, it is tremendously unlikely that anyone of pronounced anti-establishment views would be allowed to write an editorial for the British Medical Journal or any prestigious academic publication. They would never be invited to do so. They would not be considered part of the "pool" of "acceptable" persons.


Again i point out that many scientists of any political agenda are recognised as experts. Many Cuban scientists are recognised medical experts and are likely to have published works in medical Journal British and American, they would hardly be likely to have "desirable" political opinions are they? At lest from the Governments view point.

Your generalisations are the problem and ubnless you can prove to me that every single scientist who writes for a British medical Journal is corrupt and capitalist then you are slandering a large number of people. Its like the capitalists calling all the scientists lefists, which is equily rubbish, i am prepaired to say that it is most likley that the majority of scientists have very little or no political orientations, and even if they did then would not publise it, so your entire argument would be irrelavant as the editors would not know there political orientation.

I am still waiting for you to provide me with a reliable site showing me that all people wjo write for british medical Journals are capitalist.


And by the way, lackies of U.S. imperialism that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :cheesy:

And by the way; "The wise speak when they have something to say, the fools speak when they have to say something. "

A lesson you should learn.

[Moskitto]

At least, tobacco smokers admit what they are doing is unhealthy.

Sadly Ghost Writer, Redstar2000 disagrees, I'm sad to say that this is the intellectual level of the people you're argueing with, can't even accept that smoking is unhealthy.

[Moskitto]

Secondly, the principal assumption of the document is that an illness or death was "caused by smoking" when that is often the core of the dispute. Here's my link...

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

you're attacking scientific evidence, researched by scientists, using a book written by, An Attorney. HA HA HA.

(Edited by Moskitto at 2:16 pm on May 8, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

LOL so here's RS2000 attacking scientists as capitalist tools as you see here: -

Briefly, science is not something that exists in the Platonic realm of ideal forms. It is part of capitalist society like everything else; it is shaped by the material and ideological demands of that society.

And in defence he uses the evidance of an attorney, the biggest group of capitalist tools in society with the exception of politians. :sarcasm: Also this Attorney is a great expert in his field, a recognised voice. :sarcasm:

Is it just me or is there a double standard going on here?

[Moskitto]

he he, that's great AK47, someone calls scientists capitalists when he quotes attorneys, who will argue any case when paid enough money (over 100k), what a hypocrite is redstar2000.

[Invader Zim]

Redstar perhaps you should quit while your ahead.... actually your behind but still the same principal.


I am for legalization. However, I think there ought to be a massive educational campaign waged, in order to allow people to make a educated decision on the matter. Otherwise, the marajuana profiteers wil be just as guilty as the tobacco companies that lied to the world for years.


for the first time we are in agreement.

[Invader Zim]

Moskitto i see he has now desided to ignore this thread... well i cant blame him.

[Mr Akbar]

all these drug is so evil, it always make you killing the childrens, no one should not be killad with the big gun if he is doing the drug, it is the baddest things!!!!!!!

[Tkinter1]

Red,

Do you actually believe that smoking marijuana is harmless?

[redstar2000]

"Do you actually believe that smoking marijuana is harmless?"

Tinkter1, nothing is harmless. That's not really the question. The question is should you be terrified of the long-term effects of marijuana to the point where you are willing to put people in prison for growing it and smoking it?

In my view, there is no reputable scientific evidence to support such a claim...not that lack of evidence has ever held back our resident neo-puritanical cretins.

Indeed, they have become bolder. I think they glimpse the "glorious day" when they can put people in prison for smoking tobacco...or drinking alcohol...or drinking coffee...or consuming an "unhealthy diet"...or having sex without a license.

They have a "friend" in the White House, after all. And they like all his wars.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:22 am on May 10, 2003
"Do you actually believe that smoking marijuana is harmless?"

Tinkter1, nothing is harmless. That's not really the question. The question is should you be terrified of the long-term effects of marijuana to the point where you are willing to put people in prison for growing it and smoking it?

In my view, there is no reputable scientific evidence to support such a claim...not that lack of evidence has ever held back our resident neo-puritanical cretins.

Indeed, they have become bolder. I think they glimpse the "glorious day" when they can put people in prison for smoking tobacco...or drinking alcohol...or drinking coffee...or consuming an "unhealthy diet"...or having sex without a license.

They have a "friend" in the White House, after all. And they like all his wars.

:cool:

You have lost me here because the resounding opinion of all who hae taken part in this thread is that cannabis and tabacco should be legal but just not in public places. I personnaly see no harm in people smoking it in there own home, but i dont see why i should have to breath second hand smoke when i walk down the street.

However what also does piss me off is your ridiculous claims that all scientists are liars and frauds for the government, it is simply not true. I dont know how you can be convinsed of such a rediculous notion.