Contact Your Senator - Stop New Drug Czar From Being Confirmed

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Golly! Wouldn't it be terrific if people started asking actual medical professionals about the legitimacy of the medical use of marijuana?

You think only a doctor can tell me if something makes me feel better? Aren't these the same people who ask me "where does it hurt" when I pay them a visit?

Regarding glaucoma, marijuana is inferior in results to every currently available anti-glaucoma drug.

Do you treat glaucoma?

Using marijuana to treat glaucoma would be like giving St. John's Wort (which is about as effective as caffeine) to psychotically depressed suicide attempters.

Yeah, right.

Regarding lung disease it has been proven that smoked marijuana has 5 times the toxicity and carcinogenicity as cigarettes.

And yet we don't see graveyards filled with people who died from cancer induced by marijuana.

Advocating marijuana to treat lung disease is similar the the old 1950s cigarette commercials claiming endosements from lung surgeons for particular brands of cigarettes. It's just wrong.

Who advocates smoking pot for lung disease? Btw, pot can be ingested without smoking it. But I see you didn't mention wasting syndrome and AIDS, HMMMMM!

Regarding the use of marijuana to treat the nausea of chemotherapy it should be noted that we already have dronabinol, a derivative of THC which in comparative studies is actually more effective at reducing vomiting than marijuana.

You treat cancer? What if pot helps those not helped by the legal options?

Dronabinol is THC with most of the "recreational" side effects removed. The drawback is its expense.

You mean one medicine - pot - is less expensive? Btw, I've read those recreational side effects cannot be removed without diminishing the efficacy of the drug.

Does the fact that it is superior to marijuana make a difference? Not if you actually don't give a rat's a** about sick people, but are instead just using them to push forth your agenda.

I'd rather they decide than you.

"Medical" marijuana should be left up to the medical professionals.

Why? You think only doctors should make decisions about our freedom? Okay, the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the ban on marijuana back in 1937.

[David Floyd]

DS,

When were you going to get around to explaining to me why you think drinking, drug use, and the like are morally wrong?

Fez,

When were you going to get around to answering my rebuttals of your non-points?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fez,

When were you going to get around to answering my rebuttals of your non-points?

You didn't make any rebuttals.

[David Floyd]

Actually I made several, but the point is, I raised some very valid points about your contradictions. If you refuse to answer my points, then you are simply conceding the points.

So, then, you admit that your views are contradictory? Or do you have an answer for my posts, questions, rebuttals, whatever you choose to call them?

[mrmitchell]

I said this somewhere else, and it was paraphrased from a "What do you think" by the Onion.

All drugs should be legal. Under our medical system, who's going to get them?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually I made several, but the point is, I raised some very valid points about your contradictions. If you refuse to answer my points, then you are simply conceding the points.

I don't have contradictions.

So, then, you admit that your views are contradictory? Or do you have an answer for my posts, questions, rebuttals, whatever you choose to call them?

No my views are not contradictory. Homosexuality does not equal drug use. Period.

[David Floyd]

No my views are not contradictory. Homosexuality does not equal drug use. Period.

No, but your justification for banning drugs equals my justification for banning homosexuality - that is, I don't like it, and I think it's a blight on society, although I have nothing with which to back that assertion up.

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Mortality from alcoholic liver disease did in fact decline during Prohibition, so in fact Prohibition was most likely successful.

No it wasn't, look for yourself:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

The reason AA was founded shortly after prohibition was repealed was to deal with all the alcoholics created by prohibition.

You're probably going to rebut my statement with some chart or alleged governmental statistic you're going to get from some pro-NORML website showing that homicide rates increased during the 1920s and declined during the 1930s.

No Sh!t. If you can actually refute those stats instead of dismissing them because of their source...oh yeah...the source is the government...well...nevermind...you'll find an excuse to ignore the stats anyway...

I'll just pre-empt you by asking that you find a referrence that breaks these crimes down by cause, and show me that the increase in the homicide rate during the roaring twenties had anything to do with Prohibition.

You can't see cause and effect? Let me see, homicide rates double during the 20's and decline 13 years in a row following the repeal of prohibition to half the level, but that isn't good enough for you.

The problem is that the roaring twenties were a era typified by a number of dramatic social changes, any one of which might have been part of the cause of the rate of murder.

Gee, would prohibition be a major "social change"?

Take a look at inhalants! They're available everywhere, and are utterly impossible to eliminate. It shows that the US is not the Netherlands, the sociology of the two countries is different, and Dutch people seem to be simply less likely to seek out a form of high different from that of traditional alcohol.

So when we point to actual evidence here and abroad, that doesn't count because people over there are "different".

OTOH Interpol claims that in recent years the Netherlands has become the world's largest exporter of synthetic recreational drugs like Ecstacy, LSD and PCP, so the traditional social structure that inhibits the use of drugs by the people doesn't apply to exploiting foreigners.

So you don't think drug dealers try to sell there?

Actually the toxicity and carcinogenicity of marijauna is pretty well known. After all, marijuana smoke has many of the smae carcinogens and toxins present in tobacco smoke. Defining a cohort of marijuana users in which to study its effects on the other hand is very difficult.

That explains it, the graveyards are full of pot smokers. Strangelove, just stop it! Show us the medical studies that PROVE how many pot smokers die every year from this toxicity. If you can't, admit it.

The tobacco companies used to argue that studies of tobacco smoke's carcinogenic and toxicv properties proved nothing too.

And cigarettes were nicknamed "coffin nails" back in the 19th century, but tobacco studies could not disprove graveyards full of tobacco smokers. So, where are the graveyards full of pot smokers? Tis but a simple question. Claiming that we should see graveyards full of pot smokers even though we don't based on lies told by the tobacco companies is illogical.

Strangelove, exactly what are your medical credentials?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, but your justification for banning drugs equals my justification for banning homosexuality - that is, I don't like it, and I think it's a blight on society, although I have nothing with which to back that assertion up.

My justification does not equal yours.

I back myself up because of Singapore being one of the best nations in the world.

[David Floyd]

So you backed up your opinion with another opinion?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you backed up your opinion with another opinion?

Yeah Singapore's opinion on the issue.

[David Floyd]

So, in Singapore's opinion, Singapore is the best country in the world, and Singapore passes laws that are good and proper? And in your opinion Singapore is right, therefore you are right?

If that's the best you've got, then let me make a suggestion. Log off, and don't return until you learn to construct a coherent argument

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, in Singapore's opinion, Singapore is the best country in the world, and Singapore passes laws that are good and proper? And in your opinion Singapore is right, therefore you are right?

Singapore is a good nation and is one of the most economically free in the world. They resort to dracionian measures I proudly support.

If that's the best you've got, then let me make a suggestion. Log off, and don't return until you learn to construct a coherent argument

Speak for yourself.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
They resort to dracionian measures I proudly support.

Like locking up homosexuals for life prison terms?

Oh, if only you were in Singapore, then you'd be in a prison now instead of tormenting us with your idiocy!

[David Floyd]

Singapore is a good nation and is one of the most economically free in the world. They resort to dracionian measures I proudly support.

Opinions, yet again. Try citing facts, or, at the very least, try backing up your opinions with justifications not based on the opinion of some country you've never been to.