ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W:91]

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

I disagree. pot is cheap here, making it legal made it expensive in CO

Click to expand...

It'll balance out some though - and more if all states legalize it.

That, or everyone will be stoned because of second-hand pot smoke...:2razz:

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

the hell it isn't, my uncle was one of those people, of the five closest friends he hung out with, only two are left and the others died of cancer as well, how odd is that?

Click to expand...

Not very odd since cancer is one of the top causes of death in older people. Did they all die of cancers likely to be related to smoking ie. lung, mouth, esophagus? Did none of them also smoke tobacco or other drugs? Were none of them exposed to other respiratory hazards such as a spray paint, smoke, car exhaust etc? Were none of them veterans exposed to chemicals, radiation, smoke from explosions etc.?

Even if the facts indicate that cannabis may be a cause of their cancer it would not prove anything since six people are not significantly significant, esp. if they lived in the same geographic area.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Cancer Risk

A number of studies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the risks of various cancers associated with Cannabis use.

A pooled analysis of three case-cohort studies of men in northwestern Africa (430 cases and 778 controls) showed a significantly increased risk of lung cancer among tobacco smokers who also inhaled Cannabis.[5]

A large, retrospective cohort study of 64,855 men aged 15 to 49 years from the United States found that Cannabis use was not associated with tobacco-related cancers and a number of other common malignancies. However, the study did find that, among nonsmokers of tobacco, ever having used Cannabis was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.[6]

A population-based case-control study of 611 lung cancer patients revealed that chronic low Cannabis exposure was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer or other upper aerodigestive tract cancers and found no positive associations with any cancer type (oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, lung, or esophagus) when adjusting for several confounders, including cigarette smoking.[7]

A systematic review assessing 19 studies that evaluated premalignant or malignant lung lesions in persons 18 years or older who inhaled marijuana concluded that observational studies failed to demonstrate statistically significant associations between marijuana inhalation and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use.[8]

With a hypothesis that chronic marijuana use produces adverse effects on the human endocrine and reproductive systems, the association between marijuana use and incidence of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) has been examined.[9-11] Three population-based case-control studies report an association between marijuana use and elevated risk of TGCTs, especially nonseminoma or mixed-histology tumors.[9-11] However, the sample sizes in these studies were inadequate to address marijuana dose by addressing associations with respect to recency, frequency, and duration of use. These early reports of marijuana use and TGCTs establish the need for larger, well-powered, prospective studies, especially studies evaluating the role of endocannabinoid signaling and cannabinoid receptors in TGCTs.

A comprehensive Health Canada monograph on marijuana concluded that while there are many cellular and molecular studies that provide strong evidence that inhaled marijuana is carcinogenic, the epidemiologic evidence of a link between marijuana use and cancer is still inconclusive.[12]

National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page5

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

you are still comparing apples and oranges, reposting all of that crap created by you does not change that.....LOL

Click to expand...

It only shows that your statement was 'selective' and really didnt apply to things that actually infringe on our rights...only things you dont like.

Thankfully, you are part of a quickly shrinking pool of Americans

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

WRONG !!

Click to expand...

Wow, your sterling argument has won me over :roll:

Fenton said:

Your'e telling me that a group of kids after smoking a joint, EACH, will test the same as a group of kids who never smoked weed in their life ?
.

Click to expand...

Well first, this is a retarded test as you've described it. You could have five straight a students as the pot smokers and 5 d students who never touched it, or vise versa, so not useful

The better question would be take a group of kids. Test them without having done pot, test them having just smoked pot, and test them a month after smoking pot.

Similarly, based on your claim, do the same test but substitute alcohol.

I'd wager in both cases the test while intoxicated would be worse, while the test a month later would be similar to the first....because contrary to your claims there's no proof smoking pot a single time causes permanent brain damage.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

So legalizing it wont lead to a increase in the amount of chronic users ? Legalizing it wont lead to a increase in the amount of young people becoming chronic users ?

Click to expand...

It may very well. So, your argument is that we should have a nanny state. Well, that fits with your big government views you've been showing all thread

Do firearms being legal likely increase the amount of illegal uses of firearms? Probably yes as well. But that's as much a justification I ban guns as it is to keep banning pot ( ie, not a justification)

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

that is not logic, just assumption. Guns should not be illegal because no one's judgement becomes impaired by owning one? See how that works? smoke a joint, you no longer have the same judgement as you did before smoking it so your choices will be different.

Owning guns, my judgement remains the same, before and after the purchase.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you right, your stance and argument now isn't that bad things can happen in conjunction with pot, but you have issues with things that impair judgement, yes?

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:

Anyone that wants pot now gets it. It's not hard.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. There are undoubtably a population of people out there that won't use it now due to it being illegal, but would if it was legal.

Those with security clearances, professional athletes, and even folks that generally stay within the boundries of the law whenever possible. I'm actually a perfect example. Never smoked pot, never will while it's illegal, but I'd at least give it a try if it was legal. I'm positive I'm not alone on that.

With that said though...so what. What I would do with myself is my business , not the business of Fenton and his desired nanny state

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

The Mark said:

Perhaps I am mistaken. I was under the impression that marijuana smoke had harmful chemicals in it, much as tobacco smoke does - I specifically excluded THC.



You have misinterpreted my meaning.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see any evidence of this, and there have been no documented cases of marijuana causing cancer. In fact, there are many studies that have shown that it retards cancer growth.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer | Collective-Evolution

It also helps against Alzheimers and a variety of other brain diseases.

Rocketman said:

yes but it is a totally different animal than alcohol and drugs and BTW texting is illegal in many states. SO if texting is illegal, pot should be as well. Thanks for proving my point.

Click to expand...

Texting while driving is illegal, just like smoking cannabis while driving will be illegal. So either you thought all texting was illegal, and that's why cannabis should be, or your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.

Click to expand...

and? People who drink Alcohol die from Alcohol poisoning, Cirrhosis, Heart Disease, Kidney failure, Stomach cancer and kill brain cells (makes them dumber).. Tobacco usage causes varies cancers depending on usage. So the two products Americans been doing since 1776 have the same ability to kill. Yet legalizing pot is beyond the pail?

For a libertarian you aren't very libertarian.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

it holds plenty when comparing apples to apples and not using deflection, your personal freedoms only apply when not infringing on others

Click to expand...

If you smoke at home it's none of your business so why is pot illegal then?

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

moving the goal post again NE? this is pot versus alcohol, maybe you should start a thread on that other stuff since we do not ingest our phones or other passengers in the car.:roll:

Click to expand...

Ha! You do realize Alcohol kills close to 80,000 Americans a year right? And that's a low ball number because today they are realizing Alcohol can lead to cancers never suspected to be caused by Alcohol.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

NIMBY said:

Life-long users of cigarettes, alcohol, and pot are more than likely to become a drain on our medical resources, insured or not.
Does the Federal government have a responsibility to protect insured non-users from insured/uninsured users with respect to insurance rates ?

Click to expand...

Nope.. tobacco and alcohol pay taxes (Sin Tax) which is fee the government collects. Hell, Uncle Sam collects $1 a pack of smokes for Healthcare programs. So view it as them paying for their future insurance premiums.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana

Rocketman said:

using your logic as to the definition of libertarian there should not be laws against murder or rape which is silly and illogical

Click to expand...

Rape and murder were never legal in the US. Drugs were. If you fail to see the distinction between crime and vice, well, were glad you are not an attorney.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

RabidAlpaca said:

We obviously have a major issue in this
country with politicians doing whatever the **** they want, or whatever the hell corporations want them to do, while ignoring the will of the people. My question is why YOU want to overrule the will of the people and keep locking people in cages for not hurting anybody in any way.

Click to expand...

Because the "will of the people " may or may not be whats best for our society as a whole.

Cant think of any better example than the election and re-election of Barrack Obama.

Currently pot is illegal in a vast majority of locals, and Countries.


Societies evolve, like life, as they learn from their mistakes and move forward.

But because humans are involved in that process they inevitably will ignore historical lessons learned and then go through a process of devolution.

Laws and regulations are then ignored and we get to repeat the same failed experiment and at the expense of the majority.

My dad used to tell me that all laws and regulations pertaining directly to safety are written in blood.

He was right of course but a good PR camapign can apparently convince just about anyone that what used to be dangerous is now a " healthy alternative "....

Why we have to keep relearning our lessons is mystery to me.

Do I think YOU shoukd go to jail for a minor possesion charge. ? No.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

Because the "will of the people " may or may not be whats best for our society as a whole.

Cant think of any better example than the election and re-election of Barrack Obama.

Currently pot is illegal in a vast majority of locals, and Countries.


Societies evolve, like life, as they learn from their mistakes and move forward.

But because humans are involved in that process they inevitably will ignore historical lessons learned and then go through a process of devolution.

Laws and regulations are then ignored and we get to repeat the same failed experiment and at the expense of the majority.

My dad used to tell me that all laws and regulations pertaining directly to safety are written in blood.

He was right of course but a good PR camapign can apparently convince just about anyone that what used to be dangerous is now a " healthy alternative "....

Why we have to keep relearning our lessons is mystery to me.

Do I think YOU shoukd go to jail for a minor possesion charge. ? No.

Click to expand...

I just want you to think about the fact that you just said you would like to overrule our democratic society in order to lock people in cages that have harmed nobody. That's about as fascistic as it comes.

I guess that's the core difference between you and I. I truly favor liberty, even when I disagree with the decisions other people make.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

RabidAlpaca said:

I just want you to think about the fact
that you just said you would like to overrule our democratic society in order to lock people in cages that have harmed nobody. That's about as fascistic as it comes.

I guess that's the core difference between you and I. I truly favor liberty, even when I disagree with the decisions other people make.

Click to expand...

Well, would you speak out against the " legalization " of theft under a certain dollar amount ?

Even if it was "the will of the people " that allowed it to be legalized ?

Even if it saved municipalities a lot of money ? I'm not trying to be fascist but I AM a Conservative.

I believe in laws, and I understand the need for them. I believe your rights stop where mine start.

PLUS, pure Democracy is essentially Mob rules, and we're a Representitive Republic as I'm sure your'e aware of.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

Well, would you speak out against the " legalization " of theft under a certain dollar amount ?

Even if it was "the will of the people " that allowed it to be legalized ?

Even if it saved municipalities a lot of money ? I'm not trying to be fascist but I AM a Conservative.

I believe in laws, and I understand the need for them. I believe your rights stop where mine start.

PLUS, pure Democracy is essentially Mob rules, and we're a Representitive Republic as I'm sure your'e aware of.

Click to expand...

You seem to fail to recognize that theft, even a small amount, is a crime against another person. Smoking mj at home or in an allowed place without the intent to drive or operate heavy machinery isn't.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

Well, would you speak out against the " legalization " of theft under a certain dollar amount ?

Even if it was "the will of the people " that allowed it to be legalized ?

Even if it saved municipalities a lot of money ? I'm not trying to be fascist but I AM a Conservative.

I believe in laws, and I understand the need for them. I believe your rights stop where mine start.

PLUS, pure Democracy is essentially Mob rules, and we're a Representitive Republic as I'm sure your'e aware of.

Click to expand...

Theft has a direct victim. You are taking someone's property. Same with murder, rape, assault, etc. Ingesting a plant does not harm anybody. Why would we not just continue having all of the rape, murder, assault and theft laws be applicable regardless of your mental state? It doesn't matter if you were sober, drunk, or high, you're responsible for your actions.

I hope you're at least informed enough to realize that smoking marijuana doesn't make you want to commit a crime. High people are passive and even "lazy", as you claimed. If we're that lazy, why would we also not be too lazy to commit crimes?

You said you wouldn't lock me in jail for possession, but that's not the truth. Me not being locked in a cage for smoking is called legalization, which you adamently oppose.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Zyphlin said:

Not entirely true. There are undoubtably a population of people out there that won't use it now due to it being illegal, but would if it was legal.

Those with security clearances, professional athletes, and even folks that generally stay within the boundries of the law whenever possible. I'm actually a perfect example. Never smoked pot, never will while it's illegal, but I'd at least give it a try if it was legal. I'm positive I'm not alone on that.

With that said though...so what. What I would do with myself is my business , not the business of Fenton and his desired nanny state

Click to expand...

Well I'd say those you listed dont really 'want' pot. But if they did, it's still easily available to them.

My claim is that there wont be a significant change in people using pot, which I think you've confirmed....their work and personal circumstances prevent them now and would continue to do so.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

RabidAlpaca said:

Theft has a direct victim. You are taking
someone's property. Same with murder, rape, assault, etc. Ingesting a plant does not harm anybody. Why would we not just continue having all of the rape, murder, assault and theft laws be applicable regardless of your mental state? It doesn't matter if you were sober, drunk, or high, you're responsible for your actions.

I hope you're at least informed enough to realize that smoking marijuana doesn't make you want to commit a crime. High people are passive and even "lazy", as you claimed. If we're that lazy, why would we also not be too lazy to commit crimes?

You said you wouldn't lock me in jail for possession, but that's not the truth. Me not being locked in a cage for smoking is called legalization, which you adamently oppose.

Click to expand...

Whether the effect of a crime is immediate or long term what difference does it make ?

The way I look at it is , is it's effect on our society destructive enough to justify it's current legal classification in 48 States ?

I think it is, and you disagree and thats fine.

And as far as I know my position on it may be irrelevent as more and more states start to decriminalize small amounts.

My sisters ex was a chronic user and wasted a good chunk of his life ( 30 years ) in a pot induced haze. Started when he was 14 and never stopped.

He also never achieved anything, never excelled, bounced around from crappy low paying job to low paying job. Claimed he was "happy" but I guarantee he wasn't.

He didn't mature properly, physically or mentally or emotionally. His natural process of maturing, getting stronger and smarter menatally stopped when he was a teenager.

All I saw was wasted opportunity, wasted life and wasted talent.

You may be exceptional, but I'm not so naive that I would agree that you represent the majority.

From what I've seen, he represented the majority

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

Societies evolve, like life, as they learn from their mistakes and move forward.

But because humans are involved in that process they inevitably will ignore historical lessons learned and then go through a process of devolution.

Laws and regulations are then ignored and we get to repeat the same failed experiment and at the expense of the majority.

Why we have to keep relearning our lessons is mystery to me.

Click to expand...

What historical lessons have we learned from making pot illegal? What were the 'issues' the criminalizing it fixed? Let's hear it.

And we are trying to learn these lessons: Prohibition DIDNT WORK. And the War on Drugs is a failure.

So it would be pretty stupid to continue down the same path.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

Well, would you speak out against the " legalization " of theft under a certain dollar amount ?

Even if it was "the will of the people " that allowed it to be legalized ?

Even if it saved municipalities a lot of money ? I'm not trying to be fascist but I AM a Conservative.

I believe in laws, and I understand the need for them. I believe your rights stop where mine start.

PLUS, pure Democracy is essentially Mob rules, and we're a Representitive Republic as I'm sure your'e aware of.

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that robbery infringes on someone's rights...so of course it shouldnt be legalized, not matter what the amount.

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Lursa said:

What historical lessons have we learned
from making pot illegal? What were the 'issues' the criminalizing it fixed? Let's hear it.

And we are trying to learn these lessons: Prohibition DIDNT WORK. And the War on Drugs is a failure.

So it would be pretty stupid to continue down the same path.

Click to expand...

The war on drugs is NOT a failure.

Its like saying the war on prostitution, murder, larceny, speeding etc is a failure.

Laws will no continue to be broken by criminals no matter how much money you pour into stopping them. It doesn't meam those laws have "failed".

But lets you and me compromise. If I, change my position to allow the decriminalization of marijuana, what do you think should be done to keep kids away from it ?

Other than the age limit, etc, which should be 21.

Remember its different than alcohol.

Should we even try to perpetuate a stigma to keep young growing minds awsy from it at all ?

Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana [W

Fenton said:

The war on drugs is NOT a failure.

Its like saying the war on prostitution, murder, larceny, speeding etc is a failure.

Laws will no continue to be broken by criminals no matter how much money you pour into stopping them. It doesn't meam those laws have "failed".

But lets you and me compromise. If I, change my position to allow the decriminalization of marijuana, what do you think should be done to keep kids away from it ?

Other than the age limit, etc, which should be 21.

Remember its different than alcohol.

Should we even try to perpetuate a stigma to keep young growing minds awsy from it at all ?

Click to expand...

How is it different from Prohibition and alcohol?

And yes, even the govt has admitted the War on Drugs is a failure.

And why do we need to do anything differently to keep it from kids than we do today? Or when commercially available, different from cigarette & alcohol sales?

Again, tell me how it's different from alcohol?