Skip to comments.Cannabis health dangers 'underestimated' (factually wrong)
Posted on 06/06/2012 6:14:32 PM PDT by PreciousLiberty
A third of people think cannabis is harmless, despite it being 20 times more carcinogenic to smoke than tobacco, according to a report published today (Wednesday).
Young people are particularly ignorant of the health dangers posed by smoking cannabis, found the British Lung Foundation.
The British Lung Foundation, which produced the report, said there was an alarming disconnect between public perception of the drug as safe, and the serious, even fatal impact it can have.
Almost nine in 10 people think tobacco cigarettes are more damaging to health than cannabis ones, found the BLF.
The charity reviewed existing scientific evidence on the health impacts of smoking cannabis, and reported there was strong evidence it contributed to diseases including lung cancer, tuberculosis and acute bronchitis.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
At the same time, the 10th amendment is pretty clear, especially when considering the original version found in the articles of confederation, ""Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
But then, this being considered, what can be said about DOMA?
Sticky all around.
As a developing issue, how about legalizing “bath salts.” It only causes face munchies.
Explain how that is not contempt for the Constitution.
It is cowardly to want the government to take care of you. It is cowardly to use illegal drugs to escape reality.
Illegal drug users are cowards.
As a 63 year old Vietnam vet I watched dopers screw themselves up smoking s**t from the Golden Triangle laced with heroin. The Army began urinalysis in RVN in 1972 and I took my last Army p**s test in November 2010.
Dope was my job security because I worked in an MOS where drug tests were random & frequent. The smart cool young hip dudes all p***ed hot & got separated. I had to take up their slack but hey now I’m retired and they’re well I dont know where the h**l they are. Maybe they got the munchies yet.
We could tax it, regulate it and setup dens or parlors to consume it. Let's call’em...bars, no no...pubs. Perhaps clubs.
The blatant hypocrisy of legal alcohol and illegal marijuana is absurd.
Here we have state and federal politicians working hard to formulate laws against marijuana and at the end of the legislative day, they agree to meet at the local pub to throw back a few scotch and sodas...you know, to relax after all that legislating.
Alcohol has been directly linked to hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. Alcohol is very addictive, damages human organs and wrecks lives....yet legal.
Alcohol should be outlawed, but oh no. Give up all those tax dollars from the sale? Not a chance.
Anyone who rants about the legalization of marijuana yet consumes alcohol is nothing more than a sophomoric hypocritical moron. Plain and simple.
Explain to me whether you support DOMA.
I have never met anyone who smokes 40 marijuana cigarettes a day.
I had a college room mate who may have come close.
Therefore, before we rush to lay the complete blame for constitutional contempt at the feet of politicians and judges, we might want to look at ourselves - we the American people. That is, politicians are doing what we elect them to office to do and if our Constitution stays in the way, it's the Constitution that must yield. The Constitution stands in the way of government programs such as: business bailouts, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Title I education programs and thousands of other federal acts.
You might ask, "Why should we pay any attention to a two hundred year document?" I'd say to escape Thomas Jefferson's prediction that, "The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield." After all if we ignore the constitutional protections found in Article I, Section 8 why not ignore other constitutional protections and make them just as meaningless?
If we continue our current path, future generations will curse us for squandering unprecedented liberty.
Walter E. Williams
March 26, 2001
I will indeed read it. But again, what is your opinion of DOMA?
I think no state is required to accept out of state gay marriages if it conflicts with its own laws. A state IS required to accept out of state marriage licenses for normal couples as valid.
A state could license 14 year olds to marry. That should not require a state with a marriage requirement of 18 to accept their marriage as valid. That state would, however, have to honor out of state marriage licenses of those over 18.
Not true, the opiates and narcotic derivatives for analgesic purposes at the appropriate dosage are not injurious, as long as the drug is curtailed at the end of the normal prescription course. In fact, they are considerably more "useful" than alcohol -- ask anyone in pain.
Riddle me this - why is marijuana use the most divisive & hotly debated topic on FreeRepublic?
Maybe it’s just the flashpoint where conservative & libertarian FReepers really separate & square off. FWIW, I tend toward the earlier expressed view that habitual dopers are, well, dopes. Knew some of them in Vietnam and forty years later they are now swapping some really stupid emails & forwards.
Totally agree. The WOD has become a worse danger than the narcotics themselves. The criminalization of MJ led to synthetic K2, then K3.
Criminalization of cocaine and meth led to usage of bath salts and now we see cannibalization while under the influence of such.
Legalize it all, give it out free at clinics and let adults make adult decisions with adult consequences.
Legalize, eventually, maybe sooner, decriminalize, easier to accept, but "give it out free at clinics"?
The "War on Drugs" is a war on individual liberty via making it a "War" justifies the creation of a police state, which then mandates its use to justify spending the money for it, which starts that vicious circle turning and turning.
This legislated "cure" is far worse than the "disease" and most certainly isn't the cure, just a cause for greater/worse unintended consequences. At least, I think they're unintended.
This progressive mental illness is killing us. We need to get our thinking back to our philosophical and ideological sources...
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government."
~Thomas Jefferson Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790
Here is why I say give it free at clinics.
The illicit narcotics trade is an uncontrolled and unregulated market where extreme violence is motivated by the profit, which is incredibably huge.
Take away the profit, the violence greatly abates. Take away the profit from the street gangs, the violence abates. Take away the need to pay, the associated property crimes perpetrated by the users greatly abates.
This, of course, would most certainly get into to bed with those organizations that control the supply side of the equation but here is the trade off.
Violence goes down, personal freedoms go back up, the militarization of the police recedes, and the Constitution is restored.
The drug use is a morality issue, and we must not have the police become too ensconced in morality issues or we are on our way to the same islamo-fascist morality police like the Taliban used to have.
If people abuse the narcotics, they will do it a safe, enclosed enviroment where they will never have to commit crimes to support their habit. Nor will they have to spend time in a correctional institute that does nothing for them and indeed keeps violent offenders out on the street on probation status.