Posted on 02/06/2006 7:53:49 AM PST by Wolfie
I'm not back-peddling at all.
Read more, and you'll find out that both conditions exist.
OTOH, it's not hard to imagine that those whose livelihoods benefit from mj prohibition would advocate for mj prohibition.
You must still be smarting from beating your side took:
Do you think the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause to include regulation and prohibition of drugs and firearms is a proper use of that clause?
Member Opinion
No 85.9% 1,703
Undecided/Pass 9.1% 181
Yes 5.0% 99
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=124;results=1
______________________________
You need better arguments if you hope to get into the game here.
Perhaps I should have said that the existence of a link is indisputable and the extent of causality, rather than scale, is debatable.
Certainly a quick google, for example
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugservices/pubs/cannabis.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4052963.stm
would seem to bear this out. Anecdotely, many psychiatrists report being convinced of a causal link - whether this is stronger for those pre-disposed doesn't contradict my original post.
I admit to not being 100% objective here in that I once watched someone basically go nuts and it seemed obvious that the huge amounts he was smoking were a big part of it, but I am well aware that my subjective view is not science.
Still, to echo rp's question (and hat tip for the ping) what's your point?
So was alcohol too - is alcohol any less damaging to an addictive personality??
What other non-rights-violating activities should we ban for adults lest kids think they're OK? Drinking? Smoking? Reading Marxist literature?
SupplySider wasn't suggesting that we ban an existing legal activity.
He was appealing to a principle that supports banning existing legal activities every bit as much as it supports keeping illegal activities illegal.
legalization carries with it societal acceptance. This is evidenced by the fact that although marijuana is easier for teens to obtain they prefer hard to get, socially acceptable, alcohol 2:1 over marijuana.
Societal acceptance is one possible reason; preferring the effects is another.
When marijuana was legal for adults in Alaska, the Alaskan teen use rate was double the national teen average.
Is that according to the alleged study for which you've never been able to provide even so much as a title or list of authors? You might as well tell us what your unicorn says on the subject.
When you make a claim, the burden is on YOU to supply evidence for it ... which you still have not done.
Not sure who you're talking about ... I no more "defend" marijuana than I "defend" the foul smelling plant tobacco or the foul tasting dysfunctional causing liquid alcohol by supporting their legality for adults.
I don't want them using drugs ... nor do I want restrictions appropriate for teens imposed on adults. Particularly since there's no evidence that banning marijuana for adults makes it less available for teens, who report that they can get marijuana more easily than alcohol or tobacco.
Almost 90% of all substance abuse admissions to adolescent programs proclaim to have marijuana problems?
When courts sentence teens to "treatment" for possession, of course "treatment" goes up.
Plus I am a psychiatric counselor that can tell you first hand we share the same stats on our unit for Psychiatric admissions having that age group reporting smoking pot secondary to their mental illness.
Correlation is not causation; it may well be that mental illness, or the predisposition to it, increases marijuana use (possibly as attempted self-medication), or that both are driven by some other factor.
Most adolescents that smoke pot are singing the same song you happen to be. I wonder where they get their information?
They must have great liberty seeking role models.
Gobbledygook hogwash.
Calling for the legalization of an illegal product involves unknown consequences. Maintaining the legality of a product involves no such risks. Two totally different "principles".
I doubt that ... and even if true it in no way disproves what I've said. Feel free to offer an actual rebuttal if you have one.
Rubbish; it's no more "an apparent governmental and societal stamp of approval" in the former case than the latter.
I did supply the evidence. I gave you 2 studies and personal experience and suggested the keywords to check Google and psychiatric literature for more.
I can't spoonfeed you. You have to want to read and do some investigating for yourself.
Otherwise, it's apparent that you aren't really interested in knowing the truth.
Have a nice day.
I did supply the evidence. I gave you 2 studies and personal experience and suggested the keywords to check Google and psychiatric literature for more.
I can't spoonfeed you. You have to want to read and do some investigating for yourself.
Otherwise, it's apparent that you aren't really interested in knowing the truth.
Have a nice day.
I did supply the evidence. I gave you 2 studies
Which I rebutted.
and personal experience
Which is nonrandomly selected and thus not validly generalizable.
and suggested the keywords to check Google
Keywords are not evidence.
My source claims that those organizations support access, which is addressed in point 10. Research is addressed in point 12.
As for being misleading, I provided a link to my source. If you want to dispute their claims then head over to their home page. You will find an email address there.
First of all, your "source" is a pro-marijuana, Soros-sponsored, propaganda website. Since you know that, you can't simply wash your hands and distance yourself from these lies by saying "my source claims".
Second, saying the organizations support "access" is misleading without specifying what type of access -- most support access under strict medical supervision and control or access under the now-defunct IND.
What, are you trying to Mojave your way out of this? If you have credible contrary information, take it up with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.