Posted on 01/11/2012 9:29:52 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
CHICAGO—Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does.
The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users -- those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.
Still, the authors recommended "caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Prostitution is legal in Nevada - is that a "crap, third-world" location? Opiates were legal in the USA until about 100 years ago - was the USA before that a "crap, third-world country"?
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens.
The Founding Fathers opposed tyranny of the majority: "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." - Federalist #10
I have yet to hear about some guy who came home and beat his wife after smoking Pot.
And yet you're hell-bent on continuing Prohibition II . . .
Man.
Why don't you find a joint and familiarize yourself with the product
Where did I say I'd never smoked pot?
before jumping on the pot bandwagon. If you think drinking is "lethal addictive"
It's an easily observed fact. Do you really need proof?
and pot is fine
Where did I say that?
Because that's the conservative position - just like legalizing alcohol and ending Prohibition was the conservative position.
That is a canard. All the people who supported Prohibition are the ones who about faced and called for repeal after the whole thing blew up in their faces with crime. If you are not aware, FDR used repeal as a campaign issue in '32 and it was a Rat campaign plank. Some Conservative that FDR was.
So if some liberals agree with the conservative position, it's no longer conservative? I guess since 0bama wears pants I'd better stop wearing them.
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere just dying to get out.
Provided by the Federales who always have our best interests at heart.
I gave you their results and their methodology. Feel free to point out any flaws. Also feel free to produce any contradictory evidence.
Then explain why the same Federales who shouldn't be trusted to do sound research should be trusted to conduct a War On Drugs.
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens. When pot legalization was put on the ballot here in California last time around, it failed.
What you libertarians fail to understand is that your individual choices affect me, because you’re not an island. I don’t want to live in the kind of crap, third-world country that tolerates prostitution and heroin usage, because I know what sort of society results. For the same reason, I want to keep pot out.
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens. When pot legalization was put on the ballot here in California last time around, it failed.
So stop screaming about “the government” — the people of this country don’t want that noxious, evil weed legalized. Except you. And you only get one vote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aw geez. I thought we needed to back all our arguments with Gov't studies and not "observed" facts.
With that being said, there is no reason for the government and all their studies to find anything wrong with marijuana since it's such a fledgling industry. Once it reaches billion dollar status as the tobacco industry did, then watch the lawsuits and subsequent tax extortion to pour in..........
'These two conservative Republicans shared opinions as to the flaws of national prohibition. Murphy told a congressional committee that World War I had accustomed him to rigid, centralized government and that therefore, at the outset, he had fully expected the liquor ban to succeed. He joined Stayton's organization after concluding that the Eighteenth Amendment was "absolutely contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Constitution" and that it led to further contrary acts by the government, such as wiretapping, bribery, and the careless shooting of innocent people by prohibition agents. Respect for the Constitution had been "materially weakened." Furthermore, said Murphy, prohibition produced much crime and furnished the underworld with a large, steady income. Finally, the law interfered with established social customs and deprived the state of an opportunity to regulate the flow of liquor. Cassatt believed, as well, that prohibition was out of place in the Constitution. It seemed to him also that prohibition was leading to infringement of hitherto constitutionally protected personal rights. As did Murphy, he felt the United States too large and the customs too varied for one national law governing personal habits. Neither man liked instability, and both came to regard prohibition as a dangerous unsettling influence on government and society.'
- Repealing National Prohibition, by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago
Not even OSHA could determine that second hand smoke was even a hazard
I don’t care what people do to themselves as long as it doesn’t impact the rest of us. I just don’t like being lied to about it.
has already been rebutted in posts 139 and 141.
While they themselves say they don't use these dangerous drugs, they are perfectly OK with others using them.
Kinda like welfare fraud. Or abortion.
No, nothing like those rights-violating acts.
While they personally oppose it - they are OK with others taking part in these societal fuster-clucks.
That I am "OK with others taking part in these" is a baseless lie. THAT is morally evil.
And yet they hate our SoCon values and attack us
Have a hankie. It's your stupid arguments I've attacked.
Feds are committed to keeping marijuana illegal. This study, valid or not, is the equivalent of the star witness for the prosecution testifying in support of the defense.
It's an easily observed fact. Do you really need proof?
I thought we needed to back all our arguments
Proof (you should try offering some sometime):
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/Pages/default.aspx#whatis
And heroin is good for you also.
Just keep writing those checks stupid!!
No, like many legal products it's bad for you.
Just keep writing those checks stupid!!
I'd love to stop writing checks for the failed drug war.
“I could make a logical argument that simply by drawing a breath my actions affect others.”
No, you can’t. Absurdum ad reductio.
The middle ground between Tyranny (which you suggest I’m advocating) and Anarchy (which is what you’re advocating) is called How We’ve Done It in the United States for 200-odd years. And that’s really what I’m advocating.
For most of those 200+ years there were no federal drug laws.
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.