Posted on 08/20/2014 10:40:32 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
That’s called conformational bias.
How so?
This is a typical instance where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. THEY DON’T COLLECT INFORMATION ON POT SMOKING when information is gathered on every cancer patient in the nation. (Did you know that? —it’s mandated by law.) If the pot smoking is not listed via an ICD-9 code, the information is not recorded for the patient, as that would be considered a violation of their privacy, and as drug use, it is covered even more strictly by the medical record privacy laws. I can guarantee you anecdotally after reviewing thousands and thousands of cases that regular pot smokers have a LOT of extra head and neck cancers. We are, however, forbidden to gather that information.
Comparing robberies of places that sell them is spot-on. And since they're both mind-altering and addictive (liquor more so) where do you see any non sequitur?
Because there’s no way to win that argument. ;)
So if something is associated with increased cancer risk, we should lock up the person who uses it?
This is such a dead end topic really
In my opinion people who can’t see that marijuana use is harmful to the individual who uses it and to society are obtuse, either unknowingly or purposely.
In non-clinical or non-technical terms it messes up the users mentality.
It is a powerful mind-affecting drug.
There is a reason the left has always advocated for it’s use.
So after dope, meth is next on the list of drugs to “myth” debunk?
Then coke, heroin, etc.?
Afterall, it can be “argued” that they have “medicinal” uses as well, correct?
Incrementalism, it’s what liberalterians pursue...
It's certainly not evidence of presence either. And it has been studied - whatever the limitations of the available data.
I can guarantee you anecdotally after reviewing thousands and thousands of cases that regular pot smokers have a LOT of extra head and neck cancers.
A lot of pot smokers also smoke tobacco - and probably engage in a number of other cancer-linked activities. (None of which is to say I'd be shocked if a pot-cancer link was established - but it hasn't been to date.)
As I've said, I'll tell anyone who asks that (absent medical need) they're better off staying away from it, along with alcohol and tobacco. What I am is pro-ending-the-harms-of-pot-criminalization, most notably the enrichment of criminals.
and to society
Sounds like 0bamian collectivism to me - how do these "harms to society" constitute an authorization of government coercion?
Yes, a dead end topic. Marijuana Prohibition is dying. You’ll get over it. Or not, I don’t care.
Oh, no, not this again. Don’t want to work and live off of some poor relative taking care of you or some government agency. I think it’s a lazy outlook of one’s life. And, stay off of the highways.
Wrong - can't be patented.
Isn't that how we vote on issues? We make judgments on whether we think pot should be legal, or one candidate or another should win? All I'm saying is that personally, I see no harm and would vote for it to be legal. I would not impose legality if the majority voted against it. I would not go to court over it. I just think its an issue that, in a democracy, can be decided on by a popular vote.
Smoke the stinky stuff, do your thing, don’t push this on society,
like liberals do with gay marriage.
The thing I don’t understand about some of the posts that oppose legalization is that they talk about its effects on someone’s body, or that it makes people lazy. Who cares? That’s not my problem. If someone wants to drink themselves to death, that’s not my problem either. The unspoken question is, “yes, but we have to pay for it in healthcare.” Ask me that question and my answer will be that we should not have to pay for other people’s healthcare.
Nobody wants to force anybody to smoke it.
MrLeroy never gives up. Ever.
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.