I'm as much a rebel as you are. My Celt heritage and being a Tennessean to boot, make me one.
Posted on 10/06/2014 11:55:53 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
20-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis use has demolished the argument that the drug is safe.
Cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and opens the door to hard drugs, the study found.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’ll type slow so you’ll understand. Selling/etc. to children would be JUST as illegal as beer, cigs, etc. Tell me, how’s those current laws working??
I don’t believe I EVER said you’ll keep it out of their hands completely. Kids, being a wily as they are, will find a way. Hard to keep something that grows on its own inaccessible to a ‘farmer’.
Whose job is it to ensure ‘the children’ are ‘safe’? Their PARENTS, not the nanny-statists such as yourself.
I'm as much a rebel as you are. My Celt heritage and being a Tennessean to boot, make me one.
And who are you to be telling libertarians how to raise their kids?
I agree with the codicil.
Even better, you can postulate an amendment that dope shall be given away free. That will really screw up criminal enterprise.
Well not me, I quit that stuff a long time ago. Scotch tastes way better. But maybe we’ll get to buy allergy medication without being treated like criminals.
Three words in and wrong already - the paper in question is a review of existing studies: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/pdf.
demolishes claims that smoking pot is harmless
This claim is demolished far more often than it's actually made - straw man, anyone? And a government that banned everything that isn't "harmless" would make the Soviet Gulag look like a picnic.
It doubles risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia
The text of the paper itself (see link above) doesn't support that claim: "The common cause hypothesis was harder to exclude, because the association between can- nabis use and psychosis was attenuated after statistical adjustment for potential confounders, and no study assessed all confounders. Researchers who remain sceptical about a casual explanationoftenarguethatacausalhypothesisisincon- sistent with the absence of any increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, as cannabis use has increased among young adults. There is mixed evidence on trends in schizophrenia incidence. [...] It is difficult to decide whether cannabis use has had any effects on psychosis incidence, because even if the relationship were causal, cannabis use would produce a very modest increase in incidence. [...] If we assume that cannabis use plays a causal role in psychosis, it will be difficult to reduce psychosis incidence by preventing cannabis uptake in the whole population: an estimated 4700 young men in the United Kingdom aged 20–24 years would have to be dissuaded from smoking cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia."
You incarcerate people who break the law of the land.
Just like all around the Western/Judeo/Christian civilized world.
Non sequitur. There are many Freepers who do that as a matter of personal choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with motivation. So your assertion is simply another feeble smear attempt.
The entire concept of witticisms is lost on you.
Half-witticisms...
Even where we align with the Muslim world over some laws such as homosexual marriage, the degree of enforcement may cause us to part company. For example, one may feel that homosexual marriage is wrong but we in America are disinclined to stone people to death for engaging in nuptials with people of matching genitalia.
It is no answer to say that we enforce the laws because they are the law which is essentially what you're saying. That is only a tautology. We must, inter alia, be able to defend the wisdom of the law, the manner of its enforcement, the efficacy of the law, it's social consequences, it's effect on individual liberty.
I suggest that the war on drugs has failed every test. The more we enforce it, the more we fail.
We don’t have enough bleeding heart liberals coddling convicted criminals that you need to join them?
The so-called “war on drugs” is as much an invention as the “war on women”.
Unless you are someday looking forward to blowing a trumpet and declaring “victory for drugs”.
Heroin is your “victory”.
Crack cocaine is your “victory”.
PCP is your “victory”.
Pseudo-intellectual word games and myopic analysis will never paint over what you really are: a drug pusher.
For the record I don't use alcohol and I don't use drugs but I do aspire to adhere to the Constitution. Victory for me means constitutional liberty. Victory to you evidently means putting drug abusers but not alcohol abusers (that is evidently a psychotropic drug of a different sort) in jail and calling it "victory."
I have personally witnessed the amount of drug paraphernalia that has been gathered up in a regular sweeps of local jails and I can tell you that there is virtually no limit to the amount and kinds of drugs which inmates can and do acquire. If you can't win the war on drugs in the jails, do you really believe you can win it in the streets? You have no "victory."
It is quite unfair of you to impute wrong motives to me when you describe me as a "bleeding heart liberal" who "coddles convicted criminals" and to imply that I want to "join them." Even worse, to imply that I am a "drug pusher" is not only outrageous but intellectually vapid. It is I who deplore the use of drugs as much as you, the difference is I do want to pervert our liberties and further degrade our entire society in a fruitless government effort to make you feel better.
Up until this last sentence I have entirely refrained from personal inferences. I wish you to do the same. I have advanced several substantive arguments on behalf of my position but you have said only (that is when you are not engaging in personal attacks) that they are "pseudo-intellectual word games and myopic analysis" without any specific logical or factual rebuttal.
The ad hominem is no substitute for thinking.
Your response is a lesson in both restraint, and effectiveness. What I cannot understand is how people who believe in drug prohibition can be so confident in their belief, when it is so clearly not working, and causing terrible tangential problems. As you say, where is the “victory”, or even partial victory, that can lead them to believe that revocation of prohibition would be substantially worse than the current state of affairs?
I do believe that because we no longer have a population united around a common sense of character, and one in which behavior that is clearly destructive and immoral (under any common historical use of that concept) masquerades as good, and healthy judgementalism is shunned as bad, that we no longer have a society capable of handling true freedom. As a result, I find myself unable to believe that ending prohibition would do any good. But I just cannot understand the people who look at what drug prohibition has done and not at least lose some confidence in their position.
Maybe that is why they are so quick to resort to insults.
If that doesn't show you a disconnect from your own pro drugs position nothing else will.
In fact you are a Four Star Drug Pusher General in your "war for drugs".
A drug pusher on the street is at least on one corner. You seek to use the political system to push drugs across the whole of the United States of America.
I just don't get the anti-pot hysteria. It was legal before 1937.
or bathsalts, or pcp, or heroin, or?
All of which marijuana has been shown to be gateway drug.
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.