Posted on 02/06/2015 9:48:52 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
“With marijuana,” declare William J. Bennett and Robert A. White in Going to Pot, their new prohibitionist screed, “we have inexplicably suspended all the normal rules of reasoning and knowledge.” You can’t say they didn’t warn us.
The challenge for Bennett, a former drug czar and secretary of education who makes his living nowadays as a conservative pundit and talk radio host, and White, a New Jersey lawyer, is that most Americans support marijuana legalization, having discovered through direct and indirect experience that cannabis is not the menace portrayed in decades of anti-pot propaganda. To make the familiar seem threatening again, Bennett and White argue that marijuana is both more dangerous than it used to be, because it is more potent, and more dangerous than we used to think, because recent research has revealed “long-lasting and permanent serious health effects.” The result is a rambling, repetitive, self-contradicting hodgepodge of scare stories, misleading comparisons, unsupportable generalizations, and decontextualized research results. [...]
When it comes to assessing the evidence concerning marijuana’s hazards, Bennett and White’s approach is not exactly rigorous. They criticize evidence of marijuana’s benefits as merely “anecdotal” yet intersperse their text with personal testimonials about its harms. They do Google searches on “marijuana” paired with various possible dangers, then present the alarming (and generally misleading) headlines that pop up as if they conclusively verify those dangers. They cite any study that reflects negatively on marijuana (often repeatedly) as if it were the final word on the subject. Occasionally they acknowledge that the studies they favor have been criticized on methodological grounds or that other studies have generated different results. But they argue that even the possibility of bad outcomes such as IQ loss, psychosis, or addiction to other drugs is enough to oppose legalization. [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
One of them even has to tell his liberal pals to join in.
One evil thing does not make another evil thing acceptable.
Tobacco and chewing gum are evil?
I'm not suggesting you accept anything - just be consistently nonaccepting of harms to the taxpayer.
I just can’t be bothered with the pro homosexual, pro amnesty, pro drugs, pro incest, pro bestiality, anti FBI, anti CIA etc.
They have more in common with liberals and communists than conservatives and yet feel they’re childish rants which crave for attention should be on a conservative website.
____________________________________________
It is truly sad to see what FR has become. While Jim concerns himself 24/7 on the FReepathon threads - his site has become infested with liberalism.
Its no wonder that meeting FR’s financial challenges is getting harder and harder.
I’m not going to bother with the pretense of “reasoning” with you, because you won’t be swayed by reason.
One by one they were banned because they actually could not support their position. We conservatives were ruthless. We called out their BS and eventually they had nothing but ad-hominem. Some still are there but they really don’t say much.
So, you're saying you also think tobacco & alcohol are evil.
Geez, what's your position on dancing, Rev. Huckabee?
No it isn't. I've known drunks and i've known addicts, and I can assure you few drunks are going to rob and steal to support their habit. Most of them have actual jobs and work.
And alcohol is worse than Marijuana.
Marijuana is just the "Let's not tolerate hate crimes against gays." stage of the argument for eventual drug legalization. It is the camel's nose in the tent.
Beyond that, this most mild form of drug usage has serious consequences for young people in the form of permanent brain damage and nearly perpetual dependency on others for a living.
I've seen these consequences of that drug myself many times over. Teenage abusers end up being stupid and unemployable. Not, all but far too many for anyone to say this stuff is harmless. No, it's not harmless at all. It screws people up, sometimes horribly.
I’m gonna guess Opium.
“Pro-dope” in the anti-pot zealots’ dictionary means steadfastly supportive of adults’ liberty to use pot.
heh. ;-)
I just can’t be bothered with the pro homosexual, pro amnesty, pro drugs, pro incest, pro bestiality, anti FBI, anti CIA etc.
They have more in common with liberals and communists than conservatives and yet feel they’re childish rants which crave for attention should be on a conservative website.
____________________________________________
It is truly sad to see what FR has become. While Jim concerns himself 24/7 on the FReepathon threads - his site has become infested with liberalism.
Its no wonder that meeting FR’s financial challenges is getting harder and harder.
Why are you here?
I’m Baptist. Have been all my life. I’ve never met a Baptist who thought having a beer would send you to Hell. I have met plenty of Baptists who believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God which has plenty of warnings against drinking alcohol. Putting Christ’s wine into historical context is also important. Meaning, if it was alcoholic, then it was very very weak.
That said. What I’ve thought about the issue of legalization has evolved a little over the years, but the main point remains. The US will be an even crappier country if pot is legalized. People who can’t see that need to get their eyes checked or stop being so abstract. If we shrink the government so much that it can’t enforce drug laws, I’m good with that, but anyone who thinks that’s the place to start needs to look around.
Today on the news I watched a doctor explain about all the measles cases currently occurring in California. He made the point that those who refuse to get their children vaccinated are increasing the risk of other people contracting the disease through their unvaccinated child.
It clearly illustrates that the members of a society have responsibilities to not endanger other members of a society. People don't exist in a vacuum. We breath the same air, drink the same water, and occupy the same territory.
You want total separation between personal foolishness and ill consequences to others? Live apart.
If you are a member of a social group, then your continued interaction requires certain obligations, one of which is to not induce or spread drug addiction to other more vulnerable members of society.
Don't spread disease.
Someone should let him/her know it's marijuana being discussed. And to quit pulling stats out of his/her behind.
Take a few more puffs. Your blood pressure is getting too high.
Or if not “busybodies,” opponents of drug use just *might* be trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from a traffic “accident” caused by a drug-addled stoner.
Or a drunk.
Or a desperate heroin addict on his way to rob someone.
Our ancestors learned their lessons and banned heroin and marijuana for good reasons, and now we’re going to have to re-learn all those hard lessons.
As for me: if a drunk or stoned driver causes the death of a member of my family, I will implement immediate and permanent retribution.
Bad consequences from one irresponsibility do not justify bad consequences from another irresponsibility.
For what it's worth, almost everyone I know on pot is also on welfare.
To make legal is not to "induce" or "spread" use much less addiction.
What do you propose to do about the drunks?
Reminds me of the "journalist" who said Nixon couldn't have won because nobody she knew voted for him.
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.