Posted on 10/26/2002 2:57:03 PM PDT by Roscoe
(NAPSA)-Users say it makes them mellow. Proponents of legalization say it's okay to smoke. Doctors warn of its harmful effects. Researchers say that in the past decade, the number of eighth graders who have used it has doubled.
The debate about marijuana continues, but there is one point that everyone generally agrees on -kids should stay away from the drug.
"There are many popular myths about the so-called harmlessness of marijuana, but we know from research that marijuana use is risky for teens at a crucial time in their lives," said John P. Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy.
One common myth is that the drug is safe. Experts agree that marijuana puts kids at risk. It's harmful to young bodies and minds that are still developing. Marijuana affects the brain and can impair mental health, leading to increased depression and anxiety. Some health risks associated with smoking marijuana are similar to those posed by tobacco.
Kids who use marijuana regularly show a decrease in academic achievement. Even short-term marijuana use has been proven to cause problems with memory, learning, cognitive development and problem solving.
Recent research also shows that kids who use marijuana weekly are more likely to get in trouble with the law, struggle in school, have delinquent friends, engage in unsafe sex and end up in risky and dangerous situations.
Drugged driving is another danger. One roadside study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by alcohol showed that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana.
It's also a myth that marijuana is not addictive. Marijuana sends more teens into treatment than any other illicit drug. Sixty percent of teens currently in drug treatment are there because of marijuana.
According to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, of all the people entering treatment for marijuana in 1999, more than half (57 percent) first used the drug by the age of 14.
Parents can help kids by countering the folklore on marijuana with real examples of how marijuana can put their futures at risk. Studies show that parents are the single most powerful influence in their children's lives. Parents who are involved and talk to their kids about drugs are less likely to have kids who use drugs.
For more information about marijuana and tips on things you can say and do to keep your child drug-free, visit www.theanti drug.com, the parent Web site of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
Look for a downloadable copy of Keeping Your Kids Drug-Free: A How-to Guide for Parents and Caregivers, or call 1-800-788-2800 for a free copy.
Me:"Hilarious! An honest drug dealing! A drug dealer who will level with kids on the harm of the drug. Yeah, right. Any legitimate cop will also echo the harm of this drug as well as an honest politician. It is the dishonest ones that agree with you. And you are VERY DISHONEST. It's certainly not a mystery to me that you are a dope. It shows in what you write. Dope."
You: "Your response presumes the truth of the "harm" you argue."
Me: There is nothing to "presume". As a dope, you deny facts abd reality. Drugs have dulled your mind and removed your common sense. You are quite representative of what drugs do to the mind.
Me: I didn't post the article, idiot. You see you operate soley on emotions. You can't even read straight. The facts are clear. This posted article simply calls attention to them. If you wish to deny reality, that is your business, however it's unwise to make such a fool of yourself in public demonstrating how drugs have affected your mind and disabled your ability to think clearly and rationally.
You: "You could have just posted that you are a schmuck, but then it is apparant enough anyway."
Me: Name calling ... when someone must resort to name calling they are losing the debate or in your situation rant. It takes a "schmuck" to use drugs. You really don't see that you are dumbed down.
I see we have a psychic in our midst. Knows all about everyone. Hon, it's you that looks like the dope. You might as well claim you're god also. it's just as believable.
Shhhhh ... had to let you in on a secret ... those that passionately defend illegal drug use, marijuanna - are on the drugs! Duh, why do you think they call marijuanna users dopes? Because they are dopes! You've proved it again.
Nighty night, dopes. Got better things to do than waste my time with dumbed down druggies who talk in circles.
No, a meritless, unreasonable and entirely unsupported assertion.
And no source, of course.
Defendant's lawyer speaking to the jury: Clearly Roscoe and his lawyer have failed by all accounts to show any evidence -- failed to show even one single piece of evidence -- to support his claim that he has been harmed by my client's drug possession. Roscoe's claim is wholly unsupported.
You mean an OJ jury? That would be your only shot.
You know full well my argument has been for you to take the defendant court and for you to try to convince an impartial jury that you had been harmed by the defendant. Post 159 documents for the record your non sequitur obfuscation, as does your 166 response reflect your dishonesty. As said in post 159: "Roscoe further validates post 81: "... Roscoe knows he's a loser but aside from a couple of far-and-few-between rare moments of honest reflection he simply doesn't care."
Defendant's lawyer speaking to the jury: Clearly Roscoe and his lawyer have failed by all accounts to show any evidence -- failed to show even one single piece of evidence -- to support his claim that he has been harmed by my client's drug possession. Roscoe's claim is wholly unsupported.
No, it's about fallacious legal arguments with a long history of abject failure.
Funny, I don't see any adds for pot on tv, or any commerical outlets for pot that would justify your "military industrial complex" paranoia. You have to be selling a product in the first place to gain monetarily by "supressing" your competition in the "war on drugs".
Roll another, it will all become clear to you...
If you think you've been harmed by a person's drug possession take the person to court and do your best to prove to an impartial jury that you had been hammed by that. You'd be lucky to convince a third of the jurors that you had been harmed by the defendant -- let alone convince all twelve jurors, which you'd need to obtain a guilty verdict.
Some people on this forum want to impose their communitarian beliefs on people by initiating force, threat of force or fraud against people or enlist government agents to initiate force, threat of force and fraud on their behalf.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
"Clearly Roscoe and his lawyer have failed by all accounts to show any evidence -- failed to show even one single piece of evidence -- to support his claim that he has been harmed by my client's drug possession. Roscoe's claim is wholly unsupported."
Here's a few example of how Roscoe uses non sequiturs to obfuscate and divert attention away from THE POINT...
Roscoe's response:
"NUTJOB: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I can smoke all the dope I want. It's in the Constitution!
"JURY: We find the defendent guilty. And real stupid." 153
Or...
"Your fallacious argument has a long and well established track record before "impartial juries." Complete failure." 166
Or...
"You mean an OJ jury? That would be your only shot." 168
Or...
"It's about fallacious legal arguments with a long history of abject failure." 171
Or...
"Take your nonsense to court. Send me a postcard from prison." 174
Or... Roscoe will create some other diversionary response. He'll do almost anything to divert attention away from THE POINT. Each time he does that, Roscoe further validates post 81: "... Roscoe knows he's a loser but aside from a couple of far-and-few-between rare moments of honest reflection he simply doesn't care." 81
If you want to trash your life, well, it is your life. But as the final result is the same, and is not a good thing, why should it be supported by society?
I don't do non-medicinal drugs, not even alcohol or caffeine. Now you know; don't make the same error again. Apparently you want to trash individual-life-and-property rights along with trashing the constitution.
I do not want the responsible members of society to have to support the sub standard preformance of the drug users. As long as there is government mandated looser support, I am against making pot legal.
So you admit to preferring temporary band-aid relief, which isn't real relief anyway -- over curing the cancer.
Some people on this forum (American in Israel included) want to impose their communitarian beliefs on people by initiating force, threat of force or fraud against people or enlist government agents to initiate force, threat of force and fraud on their behalf.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
Politics suck -- politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in.
"The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!" - Frederic Bastiat
Thus it follows logically:
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else." -- Frederic Bastiat
Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely, with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite the federal government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- creating on average, 3,000 new laws and regulations each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to "justify" their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are necessary, "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from running headlong into self-destruction.
How is it that people and society have managed to increasingly prosper last year, the year before and decades prior without having each year's 3,000 new laws? But suddenly each year the people need 3,000 new laws? Why will people and society not run headlong into self-destruction this year despite not having next year's 3,000 new laws, or the 3,000 new laws in 2004?
"The difference between a good law and a bad law is that a bad law creates criminals, while a good law identifies them." -- R. Alex Whitlock
Ready-made criminals with a vote and stroke of the pen.
Politics suck -- politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in.
Sometimes a small error will be compounded over and over until it becomes a massive problem.
In mid-term and presidential elections tens-of-millions of people vote for the lesser of evils despite that it still begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?
War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers
The first thing civilization must have is business, science and art. It's what the individual and family needs so that its members can live creative, prosperous, happy lives. Business, science and art can survive, even thrive without government and its bureaucracy.
Government and its bureaucracy cannot survive without business and science. In general, business, science and the individual and family is the host and government and bureaucracy are parasites.
Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and private property rights while upholding the sanctity of private contracts -- military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a relatively free market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to people and society -- there are but a few -- could much more effectively serve people and society by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They're parasites. We're their host. We don't need them. They need us.
You're the host. You don't need them -- they need you.
It's your life. Make them meet your terms and become a value creator or let them chose to perish.
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.