I saw this essay by Selwyn Duke, a frequent essayist for American Thinker.
Imagine I wouldn’t want some reactions on the points made from the libertarians and ex or current dopers?
Have at it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/thus_spake_the_potheads.html
I suppose you won’t read this as you’ve decided to drop the thread, but on the off chance you do, could you please elaborate what you feel is dishonest? I can see people that have analyzed the same data and come to a different conclusion. I see people that have made different predictions about the possible outcome of various hypotheticals. What I don’t see is any indication people are saying things they don’t actually believe to be true.
Sorry, but this is my last post here. I’m allergic to the sheer dishonesty on display here. I used to think this was a pretty honest place.
FTA: A nation that does not maintain stringent social prohibitions (in the least) against chemical dependency will not likely remain strong.
Seems likely, though, that a government that maintains control of chemical dependency will likely remain strong. Legalize and control, that’s the game. The government as cartel. Libertarian quasi-victories and alternate nausea suppression are side issues. It still seems more honest and less subject to manipulation to keep it illegal. The main downside to that is that the dependents think they’re some kind of noble free spirit just by inhaling. Then again, their thinking is none too good anyway.
I give you the 10th Amendment :
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I believe it’s the people you hear speaking.
The drug war was and is a bad idea.
Prohibition is not working.
What’s your ‘Plan B’.
Cannabis definitely has a use in medicine. That is where it should end. The use of cannabis as a “recreational” or “lifestyle” drug especially by those under 25 years of age can devastate and destroy their creative and economic potential. Alcohol is bad enough, but cannabis is much more destructive for young people and their potential in life.
Well, let’s consider, an intoxicating substance, that hangs around for a long time and impairs so many things.
I would make the case for on off effects of alcohol, as opposed to the effects of marijuana, meth, opiates, hallucinogens.
The most important consideration is that alcohol is culturally so well entrenched that there is no way to compare it to mj, or the other drugs of abuse.
keep it up. Let’s consider the question of whether mind benders is a form of recreation.
I will concede that alcohol is a recreational substance, can the same be said of marijuana or opiates, or meth, or the hallucinogens?
Howdy j1282
I’ve often read that THC improves appetite for chemotherapy patients. It may be true, it may be placebo effect — but the current discussion is on personal use of marijuana rather than medical. My view of “medical” marijuana in states that have it is that it’s a poor screen for personal use.
Someone once said that the term “recreational use of drugs” was a sick joke and I agree.
I’d say Selwyn didn’t get any positive responses but he’ll get over it.
I am interested to hear that, my understanding is that THC was part of the therapeutic advantage of marijuana in improving appetite while on Chemo.
Pardon me — “going through life stoned is stupid.” The proof-read was activated by the post button again.
“Inherent in it is the notion that altering your mind is okay, getting high is fine.”
No, inherent in it is the notion that you own yourself, that you shall make your own decisions until you harm another, and you shall bear the results of your own decisions.
I think going through life is stupid — I agree with you and GK Chesterton on that. And you’re quite right that marijuana is qualitatively different from much use of alcohol — I enjoy a small glass of wine or the lift that bourbon gives to cola without becoming intoxicated. But I want to keep that decision as my right, so I’d better be very slow to deny anyone else’s right to decide.
Recognizing someone’s right to make a choice that I consider a bad choice means I still consider it a bad choice.
Whether the mention of carbon was toxic gases or particulate doesn’t really change the invalidity of the comparison. This site has pointed out the flaws in PM2.5 research as well. So I still consider this an appeal to junk science to support the claim.
The dosage of “two puffs” is arbitrarily chosen and the argument that no one smokes an amount that results in mild effects is equally unsupported. Without even a pretense of research to support this claim it remains opinion. Further it is subject to the point that absolutes are nearly always wrong. It fails to address the argument that if marijuana were not illegal fewer of the people using it would be the sort to abuse it. During the alcohol prohibition how many people casually indulged in alcohol as the writer suggests they do today? The majority of the people that continued to drink regardless of risks were those that tended to over consume. Responsible users by definition don’t break the law to use. In addition is the observation bias inherent in the claim. Because smoking pot is illegal, anyone intelligent would hide their usage from the world. Therefore, you only see stupid potheads because they are the ones that get caught.
If the author is not interested in the legality of the substance, then he has written his article at an inopportune time as legality is the point currently up for public debate. All of the arguments the author attempts to debunk are put forth as arguments for legalization. To turn around and claim that you’re arguing a different point is a different version of the straw man fallacy. Regardless, he still fails to support his hyperbolic claims with valid research, but rather puts forth his opinion. Junk science is junk science regardless of whether you agree with the opinion being advanced.
I too have worked with drug test failures for the military. It’s tragic that they’ve ruined their life, but they’re rarely considered much of a loss. Only an idiot would smoke pot knowing how often we’re subjected to drug testing. I don’t support allowing marijuana use in the military, or really any other industry. I believe that businesses that don’t want to hire people that smoke marijuana are capable of policing themselves. If banks want to protest by running their business a certain way, than I support their right to run their business the way they want.
I too believe that the benefits of smoking pot are outweighed by the costs. Millions of Americans feel the same about alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and even “junk food”. However, I believe the benefits of the war on marijuana are also outweighed by the costs. The black market created by prohibition has made criminals more powerful and wealthy while honest citizens are made poorer and less safe as more and more tax money is siphoned away from paychecks to put kids in jails where non-violent offenders learn to be violent to survive.
I read the article very differently.
The carbon comparison was soot or PM2.5, fine particulate, which he believes to be equally damaging whether it be from tobacco smoke, marijuana or engine exhaust. See the EPA’s statements on PM2.5 as being about as deadly a substance known (no safe dose) without any reference to source, structure or composition.
He also gave an exemption for low consumption, assuming one could take just two puffs. His argument was that, unlike taking small amounts of alcohol, that is not a common practice with marijuana.
The arguments did not depend on legality of the substance, but on use.
Most of my employment since 1975 has had some type of drug testing, both civilian and military. My experience with it has been limited to interesting conversations with the grad student doing products of combustion studies and keeping good Army Reservists from being booted from the system for a positive test. My believe is that the negatives of marijuana outweigh the positives. Also, I’ve heard that banks won’t accept cash from “legal” marijuana dealers.
I am not a fan of the legalization of pot but I have to go with you on this one Dave. I personally think alcohol abuse is dangerous and has more long term health affects.
I smoke cigars once or twice a moth. This doesn’t even qualify me as a smoker with insurance companies. Abuse of any substance (including coffee) and not done in moderation is bad for your health.
I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that people will abuse pot whether its illegal or not. I don’t think that makes a case for legalization but I think if States want to legalize then they should be able to and the Feds should get out of it and concentrate of the harder stuff.
Well I’m neither a libertarian nor a pothead but I’ll take a shot.
This article is junk science propaganda because…
We start with prejudicial language and pop culture references meant to evoke an emotional response. We follow by a false comparison between an activity that is legal but regulated and an activity that is illegal and violently oppressed without pausing to consider that perhaps the violent oppression is the reason for the reaction the author is complaining about. Smokers face being asked to smoke outside not being thrown in prison with murderers and rapist for carrying around half a pack. The comparison doesn’t hold.
The author then makes a ridiculous comparison between smoking and sucking on car exhaust after having said “carbon” rather than carbon monoxide. The condemnation of low dosages of a substance because of the effects of high dosage is a classic example of junk science.
Next he takes a paragraph or two to belittle and marginalize his opponents without offering scientific evidence that the claims with which he disagrees are wrong, a classic blend of strawman and ad hominim. He deliberately ignores all reasoned arguments in opposition to his position and conjures the “pothead” activist so that he has an easier target to belittle and claims that arguments are invalid because potheads make them.
Next comes a second false comparison between another legal but regulated substance and a violently suppressed illegal one. Making the same logical fallacy twice doesn’t make it more convincing. The uninformed author apparently believes that there is no dosage of marijuana that does not make the user feel comparable to being wasted on alcohol. He apparently also believes that the majority of people that drink alcohol do so only because it tastes so good rather than for its depressant effects. He fails to address why it is okay for alcohol to be legal in spite of the extreme dangers to society caused by overconsumption, but not okay for marijuana despite the relatively low risks associated with over consumption. Instead he invokes the classic junk science meme of “no safe dosage”.
He ends by invoking the classic slippery slope fallacy by name. There is no new information presented, no new arguments made, and no sources cited to support his claims. I take it back. This is not junk science. It is not science at all. This is nothing more than a deliberately bilious attempt at controversy baiting for the purpose of driving traffic to a website.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/thus_spake_the_potheads.html
I would be interested to here your views on the development of the Charlottes Web strain ( negligable THC content ). Given that the true agenda of the medical marihuana advocates is the legalization of its’ use, this area of research would appear to undercut their ultimate objective if the same health benefits can be derived from the plant without having to injest the THC.
thanks, will fix
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/jahi_mcmath_is_alive.html
Link not working. Something missing?