"If You Still Think Pot Should Be Illegal, You Are an A**hole"

[Kurska]

Some will look at the title of this article and think that I'm baiting you into reading why you're actually for cannabis regulation because you're really a decent human being. And while you'd be right, the truth is that I want this to be a real issue for you because I'm not being facetious. You're not a stiflingly overprotective mom if you don't want your kids taking drugs, legal or not. You're not a narc for wanting to keep money out of the black market. You're not a communist for being uneasy about the potential for "Big Marijuana" to join the bankroll of the inebriation lobby. But there are a slew of bellowing ignorant statements that you make when you support cannabis prohibition: That you don't care about injustice; That you mindlessly repeat propaganda so easily debunked it belies the shallowness of either your intelligence or your integrity; That you are so averse to admitting that you were wrong about something regardless of how bigoted, short-sighted, and stupid it makes you look, you don't even care what your stubbornness is saying about you.

For one, if you think cannabis should remain a Schedule I drug, one for which there is no accepted medical use, then you are scientifically illiterate. Not that you have to be a Nobel Laureate to be know what you're talking about, but if you've read enough to know what you're talking about, then you aren't talking about prohibition. If you don't think the earth is younger than civilization, or that vaccinations cause autism, or that chiropractic is real medicine, then you're already doing better than most people. But if you ignore the studies year, after year, after year, after year, finding that responsible cannabis use not only shows no long-term damage to the body, but might even benefit it, you are kidding yourself. There is even quite a bit of evidence that suggests cannabis kills cancer cells. A lot of it. A lot of lot of it. And didn't you hear about that little girl whose severe epilepsy has only ever been alleviated by cannabis oil? Surely you heard about Sanjay Gupta's admission that he was wrong about medicinal pot? Who else has to come clean? A former surgeon general? A three-fourths majority of doctors?

You may think you're looking out for kids, and you wouldn't be totally wrong. There is evidence to suggest that childhood use of cannabis increases the likelihood of psychosis and depression in kids that are predisposed to mental problems. And that would be a fair point if under our current policies cannabis hadn't become essentially ubiquitous across high schools. More than any other demographic, seniors are poised to be the biggest pot users in America should cannabis be legalized. It's law-abiding adults who will begin using pot in greater numbers, and the associated lameness of watching their parents ripping a bong will, if anything, probably decrease teen use.

Still, the whole argument is hypocritical from the get-go. Alcohol isn't too good for kids either, but no one appears to be pushing for a dry country again. If you really want to keep pot out of kids' hands, keep it secure in dispensaries that demand ID and away from cartels and street dealers who just want money and don't care about the customer or the product. When was the last time you heard of a booze or stogie dealer? Why do you think that is? It's because kids don't drive the inebriation market, adults do. And if you're under the impression kids will get their hands on pot anyway (they will), would you prefer it spent 6000 miles strapped to a leaky gas tank or six months meticulously nurtured and pruned by a professional botanist? These are rhetorical questions, of course. I doubt you care if teens smoke pot because you probably did and you came out just fine.
....

more at source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-michael/if-you-still-think-pot-sh_b_3907678.html


He is right, you know.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Those who are STILL -- this late in the game -- opposed to pot legalization

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

are not only complete idiots, but are enablers of 1% RW Fascist &
Mercenary Class who are using pot to fill up private prisons for free slave-labor.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. +1

[LuvNewcastle]

28. Well said.

[LittleGirl]

29. and they watch fox spews all the time.

+1

[Taverner]

37. Cops love it for a bunch of reasons

1 - there's a lot of money in MJ prohibition

2 - they get to seize assets and buy them later at rock bottom prices

3 - they get WOD money form DC

[Schema Thing]

2. pretty much

[libdem4life]

3. A comment on the senior market...a senior development with median prices @ $500,000, a smoke shop

selling marijuana was approved by the City Council and opened up in a little strip business center just across from the main entrance and behind the only gas station in the area. It's a huge development with assisted living and independent living but I just chuckled when it opened. They certainly did their marketing and found a "pot mine". Interesting as the Boomers are moving in and some of their elders are getting the message. It is in California so is legal by prescription.

[MicaelS]

4. I want to see Cannabis legalized because

I want to see the anti-smoking zealots heads spin around on their necks trying to explain why smoking tobacco is evil but smoking cannabis is just fine.

[tazkcmo]

5. You don't have to smoke it

to enjoy it.

[MicaelS]

6. I know, but I still stand by my statement. n/t

[tazkcmo]

7. That's fine.

I'll leave it other folks to point out why smoking pot is a lot different than smoking cigs.

[LeftofObama]

9. ROFLMAO!

My smoke is better than your smoke! Yours should be banned and mine should be made legal and widely available.

[tazkcmo]

13. Get your hand outta my mouth.

Never said anything of the sort so stop putting words in my mouth. You're going to burn yourself on my CIGARETTE.

[LeftofObama]

15. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I was just responding to this statement, "I'll leave it other folks to point out why smoking pot is a lot different than smoking cigs."

I believe it is going to come down to an argument about which smoke is better. IMO smoke is smoke.

[tazkcmo]

16. ok n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Smoke is not smoke.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848

Results Marijuana exposure was nearly as common as tobacco exposure but was mostly light (median, 2-3 episodes per month). Tobacco exposure, both current and lifetime, was linearly associated with lower FEV1 and FVC. In contrast, the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function was nonlinear (P < .001): at low levels of exposure, FEV1 increased by 13 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 6.4 to 20; P < .001) and FVC by 20 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 12 to 27; P < .001), but at higher levels of exposure, these associations leveled or even reversed. The slope for FEV1 was −2.2 mL/joint-year (95% CI, −4.6 to 0.3; P = .08) at more than 10 joint-years and −3.2 mL per marijuana smoking episode/mo (95% CI, −5.8 to −0.6; P = .02) at more than 20 episodes/mo. With very heavy marijuana use, the net association with FEV1 was not significantly different from baseline, and the net association with FVC remained significantly greater than baseline (eg, at 20 joint-years, 76 mL [95% CI, 34 to 117]; P < .001).

Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

Exposure to tobacco smoke causes lung damage with clinical consequences that include respiratory symptoms, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer.1- 2 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer are leading causes of death,2- 3 and smoking tobacco cigarettes is the most important preventable cause of death in the United States.4- 5

Marijuana smoke contains many of the same constituents as tobacco smoke,6 but it is unclear whether smoking marijuana causes pulmonary damage similar to that caused by tobacco. Prior studies of marijuana smokers have demonstrated consistent evidence of airway mucosal injury and inflammation7- 9 as well as increased respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm production, and wheeze, similar to that seen in tobacco smokers.10- 12 However, analyses of pulmonary function and lung disease have failed to detect clear adverse effects of marijuana use on pulmonary function.10- 13 It is possible that cumulative damage to the lungs from years of marijuana use could be masked by short-term effects; prior analyses have not attempted to disentangle these factors. Smoking marijuana is increasingly common in the United States,14 and understanding whether it causes lasting damage to lung function has important implications for public health messaging and medical use of marijuana.15- 16

[LeftofObama]

35. I stand by my statement.

Smoke is smoke. You either breath it in or you don't.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. I dunno about that. The people who tend to be offended by things will be offended.

[MicaelS]

11. Sure that too. n/t

[LanternWaste]

12. I too used to call people who disagreed with me on one position or another "zealots".

I too used to call people who disagreed with me on one position or another "zealots". It was an empty and petulant label of course, but I do recall the visceral and feeling of self-satisfaction calling other people names brought with it. Oh, those simplistic days of third grade... but at least I can smoke now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. What are you getting at?

[Romulox]

19. She's a Drug Warrior, and she's offended on being called out for it. nt

[yodermon]

20. yeah, tobacco kills cancer, pretty sweet eh n/t

[Major Nikon]

21. Has there ever been a case of a pot smoker giving someone else cancer?

I can't think of too many things more evil than that.

[totodeinhere]

22. Almost anyone who wants to put restrictions on tobacco does not want to make it completely illegal.

And I suspect that many who have similar views about pot also realize that while opposing its use it is not reasonable to try to completely prohibit it. So they favor legalizing it even thought they don't approve of using it.

[Major Nikon]

38. I doubt too many people would want someone smoking pot around their kids

Just because something is or should be legal, doesn't mean there should be restrictions on how and where it can be used.

[totodeinhere]

39. I wouldn't want someone smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol around my kids

either although I favor keeping both legal.

[jeff47]

31. This may shock you

But it turns out when you burn different things, different stuff comes out in the smoke!

The "smoke" produced by a properly-maintained internal combustion engine with a catalytic converter does not contain any carcinogens. It just contains CO2 and H2O. Sure, it can make enough CO2 to kill you in a confined space, but you won't die of cancer.

It may turn out that massive marijuana smoking will cause cancer. Or it might not.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. This should be a PM to Dr. Kevin Sabet.

[d_r]

14. I've always thought

that with pot being illegal it is easier for kids to get pot than it is for kids to get alcohol. Alcohol being sold in the store can be regulated. Yeah, you could get a place not carding, or fake ids, or get some guy to buy it for you, but it sold in the open. Outside some dry counties in SE Ky and places like that, there isn't a lot of market for bootleggers of alcohol any more. If you are in SE Ky and you go to the bootleggers house to buy beer, he doesn't card you. He is already breaking the law and he doesn't really care. That's how it is for pot. Everybody is buying it on the qt already. Your dealer isn't going to card you. Teens can buy it the same way anybody else can.

[azurnoir]

26. However legalization would fix that in large part

in places where pot is legal , sales to minors are not legal, same as booze

[d_r]

36. yeah

that's what I mean. I think for people worried about kids getting pot they would be better off it was legal.

[DinahMoeHum]

24. I say legalize it because it will also pave the way for HEMP. . .

. . .to be grown here in the USA. I'm sure farmers will appreciate that too as another cash crop.

[RC]

34. Marijuana needs to be treated like alcohol and there is no real reason why hemp should not be legal.

There is too much easy money being made by the courts and law enforcement with weed.
But hemp has too many uses and will cut deeply into the profits of many large corporations, from paper, clothing, oil, fuel, Food & Beverages, 'hempcrete', a stronger, lighter, and more environmentally friendly version of concrete. Plastics, insulation and more.

But first, we have to get rid of Citizen"s United.

[classof56]

25. So what gives anyone, no matter the topic, the right to call anyone who disagrees an A**hole?

Call me a cranky old Grandma, but I'm pretty sick of these blanket characterizations based on opinions. Actions, maybe, but opinions? I have less a problem with pot than I have in the past, but the fact is, I've never rolled or smoked a joint in my 70+ years. My choice for my reasons, and that's it. Maybe I think it should be illegal, maybe I don't. If that qualifies me as an A**hole, so be it. Been called worse during my seven decades on this planet, but if that's the best anyone can come up with, perhaps it's time to break out the dictionary. Or better yet, a Thesaurus.

Whatever, I remain...

A Tired Old Cynic

[Warren Stupidity]

40. really any topic?

Do I have to list opinions held that would qualify the holder as a massive asshole?

[brooklynite]

27. I'm not opposed....

...but neither am I particularly concerned about this as an issue, and I suspect most other voters feel the same way. Too many more important issues to deal with.

(nb -never used it)

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. It's a civil rights issue.

Look at the rates of incarceration and how they disproportionately affect minorities. Civil rights and inequality are pretty "important" issues IMO. But what do I know? I'm just a silly leftist hippie.

[beerandjesus]

33. It's part of Obama's chess game

He's had to keep cracking down on the medical pot clubs for the last 5 years so that when he drew a "red line" for Syria and appeared to have put himself in a position where he'd have to order missile strikes, Iran and North Korea would get the message that they had better not enrich uranium while he and Kerry masterfully negotiated a peace settlement behind the scenes, because Putin is a meanie and Hitler used gas and if it bothers you, you probably just hate children and love Assad.

Make sense?