Nationalism is not Good

Stop saying "In Switzerland" :D

My mother and I joked a little when we talked about Swedish Democracy, and then she said that they are well protected with a draft army and that almost all of their Citizens have atomic bomb shelters.

Then I said that if World War 3 breaks out Switzerland will prolly be "Neutral" again.

And then my mom said that because only the swiss have so many Atomic Bomb Shelters, they are gonna be the only ones to survive that war.

And all that remains on this world are the boring Swiss! What a nightmare! ;)

:rotfl:
 
The way I see it, nationalism is like alcohol, video games, and these forums: a little bit is good and fun, but excess is extremely hazardous to one's health. Remember, all things in moderation. Such things are good servents, but poor masters. :D
 
Yeah I meant Swiss.
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Oh, so putting a gun to someones head is legal?
Sorry I'm confused...


Just to be clear, Iceblaze, what I mean is that if a powerful interest group, gang of politicians or whoever manages to pass laws that aren't laws the public wanted or deserved, the power of the state can then be deployed to enforce them.

While it might be overdramatic to characterize this as putting a gun literally to a person's head, in practice the effect is the same: if I manage to lobby for a law that forces people out of their homes if they don't buy my product, and the people defy the law long enough, the guns - in the form of the local, national, or departmental law enforcement - will come down the driveway eventually...

R.III
 
Originally posted by Damien
Regressive?
Elections based on what other nation's forigen policy is doing, hatred and attacks on Jews permitted, holding Israel to impossible double-standards, apologizing for acts of terror and murder in Israel, failure to act against nations like Iraq, fense sitting and profittering from men like Saddam....yes, REGRESSIVE.
Gay weddings with the same rights as heterosexuals,the right to vote for non-eu foreigners in more and more countries,the right to smoke cannabis in many countries :D and such laws are regressive?
Gay weddings are alowed in many US states, the right to vote is allowed in the US for non-citizens, so your trailing as usual.
The right to smoke something that is exceedingly bad for you is not something to be proud of, pot dulls the mind, lessens the senses, damages the nervous system and your heart artiers, and dameages your lungs, laws allowing that so some people can get high are sickening and hurtful, and EXTREMLY regressive.

I'm sorry, your infalted opinion of Europe is not shared here, it has many good things, but you have a LONG way to go before you even match things the US has had for centuries.
 
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The right to smoke something that is exceedingly bad for you is not something to be proud of, pot dulls the mind, lessens the senses, damages the nervous system and your heart artiers, and dameages your lungs, laws allowing that so some people can get high are sickening and hurtful, and EXTREMLY regressive.
I'm NOT proud of it, and we DON'T allow ANY drugs in Sweden. And we never will... if EU makes us. We will leave.
 
The right to smoke something that is exceedingly bad for you is not something to be proud of,
Actually I think it is. First of all Cannabis is not that harmful (and significantly less harmful than alcohol or tobacco). Secondly in a free society you don't ban something because it is bad for you. Otherwise fatty foods would have been banned a long time ago. Thirdly, who is the government to decide what we should and should not do? All they somehow more enlighted than the average citizen? Are they more intelligent? Do they know what is good and what is bad for you? I do not trust government as far as I can throw it. And let me tell you I can't throw very far. Being proud of legalising Cannabis is like being proud of allowing porngraphy. And personally I am proud of allowing porngraphy.
but you have a LONG way to go before you even match things the US has had for centuries.
I completely agree that the US has in most areas been ahead of Europe. However there are a lot of areas where America is behind. Slavery and its consequences is one high profile area.
This is the theory.The problem is that,the one willing to change what you don't like will maybe change things that you like,and that's why you won't vote for him.
Gravity is a theory. Doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't like the options you see on the election ballot then put yourself forward as a candiate. It is what a citizen in a democracy should do.
Politicians follow interests and it's very difficult to make em change their mind.
No it isn't. Public opinion can change any politicans mind. And of course politicans follow interests, the interests of their constitutents.
International treaties giving a right of decision to supranational organizations(membership for the WTO,THE EU,etc) are counted as constitutional changes.
Explain to me how the ordinary Swiss citzen is expected to know the complex world treaties that they are asked to vote on.
Elections based on what other nation's forigen policy is doing
You mean elections based on the possible of a future world war and a new world order is not worthy of consideration by the electorate? Risking the lives of your soldiers is not worthy of the voters? And who are we to judge what the voters base their vote on. It is their vote. They can base it on whatever they want.
hatred and attacks on Jews permitted
Couldn't the same be said of Muslims in America?
fense sitting and profittering from men like Saddam
Fence-sitting is not a crime. Although I can understand why Americans feel it is. It goes against the American pyshic (spelling) to sit something out. Whereas the world regards the gun-ho attitude of America as regressive. It is all relative. And are you seriously telling me that America has never profitted from men like Saddam? Come on. I will not accept hypocrisy like that. Look in your own backyard before you accuse someone of something like that.
apologizing for acts of terror and murder in Israel
I don't see that as regressive. It certainly isn't right (in my opinion) but it is not regressive.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident

Actually I think it is. First of all Cannabis is not that harmful (and significantly less harmful than alcohol or tobacco).

That's very very partially true.
Cannabis is currently not as harmful because people do not use it in the same quantities they use Tobacco or Alcohol.
Once you make Cannabis legal, after some years when it comes part of normal life (Cannabis), and it is avaliable for regular smoking like Cigarretes, it is much much more harmful.

Secondly in a free society you don't ban something because it is bad for you.

True. But who said we live in a free society?
We live in a society that most of it's laws are naturally existing to benefit the people.
Sometimes in issues of harmful material use, what the majority thinks about it is certainly not always right, and I believe laws about those should be written using Specialists (id est Doctors, Pharmacists).
We are all familiar though with corruption and the influence the economy of the Tobacco industry has on a Capitalistic Democracy.
But, if the Majority really cares that much about Cannabis, they can start a party to legalise it like Ale Yarok (Green Leaf) in Israel, and start collecting enough votes for it to gain influence in the Government and legalise Cannabis.

Otherwise fatty foods would have been banned a long time ago.

There is a difference.

Thirdly, who is the government to decide what we should and should not do?

The Government is who you chose to enact and remove laws like this, I think.
As I said, you can always vote for a party that all of it's purpose is to legalise Cannabis.

All they somehow more enlighted than the average citizen?

A correct government should be. But I haven't seen such one. :D

Are they more intelligent?

If Economists are incharge of Economy, Doctosr of Drug Legalisation and Man Power Specialists on Employment, so yes, they are more knowledgeble about their issues than the average citizen.

Do they know what is good and what is bad for you?

They can't, since for each person the definition of Good or Bad is different.
What matters is the Population general Good and Bad, which is usually health, addiction control, etc.

I do not trust government as far as I can throw it. And let me tell you I can't throw very far. Being proud of legalising Cannabis is like being proud of allowing porngraphy. And personally I am proud of allowing porngraphy.

Me too, but I think it is much different for a few main reasons.
First of all, legal Pronography is usually something that exists to feel the fantasies that men (and women) have naturaly.
It is not a processed product that is there to fill an addiction you only create after you use it, that harms your health severely in regular use.
There are more reasons, too.

I completely agree that the US has in most areas been ahead of Europe. However there are a lot of areas where America is behind. Slavery and its consequences is one high profile area.

True. Both Continents have their Advantages and Disadvantages.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
Gravity is a theory. Doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't like the options you see on the election ballot then put yourself forward as a candiate. It is what a citizen in a democracy should do.

>>>The difference is that gravity is natural and will exist until the big crunch.In representative democracies,there could as many candidates as there are voters.It's very difficult to find who exactly represents you when there are more than 30 candidates.
Then the party that disappointed you may as well rename itself and you'll vote for it again.

No it isn't. Public opinion can change any politicans mind. And of course politicans follow interests, the interests of their constitutents.

>>>I don't think so.

Explain to me how the ordinary Swiss citzen is expected to know the complex world treaties that they are asked to vote on.

>>>Experts,associations,unions,political leaders,the audience lead the debate on TV shows.People don't know how it works when it's about complicated systems and issues;what they care about are the effects.Do americans willing to vote for the Dems have to sit an exam about Keynes'theories?

Another benefit of that system is that people are aware of what happens in politics and are the ones who "make" the state,who lead it.

In purely representative democracies,people are less likely to pay attention to what happens in politics.Moreover,they gotta wait until the next elections to make things change
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe:

True. Both Continents have their Advantages and Disadvantages.

IBZ is right, neverminding that he is an Asian. :rolleyes: I think that the difference is what make us what we are.

BTW, in the nineteenth century, Europeans had this incredible desire to stick their noses in other's affairs. Americans hated the thought of foreign adventurism ("War-mad Europe" was a common expression). Now things are reversed. I'm not surprised that half of Islam wants to eradicate Western civilization (and yes, the nutjobs want you dead too, they just want us dead first). I am surprised we haven't made more enemies. When will we Romans, Cis- and Trans-Atlantic, learn to stay home. :cry:

PS: To my fans, all zero of you: The FBI is still miffed about the time I accidentally let loose a spectral incinerator loose at FBI headquarters. They reject my claims of an accident and say that I used the chaos inflicted by the incinerator as a cover to hack into their systems. Like I have that kind of skill. I don't know who did it, but until I clear my name, I must lay low. They can find me by my posts, so no CFC for awhile. :( :o :mad:
 
I don't consider myself Asian.

My manners, culture and education are European and American.
 
I don't think so.
Well that is a very concise and well-argued point. I think I will renounce my previous beliefs as they as so clearly wrong.
The difference is that gravity is natural and will exist until the big crunch.
Gravity is natural? What makes you say that?
It's very difficult to find who exactly represents you when there are more than 30 candidates.
So it is difficult for a voter to pick their favourite candidate out of 30 options but it is not difficult for a voter to make decisions on complex international treaties? Are these the same voters?
In purely representative democracies,people are less likely to pay attention to what happens in politics.
I would argue the opposite. When constantly surrounded with politics people would become (for want of a better word) bored with it.
Moreover,they gotta wait until the next elections to make things change
As I believe IceBlaze said before, a party can call a vote of no-confidence in the government.
Once you make Cannabis legal, after some years when it comes part of normal life (Cannabis), and it is avaliable for regular smoking like Cigarretes, it is much much more harmful.
I didn't think there was a large of difference between the number of people who smoked Cannabis when it was illegal in Holland and now it is legal. And also I trust the people to take Cannabis in moderation and at approiate times (i.e. not when driving etc).
True. But who said we live in a free society?
Me.
There is a difference.
Which is...
A correct government should be. But I haven't seen such one.
Agreed.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident

Actually I think it is. First of all Cannabis is not that harmful (and significantly less harmful than alcohol or tobacco). Secondly in a free society you don't ban something because it is bad for you. Otherwise fatty foods would have been banned a long time ago. Thirdly, who is the government to decide what we should and should not do? All they somehow more enlighted than the average citizen? Are they more intelligent? Do they know what is good and what is bad for you? I do not trust government as far as I can throw it. And let me tell you I can't throw very far. Being proud of legalising Cannabis is like being proud of allowing porngraphy. And personally I am proud of allowing porngraphy.
Er...it is MUCH more harmful then smoking Tobacco, and that is another area the US has been eliminating, the cigarette industry.

I completely agree that the US has in most areas been ahead of Europe. However there are a lot of areas where America is behind. Slavery and its consequences is one high profile area.
And the US has paid a high price for it, Europe enslaved a planet, or do you deny the racist behavior of Europeans in Africa and Asia long after organized slavery was finished in Europe and the US?
One the things that made Ghandi become an activist was in South Africa he was bodily thrown from first class on a train, when he held a valid ticket and was a professional attourney, because he wasn't white.
I wouldn't go to far condeming Jim Crow when Europe had it's heel on the necks of every non-white it could on two continents, and that only ended when the Europeans were forced (many at US urging) to end colonial empires after WWII.

You mean elections based on the possible of a future world war and a new world order is not worthy of consideration by the electorate? Risking the lives of your soldiers is not worthy of the voters? And who are we to judge what the voters base their vote on. It is their vote. They can base it on whatever they want.
And suffer the ire of their allies at shameful politicing and electioneering.
The US cannot force Germany to risk it's forces, in fact, I wouldn't want them at any rate, they haven't faced battle in nearly 60 years.
NO COUNTRY should have whether to be anti-US or not a major political plank IF they want to be known as "progressive", those are scare tactics, in short, REGRESSIVE.

Couldn't the same be said of Muslims in America?
Not AT ALL.
No Muslims are attacked here, nor are Muslim burial places vandalized, nor Mosques defiled, none.
There was a little of this after 9/11/2001, but we clamped on this FAST.
That was a pure 'out of left field' comment by you. :rolleyes:

Fence-sitting is not a crime. Although I can understand why Americans feel it is.
The next time I see someone raping your sister and I ignore I'll bare that line in mind.
It goes against the American pyshic (spelling) to sit something out.
It's called taking a stand, to do NOTHING is MORAL COWARDISE.
Whereas the world regards the gun-ho attitude of America as regressive.
The world?
No, the EU, EXCLUDING Britain.
It is all relative. And are you seriously telling me that America has never profitted from men like Saddam? Come on. I will not accept hypocrisy like that. Look in your own backyard before you accuse someone of something like that.
The ol "you supported bad guys" rap won't cut it anymore.
If the world is to see an end to this, the EU has to take it's head out of the sand and fight, the time for talk is over.

I don't see that as regressive. It certainly isn't right (in my opinion) but it is not regressive.
No, it's even worse, it's ENTROPY.
To bad the world isn't forzen, it changes and we must also.
As a nation we don't want to fight Iraq, we know we have to.
 
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
That's very very partially true.
Cannabis is currently not as harmful because people do not use it in the same quantities they use Tobacco or Alcohol.
Where did you get that idea from?
Although it is not legal in most countries there are alot of people who use that more regularly than I use alcohol, a close relative of mine being one of them.
He has smoked that stuff for about 25 years now and I can assure you that he's nowhere close the shape of someone who drinks excessively for the same time.
Now that's "only" personal experience, most medical studies tell the same (and you can forget those deliberately done to prove the opposite...)
With short-term effects it's the same. Go and drink heavy alcohol for a night and smoke some joints in another and you will see the difference (well in the alcohol's case you may not remember...).

There is no valid reason to prohibit cannabis in a society that permits alcohol. Cannabis is less dangerous on single use (never heard about someone dying from an overdose, which can't be said for alcohol) and also less addicting.

Tobacco is a whole different thing. I have no problem with people who smoke, but fact is that smoking (in public places) influences others as well. So at that point the smoker's freedom interfere's with that of the bystanders, so I agree with banning it from those places.
But in private people should be allowed to use both tobacco and cannabis, it's a matter of personal freedom.
Once you make Cannabis legal, after some years when it comes part of normal life (Cannabis), and it is avaliable for regular smoking like Cigarretes, it is much much more harmful.
As said above that's not the case.
on "fatty foods":
There is a difference.
And that is???
It's unhealthy, so it should be banned (in your logic).
Much more people die from its effects than from those of drugs.
 
I have seen pot-heads my whole life, spare me your "studies', there is a real effect, and it isn't good.

Smoke of any kind damages your arteries, by making them shrink, and your subject to blockages that lead to strokes and heart attacks.

Pot also lessens your mental capacity, as does booze, which isn't good either, but that is already leagal, pot isn't, and I'll tell you something, only teens and people in their 20s favor it, as you grow older you realize drugs aern't so cool after all.
(there are exceptions, so don't bother listing some geezer who likes a buzz :rolleyes: )

It's too bad some countries are to stupid to see that, you can take a free society to far sometimes.
 
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I have seen pot-heads my whole life, spare me your "studies', there is a real effect, and it isn't good.
Of course there is an effect (what are people smoking that for after all...), the point is that it is far less harmful than that of alcohol and also that of tobacco.
Smoke of any kind damages your arteries, by making them shrink, and your subject to blockages that lead to strokes and heart attacks.
Tobacco has the far more severe impact here, of course that may be a problem if people consume cannabis together with tobacco, but that's not the only way to do it.
Pot also lessens your mental capacity, as does booze, which isn't good either, but that is already leagal, pot isn't
What kind of argument is that? Alcohol does much more damage to the brain than cannabis, in fact it is a very severe drug if taken excessively (but, contrary to cannabis, already in quite low regular use). If you think you have to protect people from themselves then do it consequently, ban alcohol.
Alcohol also makes agressive (leading to indirect damage), while cannabis archieves rather the opposite.
, and I'll tell you something, only teens and people in their 20s favor it, as you grow older you realize drugs aern't so cool after all.
(there are exceptions, so don't bother listing some geezer who likes a buzz :rolleyes: )
Favour what? Using drugs or legalizing cannabis? The first is certainly not true, most alcoholics are older than 30, and the second isn't true either, there's alot of support in all generations starting with that of around '67.
It's too bad some countries are to stupid to see that, you can take a free society to far sometimes.
Why? Holland has not more drug deaths than Northern Germany for example, two regions that are widely comparable considering demographics (and even geography), but just one has it legalized.
I think there has to be a good reason for taking personal freedoms away (or not granting them in the first place), and as long as alcohol and fatty foods are permitted the "danger to yourself" argument doesn't work for cannabis. Although it may be a danger it is not more than the others, which means it has to be legal.
 
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1770.a03.html
Newshawk: Australian Autohawk
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
Source: Otago Daily Times (New Zealand)
Copyright: Allied Press Limited, 2000
Contact: odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz
Address: P.O. Box 181, 52-66 Lower Stuart Street, Dunedin, New Zealand
Website: http://www2.odt.co.nz
Author: Allison Rudd


CANNABIS `BAD AS TOBACCO'

Smoking cannabis is as bad for your health as smoking tobacco, a major study carried out in Dunedin shows.

The study of 943 people, the first of its type in this country, showed long-term cannabis smoking is likely to produce similar health problems to tobacco smoking, including chronic bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer.

Health effects from smoking cannabis were noticeable even after only a few years' use, Associate Prof Robin Taylor, who headed the research project, said yesterday.

"This is information people need to know. There is a myth that smoking cannabis is cool but smoking tobacco is dirty, but both are dirty when it comes to their effects on your health."

Prof Taylor's Respiratory Research Group at the University of Otago's Multidisciplinary Health and Development Unit has been looking at all aspects of the health of a group of people since they were born. Members of the group are now aged 26 and were most recently surveyed last year.

Prof Taylor told the Otago Daily Times researchers were discussing the current Government sub-committee investigation into whether cannabis should be decriminalised in New Zealand and knew they had asked questions about cannabis smoking in their surveys.

They decided to analyse the 1994-95 data collected when the group was 21, as last year's data was not complete.

Prof Taylor said 28% of the study group member were tobacco smokers, 52% had used cannabis during the previous year and 9.7% were classified as cannabis dependent. That meant they smoked cannabis regularly - an average of five times a week - and structured their lifestyle to be able to buy and smoke the illegal drug.

"Wheezing, shortness of breath during exercise, and, most notably, early-morning coughing and sputum production were up to two and a-half times more frequent in cannabis-dependent subjects compared to non-smokers.

"Mild changes in lung function occurred in 20% of non-smokers due to asthma, whereas the figure for cannabis-dependent subjects was 36%. That outcome was similar to tobacco smokers smoking more than 20 cigarettes a day."

Prof Taylor said it was "striking" that the health effects of cannabis smoking were noticeable in 21-year-olds who had had a relatively brief exposure to the drug.

The study led researchers to "strongly endorse" warnings by the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand against both tobacco and marijuana smoking, Prof Taylor said.

The foundation would be making a submission against the decriminalisation of cannabis, based on the study.

Prof Taylor said he also hoped the Government would take note of the study.

"The Government has a good track record on smoke-free legislation. In my opinion, it would be peculiar if they did not consider the health effects of cannabis in their deliberations on whether to decriminalise it or not."


This is from the DEA ;) :

Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana
Marijuana: The Facts

Q: Does marijuana pose health risks to users?

Marijuana is an addictive drug1 with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use:


The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety2.


In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.


There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.


Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.


Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.3


Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system4 and raises the risk of lung infections.5 A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.6


Users can become dependent on marijuana to the point they must seek treatment to stop abusing it. In 1999, more than 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana abuse and dependence.


More teens are in treatment for marijuana use than for any other drug or for alcohol. Adolescent admissions to substance abuse facilities for marijuana grew from 43 percent of all adolescent admissions in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999.


Marijuana is much stronger now than it was decades ago. According to data from the Potency Monitoring Project at the University of Mississippi, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of commercial-grade marijuana rose from an average of 3.71 percent in 1985 to an average of 5.57 percent in 1998. The average THC content of U.S. produced sinsemilla increased from 3.2 percent in 1977 to 12.8 percent in 1997.7
Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?

Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.8


Advocates have promoted the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions such as glaucoma. However, this is a good example of more effective medicines already available. According to the Institute of Medicine, there are six classes of drugs and multiple surgical techniques that are available to treat glaucoma that effectively slow the progression of this disease by reducing high intraocular pressure.


In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems.9


In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites.10


The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.


The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.


As a result of such research, a synthetic THC drug, Marinol, has been available to the public since 1985. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that Marinol is safe, effective, and has therapeutic benefits for use as a treatment for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and as a treatment of weight loss in patients with AIDS. However, it does not produce the harmful health effects associated with smoking marijuana.


Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions.


It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, in January 2000. Responding to criticism from former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking-horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelman did not contradict General McCaffrey. "Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?" Mr. Nadelman said: "I hope so."
Q. Does marijuana harm anyone besides the individual who smokes it?

Consider the public safety of others when confronted with intoxicated drug users:


Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs on the road.11


In a 1990 report, the National Transportation Safety Board studied 182 fatal truck accidents. It found that just as many of the accidents were caused by drivers using marijuana as were caused by alcohol -- 12.5 percent in each case.


Consider also that drug use, including marijuana, contributes to crime. A large percentage of those arrested for crimes test positive for marijuana. Nationwide, 40 percent of adult males tested positive for marijuana at the time of their arrest.
Q. Is marijuana a gateway drug?

Yes. Among marijuana's most harmful consequences is its role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine. Long-term studies of students who use drugs show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana. While not all people who use marijuana go on to use other drugs, using marijuana sometimes lowers inhibitions about drug use and exposes users to a culture that encourages use of other drugs.


The risk of using cocaine has been estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.12
In Summary:

Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users.


Marijuana has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs.


Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like cocaine and heroin than non-marijuana users.


Drug legalizers use "medical marijuana" as red herring in effort to advocate broader legalization of drug use.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Herbert Kleber, Mitchell Rosenthal, "Drug Myths from Abroad: Leniency is Dangerous, not Compassionate" Foreign Affairs Magazine, September/October 1998. Drug Watch International "NIDA Director cites Studies that Marijuana is Addictive." "Research Finds Marijuana is Addictive," Washington Times, July 24, 1995.
2National Institue of Drug Abuse, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Phamacology, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Pharmacology Review.
3"Marijuana and Heart Attacks" Washington Post, March 3, 2000
4I. B. Adams and BR Martin, "Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans" Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996.
5National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections" NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.
6Dr. James Dobson, "Marijuana Can Cause Great Harm" Washington Times, February 23, 1999.
72000 National Drug Control Strategy Annual Report, page 13.
8"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, 1999.
9See footnotes in response to question 4 regarding marijuana's short and long term health effects.
10"Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study" The New York Times, May 13, 2001.
11Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.
12Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.


I'm not going to lay out opinions here, just show articles that are opposit to Hitro's researches.

Personally, I think that cigarettes should be outlawed in all public places as well.

About Alcohol, I have a different view on the issue.

Let's say that in the Alcohol family we have Light and Strong.
Beer, For example, is quite Light, while Vodka is strong.
When you drink beer, you are allowed to drink Vodka aswell.
So think that regulary, a while after Cannabis is allowed, other drugs will be allowed to because the crowd will be "softened".
The results would be disastrous.

And that is???
It's unhealthy, so it should be banned (in your logic).

It's food. All food is unhealthy, in one quantity or another.
Salt should be banned according to your logic, and Water also (Ever heard of water poisoning? When you drink too much water - You die).

But... If we go the other way, all drugs and all materials should be legalised, from Pot to Heroin.
 
When did drugs become a major problem?

When they made them illegal/ taxable in
the 1880s.

Blame yer government.
 
Back
Top Bottom