Sorry, I don't like it. And I'm not moving the fuck anywhere. YOUR country? YOU own it? Since when?

The only (big and extremely ignorant) reason America as a whole does not want it legal is because they've been brainwashed into thinking it's BAD! It's of the devil. It will make you a crazy person, wanting to rape and kill!

Do you know how many people die a year from alcohol? 125,000+! And it's legal. And addictive!

Do you know how many die a year from smoking weed? 0! And it's not legal. And non-addictive. What's wrong with this picture?

Here's some numbers for you to chew on Mr. Owner of America:

Deaths per year from:
Tobacco=340,000-395,000
Alcohol (not including accidents)=125,000+
Drug overdose (prescription)=14,000-27,000
Drug overdose (illegal)=3,800-5,200
Marijuana=0

You also cannot get lung cancer from smoking it. It has been proven to block Alzheimer's disease. It helps cancer patients with their appetites after chemo. It helps with pain, sleeping disorders, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Now, put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!!

>> ^jmd:
I love all the people who think it would be a good thing if it were legal.
Heres a big reason why pot does not get legalized... America as a whole does not WANT IT!
I'll admit that it has medicine properties that can be used for people whos health is failing, but what we don't want, don't need is another cigarette. We don't need people polluting the air we breath any more then it already is. We don't need people impairing themselves while they are around us. It is a demonstrated fact that most people in this world are idiot incapable of making wise decisions day to day. Adding another weapon to their arsenal to screw with my life is not something I am gonna run right out and sign on.
If you dont like it...move the f out of my country!

Nice title. I think it's good advice for everything ever.

"Smoking Causes Lung Cancer? Listen to the Scientists."
"Global Warming? Listen to the Scientists."

In modern times, the view of scientists in the field represent the best opinion possible based on man kind's current knowledge.

Sometimes it'd difficult for some people to figure out which side is actually the scientists, and which side is the <1% of scientists backed by propaganda and political pressure. It's not that hard though.

>> ^ElJardinero:
Free healthcare for all isn't socialism, it's called "sticking together". Where I live you pay the same amount for a strained knee, brain cancer e.t.c. , 30-40 dollars I think. No insurance needed, just being a citizen.


There's no such thing as a free lunch. Want to work for me for free? Didn't think so. Socialist health care is paid by taxes (nominal appropriations) and inflation (wage and savings value appropriations). Those are both forced methods of payment, there's no opting out.

Say, for example, your neighbor decides to smoke his whole life. He comes down with lung cancer and undergoes numerous operations, receives numerous drugs and therapy, all totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now let's take several people who paid the same amount into the system and got nothing because they never smoked. Those people effectively paid for his costs. A complete transfer of wealth, despite having no control over that person's personal decisions. Money that could have gone to a better home for themselves, another child for themselves, better food for themselves. Gone, given to the guy who smoked under the idealistic notion of coerced charity for the public good.

In fact, if everything were provided to you based on other people's money, why would you work at all? And if people don't work, where does the money come from? Now you now why the USSR fell and every other country who became too socialist. When you have an incentive model that says, no matter how hard you work, you're gauranteed the same share as the next guy, why excel? Or no matter how many risks you take with your health of your own volition, you will be subsidized by others who didn't. It completely perverts incentive.

In capitalism, on the other hand, where money is market determined (gold), and you have no central bank price fixing interest rates, and government is only funded to the extent that it protects rights and offers courts, people just... trade with one another with the effect of benefiting both parties. Two people acting in their own self-interest will make mutually beneficial trades even if they were only thinking of their own welfare.

>> ^MINK:
socialism is just a word.
america is not a word, neither was the USSR, nor is Sweden. you're all arguing about a word ffs.
I guess Obama is trying to distance himself from the word because it was subverted by fucking idiots for 100 years.
I repeat... if you are not a socialist, what are you? Antisocialist?


Socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism. Socialism is the percentage of capital controlled "communally" via the government. Capitalism is the percentage of capital controlled by its earner. We are probably 60% socialist at the moment, and it should be around 10%.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Aha! You feel that the role of government is solely to protect the individual, while I feel that the purpose is not even individuals first, it is the community first. Its a huge philosophical difference, and I can see now why we disagree so strongly about what Bill was talking about.

Precisely. I derive my entire philosophy from "the right to life" (defined in my bio)--be it my stance on free market economics or my stance on a limited government and voluntary taxation. So at its core, that is the fundamental difference between our viewpoints.

A problem facing a community naturally requires a community's choice (investing collected funds into updating national power grids), while a problem facing an individual requires an individual's choice (changing from Duke-Cinergy to Green Mountain Energy).

So given that statement, I can see why you are placing an emphasis on the community--but how does that mesh with individual rights in cases where the community at large is not involved? Or is this bypassed by the notion that rights must always be an agreement between two men (and thus always form a community, in effect)?

You give the role of delivering justice to the group of individuals,... a strict individualist would argue that laws would naturally be a byproduct of a free market.
I am a strict individualist, but I derive it the other way around--I view the free market as being a byproduct of individual rights. That is, each person's individual right to choose to buy and sell goods, and thus enter into voluntary cooperation and trade with others is what forms for basis of the free market. Likewise, laws are derived from the principle of individual rights which forbids the initiation of physical force on others (theft, fraud, assault, murder, vandalism).

You concede your point here, as you recognize that individual human beings will make choices that contradict what other individuals may otherwise prefer happen and see how a group of individuals can sort out these problems without waiting for the problem to become economically problematic to the individuals causing a ruckus. You go so far as to say that the group of individuals restricting the amount of smog a power plant can put out to 'dirty your shirt' (which I read as "poison your lungs and environment") is compatible with a free market economy! BUT, for whatever reason that is as far as you're willing to recognize that we are a group of a few hundred million people with a shared problem that should be solved with shared solutions.

You are correct in your interpretation of the phrase "dirty your shirt". If you look at pollution from the perspective of individual rights, you see that one group is initiating force on another--that is, they are imposing costs (lung cancer, dirty shirts, etc.) which both parties did not agree to. Now, normally when one person initiates force on another they would take it to court, but it is almost impossible to determine just who is affected and to what extent by a company emitting pollution 10, 100, or even 1000 miles away. Nor is to practical to have millions of people filing civil suits for impossible-to-determine sums against each polluter. For this reason, it becomes necessary for the government to impose the costs directly when and where they are emitted--hence my suggestion of an effluent tax. However, as with the cases above the basis for this is in an individual's "right to life."


Again, my take-home-point here was that a free market economy is how a group of individuals chooses to engage in trade;

I agree with you there

its not the United Free Market of America, we are more than our goods and services, we are more than our laws, we are more than our individuals, we are a community of individuals who agree to be governed by very specific rules and regulations, agreed upon locally by vote or by representatives of sub-communities, and more broadly by general rules set forth a few hundred years ago by some rather spectacular community representatives.

I think I agree here, but I am a little confused. In the system I envision there would still be congress, a president, and a judicial system. There would still be a national defense, fire fighters, police force, and legal system. Fraud, theft, rape, murder, vandalism, and assault would all be illegal and strictly enforced. However, the distinction I make is that the government has no right to initiate the use of force--only to respond to the initiation of the use of force (e.g. arresting a burglar). I agree there is a role for government, and even a role for government in the market--but I firmly believe that no human, government official or otherwise, has the right to initiate force against another human.

hey ox.
The ones with the black box are not posters - they are on the back of the cigarette pack. (haven´t affected sales, it seems)

Once I saw a person buying cigs, and he got the one with the impotence message. He said to the vendor: Hey, don´t give me impotence, I prefer the one that causes lung cancer.

unlike the US, brazilians can get their Marlboros for nearly a dollar.
And whenever taxes go up, smuggling from Paraguay goes skyhigh.

>> ^schmawy:
>> ^spoco2:
you becoming a burden on the rest of us when you're dying of cancer... thanks for that.

Oh us smokers aren't really a burden, Spoco. We pay 10-15 cents per butt, an enourmous tax contribution that far outstrips our burden on the health care system. If you want to take that tack, I'd go after fat. Us smokers get lung cancer which most often rapidly metastasizes into brain cancer. Takes a couple of months and then it's just the cost of a hole in the ground. Sedentary individuals with high fat and calorie intakes get sick and struggle on for years 'burdening' you. You should thank smokers for their tax contributions, their quick expiration, and the fact that they make everyone else feel do damn superior.


It's a high tax as well it should be, the money (at least here in Australia) gets used for campaigns to try to inform people as to the dangers of starting smoking, the benefits of quitting, and the harm on others (I cry a little inside when I see mothers smoking over their prams containing their babies), and then also the care and respite for those who die from the myriad of diseases. In this 1992 report (just one of the early links I came across) from Australia, the cost on the country is calculated at 10 times the amount actually collected via tax from cigarettes, so don't go assuming that what you pay for your fags absolves you from any and all costs associated with your eventual disease and death. Plus also, it's not just a monitory game, it's all about quality of life, why would you intentionally kill yourself, the effect on others etc. etc. etc.

And yes those that become obese through laziness and terrible food do fit into a similar bucket, but it differs in that most get that way gradually through eating a bit too much over and over. Eating is something we do NEED to survive, eating badly is something that people really need to work at, absolutely, but eating is beneficial and necessary for us to live. Smoking has ZERO benefits at all, there is NO good reason AT ALL to start... or for that matter continue.

>> ^spoco2:
you becoming a burden on the rest of us when you're dying of cancer... thanks for that.


Oh us smokers aren't really a burden, Spoco. We pay 10-15 cents per butt, an enourmous tax contribution that far outstrips our burden on the health care system. If you want to take that tack, I'd go after fat. Us smokers get lung cancer which most often rapidly metastasizes into brain cancer. Takes a couple of months and then it's just the cost of a hole in the ground. Sedentary individuals with high fat and calorie intakes get sick and struggle on for years 'burdening' you. You should thank smokers for their tax contributions, their quick expiration, and the fact that they make everyone else feel do damn superior.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Edit: Their total fossil fuel emissions map almost looks exactly like this one: Lung cancer by state With the exception of California, (Thanks Santa Ana winds!) Surprise surprise.


Actually, it looks quite different. Notice the emissions in Washington, Nevada, and Oregon, then compare to Wisconsin and Minnesota. I get where you're going here, but it doesn't seem to be a strong correlation to me.

I am surprised how little LA has, considering how a few years back there used to be smog alerts.

Utah has the lowest lung cancer rate in the US.. but noooo that comes from smoking doesn't it? *snicker

Edit: Their total fossil fuel emissions map almost looks exactly like this one: Lung cancer by state With the exception of California, (Thanks Santa Ana winds!) Surprise surprise.

*clap clap clap*

By the way, I loved your "Anesthetist's Hymn" sift. I was watching it, then looked at your username, then looked at the sift, then looked at your name, and said, "OHHHHHHH...."

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

Mais oui! C'est Gauloises! Only real men smoke these and French inhale as well. Picasso, Orwell, Sarte, and Bond, James Bond. I've tried 'em. I think lung cancer may still be in my future from these things and I haven't touched one for 20 years. Potent stuff!

Yul Brenner, was not gay....he died of Lung Cancer
Roman Polanski??? Now there's an asshole for ya.....

The leading causes of death in the U.S. as cited by governmental agencies such as the The National Center for Health Statistics show heart disease, cancer, stroke (cerebrovascular diseases) and chronic lower respiratory diseases as the leading four causes of death. Accidents, including automobile accidents, come in fifth.

See - http://thecommunityguide.org/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Chronic lower respiratory diseases in particular are highly correlated with cigarette smoking. Heart disease is radically impacted by smoking. Then of course there's lung cancer.

"In the United States, cigarette smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually, or about 438,000 deaths per year." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See - http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

According to The National Safety Council, the number of all motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. in 2003 was 44,757.

See - http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

The health care costs associated with cigarette smoking are enormous.

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]