The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 35    Average: 3.6/5]
73 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6777
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 01/02/12 08:00 AM

73 Responses to Ron Paul Would Pardon Drug Users

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Link: Ron Paul Would Pardon Drug Users - All federally held non-violent drug users would be pardoned in a Paul presidency.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:05 am

    I do not believe in victimless crimes. If no one else is harmed, why is it illegal?
    Harming yourself should not be illege. It`s stupid, but you should be free to make your own choices. Smart or stupid, your choice.
  3. Profile photo of optix_reverb
    optix_reverb Male 18-29
    263 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:16 am
    right, like that`s going to happen even if he wins. Politicians have never lied to us before (cough,cough).
  4. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3290 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:17 am
    And that right there is the end of Ron Paul`s chance at becoming President.

    (Not that I agree or disagree. Just saying that there some things that will stop you from being President. Being an Atheist. Being Anti-Union. Being willing to pardon thousands of people. All of them will do it.)
  5. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:18 am
    Too bad this is about the only thing I agree with him on. Meanwhile, there are right-wing politicians who think the way to go is to build more prisons and privatize them to make a profit by arresting more drug users.
  6. Profile photo of drworm2002
    drworm2002 Male 30-39
    662 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:23 am
    @jtrebowski, I`m with you. Schools, Hospitals and Prisons should NEVER be run for profit. These are social programs that should be government run to give free service to the public. When I say free, I mean that they get money from our taxes. When you add "for profit" it ruins it.
  7. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:26 am

    @ Rick S - usually, I`d agree with you. But SSI used to be the 3rd Rail of politics. Mention cuts and your career got cut short. Now they are openly talking about getting rid of it so times have changed and who knows!?

    He`s bat poo crazy, but who knows!?
  8. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:31 am
    Ron Paul`s opinion on drugs is one of the only things I agree with him on.
  9. Profile photo of simbha
    simbha Male 30-39
    412 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:39 am
    @Gerry: I don`t disagree AT ALL - but, in a society, there are consequences even to personal actions.

    For example, a user of illicit drugs may require medical attention now or in the future, and that may be costly to the society if he/she can`t pay their own bill. Similarly, SOME (not all) illicit drugs do cause acute mental instability and may cause the individual to become violent towards others. Of course, what can be done about this is to understand that the violence itself is illegal - not the drug use (although the drug use may be considered as a contributing factor in the assessment of punishment).

    Having said all that, pot should not be illegal. Period.
  10. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:45 am
    @drworm and JT: I agree with you two 100%. The three most pernicious falsehoods in this country, fueled by corporate, billionaire, and right-wing think-tank propaganda, are as follows:

    (1) The magic hand of the free market will solve all problems.
    (2) Private enterprise can do everything and anything better than the government can.
    (3) The government is our enemy.

    Will Durant said "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within." And these three falsehoods are doing untold damage.
  11. Profile photo of nubblins
    nubblins Female 18-29
    1743 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:47 am
    I don`t care how much you post about him on IAB, I`m not voting for Paul.
  12. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:56 am
    Domestic: Fracken awesome.
    Foreign Policy: Suuuuuuuucks.
  13. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:59 am
    First off, People don`t go to prison for under an ounce of marijuana, they get fined. The people in prison for `drug crimes` are the distributors, transporters, and the drug king pins.

    Ron Paul is an anarchist, I`ve said this multiple times and I`m sticking to my guns on it. Not because he thinks he is, but because his policies would lead to anarchy on our city streets.

    He`s just said he would release 100`s of thousands of prisoners, many of whom are now habituated and hardened thugs, onto the streets all at once.

    That would be totally disastrous for American society, and I`ll give an example. Castro emptied his prisons back in 1980 and sent them away to America. Known as the Mariel boatlift, and over 120 thousand Cubans were accepted as exiles.

    That lead to riots and an crime wave so epic that movies were made about it.

    Does Paul think we are stupid enough to want that to happen again ?
  14. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3290 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 9:56 am
    @CrakrJak, I think you missed the point where he said that he would only release people who were currently non-violent. I know he didn`t say it directly, but he`s clearly not talking about a blanket pardon. He`s clearly talking about a case by case pardon.

    Again, not saying doing so is right or wrong, just trying to be clear about what he`s saying.

    Also not saying that what you see as the end result of these pardons is not what will happen.
  15. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
    @CrakrJak

    WRONG! The entire was clearly referring to people who were in jail for specifically non-violent drug-related incidents. That would include some distributors, but no one convicted of a violent crime. Secondly yes there will be >short-term< disruptions in American society but it will never be doomsday for American.

    Ron Paul is an anarchist, I`ve said this multiple times and I`m sticking to my guns on it.

    ...or you just hate the notion that he`s more fiscally conservative then you are.

  16. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:03 am
    Crakr:

    Anarchists and libertarians are two very different things. You seem to be conservative in your other posts, but conservatives are almost as bad as liberals insomuch as government is concerned. Get the government OUT of our lives except where it is constitutionally allowed in order to maintain liberty and property rights.

    I don`t care if he pardons the marijuana users. Make it just a fine if you get caught smoking it. Any drug harder than that, though, and it should be given some serious thought before you just turn them loose.
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
    Does Paul think we are stupid enough to want that to happen again ?

    Actually Ron Paul knows we`re not stupid enough to let the status quo continue.
  18. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:31 am
    "I don`t care if he pardons the marijuana users. Make it just a fine if you get caught smoking it."

    Just curious, why should there be a fine? Should there be a fine for smoking cigarettes, too?
  19. Profile photo of helix25
    helix25 Male 18-29
    165 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:40 am
    People`s lack of education in regards to Marijuana (such as FoSchizle`s) desolates me. When making your argument, please include arguments. Thanks.
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:44 am
    Cajun: Just because those drug criminals weren`t convicted of a violent crime, doesn`t mean they haven`t committed violent crimes.

    Remember Al Capone was convicted of Tax Evasion, not on any of the dozens of violent crimes he ordered done or committed himself.
  21. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Cajun - "Just because those drug criminals weren`t convicted of a violent crime, doesn`t mean they haven`t committed violent crimes."

    Dude! That is the dumbest thing you have ever said here. And based on that logic, just because I had a beer in my living room doesn`t mean I haven`t been drunk driving for years...

    How much Pre-Crime do you want to convict people for? Just because your last sexual partner was of age, doesn`t mean you haven`t f#cked a 12 year old.

    Need I go on?
  22. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 11:34 am
    simbha - "a user of illicit drugs may require medical attention now or in the future, and that may be costly to the society if he/she can`t pay their own bill."
    I understand what you`re saying, but that appies to EVERYTHING. A driver of a car may get into an accident and not have enough insurance to cover his medical costs.

    A person eating french fries may suffer clogged arteries and can`t afford the medical bill.

    Everything we do has some effect on society. Are you in favor of outlawing french fries and putting Fry Users in prison too? A college kid goes to jail for smoking pot. That is NOT a threat to society even if it is illegal.

    No victim = No crime.
  23. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 11:37 am
    Legalise drugs, it`s the only realistic solution. It would save lot`s of money and lives if it was a controlled industry like alcohol and tobacco.
  24. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 11:44 am
    CJ, You gotta know your politics are whacked if you`re being called out `em by Gerry1of1. Time to check with a therapist.
  25. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    Uhh Gerry

    Cajun - "Just because those drug criminals weren`t convicted of a violent crime, doesn`t mean they haven`t committed violent crimes."


    2 things:
    1)CrakrJak wrote that not me
    2)I agree with the logic of your rebuttal nonetheless
  26. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    @CrakrJak

    Furthermore CrakrJak you prefer condemn all the ones who haven`t commited a violent crime, just to keep the bad apples in jail? How extremist, and as a staunch fiscal conservative I`d like to point out that jail time costs a lot of money.
  27. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    Even more reasons to agree with Ron Paul
  28. Profile photo of helix25
    helix25 Male 18-29
    165 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    I`m going to remain neutral in regards to other drugs. However Marijuana being a schedule I drug is simply ridiculous and unfounded. What is way beyond me is how people are ready to criticize MJ users when alcohol and cigarettes are far more dangerous. I`m really eager to hear FoSchizle`s grounds to fine MJ smokers.
  29. Profile photo of nubblins
    nubblins Female 18-29
    1743 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    I don`t believe drug dealers and crack addicts should be on the streets, but that`s my opinion. People do crazy stuff when they`re addicted.
  30. Profile photo of MrOrange
    MrOrange Male 30-39
    2402 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    "Cajun: Just because those drug criminals weren`t convicted of a violent crime, doesn`t mean they haven`t committed violent crimes."

    i think you cracked jack, you should be voting for Obama. It is innocent till proven guilty, if the goverment can`t do it`s job the answer is not lock up people, you get a better goverment.
  31. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    I was curious how many pardon`s this would include.

    No joke, approximately 50% of federal prison inmates are there on drug related charges. That`s upwards of 100k individuals. Not some small number here.

    http://tinyurl.com/bpvvjtm

    Keep in mind federal prisons only account for about an eighth of the total prison population.
  32. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    @ Cajun, sorry, I thought Crakr was quoting you.

    @ Crakr, read what I said.

    @ nubblins, yes, people on drugs do crazy things. People on alcohol do crazy things too but we saw what happened when that was outlawed. Prohibition does not work, no matter what the substance.
  33. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    Cajun: There are quite a few people in prison for crimes considered to be `non-violent`, hell even a murder can be `non-violent`, kidnapping could be `non-violent`, a bank robbery could be `non-violent`, It all depends on the details of each case.

    Beyond that prison time can take even `non-violent` offenders and change them into potentially violent ones.
  34. Profile photo of simbha
    simbha Male 30-39
    412 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    @Gerry: I`m just responding to point out that we`re on the same side of this issue. What should be illegal are actions that directly impact other people (including conscious acts of threat to do so).

    All I`m saying is that, in some cases, drugs can have a direct, negative effect on the person`s actions. In those cases, I am in favor of allowing the drug use to be considered as an elevating factor in the action or behavior. It`s not that different from considering the use of a vehicle or a gun when committing murder or manslaughter. In the case of drugs, however, they can directly impact the person`s cognizance of their own actions AT THE TIME of the incident. When this occurs, I think we (society) should consider the person`s state of mind when they took the drug itself - not when they committed the criminal act. In other words, if you take a drug and become psychotic as a result - then kill someone... The psychosis itself should not be able to be used as an affirmative defen
  35. Profile photo of whipplefunk
    whipplefunk Male 30-39
    1070 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    They do that overseas in countries that usually score in the top 10 in "happiest countries". strange no?
  36. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    There are quite a few people in prison for crimes considered to be `non-violent`, hell even a murder can be `non-violent`, kidnapping could be `non-violent`, a bank robbery could be `non-violent`, It all depends on the details of each case.



    Dude seriously ANY crime "against the person" is violent (excluding selling drugs).
  37. Profile photo of Mogulman
    Mogulman Male 18-29
    295 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    This guy gets nuttier every day.
  38. Profile photo of mcboozerilla
    mcboozerilla Male 30-39
    646 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    And how does he propose to cure drug addicts? Hope and whistles?
  39. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    Cajun: Would you consider a Pharmacist that sells fake or poisoned drugs to be a `violent` crime then ?

    I mean that would be a crime "against the person", right ?

    If so then tell me how a drug pusher is any different, he`s selling narcotics, which are toxic (aka poisonous) to the human body ?
  40. Profile photo of Jokee
    Jokee Male 18-29
    23 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    Holding someone in a cell does not cure drug addicts either. If anything, it makes them worse. When you put someone in jail with the worst criminals(murderers, rapists, violent people) for years, you can`t expect them to come out cure from drugs and as a functioning member of society.
  41. Profile photo of houtex
    houtex Male 40-49
    61 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    I just *LOVE* out of context/cut up clips to prove something odd... here`s the full clip:

    http://tinyurl.com/7dl6eqy

    This clip starts at about the 9 minute mark and continuing to the end of the interview, there is *WAY* more than just `let em out`, and I`ll let you watch to learn more about what is really meant by this.

    I agree to a certain point, but... it sets a really bad precedent, but there`s already a precendent for alcohol... the possesion and use of that means nothing itself. If you *cause* bad things because of it, then your ass goes to jail, and good riddance.
  42. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 7:50 pm
    CrakrJak, there`s a difference between misleading people (by selling them a fake or poisoned version of a real product) and selling them something they know is harmful for them but want anyway (after all, it`s legal to sell cigarettes and alcohol).
  43. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33085 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:33 pm
    Ending the "war on drugs" sounds good! Reagan`s worst policy, IMO.
    The last 3 Presidents were druggies at one point or another.

    Clinton: I didn`t inhale!
    Bush: I did drugs, but I was stoned at the time.
    Obama: Yeah I inhaled, that`s the point!

    So filling the prisons with pot-heads, and letting hard-core criminals out because of that? BAD idea.
  44. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm
    "This guy gets nuttier every day."

    "And how does he propose to cure drug addicts? Hope and whistles?"

    "If so then tell me how a drug pusher is any different, he`s selling narcotics, which are toxic (aka poisonous) to the human body ? "

    What the hell?? Can someone tell me where the F*CK these morons are coming from???
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 12:01 am
    LillianDulci: You do know that drugs are `Cut` with many substances that are even more toxic than the drug itself, right ? The drug pusher can mislead people and doesn`t care if you get sick, you can`t call the FDA or police on them, or sue them.

    ..selling them something they know is harmful for them

    Then you are admitting that the drugs, being sold, are harmful and that it creates victims.
    Not only is the addict a victim, but also the people around them are victimized as well.
  46. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:02 am
    drug use done in a person`s home without harming another in a system where a person can legally obtain drugs (AKA much less drug related crime) is that person`s business and the gov should mind it`s own damn business.

    ron pual is awesome!

    and no i dont use but i could care less if someone else does.
  47. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:06 am
    Would you consider a Pharmacist that sells fake or poisoned drugs to be a `violent` crime then ?

    Caveat emptor, no one needs such a transaction to be criminalized as anyone can take such a pharmacist to court and ask for punitive damages. Nonetheless if the buyer`s a victim he`s a victim of his own choice.
  48. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:10 am
    Then you are admitting that the drugs, being sold, are harmful and that it creates victims.
    Not only is the addict a victim, but also the people around them are victimized as well.

    No more than legal drugs like oxycotin does, and if you harm people because of your drug use than it`s your fault and your fault only.
  49. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:19 am
    So ultimately Crakr it`s the fact that the buyer AGREED to be poisoned it`s not a crime against the person. If the distributor forced those drugs, overt or covertly, into that person`s body than the distributor`s not a seller rather a criminal. The distributor is a seller so long as he/she gives what is expected freeing him from any liability.
  50. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:32 am
    Cajun: if you harm people because of your drug use than it`s your fault and your fault only.

    That`s a cop out, If someone illegally sells you a poison that you use to kill your family, they are at fault too, they`ve knowingly aided the crime. Even if you only kill yourself with the poison that person has aided your suicide.

    Michael Jackson`s doctor was just convicted of similar charges and that occurred using a legal drug.

    no one needs such a transaction to be criminalized as anyone can take such a pharmacist to court and ask for punitive damages.

    That didn`t answer the question, I said, "Would you consider a Pharmacist that sells fake or poisoned drugs to be a `violent` crime then ?"

    You couldn`t answer too whether or not it was a `violent` crime, either that or you didn`t want to answer it and decided to deflect it because you know I`m right.
  51. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:35 am
    Cajun: The drug pusher is not free from liability even if he sells exactly what it expected of him, any more than someone that sells C4 to a terrorist.
  52. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 3:56 am
    You couldn`t answer too whether or not it was a `violent` crime, either that or you didn`t want to answer it and decided to deflect it because you know I`m right.

    No deflection it`s not a violent crime, don`t be dense.

    Michael Jackson`s doctor was just convicted of similar charges and that occurred using a legal drug.

    As much as I like his music it was Jackson`s fault for not getting a second opinion and the help he really needed.

    That`s a cop out, If someone illegally sells you a poison that you use to kill your family, they are at fault too, they`ve knowingly aided the crime. Even if you only kill yourself with the poison that person has aided your suicide.

    Wrong-he is only an accessory if he knew what the buyer`s intentions were.


  53. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 3:59 am
    any more than someone that sells C4 to a terrorist.

    So all distributors of explosives are an accessory by default? I`m shocked.
  54. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 6:48 am

    CrakrJ - "the drugs, being sold, are harmful and that it creates victims"
    Though in favor of legalizing drugs, I agree using them is stupid. You have the right to make your own choices, even stupid ones. But if you buy the stuff, you are not a victim you are a volunteer!

    Are smokers "victims" ?
    Are people having a glass of wine "victims"?
    People who eat butter?

    This "I`m a victim" mentality is part of the problem in the USA and I`m surprised you are buying into it, even a little. No one forced the guy to smoke the joint. No one forced the obese guy to super size his fries. No one made the drunk guy drink too much. We make our own choices and we`re not "victims".
  55. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36834 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 6:48 am

    @ CrakrJack

    P.S. Pot is not harmful.
  56. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 7:06 am
    Lastly Crakr when you say "You know I`m right" it only affirms to me that you`ve already made up your mind whether you`re right or wrong. Either way it makes me doubt your impartiality.
  57. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 8:04 am
    What I find funny is that all of you are arguing about this when Ron Paul never said he would. If you listen at the end he says "They should be pardoned." I don`t think he even said he WOULD pardon them.
  58. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 8:06 am
    ...Unless you count the "yeah"s, but I think he was merely agreeing that they should be.
  59. Profile photo of InTheNameOf
    InTheNameOf Male 30-39
    335 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    CrakrJ - "the drugs, being sold, are harmful and that it creates victims"

    Cheeseburgers cause more harm than pot....should we enforce a fast food prohibition too? If there was any freedom left in america it would be the right to choose what I put inside my own body. and I am a pretty pretty little girl you to anybody who tries to tell me otherwise. I`ll live my life and you live yours.
  60. Profile photo of InTheNameOf
    InTheNameOf Male 30-39
    335 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    IAB autotranslation: "I am a pretty pretty little girl"


    WTF is this poo?
  61. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    Gerry: Cigs and Wine come with warning labels and are only sold to those of legal age to buy them, they are also inspected by the FDA.

    Those baggies of pot, or other drugs, don`t have any of that.

    InTheNameof: "In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs` exposure to carcinogenic smoke." - NIDA
  62. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    InTheNameof: "In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs` exposure to carcinogenic smoke." - NIDA

    You`re quoting the NIDA? LOL That`s ridiculous. Have you actually read their website? I assume so because it`s the type of bias you like. It uses asinine "testimonials", and claims to give access to "the most recent science", yet don`t ever cite any sources except survey information, which is BS, not real science. Find me the original paper, not some unreferenced spin doctor`s version. You made the quote, your burden of proof.
  63. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    patchgrabber: The NIDA gives a lot of sources and references like this, Smoked Marijuana as a Cause of Lung Injury

    Just to name one of the many from the earlier link I posted, So either you`re a liar or are trolling.
  64. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm
    @CrakrJak

    I see that your paper relies heavily on surveys and questionnaires. So it`s one big cum hoc ergo fallacy.
  65. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    Those baggies of pot, or other drugs, don`t have any of that.

    Of course they don`t because the federal government bans them, creating a black market for the substance.
  66. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 6:54 am
    Crakr: That paper doesn`t really say anything useful. It just says that long-term smoking will cause inflammation and chronic cough...duh it`s smoke. The paper itself says that there is no evidence that it even causes cancer, so there`s that too. Also, what the NIDA conveniently omits are the scientific papers describing how marijuana has been found to halt growth or even reduce brain tumours in rats, while at the same time they prohibit any research they don`t like since they have a monopoly on gov`t grown marijuana. They also conveniently exclude other forms of inhalation, such as bongs and especially vaporizers, which produce the vapours, not smoke. Read up on vaporizers and you`ll see that the toxic compounds aren`t inhaled because there is no combustion.
  67. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 8:22 am
    Cajun: How else is a scientific `study` on humans to be made without asking some questions ?

    Seriously, are they supposed to start doing elective exploratory surgery on pot smokers to check their lungs ?

    patchgrabber: Do you seriously think the NIDA is conspiring to keep all the pot to themselves ?
    LOL, that sounds just like the paranoia I`d expect from a pot head.
  68. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 8:38 am
    @Crakr: It`s no secret that the NIDA has a government granted monopoly on government grown marijuana for research purposes. In fact, marijuana is the ONLY schedule 1 drug they have a monopoly over. Private companies can make MDMA, heroin, LSD, cocaine etc. so why is marijuana the only dark horse? The NIDA along with the DEA block all attempts at marijuana research that include studying vaporizers, as well as delaying or denying requests for marijuana to be used in research for years.
  69. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 8:47 am
    ..And it`s not conspiracy, they admitted it themselves: “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use,” said Shirley Simson, a spokeswoman for the drug abuse institute, known as NIDA. “We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
  70. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 8:57 am
    Seriously, are they supposed to start doing elective exploratory surgery on pot smokers to check their lungs ?

    That or some form of in vitro tests. I`d also like to point out that you`ve shifted the argument.
  71. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 4, 2012 at 9:01 am
    I`d also like to point out that you`ve shifted the argument.

    I`ve been pointing that out to him for weeks. Any time he`s losing an argument he resorts to his red herring strategy.
  72. Profile photo of LastJuggalo
    LastJuggalo Female 18-29
    212 posts
    January 5, 2012 at 6:50 am
    And felons can`t vote . . . It`s a conspiracy, I tell you!
  73. Profile photo of PhotoKing
    PhotoKing Male 30-39
    526 posts
    January 6, 2012 at 3:28 pm
    it makes sense to do so, but just keep in the ones that sell the drugs.

Leave a Reply