Video: FBI director, Congressman spar on “gateway drug”
posted at 7:10 pm on May 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I got this over the weekend, but I’m not sure it’s the smackdown it’s cracked up to be. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) grills FBI Director Robert Mueller on marijuana enforcement, and I’d normally be sympathetic to Cohen’s position, but Cohen isn’t arguing here; he’s pontificating, and without much evidence either way. The clip purports to show Mueller getting “schooled” on legalization, but it’s the most fact-deficient education outside of the Taliban School for Girls. See what you make of this:
If I wanted to argue this point, I would have asked Mueller whether alcohol use preceded marijuana use in these teen drug deaths, which is almost always the case, and then made the point that we don’t ban alcohol because it’s generally not toxic and adults can use it responsibly. Marijuana is even less toxic than alcohol, and its widespread (if illicit) use demonstrates that most adults can handle it responsibly, too. That’s not the case with cocaine, crystal meth, etc.
Of course, that assumes Cohen wanted to actually make an argument at least somewhat more intelligent than claiming milk is a gateway drug to beer. Maybe Cohen just wanted to get on YouTube waving his hand around. Live the dream, baby ….
Update: I had the wrong party on Cohen, who is a Democrat — which I knew, but for some reason put at R next to his name.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
exactly. not to mention tobacco…
homesickamerican on May 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM
FALSE – Stoners are called stoners for a reason.
corona on May 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Hey, this could be fun, a second ‘legalization’ thread in one week. Reefer Madness!!
trailboss on May 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I’m glad that they are having this debate. . . but the issue is one of causality when discussing ‘gateway drug’ issues.
They assume that when someone uses marijuana, that act in and of itself lends its way to using more harsh drugs.
Using marijuana therefore ’causes’ use of harder drugs.
You could just as easily argue that the criminalization of the drug ’causes’ the leap more than the actual USE of the drug. Why? Because in order to use marijuana, you already have to become a criminal and be involved in the criminal side of society.
There is a smaller leap from criminal to criminal than from legal to criminal. I’d argue that the criminality of marijuana that causes it to be a ‘gateway drug’ to the rest of the illegal drugs.
a poor argument. . . but I’m glad they are discussing it. It’s about freedom. . . something gay people have, but people who smoke weed don’t.
ThackerAgency on May 26, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Hot Air’s selfish authoritarians speaking out of their rear ends in 3…2..1..
Oh, I see “corona” beat me to it.
Dr. Manhattan on May 26, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Here come the libertarians…
Joe Caps on May 26, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Quit harshing my mellow bra
Joe Caps on May 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I dont need the government to tell me how to conduct myself. If I want to get stoned,empty the contents of the refridgerator, and drive 15mph in a 40 zone, It’s my perogative to do so , provided I do no harm to anyone else in the process.
Our Government might do well to tax marijuana, use the proceeds to wipe out chrystal meth and a variety of other really harmful substances. I think meth is a much bigger problem than anybody realizes, from exploding houses to countless worthless addicts with missing teeth.
Let’s put our resources to good use!
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 7:29 PM
There must be 50 ways to make mj stronger than the gov’ment taxed version would be… Way stronger. Just saying…
RalphyBoy on May 26, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I didn’t inhale.
davidk on May 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM
maybe we should just legalize drugs that are good for ya…steroids, testosterone…growth hormone…
it did wonders for BARRY BONDS!!!
right4life on May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM
government weed is rumored to be extremely potent, not that I would know….
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM
alcohol kills who knows how many people a year and yet is legal.
tobacco kills who knows how many people a year and yet is legal.
i am still waiting for someone to give me a logical, objective argument why those two should be legal and pot shouldn’t. i mean an argument that is based on FACT, not on ad hominem nonsense (see corona above and others who will doubtless be following here) and not on anecdotal evidence about your loser brother-in-law or someone else you know who started on pot and is now a heroin junkie.
homesickamerican on May 26, 2009 at 7:33 PM
You can’t really compare alcohol to drugs like pot on the basis of toxicity for remaining illegal.
There is zero applicable comparison of the two, as far as it being feasible to use alcohol as a model for integrating it into society and somehow reaping some type of social benefit from it. You can’t tax it in any comprehensive way that would yield tax dollar base. Like a dollar, it fungible. You can’t tell one from the other. It can’t be tracked.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 7:35 PM
ummmm,ummmmm,well..munchies lead to higher rates of ummm fatness, yea yea , and ummm tooth decay, ’cause i had to use my toothbrush to clean out my bowl, and now i cant find it,ummm ummm oh yea, i almost forgot, it leads to umm global warming , because like , you can get the really good sh!t and like, drive around aimlessly for hours, and the like causes pollution and stuff, but then it was really like only 10 minutes, and then you start laughing and stuff which makes like more co2….
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Yes MJ is a gateway drug but so is booze.
Booze is less of a gateway drug because it is legal. If pot was legal you would have to get it on the black market, often from a guy that also sells coke and stuff.
We have to go Roman on meth, coke and Smack but just freekin stop the silly pot ban.
TheSitRep on May 26, 2009 at 7:39 PM
He might have some credibility if the current system was working in even the most rudimentary way. This is just hard headedness. These guys have had their turn and failed in every measure. Time for a new approach.
ronsfi on May 26, 2009 at 7:39 PM
wouldn’t
TheSitRep on May 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM
(cough) g13 (cough) If you can find me some, I’ll pay close to anything for it.
ThackerAgency on May 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM
ok. you’ve convinced me!
now there’s some logic and common sense! but don’t forget heroin (to “get roman on”; not to legalize).
homesickamerican on May 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Back in the day, i had the opportunity to indulge in the G-14, out of the Univ. of Miss., prescribed to one of the 7 people legally receiving it from the Fed.
It really wasn’t all that good. It wasn’t bad, mind you, but I’ve had scores of better strains off the street. Alaska’s Mantanuska Valley Thunderf**k put it to shame.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 7:43 PM
G-13, that is.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM
White widow?? Would you like me to pick you up some when I’m in Amsterdam in a few weeks?
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Alaska had some of the best bud I ever smoked. Of course, it was mostly Canadian. The kids that got it for me said that there were two grades. The A grade and the B grade. They wanted to impress me. They demanded the guy who got it for me was the A grade.
Road trips used to be so much fun. . . aaah the memories. It’s called ‘BC bud’ for British Columbia.
The stuff I got in Hawaii (Maui Wowi) was pretty awesome too. . . clean and smooth. . . YUMMM!
Those were the days . . . or should I say DAZE.
ThackerAgency on May 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Legalize all drugs! Why mess around? If some drugs are more addictive/destructive than others – so what? It’s all about personal freedom right? So, kick back – light up / snort up / shoot up and enjoy baby! But don’t complain when your 9 year old daughter is a junkie or when your health care costs skyrocket due to the massive increase in drug treatment. (or when your taxes go up to pay for it) The financial/social/spiritual/psychological costs would be massive but – big deal. It’s all about personal freedom – right?
johnnybgood on May 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I just … I just have to:
apollyonbob on May 26, 2009 at 7:49 PM
You should try defeating a real argument instead of one made of straw
apollyonbob on May 26, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Any lecture on pro-legalization is as you state. Given the performance of your spear-carrier, Ed, I’d rethink your position if I were you, because it isn’t going to get better. Go over to NORML if you want to see this.
I’m for hard time for users, and even harder time for dealers.
unclesmrgol on May 26, 2009 at 7:50 PM
You have such sound logic there corona.
Here’s your logic:
False – Drunks are called drunks for a reason. Thereby implying that all whom consume alcohol are drunks. That is a patent FAIL! The real issue is that the only one’s you tend to hear about are the one’s who consume irresponsilby. There are sooo many cannabis consumers that you come into contact with throughout your day and yet you are nun-the-wiser.
I could further expound on the differences between the effects of alcohol vs cannabis but what’s the point with your reasoning.
whiskeytango on May 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I’m already thinking about when pot is finally legalized – who will be the victims of all the law suits like the tobacco companies?
Queen0fCups on May 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Sadly, I’ve never had the opportunity to enjoy Maui ganga. Word has it that it’s all grown for local consumption, and I’ve never made the trip.
Someday…
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM
**facepalm** on you bud smoking freaks.
Thank GOD.. Thunderchuck doesn’t grow anymore.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 7:57 PM
ummm, ummmm , like the “dro” i have umm rumored to have seen , it’s grown in this guys basement, better than anything our government could ever do..
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 7:57 PM
capitolist – 1 definition – One who believes one should make as much money as inhumanly possible by any means necessary. Commonly followed by “pig”…
from urban dictionary,cause i work in chicago.
weed, cause i’m surrounded by obamaholes.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Huh???? Using alcohol even on a daily basis, 1 drink, has been shown to not only be non-toxic but beneficial to your health. How is smoking anything less toxic than moderate drinking? A joint a day is a hell of a lot worse for you than a drink a day.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Dope.
Tis what it tis.
Limerick on May 26, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Coming from someone with a screen name that pays tribute to Mexican beer, that’s pretty funny.
I haven’t heard pot smokers called “stoners” in about 30 years.
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Proof??
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Yup. My wife met one on the freeway about 15 years ago. She’s never healed properly. My sister in law met another on the surface streets a few years back, and the rear of her mini-van was totally gone from just behind the second row of seats (she and two of her children occupied the two front rows and therefore survived). My son was a user himself. While he was, he was schizoid and he stole from us to support his habit, and completed zero units out of 32 total units attempted at SDSU.
My family’s encounters with MaryJane has been a bust for the family in as many ways as you can think. Three encounters, three busts.
Any argument involving alcohol can be quickly countered with “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Again, hard time for the user and harder time for the dealer.
unclesmrgol on May 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM
I am a former Rock Star and have used just about every drug you can imagine. At least 20 of my personal friends and peers are now dead from drug related causes. Every single one of them started with pot, no, period no, exceptions. No, I personally do not think it should be legalized. Say what ever you will, this is MY personal experience, it is not experience that I alone have suffered through. Every single professional musician I have ever met has suffered this experience.
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Who says you have to smoke it? Many who use medicinal marihuana use “vaporizers”, which vaprize the hemp instead of burning it. Hence, no harm to the lungs.
And then there is eating it…brownies, anyone?
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Weed should be legal man. You know why…. oh look! A squirrel!
Vince on May 26, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Cohen’s a Dem, not an R.
It's Vintage, Duh on May 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Common sense. But if you need it even NORML points out pot causes respiratory problems. It is still smoking. One joint, or even cigarette, a day is probably never going to kill you directly but one drink a day has been shown to be beneficial. On a one to one usage basis alcohol is less toxic than pot.
Alcohol is a lot more likely to be abused than pot but that doesn’t make it more toxic to the body on a one to one basis.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Ahh yes, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), isn’t he the guy who from the House floor stated “Jesus was a Community Organizer killed by Governor Pilate” – a slap to Gov Palin.
Also, Cohen sponsored a bill to get reparations for African-Americans for slavery; of course he offered no plan for tracking down former slaves/slave owners, guess he just wanted the US Gov’ment to pay up..
ED,
STEVE COHEN IS A DEMOCRAT (you have an R by his name in article), HE IS A DEMOCRAT!!!
TN Mom on May 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM
For the sake of argument I was assuming it’s most common use. Ingested or vaporized it is probably no more toxic than alcohol.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Just curious-were the incidents with your wife and your sister in law conclusively proven to have been caused solely by marijuana impairment?
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Sorry, link to NORML article.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:15 PM
no weed for musicians then.
send it to me for testing, have the government give me 10 million dollars and i’ll get back to you on the results of my study, right after i finish this bag of doritos.
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM
I agree. Thanks for your personal experience.
d1carter on May 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Pot smoking has been shown to cause respiratory problems for sure, but as far as I know it’s never caused lung cancer.
And some people can smoke cigarettes like a chimney for 50 years before lung cancer even develops.
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 8:19 PM
You’re telling me that one drink has no harmful side effects? That single drink doesn’t affect your liver, or brain, in any way? Because common sense also says “Beer kills brain cells”
apollyonbob on May 26, 2009 at 8:19 PM
How many of them are now dead from marijuana-related causes?
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I have no idea what NORML is, common sense is not proof and I have no idea where you’re coming up with this toxic stuff. Like I said, how about some proof, or better yet….
And there ya go. I don’t think my medical marijuana is screwing up my liver either.
Next argument?
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 8:21 PM
The recent Dutch study on Bolus disease showing the onset of the ling disease being up to 20 yrs. earlier in cannabis smokers is interesting.
Your proof that one drink of alcohol is as dangerous to ones health???
http://medicineworld.org/cancer/lead/7-2007/one-cannabis-joint-equal-to-up-to-5-cigarettes.html
] http://www.eurad.net/pdf/THC%20-%20Lung,%20Thorax%20Editorial%20’07.pdf –
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1125867
-
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 8:24 PM
I’m not suggesting that pot smoking, on a moderate basis (once to twice a day), is highly toxic. Only that the same comparable use of alcohol is less toxic.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Bad link on the second .
http://www.eurad.net/pdf/THC%20-%20Lung,%20Thorax%20Editorial%20’07.pdf -
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 8:26 PM
That handle is appropriate eh? NORML is the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. They are behind or part of every effort to change use laws. They wouldn’t be saying something detrimental about pot use if they weren’t sure it’s true.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Every single one of them started with marijuana, it’s called cause and effect for a reason. Most people, like you evidently, cannot grasp the notion of cause and effect if the cause and the effect are separated by more than 30 days.
doriangrey on May 26, 2009 at 8:29 PM
This is one of the most idiotic arguments that the American people have been subjected to by our politicians.The War on Drugs is a joke.The way to prevent drug use is to point out the stupidity of it,not by fighting about whether it should be legal or not,or all the other arguments for or against.People are going to use drugs or find some other way to satisfy their own particular cravings.If not drugs something else will do.
Making drug use illegal does not provide the incentive to people not to use drugs.Knowledge of the side effcts does not work either.The only way to prevent the use of drugs is to show the users the stupidity of what they are doing.The only way to convince them that their behavior is stupid is to show them a better way of life and convince them that the better way is possible for them.
All of this talk about the drug use supporting cartels in Mexico(or in the past Columbia) amounts to nothing more than academic mastubation.Give it a rest.
DDT on May 26, 2009 at 8:31 PM
holy crap!!
Once or twice per day?
Who has time like that??
I’m time crunched to maybe 2-3 times a week, there is alot more to do than be stoned all day long all the time
Maybe I gave the wrong impression!
moderation is the key to anything,
besides,who can do math and smoke week at the same time?
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Not only is having a drink a day not harmful to your health there have been a number of studies which show it’s actually beneficial. It has the same qualities as aspirin use in the thinning the blood, eases arthritic symptoms and may help ward off heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia.
If an apple a day keeps the doctor away than chasing it with a drink is even better.
Alcohol doesn’t kill brain cells and the liver can more than handle 1-2 drinks a day without ill effects.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Check out Rep. Cohen’s skullet. LMAO!!!!
mizflame98 on May 26, 2009 at 8:41 PM
My handle is my dogs name, got a problem with that or is that your way of being snarky? Did you even read the article you posted? Aside from the fact that it’s almost 2 years old, it also mentions vaporization as an alternative.
I was declared legally blind 3 months ago and lost my ability to drive. I smoke 3 or 4 times a week, have been for almost 10 years to relieve the pressure of the glaucoma I suffer from and two detached retina’s that now have scar tissue around them. The pain is unbearable at times.
If that makes me a stoner in your eyes, so be it.
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Well, let’s see what The American Scientist has to say on the matter.
Alcohol among the most toxic, cannabis the least toxic.
Imagine that.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 8:43 PM
**face palm**
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Yes, if your definition of toxic is dosage required to cause death. With that definition water is more toxic than pot.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
What does lethal dose have to do with anything?
Take 20 times the effective dose of water and you’re dead in a relatively short time. 20 times the effective dose of food…you’re screwed.
This line of “reasoning” is a distraction, and the norm for those who don’t want to actually deal with the realities of their position imo.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Similar thoughts.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Robert Gable, from your link to American Scientist, is a Harvard psychologist.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Okay. We’ll try it your way.
Not only is having a drink a day harmful to your health there have been a number of studies which show it’s not actually beneficial. It has none of qualities of aspirin use in the thinning of blood, easing arthritic symptoms and can’t possibly ward off heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia.
If an apple a day keeps the doctor away than chasing it with a drink could kill you.
Alcohol is known to kill brain cells and the liver can’t handle 1-2 drinks a day without ill effects.
There! Now, who’s right, you or me? When you state facts, proof might help a little.
Nobody’s ever died of marijuana OD – the same cannot be said for alcohol. I think you have the burden of proof to show that MJ is more toxic.
apollyonbob on May 26, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Sorry, seriously, but this has what relevance to whether pot is more toxic than alcohol?
BTW, you have all the more reason to have knowledge of, and be thankful, to NORML. If you have been legally prescribed pot as a medicine than NORML probably had a hand in getting the law changed to make that possible.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Well, we were talking about toxicity. According to Meriam Webater toxicity is the noun form of toxic, defined as:
Now, if we are to consider water or food as poison:
then you really are stretching it.
Fact is, alcohol is a poison, with a pretty high level of toxicity. Cannabis is no such thing. And those who try to warp the English language to make that argument are engaging in the worst form of intellectual dishonesty.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
corona on May 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM
you know not of what you speak…
Kaptain Amerika on May 26, 2009 at 9:03 PM
And your CV…???
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Jeez, has nobody on here every heard of Goggle? Google “Is alcohol good for you?”, there are thousands of articles on it. The beneficial qualities of moderate alcohol use, 1-2 drinks a day, have been well established for 30 years.
Overdosing is not the definition of toxic. With that definition everything you put into your body could be described as toxic as too much of anything will kill you.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Sir, I don’t mean to play down your families misfortunes, but I must argue against your point by using the very incidents that you cite.
Firstly, I must point out that not everyone should choose to use mind-altering substances. Especially those prone to some mental health maladies. Secondly, It sounds as if your Son was just a common thief. I can assure you that there is no evidence that consuming Cannabis induces people to step beyond their moral standards and become a thief. You could however, argue effectively along that line of reasoning for alcoholism, crack addiction, heroin users, teenage cigarette smokers etc.
I’m presuming that you’re indicating that a driver under the influence of cannabis caused 1)You’re Wife to sustain injury via a vehicular collision. 2) Cannibis nearly caused your Sister-in-Law to lose her life and that of her two children.
Anyone of these scenarios could be replacted by easily substituting Cannabis with ,say, someone texting on their phone, someone under the influence of benedryl, someone driving while not adaqauetlty rested etc. And yet, I doubt that you would demand hardtime for both “the pusher and the user” in these instances. I’m sorry that your Son is a thief, and that people under the influence of any mindaltering substance presumeably caused your trouble. I don’t advocate driving impaired under any circumstance. But I fail to understand how this has formed such a prejudice against responsible adults consuming an otherwise benign substance in the privacy of their own home.
whiskeytango on May 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I love how so many people who would claim to dislike government intrusion in their lives are always ready to trot out horror story after horror story about the EVIIILLS of getting high. Caffine, nicotine, alchohol, and almost all over the counter drugs will kill you if you ingest enough of it. They all also will give you varying levels of a buzz, just like MJ and other illicit drugs.
Has anyone here ever had injury related pain that required Morphine? For my personal story: getting off the morphine was the hardest thing I have ever done and it sucked so bad that I will NEVER try it or anything like it for recreation. On the other hand, I have quit both MJ, ciggaretes and Alchohol, for long periods of time( months/years) with no ill effects or prolonged cravings.
Maybey a little less government and a little more personal responibility and willpower are the cure.
Mord on May 26, 2009 at 9:06 PM
With all due respect..those are just a bunch of claims. Can you back them up?
Its like this.:
“Some studies show that even looking at a joint will make you blind, and second hand pot smoke at any level will more than likely cause you to kill a hobo with a hammer. Heroin, on the other hand is more like having a glass of milk.”
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Oh and BTW. I’m making no statements here about whether pot should be legalized or not. Only that it is wrong to suggest alcohol is more toxic than pot in comparable usage as Ed suggests in his post.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
You’re playing word games imo.
Toxicity is not claim thats being made for legalization.
This is an absurd claim.
Again…toxicity is not the point, not for either alcohol or cannabis. Its intoxication…or at least intoxication is one of many reasons legalizing pot would be a simpletons solution, imo. Are you claiming that someone who smoke a hit of 12% THC and within a minute is unfit for much of anything, is o.k. because the “Lethal dose level” is quantitatively less than the amount for alcohol?
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Amen to that. I can get all the narcotics I want for my problem, have had bottles of it after surgery. That’s a road I refuse to go down again…..and something the doctors don’t tell you about.
+100
Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Well, except marijuana, apparently.
Let’s take a look at a couple of my favorites, brought to you courtesy of your United States Government:
The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Or, even better:
From DEA Judge Young’s Ruling on Medical Marijuana
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM
My CV???
My constant velocity joints are fine.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Really!?!?!?! Funny, I thought Rocks was talking about toxicity. Let’s go to the videotape, shall we sports fans?
Sure looks like toxicity was Rocks point. maybe it wasn’t his point… Maybe he was talking about chronic health consequences. If that’s the case, he should learn how to use the language properly.
Of course, if you want to argue chronic health consequences, I can do that too. Bring it on.
Words are what we do here. Precise use of them is one of the pillars of good argument.
And of course you’d love to offer proof that one hit of even the highest grade cannabis makes one unfit for anything, right?
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Well, that was actually curriculum vitae, but I can see it wouldn’t match that of a Harvard faculty member.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Again… thats simply a distraction and irrelevant to realities of drug use and its effects on a society…do you work for the Obama Administration?..you may be able to get a job there.
s/
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Appeal to Authority is a well know fallacy.
Pissing on my shoe and trying to tell me its raining doesn’t work with me.
Try another strategy
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM
There is a lethal dosage, I never suggested it was practical or probable.
What point are you trying to make here exactly? What does death have to do with toxicity in moderate usage?
Are you trying to suggest Ed was saying pot is less toxic than alcohol because a lot of alcohol would cause you to overdose or die sooner than pot? I don’t see that as a reasonable reading of Ed’s statement.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM
..it depends on what Rocks interpretation of toxicity was, doesn’t it. I’ll let him fill in the blanks.
Again..I have to point out the attempts to steer the topic away from an honest and rational discussion to one that will most likely lead to intellectualized gibberish and word salad instead of staying on point.
Won’t go there….waste of time.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Let’s see. I quote an accomplished professional, published in a peer-reviewed magazine, and you reply that he’s a Harvard psychologist.
If I appealed to authority, than you appealed to ignorance.
Typical of a prohibitionist. Or a liberal. Or both.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:50 PM
No that was exactly my point. Moderate drinking is less toxic to your system than moderate smoking of anything at all. Your problem is your whacked idea that toxic means death or overdose rather than damage to your system. Death and overdose is a measure of toxcity, not the defintion of it.
Notice the definition you used says ESPECIALLY, not EXCLUSIVELY. The use of the word toxic is not limited to that which causes death or serious debilitation.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 9:50 PM
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM
No. Toxic means poisonous, as Meriam Webster clearly states, and you in fact reprinted.
If you have an alternative definition of toxic, then please post it.
Of course, a link would help.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Childish bait imo.
Try something else.
How about dealing with the realities of drugs on a society and the silliness of trying to compare the problems of legalizing drugs compared to the system thats in place for alcohol?
If you can’t stay on topic, I’m not bothering.
Itchee Dryback on May 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Just what part of chronic criminal conduct do you think conveys responsiblity?
Observation on May 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Oh, you mean like the reality that:
or:
or:
or:
or:
Are those the realities that you would like to debate?
Or the fact that since prohibition of drugs, cocaine and heroin addiction rates in this nation have tripled. Or the fat that prohibition of drugs leads to as high as a 5000% markup in the price of drugs. Or the fact that the failure to tax cannabis costs this country $ 7 billion/ year. Or the fact that prohibition of drugs has empowered organized crime in Mexico.
I offer evidence and argument. You offer fear, and nothing but fear.
I find that is usually the tactic of those who simply can’t keep up.
JohnGalt23 on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM
I don’t need an alternate definition of toxic. By the defintion you use it’s clear toxic is not limited to causing death or serious disability and that is clearly not what Ed intended in using the word. Poisonous, according to Webster’s, is that which is “harmful” or “destructive”. Posion is “a substance that through its chemical action usually kills, injures, or impairs an organism”. Not just kills. Smoking anything even once a day has clearly be shown to be harmful to your respiratory system so pot is clearly toxic to some degree as is alcohol. The difference is daily consumption limited to 1-2 drinks a day has never been shown to be damaging to your system. Smoking daily, even once, is more toxic than using a comparable amount of alcohol.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Alcohol does not kill brain cells. Livescience.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Screw up. Attempted to type even once a day and went with daily and conflated the 2. drop the even once.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »