|
Home > Archive > Drugs pot > March 2006 > Re: Cannabis lifts emphysema risk - er um *cough*, *cough* *cough*,
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Cannabis lifts emphysema risk - er um *cough*, *cough* *cough*,
|
|
| Derek Potter 2006-03-30, 12:08 pm |
| On 30 Mar 2006 08:28:58 -0800, "brian bennett" <shpoym@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Derek Potter wrote:
>
>be that as it may, the available evidence tilts in the direction that
>not only does cannabis (even burning smoke inhaled cannabis) *not*
>cause enough damge to the respiratory tract to be very exciting (the
>only solid data indicating a slightly incresed risk of bronchitis), but
>also that it appears to actually have anti-cancer properties.
>(neuroprotective ones too, but i digress.)
>
>
>actually it is *not* -- acting directly upon yourself of your own free
>will is the *primary* right of man. drug laws violate that fundamental
>right, as do laws governing sex and marriage.
Umm, you have broken into the middle of a sentence to rant about
*rights*....
>
>everyone *has the right* to touch themselves without being held
>accountable under the law -- over *any* act the perpetrate soley on
>themselves directly, no matter how foolish or "dangerous."
.... As you will see...
>thus, lighting *any* plant on fire and inhaling the smoke is not an act
>that falls under the purview of legitimate law.
.... if you read the rest of the sentence...
>the act of smoking cannabis, in that particular regard, is *no
>different* from lighting tobacco on fire and inhaling the smoke, or
>even poison ivy.
.... here, I am not disputing the *rights* issue.
>
>apparently not. were that the case, then surely the "leaders" in
>governments would consider the available *decades* worth of data and
>conclude that it isn't very "harmful" at all:
No, I said it *should* depend on whether it harms other people, not
that it does.
>http://www.briancbennett.com/charts...l-marijuana.htm
>
>of course, bobbie sellers already pointed you at the voluminous
>"official government" studies over the past 100 years or so that all
>come to that exact conclusion. clearly, something else is at play in
>the issue other than rational discourse and documented "harm."
Yes. The fact that the mechanism for cancer production with tobacco
smoke is also present in every other kind of smoke, cannabis included.
As i've attempted to explain, the plausibility of the simplistic
conclusion ("cannabis smoke is harmless") doesn't only depend on the
direct statistical evidence - as if it were a completely open
question, it also depends on how likely it is that the established
model is incorrect. I don't deny the results need to be explained, I
am just saying that you cannot leap to conclusions *without*
re-writing a hell of a, lot of science - and I don't just mean
politically-loaded stuff
>we get distracted by the various and sundry claims of "harms" from
>cannabis, yet there is no *data* (let alone decades worth of it) of
>significant magnitude to have been captured systematically. thus, no
>actual *proof* of anything worth addressing with public resources --
>especially *punitive* ones.
>so the disingenous notion is, in reality, that the "harms" caused to a
>person who uses cannabis on himself is in any way legally or morally
>justifiable. if it were considered such, then a line must be drawn and
>all others who "harm" themselves in equal or greater measure committing
>other acts upon themselves should *also* be held accountable under the
>law for the "harms" they commit upon themselves.
Well, I'm not really interested in defending a view I have never held
and have repeatedly opposed in public.
>this issue has *nothing* to do with either the health aspects of use,
>nor the level of "harm" inflicted upon individuals and society at large
>through such use.
|
| |
|
|