|
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 2006-03-31, 12:10 am |
| On 30 Mar 2006 15:26:43 -0800, "brian bennett" <shpoym@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>claiming that marijuana is illegal due to health "concerns" is what is
>disingenuous -- that's why i call it a *red herring*
I didn't claim that it *is* illegal due to health concerns.
>
>but you defend the red-herring?
The answer to that is still no.
>the charges that cannabis cause
>various ills to a persons health is put forth as a justification to
>persecute its users. yet that reason does not stand up to the slightest
>challenge: i.e. it is *not* illegal to inhale smoke from burning
>plants.
>you called me disingenuous, but that is the *real* root of the issue,
No it's not. The root of the issue is banning something that does not
harm anyone else. It is nothing to do with the fact that you can make
smoking dope sound like lighting a bonfire (sometimes it is but that's
beside the point).
>while the health "issues" of cannabis use are a red herring. it is a
>way to distract people into wasting time effort and resources on
>something that is *not* the root issue of the debate.
>
>
>i beg your pardon, but the lines from your post are still visible just
>above this -- a mere eight lines above, where you stated "it depends on
>whether it harms other people." you didn't say "it should depend,"
>you said it does.
You must be confusing what the "it" in question refers to. I thought I
was completely unambiguous. "It" is "whether cannabis should be
illegal". I'll say it again "Whether cannabis SHOULD BE illegal
DEPENDS on whether it harms other people". There is no difference
between that and "Whether cannabis is illegal SHOULD DEPEND on whether
it harms other people". However, you are somehow reading it to mean
"Whether cannabis is illegal DOES DEPEND on whether it harms other
people." I cannot see how you manage to read it that way, it's not
what I said, nor is it something I would say, since it is manifest
nonsense.
> i say that it does *not* -- the "harms" of cannabis
>debate is one whopper of a red herring.
>
>"harmless" is another red herring. no one is arguing that inhaling
>cannabis smoke is "harmless" -- we argue that it is nowhere near as
>harmful as suggested and that such "harm" is not grounds for punishing
>those who do it.
Indeed *we* do.
>we argue that the "dangers" of doing so are greatly exagerated, and
>that much research exists to show that cannabis (even when lit on fire)
>actually has some "healthy" properties.
Some, perhaps.
>
>there are a lot of components in tobacco smoke that are not present in
>cannabis smoke, some of which may be the more likely culprits in
>respiratory problems among tobacco users. there is still no *credible*
>evidence that cannabis smoke *causes* the same sorts of respiratory
>problems that tobacco smoke causes, and indeed, there is evidence that
>cannabis actually contains *protective* components that make it less
>likely to cause damage in the respiratory system than tobacco smoke.
>
>and, unfortunately, when the topic of study is cannabis, there is
>precious little actual *science* out there. it is mostly political.
>any research that doesn't come back with a finding of how "dangerous"
>cannabis is, is repressed and the researcehrs do not get future
>funding.
Yes I know.
>thus, the *science* of how cannabinoids protect against the types of
>diseases generally associated with inhaling smoke is hidden away and
>brushed aside in the intererst of continuing to demonize cannabis and
>its users.
I'm glad we agree.
>
>there is no other reason to continue harping on the "danger" of
>inhaling pot smoke. the science says that it simply *isn't* that big of
>a deal. and if it were that is *not* a reson to punish people who
>choose to use it.
>
>can you see the topic as the "red herring" i charge it to be? and are
>you interested in ending the drug war or fishing for herring?
I'm interested in the facts *and* ending the drug war. You will not
get me to compromise one for the other.
|
| |
|
|