Text 21537, 174 rader
Skriven 2008-10-04 11:34:42 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 21465 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Legal Strictions
========================
03 Oct 08 10:21, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>>>> I oppose the legalization of cannabis as a medicine.

 RB>>> And I oppose anyone who, young and in perfect health, presumes to
 RB>>> impose his morals on old, sick people who could possibly benefit
 RB>>> from unconventional drugs.

 RW>> I'd prefer that the Food and Drug Administration do it's thing and
 RW>> investigate these unconventional drugs before we go off the deep end
 RW>> with them.

 RB> In that case, let's do a study on the relative harm caused by alcohol
 RB> and cannabis. Might be interesting to see which is doing the public
 RB> health more damage.

The problem is, you can't do a study the way things are reported today.
Not to mention that comparing the two would be like comparing apples and
oranges. Try a comparison between tobacco and cannabis. The effects of
smoking either, are comparable.

 RB>>> The medical, and not the moral or political situation is for me the
 RB>>> important point here.

 RW>> No it isn't. Society as a whole has more to say about it than some
 RW>> whacko doctors wild claims.

 RB> Or moral/religious "whackos" who don't have any problem drinking
 RB> alcohol and smoking a cigarette, but foam at the mouth when they hear
 RB> about marijuana.

Knowledgable people don't bother with either whackos.

 RW>> Social issues must come before the use of drugs that are detrimental
 RW>> to society.

 RB> I agree. Let's re-introduce (alcohol) prohibition to improve public
 RB> health,

That has proven to be a mistake. Remember Prohibition?

 RB> since everyone knows how effective and beneficial that was.
 RB> And while we're at it, forbid manufacture, sale and consumption of
 RB> cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and the like.

We're closer to that than legalizing marijuana. In California, about
the only placy you can smoke is at home these days. Plus, you could be
charged with child endangerment if the authorities deem smoking in the
home with children is such an endangerment.

 RW>> We already have enough people who're injecting themselves with drugs
 RW>> and society pays for it.

 RB> Roy, you don't "inject" marijuana, you smoke it. Let's keep on the
 RB> subject, if you don't mind.

I see you've never been exposed to the stuff. Back in the early 70s, I was
and there were people who extracted the THCs in a liquid form. It wasn't
called THC, and I forget the nomenclature now. But it was injectable as
much as heroin is.

 RB>>> This applies not only in this case, but in all cases where people
 RB>>> who are young/in perfect health/full of life presume to impose
 RB>>> their moral and religious beliefs on others who are not in their
 RB>>> lucky situation.

 RW>> So a 40yo Shannon, who thinks making pot legal is forcing you to tow
 RW>> his line?

 RB> No, it seems to me like he's arguing the same way as I am: let people
 RB> decide for themselves, just like they do with the known harmful drugs
 RB> alcohol and tobacco. It's the ones who want to decide for _others_ I
 RB> have problems with.

Those who have a problem with the use of drugs are the people who make it
illegal to use. They do so to protect society from drug addicts.

 RB>>> I also believe in the right to euthanasia -

 RW>> That's a moral issue, not a drug issue.

 RB> As is legalization of marijuana,

Wrong.

 RB>  which is no more harmful than alcohol and/or tobacco.

Wrong again.

 RB> Many attempts have been made over the years to prove otherwise, but
 RB> up to now they've all failed.

No they haven't. Marijuna has been found to be detrimental to your health
and the health of society.

 RB>  If they hadn't, you would definitely see them reprinted full-page in
 RB> the newspapers.

Instead, they're printed in medical journals for those who already know
the consequences of its use.

 RB>>> the right to die without pain and under dignified circumstances -
 RB>>> regardless of what the fatcats in religion and politics spout. Let
 RB>>> them die in agony if they so desire, but let them decide for
 RB>>> themselves ALONE. There are limits to what others may morally
 RB>>> dictate for so-called "ethical" reasons, and every human being has
 RB>>> a right to determine his/her own fate. Anything else is, for me,
 RB>>> "cruel and unusual punishment" and should by rights be forbidden by
 RB>>> the Constitution.

 RW>> That's ok for an atheist.

 RB> That's OK for a humanist who doesn't presume to force his moral views
 RB> on others.

A humanist wouldn't advocate abuse of the body with drugs.

 RB> I've seen a couple of cases here in Europe where badly suffering
 RB> people were actually _forced_ to keep living and suffering by the
 RB> courts despite their explicit wish to die - they were in such bad
 RB> shape they would have required help.

Is there a moratorium against moving to the Netherlands where euthanasia
is legal?

 RB> In one of these cases, the poor
 RB> woman was found dead of a sedative overdose shortly after the court
 RB> case - naturally aided by some (unknown) person with a trace of human
 RB> compassion - and in the other, the person involved simply suffocated
 RB> in the end. Now, _that_ was surely a good example for "mercy" :-(((

You can cite these cases all day and you won't convince me to 'give in' to
legalizing marijuana.

 RB> The only country in western Europe that doesn't explicitly forbid
 RB> "Sterbehilfe" (aid in committing suicide) is Switzerland, but not
 RB> everyone in bad health and often totally incapacitated can travel to
 RB> Switzerland for help.

 RW>> Those whose religion calls anything but natural death, suicide, is a
 RW>> sin that won't get them past the gates of heaven.

 RB> Heaven... is that something like the place suicide bombers go to
 RB> frolic with hundreds of virgins under the benevolent eyes of Allah?

You'd have to be a christian to know about it.

 RB> No, there are pious people who are _also_ tolerant, and there are
 RB> people who exhibit their religion publically as an excuse for their
 RB> intolerance. I call the latter fanatics, be they Christian, Moslem,
 RB> Buddhists or whatever. And they exist all over the world.

 RB> Cheers, Bob

 RB> P.S. Please don't misinterpret me in the matter of marijuana. I'm NOT
 RB> in favor of legalizing things like cocaine (although that would be a
 RB> borderline case except for "crack"), and certainly not highly
 RB> addictive stuff like heroin, but as long as there's legal alcohol and
 RB> tobacco on the shelves of stores, I just don't see the argument that
 RB> marijuana is worse for public health and keeping it banned only
 RB> increases public curiosity and the desire to "try it out" just to see
 RB> if it's as bad as some people keep preaching. Let's save the big club
 RB> for the real dangers and not waste it and our efforts on things that
 RB> are no worse than what you can buy in every corner grocery store.

 RB> --- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 RB>  * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)