Slashdot Mirror

There seem to be a few ways of looking at the question. I never read this article before, as my previous statement was based on a different article that I read many years back and can't properly cite. Here is one telling the same story though:
http://www.forces.org/Archive/articles/245-The+Early+State+Marijuana+Laws+History+Of+The+Non-Medical+Use+Of+Drugs.html

Well, from state to state, on the theory that this newly encountered drug marijuana would be substituted by the hard narcotics addicts or by the alcohol drinkers for their previous drug that had been prohibited, state to state this fear of substitution carried, and that accounted for 26 of the 27 states -- that is, either the anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas or fear of substitution in the Northeast. That accounted for 26 of the 27 states, and there was only one state left over. It was the most important state for us because it was the first state ever to enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana and it was the state of Utah.

The wikipedia article on the legal status of cannabis doesn't mention this as far as I can find, however, it does show several previous laws which included cannabis, not to directly ban it, but to try and classify it as a poison and put it in the hands of doctors and only available by prescription as a medicine.

Actually, getting cancer and death are not the same thing. People risk getting injured and diseased every day to a greater risk of getting cancer from smoking. In fact, You can probably go to any public restroom and watch any number of people leave without washing their hands whether they do either number one or two. And yes, intestinal bowel diseases which can be transmitted from your own crap can be deadly when in a your stomach and not intestines not to mention that you would have touched something that someone else touched.

Now the interesting thing is that Smoking risks can be negated with quitting by certain ages. For instance, if you quit smoking by age 50, you are 100 times less likely to get cancer as a result of smoking and if you quit by age 30, your increased risks are negligible compared to the risks from normal airborne pollutants we encounter every day.

Also, there has been reports of studies that suggest moderate smoking can actually be more beneficial then detrimental.

Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Third Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Not only the third but now even the 4th have been discredited. They mis-reported the science, and in some cases the "science" in them was actual fraud!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third many-years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

And the fifth reference you cite (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: I asked for something other than that, thank you very much.) Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Even the report before last was discredited, unreliable, and largely retracted!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

In short, 4 of the 5 references you cite above are solely based on the flawed Assessment Reports from the IPCC, and the fifth (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: If you go back and look, you will see that I specifically asked you for something other than that because it is known to be flawed, thank you very much.)

Sorry, guy, but you should know better than to use Wikipedia as your source on such matters. I can do better than that with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back.

Here is the public letter from Chris Landsea, explaining why he had his name removed from participation in the IPCC studies: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Here are a bunch more links. No, they are not all peer-reviewed scientific papers, but they sure do refer to a bunch of them. Follow the link chain as deeply as you care to, but they pretty much all contradict your position:

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html [jennifermarohasy.com]

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786 [heartland.org]

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971 [newsbusters.org]

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the reports: http://oldsarges.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-reiter-takes-on-ipcc.html [blogspot.com]

Global Warming: Science versus Fraud http://www.forces.

I know it is not possible that anyone is going to believe this, but there are positive health benefits to be had from tobacco, if used in moderation. Anyone reading these results will be certain that the medical studies were funded by Big Tobacco, and for all I know, maybe they were. And maybe the studies showing the health benefits of drinking a glass of red wine daily are funded by big alchohol?

Nicotine slows the growth of TB. Effects of Transdermal Nicotine on Cognitive Performance in Down's Syndrome. Parkinson's Disease Is Associated With Non-smoking .

I'm a firm believer that doing anything to excess is bad, and doing anything in moderation CAN BE good. The problem is identifying the point that is moderate.

"But this is all anecdotal. If I had more time, I'd reference some of those studies you claim don't exist. I saw one just a week or three ago on CNN."

Studies can prove anything if you screen out the data that doesn't support what you want to find. That's why I also used the word reputable. All the studies you are thinking about were not conducted scientifically - they knew the result they wanted to find, and only use the data that supported it. There have been several studies done http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm that proved there were no links between second hand smoke and cancer.

"I don't know about you, but whenever I'm around smokers, I wind up with a headache for a day or more, due to serious sinus congestion."

That is about as much scientific proof as some of the studies you cite have... I hang around smokers all the time and the worst thing that happens is my clothes smell like an ashtray... Maybe you have a helath problem that is amplified by smoke, but I doubt that smoke is the cause of your problem.

The same goes for EVERY smoker out there. Yes, that's right, FUCK YOU SMOKERS for using our public money for crap you do to yourselves.

The same goes for EVERY smoker out there. Yes, that's right, FUCK YOU SMOKERS for using our public money for crap you do to yourselves.

Hospitals filled with smokers dying of lung cancer? Really?

"lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US."

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer (who/cdc)
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Edit orial%201-4.html

Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke (oops, they lied)
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

More on the infamous 1993 EPA study...
http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

Ton of links that tell the truth:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm

Don't believe the anti-smoking propaganda. Smoking may not be good for you, but it's certainly not as bad as the average person claims. (Note, you'll find similar pseudo-science in most 'anti' style literature, youth drug/alchohol literature is an easy example. Same nonsence in older studies on radon.)

Smoking causes cancer?

http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/stats.htm

Citing an anti-tobacco web site as a source is no more likely to produce unbiased information as one run by the tobacco industry. The studies with links that work all-too-predictably contain phrases such as "are estimated as being", "is thought to", "chemicals for which no exposure levels have yet been set" (meaning they have no idea whether the amounts passive smokers are exposed to present a danger), etc. Here are two news reports citing studies with more concrete figures, although I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of either the news reporting or the studies themselves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/188062.stm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm

I do not dispute the fact that passive smoking increases the likelihood of getting various types of diseases (lung, cardio-vascular, etc), is dangerous for those with certain types of respiratory problems, and just plain unpleasant for many others. However, the level of risk for otherwise healthy individuals from differing levels of exposure (and indeed, how much exposure they actually have in different environments), and what effects other environmental factors may have, is suffering from a dearth of real, independent studies conducted by those without an agenda on statistically significant groups over long periods.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/bryden1.htm

nicotine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

caffeine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

alcohol reduces chance of Alzheimer's ....

Death reduces chance of Alzheimer's.

I totally disagree that the Canadian government should have exclusive rights to the Maple Leaf Flag; if they do own the trademark they certainly only enfroce it rarely (and then only for commercial use). Marks the government actively protects involve the flag, but also involve other things such as a stylised "Government of Canada" script or departmental names in that script. In any event, it would be in their best interests to make the flag freely available since it is one of the few unifying sybols of such a diverse and regionalised country, and the more it is used the more Canadians will feel part of Canada and not swallowed up by the USA. Considering the goverment had a fairly successful program promoting and giving away the Maple Leaf flag freely (real flags and graphics), I'd say they agree.

That being said, it appears that the site in question is still using a Maple Leaf Flag with the "Health Canada" department name beside it, in a script and style very similar to that actually used by Health Canada. The federal government is within their rights to go after a pro-smoking group that is displaying the Health Canada department logo in any manner.

I can't think of any reason to oppose it.

Really? I think most people would want to find out more about any group that they were going to trust with their lives.
Bet you'd trust Jeb Bush to declare an election result, too ;-p

Really? How many is a lot? 10? 100? A thousand? Let me refer you to this source , or do some web searching if you think it is biased.

Thank you.

--ac