cannabisnews.com: Don't Do Drug Legalization










  Don't Do Drug Legalization

Posted by FoM on September 29, 2000 at 06:32:52 PT
By Ann Coulter 
Source: Jewish World Review 

Like everyone else in America, I had never really listened to the arguments of the drug legalization crowd because ... it's not going to happen. These people are like scholars whose area of expertise is an obscure bug in a Third World country. Their theories could be completely insane, but no one cares enough to bother listening to them.The most superficially appealing argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even if it ruins their lives. Except that's not true. 
Back on Earth, see, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions."We" have to "invest" in "our" future by supporting people who freely choose to inject drugs in their own bodies and then become incapable of holding jobs, obtaining housing and taking care of their children. So it's not really quite accurate to say drugs hurt no one but the user, at least until we've repealed the welfare state.And don't give me the now-we'll-have-to-regulate-fatty-foods slippery slope argument. Precisely because you can see a difference in eating a hamburger and smoking crack means there is a huge difference between the top of the slope and the bottom -- which is why pure slippery slope arguments are always stupid. Let me just ask: Before he serves you, would you prefer that your bus driver or investment banker had consumed a hamburger, a cigarette or marijuana?In fact, smokers and fatty-food consumers clearly benefit society through their years of tobacco- or hamburger-fueled hard work. They also undoubtedly save the taxpayers money by dying relatively swift deaths from corroded arteries or cancerous lungs. (Junk food and tobacco companies tend not to want to advertise that particular great savings to the Social Security system, but it's true.)As Joseph Califano has pointed out, even John Stuart Mill said there were some things people could not be permitted to choose to do with their own bodies in a free society: "The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom." Drugs enslave people.So do cigarettes and alcohol, the drug legalizers say. Indeed, they fervently claim that alcohol and cigarettes are no better (and probably worse) than marijuana.As Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico (and only the most recent Republican to figure out that the path to fawning media coverage is to adopt a dumb liberal idea) puts it (as summarized in a fawning article in The New York Times): "Last year 450,000 people died from smoking cigarettes. Alcohol killed 150,000, and another 100,000 died from legal prescription drugs. How many people died last year from the use of marijuana? Few, if any. From cocaine and heroin? Five thousand."I'll accept all the drug-legalizers' lying statistics and demonstrate that their arguments are still dumb, but you have to admit that someone who lies in formulating an argument is not to be trusted. And that figure on cigarette deaths is a bald-faced lie.The 450,000 number refers to all "smoking-related" deaths. A "smoking-related" death is any death that under any circumstances could be connected to smoking, including heart attacks and a plethora of cancers. If an obese 99-year old smoker dies of a heart attack while shoveling snow, his death is listed as a "smoking-related" death.Indeed, the books are so cooked on the "smoking-related deaths" alleged by the American Cancer Society that a 1993 article in the American Journal of Epidemiology was able to show that by using the exact same methodology, smoking saves 277,621 lives each year. (The methodology also proves that 504,000 people die each year from insufficient exercise, and 649,000 die from improper diets.)It is known that marijuana smoke is much worse for the respiratory system than is cigarette smoke. The only reason you don't hear about a lot of people dying from marijuana is that -- well, for one, like the guy shoveling snow, a pot-smoker who dies of emphysema goes down as a "smoking-related" death. But also people don't smoke pot like they smoke cigarettes. And one reason for that is: Marijuana is illegal.Still, let's grant the drug-legalizers their phony statistics. Assume alcohol and cigarettes induce dependency, ruin lives, cause disease, depression, countless traffic injuries and fatalities, and increase the incidence of homicide and suicide. This is supposed to be an argument for legalizing another drug like them? JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. You may visit the Ann Coulter Fan Club by clicking here. http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/anncoulterfanclubSource: Jewish World ReviewPublished: September 29, 2000© 1997 - 2000 Jewish World ReviewCannabisNews Articles - Legalization:http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=legalization

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #27 posted by p4me on May 29, 2002 at 09:09:12 PT
I like it when you say treason
Jose, glad to see you describe the drug wars as treason. Usually I have to meet with fellow Extremist to find someone that sees and calls the present reality treason.I want to remind everyone that Peter Jennings will be hosting an ABC special tonight at 10PM on the pill industry called Bitter Medicine, Pills, Profits, and the Public Health. Here is tvguide link:http://www.tvguide.com/listings/index.asp#1ICBS,VAAI,POW
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Jose Melendez on May 29, 2002 at 05:50:45 PT:
No John McClish, Anne is wrong and so are you.
I hope that it does not happen because then Kids will be using it and then the people that uses it will problily get killed.John McClish (spacedude454 aol.com) Sorry, John. You are wrong, here is the proof. In the Netherlands, teen use is lower than in the States, despite a 30 year de facto legalization policy there. Also, as has been proven here on cannabisnews.com many times, stronger pot is safer precisely because it takes less smoke to acheive self-titrated dose levels of the "drug" component. Drug related deaths are really caused by prohibition. Period. The facts are that 90 percent of cannabis users eventually quit, unlike cigarette smokers. Drug laws are wildly popuar because they are generaly enforced as originally intended - on targeted minority groups. They create low-skill, high paying careers on both sides of the law, and simply do not apply to those who would maintain the status quo. Pot is safer for kids than Ritalin, Prozac, Marlboro or Budweiser, and has been shown to slightly improve driver safety, increase I.Q. and greatly relieve pain and stress. Arrest Prohibition, drug war increases crime, and has been exposed as treason.
www.narcosoft.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by john mcclish on May 28, 2002 at 15:03:52 PT:
over cannabis
I heard that Cannabis will be used for medicine. I think that if it is which will it be that kind off of the street or is there a diffrent? then i heard that they will legalize Cannabis.I hope that it does not happen because then Kids will be using it and then the people that uses it will problily get killed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by john mcclish on May 28, 2002 at 15:01:15 PT:
over cannabis
I heard that Cannabis will be used for medicine. I think that if it is which will it be that kind off of the street or is there a diffrent?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by observer on January 04, 2001 at 15:02:19 PT
MJ Myths and Legends
 To begin with the the tar in the smoke of pot is about twenty times thicker than that of a cigarette. . .Myth.see:Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes http://www.norml.org/canorml/myths/myth1.shtml#equal. . .Maybe one of you out there of the "enlightened crowd" can explain why a substance that decreases one's productivity, causes paranoia, distorts memory function, causes "cottenmouth" and cravings for sugar(which by the way aren't supposed to be good for the body) should be legal?I'm looking, but I don't see any reason why people who disagree with your scientific reasoning and use cannabis anyway, should be thrown in jail. Neither you nor Annie gave us any reason why jail is needed. Jail. That's the issue which prohibitionists like to skirt when they rail against "legalization". None of the dire things you claim will happen to cannabis users looks like a reason to jail people, a reason to punish people more harshly than for murder and rape.there are enough natural braindead airheads out thereSo true, so true.what purpose does it serve to create even more by artifitual means?I'm not sure what that has to do with simply stopping the jailing of cannabis users. People will use cannabis no matter what the law is, so it is not a matter of "create even more", etc., since they already use plenty now. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Scott on January 04, 2001 at 12:24:58 PT:
Ann is right
 I spent 25 years smoking pot, so I know first hand the damage it can do. To begin with the the tar in the smoke of pot is about twenty times thicker than that of a cigarette, so even though there may not be any cancer causing agents in it, the risk of lung damage is still there. Be honest, all you "tooters" out there, you've never had shortness of breath, weezing and hacking. Do you really think that when your lungs expand from a toke of really good weed, that this is a good thing. Also the dropout rate is higher among pot smokers in schools than it is with kids who just smoke cigarettes and/or drink, or who do none of the above. The reason is because kids who smoke pot are more likely to do it before class. It's really hard to consentrate on studies when you can't remember what happened a split second ago. Maybe one of you out there of the "enlightened crowd" can explain why a substance that decreases one's productivity, causes paranoia, distorts memory function, causes "cottenmouth" and cravings for sugar(which by the way aren't supposed to be good for the body) should be legal? there are enough natural braindead airheads out there, what purpose does it serve to create even more by artifitual means?  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by What-ever! on September 30, 2000 at 10:56:28 PT
idiotic crack head dumb blonde
I saw Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes giggling about how she and her friends had basically lied about having tried marijuana and cocaine to get legal internships at the Justice Dept., talk about a total hypocrite...For such a "high power" attorney, this chick agrues on about a 14 year old level....PATHETIC - you give all Jews a bad name.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by dankhank on September 29, 2000 at 20:34:16 PT:
This Ann Coulter woman is ...
an anorexic, Geraldo groupie, Barbie wannabee who uses her painfully thin legs as some kind of come-on to somehow validate her worth as a commentator.If you ever saw her on political shows, notice how her chair is high enought above the counter that you will be afforded an unimpeded view of those painfully thin gams.Notice also that the men on the show with her seem to always have chairs that are lower, so that you will not be able to see their legs at all.She is a pompous, cynical hater who would have no forum at all if she couldn't sell her sex.As for her comments, she is the best refuted by hoots of laughter as we say that this is another example of a venal, vapid and vituperative series of comments about which she has no real knowledge. But, that never seems to stop most of the anti-legalization crowd.They know nothing, but speak loudly, hoping to drown out the truth.By the way ... MSNBC commentator Monica Crowley has her own perverse take on this subject, and will claim to be the cleanest living woman on the planet. Both women are evil.
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on September 29, 2000 at 19:55:44 PT

My 2 cents

You got me thinking and laughing too kapt. Imagine what it would be like to listen to Ann Coulter at a party arguing points with Arianna Huffington. That makes me laugh. How do people like Ann Coulter get a job like she has? I have very seldom ever seen Ann agree with anyone on anything. It's like that's what her job is. Just to disagree.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on September 29, 2000 at 19:41:48 PT:

They're scraping the bottom, again

Believe it or not, I really enjoy seeing people like Ms. Coulter get up and spout their histrionics. Why? Because when the antis have exhausted what pathetically small cache of intellectual acumen they have in trying to rationalize the irrational, they start reaching for the literally lowest common denominator. Represented by none other than Ms. Coulter and her ilk.Yes, when you get desperate, you start throwing the young, the foolish, the dim-witted, the halt and the lame into the front lines in the hope that it buys you more time. Towards the end of the Third Reich, Hitler had his version of a Home Guard, staffed largely by old men and Hitler Youth. It didn't save him. The antis have trotted out such intellectual lightweights as Ms. Coulter, who'd vaporize like an icicle in a blowtorch against such worthies as Richard Cowan or our own Observer.They are really getting desperate to parade *this* in front of us, hoping to frighten us into silence with the overwhelming majesty of her arguments. You'll have to pardon me; I can't type anymore. I'm choking on my laughter.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #17 posted by Tim Stone on September 29, 2000 at 18:16:53 PT

Response to Puritan

Puritan said:"Some of the comments offered in rebuttal to Ms. Coulter are truly of the highest quality. It is sadreflection on our culture and the state of journalism in this country that these rebuttals will be seen byonly a few select individuals - those who visit this site. All the same, just a few years ago no one wouldhave heard anything, so perhaps this is progress."Hi, Puritan. Please do not despair. I'm frightfully pessimistic in the short term, but just as frightfully optimistic in the longer term. It's not just a few people who use this forum, although on bad days it can almost seem so :) There's a large and growing discontent with at least the costs of the drug war, if not the drug war itself. Much of the fomenting change is happening in other countries, so Americans don't hear about it. Consider a national Gallup poll from last spring, reported on Richard Cowen's web page, associated with this one:If memory roughly serves, something around 70% of respondents were in favor of med pot, and around 29% were in favor of full-blown "legalization" of cannabis. That's almost one out of three!And much of the jackboot aspects of drug prohibition are specifically designed to cow dissenters into keeping quiet and laying low. This is explicit prohibition policy: Intimidate to make quiet, whether it's politicians ot citizens.It's gonna take a loooong time yet, but we're winning, it's not just we few using a forum such as this. National and international discontent is large, and has nowhere to go from here but up, despite and because of the prohibitionists' one-trick-pony of authoritarian gun-and-a-badge rage at the inevitable change. Safe to say that our children, and certainly our children's children, will not be so hobbled in their lives as we have been. I firmly believe in the future day when our children's children's children will look back on drug prohibition as quaintly incomprehensible as we now view the witch- or Jewish-hunts of earlier, equally benighted times. Better Days,
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #16 posted by Puritan on September 29, 2000 at 17:59:38 PT

It is a shame..

Some of the comments offered in rebuttal to Ms. Coulter are truly of the highest quality. It is sad reflection on our culture and the state of journalism in this country that these rebuttals will be seen by only a few select individuals - those who visit this site. All the same, just a few years ago no one would have heard anything, so perhaps this is progress.It must be noted that every war needs a Toyko Rose and Ms. Coulter fills that role quite well. After all, she makes her living from publicity and attention, not by writing well thought out and researched articles. Was it P.T. Barmun who said (if not him, then my sincere apologizes!), and I paraphrase: There is no bad publicity, there is only no publicity. Ms. Coulter is like a parrot that only repeats what is said not having a clue as to what it means.Once again, I can only thank those who have the courage and the ability to offer such outstanding rebuttals. The truth will prevail!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #15 posted by Puritan on September 29, 2000 at 17:48:20 PT

It is a shame..

Some of the comments offered in rebuttal to Ms. Coulter are truly of the highest quality. It is sad reflection on our culture and the state of journalism in this country that these rebuttals will be seen by only a few select individuals - those who visit this site. All the same, just a few years ago no one would have heard anything, so perhaps this is progress.It must be noted that every war needs a Toyko Rose and Ms. Coulter fills that role quite well. After all, she makes her living from publicity and attention, not by writing well thought out and researched articles. Was it P.T. Barmun who said (if not him, then my sincere apologizes!), and I paraphrase: There is no bad publicity, there is only no publicity. Ms. Coulter is like a parrot that only repeats what is said not having a clue as to what it means.Once again, I can only thank those who have the courage and the ability to offer such outstanding rebuttals. The truth will prevail!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #14 posted by Tim Stone on September 29, 2000 at 16:56:21 PT

Good ol' Ann

First of all, Ann Coulter is we well-known right wing shill who gets regular exposure on political gasbag tv shows.Secondly, while Jewish-Americans as a group do tend to have a "liberal" bent, whatever that might mean these days, individual Jews are all over the ideological map. Consider Norman Poderetz, Midge Dechter, Michael Horowitz, the list goes on. There is a very rich tradition of conservative thought propounded by Jews in America. Much of the "neo-conservative" intellectual movement of the 80s was done by Jews.Thirdly, this article is a good example of the usually shoddy, superficial reasoning and writing for which Coulter is well-known. Rather than actually engage specific legalization arguments, as our friend "observer" has nicely done, Coulter specifically states that she will _not_ engage such arguments, since they are so contemptuous as to be self-indicting and unworthy of any grown-up consideration. She is therefore admitting that she hasn't done any homework, hasn't read the basic info necessary to even qualify for entry into the drug policy argument arena. Instead, in lieu of actually doing her journalist job of informing herself, she trots out some aged straw men arguments that "observer" nicely and easily rends into smithereens.What's sorry and sad about Coulter's article is not so much her non-arguments, but that with her miserable factual inadequacy, as evidenced by this article, she is apparently still widely considered to be a well-informed professional who is well-qualified to render her well-researched opinions on Fox, MSNBC and network tv shows. Welcome to the sorry state of journalism in early 21st century America. Better Days, 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #13 posted by Frank on September 29, 2000 at 16:47:24 PT

Please Don't Legalize Marijuana

Please don’t legalize marijuana. What would we (the police) do? We could not shake down people for money nor get our cookies committing perjury on the witness stand (know as testilying in police slang). Or we could not “Flake people” (killing someone and then throwing down a weapon and saying they were armed in police slang). And we would not be able to continue financing our “Drug War” through the forfeiture of your property.  Please, Please don’t legalize marijuana our police department could not sustain the loss. Thank you,The American Police Departments.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #12 posted by jason on September 29, 2000 at 14:40:33 PT

closed minded

This guy is like so many people set in their ways. Hey I've got news for him the majority of potsmokers aren't uneducated idiots that can't hold a job, but are nurses,architects, highly successful businessmen, etc. How can someone speak about the ills of pot if they have never tried it? I grew up w/ the notion that pot made you crazy and worthless. At least that's what my school taught me.That's where the liars are! And legalization will happen because when all these old people set in their ways finally bite the dust this generation will know the truth. Some day we WILL be the majority. PUt that in your pipe and smoke it!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by arcturus on September 29, 2000 at 12:11:50 PT

comments

observer, do you make a point of forwarding your rebuttals to the authors such as Ann Coulter? I hope you do, because if you don't, I will. You're great.arcturus
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #10 posted by Steven on September 29, 2000 at 12:09:50 PT:

Reasoning

Most people seem to feel that marijuana was made illigal for a reason. Suprise, the marijuana tax act was passed purely on myth as described by Harry Anslinger and the medical establishment was against its passage because they felt it was a useful substance. It is also important to examine the debate, less than 15 minutes of ussless information, check it out..
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #9 posted by observer on September 29, 2000 at 10:04:55 PT

rebuttal, part 1

Like everyone else in America, (Bandwagon appeal ... "everyone else" is against "legalization", Ann says. You can't be in Ann's clique, if you disagree with Anne.)I had never really listened to the arguments of the drug legalization crowd because ... it's not going to happen. Ah yes, Republican cheerleader Ann Coulter, best known for her Clinton/Lewinsky hit pieces carried by Matt Drudge and recycled on Freerepublic.com, comes to the Prohibitionists' rescue! After all, with the smashing Dan Gardner articles in Canada, and worse yet, Joel Miller's brilliant series on WorldNet Daily, one would expect more than a few establishment toadies to croak out their displeasure with those exposing prohibitionist falsehoods. And so we have Ms Coulter, applying here tried-and-true smear tactics to bolster, in this case, the police state."Not going to happen", Ann? That's why prosecutors from Alaska to Massachusetts are sweating bullets over the groundswell of MJ initiaves? Not going to happen like it didn't happen in 1998? Not going to happen ... if you listen to CNN,CBS,NBC,ABC,Washington Post,etc., that is; the mainstream US "press", then you'd never know about Holland's coffee shops (unless McCaffrey is lying about them), Canada's supreme court ruling and Canada's increasing movement toward legalization. In that's case, you might also say "it's not going to happen".Still, curious that Ms Coulter has declared war on an idea that is "not going to happen", isn't it? If it is "not going to happen", then why is she all hot and bothered?These people are like scholars whose area of expertise is an obscure bug in a Third World country. Their theories could be completely insane, but no one cares enough to bother listening to them. Notice the sloppy ad hominem Ann Coulter treats us to from beginning to end. Her attacks on the very idea of returning to Americans traditional freedoms over their own bodies amount to little more than insult. The most superficially appealing argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, even if it ruins their lives. Except that's not true.Not to tyrants, petty or otherwise. Your body belongs to the state. Interesting to see that Ann agrees with that premise.Back on Earth, see, Notice this woman's continual dropping of insult. (Get used to it from Ann: ridicule and insult are the substance of her "arguments.")we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions. I see: so, the wrong of government socialism, in Queen Ann's mind, necessitates the injustice of throwing people in jail for using substances that Ann feels lowly subjects mustn't use. In Ann's world, two wrongs do make a "right.""We" have to "invest" in "our" future by supporting people who freely choose to inject drugs in their own bodies and then become incapable of holding jobs, obtaining housing and taking care of their children. Bull. Even now, in Ann's socialist worker's paradise that she make motions of complaining against, socialist workers (CPS) look with relish upon welfare mothers that are caught using drugs. Because they can snatch the kids, and cut the mother from the welfare roles. And get a bigger budget for their department.So it's not really quite accurate to say drugs hurt no one but the user, at least until we've repealed the welfare state. Nice try, Annie. I've heard this argument from closet fascists before, when they attempt to appeal to those who want both economic and personal liberty. In their usual any-excuse-will-do mode, they kick up as much sand as possible. Any excuse will do to deny Americans liberties and freedoms that they traditionally held. In this case, it the excuse is "the welfare state." And who ever said that (so-called) conservatives can't also get some political mileage out of socialism? Anne does.And don't give me the now-we'll-have-to-regulate-fatty-foods slippery slope argument.A) Sparring with a straw man, is she? I've never heard anyone advance that "argument" as a reason to not jail marijuana smokers. B) Ann needs to keep up with current events (events that don't concern Clinton's zipper, that is). She needs to look up "fat tax" sometime. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fat+Tax%22 For example, see   "THE FAT TAX: Is it really such a crazy idea?"(Hanna Rosin, May 18, 1998) http://www.thenewrepublic.com/archive/0598/051898/rosin051898.htmletc. Precisely because you can see a difference in eating a hamburger and smoking crack means there is a huge difference between the top of the slope and the bottom -- which is why pure slippery slope arguments are always stupid. Let me just ask: Before he serves you, would you prefer that your bus driver or investment banker had consumed a hamburger, a cigarette or marijuana? I wouldn't care, and would moreover rejoice knowing that cannabis users were not subject to prison. (Ms Coulter forgot to mention prison. "Prison" is always slipping from prohibitionists minds when they argue against "legalization", isn't it?)In fact, smokers and fatty-food consumers clearly benefit society through their years of tobacco- or hamburger-fueled hard work. They also undoubtedly save the taxpayers money by dying relatively swift deaths from corroded arteries or cancerous lungs. (Junk food and tobacco companies tend not to want to advertise that particular great savings to the Social Security system, but it's true.) More sneering in place of argument. The issue is about not throwing people in prison, something that Ms Coulter seems to conveniently lose sight of.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #8 posted by observer on September 29, 2000 at 10:04:29 PT

rebuttal, part 2

As Joseph Califano has pointed out(Ann must be a big fan of Califano.)even John Stuart Mill said there were some things people could not be permitted to choose to do with their own bodies in a free society: "The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom."Right: that's why we don't allow people to sell themselves into slavery. (That would be unfair competition with UNICOR. Did Anne forget to mention UNICOR ... and prison rape? http://www.spr.org )Drugs enslave people.Some people. And "enslave" only in a metaphorical sense. Prohibitionists want to confuse the difference between a putative (metaphoric) "enslavement", and use this metaphor as an excuse to impose real bars, real chains and real slavery (forced labor). As usual, any excuse will do to steal your traditional freedoms. If not "The Children", then it is the UNICOR slavers and their apologists who only whant to "save" you from a horrible, terrible ... metaphor. So do cigarettes and alcohol, the drug legalizers say. Indeed, they fervently claim that alcohol and cigarettes are no better (and probably worse) than marijuana. Next time you buy a bottle of wine or a pack of beer, or when you pick up your monthly rations of vodka, gin or rum, remember that by supporting the war on drugs you are being a hypocrite. More importantly, you are supporting the violation of the basic human rights of millions of people whose choice of recreational indulgence just happens to be different from yours, no better and no worse. The Hypocrisy of Drug Prohibition (Sept. 2000, Tibor R. Machan)http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.39/drug_prohibition.html As Gary Johnson, governor of New Mexico (and only the most recent Republican to figure out that the path to fawning media coverage is to adopt a dumb liberal idea) puts it (as summarized in a fawning article in The New York Times): "Last year 450,000 people died from smoking cigarettes. Alcohol killed 150,000, and another 100,000 died from legal prescription drugs. How many people died last year from the use of marijuana? Few, if any. From cocaine and heroin? Five thousand." Gov. Johnson makes a good point. The "war on drugs" is a trumped-up excuse for a police state. I'll accept all the drug-legalizers' lying statistics and demonstrate that their arguments are still dumb, but you have to admit that someone who lies in formulating an argument is not to be trusted. And that figure on cigarette deaths is a bald-faced lie. The 450,000 number refers to all "smoking-related" deaths. A "smoking-related" death is any death that under any circumstances could be connected to smoking, including heart attacks and a plethora of cancers. If an obese 99-year old smoker dies of a heart attack while shoveling snow, his death is listed as a "smoking-related" death. Indeed, the books are so cooked on the "smoking-related deaths" alleged by the American Cancer Society that a 1993 article in the American Journal of Epidemiology was able to show that by using the exact same methodology, smoking saves 277,621 lives each year. (The methodology also proves that 504,000 people die each year from insufficient exercise, and 649,000 die from improper diets.)The "5000" deaths for illegal drugs was likewise calculated as all "drug-related" deaths. If a person smoked a joint a month ago and was killed by a drunk driver, that, likewise is a "drug-related" death. Similarly the Donald Scotts, the Mario Paz's, the Pedro Oregon, are also considered "drug-related" deaths. Ann waxes eloquent on the expansiveness of "smoking-related" deaths, but is mum on the similar expansiveness of the "drug-related" death figures. (Gov. Johnson's figures, which Anne Coulter terms "drug-legalizers' lying statistics" are obtained from the government/prohibitionists.)It is known that marijuana smoke is much worse for the respiratory system than is cigarette smoke. That's only "known" to those with a mission to "prove" something bad about cannabis... http://www.marijuana.com/facts/Exposing_04_1095.htmlThe only reason you don't hear about a lot of people dying from marijuana is that -- well, for one, like the guy shoveling snow, a pot-smoker who dies of emphysema goes down as a "smoking-related" death. But also people don't smoke pot like they smoke cigarettes. And one reason for that is: Marijuana is illegal. MYTH: MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE It is frequently claimed that marijuana smoke contains such high concentrations of irritants that marijuana users' risk of developing lung disease is equal to or greater than that of tobacco users. THE FACTS Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters. Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than three to five cigarettes per day and most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users. Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing. However, the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema). Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers. The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases. 22 In an epidemiological survey, approximately 1200 subjects gave information on smoking and pulmonary function at two-year intervals. A large percentage of the subjects underwent pulmonary function testing. Although a small group who reported previous marijuana smoking had significant pulmonary abnormalities, current marijuana smokers had no significant reduction in any pulmonary functions. 23. . .Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence (October 1995)Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical Schoolhttp://www.marijuana.com/facts/Exposing_04_1095.html, etc. Still, let's grant the drug-legalizers their phony statistics. Assume alcohol and cigarettes induce dependency, ruin lives, cause disease, depression, countless traffic injuries and fatalities, and increase the incidence of homicide and suicide. This is supposed to be an argument for legalizing another drug like them? a) Marijuana (her real target here, make no mistake) isn't "just like them".b) It is the height of hyprocrisy to not jail adults for using alcohol, but (suddenly, in 1938) "discover" that adults are sinning so badly by using marijuana that they then, that year and thereafter, needed to be jailed for using marijuana.Expect to see more such hit pieces chock full of ad hominem and insinuation, from Ms Coulter, in the future. The empire strikes back when it is questioned.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #7 posted by john on September 29, 2000 at 09:11:42 PT:

ruined lives

 Ann, there are those who think you have ruined your life by being jewish. You have given your mind to a mere tenacle of a bigger body. All tenacle ends are buried in the sand. The body of spirituality, not it's arms are the globe of goodness. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 29, 2000 at 08:15:34 PT

Ann Coulter 

Hi Everyone,Ann Coulter is something else. I've talked to her a couple times back when I was a regular on MSNBC News Chat and we went around and round on a few things but she sure seems to get tv time. She is so argumentative she'll drive you to drink even if you don't. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by Matt on September 29, 2000 at 08:09:30 PT:

Reality Check!

I am so fed up with all this b.s. anti-smokers are talkin'. They always have to come up with some lame azz cop out for not smokin' weed. Yeah, maybe some of the debates for smokin' are a little inaccurate, but guess what, THEY'RE STILL FACTS!!!!! If you compare the stats of death by alcohol and death by weed, which stat is higher? If you compare death by cigarettes and death by weed, which stat is higher? STOP TRYING TO COP-OUT THE FACTS AZZHOLES!! 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #4 posted by i_rule_ on September 29, 2000 at 07:44:31 PT

Just a joke

This person is just a joke, folks. She is trying to get attention by insulting our intellegence. She knows no one likes her, so she lashes out at people out of insecurity. No one who reads this article believes a word of it. She obviously can't stand herself. As for her statement about legalization not going to happen, she is just afraid that it is going to happen. Her ignorance of the benefits of medical marijuana just proves her ignorance on the whole. Ignore these naysayers and continue the fight! We will win!Peace 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by legalizeit on September 29, 2000 at 07:24:16 PT

I always thought Jews were more liberal than this!

Every time I see rambling nonsense like this, it amazes me that any paper would print it!>Let me just ask: Before he serves you, would youprefer that your bus driver or investment banker had consumed a hamburger, a cigarette or marijuana?It wouldn't make a difference to me. His body is his to do with as he chooses. And notice how she almost exclusively talks about MJ in this article.>In fact, smokers and fatty-food consumers clearly benefit society through their years of tobacco- or hamburger-fueled hard work. They also undoubtedly save the taxpayers money by dying relatively swift deaths from corroded arteries or cancerous lungs.One difference, though - people don't go to jail for possessing or using these substances, even though one of them requires the deaths of millions of innocent animals each year to produce.Indeed, the books are so cooked on the "smoking-related deaths" alleged by the American Cancer Society that a 1993 article in the American Journal of Epidemiology was able to show that by using the exact same methodology, smoking saves 277,621 lives each year. (The methodology also proves that 504,000 people die each year from insufficient exercise, and 649,000 die from improper diets.)Again, NONE of these practices lands people in jail. Smoking or growing an herb does.>Still, let's grant the drug-legalizers their phony statistics. >And that figure on cigarette deaths is a bald-faced lie.Prohibitionism has been based on phony information from the start, and most if not all prohibitionists are manipulative, lying frauds. And this is what she bases her prohib rhetoric on.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #2 posted by Kanabys on September 29, 2000 at 07:21:38 PT

I think he is a she 

unless Ann is a boy's name now. Anyway, yes this is (yawn) another anti trying to turn the tables and say that the legalizers have lying stats. Just go to the czar's site and you'll see lying stats! I don't know if this ***** knows this, but archeologists think that Cannabis may have been part of the incense used by ancient Jewish people in their temple. Wouldn't that blow this misled antis mind? HeHePax Pacis
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 29, 2000 at 07:07:09 PT

Mystics

This guy is very prejudice. If there was ever a word for an anti this guy is it. During the time of Jewish mysticism msytics were known to have used herbs to enhance the religious experience. This guy should really look up the facts.
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment




Name:       Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL: 
Link Title: