Merlyn_LeRoy

Yeh forget, Merlyn, that these are federal officials or heads of nation-wide groups, eh? So? For the federal government, smoking marijuana is not taking medicine. For the federal government, marijuana is a narcotic, which it is not. I prefer to deal with reality, and I prefer not to have a nanny state that prohibits anything that can possibly harm anyone. You and vol_scouter don't even appear to be consistent regarding dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco; I haven't seen either of you advocate that they be illegal like MJ. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Sorry Beavah, argument from authority isn't valid either. If these authorities don't back up their assertions with actual data, it's a pig in a poke. And yes, people whose job it is to be against using drugs really aren't unbiased when it comes to using drugs. I already pointed out one egregious error -- it's ridiculous to say that smoking marijuana isn't taking medicine for people who have prescriptions to smoke marijuana. They manifestly ARE taking medicine. Saying it isn't is 100% drug hysteria. Now, if these experts want to publish their data showing a correlation, that would be a start. But it doesn't look like they have, so there's still no data to argue over.

Those experts haven't quoted any figures either. And this statement: "Calling smoked marijuana medicine is absolutely incorrect" is especially bad. People who smoked prescribed marijuana ARE taking medicine. People get buzzed from Robitussin, but that doesn't mean that people who take it for a cold aren't taking medicine.

Beavah writes: Marijuana use has been increasing for the past three years among teens, so that now it has surpassed cigarette use on a "used this month" basis. It had been trendin' slowly down durin' the previous decade. That correlates with da enactment and implementation of medical marijuana statutes in several states, What? Medical marijuana statutes went down during the previous decade, and rose during the last 3 years? and the prominence of "MJ is OK" media talk on the matter. What? "MJ is OK" media talk went down during the previous decade, and rose during the last 3 years? Beavah, correlation != causation, no matter how hard you try. But you aren't even trying hard, because you have no figures for what you claim MJ consumption correlates with. What hard numbers are you comparing? The ones you pull out of various orifices don't count.

Since Mj use was down for the previous 3 years, didid medical MJ establishments go down? I don't think so. So what you've got is two things increased this year. That would correlate with half of everything. The other half went down -- so that's an inverse correlation, too.

Not sure I follow you Beavah; minors using an illegal drug at a greater rate than a legal drug looks like an argument for legalization. Instead of buying it from some guy on the street who sells to anyone, it would be carried by stores that card people. Not everything legal is beneficial. Damn, now I'm practically quoting Corinthians...

So, will you finally answer if you support prohibiting alcohol? Of that 86%, how does that break down to alcohol alone, alcohol + marijuana, marijuana alone? And how do you justify saying that legalizing more drugs will lead to the " serious injury and death of more innocent men, women, and children"? Looks to me like you're assuming that consumption will increase, driving under the influence will increase, etc, which you haven't established.

I'm not a sports fan of any sort OGE, but Bias' case is a good example. He bought some cocaine to celebrate his Celtics (and $3 million Reebok) contracts, but since he apparently didn't know much about cocaine; he took enough to kill a horse (with alcohol, too). I doubt he would have managed to kill himself if he could have purchased cocaine of a known strength in pill form with dosage instructions and warnings not to mix it with alcohol. Illegal, unregulated markets are more dangerous.

Speaking of communication problems, it took me about 10 seconds to figure out what Trevorum meant by the phrase "which pack skirts"... Which...packs a punch? Which...packs the pants in the family? Wat?

I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to drugs. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opium, morphene etc should be legal, with regulations to be sold to adults, with warning labels, dosage information, interactions, and so on. And have private businesses decide if they want a smoking ban. Len Bias wouldn't be dead, and the pope could once again drink Vin Mariani.

Scoutfish, the smoking itself doesn't harm the other people. Yes, smoking marijuana and driving can harm other people, but that isn't the smoking per se ("itself") that does it. Just like innocent peole do not get harmed by alcohol, but through the action of those who use it. Correct. I was responding to "Smoking marijuana causes harm to innocent people" and pointing out the same thing. You know, being accurate instead of histrionic. Like balanced news.

vol_scouter, instead of asking me what I meant by "nope", you went off on me in order to paint me as reprehensible. I have no patience for people like you who are so eager to assume the worst about someone. Instead, you response makes me believe that you meant what you wrote but decided that you did not want it out. See? There you're doing it AGAIN. After TELLING YOU what I meant, you STILL refuse to believe it, because that would involve admitting you were wrong. Instead, you keep dishonestly accusing me. And you STILL haven't said if you are in favor of banning alcohol and tobacco, two drugs that kill far more people than marijuana.

vol_scouter lies: As always, when shown to be wrong, you resort to insults. vol_scouter, stop lying: "So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children?" "Nope." That means I disagree with your assertion that I have no problem. You are the one arguing to make more psychoactive drugs available which will harm innocent people - not me. Correct. I prefer freedom to prohibition, and regulated capitalism instead of distribution by criminals. I quoted your response from your post, it speaks for itself. "It speaks for itself", because the first time you either misunderstood my answer, or deliberately distorted my answer. I debated whether to respond to you and as always, I regret doing so. You are wrong and cannot admit it and always become hateful. And because YOU cannot understand English, I'M the one who's "wrong" (even though YOU either didn't understand or deliberately distorted what I said) and so that makes ME the "hateful" one. Riiiiight. (OGE We dont need comments like this) I am trying to save lives harmed by the drugs that you want to make legal so only more will be harmed. So you're in favor of prohibiting alcohol and tobacco, which kill far more people? You're in favor of criminal markets? Why do you keep avoiding my questions on whether alcohol and tobacco should be banned? In my opinion, illegal drugs are generally worse than legal drugs. They are an unregulated criminal enterprise that increases the prison population instead of a regulated, legal enterprise. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Scoutfish, learn what "per se" means. All your examples are not examples of smoking "per se." By the way, are you in favor of banning tobacco and alcohol? They kill far more people.

Well vol_scouter, you're such a dishonest debater it doesn't surprise me that you want to allow criminals to make lots of money by keeping drugs illegal and are in favor of big brother government controlling people's lives by deciding for them what they can and can't consume; I'd say that explains a lot about you, but I've always known you weren't an honest debater anyway. PS: If you were familiar with English, you might realize that "Nope" as a response to "So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children?" means "The assertion that I have no problem etc etc is false." (we need not call each other names, at least not this) OGE. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Smoking marijuana causes harm to innocent people, No, smoking per se causes some harm to the smoker, but not innocent people. is a carcinogen, causes lung disease, Sure. Do you think cigarettes should be banned? and is not needed medically since marinol is available and efficacious. Unless you can't keep it down. And you're saying it's better to add a hospital stay and an IV instead of self-treatment of nausea? There are no current medical uses for cocaine or heroin. They've been mostly superseded by other painkillers, but some of them are derivatives. But yes, they are still used, and I've seen at least one critique that doctors are too squeamish to use heavy painkillers like heroin even when it's appropriate, because of drug hysteria. So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children? Nope. Are you in favor of prohibiting alcohol because my brother was paralyzed by a drunk driver? Or are some dangerous drugs OK for no logical reason?

Smoking marijuana is not needed. But why eliminate smoking marijuana? As far as whats the harm, how many families including minors have you seen killed or maimed by someone high on marijuana Are you against medical use of cocaine and heroin?

vol_scouter, anti-nausea drugs don't work so well if you keep vomiting them up. Besides, what is so horribly bad about drug treatments that cause some sort of intoxication?

Beavah will attempt to downplay the constitutional problems with city governments violating the first amendment by owning and operating a youth group that discriminates on the basis of religion, but he isn't risking anything. The BSA itself states that government entities are NOT suitable chartering organizations for troops, crews, etc.

If Louisiana is involved, you might also need to add the Napoleonic code.

Has any president ever racked up a bigger defecit in a non-war period than our current president? We're in a non-war period?

It ain't over 'til it's over: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20101119_Philadelphia_plan_to_sell_building_to_Boy_Scouts_hits_a_snag.html http://blogs.phillymag.com/gphilly/2010/11/19/aclu-objects-to-boy-scout-deal/

Eagledad writes: //Eagledad, care to share your explanation for what you think 'natural' is?// Sure I believe natural sex for all critters is the instinctive act to appropriate. So what's the "natural sex" for these lizards? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Grassland_Whiptail_Lizard The Desert Grassland Whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis uniparens) is an all-female species. It was formerly placed in the genus Cnemidophorus. These reptiles reproduce by parthenogenesis; eggs undergo a chromosome doubling after meiosis and develop into lizards without being fertilized. However, ovulation is enhanced by female-female courtship and "mating" (pseudocopulation) rituals that resemble the behavior of closely related species that reproduce sexually.

Eagledad writes: ""History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality"". Facts? If your statement were true, we wouldn't have these discussions. What? That statement IS true. Homosexuality is natural because it is found in nature. If you want to argue that homosexuality is undesirable for some reason, don't use words that mean something else entirely, like natural/unnatural.

camilam42 writes: A homosexual person's preference doesn't have much influence, but his behavior does. It is an immoral action in which he is engaging, in direct contradiction to the BSA. What action? Breathing? Standing? Talking?