Where do you go for balanced news?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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]

Smoking marijuana causes harm to innocent people, is a carcinogen, causes lung disease, and is not needed medically since marinol is available and efficacious.

 

There are no current medical uses for cocaine or heroin. Both are only available to researchers with special licenses. There are other narcotics and members of the cocaine family that have medical uses, are ordered by physicians, and dispensed by pharmacists.

 

So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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They've been mostly superseded by other painkillers, but some of them are derivatives.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?

 

[Scoutfish]

"No, smoking per se causes some harm to the smoker, but not innocent people. "

 

Except when a high person decides it's okay to drive to the store to get some food because they have "the munchies",

And because of their distorted mental sate and repressed hand-eye coordination,aswellas retarded reflexes..forget to stop and drive through the store..including the INNOCENT people who were in line waiting to pay for their "non munchie" merchandise.

 

Except when a high person decides to drive down the hiway, and for reasons unknow, decide to pretend they are in England while driving up grade on a high rise bridge and cannot see the oncoming traffic on the other side. Luckily, nobody died in that one.

 

Except when a high person gets paranoid in a shopping mall, doesn't like that the maniquinn in "checking me out:" and decides to stab the maniquinn as well as the security guard who tried to stop him.

 

 

Except the 2 guys who decide to drive "moonlight" down the hiway at70 mph at 12:45 am , and run head on straight into a taxi cab of teenagers coming home from a rock concert. The one who only uses crayons and watches Barney doesn't hold a grudge like her mom and dad!

 

Except the guy who freaks out while high in an arcade and throws the cue ball ( from a pool table) across the arcade and hits a 6 year old boy who luckily recovers, but has a nasty scar for life.

 

Except the guy who runs across a highway thinking he is somehow superman and faster than the traffic...and causes a 6 car pileup . Luckily, he didn't have a chance to feel pain.

 

My sources? 12 years working Fire/Ems / Water Rescue

 

Yeah Merlyn, alcohol is a nasty thing indeed, but it is legal. wether it should be or not is another debate completely seperate from from marijuanna.

 

 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

You seem to fail to understand. Most cancer patients have a port that can be accessed at home to give IV drugs and IV fluids or to do so as an outpatient. Yes, it is better to admit anyone who is having intractable emesis because they may have other factors such as a previously unknown brain metastasis which is causing the emesis. So if self treatment fails then it is better medical care to admit the patient than smoking.

 

Smoking marijuana impairs the judgment of drivers and it definitely harms innocent people. Since your brother was seriously injured by a drunk driver, I cannot believe that you want to add another legal drug that causes the same problems - I have seen the results far too often. Once a family of four - both parents died in the ER along with one child, the remaining child (~8 as I recall) suffered serious injuries. There is no reason to add another psycho-active drug to alcohol as legal drugs. Surely you can see that.

 

There is damage from second smoke and that is worse with marijuana because it can affect the judgment of people receiving it secondhand in addition to all the health effects from COPD etc.

 

We can use morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, demerol, codeine, nubain, methadone, and other narcotic as well as non-narcotic analgesics to relieve pain. Darvon and its compounds was just removed for use by the FDA. I repeat, heroin cannot be used in a clinical situation. It is illegal. Only certain laboratories with special licenses can use it in studies (not on patients).

 

You quoted me: "So you have no problem with folks high on marijuana harming innocent men women, and children? "

and then you responded:

"Nope. "

 

So you do not care if innocent people are harmed. That leaves me speechless. Such a cold heart. It explains a lot about you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

As always, when shown to be wrong, you resort to insults. You are the one arguing to make more psychoactive drugs available which will harm innocent people - not me. I quoted your response from your post, it speaks for itself. 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. I am trying to save lives harmed by the drugs that you want to make legal so only more will be harmed.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.)

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

I don't lie - both my careers are based upon integrity and mine has never been challenged. Others have said the same things about you on this forum. I used your own words. If the statement was poorly written, you could have politely said so and I would have accepted that. Instead, you response makes me believe that you meant what you wrote but decided that you did not want it out. As always, all you can do is call people names whan you lose on facts.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[GernBlansten]

Can't you two take this offline and debate it privately? Your sniping at each other has nothing to do with this topic or the rest of us forum members.

 

In an attempt to pull this thread back onto the rails,

I think most people have a predefined view on issues, even when they don't know all the facts. Our own biases and experiences filter our initial position on a given topic. It happens to all of us.

Then we look to news outlets that justify those opinions and discount outlets that challenge them. The problem now is we have news outlets that satisfy those needs and don't offer a reasonable challenge. Echo chamber media. This solidifies our positions and builds barriers to inputs from other sources.

[skeptic]

I am at the point that re-reading Mark Twain's and Will Rogers' political writings seems the only way to go. Amazing how much of what they had to say can be related to today's events.

[Gunny2862]

As most of us know, fair and balanced became a catch phrase when a certain network began using it in their advertising.

Through out news reporting in the history of the US bias has been known to exist and often be advertised in the very name of the organization.

It has been and remains incumbent on the reader to partake in the news with an understanding of the bias of the writer.

 

Currently I'm getting a lot of mine from the blogosphere and Twitter announcements of various blog posts. Before you pooh-pooh this approach it is amazing to me how many times in the last couple of months that the main stream news often runs stories that were in the blogosphere 2-3 days earlier or even more but have been revisited via twitter. In the MSM world I tend to follow what the wife watches which means CBS, MSNBC and occasionally the kid watches FOX.

 

[Eagle1982]

Another vote for NPR. While public radio has some left leaning shows, the news shows during the morning and afternoon seem to go our of their way to present both sides. Without the use of celebrities and politicians for the sake of celebrities and politicians.

 

I also like the Economist. I guess snobby reading and radio shows with proper enunciation and grammar appeal to me for some reason.