Covering items related to the drug war here at HA, I’ve focused mostly on local happenings, but the drug war continues to destroy lives all over. Here are four recent cases from across the United States:
California
In California, where medical marijuana has been legal for 12 years now, a dispensary owner in Morro Bay named Charlie Lynch was convicted yesterday in a federal court and faces a minimum of five years in jail, and a maximum of 85.
During the trial, the jury was not allowed to know that Lynch was providing marijuana to people who were ill and authorized by doctors under state law to use marijuana. The judge even went so far as to try to keep registered patients out of the courtroom in order to deceive the jury as to the true nature of Lynch’s business. As far as they knew, he was just some guy selling drugs to people, and not a legitimate business owner who was warmly welcomed by the mayor of Morro Bay. He had no criminal record but could now receive a longer sentence than if he’d murdered someone.
Reason.tv has covered this case extensively. Drew Carey produced a great video on Lynch and one of his customers, a young man who got bone cancer in high school, lost his leg, and discovered that marijuana was the most effective medicine for the phantom pain that many amputees experience. Nick Gillespie has more here, as does Radley Balko.
Maryland
Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, was raided by a Prince George County SWAT team on the evening of July 29th. After storming into the house, according to Calvo, the officers shot one of his two black Labrador retrievers immediately and shot the second one as it ran away. The reason for the raid was that police intercepted a large package of marijuana addressed to Calvo’s wife.
After first claiming that Calvo, his wife, and his mother-in-law were “persons-of-interest,” the police later figured out that it was a scheme to mail a package to a random person and intercept it. The police also claim that the dogs were threatening them, a claim that Calvo strongly disputes. In addition, the officers didn’t even have a no-knock warrant, so the entire raid was illegal anyway.
Ohio
This January in Lima, Ohio, a SWAT team raided a house occupied by Tarika Wilson and her 6 children. The police were looking for her boyfriend, Anthony Terry, who was suspected of dealing drugs. Wilson was shot and killed by Officer Joe Chavalia as she was on her knees trying to protect her 1-year-old son. The toddler was shot twice but managed to only lose a finger. Terry was arrested during the raid and is now serving a 7-year jail sentence for selling crack and marijuana to police informants. Wilson was never a suspect.
Chavalia was charged with negligent homicide, but at the trial, claimed that he thought he was under attack when he heard his fellow officers shooting Wilson’s two pit bulls during the raid. He was acquitted this week by an all-white jury. Both Wilson and Terry are black.
Black residents of Lima are furious as this is just another in a long line of questionable incidents by local police towards their community. The U.S. Department of Justice is considering civil rights charges. The Lima police department has yet to apologize or even admit that a mistake was made. Anthony Terry was certainly breaking the law (although he was no more than a low-level dealer), and there may even have been reason to think he was potentially dangerous, but raiding a house where six kids are living and shooting wildly is never acceptable in any circumstance.
Florida
Arguably the most moronic story comes from Tallahassee. A 23-year-old graduate of Florida State University named Rachel Hoffman was arrested by police in possession of 5 ounces of marijuana and 6 ecstasy pills. It was her second arrest after being forced into drug treatment once after police had pulled her over with marijuana in her car a year before. According to her friends, she was a bit of a hippie who just supplied her college friends with recreational drugs.
At this point, she was potentially facing some real prison time, so she decided (without the knowledge of her attorney) to become an informant and help Tallahassee police bust some suspected gang members in order to avoid going to jail. The police set Hoffman up on a sting to try to purchase a large amount of drugs and a gun from Deneilo Bradshaw and Andrea Green. The two men, likely smelling the idiotic sting attempt from a mile away, lured Hoffman to a different location and killed her. Bradshaw and Green have been arrested and face murder charges.
This case has gotten the most media attention so far, including a report on ABC’s 20/20 which contains a long interview with the unbelievably clueless Tallahassee Police Chief. Hoffman’s parents are angry as hell and are now worried that the judge in Bradshaw and Green’s murder case is trying to keep them from criticizing local officials over what happened.
Do we need any more proof that the War on Drugs is a complete and utter failure? Or should we as Americans feel that the death of innocents is somehow justified because of this?
Marijuana should be made completely legal. The War on Drugs is an anachronism from the Nixon Administration.
Besides the awful cost to the people involved, think of how much money is being spent on the aftermath of these incidents. I would be curious to find out how much money was spent on the above four cases alone.
But I guess any price is worth keeping marijuana off the streets. So depressing – I think I’ll go to the bar and get drunk.
The “War on Drugs” is a tool of the prison-industrial complex, and another cog in the transfer of wealth machine. The suppression of information and utter trampling of justice in these cases is appalling. Wake up America, before fascism takes over completely!
WTF! That jury in that Morro Bay case were such a bunch of freaking cowards.
That is such a fucking travesty I bet they were intimidated.
What political agenda was at work there I wonder?
Pissed off!
Bong toke…. cough cough. Bummer dude.
Do get shoot cops if we have a vague suspicion they may shoot at us? How about if we are hikers and think a kid with a rifle may shoot us. Do we get to shoot first?
Legalize it and tax it a little to lower the
gas tax. All those stories are tragic and a
prime example of people with a little power
over other people (kind of like Ron Sims)
and the astonishing amount of arrogance that
rears its ugly head. Usually the smaller, less
developed brain of a worthless liberal.
Thehim/Lee calls these tragedies?
How about some real tragedies like drunken and otherwise illegal aliens killing cops, women, children and other innocent Americans every day in this country.
Now that’s a tragedy, Bitch!!
…alas, Lee and his merry band of marijuana smoking marionettes are either too ignorant, lazy or braindead to report and/or come to grips with a reality that conflicts with their narrow political agenda.
You need to unfuck yourself and learn what the word “tragedy” truly means, Lee.
Rick D., local voice of compassionate conservatism. Or was that small- government conservatism? I get confused after having a beer on a hot day…
tensor:
I realize facts are difficult for you. Rick D is discussing some of these tragic facts:
Danielle Bologna was widowed on June 22 when Edwin Ramos, 21, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, allegedly gunned down her husband and two sons. San Francisco Mayor Any Twosome Newsom gave sanctuary to this guy. SF, CA has one of the worst “sanctuary” policies that protect illegal aliens from deportation in the U.S. The City’s Policy undermines federal law enforcement ICE. Now Mayor Any Twosome Newsom has modified the policy but will not meet with Danielle. He ran to Montana.
Um, Rick, marijuana prohibition and the amount of money it gives to the violent drug cartels who’ve destabilized Mexico and its economy are a very big reason why we have such a problem with illegal immigration right now.
That’s the reality, and you’re welcome to familiarize yourself with it any time.
@11
Yep, they’re tragedies too. Although since illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than legal Americans and other immigrants, neither you nor Rick actually has a point.
Here’s a news report on the study that demonstrates that:
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
@ 12
Um, Lee, Mexico is the world’s 5th richest nation in natural resources.
That fantasy of yours regarding the onslaught of illegal immigration from that country in particular has less to do with “violent drug cartels” and the U.S. drug prohibition stance than it does an inherent “culture of corruption” within the Mexican society, more specifically its government-run institutions as a whole.
That’s a reality that you may want to familiarize yourself with…even though you’re fully aware of it but choose to dismiss it out of political inconvenience.
According to Lee’s math:
An Illegal alien that should have been deported 3 times, but sheltered by “sanctuary city politicies” that run counter to Federal U.S. immigration guidelines Kills 3 American citizens (a Husband and 2 sons) in a traffic altercation………is not a Tragedy.
…But a raid on/and arrest of a person inhaling a controlled substance clearly against that particular city’s drug policy….rises to the level of “tragedy”.
The disconnect is amazing
Ummm Lee, he is an illegal immigrant who previously commited crimes. Edwin Ramos was convicted for an assault and an attempted robbery when he was 17, but city officials of the Juvenile Probation Department did not turn him over to federal immigration authorities ICE. San Francisco’s 1989 “City of Refuge” ordinance prohibits city agencies from contacting the feds on immigration matters.
“I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids,” Newsom declared. “We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it.” Any Twosome Newsom April 2007
Come on Lee you can do better.
More for you Lee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcsaTa9PhiY
Doing my HA duty.
@15
Um, Lee, Mexico is the world’s 5th richest nation in natural resources.
But it’s teetering on the brink of becoming a failed state. Why do you think that is?
That fantasy of yours regarding the onslaught of illegal immigration from that country in particular has less to do with “violent drug cartels” and the U.S. drug prohibition stance than it does an inherent “culture of corruption” within the Mexican society, more specifically its government-run institutions as a whole.
What do you think causes the culture of corruption, dummy? Do you actually think that Mexican people are genetically born to be more corrupt?
Think about what happened in major American cities during alcohol prohibition. They had levels of corruption that were unheard of in years previously and died down after prohibition ended. It’s because when criminal gangs have a monopoly on a good or service that people are willing to pay money for, they can eventually become more powerful than the law itself. That’s what’s been happening with Mexico and that’s why so many people are desperate to come here to escape the violence and poverty.
That’s a reality that you may want to familiarize yourself with…even though you’re fully aware of it but choose to dismiss it out of political inconvenience.
I’m not dismissing that Mexico is corrupt. I’m explaining to you that the drug war is the root cause of the corruption. This is not rocket science.
An Illegal alien that should have been deported 3 times, but sheltered by “sanctuary city politicies” that run counter to Federal U.S. immigration guidelines Kills 3 American citizens (a Husband and 2 sons) in a traffic altercation………is not a Tragedy.
Um, no, dumbshit. This is what I wrote in comment #13
Doesn’t get any more black and white than that, does it?
…But a raid on/and arrest of a person inhaling a controlled substance clearly against that particular city’s drug policy….rises to the level of “tragedy”.
In the California case, the person who was arrested was not inhaling anything was not in violation of his city’s drug policy.
In the Maryland case, the person whose home was raided and his two dogs shot was a completely innocent person.
The disconnect is amazing
What’s it like being so stupid? Are you going to double-down on this and embarrass yourself some more?
@16
Ummm Lee, he is an illegal immigrant who previously commited crimes.
So what? You’re still not making any semblance of a point here. What happened was a tragedy, and as I’ve already pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration in this country are greatly influenced by the fact that the drug war has been devastating to Mexico’s economy.
Edwin Ramos was convicted for an assault and an attempted robbery when he was 17, but city officials of the Juvenile Probation Department did not turn him over to federal immigration authorities ICE. San Francisco’s 1989 “City of Refuge” ordinance prohibits city agencies from contacting the feds on immigration matters.
That strikes me as a huge mistake. Again, what’s your point?
Statistically, an illegal immigrant is less likely to commit a crime like that than an American citizen. In this particular case, exceptions should absolutely be made for people who commit violent crimes, which San Francisco apparently isn’t doing and which defies common sense.
As for your insinuations, you of all people should know better considering how often people in this country do exactly what you’re doing in order to convince others that blacks are a criminal class living within our society.
Lee, it’s impossible for little Ricky Dumbass to embarrass himself. He’s genetically programmed stupid.
Hey Stupes dropped in to save little Ricky Dumbass’ ass! Always there for his silly peeps.
How come when a black person kills a white person, blacks say it was a tragic accident, but when a white person kills a black person, it’s no longer a tragic accident, they become outraged? A little double standard, hmmm?
Statistically, an illegal immigrant is less likely to commit a crime like that than an American citizen.
Whaddaya think of that Stupes? If that is true and it most likely is true, then what indeed is your point?
All you’re about is demagoguing your right wing bullshit. San Francisco has a Sanctuary policy. You call the mayor names. New York had a sanctuary policy under Giuliani and there’s hardly a word said about that.
Such a fool!
@21
How come when a black person kills a white person, blacks say it was a tragic accident, but when a white person kills a black person, it’s no longer a tragic accident, they become outraged?
Do you have any scenarios that aren’t imaginary that you’d like to discuss or did you come here to have everyone laugh at you again?
Those people aren’t important to lee. Notice there’s never any mention of the problems you listed.
@24
Marvin!!
Those people aren’t important to lee. Notice there’s never any mention of the problems you listed.
Only you and your neverending array of idiotic comments are important to me.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
Key word, “illegal” immigrants. That means EVERY illegal immigrant is committing a crime being here illegally.
Or in your world being here illegally isn’t a crime.
Or in your world being here illegally isn’t a crime.
In the world of the silliest Republican, having a brain is a crime.
Your witty comebacks are getting much better.
To a wingnut, stupid is an asset. Stupid wins more times against truth and reason than not.
The wingnut can rarely be embarrassed and laughing at a wingnut has little to no effect.
The only way to win against a wingnut is to defeat him and that victory is almost always fleeting.
Truth is so often buried by those who make shit up and their minions – like this comment board’s silliest Republican.
Would everyone stop using the “Ummmm” device in posts? It’s getting so trite as to be irritating. Think of a new way to show disdain.
@ Lee/Thehim,
Sorry I couldn’t stay around for your weak rebuttal @ 18 & 19 , I get up at 4:30am and don’t get enough sleep as it is.
My original issue with you was your defining legally conducted drug busts as “tragedies” and gave you a clear example of the distinction between your definition of a tragedy and mine.
You’ve somehow morphed your own thread into some incoherent defense of dispensing with current U.S. immigration policy and embracing foreign nationals that have come to this country illegally, while cutting in front of those willing to go through the process in a legal and orderly manner so we know who the fuck is coming here.
You stated:
That isn’t correct if you’re using the PPIC (public policy Institute of california) statistics which do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when arriving at that assertion re: lower crime rates.
As I said, you seem to have a fairly disjointed view of what actually consitutes a “tragedy”…but I understand you have an agenda to push.
If you think legalizing drugs in the U.S. is going to make the world’s 5th richest nation in natural resources (Mexico) into the blooming flower it ought to be, then I have some magic pixie dust you may want to borrow and sprinkle around your immediate vicinity. The tooth fairy will be along shortly after to check on you.
@26
Key word, “illegal” immigrants. That means EVERY illegal immigrant is committing a crime being here illegally.
But an illegal immigrant who is here being a productive working citizen and not committing crimes is not a threat to me or you. We should be bringing those people into the system rather than trying to shut them out.
but I understand you have an agenda to push.
Blinded! By the light reflected off little Ricky Dumbass’ tin foil hat!
@31
My original issue with you was your defining legally conducted drug busts as “tragedies” and gave you a clear example of the distinction between your definition of a tragedy and mine.
Again, I think both situations are tragedies. Second, two of the drug busts described above (Maryland and Florida) were conducted illegally. Third, if you can’t see why any of the four situations above are tragedies, you’re being willfully ignorant.
You’ve somehow morphed your own thread into some incoherent defense of dispensing with current U.S. immigration policy and embracing foreign nationals that have come to this country illegally, while cutting in front of those willing to go through the process in a legal and orderly manner so we know who the fuck is coming here.
Excuse me? You brought up illegal immigration in this thread, you buffoon! I’m just responding with the very clear fact that our drug prohibition contributes to the amount of people coming here from Mexico because they’re desperate to escape a life without opportunity.
That isn’t correct if you’re using the PPIC (public policy Institute of california) statistics which do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when arriving at that assertion re: lower crime rates.
Then what’s your point? Are you saying that all immigration, legal too, should be stopped? We clearly know that illegal immigrant commit crimes at a lower rate than all other legal residents. So if the number increases when you lump legal residents into the mix, then you have no real point here. In fact, you might even have an argument to only allow the people who came here illegally to stay (being facetious, of course).
As I said, you seem to have a fairly disjointed view of what actually consitutes a “tragedy”…but I understand you have an agenda to push.
A tragedy is when an innocent person has their life ended, destroyed, seriously torn apart, or sent to prison on an injustice. That happened to the four people above, just as it happened to the family who was killed in the incident you cite. They’re all tragedies.
@32
If you think legalizing drugs in the U.S. is going to make the world’s 5th richest nation in natural resources (Mexico) into the blooming flower it ought to be, then I have some magic pixie dust you may want to borrow and sprinkle around your immediate vicinity.
It’s not the only thing that needs to be done, but it’s absolutely a pre-requisite. Mexico will continue to decline until we at least end marijuana prohibition, and probably not until we start dealing with other drugs in a more sensible way again (focusing on treatment, setting up addict registries, etc).
I know this subject inside and out. Want to keep embarrassing yourself all day? Be my guest.
@26
Or in your world being here illegally isn’t a crime.
It’s a victimless crime. For something to be a real crime, there has to be a victim. Someone crossing a border in order to have some level of economic security is not a crime the same way that killing someone is.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
Mexico, Corruption = Marijuana
Less’ assertion is as silly as the assertion of some right wing nut that marijuan drives folks mad.
Mexican corruption is a very long standing problem, reflecting a persistent classism and racism that go back, perhaps, to Aztsc times.
Today’s Mexico has made some progress but still has an apartheid system for indigenous folks that would make the Afrikaners jealous.
As for tha nalogy to prohibition, Lee is too influenced by TV crime shows. My memory of the era is faint (as I did not yet exist)but wasn’t this also the period where afe other things were gpoing on .. e.g. the Reprican overheated economy, the depression, Hitler, Stalinism, …..
If one were to follow Lee’s illogic, then the most crime filled state in the US today would be Utah with its anachronistic drinking laws.
Finally, there are some rocks under the water even where marijuana is legalized. In Amsterdam it is now illegal to smoke tobacco in places where one can smoke marijuana. Fans of marijuana seem to think this is the drug given by the Gods, but we have no reaosn not to worry that marijuans smoking will have similar bad effects as tobacco.
Why are humans so adverse to moderate solutions?
Lee,
Have you visited the new Hookah club on capital hill?
Lee~
The only one that should be embarrassed is you and your simplistic thinking on these issues. At least you don’t cloak your ignorance by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” like the rest of your fellow liberal travelers, but ignorance is ignorance nonetheless. Legalize drugs in the U.S. and all is well in the world. Let anyone just come across the border and we can all have a collective group hug and sing Kumbayah….a regular Liberal utopia right?
Wake up and smell the bong resin, Lee.
Oh, so now we have “real” crimes and fake crimes.
hahahahahahaha
I’ll miss your sense of humor when goldy makes this blog membership only after obama loses. I guess I could always visit your reject blog for my daily does of humor.
“It’s a victimless crime.”
Actually that’s not true. When illegal immigrants come here, there is no way to tell whether they are bringing medical problems such as tubeculosis or the like. Also, my ex-spouse had to go on Coumadin and have his dosages monitored by going to the specialized Coumadin clinic. Unfortunately there was no openings at the clinic. How many people going to that clinic were illegal and displaced him, a taxpaying citizen with excellent insurance?
I am less concerned with the war on drugs and sad mistakes made by police officers (who are human and have an unbelievably difficult job constantly dealing with the worst society has to offer) than I am with finding an exit strategy for the War on Poverty. I’m being bled dry here.
That’s awful nice of you to call it logic.
I wonder how high lee is when he posts?
@39
The only one that should be embarrassed is you and your simplistic thinking on these issues.
Then argue my points. If my thinking is simplistic, break it down, point out the flaws. Just sitting there saying that it’s simplistic isn’t very convincing. Strap on a pair of balls and make some points.
At least you don’t cloak your ignorance by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” like the rest of your fellow liberal travelers, but ignorance is ignorance nonetheless.
Ignorance to what? Both terms, “undocumented workers” and “illegal immigrants” both properly characterize the many millions of people who work in this country outside of the current immigration system. I don’t get caught up in terminology too much because I care more about facts and common sense.
Legalize drugs in the U.S. and all is well in the world.
As I said, it will not fix every problem in the world, but ending drug prohibitions, especially on marijuana because of its high rate of usage and high contribution to incarceration rates for growing and distributing, is something that will greatly benefit this society.
Let anyone just come across the border and we can all have a collective group hug and sing Kumbayah….a regular Liberal utopia right?
That’s how the country was founded. If you don’t like it, move someplace with different ideals.
Wake up and smell the bong resin, Lee.
How much longer are you going to keep embarrassing yourself? I’ve got all day here. We just finished a release, I’ll be running tests at my desk all day, checking this site repeatedly. Please, please, keep coming back here and showing us how goddamn stupid you are.
@41
Actually that’s not true. When illegal immigrants come here, there is no way to tell whether they are bringing medical problems such as tubeculosis or the like.
That’s true Amanda, but they’re not bringing those diseases in on purpose. If you’re sick with a cold and then someone in your family catches that cold from you, have you committed a crime?
There are certain problems that are related to illegal immigration and the strain they put on services, but as I continue to point out, the drug war is a significant factor in why this country is struggling to deal with this phenomenon of illegal immigration, and is also contributing to our economic woes.
@40
Oh, so now we have “real” crimes and fake crimes.
Yes, me smoking a joint is a fake crime. You molesting a child is a real one.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
I’ll miss your sense of humor when goldy makes this blog membership only after obama loses. I guess I could always visit your reject blog for my daily does of humor.
Keep your hopes up, Skippy!
@42
I wonder how high lee is when he posts?
I’ve actually been so busy that I haven’t gotten stoned in over a month, but I miss smoking a bowl and laughing at your ass.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
Lee,
Little Rickie Dumbass’ mentality is hot-forged in the crucible of what Rick Perlstein calls FNB Politics, it was the subtext of everything Nixon did since the late 1940’s and the legacy is just as powerful today. It’s not easy to defeat.
F – See Anne Coulter
N – See Limbaugh’s “Magic Negro”
B – See “Citizens United Not Timid”
Welcome to your world little Ricky Dumbass.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-.....b-politics
This board’s silliest Republican likes to talk about racism.
Here’s a little dog whistle he’ll appreciate:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-.....ree-series
@37
Ah, my favorite idiot!! Let’s break this one down…
Mexican corruption is a very long standing problem, reflecting a persistent classism and racism that go back, perhaps, to Aztsc times.
Every culture in the history of the planet has had classism and corruption. The level of corruption, however, varies over time. That’s the point that I was making with respect to Chicago in the 1920s. Chicago has arguably always had a “culture of corruption”, but the level of damage that happened in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition was far greater than before and after. Prohibitions are fuel for corruption.
Today’s Mexico has made some progress but still has an apartheid system for indigenous folks that would make the Afrikaners jealous.
Then why don’t you do some research into where the illegal immigrants are mostly coming from. Are they coming mostly from the indigenous areas in the south where this class struggle is happening, or are they coming mostly from northern Mexico and other parts of the country where drug gangs have the most power?
As for tha nalogy to prohibition, Lee is too influenced by TV crime shows. My memory of the era is faint (as I did not yet exist)but wasn’t this also the period where afe other things were gpoing on .. e.g. the Reprican overheated economy, the depression, Hitler, Stalinism, …..
Prohibition lasted from 1919 to 1932. To blame the levels of corruption in Chicago, Boston, and other cities at that time on Stalin, Hitler, or Republican government is so absurd they wouldn’t even try to make a TV show about it. And the depression was what finally sobered people up enough to demand the end of prohibition, which people could clearly see had not worked and was part of why the economy was in the toilet.
If one were to follow Lee’s illogic, then the most crime filled state in the US today would be Utah with its anachronistic drinking laws.
It’s not illegal to drink in Utah. And that’s not even following my logic. What I’m saying is that America’s laws are anachronistic, and therefore the crime is pushed to Mexico. So even your attempt to follow my logic was a dismal failure (shocking!).
Finally, there are some rocks under the water even where marijuana is legalized. In Amsterdam it is now illegal to smoke tobacco in places where one can smoke marijuana.
That’s true.
Fans of marijuana seem to think this is the drug given by the Gods, but we have no reaosn not to worry that marijuans smoking will have similar bad effects as tobacco.
Keep telling yourself that, Mr. “Scientist”.
Why are humans so adverse to moderate solutions?
Allowing adults to be able to make their own choices about mind-altering substances is the moderate solution here.
And another:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-.....on-edition
“The angle and scale better suggests a tire iron, or a club, with the Democratic candidate enjoying its business end.”
@46
Little Rickie Dumbass’ mentality is hot-forged in the crucible of what Rick Perlstein calls FNB Politics, it was the subtext of everything Nixon did since the late 1940’s and the legacy is just as powerful today. It’s not easy to defeat.
It was absolutely in the subtext of everything Nixon did. His presidency was a backlash against the 60s, and the propaganda that defined that time (free blacks would become a criminal class, drugs would destroy our society if we didn’t eradicate them) are only now starting to be seen as the self-fulfilling prophecies that they were.
Such a shocker to hear Lee whine about his stoner-pals getting locked up. Ho-hum….
@51
Such a shocker to hear Lee whine about his stoner-pals getting locked up. Ho-hum….
Such a shocker to see you completely fail to comprehend the point of this post.
I understand it just fine. I also understand that you are a habitual stoner, and try to justify your illegal habit by whining about the medical aspect for use of marijuana; which does not apply to your use. The rest of us grew out of our pot phase, it’s really pathetic to see those adults who don’t.
@53
I understand it just fine.
If you understood it, then how come you characterized it as “whining about stoner-pals getting locked up”? Neither you nor I know if an actual marijuana user was locked up in any of the cases described above (and only one illegal dealer was). In one case, a girl who was a marijuana user was killed. In another case, a completely innocent person had his home invaded and his dogs shot by police. I fail to see how you can claim to have understood the post based upon your response.
I also understand that you are a habitual stoner, and try to justify your illegal habit by whining about the medical aspect for use of marijuana;
I’ve been stoned about 3-4 times since April. If that’s “habitual” to you, I think it’s time to stick your face in the dictionary. I don’t have to justify when and how often I smoke marijuana to anyone. Even at times when I’ve been smoking more often, I still accomplish more with my life than most people do. And I guarantee you I accomplish more than your pathetic ass.
The rest of us grew out of our pot phase, it’s really pathetic to see those adults who don’t.
It’s actually most pathetic to see people who are so jealous of people like me who know how to enjoy things in moderation because I have self-control. The reason I didn’t have to “grow out” of enjoying pot is because when I was 18 and first tried it, I was pretty fucking smart about how the world works. I understood the importance of hard work and I knew what responsibility was. That’s why I’ll be able to enjoy marijuana for the rest of my life, because I know what accountability and responsibility are and I know how to draw the line – just as responsible drinkers do.
Man, anyone else want to make an ass of themselves in this thread?
53 – the “kewl-kid” smoked grass, “grew out of it” and now he’s a certified dumbass!
I’m having too much fun with these fools.
@ 53
I understand it just fine.
If you do, then kindly explain why you so doggedly oppose legalizing marijuana but equally oppose bringing back prohibition.
Sorry Lee,
I can’t just sit at a desk all day and comment on every post that offends me as if I’m defending my bridge (see troll), like you appear to do. I’d prefer to be a productive member of society, or at the very least be enjoying a sunny day while we still have one to enjoy up here in the NW.
First off, most sane individuals would agree with me that your use of the word “tragedy” in the context of this thread about “drug raids” is maybe over the top wouldn’t you say? All Bullshit aside, you know that’s just a reality.
Second, You’ve made no points regarding either issue (illegal immigration and drug use) because the one word that undermines your entire argument is the very word “illegal”. You can piss and moan, stomp your feet and hold your breath, but the reality is that your position is in the minority among Americans. So I’ll decline your offer of my leaving and instead send you an invitation to do the very same that you asked of me since you are clearly the odd man out in this country. If you don’t think you are, perhaps look at some of the polls conducted nationwide rather than an impromptu poll of your stoner friends at Hempfest. You might get a more accurate view of the world outside.
Finally, keep thinking your getting the better of us on this little backwater blog you got, Lee. You appear to have a higher esteem for yourself than is warranted, but that’s alright, cuz when all is said and done and the final analysis is in….you’re the square peg trying to fit in the round hole in life, son.
Like I said above, Wake up and smell the bong resin. It shouldn’t be that difficult, even for a troglodyte like yourself.
Must suck to be so insecure about yourself you feel the need to compare yourself to others.
Go get high, do something productive. Like committing “fake” crimes.
hahahahahaha
Ouch. That’s leaving a big mark.
Go ahead lee, run to your reject blog and brag about getting the better of someone.
hahahahaha
And do the the idiot righties have a response to this other than classic bait-and-switch? No, of course not, they never could get that ‘fact’ thing straight. But let’s play that game for a minute. Wanna fix things in Mexico? Sorry, there’s only one real solution, and that’s the most difficult one: regime change. The government and society of Mexico are so deeply corrupt that no election will ever be able to change it. They came pretty close in the last presidential election (though methinks it was rigged – sound familiar?), but nothing short of a military coup d’etat will fix the situation. But even then, the cartels have infiltrated the military, according to some reports I heard on the BBC one night not too long ago. Root out the cartels, and eliminate the de facto caste system that exists there to create a more balanced society (on all levels), and that would go a long way towards ending our problem of illegal immigrants. At least Mexican immigrants. Then there are the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans……. are you getting my drift here?
So come on, trolls. Try coming up with solutions instead of insults.
According to my friends here in Reno that are familiar with things down at the border, the Guatemalan coyotes that handle the trafficking of immigrants are just as bad, if not worse than the cartels that traffic in drugs.
As much as it makes even me grit my teeth to say it, Mexico could use a far left-socialist type in charge, in the vein of Hugo Chavez. I don’t like the man, his politics or his rhetoric, but at least he gets shit done. And that’s what Mexico needs.
@57 “Finally, keep thinking your getting the better of us on this little backwater blog you got, Lee.”
Hmm, there appears to be a few things about having your ass handed to you daily that you don’t quite understand. It’s obvious that if you did get it, you wouldn’t be coming back for more. Fortunately for us, you’re dumber than a stump.
@57
I can’t just sit at a desk all day and comment on every post that offends me as if I’m defending my bridge (see troll), like you appear to do.
Then don’t come here and make an ass of yourself in the first place. If you don’t have the time to back up your bullshit accusations, then don’t make the accusations in the first place. You accused me of not considering violent crimes as tragedies, an absurd accusation with no basis. I explained to you not only that I do consider them tragedies, but I also explained to you how the topic of this post, the drug war, contributes significantly to the problem of illegal immigration. You have yet to respond in any substantive way to either of those two points.
I’d prefer to be a productive member of society, or at the very least be enjoying a sunny day while we still have one to enjoy up here in the NW.
I’m stuck in a windowless office with no ability to enjoy this fine summer day. I have a job at a software company, where I’m competent and respected enough that I can take breaks occasionally through to day to get online and make fun of idiots like you, Marvin, and SeattleJew.
First off, most sane individuals would agree with me that your use of the word “tragedy” in the context of this thread about “drug raids” is maybe over the top wouldn’t you say?
Not at all. When an innocent man gets sentenced to prison (California), that’s a tragedy. When another innocent man has his home raided by incompetent, trigger happy police who shoot his dogs (Maryland), that’s a tragedy. When 6 children are left without a mother because small town cops think they have to play soldier to arrest a small-time pot dealer (Ohio), that’s a tragedy. When a harmless girl who helps procure weed for her hippie friends is pressured by police into a dangerous undercover operation and executed (Florida), that’s a tragedy. I dare you to talk to any of the people involved in these cases and tell them that what they’ve dealt with isn’t a tragedy for them.
Second, You’ve made no points regarding either issue (illegal immigration and drug use) because the one word that undermines your entire argument is the very word “illegal”. You can piss and moan, stomp your feet and hold your breath, but the reality is that your position is in the minority among Americans.
No, it’s not. In fact, some surveys are now showing that a majority of Americans believe that marijuana use for one should not be a crime. And other studies have shown that a majority of Americans want illegal immigrants who are here working to be given a path to citizenship. Your notion that the word “illegal” undermines anything I’ve said is merely an indication that you have no idea what the issues are here.
So I’ll decline your offer of my leaving and instead send you an invitation to do the very same that you asked of me since you are clearly the odd man out in this country.
Sorry, but this country was founded on the idea of being a place where people seeking freedom and opportunity can come. That’s not a controversial or disputed notion in any way. That’s fundamental to America’s founding.
If you don’t think you are, perhaps look at some of the polls conducted nationwide rather than an impromptu poll of your stoner friends at Hempfest. You might get a more accurate view of the world outside.
What does any of that have to do with what you’ve been arguing anyway? Even though the majority of Americans do tend to agree with me on much of this stuff, that’s not as important as the fact that I’m right about the things I’m discussing here. The drug war IS doing a lot of damage to this country. Marijuana prohibition IS counter-productive and wasteful. The drug war IS doing a lot of damage to Mexico and contributing to the exodus of workers from there.
Finally, keep thinking your getting the better of us on this little backwater blog you got, Lee.
Oh, that won’t be hard.
You appear to have a higher esteem for yourself than is warranted, but that’s alright, cuz when all is said and done and the final analysis is in….you’re the square peg trying to fit in the round hole in life, son.
Keep telling yourself that, Ricky. I guess that’s all you’ve got to hang your hat on now that you’ve been rudely introduced to that nasty little thing called reality that makes it so much harder to just blindly blame stoners and Mexicans for the problems that this country faces. Just pathetic. You had a chance to bow out of this thing gracefully, you know. A lot of conservatives understand the drug war (hell, half the links in the post are to Reason, which is a conservative magazine). Some people just learn these things the hard way, I guess.
Like I said above, Wake up and smell the bong resin. It shouldn’t be that difficult, even for a troglodyte like yourself.
C’mon, Ricky, you know you can embarrass yourself some more…
@58
Must suck to be so insecure about yourself you feel the need to compare yourself to others.
Awesome! Take things out of context much?
Go get high, do something productive. Like committing “fake” crimes.
Is slapping your dumb ass silly in the comment threads a “fake” crime?
@59
Go ahead lee, run to your reject blog and brag about getting the better of someone.
This one was barely worth it. C’mon, Marvin, give me some funnier material!
Jump, Marvin, jump!
I love the smell of burning trolls in the afternoon. It smells like…….. Victory.
No one has yet mentioned the moral aspect to this debate. By what right does government declare what one can, or cannot, ingest, snort, smoke, or whatever?
The so-called “war on drugs”, like the “war on poverty” is really nothing more than a cynical exercise in govermental power and abuse. Treat people like adults and you just might find that they’ll behave like one. Insist on “protecting” them and you create a dependent class without hope or self-respect.
@66
No one has yet mentioned the moral aspect to this debate. By what right does government declare what one can, or cannot, ingest, snort, smoke, or whatever?
None, and thank you for mentioning that. We sometimes overlook that basic aspect of this, but it’s at the heart of what’s wrong. Not only do we mistakenly believe that government has the right to control those kinds of personal decisions, but we’ve even allowed ourselves to be entertained over the years by shows like Cops that demonstrate how far the government will go to defend this folly.
The so-called “war on drugs”, like the “war on poverty” is really nothing more than a cynical exercise in govermental power and abuse. Treat people like adults and you just might find that they’ll behave like one.
Exactly. There are some people in this world who want to be treated like children (and they are not exclusive to one party or even one political philosophy). Government can’t do anything about that, and it fails most spectacularly when it believes that that’s it’s role.
@66 To give credit where credit is due, I believe you are quite correct, I-Burn. It’s all about freedom.
In fact, some surveys are now showing that a majority of Americans believe that marijuana use for one should not be a crime.
—————-
Can you provide links or references?
@69
Here’s a TIME article from 2002, where a poll was cited that 72% of Americans supported decriminalization (which, by definition, means that it should not be a crime).
Today, those numbers are probably higher, but there hasn’t been a comprehensive study done recently.
When it comes to “legalization”, the numbers of support are much lower (according to that same TIME article, it was around 35%). People tend to think that it shouldn’t be a crime, but making it legal will encourage it. It’s certainly a schizophrenic outlook and it really makes little sense that there’s such a big gap.
Keep living in your alternate reality,Lee.
Afterall, it’s safer than living in the real world with the rest of us…..all you need is your bridge, your bong and your blog…You’ll notice i didn’t include a broad, but I’m sure YLB, Steve and broadwayJoe would be more than willing to audition for that role as well. Which one of you trolls are gonna stand by your man first?
….the true life of a Drug addicted troglodyte.
Cheers!
P.S. most companies consider surfing the internet on personal hobby time for 8 hours of your workday as “stealing” from the company. But, I realize that liberals like yourself feel some sense of ‘entitlement’ right? You must feel just exhausted getting home from such a taxing day.
@71 My, what a pathetic little troll you are.
@71
Keep living in your alternate reality,Lee.
Is that all you’ve got? If I’m living in an alternate reality, give me your reality. Explain why the things I’ve said to you are incorrect.
Afterall, it’s safer than living in the real world with the rest of us…..all you need is your bridge, your bong and your blog
Are you actually going to engage me on any the points I’ve been making or are you just going to keep furthering this humiliation?
You’ll notice i didn’t include a broad, but I’m sure YLB, Steve and broadwayJoe would be more than willing to audition for that role as well.
Well, after I leave this comment, my wife and I are going out to dinner, so you can include her next time.
Which one of you trolls are gonna stand by your man first?
Wow, do you have any pride at all? I mean, it’s one thing to get your ass kicked in a debate and walk away. It’s another to keep leaving snide comments while also refusing to actually address any of the points being made – or to acknowledge the sheer stupidity of the things you’ve previously said that have been clearly pointed out to be retarded.
….the true life of a Drug addicted troglodyte.
And continue to say more and more retarded things. I’m as close to a drug addict as a person who has a few drinks a month is to being an alcoholic.
P.S. most companies consider surfing the internet on personal hobby time for 8 hours of your workday as “stealing” from the company.
My company pays me to do a job. I do that job and I’m actually very good at it. Oftentimes I’m too busy to take breaks during the day to comment at HorsesAss. Sometimes – like today – I’m not. I work for a dot-com, my schedule is very unsteady. Sometimes I’m at work at midnight.
But, I realize that liberals like yourself feel some sense of ‘entitlement’ right?
Keep telling yourself that and I’m sure you’ll be back here making an ass of yourself again.
You must feel just exhausted getting home from such a taxing day.
Not really. You may think it’s hard to make fun of you, but it’s really not.
Oh Ricky/Puddy/Stupes/whoever the fuck you are, we’re at the cusp of the biggest change in American history, and you’re on the wrong side of it. Who’s in denial? Who’s the one who’s too fucking stupid to see reality? You teeter on the brink of permanent political irrelevance, and all you can do is insult anyone who fails to kowtow to your perceived superiority.
Who’s the moron?
If you really must know, I favor the outright legalization of cannabis sativa for all purposes. Oddly enough, I don’t smoke, drink, or do any sort of drugs. I grew up around small-town alcoholics and druggies, and never saw much sense in it as a kid. But I saw the damage done, as the only other member of my immediate family who isn’t either using drugs or alcohol, or has become an AA junkie whilst ‘recovering’ is my baby sister. My idea of a strong upper is a good cup of the coffee I roast myself, and the only time I’ve ever considered myself ‘stoned’ is when I have a cold and took some NyQuil for it. I have no interest in drugs or alcohol, but neither I nor anyone else has the right to stop someone from doing what they want to do with their own lives and money, as long as it brings no harm to others.
By the way, you do know that the Declaration Of Indepence was written on paper made of hemp, right?
FYVM
Pope Lee the Wurst hath spoken …
@48.
Every culture in the history of the planet has had classism and corruption. The level of corruption, however, varies over time. That’s the point that I was making with respect to Chicago in the 1920s. Chicago has arguably always had a “culture of corruption”, but the level of damage that happened in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition was far greater than before and after. Prohibitions are fuel for corruption.
Brilliant! And thus we searched the world for the most corrupt societies and found Pope Lee’s Rule:
corrupt societies failing due to prohibition:
Saudi Arabia
Utah
the Vatican
Switzerland
Cuba
All of these are terrible examples of failed prohibition leading to wide spread corruption as opposed to such
Corruption free meccas as
Amsterdam
Russia
Congo
India
Is there an element of fantasy here?
And the Yoda-like wisdom continues ,,,,
America’s laws are anachronistic, and therefore the crime is pushed to Mexico.
Educated as he was by television, Lee is aware that the excesses of the 20’s and the stockmarket crash we due to prohibition. Look at the evidence for this thesis:
Prohibition ends in the US …. within ten years the US is out of the Depression and merrily manufacturing bombs and tanks!
In the same way, the the crime wave in Nevada reflects Utah’s strict efforts at alcohol control.
BTW, the greatest corruption in Mexico was under the Aztecs, look how wonderful thing became when the country was liberated by Cortez and his merry band!
Allowing adults to be able to make their own choices about mind-altering substances is the moderate solution here.
I have forwarded this brilliant post to the FDA for a response. All the studies they knew of, had found that marijuana was a mild agent not very different in strength of effect than chocolate and certainly not in the potency class of such strong drugs as coffee.
As a result, the FDA has informed Professor Lee that the pending recommendations to remove marijuana from the endangered substances list will now br reconsidered.
Pope Lee joins forces with the Radical Right, declares ar on pevery an abuse of government power!
The so-called … “war on poverty” is really nothing more than a cynical exercise in govermental power and abuse. …
Exactly. There are some people in this world who want to be treated like children (and they are not exclusive to one party or even one political philosophy). Government can’t do anything about that, and it fails most spectacularly when it believes that that’s it’s role.
Right on Lee!!!
@76
Yep, that’s right. The war on poverty was cynical, in that war is the improper metaphor for dealing with a problem
like that.
@75
corrupt societies failing due to prohibition:
Saudi Arabia
Utah
the Vatican
Switzerland
Cuba
Saudi Arabia survives solely on oil profits, but as you know, has a populace that is highly agitated and virulently anti-west due to their leadership’s ability to deflect anger.
Utah does not have any prohibitions on top of what it has from being within the U.S.
The Vatican is not a society. If you want to talk about their corruption though, you can certainly look at the effects it’s had on Catholic areas across the globe.
Switzerland? Are you kidding? Switzerland is probably the most economically free country on the planet. Some cities have even legalized heroin for addicts.
Cuba? They’re doing just fine. Hahahahahaha!
I have forwarded this brilliant post to the FDA for a response.
And what would you expect from them? They’ve been so politicized under Bush on the subject of marijuana that they’ve actually put out propaganda papers on 4/20 claiming the marijuana has no medical value.
All the studies they knew of, had found that marijuana was a mild agent not very different in strength of effect than chocolate and certainly not in the potency class of such strong drugs as coffee.
I think you’re confusing addictiveness and psychoactiveness here. Why don’t you find all the people you know at UW who’ve used marijuana before and ask them whether coffee or marijuana is a more mind-altering substance.
C’mon, Steve! Embarrass yourself some more!!
@75
And one more thing:
BTW, the greatest corruption in Mexico was under the Aztecs, look how wonderful thing became when the country was liberated by Cortez and his merry band!
Can you provide links to this? I want to see how wide swaths of the Aztec society were controlled by criminal gangs. I want to see how organizations that were illegal under Aztec law were able to advertise publicly for recruits. I want to see how police in Aztec society didn’t even need their payments from local government because they were making so much from bribery.
Oh, pretend expert on everything, please enlighten me!
Jackass.
@78 Lee, il Papa
Lee, I know you are a cultural aficionado of Aztec Science, but perhaps you have never ead a history of the era? The Aztecs were a very unfriendly conquering empire of the evil genre. One reason Cortez was successful in overthrowing Mexico was that most of the people were not Aztec.
Would you like refernces? No problem, try Google.
@79
Lee, I know you are a cultural aficionado of Aztec Science, but perhaps you have never ead a history of the era?
My knowledge of the Aztec culture is limited. That’s why I’m asking you to provide links to information which clearly explains that the corruption of their society parallels the corruption that exists in Mexican society today influenced by the drug war.
You’ve made the claim. Back it up. Don’t just tell me to use Google, that’s a cop out. If you really think you’re the expert on this stuff, then prove it. Until then, I’ll just once again reach the conclusion that you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
As always.
@79
Here’s information on the staggering level of corruption in Mexico today:
http://www.toledoblade.com/app...../805190369
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly.....iled_state
http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....mexico.php
@77 Lee, The Grassman
You say the FD has “put out propaganda papers on 4/20 claiming the marijuana has no medical value.”
Somehow I doubt this since the FDA has approved THC for prescription use. Do you have references here or is this more of your fantasies about “marijuana” having mysterious properties form God?.
All the studies they knew of, had found that marijuana was a mild agent not very different in strength of effect than chocolate and certainly not in the potency class of such strong drugs as coffee.
I think you’re confusing addictiveness and psychoactiveness here. Why don’t you find all the people you know at UW who’ve used marijuana before and ask them whether coffee or marijuana is a more mind-altering substance.
No bubbelah, I am nto at all confused. AFIK neither coffe nor marijuan is an especially addictive drug (chocolate though???).
As for claiming MJ is a highly psychoactive drug, aorry young un but you can not have it both ways. Those of us who think mj ought to be legal feel that way because it really is not a big deal … at least it would not be without the added pleasure of flippin of the cops.
But what do I know? I lived in an era when everyone freely smoked marijuana (or ate it is delicious brownies). About the only folks I knew who got your sort of pleasure out of the stuff were the kind of sillies who were always tryingt to prove that they were REAL cool.
@80 Le
I have every confidence in your ability to use Google.
@82
You say the FD has “put out propaganda papers on 4/20 claiming the marijuana has no medical value.”
Somehow I doubt this since the FDA has approved THC for prescription use.
Nope, you’re wrong again. Here it is. There’s more info here.
No bubbelah, I am nto at all confused. AFIK neither coffe nor marijuan is an especially addictive drug (chocolate though???).
Then you’re obviously confused. What’s the metric (you know what a metric is, right?) for your statement here from comment #75:
As for claiming MJ is a highly psychoactive drug, aorry young un but you can not have it both ways. Those of us who think mj ought to be legal feel that way because it really is not a big deal … at least it would not be without the added pleasure of flippin of the cops.
Why? It sounds like you’re insinuating that a drug’s psychoactive nature means that it shouldn’t be legal. I don’t agree at all. Many psychoactive drugs that are illegal now should be legal for adults to use if they so choose. And in fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in certain cases, psychoactive drugs deserve religious protection for Native American rituals.
But what do I know?
Absolutely nothing, apparently.
I lived in an era when everyone freely smoked marijuana (or ate it is delicious brownies). About the only folks I knew who got your sort of pleasure out of the stuff were the kind of sillies who were always tryingt to prove that they were REAL cool.
If you’re suggesting that every single one of the millions of Americans who use marijuana use it just to be cool, rather than because they enjoy its psychoactive effects, you may very well be the stupidest person in the United States with a PhD.
@83
I have every confidence in your ability to use Google.
That’s irrelevant. I’m not going to waste my time chasing for evidence that doesn’t exist. If you think that Aztec society had more corruption than modern Mexico, a claim that is so ludicrous I’m not even sure where to start, then you have to find the evidence for it.
Pathetic.
@85 Lee
A ha.
tell you what, if I spend 20 30 minutes and fnd a few good refs for you to read about the Aztecs, you will do what in return???
BTW, and a bit more seriously, I recently had an opportunity to meet with a researcher from a major tobacco company that is doing research on finding a non harmful smoking material. They seem t lack your knowledge of why inhalation of MJ derived carcinogens is safe. If you want to give me some actual data to support this claim, I am sure they would be very grateful for the information!
@86
tell you what, if I spend 20 30 minutes and fnd a few good refs for you to read about the Aztecs, you will do what in return???
If you find a reference that clearly shows that Aztec society has more corruption than Mexico does right now, then I will buy you dinner at DL. If you fail to find reference that clearly shows that, you have to buy me dinner at DL. I will trust Darryl to settle any disputes over what you find.
BTW, and a bit more seriously, I recently had an opportunity to meet with a researcher from a major tobacco company that is doing research on finding a non harmful smoking material. They seem t lack your knowledge of why inhalation of MJ derived carcinogens is safe.
You should have shown him the Tashkin study. Not that he would legally allowed to be doing research with marijuana anyway.
@84 Lee, the smoke fiend
Let me help you with your reading skiles:
ew Jersey — On April 20, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an advisory that claimed that smoking marijuana served no legitimate medical purpose.
See Lee .. the FDA says that smoking GVM/mj has no medicinal purpose. You know smoking, inhaling carcinogens, is not a recommended way of taking the active components of mj.
Glad tyo help you understand!
In that 1999 study, 11 of the nation’s foremost scientists and physicians from the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that “marijuana’s active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.”
See … it is EASY to understand things if you actually read them.
Please. Give the average member of Terrace an ounce of marijuana and a free hour, and she’ll come back with a dozen different ways to get high without smoking it. Marijuana doesn’t have to be smoked for its health benefits to be enjoyed, and the FDA knows it.
Yep, and that is exactly what the FDA, ACP, NAS said.
Lee
Gosh you are good at hurting your own cause.
Virtually every scientidt I know feels that mj should be treated about like tobacco (regulated sales) because it is a mild agent that does little harm.
YOU, on the other hand, want to convince folks that mj is a miracle agent. So wunnaful that you really, really need it. Inf act, deprived of your reefers, you might .. become a dangerous psychopath or at least a sad sack of an abused clown.
Gosh.
SJ and Lee. Your conversation reminds me of why I believe that the medical marijuana movement only serves to cloud the larger issue of a personal freedom, to ingest marijuana, being denied for no good reason.
@87
First, he knew the Tashkin study quite well.
Second, it is entirely legal for him to do marijuana research.
@90 Steve
I agree totally with you. Fanatacism hurts Lee’s cause.
@87 Lee’s Wonderful Sojurn in Aztec Society
1. Lee, I raised the Aztec issue to show the silliness your assertion about Mexico’s corruption being due to the MJ trade. You rose to the bait.
The great God Hyperbole has spoken.
2. Darryl the Judge? Somehow I don’t think Darryl would like to play that role .. much less making a sociological conclusion as cosmic as whether marijuana trade has made modern Mexico the most corrupt state of all time.
@88
See Lee .. the FDA says that smoking GVM/mj has no medicinal purpose. You know smoking, inhaling carcinogens, is not a recommended way of taking the active components of mj.
Once again, you’re saying two separate things, and allowing your faith-based approach to science to cloud your common sense. If the components of marijuana are medicinal, and that smoking it is a way to ingest those components, then smoking marijuana has medicinal value.
What you’re saying is that smoking it is not the recommended method of ingesting it, for which I agree with you. But saying that if you smoke it, that it’s no longer medicinal, doesn’t make any sense. It’s still medicinal, you’re just potentially opening yourself up to other side-effects.
This really isn’t that difficult to understand. Why you can’t grasp it is beyond me.
@89
Gosh you are good at hurting your own cause.
I am? Why? Because I continually prove you wrong?
Virtually every scientidt I know feels that mj should be treated about like tobacco (regulated sales) because it is a mild agent that does little harm.
It is a mild agent that does little harm. But it also does have psychoactive effects – far stronger psychoactive effects than coffee (which has hardly any).
YOU, on the other hand, want to convince folks that mj is a miracle agent.
Marijuana is a drug that has very impressive medical benefits. That’s just a fact.
So wunnaful that you really, really need it.
Actually, no. My use is not medicinal. I don’t really, really need it. I just enjoy it. Do you think I’d be able to stop using it for months at a time if I really, really needed it? C’mon man, use some common sense.
Inf act, deprived of your reefers, you might .. become a dangerous psychopath or at least a sad sack of an abused clown.
I haven’t smoked pot in over 6 weeks. Have I become a dangerous psychopath yet, Mr. “Scientist”?
@91
First, he knew the Tashkin study quite well.
Please have him email me directly and I’ll find out either why you’re misrepresenting his views (as you’ve done with me on a number of occasions), or what he doesn’t quite understand about it.
Second, it is entirely legal for him to do marijuana research.
Not if he’s based in the United States.
I’m still waiting for you to provide information on the Aztecs and still waiting for you to explain what your metric is for the question I posed in comment #84.
Or are you just going to run away and change the subject again like you always do when you lose arguments to me?
@92 Well, I don’t know about fanatacism, but I do believe that the issue of medical marijuana misses the point. It’s kind of like somebody arguing the medicinal properties of a glass of wine during the period of prohibition. There’s no doubt something there, wine having some medicinal benefit, but it would obscure the real issue of a freedom lost.
@97
1. Lee, I raised the Aztec issue to show the silliness your assertion about Mexico’s corruption being due to the MJ trade. You rose to the bait.
That doesn’t even make sense! You claimed as a matter of fact that corruption during Aztec time was far greater than it is now. Your claim was based on complete and utter bullshit, but as soon as I pointed out it was complete and utter bullshit, you’re now saying that it was done to “show the silliness of my assertion?” Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
You are a pathetic, deluded, old man. Do you have any pride at all Steve? Anything? Do you care in any way how badly you’re humiliating yourself?
2. Darryl the Judge? Somehow I don’t think Darryl would like to play that role
Actually, I know for a fact that Darryl would enjoy playing that role.
much less making a sociological conclusion as cosmic as whether marijuana trade has made modern Mexico the most corrupt state of all time.
I’ve never once said that “modern Mexico the most corrupt state of all time”. It’s the SeattleJew sleight of hand trick. Lose the argument, then try to change the argument.
You’re a pathetic human being, Steve.
@95
Steve,
You might want to reference this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23190863/
Or this:
http://www.iom.edu/?id=12668
Medical marijuana is not a myth. I know and work with patients who use medical marijuana. It’s a very powerful drug for a number of ailments. Why Steve (SJ) opposes it so vehemently based upon clearly transparent propaganda (see my response at the beginning of comment #94), I have no idea.
@95
As for your larger point, I certainly agree. Marijuana use should be legal, medicinal or not. SJ, for reasons I still don’t get, seems to think that if marijuana has psychoactive properties, it can’t be made legal (see comment #84).
I prefer my late friend, JK’s approach. A long time pot grower and smoker, he had a double organ transplant and later cancer. While the MJ did relieve some suffering, he never lost sight of the fact that the MJ laws are basically BS.
My issue? How the fuck am I ever going to replace the MJ strain that was lost when JK died? I feel totally fucked over and it all goes back to MJ being illegal. Hmm, maybe I can find some seeds at the Hempfest this month.
@99
I’m sorry about your friend. I know of a lot of people with similar stories now that I’ve become much more involved in the medical marijuana community.
I’ll be at Hempfest too if you’d like to meet up – although I definitely can’t help you with the seeds. :)
@97 Oh, I have no doubt and agree completely. I fully support the idea of research into the medicinal properties of MJ. Wine, as well. Both should be legal. The problem remains, one is, the other isn’t.
Lee@19: I guess you took your dense pills that day. Even SF Mayor Gavin Any Twosome Newsom changed some of his sanctuary policies after Edwin Ramos went on his rampage.
My points are documented. Just review the blogs on this sub-human. Almost everyone agrees with me.
So your point is…?
Then Lee added: “As for your insinuations, you of all people should know better considering how often people in this country do exactly what you’re doing in order to convince others that blacks are a criminal class living within our society.”
I thought your party was curing America of those ills. Hmmm… I guess the Donkeycrats did nuthin after 43 years…
Moron@22: We’re on the here and now moron!
Lee, I thought the definition of illegal immigrant meant they were illegal. So they are already breaking US Federal Law. Of course Any Twosome Newsom doesn’t care of US law.
@103
I thought your party was curing America of those ills. Hmmm… I guess the Donkeycrats did nuthin after 43 years…
I think you know full-well my longstanding criticisms of Democrats when it comes to race relations.
@105
Lee, I thought the definition of illegal immigrant meant they were illegal.
In a sense, they are illegally residing in the United States.
So they are already breaking US Federal Law.
I break Federal Law every time I spoke a bowl. Most illegal immigrants are as much of a threat to public safety as my pot-smoking ass is (none).
@101 Steve
Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit. I have never seen such a law and I doubt he has either.
On the other hand, there is no data to support Lee’s claims of extreme therapeutic effects either.
From what I have been able to to read, THC is a useful antinauseant and may have useful relaxant properties. There may be mild effects of pain relief and anti-inflammatory effects and these could be due to component is other than THC. However these effects are modest. In the absence of such data it is hard to understand why anyone (other than a fanatic) would choose to focus research dollars in this direction.
BUT, if Lee wants to raise the dollars I am sure we can find folks willing to spend his money.
@107 “Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....a-research
@107
Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit. I have never seen such a law and I doubt he has either.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the only group allowed to grow marijuana for research purposes in the United States. Link here:
So your friend is either obtaining a supply of marijuana from NIDA, or he’s lying (or he’s imaginary).
On the other hand, there is no data to support Lee’s claims of extreme therapeutic effects either.
That’s incorrect, and I’ve put you in touch with Sunil, who has been studying this and brought a 500 page document with him to DL which you either refused to look at or pretended you never saw.
From what I have been able to to read, THC is a useful antinauseant and may have useful relaxant properties. There may be mild effects of pain relief and anti-inflammatory effects and these could be due to component is other than THC. However these effects are modest.
The effects may be modest, but for certain people with various illnesses, these particular benefits can sometimes be pretty extraordinary. And I’ve met people for whom this is true.
In the absence of such data it is hard to understand why anyone (other than a fanatic) would choose to focus research dollars in this direction.
There are a number of pharmaceutical companies across the globe who disagree with you because they now see the potential. Sunil has also explained this to you over email.
Want to keep going? Have you not yet embarrassed yourself enough?
Still waiting for the proof of your Aztec claims too, jackass.
The Discovery Science Syndrome
@110
Are you going to answer any of my questions or are you just interested in making an ass of yourself?
I’ve refuted a number of your bullshit claims, and your comeback addresses none of them. Do you want to try again?
THC, and the other ingredients of marijuana, do not contain or together comprise a major psychoactive drug
So marijuana is not psychoactive? Really? Want to put some money on that?
Keep on keeping on with your faith-based science, Steve, and we’ll all keep laughing at you.
What about those Aztec’s and their incredibly corrupt society?
Retard.
@110
So, according to Lee, it is important for patients to smoke back yard marijuana rather than receive THC legally.
Nope, I’ve never said such a thing. Either remove this false statement from your comment, or I will be deleting the entire thing. I’ve warned you about doing this numerous times Steve. It’s slander to make false accusations like this.
And if you keep doing this, I will talk to Goldy about having you banned from leaving comments permanently. This is why you were banned from Reload.
To Lee, the grasshopper from SJ the jackass ..
Your inventiveness in nicknames seem to be failing boobelah. As a democrat do you mean a jackass mean as a compliment?
Ok, I just deleted that one line from you comment rather than the whole comment. Two more corrections for you:
As a typical victim of DSS, Lee is convinced that his beliefs are based in dsicover science. He asserts that:
a. it is illegal to do research into the pharmacology of marijuana.
It is illegal to grow your own supply of marijuana for research, but if one can do the research without a supply, then it’s not illegal.
The effects of THC, like most drugs, depend in the mode of delivery and smoke may be a good route if one does not worry abut the contaminants in Lee’s medicine.
Exactly, and this contradicts what you said up above when you wrote this:
the FDA says that smoking GVM/mj has no medicinal purpose
Maybe you think the FDA is wrong, but that’s not how you made it sound.
Are you going to engage me on any of these points or are you going to keep throwing your temper tantrum?
@113
Your inventiveness in nicknames seem to be failing boobelah. As a democrat do you mean a jackass mean as a compliment?
You thinking that being called a jackass is a compliment is not even close to the stupidest thing you’ve said in this thread.
Just to clarify, I’m still awaiting responses on the following claims you’ve made:
@75 – BTW, the greatest corruption in Mexico was under the Aztecs
@82 – Somehow I doubt this since the FDA has approved THC for prescription use.
@91 – Second, it is entirely legal for him to do marijuana research.
@107 – Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit. I have never seen such a law and I doubt he has either.
@110 – THC, and the other ingredients of marijuana, do not contain or together comprise a major psychoactive drug
All of these statements are incorrect, yet you have yet to either clarify them or disavow them. Why is that, Mr. “Scientist”?
109. Lee spews:
@107
Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit. I have never seen such a law and I doubt he has either.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the only group allowed to grow marijuana for research purposes in the United States. Link here:
1. As I said research in mj is legal. One can buy it from NIDA or study its compnents. Still is called research young un.
On the other hand, there is no data to support Lee’s claims of extreme therapeutic effects either.
That’s incorrect, and I’ve put you in touch with Sunil, who has been studying this and brought a 500 page document with him to DL which you either refused to look at or pretended you never saw.
So you want me to read Sunil’s thesis????
He and I have talked, I have read the references he gave me and discussed them with him. Nothing there support your claims. As I keep saying, anytime yo can give me a paper that proves one fo your points I am pleased to read it. So far, like the DI, all you do is mistate the literature or cite opinion pieces in the non scientific literature.
The (therapeutic effects other than anti nausea)may be modest, but for certain people with various illnesses, these particular benefits can sometimes be pretty extraordinary. And I’ve met people for whom this is true.
Perfect DDS thinking. I also know people who have talked with God, been healed by Christian Science, etc.
There are a number of pharmaceutical companies across the globe who disagree with you because they now see the potential. Sunil has also explained this to you over email.
No, what I have said is WHY those companies are doing research. They have some evidence that is worth their while. This is not a reason folks should smoke stuff from your back yard BUT obviously contradicts your claim that research is illegal.
BTW, in your DSS state, you can not even accept help when it is offered to your side. I do run across intriguing papers from time to time and send them to you. Since you respond with insults, I no longer bother.
Want to keep going? Have you not yet embarrassed yourself enough?
This, Horatio, this is the question. Why bother? Real reason is I worked a hard weak and wanted a day to sort of gross out. This is one way to waste time.
@117
So you want me to read Sunil’s thesis????
Yes, I think you could learn from it. I skimmed through it a bit at DL.
He and I have talked, I have read the references he gave me and discussed them with him. Nothing there support your claims.
Absolutely incorrect. And he and I have discussed that. Neither one of us thinks that you have any idea what the fuck you’re talking about. And he and I are far from the only people who think that way.
As I keep saying, anytime yo can give me a paper that proves one fo your points I am pleased to read it.
He did, and you either refused to read it, or pretended that it was saying something other than what it was really saying. On the other hand, you have never once provided any type of scientific study that proves that any single thing I’ve ever said about marijuana is untrue. Not once.
So far, like the DI, all you do is mistate the literature or cite opinion pieces in the non scientific literature.
I’ve asked you to break down specific studies and you’ve avoided doing so. Why else would you do this unless you weren’t capable of doing so?
Perfect DDS thinking. I also know people who have talked with God, been healed by Christian Science, etc.
You know people who started praying to God, and became significantly better, and had a doctor attribute the improvement to the prayer? Can you have one of them email me? Because I can have several people who’ve had that happen with marijuana email you (and their doctors).
Of course, once again, this challenge will go unfulfilled, because you’re just making shit up.
No, what I have said is WHY those companies are doing research
They’re doing research because marijuana has medicinal properties.
They have some evidence that is worth their while.
Of course they do.
This is not a reason folks should smoke stuff from your back yard BUT obviously contradicts your claim that research is illegal.
These companies are based outside of the U.S. dummy.
BTW, in your DSS state, you can not even accept help when it is offered to your side.
You are gravely mistaken if you believe that you have any wisdom that you can impart to me.
I do run across intriguing papers from time to time and send them to you. Since you respond with insults, I no longer bother.
I could care less. I don’t have any reason to view you as someone with the ability to discern fact from fiction. You’ve proven throughout this comment thread that you believe things because you want to believe them, not because of evidence.
This, Horatio, this is the question. Why bother? Real reason is I worked a hard weak and wanted a day to sort of gross out. This is one way to waste time.
You still haven’t addressed any of the incorrect statements you’ve made in this comment thread so far.
Lee’s needs:
@75 – BTW, the greatest corruption in Mexico was under the Aztecs
As I have said, you can google too. Go to it!
@82 – Somehow I doubt this since the FDA has approved THC for prescription use.
THC is readily available to any one with the liscence to prescribe. next time you get seasick, ask your doc for a some marinol, tabs.
@91 – Second, it is entirely legal for him to do marijuana research.
Gee, you said that lotsa companies are already doing this. Are they breaking the law? You find me the law you claim makes research (not growing) illegal.
@107 – Lee’s assertion that it is illegal to study marijuana is, as far as I know utter bull shit. I have never seen such a law and I doubt he has either.
seems familiar
@110 – THC, and the other ingredients of marijuana, do not contain or together comprise a major psychoactive drug
Sorry boobelah but this is a lose-lose for you. IF MJ WERE a major psychoactive agent, most of the medical community WOULD want it illegal ..like morphine or acid. The reason most of us think it should bge legal is that its not a major psychoactive drug.
And Lee, in the mode of the poet of the long nose, the swordsman seeking Roseanne’s love, proceeds around the corner .. nose first, sniffing the air, then sword lashing and slicing through the air to threaten any opponent before the moth itself crosse into view, lips wide, and he sayeth:
Such asperity! you are the D’artagnan, the true Zorro of the marijuana musketeers!
Nope. I read some of the papers Sunnil gave me. Most were reviews of material that I knoew or that had little effect on this issue. A few purported to prove your points, but were faulty for obvious reasons. I asked him to give me any papers with better evidence. he could not.
As for my giving YOU papers, I have no idea what you want. You are the one claiming miracle drugs effects. You want to prove that the carcinogens in your medicine are harmless then sees ot me you need to provide proof not I.
Hell, I would be exstatic if someone proved that something in your “medicine” prevented or cured cancer!
@119
As I have said, you can google too. Go to it!
Sorry, you can’t make a claim and then demand other people prove it for you. Get off your fat, lazy ass and do it yourself.
THC is readily available to any one with the liscence to prescribe. next time you get seasick, ask your doc for a some marinol, tabs.
That’s not why your statement was incorrect. Your statement was incorrect because you said that the FDA didn’t propagandize for the Bush Administration by claiming that marijuana had no medicinal use when smoked.
Gee, you said that lotsa companies are already doing this. Are they breaking the law?
Not if they’re based in the U.S. Try again!!
Sorry boobelah but this is a lose-lose for you. IF MJ WERE a major psychoactive agent, most of the medical community WOULD want it illegal
Let’s add this to list of incorrect statements. Either you don’t understand what the word “psychoactive” means or you don’t have a very good read on what your fellow doctors think. Many doctors believe that psychoactive drugs have the potential to be greatly beneficial. Please challenge me on this and I’ll start burying you in links.
like morphine or acid
Morphine and acid are two very, very different drugs. The fact that you lumped them together just underscores how little you know about what we’re talking about here.
The reason most of us think it should bge legal is that its not a major psychoactive drug.
You’re only speaking for yourself there. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug. I challenge you to find anyone to dispute that.
So far, like the DI, all you do is mistate the literature or cite opinion pieces in the non scientific literature.
I’ve asked you to break down specific studies and you’ve avoided doing so. Why else would you do this unless you weren’t capable of doing so?
I do not remember being asked this but if you would like to pick a paper that you thihnk proved inhaling marijuana smoke is not carcinogenic, I will be happy read it in detail and discuss it with you.
Hell (again) if you actually find such a paper I would be very excited and we could both argue from the same side!
We could do this at DL some night to the amusement or boredom of bystanders. Maybe one of the bar maids will be a referee.
One rule I would want is that you leave lee2 at home.
@120
Nope. I read some of the papers Sunnil gave me. Most were reviews of material that I knoew or that had little effect on this issue.
Give me an example. I still have the emails that he sent you that you were unable to respond to.
A few purported to prove your points, but were faulty for obvious reasons.
Detail the reasons.
I asked him to give me any papers with better evidence. he could not.
He told you that you didn’t understand the papers that he sent you. And since you never provided either one of us with a single word explaining why you dismissed them, we’ve both concluded that you’re simply full of shit – as has nearly every other person I know who has ever had a long conversation with you.
As for my giving YOU papers, I have no idea what you want.
I want you to take a statement from a comment or post I’ve done, and then take a study that you’ve seen and demonstrate how the study shows that my statement is incorrect. If you’re really a scientist, and I’m really some dude who’s just believing things because I want to believe them, this should be simple for you.
You are the one claiming miracle drugs effects. You want to prove that the carcinogens in your medicine are harmless then sees ot me you need to provide proof not I.
This doesn’t even have to be related to marijuana, even. Any statement I’ve made anywhere.
Hell, I would be exstatic if someone proved that something in your “medicine” prevented or cured cancer!
There are still a lot of questions out there, but there’s absolutely no demonstrated danger to marijuana smoking that’s so severe that we should deprive a person of its potential benefits for fear of that ingestion method, let alone knowing that alternate ingestion methods are available (tinctures, foods, vaporizers).
@122
I do not remember being asked this but if you would like to pick a paper that you thihnk proved inhaling marijuana smoke is not carcinogenic, I will be happy read it in detail and discuss it with you.
I’ve already sent you a study that showed that long term marijuana use does not cause lung cancer. I’ve already challenged you to explain why it’s a faulty study, and you have failed to do so.
I’m asking you to show me a study that demonstrates that long-term marijuana use causes lung cancer. That’s what real scientists do. They reference studies. They don’t just make shit up because it sounds right.
Hell (again) if you actually find such a paper I would be very excited and we could both argue from the same side!
I’ve already sent you a study, and you dismissed it out-of-hand without explanation or details. You just said it had problems, but you refused to specify what those problems are.
We could do this at DL some night to the amusement or boredom of bystanders. Maybe one of the bar maids will be a referee.
I’ve already said that Darryl can be the referee.
One rule I would want is that you leave lee2 at home.
What, is that the imaginary person you start arguing with after you lose arguments to me?
Lee calls the jackass fat! Brilliant!! To t3ell you the truth I would love to be as svelte as you are but .. to be blunt .. don;t care for the wizardly beard.
As for the Aztec empire .. dumbassed one,
Here is start for your efforts:
In 1521, in what is probably the most widely known episode in the Spanish colonization of the Americas, Hernán Cortés, along with a large number of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies, conquered Tenochtitlan and defeated the Aztec Triple Alliance under the leadership of Hueyi Tlatoani Moctezuma II; …
According to their own history, when the Mexicas arrived in the Anahuac valley (Valley of Mexico) around Lake Texcoco, the groups living there considered them uncivilized. The Mexicas borrowed much of their culture from the ancient Toltec whom they seem to have at least partially confused with the more ancient civilization of Teotihuacan.
While human sacrifice was practiced throughout Mesoamerica, the Aztecs, if their own accounts are to be believed, brought this practice to an unprecedented level.
In the writings of Bernardino de Sahagún, Aztec “anonymous informants” defended the practice of human sacrifice by asserting that it was not very different from the European way of waging warfare: Europeans killed the warriors in battle, Aztecs killed the warriors after the battle.
The highest class were the pīpiltin or nobility.[15] Originally this status was not hereditary, although the sons of pillis had access to better resources and education, so it was easier for them to become pillis. Later the class system took on hereditary aspects.
The second class were the mācehualtin, originally peasants. Eduardo Noguera[16] estimates that in later stages only 20% of the population was dedicated to agriculture and food production. The other 80% of society were warriors, artisans and traders.
Slaves or tlacotin also constituted an important class. Aztecs could become slaves because of debts, as a criminal punishment or as war captives. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. However, upon becoming a slave, all of the slave’s animals and excess money would go to his purchaser.
Traveling merchants called pochtecah were a small, but important class as they not only facilitated commerce, but also communicated vital information across the empire and beyond its borders. They were often employed as spies.
Political organisation
Family and lineage
Family and lineage were the basic units of Aztec society. Ones lineage determined ones social standing, and noble lineages were traced back to the mythical past, as the nobles were said to be descended from the god Quetzalcoatl.[6] Prestigious lineages also traced their kin back through ruling dynasties, preferably ones with a Toltec heritage.
The calpolli (from Nahuatl calpōlli meaning “big house”) was a political unit composed of several interrelated family groups. The calpolli was centered around the local chief (calpōleh), to whom its members were normally related and he provided the calpolli members with lands for cultivation (calpōllālli) or with access to non-agricultural occupations in exchange for tribute and loyalty. [8]
The calpolli also ran a temple where the adoration of the deity of the calpolli was performed and a school called the Telpochcalli where young men were trained, mostly in martial arts. In some Aztec citystates calpollis were specialised in a trade, which was practiced by all of its members, and these calpollis functioned something like a medieval trade guild.
The altepetl (from Nahuatl āltepētl “water-mountain”) was a citystate composed of several calpollis and ruled by a tlatoani. The altepetl was the unit that held sway over a given territory and defended and possibly expanded it by military might.
Alliances and political hegemony
Altepetl states would normally strive towards dominating neighboring altepetl through warfare. In this way weak altepetl would become subjugated by stronger ones to whom they then paid tribute. This often lead to the formation of alliances between subordinate altepetl in order to overthrow a dominant altepetl. Some alliances were shortlived, or ad-hoc and others were long term relationships where a group of altepetl would converge to form what was sometimes almost a single political entity. Social organisation
The most basic social division in Aztec society was that between nobles (Nahuatl pīpiltin) and commoners (Nahuatl mācehualtin ). Nobles held a large number of privileges not shared by the commoners most importantly the right to receive tribute from commoners on their land. Commoners on the other hand were free to own and cultivate land and to manage their own possessions, while still completing the services required by their lords and their calpolli, such as tribute payment and militay service. Mobility between the two social layers was difficult,
The highest officials of the pochteca were the pochtecatlatoque. The pochtecatlatoque were the elder of the pochteca, and were no longer travelers, but rather acted as administrators, overseeing young pochteca and administering the marketplace. The second group of pochteca was the slave traders, known as the tlatlani. These people were often referred to as the richest of merchants, as they played a central role in bathing the slaves used for sacrificial victims.
The Spaniards and their Tlaxcallan allies became increasingly dangerous and unwelcome guests in the capital city. In June, 1520, hostilities broke out, culminating in the massacre in the Main Temple and the death of Montezuma. After the death of Moctezuma II, the empire fell into the hands of severely weakened emperors, such as Cuitláhuac, before eventually being ruled by puppet rulers, such as Andrés de Tapia Motelchiuh, installed by the Spanish.
freedom from Aztec domination may have been considered a positive development by most of the other cultures. The upper classes of the Aztec empire were considered noblemen by the Spaniards and generally treated as such initially. All this changed rapidly and the native population were soon forbidden to study by law, and had the status of minors[citation needed].
In the structure of the Aztec society, Slaves or tlacotin (distinct from war captives) also constituted an important class.
Incorrigible slaves were made to wear a wooden collar, affixed by rings at the back. The collar was not merely a symbol of bad conduct: it was designed to make it harder to run away through a crowd or through narrow spaces.
When buying a collared slave, one was informed of how many times that slave had been sold. A slave who was sold four times as incorrigible could be sold to be sacrificed; those slaves commanded a premium in price.
An Aztec could become a slave as a punishment. A murderer sentenced to death could instead, upon the request of the wife of his victim, be given to her as a slave. A father could sell his son into slavery if the son was declared incorrigible by an authority. Those who did not pay their debts could also be sold as slaves.
I do not remember being asked this but if you would like to pick a paper that you thihnk proved inhaling marijuana smoke is not carcinogenic, I will be happy read it in detail and discuss it with you.
I’ve already sent you a study that showed that long term marijuana use does not cause lung cancer. I’ve already challenged you to explain why it’s a faulty study, and you have failed to do so.
No, I have explained to you that the study, as designed, could only test the hypothesis that mj has a synergistic adverse effect in a small poulation of patient with lung cancer.
As I said before, if you want to get together to dicuss this paper I would certainly be willing to do that.
I’m asking you to show me a study that demonstrates that long-term marijuana use causes lung cancer. That’s what real scientists do. They reference studies. They don’t just make shit up because it sounds right.
I have never made susch a claim. This is mor eof Lee2 speaking. Maybe he and my alter ego ought o get together, you know the one who thinks you want to criminalize chocolate?
Lee
Sunnil told you that you didn’t understand the papers that he sent you. And since you never provided either one of us with a single word explaining why you dismissed them, we’ve both concluded that you’re simply full of shit – as has nearly every other person I know who has ever had a long conversation with you.
Hmm.
Maybe you ought to ask Sunnil to say this. he never told mer any such thing. The challenge to you or he is still the same. When you give me a paper you believe proves that smoking mj is not harmful or even one that simply shows it does not cause lung cancer (a much smaller target given the many advers effects of inhaled smoke), I am more than happy to sit woith you and Sunnil and discuss that paper.
As for the rest of the demeaning comments you seem to need ot make, I suppose they are insulting but am not sure what response you want?
I suppose I could respond in kind by evoking my alter ego? He tell me that Lee is so poor at his job that he has not been able to get promoted. Of course, his status as a retard protect him from that and the company simply has low wage workeers in Banglgladesh redo all of Lee;’sd “work.” One of his bosses is a member of the JDL and tols me they would like to fire Lee but are afraid that he would sue them for sicriminating against a disabled person. My AE also tells me that Lee’s pro mj activities have led to three deaths of three misled kids. These were two native American kids he met at hempfest and the daughter of a palestinain refugee who escaped from a harem with Lee’s help. None of these were over 13 but they joined his crusade not realizing that they did not have the creds to avoid the police. Cops arrested them one night in Lee’s basement smoking the good stuff. Of course Lee as an adult white guy was let lose. Nice thing being a rich white guy! ..The kids went to Juvi, got caught up into the hard stuff .. well the rest is too sad to relate here.
But that would be my alter ego talking!
@124 Darryl would be fine but I don’t think it would be fair to him.
Lee2 is the Lee who makes things up that others (moi) say and then argues with his own posits. It is hard enough to discuss the truth.
Hell, I would be ecstatic if someone proved that something in your “medicine” prevented or cured cancer!
There are still a lot of questions out there, but there’s absolutely no demonstrated danger to marijuana smoking that’s so severe that we should deprive a person of its potential benefits for fear of that ingestion method, let alone knowing that alternate ingestion methods are available (tinctures, foods, vaporizers).
There is nothing I here i disagree with. However, knowing what is in mj smoke and knowing how dangerous these molecules are, it seems reasonable to discourage inhalation. AFIK, brownies are fine!
You bring the brownies some night, I will buy the beer. Oh oh .. I fortgot i am diabetic. Can you bake the brownies with low carbs?
@129
Driving a car is dangerous (40K killed a year!), riding a bike is dangerous, climbing a peak is dangerous, swimming in the ocean is dangerous. I’ve done all of those things in the last 3 days (the swim was very short Brr…). Those are things that while dangerous bring me joy and make life worth living (well, not the driving the car part).
I really hope that you’re arguing that people should think about what they’re doing, know the risk involved and make informed decisions, not that people shouldn’t do something because it might include some element of risk.
@131
Michael ..
You state it very well …
The problem with cigarettes is that the bad effects take decades so young folks have trouble taking the risk seriously. There is a fine line between education and propaganda!
Personally, I think we are at a reasonable level of regulation with tobacco today … we denigrate the stuff, do all we can to protect non smokers fomr the smokers, etc. I would like to see a similar standard applied to marijuana.
Unfortunately, the hype from both sides makes this difficult. The devil drug crows make up fairy takes about mj that more than balance Lee’s fanaticism.
@125
That information explains that Aztec society was classist, which I’ve already explained is true of just about any society in history. Nothing in that article discusses corruption, which is defined as:
That’s what corruption is, and the levels of corruption in Mexico are at unprecedented levels – because of the drug war. Your assertion that the levels of corruption were greater under the Aztecs is one without any basis. I can have Darryl or anyone else explain this to you later if you don’t understand it.
@126
No, I have explained to you that the study, as designed, could only test the hypothesis that mj has a synergistic adverse effect in a small poulation of patient with lung cancer.
No, not at all, here’s what Tashkin was testing:
Despite what you said above, Tashkin studied more than just people with lung cancer. He studied a group of 1,200+ Los Angeles residentss, some with esophageal and laryngeal cancer as well. His hypothesis was to demonstrate a causal relationship between long-term marijuana use and lung cancer. He found the opposite (which was very much to his surprise).
Here’s more details about the results of the experiment:
None of this comports with your accusation that this experiment, as set up, could only determine a synergistic relationship. There was obviously a subset of the study who used marijuana, but not cigarettes.
The bottom line, once again, is that Tashkin, a researcher who has long been studying the dangers of marijuana smoking, and is absolutely not a pro-marijuana researcher by any stretch, now says that it’s not even unreasonable to believe that marijuana might protect against cancer. Of course, that also needs to be studied, but you’re flatly incorrect in categorizing Tashkin’s study the way you have. It was able to test for far more than just whether not marijuana makes the chances of getting lung cancer worse for a tobacco smoker. It was able to test whether or not marijuana alone had a causal relationship with lung cancer. According to Tashkin’s results, it does not.
I have never made susch a claim.
Yes, you have.
This is mor eof Lee2 speaking.
No, this is more of you being full of shit.
Maybe he and my alter ego ought o get together, you know the one who thinks you want to criminalize chocolate?
I’m sure they already have, moron.
Lee,
Wiki is nice but you might expand your horizons some time by using other tools:
from the OED:
The OED defines two uses for the term corruption, physical and moral. Physical refers to changes in the properties of an object, e.g. rust. The relevant term here is moral corruption,
II. Moral.
4. A making or becoming morally corrupt; the fact or condition of being corrupt; moral deterioration or decay; depravity.
c1340 Cursor M. (Fairf.) 1553 (heading) {Th}e corrupcioun of {th}e lande ofter synne. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 10 That is it that preserueth mannes soule from spirituall corrupcyon of synne. 1592 DAVIES Immort. Soul VIII. xxi, As from Adam, all Corruption take. 1711 STEELE Spect. No. 107 {page}1 The general Corruption of Manners in Servants is owing to the Conduct of Masters. 1849-50 ALISON Hist. Europe I. ii. §50. 168 Have the arts and sciences contributed to the corruption or purification of morals? 1856 FROUDE Hist. Eng. (1858) I. ii. 172 The clergy as a body were paralysed by corruption. 1874 GREEN Short Hist. viii. 476 The blow at the corruption of the Court which followed was of a far more serious order.
b. (with a and pl.)
1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 4953 And clense it of al manere of syn, And of alle corrupcions, bath hegh and law. 1605 BP. HALL Medit. & Vows I. §16 My progresse so small, and insensible; my corruptions so strong. 1684 BUNYAN Pilgr. II. 137 The young Man had strong Corruptions to grapple with. 1727 SWIFT Gulliver Pref. Let., Some corruptions of my Yahoo nature have revived in me.
c. Corrupting influence or agency.
a1340 HAMPOLE Psalter Prol. 3 {Th}e whilk waxis noght soure thurgh {th}e corupciouns of {th}is warld. c1386 CHAUCER Pars. T. {page}825 Right so is a wikked prest corrupcioun ynough for al a parisch. 1813 BYRON Br. Abydos II. xx, How oft the heart Corruption shakes which perils could not part! 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) V. 124 The love of money is the corruption of states.
5. Evil nature, ‘the old Adam’; anger, ‘temper’. Now colloq. or dial.
1799 C. WINTER Let. in W. Jay Mem. (1843) 36 His corruptions were roused by the report. 1829 Blackw. Mag. XXV. 545 Fling doon the Stannard{em}if you dinna, it’ll be waur for you, for you’ve raised my corruption. 1830 GALT Lawrie T. V. xii. (1849) 247 ‘Let alone my goods’..exclaimed I, for my corruption was rising. 1848 A. BRONTË Tenant of Wildfell Hall xxxi, I am no angel, and my corruption rises against it.
6. Perversion or destruction of integrity in the discharge of public duties by bribery or favour; the use or existence of corrupt practices, esp. in a state, public corporation, etc.
c1425 WYNTOUN Cron. VII. viii. 703 Quhat for corruptyown and inwy, Thare charge {th}ai dyd nocht detfully. 1494 Act 11 Hen. VII, c. 21 If any of the petit Jury toke..any some of money..after any suche corrupcion by the Graund Jury founden, etc. 1570-6 LAMBARDE Peramb. Kent. (1826) 141 Guy..escaped soon after by corruption of his keepers. a1600 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. VII. xxiv. §8 Simoniacal corruption I may not for honours sake suspect. 1651 HOBBES Leviath. II. xxvi. 144 The frequent corruption and partiality of Judges. 1769 Junius Lett. i. (1804) I. 13 It is not sufficient..that judges are superior to the vileness of pecuniary corruption. 1827 HALLAM Const. Hist. (1876) II. xii. 398 The real vice of this parliament was not intemperance, but corruption. 1880 MCCARTHY Own Times IV. lix. 316 The ballot has not extinguished corruption in small boroughs.
Historically the Aztecs replaced the Toltecs and imposed a military rule over what had been a more culturally sophisticated society and the neghboring peoples. By the time of Cortez, the neighbors were rather unhappy with the Mexica hegemonay and this is said to account, in part, for the ease of Cortez’ conquest.
As you should have read, the Aztec hegemony was dominated by by a corrupt elite, self appointed and maintained by force. The resulting society was corrupt in much the same perverse way as many other conqueror/conquered societies have been .. Eastern Europe, post Cortez Mexico, etc.
Frnkly, I do not see your distinction between classism and corruption as meaningful. There have been corrupt classist societies and classist societies that were rather idealistic. Would you call all periods of Co9nfuscian rule not corrupt because of the clasism built into that system? Soviet Era Russia was very classist (ironically) but it was also very corrupt .. some would say because of the classism.
I am hardly an expert on modern Mexico, but from what my firends tell me the corruption has little to do with the drug wat, though that is an issue too. Mexico lived for many years in a one party system, the PRI was dominanat and .. as happened in the USSR, this led to an elite group of people who dominated the PRI .. the term for this is usually corruption. The persistence of racial classes, as in the Afrikaner regime, also contributed to corruption since on both sides of that divide the self interested folks had (and in Mexico still have) huge incentives to maintain the status quo.
. Thus my choice of the word corruption.
@127
Maybe you ought to ask Sunnil to say this. he never told mer any such thing.
Nope. He already wrote it to you over email (but with much nicer words, of course). His exact words were: “You have a lot to learn about cannabinoids”. I’ll find the email for you and resend it if you really want.
The challenge to you or he is still the same. When you give me a paper you believe proves that smoking mj is not harmful or even one that simply shows it does not cause lung cancer (a much smaller target given the many advers effects of inhaled smoke), I am more than happy to sit woith you and Sunnil and discuss that paper.
No, you’re changing the argument again. What happened here (and I have the email trail to prove it) is that you said that marijuana was not a legitimate medicine. Sunil then sent you a list of over a dozen studies demonstrating that fact. Then, you decided that since you’d lost that argument, you would change the argument to be that we needed to prove to you that smoking marijuana wasn’t harmful, which is a completely separate issue. Neither Sunil nor I dispute the fact that long-term marijuana smoking can lead to respiratory issues.
You did what you always do, Steve. You lose the argument, then change the argument in order to pretend that you didn’t lose it.
The challenge for you is to back up this statement:
Numerous people have explained to you that it’s wrong. And in your child-like unwillingness to simply admit that the statement is wrong, you instead start mischaracterizing things that others have said, and flat out lied (as you’ve just done repeatedly in these last few comments) about what people like Sunil have told you.
And even worse, you break out your credentials as a scientist to throw out lame-ass pseudoscience excuses for why the studies we’ve cited aren’t valid.
And still, you have yet to produce a single scientific study that refutes a single thing I’ve said. Once again, Steve, you’re a pathetic man.
As for the rest of the demeaning comments you seem to need ot make, I suppose they are insulting but am not sure what response you want?
I’ve already told you what I want. I want you to step up to the plate and find one instance where I’ve said something scientifically inaccurate. Copy/paste the text, cite the reference, provide the clear explanation. I’ve asked you more than once now to do this, and you keep telling me you don’t know what kind of response you want. Are you retarded?
@135
You can choose whatever definition for the word corruption you want, but when people refer to the corruption in Mexico, they’re obviously referring to the definition I cited (which is not from Wikipedia, dumbshit, it’s from the Oxford Dictionary).
You still haven’t even come close to showing me that Aztec society had the kinds of corruption happening that occur now, where judges are bought and paid for by drug gangs and the local police are often fighting the federales.
All of those things are happening because people are getting paid off by drug cartels, and therefore officials throughout Mexico are providing benefit to these cartels for money. That’s the definition of corruption. You’ve shown me nothing about how this happened among the Aztecs in any significant amounts.
@128
Darryl would be fine but I don’t think it would be fair to him.
I think that’s up for him to decide. If there’s a factual dispute between me and you, I’m fairly certain that he’d be eager to settle it.
@132
The devil drug crows make up fairy takes about mj that more than balance Lee’s fanaticism.
Please cite a statement I’ve ever made that can be cited as “fanaticism” and provide a link to information that clearly shows that my statement is exaggerated or false in any way.
Oh, wait, I’ve already been asking you to do this for over a day and you can’t.
Lee,
Instead of a web report how about getting the actual paper?
Lets first let Lee2 go off and play his games I have never said that mj causes cancer. I have said and would still say that this is a real concern for any inhaled substance with the composition of mj. If it were rally true that mj did NOT cause cancer .. or other untoward effects of inhaled carcinogens, I would be very happy and would expect research t go full bore to find out what was in smoke that was protective. OK? Now can Lee2 go away please?
Here is a recent review that seems fair to me:
Alcohol. 2005 Apr;35(3):265-75.
Hashibe M, Straif K, Tashkin DP, Morgenstern H, Greenland S, Zhang ZF.
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 69008 Lyon, France.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States and is considered by young adults to be the illicit drug with the least risk. On the other hand, marijuana smoke contains several of the same carcinogens and co-carcinogens as the tar from tobacco, raising concerns that smoking of marijuana may be a risk factor for tobacco-related cancers. We reviewed two cohort studies and 14 case-control studies with assessment of the association of marijuana use and cancer risk. In the cohort studies, increased risks of lung or colorectal cancer due to marijuana smoking were not observed, but increased risks of prostate and cervical cancers among non-tobacco smokers, as well as adult-onset glioma among tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, were observed. The 14 case-control studies included four studies on head and neck cancers, two studies on lung cancer, two studies on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, one study on anal cancer, one study on penile cancer, and four studies on childhood cancers with assessment of parental exposures. Zhang and colleagues reported that marijuana use may increase risk of head and neck cancers in a hospital-based case-control study in the United States, with dose-response relations for both frequency and duration of use. However, Rosenblatt and co-workers reported no association between oral cancer and marijuana use in a population-based case-control study. An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia. However, there was no assessment of the dose response, and marijuana may have been mixed with tobacco. Parental marijuana use during gestation was associated with increased risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, but dose-response relations were not assessed. In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk. Several limitations of previous studies include possible underreporting where marijuana use is illegal, small sample sizes, and too few heavy marijuana users in the study sample. Recommendations for future studies are to (1) focus on tobacco-related cancer sites; (2) obtain detailed marijuana exposure assessment, including frequency, duration, and amount of personal use as well as mode of use (smoked in a cigarette, pipe, or bong; taken orally); (3) adjust for tobacco smoking and conduct analyses on nonusers of tobacco; and (4) conduct larger studies, meta-analyses, or pooled analyses to maximize statistical precision and investigate sources of differences in results. Despite the challenges, elucidation of the association between marijuana use and cancer risk is important in weighing the benefits and risks of medical marijuana use and to clarify the impact of marijuana use on public health.
I was not able to find the study you cite by Sidney but he has written a thoughtful PRO legalization review:
BMJ. 2003 Sep 20;327(7416):635-6.
A recent editorial in this journal implied that as many as 30 000 deaths in Britain every year might be caused by smoking cannabis.1 The authors reasoned that since the prevalence of smoking cannabis is about one quarter that of smoking tobacco the number of deaths attributable to smoking cannabis might be about one quarter of the number attributed to tobacco cigarettes (about 120 000). The idea that the use of cannabis increases mortality is worthy of closer examination. How do we assess this issue?
Firstly, we need to examine published data regarding use of cannabis and mortality. These data come from two large studies. The first study done in a cohort of 45 450 male Swedish conscripts, age 18-20 when interviewed about the use of cannabis, reported no increase in the 15 year mortality associated with the use of cannabis after social factors were taken into account.2 The second study was performed in a cohort of 65 171 men and women age 15-49, who were members of a large health maintenance organisation in California, United States. They completed a questionnaire assessing their use of cannabis, and reported no increase in mortality associated with use of cannabis over an average of 10 years of follow up, except for AIDS related mortality in men.3 A detailed examination showed that the mortality link between cannabis and AIDS was not a causal one. Thus published data do not support the characterisation of cannabis as a risk factor for mortality.
Secondly, we need to consider the time course of exposure to cannabis and its potential relation to mortality. No acute lethal overdoses of cannabis are known,4 in contrast to several of its illegal (for example, cocaine) and legal (for example, alcohol, aspirin, acetaminophen) counterparts. Deaths due to chronic diseases resulting from substance misuse generally result from the use of that substance (for example, tobacco and alcohol) over a long time. Importantly, and in contrast to users of tobacco and alcohol, most cannabis users generally quit using cannabis relatively early in their adult lives. The table shows observations from the 1998 US national household survey on drug abuse regarding the prevalence of current (past month) use of alcohol, tobacco cigarettes, and use of cannabis among young adults (age 18-25) and older adults (age 35 or older).5
Table 1 Table 1
Percentage reporting use of alcohol, tobacco cigarettes, and cannabis in 18-25 and 35+ years age groups, 19985
The proportion of older adults who use cannabis is only 18% that of younger adults, much lower than the comparable proportions for alcohol (89%) and tobacco cigarettes (60%). Moreover since the use of cannabis in young adults declined steadily between 1979 and 1998, whereas use in older adults remained stable, the observed low prevalence in older adults is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. Therefore, even diseases that might be related to long term use of cannabis are unlikely to have a sizeable public health impact because most people who try cannabis do not become long term users. This observation is relevant to lung cancer, which, although strongly related to cigarette smoking, typically only occurs after at least 20 years of smoking.6 Also, a typical regular cannabis user smokes the equivalent of one marijuana cigarette or less per day,7 whereas consumption of 20 or more tobacco cigarettes is common. Exposure to smoke is therefore generally much lower in cannabis than in tobacco cigarette smokers, even taking into account the larger exposure per puff.8
A third issue to consider is the potential relation of the use of cannabis to diseases that contribute the most to total mortality. For example, in the United States and the United Kingdom the leading cause of death is diseases of the heart, predominantly coronary heart disease, which is strongly associated with smoking tobacco cigarettes and accounts for nearly one third of all deaths. Mittleman et al noted the quadrupling of risk found in one study when cannabis was smoked within one hour before a myocardial infarction.9 However, since only 0.2% of the patients with myocardial infarction reported this exposure the number of myocardial infarctions attributable to the use of cannabis is extremely small. Cannabis does not contain nicotine, a component of tobacco that contributes importantly to the risk of coronary heart disease. Use of cannabis in a young adult population was not associated with the presence of calcium in coronary arteries—an indicator of coronary atherosclerosis10—and a cohort study conducted in a large health maintenance organisation showed no association between the use of cannabis and admission to hospital for myocardial infarction and all coronary heart disease.11
Two caveats must be noted regarding available data. Firstly, the longer term follow up of cohorts of cannabis users may still show an increased risk of cancers, chronic diseases, and mortality if enough members of the study cohort continue to smoke cannabis often enough and for long enough. The cohorts to date have not followed cannabis smokers into later adult life so that it might be too early to detect an increased risk of chronic diseases that are potentially associated with the use of cannabis. Secondly, the low rate of regular use of cannabis and the high rates of discontinuation during young adulthood in the United States may reflect the illegality and social disapproval of the use of cannabis. This means that we cannot assume that smoking cannabis would continue to have the same small impact on mortality (as it probably does with current patterns of use) if its use were to be decriminalised or legalised.
Although the use of cannabis is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality. Common sense should dictate a variety of measures to minimise adverse effects of cannabis. These include discouraging the use by teenagers, who seem to be most at risk of future problems from drug use,12 not using before or during the operation of automobiles or machinery, not using excessively, and cautioning in people with known coronary heart disease.
Finally, I di not find a paper in whch Tashkin himself was the senior author and supported your contention, however he is a middel author on the following that seems to be the paper you refer to:
1: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Oct;15(10):1829-34.
Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results
of a population-based case-control study.
Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, Tashkin DP, Zhang ZF, Cozen W, Mack TM,
Greenland S.
IARC, Lyon, France.
BACKGROUND: Despite several lines of evidence suggesting the biological
plausibility of marijuana being carcinogenic, epidemiologic findings are
inconsistent. We conducted a population-based case-control study of the
association between marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive
tract cancers in Los Angeles. METHODS: Our study included 1,212 incident cancer
cases and 1,040 cancer-free controls matched to cases on age, gender, and
neighborhood. Subjects were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. The
cumulative use of marijuana was expressed in joint-years, where 1 joint-year is
equivalent to smoking one joint per day for 1 year. RESULTS: Although using
marijuana for > or =30 joint-years was positively associated in the crude
analyses with each cancer type (except pharyngeal cancer), no positive
associations were observed when adjusting for several confounders including
cigarette smoking. The adjusted odds ratio estimate (and 95% confidence limits)
for > or =60 versus 0 joint-years was 1.1 (0.56, 2.1) for oral cancer, 0.84
(0.28, 2.5) for laryngeal cancer, and 0.62 (0.32, 1.2) for lung cancer; the
adjusted odds ratio estimate for > or =30 versus 0 joint-years was 0.57 (0.20,
1.6) for pharyngeal cancer, and 0.53 (0.22, 1.3) for esophageal cancer. No
association was consistently monotonic across exposure categories, and
restriction to subjects who never smoked cigarettes yielded similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in
measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the
association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not
strong and may be below practically detectable limits.
I realize this sort of thing is hard for a nonscientist to read, but the summary is that they did not find the expected effect. This is good news but as they say does not prove that marijuana is safe.
Again, if we leave Lee2 to play somewhere else, these reviews seem to me to support legalization. They also raise th…but certainly do not prove .. the possibility you raise that somehow inhaled mj does not cause the expected rates of cancer.
It certainly would be fun, if Lee2 stays home, to have an objective discussion of the Hashibe paper. Would you like me to get you a copy?
@139
Lets first let Lee2 go off and play his games I have never said that mj causes cancer.
Yes, you have.
I have said and would still say that this is a real concern for any inhaled substance with the composition of mj. If it were rally true that mj did NOT cause cancer .. or other untoward effects of inhaled carcinogens, I would be very happy and would expect research t go full bore to find out what was in smoke that was protective. OK?
If you feel that way, then do you oppose the smoking of marijuana as medicine on those grounds? If someone is receiving tremendous benefit from the use of marijuana as medicine, why would an unproven side-effect be reason enough to stop? That just doesn’t make sense.
Either you believe that smoking marijuana causes cancer or you don’t. But you’ve gotten yourself into a mental stranglehold where you believe that it causes cancer in order to make one point, but then believe that it doesn’t when you’re challenged on the science.
From the study you cite:
In the cohort studies, increased risks of lung or colorectal cancer due to marijuana smoking were not observed, but increased risks of prostate and cervical cancers among non-tobacco smokers, as well as adult-onset glioma among tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, were observed.
So, are you saying that marijuana smoking causes cervical cancer? Or is it possible that there’s no actual causal relationship here?
BACKGROUND: Despite several lines of evidence suggesting the biological
plausibility of marijuana being carcinogenic, epidemiologic findings are
inconsistent.
Exactly.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in
measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the
association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not
strong and may be below practically detectable limits.
Exactly.
I realize this sort of thing is hard for a nonscientist to read, but the summary is that they did not find the expected effect.
Hahahahahaha! That says exactly what I’ve been saying the entire time. Steve, are you completely retarded?
No Lee.
Lets deal with Lee2 first:
Me:
Lets first let Lee2 go offm play his games, pee his pants or whatever: I have never said that mj causes cancer.
This is a lie.
What I have said many times is that the ingredients of mj smoke include potent carcinogens. I have also said, as this article does, that it would be very surprising if mj were not carcinogenic and merit an effort to what in inhaled reefer smoke was protective.
If I were Lee, I would worry about an AE with this little sense of what he says!
Second, what does the Hashibe study actually show?
Of the 1212 folks with cancer in this study, 649 or 54% were mj users. Of the 1040 controls, 54% were users. In other words: the criteria they used for this study seem biased toward mj use far higher than in the general community. I am not sure whether this was the result of the way they picked case controls but if that is the case the obvious issue is that some independent variable is selecting for mj use.
In any case, with these criteria having cancer did not make it more likely that you had smoked pot. They interpret this finding as evidence that mj did not add to the expected risk to tobacco .. again as I have tried to tell Lee several times. Hashibe says the data suggest a protective effect, with caveats like those I offered above.
One problem is, of course, that there are few people in the study who CLAIM not to have also smoked cigs and that claim itself is dubious. Table 3 studies those making this claim, but the numbers are really too small for Hashibe to draw any conclusions.
There are other issues with this study. Hashibe looks at people with newly diagnosed cancers and asks if they have a greater record of mj use then is seen among folks who do not have cancer. Certainly one would expect to, and they do, find a higher rate of cig smokers in the cancer group. However, even the presence of cancer and cigs in the same population might have other explanations … what are called confounding variables. Since, however, we have lots of other prospective data on cigs, Hashibe take this part of their study as confirming the expected. The failure to find an over-representation of mj smokers in the cancer group is more difficult to evaluate because it is possible that cigs alone are enough to overwhelm the expected effect of mj. Again, Hashibe (unlike Lee) is careful to make this point.
It may be useful to remember what the question here is. We would like to know if smoking mj by itself or with cigs increases one’s risk of disease. The kosher way of doing such a study would be to do it in a prospective analysis. This small study is a retrospective study and could, therefore, be an artefact of unknown events that select for or against mj use in the cancer community. E.g suppose the presence of cancer in a cig smoker is preceded by respiratory symptoms that make an individual less likely to want to also smoke mj? Then, mj would .. as here .. be underrepresented in the cancer group.
What Should Folks Do?
Though I am an MD, I do not practice so the best I can do for anyone is give you my impression as an interested scientist from reading the literature. Since lee2 thinks I am stupid, you may well want to ignore me but I do think you should seek advice from someone more knowledgeable and less biased than Lee.
That said,
My caution is exactly the same as that expressed in statements from the American College of Physicians (again not as in Lee2’s misstatements).
In essence they say there is no reason not to take THC but they do not recommend getting your THC from inhalation of smoke.
If you enjoy reefers and are not motivated by the laws, go ahead and smoke but be aware that you are inhaling substances that are known carcinogens.
If you are a patient in need of a clinical effect of mj, or just want a smoke for its own pleasure, you need to be more careful. The known pharmacological benefits of mj can be obtained from Marinol, esp for nausea without the risk associated with inhaled smoke. Marinol is legal and has few side effects. Lee is correct that there may be issues with dose and route of administration … ask your prescribing physician to research these for you.
As for smoking pot rather than popping THC being a more effective therapy, there is not a lot of evidence for the various miracle effects Lee refers to. For example, knowledgeable pain experts I have spoken with think mj is not a very good analgesic, evidence for an anti-inflammatory effect is also not comparable to the efficacy of known drugs. On the other hand, no one should downplay the value of placebos. If you feel that you are in less pain, you are in less pain. Reefer smoking can also be pleasurable for other reasons and sick folks deserve to have their pleasures. Obviously, the terminally ill have less reason to be concerned about untoward effects than they do to be concerned about the inevitable outcome of their primary disease.
Terminal patients may be a special case but even here there needs ot be caution. Even aside from cancer, we know that any kind of inhaled smoke can harm the lungs, not a good thing if your illness includes a need to breathe.
@137 Lee, tell you what Boobleah .. I will continue to use the OED for my definitions and yo can use whatever definition someone has recently added to the Wiki. Do be careful though, the last time I looked my alter ego was preparing to edit the entry you so like.
If you do not think slave societies are corrupt, I can refer you to a lot of excellent biographies of folks who lived through those situations. For that matter, I suppose you would say Buchenwald was not corrupt either?
Lets see hich societies in the world today are usually noted as very corrupt .. Russia? Paraguay, Syria?
[Deleted – slander – I warned you, Steve]
Lee …
I suggest we call an end here. If we do the shoot out, that can be the basis for mere but the day off I made for myself is over and I need to get back to saving the world.
@141
This is a lie.
What I have said many times is that the ingredients of mj smoke include potent carcinogens. I have also said, as this article does, that it would be very surprising if mj were not carcinogenic and merit an effort to what in inhaled reefer smoke was protective.
Sorry, but the link to what you said is very clear. Saying that “the suspicion must be” is another way of saying that you believe it. Saying that you believe it does not even imply that there’s proof. It’s just saying that you feel that it is safe to believe that it’s true.
Of the 1212 folks with cancer in this study, 649 or 54% were mj users. Of the 1040 controls, 54% were users. In other words: the criteria they used for this study seem biased toward mj use far higher than in the general community.
The fact that they held the levels of marijuana users constant between the two different subsets was likely to provide as even a comparison as possible. I’m not sure what possible bias could have been introduced by doing so as long as marijuana was the only factor being looked at in order to get a proper sample. If you need to study men and women, and you need to have equal numbers of each to do a proper comparison, that’s not introducing a bias.
In any case, with these criteria having cancer did not make it more likely that you had smoked pot.
That’s correct.
They interpret this finding as evidence that mj did not add to the expected risk to tobacco .. again as I have tried to tell Lee several times.
I’ve never disagreed with this.
Hashibe says the data suggest a protective effect, with caveats like those I offered above.
Again, absolutely true.
One problem is, of course, that there are few people in the study who CLAIM not to have also smoked cigs and that claim itself is dubious.
Why? There are numerous people who smoke marijuana, but not cigarettes. In fact, I’d say a majority of the people I know who smoke marijuana don’t smoke cigarettes. You belief that this claim is dubious is faith-based as are many of your beliefs in this area.
Table 3 studies those making this claim, but the numbers are really too small for Hashibe to draw any conclusions.
Without knowing how many subjects in the study had multiple forms of cancer, it’s hard to know what that exact number is. It’s as high as 92, but could be lower, if some of the subjects are being counted twice in that table. Still, I don’t believe your statement holds up.
There are other issues with this study. Hashibe looks at people with newly diagnosed cancers and asks if they have a greater record of mj use then is seen among folks who do not have cancer. Certainly one would expect to, and they do, find a higher rate of cig smokers in the cancer group.
Sure, there’s nothing odd about this.
However, even the presence of cancer and cigs in the same population might have other explanations … what are called confounding variables.
Certainly. If they were coal miners, for instance.
Since, however, we have lots of other prospective data on cigs, Hashibe take this part of their study as confirming the expected.
As do I.
The failure to find an over-representation of mj smokers in the cancer group is more difficult to evaluate because it is possible that cigs alone are enough to overwhelm the expected effect of mj. Again, Hashibe (unlike Lee) is careful to make this point.
Then why is it in the conclusion? The point here, that you seem to be missing, is that for after correcting for the effects of cigarettes, marijuana was not shown to have any correlation with the cancers, and in fact might have a protective effect.
It may be useful to remember what the question here is.
No kidding.
We would like to know if smoking mj by itself or with cigs increases one’s risk of disease.
NO! That’s not the question. You are once again changing the question because you lost the argument. This has nothing to do with cigarettes and it’s specifically about cancer, not just disease.
The kosher way of doing such a study would be to do it in a prospective analysis. This small study is a retrospective study and could, therefore, be an artefact of unknown events that select for or against mj use in the cancer community.
That may be true, but you have to keep in mind that this was the largest study of its kind ever done, and it was done because several other studies before it were showing the same thing. Tashkin and his cohorts conducted this study in order to find the opposite conclusion. If what you’re saying is true, then the various studies on this subject wouldn’t all be reaching the same conclusion based upon different subsets of patients.
It would be awesome to conduct to prospective analysis for this, but that’s not so easy here, for obvious reasons. It involves having people use marijuana for long periods of time.
E.g suppose the presence of cancer in a cig smoker is preceded by respiratory symptoms that make an individual less likely to want to also smoke mj? Then, mj would .. as here .. be underrepresented in the cancer group.
I’m fairly certain that there’s not a single human being who goes through life smoking cigarettes, never smokes marijuana, but only began smoking marijuana later on if they didn’t start having respiratory problems after years of cigarette smoking. That just doesn’t make sense.
Bottom line:
As I have said before, many times, this is an interesting but not conclusive study.
I certainly think it’s not the end-all be-all of the research on this topic, but this study still stands as the most extensive study of whether or not long-term marijuana use causes lung cancer. And remember, the challenge here is to find a study that proves what you are claiming – that the relationship between marijuana use and cancer is so strong that it warrants preventing people who find medicinal benefit from it from using it. The onus is on you here, and you continually fail to deliver.
What Should Folks Do?
If marijuana is a useful medicine for them, they should use it with a vaporizer, or eat it, or make tinctures out of it.
Though I am an MD, I do not practice so the best I can do for anyone is give you my impression as an interested scientist from reading the literature.
Then tell me what literature you’ve read that makes you believe that marijuana is so dangerous that people who need it shouldn’t be using it?
Since lee2 thinks I am stupid, you may well want to ignore me but I do think you should seek advice from someone more knowledgeable and less biased than Lee.
Both Lee and Lee2 think you’re nuts.
My caution is exactly the same as that expressed in statements from the American College of Physicians (again not as in Lee2’s misstatements).
So is mine. That’s irrelevant to what we’re talking about here. You’ve said:
The American College of Physicians thinks this statement is incorrect, yet you continue to defend it. That’s the heart of the issue here. You continue to say that because there’s a suspicion (one that the prevailing science on the subject disagrees with) that marijuana causes cancer, that it should not be considered medicine at all. That’s incorrect, and most medical organizations agree with me on that.
In essence they say there is no reason not to take THC but they do not recommend getting your THC from inhalation of smoke.
That’s fine. And one does not need to smoke marijuana to get the THC. Therefore your statement above is still incorrect.
If you enjoy reefers and are not motivated by the laws, go ahead and smoke but be aware that you are inhaling substances that are known carcinogens.
And also be aware that no one has been able to demonstrate that inhaling those carcinogens, even over decades, will cause any form of cancer.
If you are a patient in need of a clinical effect of mj, or just want a smoke for its own pleasure, you need to be more careful. The known pharmacological benefits of mj can be obtained from Marinol, esp for nausea without the risk associated with inhaled smoke.
Or you can make marijuana tinctures, or you can use a vaporizer. As has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, some patients find that Marinol does not work anywhere near as well as the marijuana plant itself. Thousands of doctors across the country are well aware of this fact. Your willingness to ignore that fact is a sign that you continue to be guided by faith rather than science.
As for smoking pot rather than popping THC being a more effective therapy, there is not a lot of evidence for the various miracle effects Lee refers to.
I’ve never ascribed “miracle effects” to marijuana. It is certainly true, though, that some people have found marijuana to be a tremendously useful drug for particular ailments. See this video for just one example. Many medical marijuana patients find that THC pills simply don’t work for them. Instead of dismissing those people out of hand, I want researchers to explore why. But sadly, as long as researchers in the United States are banned from generating their own supplies of marijuana, this can’t be done here.
For example, knowledgeable pain experts I have spoken with think mj is not a very good analgesic, evidence for an anti-inflammatory effect is also not comparable to the efficacy of known drugs.
It’s not an anti-inflammatory drug. My understanding isn’t as good as others on this, but I believe it works best for combatting pain that results from nerve damage. This is something I need to learn more about.
On the other hand, no one should downplay the value of placebos. If you feel that you are in less pain, you are in less pain.
Again, watch that video I linked to above and tell me if that’s simply placebo effect.
Reefer smoking can also be pleasurable for other reasons and sick folks deserve to have their pleasures.
Sure, but that’s still separate. Most medical marijuana users use enough that they no longer experience the psychoactive effects.
Obviously, the terminally ill have less reason to be concerned about untoward effects than they do to be concerned about the inevitable outcome of their primary disease.
Exactly, which is why your statement above is ridiculous. There is a medical need for marijuana, and the fact that a terminally ill person might develop respiratory issues in 30 years is a silly reason to deny them that medicine.
Terminal patients may be a special case but even here there needs ot be caution. Even aside from cancer, we know that any kind of inhaled smoke can harm the lungs, not a good thing if your illness includes a need to breathe.
Sure, and then you’d take tinctures or make it within food. Or, you can use a vaporizer, which filters out the carcinogens.
@144
I suggest we call an end here. If we do the shoot out, that can be the basis for mere but the day off I made for myself is over and I need to get back to saving the world.
Again, your statement above (in blockquotes) is incorrect, and I’m going to keep hammering on you until you finally accept that very simple fact.
@142
I will continue to use the OED for my definitions and yo can use whatever definition someone has recently added to the Wiki.
I was using the OED definition, dumbass. Just because it was online, doesn’t mean it’s in a Wiki. Click to the link, you’ll see the definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Do be careful though, the last time I looked my alter ego was preparing to edit the entry you so like.
Please try to do that. If you can edit the page I linked to, I’ll buy you a car.
If you do not think slave societies are corrupt, I can refer you to a lot of excellent biographies of folks who lived through those situations.
Slave societies were certainly corrupt. But that level of corruption is not the same as when criminal organizations supercede the power of the government. Whole different ballgame.
For that matter, I suppose you would say Buchenwald was not corrupt either?
Evil, yes. But not corrupt in the meaning of the word when it pertains to Mexico, and especially with how “Rick D” was using it way above.
Lets see hich societies in the world today are usually noted as very corrupt .. Russia? Paraguay, Syria?
All of the above.
Lee,
As I said, before, this is going nowhere.
I quote OED definition of corruption, and you ignore it. Fine. You go on believing that the mess in Buchenwald was not corrupt.
I go over the Hashibe paper in a balanced way. Show you what is good in it and not and you insist it proves something it does not prove. BTW … you say Hashibe selcted controls because they smoked mj??? That would no make sense since the variable they were looking at was the frequency of mj smoking. Indeed the high frequency of mj in the controls is a warning sign that there may well be a confounding variable.
I caution people that inhaling carcinogens is a bad idea and you say .. no it is OK if you inhale them in mj smoke. You may not like this, but in my opinion advising people to inhale carcinogens, without a lot stronger evidence than the Hashibe paper, is at best immoral. Your advice may be ignorant but that will not matter if you give someone cancer
BTW .. for the record …
Here is the full OED definition from the current version of the OED. I do not see your defintion here:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The action of corrupting; the fact of being corrupted; the condition of being corrupt; corrupt matter; a corrupt example or form; corrupting agency: in the various physical, moral, and transferred applicatons of CORRUPT.
I. Physical.
{dag}1. The destruction or spoiling of anything, esp. by disintegration or by decomposition with its attendant unwholesomeness; and loathsomeness; putrefaction. Obs.
1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. xx. 98 Kynde come after with many kene sores, As pokkes and pestilences and moche poeple shente; So kynde {th}orw corupciouns kulled ful manye. 1382 WYCLIF Dan. iii. 92 Loo! I see foure men..walkynge in mydil of the fyre, and no thing of corrupcioun is in hem. c1400 MANDEVILLE (Roxb.) viii. 31 In {th}at abbay commes neuer fleess, ne flyes, ne nan o{th}er swilk vermyn of corrupcioun. 1546 T. PHAER Bk. Childr. (1553) Rijb, The hole body falleth in distemper..it procedeth commonly by corrupcion of the milke. 1626 BACON Sylva §771 If you provide against the causes of Putrefaction, matter maketh not that haste to corruption, that is conceived. 1718 J. CHAMBERLAYNE Relig. Philos. (1730) I. iii. §2 The naked Bone can rarely endure the Air without Corruption.
fig. 1613 SHAKES. Hen. VIII, IV. ii. 71 After my death, I wish no other Herald..To keepe mine Honor, from Corruption, But such an honest Chronicler as Griffith.
b. spec. Decomposition as a consequence of death; dissolution.
a1340 HAMPOLE Psalter xv. 10 Ne {th}ou sall gif {th}i haligh to see corupcioun. 1382 WYCLIF 1 Cor. xv. 42 The a{ygh}en rysinge of deed men. It is sowun in corupcioun. c1400 Destr. Troy 10787 His corse..come to corupcioun, as his kynd asked. 1533 GAU Richt Vay (1888) 34 Yair sal be na generacione na corrupcione eftir dwmis day. 1615 CROOKE Body of Man 19 If we would keepe a body long, the dissection must be begun at those parts which are most subiect to corruption. 1626 BACON Sylva §328 Corruption is a Reciprocal to Generation. 1799 G. SMITH Laboratory I. 324 Whatever is put in this oil, will keep from corruption..for ages. 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) III. 511 When the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of corruption.
{dag}c. Applied to inorganic matter: The breaking up or decomposition of a body, the oxidation or corrosion of metals, etc. Obs.
1563 FULKE Meteors (1640) 67 Copper, in colour, comming neerest to Gold..giveth way to corruption, being infected with that greene minerall Copperus. 1594 T. B. La Primaud. Fr. Acad. II. 133 They are subiect to corruption, and so are all the creatures that are compounded of the elements, whether they haue life or no. 1666 BOYLE Orig. Formes & Qual. (1667) 57 Those violent Corruptions of Bodies that are made by Outward Agents, shattering them into pieces.
{dag}d. In a more general sense: Destruction, dissolution of the constitution which makes a thing what it is. Obs.
a1606 BLUNDEVILLE, Corruption is a proceeding from a being to a not being, as from an oak to chips or ashes. 1710 J. CLARKE Rohault’s Nat. Phil. (1729) I. 17 When a Thing is destroyed, or ceases to be what it was before, we call it Corrruption; thus we say it is a Corruption of the Wood, when we see the Wood no longer, but only the Fire in the Place of it. 1845 J. H. NEWMAN Ess. Developm. 62 Corruption is a breaking up..or..resolution into its component parts, which involves eventually a loss of unity.
{dag}2. Infection, infected condition; also fig. contagion, taint. Obs.
c1430 LYDG. in Turner Dom. Archit. III. 39 Whereby the towne was utterly assured From endengerynge of all corupcion, From wycked ayre & from inffexion. 1598 tr. Linschoten’s Voy. in Arb. Garner III. 14 Through the change of air and the corruption of the country, I fell sick.
b. Law. corruption of blood: the effect of an attainder upon a person attainted, by which his blood was held to have become tainted or ‘corrupted’ by his crime, so that he and his descendants lost all rights of rank and title; in consequence of which he could no longer retain possession of land which he held, nor leave it to heirs, nor could his descendants inherit from him.
1563 Act 5 Eliz. c. 1 This Act..shall not extend to make any corruption of blood. 1610 J. GUILLIM Heraldry I. viii. (1660) 47 More over that they shall sustain corruption of their blood and family. 1721 Lond. Gaz. No. 5927/11 No Attainder..shall extend to work any Corruption of Blood. 1769 BLACKSTONE Comm. IV. 381 It is to be hoped, that this corruption of blood, with all it’s connected consequences, not only of present escheat, but of future incapacities of inheritance even to the twentieth generation, may..be abolished by act of parliament. 1813 SIR S. ROMILLY in Examiner 22 Feb. 117/2 The next thing to which he objected, was the corruption of blood, which was a very different thing from the usual cases of forfeiture. 1862 LD. BROUGHAM Brit. Const. App. ii. 414 In the United States..an attainder does not work corruption of blood.
3. concr. Decomposed or putrid matter, esp. in a sore, boil, etc.; pus. Obs. exc. dial.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 240b, With a shell..he scraped ye stynkyng fylth & corrupcyon of her deed body. 1580 BARET Alv. C1319 Matter, or corruption comming out of a wound or sore, pus. 1688 R. HOLME Armoury III. 324/2 Hooked..Instruments..termed Drawers are to scrape out Corruption in a Wound or Bruize. 1888 PEACOCK N.W. Linc. Gloss. s.v., All blud and corruption.
fig. 1595 SHAKES. John IV. ii. 81 When it breakes, I feare will issue thence The foule corruption of a sweet childes death. 1597 {emem} 2 Hen. IV, III. i. 77 That foule Sinne gathering head, Shall breake into Corruption. 1642 ROGERS Naaman 263 True humblenesse..lyes open brested to receive every point of Gods weapon, to let out her corruption.
II. Moral.
4. A making or becoming morally corrupt; the fact or condition of being corrupt; moral deterioration or decay; depravity.
c1340 Cursor M. (Fairf.) 1553 (heading) {Th}e corrupcioun of {th}e lande ofter synne. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 10 That is it that preserueth mannes soule from spirituall corrupcyon of synne. 1592 DAVIES Immort. Soul VIII. xxi, As from Adam, all Corruption take. 1711 STEELE Spect. No. 107 {page}1 The general Corruption of Manners in Servants is owing to the Conduct of Masters. 1849-50 ALISON Hist. Europe I. ii. §50. 168 Have the arts and sciences contributed to the corruption or purification of morals? 1856 FROUDE Hist. Eng. (1858) I. ii. 172 The clergy as a body were paralysed by corruption. 1874 GREEN Short Hist. viii. 476 The blow at the corruption of the Court which followed was of a far more serious order.
b. (with a and pl.)
1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 4953 And clense it of al manere of syn, And of alle corrupcions, bath hegh and law. 1605 BP. HALL Medit. & Vows I. §16 My progresse so small, and insensible; my corruptions so strong. 1684 BUNYAN Pilgr. II. 137 The young Man had strong Corruptions to grapple with. 1727 SWIFT Gulliver Pref. Let., Some corruptions of my Yahoo nature have revived in me.
c. Corrupting influence or agency.
a1340 HAMPOLE Psalter Prol. 3 {Th}e whilk waxis noght soure thurgh {th}e corupciouns of {th}is warld. c1386 CHAUCER Pars. T. {page}825 Right so is a wikked prest corrupcioun ynough for al a parisch. 1813 BYRON Br. Abydos II. xx, How oft the heart Corruption shakes which perils could not part! 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) V. 124 The love of money is the corruption of states.
5. Evil nature, ‘the old Adam’; anger, ‘temper’. Now colloq. or dial.
1799 C. WINTER Let. in W. Jay Mem. (1843) 36 His corruptions were roused by the report. 1829 Blackw. Mag. XXV. 545 Fling doon the Stannard{em}if you dinna, it’ll be waur for you, for you’ve raised my corruption. 1830 GALT Lawrie T. V. xii. (1849) 247 ‘Let alone my goods’..exclaimed I, for my corruption was rising. 1848 A. BRONTË Tenant of Wildfell Hall xxxi, I am no angel, and my corruption rises against it.
6. Perversion or destruction of integrity in the discharge of public duties by bribery or favour; the use or existence of corrupt practices, esp. in a state, public corporation, etc.
c1425 WYNTOUN Cron. VII. viii. 703 Quhat for corruptyown and inwy, Thare charge {th}ai dyd nocht detfully. 1494 Act 11 Hen. VII, c. 21 If any of the petit Jury toke..any some of money..after any suche corrupcion by the Graund Jury founden, etc. 1570-6 LAMBARDE Peramb. Kent. (1826) 141 Guy..escaped soon after by corruption of his keepers. a1600 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. VII. xxiv. §8 Simoniacal corruption I may not for honours sake suspect. 1651 HOBBES Leviath. II. xxvi. 144 The frequent corruption and partiality of Judges. 1769 Junius Lett. i. (1804) I. 13 It is not sufficient..that judges are superior to the vileness of pecuniary corruption. 1827 HALLAM Const. Hist. (1876) II. xii. 398 The real vice of this parliament was not intemperance, but corruption. 1880 MCCARTHY Own Times IV. lix. 316 The ballot has not extinguished corruption in small boroughs.
{dag}b. A case or instance of corrupt practice. Obs.
1621 H. ELSING Debates Ho. Lords (Camden) 14 The corrupcion wherewith the L. Chancellor was charged, viz., twenty-three severall corrupcions proved by wytnesses.
III. The perversion of anything from an original state of purity.
{dag}7. Despoiling of virginity, violation of chastity.
1340 Ayenb. 227 Maydenhod..to loki al hare lyf hare bodyes yholliche wy{th}oute enye corrupcion. c1420 Metr. St. Kath. 120 (Horstm.) Thou schewest here a false reson, Woman withowt corrupcyon Never {ygh}yt chylde ne bare.
8. The perversion of an institution, custom, etc. from its primitive purity; an instance of this perversion.
1656 J. HARRINGTON Oceana (1700) 38 The Corruption then of Monarchy is call’d Tyranny. 1661 BRAMHALL Just Vind. ii. 10 They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in faith, practise, Liturgy, etc. 1776 JOHNSON 5 Apr. in Boswell, Afterwards there were gross corruptions introduced by the clergy, such as indulgences to priests to have concubines. 1867 SMILES Huguenots Eng. iii. (1880) 45 The Huguenots..denounced the corruptions of the Church, and demanded their reform. 1878 MORLEY Carlyle Crit. Misc. Ser. I. 201 To judge a system in its corruption.
9. Change of language, a text, word, etc. from its correct or original condition to one of incorrectness, deterioration, etc.
1494 FABYAN Chron. II. xlvii. 31 It was called Caerlud or Luddys towne: and after by corrupcyon, or shortyng of the speche, it was named London. 1599 THYNNE Animadv. (1865) 6 Of necessytye, bothe in matter, myter, and meaninge, yt [Chaucer’s text] must needes gather corruptione, passinge throughe so manye handes. 1634 FORD P. Warbeck I. iii, Tell me..is it [the writing] a sure intelligence of all The progress of our enemies’ intents Without corruption? 1679 PLOT Staffordsh. (1686) 417 It was ever after call’d Wulfrunes-Hampton, since by corruption of speech Wolverhampton. 1710 SWIFT Tatler No. 230 {page}3 The continual Corruption of our English Tongue. 1862 RAWLINSON Anc. Mon. I. viii. 215 His numbers having suffered corruption during their passage through so many hands. 1861 MAX MÜLLER Sc. Lang. I. ii. (1880) 47 By phonetic corruption..not only the form, but the whole nature of language is destroyed.
b. A concrete instance of such alteration.
1699 BENTLEY Phal. xi. 228 As for the two other names Aristodolium and Archebolion, the former is a manifest corruption. 1711 STEELE Spect. No. 80 {page}9, I am not against reforming the Corruptions of Speech you mention. 1751 JOHNSON Rambler No. 177 {page}9 A copy..by the help of which, the text might be freed from several corruptions. 1856 STANLEY Sinai & Pal. (1858) v. 233 Nâblus being the corruption of Neapolis.
BTW … your link does not go to OED. try it yourself.
And once again, I have never said that mj causes cancer. Unfortunately your fantasies get in the way of your intelligence.
@147
As I said, before, this is going nowhere.
Well, no. It’s going somewhere. It’s getting closer and closer to finally having you deal with the fact that the following statement you’ve made is incorrect:
I quote OED definition of corruption, and you ignore it.
I used the OED definition of corruption too.
Fine. You go on believing that the mess in Buchenwald was not corrupt.
The subject of the discussion we were having related to Mexican corruption. It is often said that Mexico has a “culture of corruption”. The form of corruption being referred to in that context is different from the other forms of corruption that exist, especially when it comes to Nazi concentration camps.
I go over the Hashibe paper in a balanced way.
And I countered your analysis with what I understand from having read the paper.
Show you what is good in it and not and you insist it proves something it does not prove.
I think the paper and the research speak for itself. No one experiment is the end-all, be-all on a subject, but Tashkin’s work, considering his initial bias, the size and quality of the study, and the unexpected conclusion carry a lot of weight towards understanding the reality of the relationship between marijuana and various forms of cancer.
BTW … you say Hashibe selcted controls because they smoked mj??? That would no make sense since the variable they were looking at was the frequency of mj smoking.
That clearly doesn’t make sense.
Indeed the high frequency of mj in the controls is a warning sign that there may well be a confounding variable.
Why? The 54% figure is a lifetime use figure, which for a county like Los Angeles, is probably what you’d expect. I had said earlier that they may have adjusted the makeup of the controls group to have this percentage match the cancer group, but after reading through the experiment again, I’m not sure that’s true.
I caution people that inhaling carcinogens is a bad idea and you say .. no it is OK if you inhale them in mj smoke.
And according to what we’ve been able to discover through research, the presence of those carcinogens is either not in high enough quantities to induce cancer, or that other compounds within marijuana counteract it. If the carcinogens in marijuana are causing cancer, then by now, there’d be numerous studies demonstrating that link, wouldn’t there?
You may not like this, but in my opinion advising people to inhale carcinogens, without a lot stronger evidence than the Hashibe paper, is at best immoral.
And as has been explained to you numerous times already, one can use medical marijuana without smoking it, therefore your statement here:
Is still incorrect. Are you going to finally admit that?
@149
BTW … your link does not go to OED. try it yourself.
I apologize. The definition was on the same page with other definitions, but the one I found (which was relevant to the Mexico discussion) clearly applies to what we’re talking about here. From the long definition above, this is the part that would apply:
In the discussion between Rick D. and me over Mexico, this is the definition we were both using. If you think that we were talking about some other form of corruption, you did not understand what we were talking about.
And once again, I have never said that mj causes cancer. Unfortunately your fantasies get in the way of your intelligence.
The proof is right here, dummy. And again, this is much more than just that. It’s about your unwillingness to deal with the fact that you were wrong about this:
Are you finally ready to admit that you were wrong?
Lee ..
OK, Aztec society with its class privileges, slavery, human sacrifice, and thuggish rule of its neghbors was less corrupt that modern mexico with its drug issues.
Feel better?
OK,
The contribution of aromatic hydrocarbon mutagens to cancer is well proven and is widely believed to be the main culprit in tobacco smoke induced cancers. These same culprits are abundant in marijuana smoke. Until proven otherwise, the suspicion has to be that reefers would have the same effects on the lung as cigs.
this was your link and it still is correct. Anytime you want to do a skin test on yourself, go ahead and see what happens.
BTW, we are getting close to the point where we might be able to diagnose effects of mutagens in smoke by a DNA sequence test on material from your lung. Would you donate $$ to support such a study?
While we are at ot, do you understand why molecules like benzpyrene are able to cause cancer?
Lee, again. NO responsible scientist would recommend that anyone inhale carcinogens. FWIW, some have even raised concerns about other sources of hydrocarbons including barbecue.
The only issue I see here is your fanatical attitude toward magic weed. You are just as screwy as the anitmj crowd. Maybe the best answe
ctd
The only issue I see here is your fanatical attitude toward magic weed. You are just as screwy as the anti-mj crowd. Maybe the best answer, and one we can agree on, is to legalize the stuff, control it as we do cigarettes, tax it to pay for a safety study and .. until then caveat emptor.
All this fuss about a minor drug! What is next?
I had said earlier that they may have adjusted the makeup of the controls group to have this percentage match the cancer group, but after reading through the experiment again, I’m not sure that’s true.
Did you read the paper? The variable studied is the frequency of mj use. Therefore, they could not intentionally include mj users in the controls.
I am still surprised that the MJ use figure is that high. E.g. If nearly everyone in a town smokes mj, the expt can not be done. .. of course the higher it is in the gen population, the harder it may be to get stat significance. This is one reason a prospective study would be a lot more interesting. Maybe they could screen a large sample for folks who have never smoked either cigs or reefers and find the frequ of CA vs the frequ in the mj pop. If the frquencies are this high, the only group hard to find would be non-cig smokers who do smoke pot.
Why doesn’t your community raise th bucks for such a study?
As for
Sorry, the only wiggle room here for you is in the words “well established.” THC is used for antinausea but, from what I ma told, is not teribky useful in other sitauations. There is NO accepted evidence that your “medicine” is ever needed rather than THC other than pt. pref. for what they are used to .. possibly a placebo effect.
No more than there would be for many other putative sources of pyrrolyzed hydrocarbons. Still, we asvise folks NOT to inhale diesel smoke, car exhaust, and .. even barbecue.
And, I have commented many times that brownies are fine by me. You are the one promoting inhaing benzpyrene.”
First, you give the impression that there is a well established medical need for marijuana.
No, but then you seem to use a different language then I do. Wanna look up “well established need” in your wiki?
Tp change the subject, suppose I told you that friends of mine had encouraged their under 12 children to smoke reefers.
How would you respond?
@152
OK, Aztec society with its class privileges, slavery, human sacrifice, and thuggish rule of its neghbors was less corrupt that modern mexico with its drug issues.
Feel better?
Exactly. Human sacrifice and slavery are obviously hideous, but they’re not related to what Rick D. and I were discussing.
this was your link and it still is correct.
Right, and anyone can tell from reading that that you believe that marijuana causes cancer. It doesn’t mean that you think there’s definitive proof. It just means you believe it. Common sense, Steve.
BTW, we are getting close to the point where we might be able to diagnose effects of mutagens in smoke by a DNA sequence test on material from your lung. Would you donate $$ to support such a study?
Not if you’re involved. I want real scientists doing it.
While we are at ot, do you understand why molecules like benzpyrene are able to cause cancer?
No, I don’t. If that were actually relevant to what we’re talking about here, I’d care. I care about the results of scientific inquiry, not just theorization.
Lee, again. NO responsible scientist would recommend that anyone inhale carcinogens.
What if the scientist knew that it would be impossible to inhale a high enough level of carcinogens to ever have any real effect? Yes, marijuana has carcinogens, but that’s not proof alone that it can give you cancer. And if there’s benefit to be had by inhaling it, and some strong evidence that the dangers are minimal at best, why not?
Again, this is irrelevant to the main point here, that you’re still wrong about the following statement:
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, one does not even need to smoke marijuana to obtain its benefits, therefore the only objection you have to the validity of the statement above is irrelevant.
FWIW, some have even raised concerns about other sources of hydrocarbons including barbecue.
Barbecue? What do you mean? Barbecue sauce? Grilling? Dixie’s?
The only issue I see here is your fanatical attitude toward magic weed. You are just as screwy as the anitmj crowd.
I don’t have a fanatical attitude. I’m just introducing you to what medical organizations are saying, what scientists have been discovering, and what numerous patients across the country know all too well.
By sticking to this statement:
You are the fanatic, as this puts you in opposition with the American College of Physicians and the New England Journal of Medicine.
@153
Maybe the best answer, and one we can agree on, is to legalize the stuff, control it as we do cigarettes, tax it to pay for a safety study and .. until then caveat emptor.
Of course it is. But right now, there are people who use this drug medicinally, and for some it is by far the best medicine they’ve found. We need to protect their ability to obtain it safely and use it without fear of prosecution. As someone with a medical background, for you to continue a faith-based opposition to their medical use is highly irresponsible as this simply gives politicians and law enforcement authorities more leverage to undermine the patients who rely on it.
Why on earth would people who are sick and dying use something that they know could get them arrested if there was something legal that worked better?
@154
Did you read the paper? The variable studied is the frequency of mj use. Therefore, they could not intentionally include mj users in the controls.
I had read the paper a while ago, and re-read over the weekend. I said that they did not intentionally include marijuana users in the controls.
I am still surprised that the MJ use figure is that high
Why? In the overall population, the lifetime incidence is like 45% now. In a place like Los Angeles County it’s not unreasonable to see that number be higher.
E.g. If nearly everyone in a town smokes mj, the expt can not be done. .. of course the higher it is in the gen population, the harder it may be to get stat significance.
That’s not the case here. It’s roughly half.
This is one reason a prospective study would be a lot more interesting. Maybe they could screen a large sample for folks who have never smoked either cigs or reefers and find the frequ of CA vs the frequ in the mj pop.
The Tashkin study did that. Of the controls group, 476 (46%) had never smoked marijuana, while 492 (47%) had never smoked cigarettes. There was obvious significant overlap there, but the tables do not specify that figure. They cite that there was a small sample set for people who smoked marijuana but not cigarettes, so the overlap is definitely large there. As I’ve said, let’s keep studying this. But the result of this research, and the research that they cite as reaching similar conclusions, means that the simple formulation that marijuana is likely to cause cancer due to the presence of carcinogens, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny right now.
If the frquencies are this high, the only group hard to find would be non-cig smokers who do smoke pot.
That will become much easier as time goes on, as cigarette smoking decreases, and marijuana smoking is done through methods not related to “reefers” (I almost never smoke reefers, hardly anyone does any more).
Why doesn’t your community raise th bucks for such a study?
Because we’re too busy paying lawyers to get us the fuck out of jail, asshole.
Sorry, the only wiggle room here for you is in the words “well established.”
Excuse me? That would be wiggle room for you, not me. And I believe that when the American College of Physicians, the National Institute of Health, and the New England Journal of Medicine agree with something, it’s well-established.
THC is used for antinausea but, from what I ma told, is not teribky useful in other sitauations.
Here’s an article from the New England Journal of Medicine discussing other known uses, along with the Raich vs. Gonzales Supreme Court trial.
There is NO accepted evidence that your “medicine” is ever needed rather than THC other than pt. pref. for what they are used to .. possibly a placebo effect.
Sorry, wrong again. Please see the link above, and Sunil could bury you in links. You’re way behind the times on this.
No more than there would be for many other putative sources of pyrrolyzed hydrocarbons. Still, we asvise folks NOT to inhale diesel smoke, car exhaust, and .. even barbecue.
None of those things are medicines with added benefits. People don’t barbecue for their health. There’s a benefit-risk tradeoff that’s happening here, as there is with many medicinal decisions. But as long as you keep convincing yourself of your faith-based belief that marijuana’s benefits are all psychosomatic, you’ll continue to see medicinal marijuana use in an inaccurate light, and you’ll continue to be wrong about the basics of this argument.
And, I have commented many times that brownies are fine by me. You are the one promoting inhaing benzpyrene.”
NO I’M NOT!!!! What I’m saying is that this statement is incorrect:
Do you see anything in that statement about smoking it? I’ve said repeatedly that eating it or making tinctures or using vaporizers (which filters out compounds like benzopyrene through a heating process) are the recommended ways of taking it. There is no reason whatsoever for a doctor to recommend that a medical marijuana patient smoke reefers. None. I’ve never said that, and you continually lie about that because you’re a world-class douchebag who can’t handle losing an argument.
What I have said is that even though people do smoke it, that’s not even that serious a side effect considering that the prevalent research shows that it’s not very likely to cause cancer, and might only yield respiratory issues if used long term. Using vaporizers is likely as safe as eating it.
When are you going to stop being an asshole, stop misrepresenting what I’m saying, and finally work up the damn courage to admit you made a mistake? How fucking pathetic are you, Steve?
No, but then you seem to use a different language then I do. Wanna look up “well established need” in your wiki?
I don’t need a reference to know what “well-established need” means. I grew up. What about you?
@155
Tp change the subject, suppose I told you that friends of mine had encouraged their under 12 children to smoke reefers.
How would you respond?
The same way I’d respond if they were giving their under twelve children whiskey.
However, if a child that young had a terminal or other very serious illness, and marijuana would be hugely beneficial to them, I would be ok with having them administer it through food.
@159
We agree!
@158
Lee.
1. The NEJM article from 2005 is really not an article, it is an editorial and presumably was not peer reviewed. In any case, what it states is that there is good evidence that THC is useful for nausea and glaucoma, no evidence (as of 2005) for other effects of total marijuana though it cites some studies in progress.
2. You seem to be running out of epithets. Douchebag, hunh??? Do you have some fascination with female hygeine .. shall I call you tampon-face? Surely you can do better! Tell you what, I will lend you one .. Schwanztragerkopf! One of my faves!
3. Why do you keep hiding behinf Sunil’s skirts? He and I have talked, we have discussed the specific issues and he has not been ablr to find papers that support your POV.
4. Do I understand that you are now recommending marijuana but NOT the inhaled smoke form??? Hmmm.
I have no reaosn to disagree with that … kind of like chewing willow bark rather than taking an aspirin?
5. You have a point, I certainly did not intend to say that mj has NO medical indication, just that:
a. THC is, as far as anyone knows, able to replace marijuana and has the obvious advantage of control of dose, etc.
b. even for THC, the clinical indications are limited and other drugs exist that are as potent or more potent.
6. The numbers in the study you rely on are far too low for the sort of conclusions you draw.
BTW, my friend who does tobacco research is quite real. If you ever do find a convincing paper on mj as a safe smoke, he would be thrilled.