XPost: talk.politics.drugs
From: mhelm@not.known
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:11:05 -0500, Brother Nate
>Eric Johnson wrote:
>> "JAD" wrote:
>> > like I said why would I give any info to non creditialed strangers?
>
>> You are trying to convince us. And we have credentials. Also, you, too are
>> just an internet stranger. Why should we believe an un-credentialed
>> stranger?
>
>Since your vote and your influence on the American political process
>are inevitably flushed down the toilet you can believe whoever you
>want without making any difference.
>
One of your favorite refrains - didn't you get any new material for
xmas?
>If JAD is intelligent he'll direct his arguments towards people who
>actually have the power to make a difference, and very few of them
>are impressed by your "credentials".
>
>> > I don't
>> > have to prove anything,
>
>> If you are going to say the following, you sure as hell do.
>
>JAD *does* have a good reason to try to present a convincing position,
>but there's no reason at all for him to feel disappointed if he fails
>to change your mind.
>
>> > what I'm saying is, do not go
>> > around giving out mis information,
>
>> The same could be said about you, too. You say you have the goods, but you
>> won't let the un-credentialed have access to them.
>
>> > whether I'm the only one or not (and what
>> > would be the odds of that),
>
>> Rare diseases are, well, rare. Deviations from the standard are even, well,
>> rarer.
>> You yourself have cited two possible causes other than pot smoking.
>>
>> The term here is scapegoating.
>
>Or simple assignment of credit where it's due.
>
>> > the smoking of marijuana is harmful.
>
>> So is the drinking of coca cola.
>
>> > There is a huge amount of data to be had, but again you won't seek it
>> > out because it invades your comfort zone.
>
>> But you see, we are constantly searching for stuff which would validate that
>> hypothesis. Our comfort zone is established by the fact that via our
>> education and experience, our credentials, we cannot find information which
>> would lead us to believe that marijuana is seriously harmful.
>
>I'd concede that the medical evidence doesn't warrant the
>harsh response to MJ abuse that so much of the world employs.
How big of you. Why not join the fight to do away obvious abuses such
as mandatory minimums and asset forfeiture?
>
>> Since you seem not to be interested in presenting your date, we have to
>> assume you have none, or it is a figment of your imagination, like Steady
>> Eddy's article displaying the wonders of prohibition.
>>
>> If you have the date, the world is waiting to see it. And there will be
>> plenty of money for you to carry out further research if your hypothesis has
>> any validity.
>>
>> Lots of pot enemies out there.
>
>That's actually a reasonable point. If JAD's concerns were
>really rooted in verifiable serious health risks then there
>would be no shortage of scientists to investigate them and
>public policy wags to comment about them, but the fact of
>the matter is that this just isn't that important an issue
>one way or the other.
>
possible health risks of marijuana isn't an important issue?
Why? Because it's against the law and thus nobody should be doing it?
>Of course, to turn a coin to its other side, if what Eric
>had to say about drug policy was really worth reading then
>wouldn't it be worth his time to spell "data" correctly?
pedantic prick.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
