Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-10-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
Yes there are amazing people who don't need drugs to ward off pain. My father for instance - he waterskiied with a freaking broken wrist. The man has no fear. (but he does take nexium of course - for some reason he can't "will" his esophagus to heal. Hmm, maybe this willing idea you have is just not as simple as you describe it).

I never said anything about will being involved. In fact, the more will is involved, the less likely it is that the condition will correct itself, in my admittedly limited experience. Notice that the woman I told you about didn't set out to wean herself of medication. Incidentally, she is less convinced than I am that this wasn't a fluke.

Quote:

I have a question for you - do you think that because of your personal experiences, you are now more qualified to know and understand the various causes, and treatments, of chronic pain and disease? Do you claim to have more knowledge about these topics than people who have worked in these fields for years and years?

Of course not.

Quote:

If you want me to go on and on about "there was this one lady" stories to refute your anecdotal stories, trust me I could do that for hours. Get Dr rick in here and he could probably go on for years describing people who really do need some type of medication in order to function.

But how would either of you know the extent to which any particular patient's malady was induced by their own emotional overreactions?

Quote:

However, your two personal accounts do nothing to convince me that I should drop out of medical school and, instead, start giving notes to all my patienst that say "Buck up, sissy."

Did I suggest you drop out of med school? Of course not. I am suggesting that the medical profession temper its knowledge of biochemsitry with a little more knowledge about how attitudes influence health.

Quote:

Sorry, but I actually do believe in empirical data and randomised controlled trials.

scigirl

I'm sure they have their place.

scigirl · 06-10-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Did I suggest you drop out of med school? Of course not. I am suggesting that the medical profession temper its knowledge of biochemsitry with a little more knowledge about how attitudes influence health.

They do.

yguy · 06-10-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
They do.

Are they willing to put themselves out of business?

Dr Rick · 06-10-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Are they willing to put themselves out of business?

That's one of our goals

Nowhere357 · 06-11-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'm wishy-washy on that one. I suppose one could make as good an argument for banning liquor as weed. I think what we have to keep in mind, though, is that the Constitution was not meant to protect anyone's right to get high by whatever means; and that liberty is not license.

No, a much better argument can be made for the prohibition of alchohol, then for the sweet leaf.

Which is why I think it's important to note that prohibition was a failure. This is not the correct way to deal with the problem - we already tried, and I'd like to think we've learned from the experiment.

Anyway, as I see it, with every right is a corresponding responsibility. When there is a problem - such as drug abuse - we should address the failure of responsibility in an appropriate fashion. We should not over-react by legislating the removal of our basic rights. This erodes our respect for - and confidence in - the government.

Btw, the Constitution is a valuable living historical document. We created the Constitution because we have basic rights - not the other way around.

Buddrow_Wilson · 06-11-2003, 03:38 PM

The main reason marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with any physical or mental dangers to the individual. The government from the get-go perceived marijuana users (first mexican immigrants, then jazz musicians, hippies, hip-hop artists, etc) as anti-establishment and a political danger (or a danger to american ideals

) Really the point of the drug war is thought control. Or who has the right to alter their own thought processes. If it was merely about the danger to the person, how could they rationalize punishments that usually damage the individual far more than the drug use itself ever would? The drug war is a failure and they know it, but they will never give up willingly because it would be the end of the so-called establishment that is being protected at the cost of the basic rights that helped establish it in the first place!

Farren · 06-15-2003, 03:28 PM

To elaborate

Quote:

Hemp was first introduced to this continent as a commercial crop. Hemp cultivation began in Canada in 1606, then in Virginia in 1611. The Pilgrims also took the crop to New England in 1632. It was essential for cultural development, meeting the basic needs of the people i.e. clothing, textiles, rope, paper. It then became an established crop due to the need for its product in industrial use plus its versatility. In Jamestown in 1619, one of the first laws passed in the new country of America, required farmers to grow Hemp. It was legal tender from 1631 to the early 1800�s.

Mexican laborers introduced the smoking of Marijuana into the U.S.A in the early part of the 20th Century and its use spread across the South. By the 1920�s its use was established in New Orleans, confined mainly to the poor and minority groups.

William Randolph Hearst was one of the main instigators of The Marijuana Tax Act along with Andrew Mellon and Harry J. Anslinger (Mellon�s nephew). The 1920�s had seen the development of synthetic products from hemp, a renewable biomass resource, the development of patent fuel additives and numerous new synthetic products. That, along with the development by Ford of cannabis carbohydrates, threatened the timber industry (Hearst) and the oil industry (Mellon).

Anslinger (Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics � predecessor to the DEA), along with the Hearst newspaper chain, spread malicious stories on �the terrible drug marijuana� linking it to rape, thefts, murder and ethnic minorities. Another motivation for Hearst�s support of this �campaign� may lie in the fact that Pancho Villa had recently �acquired� 800,000 acres of Hearst�s prime timberland. Racism and ignorance certainly fueled the success of this �campaign�. Anslinger continued with his crusade against Hemp until his retirement in the 1960�s. His campaign had been felt around the world and was ultimately successful in the prohibition of Cannabis in many countries around the world.

EUROPE

from here

The truth is, the debate about whether it is peronally "good" or "bad" to use pot always seems to get tangled up with the debate about whether the state has the obligation or even right to legilate its use into illegality.

For the latter item, I believe not a single strong case has been made on this thread, nor have I ever seen one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2003, 03:38 PM	#226
Buddrow_Wilson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,589	The main reason marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with any physical or mental dangers to the individual. The government from the get-go perceived marijuana users (first mexican immigrants, then jazz musicians, hippies, hip-hop artists, etc) as anti-establishment and a political danger (or a danger to american ideals ) Really the point of the drug war is thought control. Or who has the right to alter their own thought processes. If it was merely about the danger to the person, how could they rationalize punishments that usually damage the individual far more than the drug use itself ever would? The drug war is a failure and they know it, but they will never give up willingly because it would be the end of the so-called establishment that is being protected at the cost of the basic rights that helped establish it in the first place!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.