Previous 11 - 20 Next
Alcohol is a neurotoxin, that damages every organ in the human body, is physically addictive, and has a low LD50. As DEA Administrative Judge Francis Young determined, marijuana is the least toxic substance know. Less so than potato skins and alcohol, according to a DEA judge. The AMA just released a 20 year long term study of over 5,000 marijuana smokers, the largest and best study ever done. They found NO damage to lung function. At all. 125 million marijuana smokers in the US, do you know ONE that has been found ill as a result? You could at least try reading the research before spreading discredited "facts".
The FDA doesn't regulate aspirin. Because it existed before the FDA. So did marijuana. It was called "grandfathering", and was part of the initial legislation. If it is grown by an individual, in their own home, it isn't imported, is it? So even your examples are being carried out unconstitutionally. Poison? Have you read what DEA Administrative Judge Francis Young determined during the rescheduling hearings? "The least toxic substance known". Period. Less toxic than potato skins. Much less so than aspirin. Google his name, it's published, and an absolute fact. You've bought into the propaganda.
So the only reason you don't use it is because it is illegal? Or is everybody else a degenerate, and you're the only person that can be trusted without authoritarian control? Are you suggesting that there are fewer users now than there were prior to federal marijuana laws? The federal government disagrees. In 1937, the FBN stated there were 55,000 users in the US, and we needed to stop it by making it illegal. In 2011, the ONDCP said there were 55 million regular users. That's a 100,000% increase, while population grew by 250%. Can you name a more successful marketing campaign in the history of mankind than prohibition? Name a product that has existed for longer than man, that usage increased by 100,000% in 75 years.
Do you have any evidence showing as much? The most recent research shows no such effect. Of course alcohol is a known neurotoxin, that causes damage to every organ in the human body, so that argument is pretty much meaningless even if you do find some sort of research that at this point, after 100 years of intensive studies, doesn't exist.
Even alcohol prohibition never regulated the "use" of alcohol. It regulated the sales and production. It contained exemptions for sacramental and medicinal uses. We used to respect the constitution. Not so much any more.
Then, how long would it be until we got down to marijuana use? You aren't saying it's second, right? I mean tobacco and alcohol cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, that's pretty socially damaging, isn't it? And is prohibiting something regulating it? We regulate cigarettes, that seems to be working pretty well, 30% reduction in use in the last decade. We prohibit marijuana, and its use is at an all time high. So by "regulating", you must not mean prohibiting, that's pretty much the opposite, isn't it? That's giving up any sort of control over it at all.
How is growing a plant in ones own basement, cooking it into brownies in ones own kitchen, then eating said brownies in ones own living room a)interstate, or b)commerce? Is grandma knitting me a sweater for christmas interstate commerce now? She has to follow federal workplace regulations in order to make the grandkids sweaters? How about my kids bake sale at their school? Do they need proper labeling on the cupcakes? What kind of convoluted definitions are we going to allow in order to give the feds control over every activity in which we partake?
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

exterminate Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 3:19 AM
Camber: You need only look at a Nazi uniform. It says "God over All" right on it. Pretty atheistic slogan, huh?
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

exterminate Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 3:17 AM
One can't rebel against that which doesn't exist. What don't you understand about the term "atheist"? Atheists may rebel against the inanity of gods believers, but we don't have to "believe" in them. They've been torturing and burning us for centuries. Would you rebel in the face of that? Or would you accept your fate?
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

exterminate Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 3:12 AM
That's pure stupidity. Believers need the fantasy of a better life to even get through this one. Atheists take joy in this life, because it's the ONLY one we get. Do you think those believers that flew the airplanes into the world trade center were happy people? Or do you wish they would have been atheists?
In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

exterminate Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 3:10 AM
Being an atheist has nothing to do with Christians. You could be the greatest group of people ever imagined, it doesn't matter. You believe in something for which there is no evidence. We don't believe in your god, is Islams god (the same one), in Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Odin, Rah, or any other gods. If you think that by living your life a certain way, you can convince another of your own delusions, you are sadly mistaken. If you want to convince an atheist, come up with some proof, some evidence. Nothing short of that is going to have any effect at all. Just FYI.
Previous 11 - 20 Next