Here we go, all you pot heads–Ben Stein calls MJ a cancer on the society. I agree

You smoke dope, I don’t want you doing my neuro surgery, fixing my broken hip, or even reading my EKG. You smoke dope I don’t want you piloting my helo, or my tank, or in my foxhole or on patrol. You smoke dope, I don’t want you as my lawyer or accountant. Here’s the reason. When you do reefer last night it is still working on you this morning–particularly the new stuff.

But there are plenty of people who cruise the internet and make public noise who are chronically high on reefer.

But we have a bamster who was the uneelected president of the Choom gang, high schoolers who spent a lot of time stoned.

And he went through Occidental and Columbia the same way, by his own admission.

Where to start?

Read Ben Stein’s essay from today on a male guest he had, 27 years old and a worthless slacker from a privileged background who thought being a hospice or nursing home patient would be a great way to live–he wanted to be stoned until he died.

I would say that heroin is not as easy on people, most stop or are dead before they get to 50–but dope–hell Willie is 80.

As for medical marijuana, it’s a scam to get it in the back door.

Medical marijuana is “prescribed” for everything, including the complaint–I am out of my weed and need it for my appetite and to sleep better.

http://spectator.org/articles/62926/marijuana-cancer

I know this too, Ben Stein doesn’t drink, so maybe he had a problem. Alcohol is on and off, alcohol abuse is a serious problem, but that doesn’t justify promotion of another problem.

My friend, the chief deputy, was, in another part of his career, and undercover all the way to head of narcotics for the Texas Department of Public Safety, and he is convinced that MJ legalization is a bad idea–me too.

Advertisements

21 responses to “Here we go, all you pot heads–Ben Stein calls MJ a cancer on the society. I agree

  1. There’s nothing wrong with condemning psychoactive substances because they impair cognitive function. (Though as physicians, shouldn’t we really, really bear in mind the example of William Steward Halstead, lifelong habitué of both cocaine and morphine?)

    However, criminalizing the production, sale, and consumption of such substances – marijuana, Heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, “bath salts,” whatever – simply converts the appetites of the botched and the stupid into a premium market opportunity for the most vicious criminal actors in species H. sapiens.

    The “War on Drugs” has been nothing but a government price-support program for the enemies of social comity and good civil order.

    Let the dopers have their popskull, and be damned to them.

    I do not want to prevent drug addiction, since I do not believe in such a thing as that phenomenon. I believe there are personalities who are weak and fuckups, and screw them, you’re not restricting my rights because their epic fail status.

    — Matt Bailey

    • As a physician, you should be aware that all the substances the illegality of which you decry, save heroin, is legal at least for legitimate medical use (pharmacological cannabinoids have been available for 35 years) or even recreational use, in the case of “bath salts.

      • Writes shrinque:

        As a physician, you should be aware that all the substances the illegality of which you decry, save heroin, is legal at least for legitimate medical use (pharmacological cannabinoids have been available for 35 years) or even recreational use, in the case of “bath salts.

        A physician literate in history and intellectually honest will appreciate the fact that at one time or another (including currently for many of these compounds) the production, conveyance, and consumption of these psychoactive substances without government permission have been treated as criminal offenses in these United States and elsewhere in the world, without regard for objective proof of the violation of any alleged (or even putative) injured party’s rights to life, liberty, or property.

        That’s the police power of civil government perverted in a manner so invidious as to be considered objectionable by any individual capable of right reason.

        Oh, yeah. Capitalize the “H” in Heroin. Diacetylmorphine was introduced to markets worldwide by Bayer Pharmaceutical Products under the trademarked name of “Heroin,” just as acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin) had been.

        Do we call McNeil Laboratories’ acetaminophen product “tylenol”?

        • I have a serious question: Do you favor all drugs being OTC? You seem to oppose the Controlled Substances Act, based on your statements on this thread.

          Another question: Do you always capitalize Bayer’s product “aspirin”?

          • Writes shrinque:

            I have a serious question: Do you favor all drugs being OTC? You seem to oppose the Controlled Substances Act, based on your statements on this thread.

            Another question: Do you always capitalize Bayer’s product “aspirin”?

            And my personal preferences matter in this exchange precisely…how, colleague?

            The Controlled Substances Act and all elements of legislation and federal regulations attending thereupon fail on and of their own intrinsic stupidity, pointlessness, cost, and unconstitutionality (regardless of how various judges – themselves employees of government at various levels – have “ruled” upon this glaring mound of the progressive movement’s most reeking mountain of “equine waste”). That’s not an opinion difficult to arrive upon.

            One simply has to look honestly at objective reality.

            And, yes, I always capitalize the “A” in Bayer’s trademarked product name for acetylsalicylic acid. Were the practice of treating such terms as proper nouns not remarked as obligatory in (to the best of my knowledge) every style manual and writer’s guide used in the profession of medicine and in the pharmaceuticals industry, there’s also the fact that the originators of these proprietary brands had invested time and effort in both devising and promoting their innovations under these identifiers.

            For much the same reason that the conscientious writer capitalizes the “C” in “Chagas disease,” he capitalizes the “A” in “Aspirin.”

            Are you conscientious, colleague?

            Prohibition is an awful flop. We like it. It can’t stop what it’s meant to stop. We like it. It’s left a trail of graft and slime, It don’t prohibit worth a dime, It’s filled our land with vice and crime. Nevertheless, we’re for it.

            — Franklin P. Adams

  2. Prohibition should have taught us this lesson a long time ago. All you do is make more crime, serious mafioso type crime. The stoners, druggies, drunks, etc. will get their fix no matter what. Might as well tax it.

    • Your argument is one of the strongest against “gun control”. “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

      • If the government can’t tax what a persons grows on his property, then make it illegal. It’s a great employment program for Police, Courts, Prisons. and makes citizens into criminals to pay for it all.

  3. [ The “War on Drugs” has been nothing but a government price-support program for the enemies of social comity and good civil order.] … I say: replace two words and this is right; just change ‘nothing but’ to ‘primarily’, voila!.

    (For any assertion: if it’s absolute, it’s usually wrong.)

    • just change ‘nothing but’ to ‘primarily’

      I’ll grant you that. It’s also an excuse for the uniformed and plainclothes armed goons of the police power to savage the “civilians” they so hate and despise, as well as something the politicians can yammer up in that “endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary,” with which they “keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety).”

      But then, the War on Drugs – like all war – is and has always been the health of the state.

  4. What is jaw dropping is the decades and millions we’ve spent weaning people off of tobacco and now we are using every resource at our disposal to encourage unlimited pot use which is incredibly worse.

  5. Tobacco kills MJ does not at least as far as the lungs are concerned.

    • A specious statement. The fact is MJ smoke is far more toxic than tobacco smoke, but no one smokes 20-40 joints a day for 40 years (although Mr. Stein’s young guest appears to be trying his damnedest to accomplish the feat).

  6. Again, Doctor John, you are spot-on. The political and economic arguments for legalization, while compelling, are largely inconsequential, as this is neither a political nor an economic issue. This is a medical and public health issue. Mr. Stein states the primary argument against legalization for recreational use, and there are many others. And there is no “medical marijuana.” Pharmacologic cannabinoids have been available for nearly 35 years. They are effective and have been a boon for cancer sufferers, AIDS patients, and various others. However, I have yet to see a single, solitary scientific study that shoes that smoked or orally ingested marijuana is efficacious, much less superior to the pharmacologic cannabinoids. And don’t try to throw all those anecdotal reports I’ve already read at me. I am talking true scientific research–you know, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies with dosages controlled and assessed. I periodically search MedLine for just that. There are none.

    • shrinque writes:

      The political and economic arguments for legalization, while compelling, are largely inconsequential, as this is neither a political nor an economic issue. This is a medical and public health issue.

      …and then goes on to bewail the dearth of:

      …true scientific research–you know, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies with dosages controlled and assessed.”

      …with the concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances&quot;Schedule I controlled substances not even remotely coming close to breaking the threshold of his perception.

      The Schedule I classification of marijuana which has made it impossible to conduct the sort of clinical research the dearth of which shrinque bewails.

      Nice “Catch-22” there, colleague.

      Not that the assertion of how the arguments for decriminalization hasn’t been categorically dismissed by shrinque as “inconsequential” without any friggin’ support whatsoever for said contention.

      (The term to use here, by the bye, isn’t “legalization.” There has never been extant in the U.S. Constitution any power under law for the federal government to rule as legal OR illegal the production, sale, or consumption of Cannabis indica and its derivatives. Heck, what’s next? Some federal Executive ukase or “environmental regulation” making the production of carbon dioxide illegal?)

      The War on Drugs employs millions – politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, and now the military – that probably couldn’t find a place for their dubious talents in a free market, unless they were to sell pencils from a tin cup on street corners.

      — L. Neil Smith

      • In re: the Class I status of MJ rendering the research “impossible”: Pure equine waste. Waivers to allow such research have been granted since the 60’s and it has been active since then. How would you suppose the artificial cannabinoids were developed, colleague? Obviously, the research hasn’t panned out.

        Now, as to the semantic game that riles you so, forgive me for saying “toe may toe.”

        • Writes shrinque:

          Waivers to allow such research have been granted since the 60’s and it has been active since then. How would you suppose the artificial cannabinoids were developed, colleague? Obviously, the research hasn’t panned out.

          Such waivers have been so limited in number and type so as to make “pure” research into the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of marijuana in its native form effectively nil. This was manifestly intentional. The greatest part of research into “the artificial cannabinoids” was aimed at satisfying FDA Office of New Drugs requirements for the marketing approval of these proprietary medicinal prescription products which could be sold at profit by the corporations holding the pertinent NDA applications and patents which preserved the protected status of exclusivity.

          Said protected status – and profit-making potential – would, of course, be very much threatened by the decriminalization of ditchweed.

          Savvy “rentier,” colleague?

          How about “suppressio veri, suggestio falsi”?

          There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.

          — Harry J. Anslinger

          • Not entertainers! Man, that is just gross. White chicks bonking entertainers is just a step too far for any civilized society.

  7. If we are going to start legalizing stuff, why not start by letting people over a certain age, with verified health problems, get pain drugs without having to get a prescription?

    At least we have real, recent, controlled studies on their effects.

    • Writes Pat McBride:

      If we are going to start legalizing stuff, why not start by letting people over a certain age, with verified health problems, get pain drugs without having to get a prescription?

      At least we have real, recent, controlled studies on their effects.

      Again, the word should not be “legalizing” (for reasons I’d discussed above) but rather “decriminalizing.”

      Indeed, what lawful power has civil government with regard to “letting people” of any age obtain and consume any chemical substances whatsoever? Is there a governmental “letting people” with regard to concocting salad dressings or ascorbic acid or vinegar or peanut butter?

      The argument given for the regulatory strictures governing the prescription and dispensation of substances on Schedules III, III, and IV as defined by the Controlled Substances Act is that these compounds have potentials for abuse and may lead to physical or psychological dependence.

      Y’know, like nicotine and alcohol and cheeseburgers.

      What support is there for prior restraint of any kind imposed upon the citizenry by politicians and bureaucrats (armed and otherwise) employed by a presumably omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and – hoo, boy! – omnibenevolent government?

      The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is so careful about the accountability of others that it ducks its own accountability altogether — meaning that it takes six years longer to pass on its approval than it does for the same drug or medical device to be approved in other developed nations. That comes at a price: Two-thirds of the cost of a new drug is for it to meet the requirements of the FDA.

      — William P. Hoar

  8. Well, this has been very entertaining…please continue!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s