So in other words, you're persecuting people not based on whether they've done good or not, but based on whether they're obeying drug laws that were often as not passed for political gain?
Isn't that a despicable reason to demand somebody's death?
Known medical effects has no bearing on the legality of drugs. Cocaine and heroin have known medical uses and are even currently used for medicine. Same with Cannabis. Another check in the medical use department for MDMA (ecstasy). Even meth has legitimate medical uses. Curiously, many illegal drugs are just (if not more) effective than their patented prescription drug counterparts. You want to kill people who buy heroin, but governments spend billions buying synthetic heroin for their citizens. It's madness.
If the government mobilizes to kill millions of its citizens, how are you confident that the line will be drawn at the point you think is acceptable? (Why we should let you set the line is another debate, but luckily you aren't in a position of power.) Perhaps there's someone else like you, but who takes it a step farther and believes something you do and don't think is immoral should be a capital offense. Your wanting to kill pot smokers is no more crazy than me wanting to kill coffee drinkers.
A recent study showed the benefits of red wine were linked to breaking down some of the worse components in red meat. It just happens consumption of both are so correlated that it looked like red wine in moderation was really healthy. The healthiest choice would be to drink tea and avoid red meat.
The American Heart Association, however, recommends against starting to drink to be healthier. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 While light alcohol consumption does have small benefits, you could make a much, much bigger difference in your overall health by exercising and following a healthy diet. One drink a day probably does have marginal benefits, but from a public health perspective I can see why organizations don't actually recommend it -- people in the aggregate would think it is more meaningful as a recommendation than it actually is and use it as an excuse to drink to excess.
One thing to keep your eye on is Sirtris Pharmaceuticals's (now a subsidiary of GSK) amped-up resveratrol (the good stuff in red wine) derivative. The idea is to get the benefit of drinking 1000 glasses of red wine a day without actually killing yourself. It will be approved for treating diabetes but will be of interest to absolutely everyone that can afford it. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080...
I've always been under the impression that you can get the health benefits from wine without drinking alcohol. Resveratrol is found naturally in foods like grapes and peanuts. So you won't be missing out on any health benefits if you don't drink.
Most of the studies about this kind of thing get messed up because they are studying it with smoked marijuana. Let's assume that such a study uses vaporized or oral cannabis. I would be surprised to see reduced heart disease as a result of cannabis consumption but I would expect to see reduced cancer of some forms and lower rates of Alzheimer's.
Seems to indicate that THC stops inflammation of blood vessels by suppressing the immune system's response. Also seems that oral delivery was used vs. smoking.
Just red wine and only in some circumstances, pg. There's no medical benefit to vodka, whisky, rum, absinthe, peppermint liquer, beer, jagermeister, goldschlager, etc etc etc.
Comments
Caffeine? Tobacco? Alcohol?
Aspirin?
Um... All those are legal. Also, the first and third have known beneficial medical effects which would still be allowed if my proposal is enacted.
So in other words, you're persecuting people not based on whether they've done good or not, but based on whether they're obeying drug laws that were often as not passed for political gain?
Isn't that a despicable reason to demand somebody's death?
Known medical effects has no bearing on the legality of drugs. Cocaine and heroin have known medical uses and are even currently used for medicine. Same with Cannabis. Another check in the medical use department for MDMA (ecstasy). Even meth has legitimate medical uses. Curiously, many illegal drugs are just (if not more) effective than their patented prescription drug counterparts. You want to kill people who buy heroin, but governments spend billions buying synthetic heroin for their citizens. It's madness.
If the government mobilizes to kill millions of its citizens, how are you confident that the line will be drawn at the point you think is acceptable? (Why we should let you set the line is another debate, but luckily you aren't in a position of power.) Perhaps there's someone else like you, but who takes it a step farther and believes something you do and don't think is immoral should be a capital offense. Your wanting to kill pot smokers is no more crazy than me wanting to kill coffee drinkers.
Also, what the fuck is the medical benefit of vodka?
Alcohol (in small quantities, like 1 drink a day) seems to be associated with lower risk of heart disease, for men.
A recent study showed the benefits of red wine were linked to breaking down some of the worse components in red meat. It just happens consumption of both are so correlated that it looked like red wine in moderation was really healthy. The healthiest choice would be to drink tea and avoid red meat.
But what kind of a pansy wants to do that?!
I actually read a study saying that mere alcohol had benefits, regardless of the form.
Where is rms when you need him?
That does seem to be a common meme. Here's an unsourced article claiming various benefits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21778634/
The American Heart Association, however, recommends against starting to drink to be healthier. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 While light alcohol consumption does have small benefits, you could make a much, much bigger difference in your overall health by exercising and following a healthy diet. One drink a day probably does have marginal benefits, but from a public health perspective I can see why organizations don't actually recommend it -- people in the aggregate would think it is more meaningful as a recommendation than it actually is and use it as an excuse to drink to excess.
One thing to keep your eye on is Sirtris Pharmaceuticals's (now a subsidiary of GSK) amped-up resveratrol (the good stuff in red wine) derivative. The idea is to get the benefit of drinking 1000 glasses of red wine a day without actually killing yourself. It will be approved for treating diabetes but will be of interest to absolutely everyone that can afford it. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0743693420080...
I've always been under the impression that you can get the health benefits from wine without drinking alcohol. Resveratrol is found naturally in foods like grapes and peanuts. So you won't be missing out on any health benefits if you don't drink.
Resveratrol Concentrations:http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/resvera...
I would love to read some study that would investigate the connection between one joint a day with heart disease.
Most of the studies about this kind of thing get messed up because they are studying it with smoked marijuana. Let's assume that such a study uses vaporized or oral cannabis. I would be surprised to see reduced heart disease as a result of cannabis consumption but I would expect to see reduced cancer of some forms and lower rates of Alzheimer's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4417261.stm
Seems to indicate that THC stops inflammation of blood vessels by suppressing the immune system's response. Also seems that oral delivery was used vs. smoking.
Just red wine and only in some circumstances, pg. There's no medical benefit to vodka, whisky, rum, absinthe, peppermint liquer, beer, jagermeister, goldschlager, etc etc etc.