A couple of weeks ago, the local weekly paper, in the column written by the owner/publisher, was gleefully reporting the newest anti-marijuana study by Professor Wayne Hall. The paper's owner has long had a bee in his bonnet about marijuana, believing it to be a good thing to prohibit, and apparently, cage and kill people over. This "news" was exactly the sort he loves to find and pass along.
The thing is, this professor's "findings" are exactly the same sort of things the prohibitionists have been saying for decades.
And, the professor doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not causation, which means he isn't doing science, but only propping up propaganda.
His assertion "it could double the risk of severe psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia" seems to ignore the fact that people with psychiatric disorders are more likely to self-medicate, with whatever they can find, to relieve their discomfort. Even I can figure this out.
According to Hall, "those who try to stop taking the drug can often suffer anxiety, lower appetite, depression and insomnia, and less than half of people who stop taking it can stay off it for six months". And, he says "The important point I am trying to make is that people can get into difficulties with cannabis use, particularly if they get into daily use over a long period."
OK. Anything you get into a habit of doing on a daily basis can get in the way of life, and can be extremely hard to stop doing.
And, there was more bad "science" of the same kind all through his findings. Almost everything he "discovered" as a researcher working as an advisor to a Big Government group (the World Health Organization of the United Nations) is what prohibitionists want to be discovered.
And, guess what: even if everything he claims were absolutely true, it STILL wouldn't invent a right to tell other people what they are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise consume. It's totally irrelevant. That "right" doesn't exist, can't exist, and can't be invented. It doesn't matter if it's Nanny Bloomypants trying to forbid you from enjoying salt or a super-sized soft drink, or some dogwhistle trying to kill you so you can't inject heroin. No one has that right, so no one can delegate that nonexistent right. To attempt to do so is evil.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A stone-cold alcoholic can go into convulsions and die if you take them off of their preferred drug cold turkey. Approximately 50% of all homicides and attempted homicides are committed by people who were drinking just prior to the crime. That figure goes up to around 65% in large urban areas. Over 50% of robberies and rapes are committed by people who have been drinking alcohol. These are the anti-rightists' own figures that I have gleaned over the years.
ReplyDeleteSo, if the Almighty Government had the legitimate power (people have rights and powers, governments only have powers, which the get from the people) to prohibit a substance that could cause personal or social problems then, logically, that power should be used to prohibit the most harmful drugs and substances, starting with alcohol, the most violence-causing drug merely from its use, followed by tobacco, one of, if not the biggest, disease and death causing substance in America.
But, of course, in a truly free and liberty-loving nation, one that understands and upholds the principle of inalienable rights, the government has no legitimate power to prohibit adults from using or abusing their bodies and minds as they wish, even if it is dangerous or deadly to them.
Finally, there is much evidence that cannabis has true anti-cancer properties. Plus anti-epileptic properties. Anecdotally, I have a friend who suffered from petite-mal epileptic seizures until, at age 15, she started smoking marijuana. I don't recommend any mind-altering drug for any minor, unless necessary for physical and mental health. The adolescent mind is a tangle of neuron growth that slowly gets pared back as they approach adulthood. That's why so many adolescents are so difficult. Adding a mind-altering drug to that mix will only exacerbate the problem.