Could you point out in the video where she says anything about "all dangerous drugs?" She speaks only about marijuana, yet people are jumping on this as "dangerous drugs" and "everyone using whatever they want" and acting as if she is on the video screaming for rampant drug abuse.
Gina, marijuana is
the most dangerous drug on the planet, precisely because even sane, intelligent people such as yourself have bought into the lie that it is a "safe" drug.
There is no "safe" drug! Marijuana has been
proven to cause the following medical and mental health problems:
- Reduces levels of testosterone, which equates to reduced ability to gain lean muscle mass. Based on this, one can say "If you smoke weed don't bother going to the weight room."
- Reduces libido and sperm count
- Produces sperm with abnormal chromosomes
- Disrupts menstrual cycles
- Produces less healthy eggs in women
- Development of the mammary glands (gynecomastia) in men
- Studies show that THC damages the hippocampus, a critical part of the brain in terms of learning and memory
- Amotivational syndrome -- engenders an uncaring, unconcerned attitude toward work, school, family, etc.
- Slows the transmission of neurochemicals due to the thickening of the walls of brain cells
- Causes anxiety and panic reaction
- Increases heart rate and blood pressure
- Reduces the supply of oxygen in the blood (at a time it needs more oxygen due to increase HR and BP
- Decreases effectiveness of the immune system
BTW, I'm for the legalization of marijuana. I'm against recreational use, and my children know I believe that smoking it is a not the best choice of use. I believe that as a medication, it can be a much wiser and healthier choice than some of the alternative pharmaceuticals.
Obviously, given the evidence against the ability to use the drug safely, you shouldn't be. And you're sending mixed signals to your children, holding those views but being for legalization.
I'd vote to put alcohol as a prescription only medication in a flash if put to a vote against marijuana.
There are
no proven medical benefits -- regardless of what the so-called "medical marijuana researchers" claim -- for marijuana. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Big fat goose egg. Zilch. It is insane to buy into the lies the marijuana industry has sold to the American public. Great, it reduces pain. So does LSD. So does cocaine. Perhaps we should legalize them, too. There are better, much safer analgesics and NSAIDS on the market that won't give you lung cancer four times faster than cigarettes, which marijuana does. It may be a decent anti-nausea medication for chemotherapy patients, but why risk the deadly side effects, which make those of traditional pharmaceuticals pale in comparison? These bogus researchers have no factual, statistical, or scientific research basis upon which to base their claims, and when you look closely at their "figures" you see that they are grossly outside the acceptable parameters of valid research done by the pharmaceutical companies, as required by the FDA.
One is a natural plant with many uses and health benefits ...
There is nothing "natural" about the marijuana grown today. It is a cultivated crop, like corn, soybeans, and wheat, and as such has had chemicals added to increase the desirable attributes of the plant -- in the case of pot, that is THC. It is ten times stronger today, bordering on 40% content in some varieties, than it was in the 1960s.
... the other is known to cause much, much harm in our society.
Through abuse, yes. In moderation, alcohol is proven to have health benefits that are totally absent in marijuana. There are several of these benefits, not the least of which is shown in
Harvard's study on reduced cardiovascular disease through moderate alcohol use.
In the verses, it talks about IF YOU DO WHAT IS EVIL, be afraid. It doesn't say to do evil because the government says so.
True. And yet you would add more evil to that which the government allows and regulates by legalizing a very dangerous drug.
If you insist that one must obey the government even when it is wrong, then doesn't that mean you should cheerfully go buy you an ObamaCare package on the market?
I haven't said, "Obey the government, even when it is wrong." I
do say, the government has allowed a product on the market -- alcohol -- that, if used in excess, is dangerous, but is at least neutral, and perhaps beneficial, if used in moderation. As it is a product that employs nearly a million people around the country, it would be extremely detrimental to the economy to once again shut it down. That case can't be made for marijuana. Since it became a heavily used and popular recreational drug, it has not been widely available legally, nor should it be now. We've all but shut down the tobacco industry because of it's complete lack of health benefits and for being a product that, used as directed, will kill you. This was reason enough to treat it differently than alcohol. Why add back into the problem by legalizing a product that causes all the health issues above, besides having nearly seven times the tar content as cigarettes and three times the carbon monoxide output? These will also kill you, and quicker than cigarettes.
Doesn't it mean this country was founded by disobedient wrongdoers?
Again, you are absolutely correct in stating that when the government does evil, it is to be disobeyed in favor of the law of God. George III was the embodiment of evil intent towards the Colonies, and the only choice our founders had was the revolution and war they fought to valiantly "bring forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Doesn't it mean that a number of restaurants in your area are lawbreakers, because the last time I was in there, I did NOT see a single restaurant that posted a warning sign in font over 8 points saying they were serving margarine, yet when I requested margarine, they said yes. (feel free to look up that law)
Totally irrelevant to the discussion. The deadly contents of margarine are so minute as to be non-existent, in comparison to that "natural plant" you are so anxious to legalize.
I definitely do not agree with anarchy. A lawless society obviously will not work in a godless society. However, when it becomes illegal to sell non-enriched white flour rolls if they're labeled, when I can't use a plant and instead must bleed from my kidneys to profit a drug company, when I am worried about the IRS coming after my kids in the future about their healthcare, when I look around and see a giant government that seems to be holding so many citizens by the throats...I am concerned.
The use of marijuana is far more dangerous to your health, physically and mentally, than using pain-killing drugs that cause the symptoms you describe in less than 1% of patients who use them. The effects I've listed caused by marijuana are nearly universal in all users, and we are beginning to get some really frightening statistics for those symptoms in so-called "medical marijuana" users who have been actively smoking four to seven joints a day for more than three years.
It makes me think that yes, Josie has some very good points.
Josie is a rebellious little anarchist who wants nothing more than her way, all the time. That attitude leads to addiction, crime, early unwanted pregnancy, bad healthcare laws. If you like that, then by all means, continue to think Josie has all the answers.
It makes me think that yes, we have too many laws.
We may indeed have too many laws. Particularly at the federal level where they seem bent on completely controlling our lives from cradle to grave. But the drug laws are not among the ones that are too numerous.
When I look at cases across the nation and see who has enforced these laws, I don't just think, I know, that many officers should sit down and think to themselves just how far they are willing to go in obeying orders.
You're inviting anarchy, and if you were to see what that looks like, you wouldn't be so quick to think that's a great idea. We need officers to think and act swiftly, not sit around and agonize over whether they should do, or sit. That is a dangerous situation in and of itself.
Have you ever watched an officer hesitate and not be sure what to do, then go ahead and follow through with an order? You can see the struggle. The more laws and more strange and massive the enforcement gets, the more conflict there will be between law enforcement and citizens.
An officer who questions whether or not he should enforce the law is in the wrong part of the justice system. He should go to law school and become a criminal defense lawyer. He has no business being on the street. Most never hesitate, and I'm grateful they don't, even if eventually the court system proves them. in that situation, to have been wrong. I'd rather they act and be wrong than hesitate and get themselves and/or others hurt or killed, or think they have a questionable situation before them and choose not to act, only to have consequences arise from that decision that could have been avoided.
