Smokers in CA don't find nicotine a drug
Alexandre Oeming
than just scapegoating others? I'm a firm believer in karma and this
poor idiot just got a big ole dose. If you do not fight for the rights
of others, cry me a freaking river when "they" come for you.
Ferreted out from: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4268.shtml
It's funny how society's attitudes have changed. For example, these days
in Orange County you can get in more trouble for smoking a cigarette
than for smoking marijuana.
If you don't believe it, just ask Harold Wood.
This story began one afternoon last November, when Harold, 72, a retired
electrician, was enjoying a drink and a cigarette at Godfather's, a
dark, narrow neighborhood bar on First Street in Tustin. Like many,
perhaps most, small bars in Orange County, Godfather's had treated the
1998 law against smoking in bars as more of a suggestion than a hard and
fast rule; the vast majority of the customers continued to smoke, and
nobody seemed to care.
But on this afternoon three cops walked in and started hanging tickets
on everyone who was smoking — which was just about everybody in the
joint.
"The cops were nice about it," Harold says. "They said they didn't want
to do it, but they'd gotten a complaint."
Unfortunately — or fortunately, depending on your point of view — bar
smoking citations are so rare (about 20 in Tustin in the past two years)
that neither the police nor the courts seem sure how to handle them. For
example, Harold's ticket initially was for a traffic violation — go
figure — but then he got a letter saying it was a misdemeanor, then
another letter saying it was a mere infraction. He was pretty confused.
Now, you'd think that on such a minor beef he could have just mailed in
his fine and not clogged up the court calendar. But no. Monday morning
Harold had to appear at the county courthouse in Santa Ana, where he
waited in line for an hour — not an easy task for a senior citizen with
a bum hip — before he was sent upstairs to Department C-59. He waited
for another hour, surrounded by fellow miscreants — marijuana users, an
abusive husband, a park trespasser — before he finally was called before
Judge Robert Keefe.
Harold pleaded guilty — heck, he was guilty — and the judge set the fine
at $103. Then Harold had to go back downstairs and wait in line again
for more than an hour and a half to pay the fine. And justice was done.
Harold wasn't happy; $103 isn't chump change on a fixed income, and his
entire day was shot.
But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
a cigarette."
Well, I don't know how you feel about marijuana, or bar smoking;
personally, I don't think either one is any of the government's
business. But to a guy of Harold's generation, it's astonishing that
something that once was a felony is now less of a crime than something
that until recently wasn't even a crime at all — and to a lot of
people still doesn't feel like a crime.
But like I said, society's attitudes change.
And I'll leave it to you to decide if it's always for the better.
Gordon Dillow may be reached at (714) 796-7953 or by e-mail at
gldi...@aol.com.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
e...@nospamxtc.nl
<caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
>noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
>routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
>class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
>Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
>the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
>
>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
>a cigarette."
Phew.. am I relieved...
I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
;-)
e.
Kyoteee
They're not.
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
JC
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
omega95
<e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl> wrote in message news:387e55a0...@news.cistron.nl...
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:08:28 GMT, Alexandre Oeming
> <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> >But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> >noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> >routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> >class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> >Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> >the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> >
> >"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> >a cigarette."
>
> Phew.. am I relieved...
> I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>
> ;-)
>
> e.
>
> --
> www.xtc.nl
>
Scott E
Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ogos7sgaqtrc7sip9...@4ax.com...
> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>
> >Alexandre Oeming <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> >>noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> >>routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> >>class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> >>Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> >>the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> >>
> >>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> >>a cigarette."
> >
> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >
> >;-)
>
>
That's right, they're not. They're drug delivery devices.
Scott E.
Clown's Paw
Kyoteee wrote:
> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>
> >Alexandre Oeming <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> >>noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> >>routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> >>class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> >>Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> >>the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> >>
> >>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> >>a cigarette."
> >
> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >
> >;-)
>
> They're not.
Oh, yes they are. It was only a year ago that I found out that I was a
nicotine addict. Addict, mind you. And that I was "self-medicating" every
time I lit up. Boy, was I supprised.
Just goes to show you how damn foolish the WOD is becoming. Thank goodess I
can still pop a beer from time to time. I haven't been called an alcohol
addict yet. But, who knows, just give them time.
My wife won't let me carry a gun. Guess why?
The Clown...
Michael Zarlenga
That's not suprising. Some nicotine junkies In New Orleans
are flaming hypocrites when it comes to people who ingest
OTHER, LESS POTENT and LESS HARMFUL drugs.
Right Kathleen?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-13 kyo...@mindspring.com said:
>e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>>Alexandre Oeming <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the
>>>courtroom, he noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana
>>>possession were routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a
>>>one-day drug diversion class, after which the offense would be
>>>erased from their records. Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker,
>>>who'd never been in trouble with the law, had to pay a bigger
>fine and go down on record as a malefactor! >>
>>>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I
>>>smoked was a cigarette."
>>Phew.. am I relieved...
>>I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>>;-)
>They're not.
Uhhh, wrong. Nicotine is a dangerous, deadly and addictive drug and
tobacco cigarettes are drug delivery devices.
My DDD of choice is Kool's, to deliever my one every fifteen to twenty
minute fix of nicotine.
More than 80% of heroin addicts continue to smoke cigarettes even after
kicking heroin in spite of receiving concurrent drug education about the
dangers of cigaette smoking.
But take heart! FDA v. Brown & Williamson may indeed see the Supremes
ruling in favor of cigarettes and against the FDA claiming authority to
regulate nicotine as a dangerous drug.
Of course, that will also open the door for other drugs that currently
reside on the Schedule I list.
It would be unequal protection of the law to protect one dangerous drug
and not allow the other LESS dangerous, deadly and addictive drugs and
their users freedom to choose them.
Nevertheless, even a ruling by the US Supreme Court will not change
medical facts long in evidence.
Tobacco cigarettes are indeed the most dangerous and deadly, addictive
drug on the planet.
That's precisely why their use is the number one preventable cause of
death in the United States.
Copious references upon request of course and here for your reading
pleasure:
==
High Court Wary of Classifying Tobacco as Drug
By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
12-02-99
WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration's plan to regulate
cigarettes as legal drugs received a surprisingly hostile hearing before
the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In skeptical questioning, most of the justices suggested that
federal health regulators overreached three years ago when they claimed
power over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
The prospect of federal control has alarmed the already beleaguered
tobacco industry, which believes that such regulation would threaten its
very survival.
Under a policy adopted in 1996 by the Food and Drug Administration,
regulators could have ordered the industry to reduce or eliminate
nicotine from cigarettes. Tobacco industry lawyers have feared that such
control eventually would result in the prohibition of cigarettes.
However, those possibilities appeared to fade quickly during
Wednesday's argument.
The Supreme Court justices, looking closely at the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act of 1938, said that they did not see how cigarettes could be
classified in the same category as medicines.
"It just doesn't fit," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor exclaimed,
describing her reaction to calling a cigarette a drug.
Under the 1938 law, federal regulators can oversee drugs that are
sold to prevent diseases or cure illnesses, she said. But, she added,
"it strains credibility" to say that Congress meant to include
cigarettes under this rubric, since tobacco products are not sold as
medicine.
And if cigarettes were covered by the law, they would "have to be
banned," O'Connor said, since their risks to health clearly outweigh
their benefits.
She noted that FDA lawyers had defined their authority so broadly
as to cover anything that is intended by its maker to have an effect on
the body.
"Could the FDA regulate horror movies?" O'Connor wondered, since
such films are designed "to get the adrenaline pumping."
No one has seriously suggested anything of the sort, replied U.S.
Solicitor Gen. Seth Waxman, representing the administration.
"Well, 30 years ago, no one suggested the government could regulate
cigarettes," interjected Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a regular
smoker.
The skepticism from O'Connor and Rehnquist was echoed in questions
from Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's other steady smoker, as well as
from those who might have been seen as more friendly to the anti-tobacco
arguments, including Justices David H. Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.
Only Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens strongly
defended the Clinton administration's stand.
With control over cigarettes, FDA officials had hoped to ban most
tobacco advertising, including sports promotions. They also intended to
forbid the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. Retailers would
be required to ask for photo identifications before selling cigarettes
to anyone younger than 27.
Those proposed rules have been stalled pending the outcome of the
court battle.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., struck down
the FDA's claim of authority over tobacco products, and most of the
justices sounded Wednesday as though they will uphold that ruling.
If they do, the issue would move back to Congress. But the
Republican-controlled Congress recently has shown no enthusiasm for
bringing tobacco under the FDA's control.
However, anti-tobacco forces have been winning on other fronts. In
a series of legal settlements with the states, the major tobacco firms
have agreed to pay $246 billion to cover smoking-related health costs.
The Justice Department has brought a similar federal lawsuit
against the tobacco firms, and several class-action suits are pending in
state courts.
In 1995, then-FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler said newly
discovered evidence--industry documents--showed that tobacco industry
officials had known for decades that nicotine is addictive and that the
amount of nicotine in cigarettes can be manipulated.
Tobacco use "is the largest cause of preventable death in the
United States," the FDA added. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans
die from smoking-related illnesses.
This new evidence, combined with the enormous health consequences
of smoking, justifies a sharp change in federal policy, the
administration said.
The justices were unswayed. What's new about this, Scalia asked,
since the health dangers of cigarettes have been documented for decades.
Certainly in 1964, when the surgeon general first warned Americans
of the hazards of smoking, ordinary Americans--as well as the FDA--knew
of the dangers, Rehnquist said.
Maybe so, Waxman said, but the leaders of the major tobacco
companies testified under oath just a few years ago that they believed
cigarettes were not addictive.
"No one believed them," Scalia responded.
The sharp tone of the questioning came as a surprise. During the
1980s, when the Ronald Reagan administration's policies were being
attacked in the courts by liberal interest groups, the Supreme Court
ruled that judges should defer to the decisions of executive agencies.
Waxman relied on that doctrine Wednesday, but without much success.
Instead, the justices questioned him on where the government's
anti-tobacco policy would lead.
How could cigarettes be kept on the market, they asked, if they are
deemed to be drugs?
Waxman said that the agency would have to weigh the risks and would
conclude, at least for now, that prohibition would be a mistake.
But the question seemed to confirm the justices in their view that
cigarettes were not meant to be regulated as drugs by the FDA.
A ruling in the case (FDA vs. Brown &Williamson Tobacco, 98-1152)
is expected in several months.
==
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/HOME.HTM - The
health and psychological consequences of cannabis use.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-13 ome...@email.com said:
>> <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the
>>courtroom, he >noticed that the guys charged with simple
>>marijuana possession were >routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign
>>up for a one-day drug diversion >class, after which the offense
>>would be erased from their records. >Meanwhile he, Harold Wood,
>>bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with >the law, had to pay
>>a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor! >
>> >"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I
>>smoked was >a cigarette."
>> Phew.. am I relieved...
>> I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>> ;-)
[after moving your response to where it belonged, _after_ the point you
were responding to...]
>Well, you thought wrong.
Actually that would be _any_ cigarette smoker in major denial about just
how dangerous and addictive that cigarette smoking is. The medical facts
about cigarette smoking are well known. It is more reinforcing an
addiction than heroin, and it is much harder to kick. In fact, there has
been a major sea change in the way "addiction" to various substances has
been viewed in just the past ten years and in particular, over the last
five years or so on the 'net.
'Don't get me wrong. I am a Kool addict and if you want to look up FDA
v. Brown & Williamson, I certainly suggest you do. It will be a VERY
important US Supreme Court decision in the coming months here in the US.
The point of realistically considering ALL drugs, is that a *credible*
risk based assessment, including harm to health be made and public
health practices be put into place to help minimise the harm associated
with ALL recreational drugs. This in my mind does not include further
federal intervention in personal choices that results in criminalizing
personal behavior that affects the Rights and Property of no other.
The War on Some Drugs must end or eventually the logical conclusion will
come to pass, which is tobacco and alcohol prohibition.
As a tobacco smoker, I am likely to soon be a protected class of
American citizen because the Supremes do not seem to be willing to let
FDA regulate nicotine as a dangerous and addictive drug. Even though it
quite clearly is and I would be happy to provide a good portions of
cites to you from the best of world medical literature that shows this
beyond rather a shadow of a doubt.
But in answer to your statement that tobacco cigarettes are not drugs,
let me leave you with this for your reading pleasure...
== |
From the New York Times |
August 2, 1994
By Philip J. Hilts,
Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use. Experts say
the definition of addiction is evolving.
WASHINGTON - When heavily dependent users of cocaine are asked to
compare the urge to take cocaine with the urge to smoke cigarettes,
about 45 percent say the urge to smoke is as strong or stronger than
that for cocaine.
Among heroin' addicts, about 3 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal
to or stronger than the urge to take heroin. Among those addicted to
alcohol, about 50 percent say the urge to smoke is at least as strong as
the urge to drink.
Yet seven chief executives of tobacco companies testified under oath
before a Congressional subcommittee in April that nicotine was not
addictive. Experts in addiction disagree with that assessment, hut they
say that the definition of addiction is evolving, and that they can see
how such a statement might be made. Hearings on Smoking This week, the
Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings to consider whether
cigarettes fit in the array of addictive drugs and whether the
Government should regulate them.
The standard definition of addiction comes from the American Psychiatric
Association and the World Health Organization, which list nine criteria
for determining addiction. The two groups, which prefer the term drug
dependence, base their definition on research done since the 1960's,
which has determined that multiple traits must be considered in
determining whether a substance is addictive. Thus although cigarettes
do not offer as intense an effect as drugs like heroin and cocaine, they
rank higher in a number of other factors. They not only create
dependence among users but also elicit a high degree of tolerance, the
need for more and more of drug to satisfy a craving. When all the
factors are added up, the consensus among scientists is that nicotine is
strongly addictive.
In smoking, it is not the nicotine addiction that is most harmful, but
other toxic chemicals produced by burning tobacco, which cause most of
the 400,000 deaths each year that are attributed to smoking.
Dr. Lynn T. Koslowski, an addiction expert at Pennsylvania State
University, said addiction could generally be defined as "the repeated
use of a psychoactive drug which is difficult to stop." He added that
there might be many explanations for why it was hard to stop, including
withdrawal that was too disturbing, or a high that was too enticing.
A diagnosis of mild dependence on a psychoactive drug is determined by
meeting three of the nine criteria. Five items show moderate dependence
and seven items indicate a strong dependence. (Not all nine items apply
to each drug. For example, time and effort spent acquiring a drug are a
significant feature of heroin addiction, but have no meaning in nicotine
addiction.)
Criteria of Addiction
1. Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended.
2. Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
3. Excessive time spent in drug seeking.
4. Feeling intoxicated at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal
symptoms from a drug at such times.
5. Giving up other things for it.
6. Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
7. Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at
first before leveling off.
8. Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs.
9. Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal.
Before applying a test of the nine criteria, the expert first determines
if the symptoms have persisted for at least a month or have occurred
repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Asked about the tobacco executives' testimony on addiction, Dr.
Kozlowski said, "In a way, I can see how they could say that. It has to
do with a mistaken image of what addiction is, and I have many
well-educated, intelligent people say something like that to me. People
often think of a person taking one injection of heroin and becoming
hopelessly addicted for the rest of their lives. That is wrong."
In addition, he said, when people tend to think of the high that heroin
produces, one that is about as intense as cocaine and alcohol, they
cannot believe cigarettes are in the same category. And they are not.
Even though in large doses nicotine can cause a strong high and
hallucinations, the doses used in cigarettes produce only a very mild
high.
But researchers now know, says Dr. Jack Henningfield, chief of clinical
pharmacology at the Addiction Research Center of the Government's
National Institute on Drug Abuse, that many qualities are related to a
drug's addictiveness, and the level of intoxication it produces may be
one of the least important.
If one merely asks how much pleasure the drugs produce, as researchers
used to do and tobacco companies still do, then heroin or cocaine and
nicotine do not seem to be in the same category. Dr. Kozlowki said,
"It's not that cigarettes are without pleasure, but the pleasure is not
in the same ball park with heroin."
But now, he said, there are more questions to ask. "If the question is
How hard is it to stop? then nicotine a very impressive drug," he said.
"Its urges are very similar to heroin."
Among the properties of a psychoactive drug - how much craving it can
cause, how severe is the withdrawal, how intense a high it brings - each
addicting drug has its own profile.
Heroin has a painful. powerful withdrawal, as does alcohol. But cocaine
has little or no withdrawal. On the other hand, cocaine is more
habit-forming in some respects, it is more reinforcing in the scientific
terminology, meaning that animals and humans will seek to use it
frequently in short periods of time, even over food and water.
Drugs rank differently on the scale of how difficult they are to quit as
well, with nicotine rated by most experts as the most difficult to quit.
Moreover, it is not merely the drug that determines addiction, says Dr.
john R. Hughes, an addiction expert at the University of Vermont. It is
also the person, and the circumstances in the person's life. A user may
be able to resist dependence at one time and not at another.
A central property of addiction is the user's control over the
substance. With all drugs. including heroin, many are occasional users.
The addictive property of the substance can be measured by how many
users maintain a casual habit and how many are persistent, regular
users.
According to large Government surveys of alcohol users, only about 15
percent are regular. dependent drinkers. Among cocaine users, about 8
percent become dependent. For cigarettes, the percentage is reversed.
About 90 percent of smokers are persistent daily users, and 55 percent
become dependent by official American Psychiatric Association criteria,
according to a study by Dr. Naomi Breslau of the Henry Ford Health
Sciences Center in Detroit. Only 10 percent are occasional users.
Surveys also indicate that two-thirds to four-fifths of smokers want to
quit but cannot, even after a number of attempts. Dr. John Robinson, a
psychologist who works for the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, contests
the consensus view of nicotine as addictive. Using the current standard
definition of addiction, he said at a recent meeting on nicotine
addiction, he could not distinguish "crack smoking from coffee drinking,
glue sniffing from jogging, heroin from carrots and cocaine from colas."
It is not that Dr. Robinson and other scientists supported by tobacco
companies disagree with the main points made by mainstream scientists.
But that they define addiction differently. Dr. Robinson says
intoxication that is psychologically debilitating is the major defining
trait of an addicting substance. It is a feature that was part of
standard definitions of the 1950's, and is still linked to popular ideas
about addiction, but which experts now say is too simplistic and has
been left behind as scientific evidence accumulates.
Experts Rate Problem Substances
Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr.
Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked
six substances based on five problem areas.
Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and
animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in
preference to other substances.
Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing
cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually
reached.
Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate,
the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating
users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the
substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in
itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and
increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HENNINGFIELD RATINGS 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BENOWITZ RATINGS 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicotine 3* equal 4 4 1 6
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
Cocaine 3* equal 1 1 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4
==
>> e.
>> --
>> www.xtc.nl
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/pdfa1.htm
Partnership for a Drug-Free America - sources of funding.
Marky
Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:85m088$bar$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of tobacco
being the cause of deaths. Too bad the tobacco fairy is leaving gold coins
instead of truths...
That may never come, so long as there are apologists for the rest of human
stupidity....
Bless them Lord...
Marky
jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0237dd28...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
: Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
:
: JC
Because that is what the drug companies say is needed...
Marky
: Criteria of Addiction
:
: 1. Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended.
How much more do you smoke on a daily basis?
:
: 2. Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
That must mean that the millions of people who have quit, really didn't quit
:
: 3. Excessive time spent in drug seeking.
Oh, yes, I spend at least ten minutes a day...
:
: 4. Feeling intoxicated at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal
Hmmmm, intoxicated?
: symptoms from a drug at such times.
:
: 5. Giving up other things for it.
Yep, I gave up a career in brain surgery for smoking...
:
: 6. Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
Puleeeez! You mean because of falsified evidence I have to accept that
smoking is harmful...or more harmful than living in polluted cities....good
God, is there no end to the demonization?
: 7. Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at
: first before leveling off.
Sure, now I smoke 25 cigarettes in the morning with my coffee, and smoke
only 1 the rest of the day...soon I will be smoking 50 in the morning, and
two the rest of the day....piss off, eh!
:
: 8. Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs.
Yes, everytime I want to smoke I get this urge to withdraw from the rest of
society because they don't like (paranoid, actually) smoke...
:
: 9. Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal.
Hmmmm, if I really WANTED to quit, that would not be an issue.
: : Before applying a test of the nine criteria, the expert first determines
: if the symptoms have persisted for at least a month or have occurred
: repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Expert? Ha!
<snippage of the rest of this crap>
Jon Thompson
wrote:
>On 2000-01-13 ome...@email.com said:
>
>
> >> <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Phew.. am I relieved...
>
> >> I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> ;-)
>
>[after moving your response to where it belonged, _after_ the point you
>were responding to...]
>
> >Well, you thought wrong.
>
>Actually that would be _any_ cigarette smoker in major denial about just
>how dangerous and addictive that cigarette smoking is.
It could merely be someone who is being pedantic. A cigarette is not
a drug, addictive or otherwise.
Jonny-Jons
Gurn Blanston
Michael Hess wrote:
>
> 'Don't get me wrong. I am a Kool addict and if you want to look up FDA
> v. Brown & Williamson, I certainly suggest you do. It will be a VERY
> important US Supreme Court decision in the coming months here in the US.
Maybe.
Even if the FDA can't regulate them as drugs, it seems to me the DEA can
still Schedule them as "controlled substances".
The issue before The Supremes is whether or not they are a "drug" in the
medicinal sense; obviously they are not.
However, the CSA makes constant referrences to "drugs or other
substances", so whether they qualify as "drugs" to the FDA shouldn't
affect the DEA's ability to add them to the SCS. (sheesh, how many TLA's
can I fit in one sentence? :)
just a thought...
--
~Peace
Gurn Blanston
______________________________
medicinal marijuana vaporizers
http://www.vaporizer.com
"'The drug czar has refused to be at any public event where
[Ethan] Nadelmann is,' says Reinarman. '[McCaffrey] is probably smart
enough to avoid embarrassment.'
Calvina Fay, deputy executive director at the Drug Free America
Foundation,
who has never been on a panel with Nadelmann, says, 'We don't think
debating is a very good idea.'"
-recent usenet post
Kyoteee
>Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>>
>> >Phew.. am I relieved...
>> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>> >
>> >;-)
>> They're not.
>
>Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only because
the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who would
become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
Kyoteee
>>
>> >Phew.. am I relieved...
>> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>> >
>> >;-)
>>
>> They're not.
>
You're thinking of Budweiser bottles and Scotch bottles, etc., not
cigarettes.
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> >
> >> >;-)
> >> They're not.
> >
> They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> because
> the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
> believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who
> would
> become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be* smokers.
Marky
: In article <nkqt7s4lmir0u1ebq...@4ax.com>, Kyoteee
Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the world....fire
one....
Kyoteee
>
>jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
>
>: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
>:
>: > >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
>
>: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
>: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
>: > because
>: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
>: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who
>: > would
>: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
>:
>: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be* smokers.
>
>one....
The guy just has to be from talk.politics. No one else in the other
crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of course.
Sir Robin
>>>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
>>>noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
>>>routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
>>>class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
>>>Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
>>>the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
>>>
>>>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
>>>a cigarette."
>>
>>Phew.. am I relieved...
>>I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>>
>>;-)
>
>They're not.
Yes they are. Only ones who dont define it as drugs are stupid peoples and law.
By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
drugs in every other way.
- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa in Real Life (tm))
Member of Falling Star Productions, BrV and TeamTNT
E-Mail: jsak...@hotmail.com <*> ICQ: 15207181
http://janisaksa.tsx.org/ <-> Hemp, DooM, Personal...
... And God said, "Let there be crap..." Wella! - Windows appeared!
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:01906254...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
> : In article <nkqt7s4lmir0u1ebq...@4ax.com>, Kyoteee
> : <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : > jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> : > >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : > >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> : > >> >
> : > >> >;-)
> : > >> They're not.
> : > >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers
> quit?
> : > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> : > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> : > because
> : > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers
> who
> : > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and
> who
> : > would
> : > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> :
> : Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be*
> smokers.
> :
> : JC
> :
> :
> : * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's
> Discussion Network
> *
> : The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet
> - Free!
> :
> Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the
> world....fire
> one....
Yep, you're right.. Only an idiot would claim that nicotine is not a
drug and that cigarettes are not drug delivery devices..
Actually, shouldn't that be "fire one up"?
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Marky" <sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> >
> >jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
> >
> >: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> >:
> quit?
> >
> >: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> >: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> >: > because
> >: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers
> who
> >: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and
> who
> >: > would
> >: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> >:
> >: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be*
> smokers.
> >
> world....fire
> >one....
> other
> crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of
> course.
Stupid is as stupid does. Smoking doesn't get you high (according to
smokers anyway). All it does is keep you from having nicotine
withdrawal symptoms and makes you smell like a dirty ashtray.
Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by definition.
Gurn Blanston
Sir Robin wrote:
>
> By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
> drugs in every other way.
Where did you get this?? By whose law??
D.G. Porter
>
> Sir Robin wrote:
> >
> > By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
> > drugs in every other way.
>
> Where did you get this?? By whose law??
Don't try to get logic from these fuckers, they are too busy kissing
government ass and sucking authority dick to thinkfor themselves.
"DADDY SAYS IT'S BAD, SO IT'S BAD! ME GONNA TELL MOMMY ON YOU!!!"
I know, iknow, we shouldn't take thistack, but I've read this NG for
years and watched people int he media and govenment, and it makes no
difference whatever facts one comes up with. If that were the case, The
1998 IoM report would have been hailed and taken a a new basis for
policy. It wasn't. People don't care about facts. They just want you
to obey whatever stupid law the people they elect force on you and bend
over and present your asshole for their pleasure.
D.G. Porter
>
> "Marky" <sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> >
> >jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
> >
> >: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> >:
> >: > >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
> >
> >: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> >: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> >: > because
> >: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
> >: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who
> >: > would
> >: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> >:
> >: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be* smokers.
> >
> >Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the world....fire
> >one....
>
> The guy just has to be from talk.politics. No one else in the other
> crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of course.
Look, you moron, nicotine and cannabis are DRUGS.
You high and mighty asswipes have been sitting pretty for years,
thinking no one will topuch you while you smoke your smelly shit, and
look down on cannabis smokers as wsome kindof dirty "dopes," and now
that you get a taste of your own medicine, listen to how you whine.
I don't care what you smoke. Just don't blow it in my face. But if ou
want to protect your right to smoke that shit, you'd better drop some of
your prejudice and ignorance and get allied with people who will
preserve your rights providing you recognize theirs.
You don't think nicotine is a drug, eh? Tell that to the next poor slob
who can't get his "fix" because the stores are closed and he ran out of
his Likely Strokes!
My mother-in-law died of cancer and very day she just had to have he
"fix" even though it was killing her. But oh no, nicotine isn't a drug,
and that evil marijuana is!
I'm going to be laffing when you guys are criminalized!
D.G. Porter
>
> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:01906254...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com..
> : <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : > jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> : > >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : > >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> : > >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> : > >> >
> : > >> >;-)
> : > >> They're not.
> : > >
> : > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> : > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> : > because
> : > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
> : > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who
> : > would
> : > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> :
> : Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be* smokers.
> : JC
> :
>
> Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the world....fire
> one....
MY MY MY! LOOK at how DEFENSIVE the NICOTINE ADDICTS get when we jump
on them for HYPOCRISY!!!
Hey dude! If you want to form an alliance, there's still time before
they make criminals out of you! But you better be willing to extend
your rights to me!
D.G. Porter
>
> "Scott E" <s.eck...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> >
> >> >;-)
> >>
> >> They're not.
> >
>
> You're thinking of Budweiser bottles and Scotch bottles, etc., not
> cigarettes.
Notice the MENTAL GYNMASTICS and PRETZEL LOGIC the nicotine addict goes
through to separate "them" from "us"! "HIM!!! Not me, HIM!! HE'S the
addict! NOT ME! I don't use drugs! I only smoke cigarettes!"
Kyoteee
>Yes they are. Only ones who dont define it as drugs are stupid peoples and law.
>
>By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
>drugs in every other way.
Aspirin is an illegal drug? According to your frothing above, it is.
Kyoteee
>Look, you moron, nicotine and cannabis are DRUGS.
>You high and mighty asswipes have been sitting pretty for years,
>thinking no one will topuch you while you smoke your smelly shit, and
>look down on cannabis smokers as wsome kindof dirty "dopes," and now
>that you get a taste of your own medicine, listen to how you whine.
>I don't care what you smoke. Just don't blow it in my face. But if ou
>want to protect your right to smoke that shit, you'd better drop some of
>your prejudice and ignorance and get allied with people who will
>preserve your rights providing you recognize theirs.
>You don't think nicotine is a drug, eh? Tell that to the next poor slob
>who can't get his "fix" because the stores are closed and he ran out of
>his Likely Strokes!
>My mother-in-law died of cancer and very day she just had to have he
>"fix" even though it was killing her. But oh no, nicotine isn't a drug,
>and that evil marijuana is!
>I'm going to be laffing when you guys are criminalized!
Here..have a ciggie...it'll help to calm you down. Or do you prefer
to take Valium to control your hysterica?
D.G. Porter
>
> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> >
> >> >;-)
> >> They're not.
> >
>
> They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only because
> the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
> believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who would
> become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
AHAH! This guy is one of those tobacco execs who committed perjury in
front of Congress! One of the guys Scalia referred to when he dismissed
their perjury because "Nobody believed them"! Tobacco addicts sure love
living in De Nile!
Kyoteee
>Gurn Blanston wrote:
>>
>> Sir Robin wrote:
>> >
>> > By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
>> > drugs in every other way.
>>
>> Where did you get this?? By whose law??
>
>Don't try to get logic from these fuckers, they are too busy kissing
>government ass and sucking authority dick to thinkfor themselves.
>"DADDY SAYS IT'S BAD, SO IT'S BAD! ME GONNA TELL MOMMY ON YOU!!!"
>
>I know, iknow, we shouldn't take thistack, but I've read this NG for
>years and watched people int he media and govenment, and it makes no
>difference whatever facts one comes up with. If that were the case, The
>1998 IoM report would have been hailed and taken a a new basis for
>policy. It wasn't. People don't care about facts. They just want you
>to obey whatever stupid law the people they elect force on you and bend
>over and present your asshole for their pleasure.
Overdue for your Valium fix, are you?
D.G. Porter
>
> Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of tobacco
> being the cause of deaths. Too bad the tobacco fairy is leaving gold coins
> instead of truths...
>
> That may never come, so long as there are apologists for the rest of human
> stupidity....
>
> Bless them Lord...
The tobbacco addicts can't face their addiction! They are in denial.
They still see MJ smokers as "evil dopers doIng drugs" while they are
clean upstanding citizens whoenjoy a relaxing pasttime. Just wait until
they run out of Likely Strokes and can't find a store that is open!
"ARGH! The withdrawal!! I can't stand it, I NEED A FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXX!"
WELL, GET A TASTE OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE, DUDES! FEEL WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
BE DEMONIZED!
D.G. Porter
>
> <e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl> wrote in message news:387e55a0...@news.cistron.nl..
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:08:28 GMT, Alexandre Oeming
> > <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> > >noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> > >routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> > >class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> > >Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> > >the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> > >
> > >"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> > >a cigarette."
> >
> > I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> > ;-)
>
ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
You a criminal, you societal dropout!
Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
You go to jail!
Me keep freedom!
Well, enjoy it while you can, Fuckworth, 'cause the Morals Nazis are
going to get you next.
D.G. Porter
>
> jani....@pp.inet.fi (Sir Robin) wrote:
>
> >Yes they are. Only ones who dont define it as drugs are stupid peoples and law.
> >
> >drugs in every other way.
>
PRETZEL LOGIC by a NICOTINE ADDICT.
NICOTNIE ADDICT DEFINITION OF "DRUG": That which is a drug but is
currently illegal.
NICOTINE ADDICT DEFINITION OF NON-DRUG: That which is a drug but is not
currently illegal.
MY DRUG: Not illegal, hence, not a drug.
YOUR DRUG: Illegal, hence a "drug," hence illicit, immoral, evil, and
not nice.
WAY TO OBFUSCATE HYPOCRISY: Divert attention to Asprin.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Gurn Blanston wrote:
> >>
> >> Sir Robin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > drugs in every other way.
> >>
> >
> >Don't try to get logic from these fuckers, they are too busy kissing
> >government ass and sucking authority dick to thinkfor themselves.
> >"DADDY SAYS IT'S BAD, SO IT'S BAD! ME GONNA TELL MOMMY ON YOU!!!"
> >
> >I know, iknow, we shouldn't take thistack, but I've read this NG for
> >years and watched people int he media and govenment, and it makes no
> >difference whatever facts one comes up with. If that were the case, The
> >1998 IoM report would have been hailed and taken a a new basis for
> >policy. It wasn't. People don't care about facts. They just want you
> >to obey whatever stupid law the people they elect force on you and bend
> >over and present your asshole for their pleasure.
>
> Overdue for your Valium fix, are you?
Sorry, I don't use dangerous drugs like Valium. I tried it once, and I
didn't like it. It gives you one helluva depression after it wears off.
People should not use Valium. It is very bad for you.
D.G. Porter
Again with the Valium! You use that shit too??? Man, flush that stuff
down the toilet! It is very bad for you and your well-being.
Here, have a doobie, much better.
My offer of an alliance still stands.
Before they came for the Jews, they came for the Gypsies...
Marky
: Stupid is as stupid does. Smoking doesn't get you high (according to
: smokers anyway). All it does is keep you from having nicotine
: withdrawal symptoms and makes you smell like a dirty ashtray.
I hear that posting to a ng where you are not wanted can be very addictive.
Especially if you like spreading hatred and have nothing else to do with
your time.
:
: Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by definition.
Really? That just about sums up your hate spew, does it? Thanks, now go
away...
Clown's Paw
should repost this so everyone can get a good sniff of it.
Again, thanks you so very much ....
The Clown ....
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
> Kyoteee wrote:
> >
> > "Marky" <sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
> > >
> > >: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> > >:
> > >: > >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
> > >
> > >: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> > >: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> > >: > because
> > >: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
> > >: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who
> > >: > would
> > >: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> > >:
> > >: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be* smokers.
> > >
> > >Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the world....fire
> > >one....
> >
> > The guy just has to be from talk.politics. No one else in the other
> > crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of course.
>
Marky
D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:387F96...@pacbell.net...
You really are a presumptuous idiot. Who looks down on MJ smokers? I happen
to have quite a few friends who smoke mj, and, though I do not smoke myself,
I do not look down on anyone, except for my natural ability to do so....
D.G. Porter
>
> Thanks. Couldn't have said it better -- just didn't want to offend. You
> should repost this so everyone can get a good sniff of it.
>
> Again, thanks you so very much ....
>
> The Clown ....
I don't care who I piss off right now, but my offer to build an alliance
has been there for at least 6 years and I am still holding out my hand.
You and everyone else is very welcome.
Marky
: Look, you moron, nicotine and cannabis are DRUGS.
Are you talking to yourself?
: You high and mighty asswipes have been sitting pretty for years,
: thinking no one will topuch you while you smoke your smelly shit, and
: look down on cannabis smokers as wsome kindof dirty "dopes," and now
: that you get a taste of your own medicine, listen to how you whine.
High and mighty? Ha, we have been far too accomodating to idiots to be
deemed this, but you will soon see that the shoe fits.
: I don't care what you smoke. Just don't blow it in my face.
Where in Canada do you live?
But if ou want to protect your right to smoke that shit, you'd better drop
some of
: your prejudice and ignorance and get allied with people who will
: preserve your rights providing you recognize theirs.
And when have I not respected your right to inhale air pollution?
: You don't think nicotine is a drug, eh? Tell that to the next poor slob
: who can't get his "fix" because the stores are closed and he ran out of
: his Likely Strokes!
Nope, not a drug, neither is coca-cola....
: My mother-in-law died of cancer and very day she just had to have he
: "fix" even though it was killing her. But oh no, nicotine isn't a drug,
: and that evil marijuana is!
Who said mj is a drug? It gets people high, tobacco does not...
: I'm going to be laffing when you guys are criminalized!
Hmmm, once a criminal, what have we got to lose? Killing stupid idiots would
follow naturally....target practice....
Is that what you really, really want?
Marky
: MY MY MY! LOOK at how DEFENSIVE the NICOTINE ADDICTS get when we jump
: on them for HYPOCRISY!!!
: Hey dude! If you want to form an alliance, there's still time before
: they make criminals out of you! But you better be willing to extend
: your rights to me!
Hey dude, why bother...one by one we can destroy the country....
David MacLean
> Kyoteee wrote:
> >
> > jani....@pp.inet.fi (Sir Robin) wrote:
> >
> > >Yes they are. Only ones who dont define it as drugs are stupid peoples
and law.
> > >
they are
> > >drugs in every other way.
> >
>
> PRETZEL LOGIC by a NICOTINE ADDICT.
> NICOTNIE ADDICT DEFINITION OF "DRUG": That which is a drug but is
> currently illegal.
> NICOTINE ADDICT DEFINITION OF NON-DRUG: That which is a drug but is not
> currently illegal.
> MY DRUG: Not illegal, hence, not a drug.
> YOUR DRUG: Illegal, hence a "drug," hence illicit, immoral, evil, and
> not nice.
> WAY TO OBFUSCATE HYPOCRISY: Divert attention to Asprin.
And what drug were you using when you wrote the above?
gweep
> Overdue for your Valium fix, are you?
By the sound of it, I'd say he's overdue for his MJ fix.
Clown's Paw
over for the past couple of years. Guess the situation wasn't bad enough ..
The Clown ...
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
> > > Look, you moron, nicotine and cannabis are DRUGS.
> > > You high and mighty asswipes have been sitting pretty for years,
> > > thinking no one will topuch you while you smoke your smelly shit, and
> > > look down on cannabis smokers as wsome kindof dirty "dopes," and now
> > > that you get a taste of your own medicine, listen to how you whine.
> > > I don't care what you smoke. Just don't blow it in my face. But if ou
> > > want to protect your right to smoke that shit, you'd better drop some of
> > > your prejudice and ignorance and get allied with people who will
> > > preserve your rights providing you recognize theirs.
> > > You don't think nicotine is a drug, eh? Tell that to the next poor slob
> > > who can't get his "fix" because the stores are closed and he ran out of
> > > his Likely Strokes!
> > > My mother-in-law died of cancer and very day she just had to have he
> > > "fix" even though it was killing her. But oh no, nicotine isn't a drug,
> > > and that evil marijuana is!
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:06f57f7b...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
> : Stupid is as stupid does. Smoking doesn't get you high
> (according to
> : smokers anyway). All it does is keep you from having nicotine
> : withdrawal symptoms and makes you smell like a dirty ashtray.
> I hear that posting to a ng where you are not wanted can be very
> addictive.
Hey, all I did was answer a message that was crossposted to one of the
groups that *I* read..
> Especially if you like spreading hatred and have nothing else to
> do with
> your time.
> :
> : Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by
> definition.
> Really? That just about sums up your hate spew, does it? Thanks,
> now go
> away...
You must have led a very sheltered life if you think what I've posted
is a "hate spew".
I don't hate smokers, mostly I feel sorry for them.
I certainly don't want to tell anyone that they can't smoke. It's your
body and it's your business what you put into it. I don't even want to
see cigarettes taxed so heavily that a black market springs up. They
did that in Canada not all that long ago and had to hastily back off on
the taxes...
Arclight
wrote:
>"Scott E" <s.eck...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>>>
>>> >Phew.. am I relieved...
>>> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>>> >
>>> >;-)
>>>
>>> They're not.
>>
>>That's right, they're not. They're drug delivery devices.
>
>You're thinking of Budweiser bottles and Scotch bottles, etc., not
>cigarettes.
So are you saying that Nicotine isn't a drug?
TTFN
Arclight
Arclight
wrote:
>jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>>>
>>> >Phew.. am I relieved...
>>> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>>> >
>>> >;-)
>>> They're not.
>>
>>Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
>
>They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
>expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only because
>the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
>believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who would
>become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
People won't quit just because they want to, my dad wants to quit, but
everytime he tries to stop he gets very agressive, and suffers pretty
severe withdrawal symptoms. I've met Heroin addicts who came off that
cold turkey but can't stop smoking.
D.G. Porter
> : Marky wrote:
> : >
> : > Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> : > news:85m088$bar$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net.
> : > Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of tobacco
> : > being the cause of deaths. Too bad the tobacco fairy is leaving gold
> coins
> : > instead of truths...
> : >
> : > That may never come, so long as there are apologists for the rest of
> human
> : > stupidity....
> : >
> : > Bless them Lord...
> :
> : The tobbacco addicts can't face their addiction! They are in denial.
> : They still see MJ smokers as "evil dopers doIng drugs" while they are
> : clean upstanding citizens whoenjoy a relaxing pasttime. Just wait until
> : they run out of Likely Strokes and can't find a store that is open!
> : "ARGH! The withdrawal!! I can't stand it, I NEED A FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXX!"
> :
> : WELL, GET A TASTE OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE, DUDES! FEEL WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
> : BE DEMONIZED!
>
> You really are a presumptuous idiot. Who looks down on MJ smokers? I happen
> to have quite a few friends who smoke mj, and, though I do not smoke myself,
> I do not look down on anyone, except for my natural ability to do so....
Then I accept you as "The Exception That Proves The Rule."
Please excuse me for lumping you in with 99.99% of tobacco users who
call their smoke "a food" and mine "a drug."
D.G. Porter
omega95
where ever you like.
You have just proven you can't even bitch at the right person so what's your
point? Maybe something getting to you? The crossposting, although assinine as
Hell stays so that all will know.
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:387F97...@pacbell.net...
> omega95 wrote:
> >
> > <e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl> wrote in message news:387e55a0...@news.cistron.nl..
> > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:08:28 GMT, Alexandre Oeming
> > > <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> > > >noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> > > >routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> > > >class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> > > >Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> > > >the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> > > >
> > > >"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> > > >a cigarette."
> > >
> > > Phew.. am I relieved...
> > > I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> > > ;-)
> >
Scott E
> "Scott E" <s.eck...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
> >>
> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> >
> >> >;-)
> >>
> >
> >That's right, they're not. They're drug delivery devices.
>
> You're thinking of Budweiser bottles and Scotch bottles, etc., not
> cigarettes.
What possible definition of 'drug' do you use that includes
alcohol but excludes nicotine?
Scott E.
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
> : You must have led a very sheltered life if you think what I've
> posted
> : is a "hate spew".
Glad you agree... ;-)
> :
> : I don't hate smokers, mostly I feel sorry for them.
> :
> The last thing you need to extend is your sympathy...you will feel
> the brunt
> of your own hate.
Why should I hate? I'm married to an ex-smoker who still puffs half a
cig about twice a year.
> : I certainly don't want to tell anyone that they can't smoke.
> It's your
> : body and it's your business what you put into it. I don't even
> want to
> : see cigarettes taxed so heavily that a black market springs up.
> They
> : did that in Canada not all that long ago and had to hastily back
> off on
> : the taxes...
> :
> : JC
> Glad you understand that much, because whether we are criminals or
> not, the
> implication is that we are and that is enough to rouse
> hostilities...watch..
Depends on how you define "criminal" doesn't it? If you define
"criminal" as being against the letter of the law whatever that law may
be, then while smokers are not now "criminals" they very well could be
made such in the future.
On the other hand if you define "criminal" as "one who has violated the
rights of another" then smokers could not be arbitrarily made criminals.
catwoman
<dgpo...@pacbell.net> writes
>
>MY MY MY! LOOK at how DEFENSIVE the NICOTINE ADDICTS get when we jump
>on them for HYPOCRISY!!!
>Hey dude! If you want to form an alliance, there's still time before
>they make criminals out of you! But you better be willing to extend
>your rights to me!
Who are you calling DEFENSIVE????
Seems to me that it's you and your cronies who knowingly cross-posted to
alt.smokers and immediately jumped up and down like children screaming
that cigarette smokers did not support mj smokers, when you have *no*
idea of the views of the people you address.
If you're looking for an alliance, you have a very strange approach.
The only people that most of the members of alt.smokers have a problem
with is anti-smokers. In the last 16 months I have not seen one single
criticism of mj smokers in this ng.
Don't presume hypocrisy and prejudice without checking your facts first.
PLEEEEEEEEZ!
Whatever you're smoking, ENJOY IT!
FWIW, although I don't use it myself, I think that mj *should* be de-
criminalised. It makes no sense to me that alcohol is legal and cheap,
while cigarettes are taxed to high heaven, and mj is illegal. The most
deadly and dangerous of the three would *have* to be alcohol.
Love, peace,
Catwoman xxx
^ ^
o o ~
x___~
Alexandre Oeming
<catw...@bobcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I agree whole-heartedly. Still, i feel i should let everyone know that i
x-posted this article to alt.smokers b/c i lurk around a.s and felt that
they would find this amusing and insightful. I didn't want to start a "you
v. me" scenario. The "aunties" are basically the same people we're all
fighting for our collective survival against. Let's all just be friends,
ok?
Alexandre
"Corrupisima republica plurimae leges."
Alexandre Oeming
<sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> Who said mj is a drug? It gets people high, tobacco does not...
What? Dude, i beg to differ. When i first started smoking tobacco, i was
on Marlboro Lights, but when i chained a few Reds, i got buzzed off me
ass! I'll admit that you do develop tolerance, but tobacco *does* get you
high. I haven't had a smoke since August, but if i lit up now, i'd be high
as a kite.
> : I'm going to be laffing when you guys are criminalized!
>
> Hmmm, once a criminal, what have we got to lose? Killing stupid idiots would
> follow naturally....target practice....
>
> Is that what you really, really want?
Not really. He just doesn't know or understand you yet. The lack of common
sense wrt illicit drug policy (over YEARS!) has got D.G. a bit on edge.
Give him a little time and i'm sure you'll find him to be a funny guy with
lots to say just like i do. ;)
catwoman
Oeming <cara...@sopris.net> writes
Thank you :)
>Still, i feel i should let everyone know that i
>x-posted this article to alt.smokers
Thanks again :)
> b/c i lurk around a.s and felt that
>they would find this amusing and insightful. I didn't want to start a "you
>v. me" scenario. The "aunties" are basically the same people we're all
>fighting for our collective survival against.
Agreed. I think you'll find a hell of a lot of agreement with that
statement from those in alt.smokers. We have *quite* enough trouble
with them, without DGP throwing yet another spanner in the works.
>Let's all just be friends,
>ok?
Wouldn't have it any other way. Was deeply surprised to find that any
mj smokers would suggest otherwise. I know many mj smokers myself, and
not one of them holds such a view. Now, if you can calm your gang down,
maybe we can get down to those amusing and insightful discussions you
intended..
For starters.. what exactly is the law regarding mj use in the U.S? My
understanding of it in the UK is that your allowed to have it if it's
only for personal use. I'm not sure whether that's actually written in
*law*, but that's how it works in reality.
Ever been to Amsterdam?
>
>Alexandre
>
>"Corrupisima republica plurimae leges."
Love, peace,
Marky
: Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
: My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
: You a criminal, you societal dropout!
: Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
: You go to jail!
: Me keep freedom!
You will loose your freedom...idiot
Marky
jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:00372b38...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
: You must have led a very sheltered life if you think what I've posted
: is a "hate spew".
Ha, ha, haaaaa! Sheltered life, eh? Right.
:
: I don't hate smokers, mostly I feel sorry for them.
:
The last thing you need to extend is your sympathy...you will feel the brunt
of your own hate.
: I certainly don't want to tell anyone that they can't smoke. It's your
Marky
Alexandre Oeming <cara...@sopris.net> wrote in message
news:caracarn-140...@s29-c-lv1.sopris.net...
: In article <W6Nf4.34995$tT2.2...@quark.idirect.com>, "Marky"
: Alexandre
:
: "Corrupisima republica plurimae leges."
My time is precious, I certainly hope he is quick with his wit...and slow
with the condemnation...
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-14 sad...@idirect.ca said:
>Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of
>tobacco being the cause of deaths.
Do tell. If you have evidence to present that contradicts the facts from
the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health
Organization, thousands upon thousands of death certificates in the
United States from various and sundry medical examiners ad nauseum, then
by all means present it.
Should you wish to see their evidence, simply ask and I will provide it
to you.
It's one of my favorite pastimes providing factual peer-reviewed
evidence about drugs and their effects to those who are in denial.
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the
United States alone with 430,000 deaths yearly.
All ya gotta do is contradict that statement with facts.
In the meantime, here are some of mine:
==
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/oshaag.htm
An estimated ,----------------------------------------------
47 million | In 1996, smoking-related |
adults in the | illnesses cost the nation |
United States | more than $100 billion. |
smoke |----------------------------------------------+
cigarettes,
even though
this behavior will result in death or disability for one out of every two
regular users. Tobacco use results in more than 430,000 deaths each year,
or one in every five deaths. Paralleling this enormous health burden is
the economic burden of tobacco use: more than $50 billion in medical
expenditures and another $50 billion in indirect costs.
Since the release in 1964 of the first Surgeon General s report on
smoking and health, the scientific knowledge about the health
consequences of tobacco use has greatly increased. It is now well
documented that smoking can cause chronic lung disease, coronary heart
disease, and stroke, as well as cancer of the lung, larynx, esophagus,
mouth, and bladder. In addition, smoking is known to contribute to cancer
of the cervix, pancreas, and kidney. Researchers have identified more
than 40 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause cancer in humans and
animals. Smokeless tobacco and cigars also have deadly consequences,
including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancer.
The effects of smoking don t end with the smoker. Women who use tobacco
during pregnancy are more likely to have adverse birth outcomes,
including babies with low birthweight, a leading cause of death among
infants. The health of nonsmokers is adversely affected by environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS). Each year, exposure to ETS causes an estimated 3,000
nonsmoking Americans to die of lung cancer and causes up to 300,000
children to suffer from lower respiratory tract infections. Evidence also
indicates that ETS increases the risk of coronary heart disease...
==
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm
World Health Organization - Health Implications of Cannabis.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-13 jthom...@pdq.net said:
Michael Hess said:
>>Actually that would be _any_ cigarette smoker in major denial
>>about just how dangerous and addictive that cigarette smoking is.
>It could merely be someone who is being pedantic. A cigarette is
>not a drug, addictive or otherwise.
I'm sorry. That is not supportable by ANY factual evidence from the
world medical community at large.
But do please, feel free to offer to these forums some factual,
peer-reviewed medical evidence that nicotine is NOT an addictive and
deadly substance. And that cigarettes are NOT a drug delivery device.
I and others, anxiously await your evidence...
>Jonny-Jons
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs - Table of Contents.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-14 sad...@idirect.ca said:
>Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>: Criteria of Addiction
>:
>: 1. Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended.
>How much more do you smoke on a daily basis?
Well, that depends. When the wholly punitive tobacco rate hikes went
into effect I tried some of the various cut rate cigarettes to save
money. I found that most did not have my desired need for nicotine.
For instance, with Maverick Menthols, the taste was agreeable with me,
but I found that I needed to smoke about four packs a day as compared to
my usual two packs a day with Kools.
That made my throat hurt, and I still preferred Kools for taste.
In a study of n1, I found that I had to go to a drug delivery device
which carried twice as much active ingredient, nicotine, to satisfy my
body's cravings for the drug.
>:
>: 2. Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
>That must mean that the millions of people who have quit, really
>didn't quit
Oh they quit. I quit rock cocaine ten years ago also. And I managed to
do it without a crack patch or a several thousand dollar forced
Schick Clinic treatment program. When I decide to quit Kool's it will be
in much the same way. When I decide that the drug has gotten as much out
of me and my health as I'm willing to give it up.
>:
>: 3. Excessive time spent in drug seeking.
>Oh, yes, I spend at least ten minutes a day...
I know you're having a problem in distinguishing a drugs legality from
its pharmacologic action, many do. But the fact remains, the reason you
likely even spend _less_ than that to purchase cigarettes is because
they are LEGAL.
Simply make them illegal and then you have the new crack rock...
It's that simple.
>:
>: 4. Feeling intoxicated at inappropriate times, or feeling
>withdrawal
>Hmmmm, intoxicated?
I've smoked for 29 years. I don't know of a smoker yet who can claim
that cigarettes cannot get them high in some way including me. It takes
actually staying away from them for awhile, even a matter of hours.
For instance, at work our server went down not too long ago so we had
some extra time to go outside and smoke up. I smoked five Kools in rapid
succession and got a little buzz. Certainly not like drinking a fifth of
scotch nor even like smoking a joint but still a distinct high.
And something else about that question is nagging at me and I don't seem
to see it in my tobacco files, I think Pete Zakel has a pointer or a
copy of some research which bears on this point. I do know that
cognitive responses are affected positively by tobacco smoking during
tedious tasks. Pete?
>: symptoms from a drug at such times.
>:
>: 5. Giving up other things for it.
>Yep, I gave up a career in brain surgery for smoking...
I spend more than $180 a month for Kools. Am I giving up something for
it?
Yep. Anything from a four wheeler to a brand new ford truck and a tank
and a half a gas per month to drive it. You tell me. What are YOU giving
up?
>:
>: 6. Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
>Puleeeez! You mean because of falsified evidence I have to accept
>that smoking is harmful...or more harmful than living in polluted
>cities....good God, is there no end to the demonization?
We in drug policy reform circles ask this question on a daily basis.
I do not believe the evidence is falsified. Because the very same
medical organizations that have done the research on tobacco smoking
have also come to the conclusion that marijuana, even smoked, is less
harmful than tobacco smoking and alcohol use.
I do agree about the demonization. It's one of my pet peeves when it
comes to other drug use.
And there has been some recent research that shows the second hand smoke
issue from tobacco is overblown. so to speak. But to claim that smoking
any plant material is free from health risk is just plain silly. And
wholly unsupportable by science.
>: 7. Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy
>increases at : first before leveling off.
>Sure, now I smoke 25 cigarettes in the morning with my coffee, and
>smoke only 1 the rest of the day...soon I will be smoking 50 in the
>morning, and two the rest of the day....piss off, eh!
Be realistic and a little more honest with yourself. I've smoked for
almost thirty years. When I get up I need several cigarettes to bring my
nicotine level up to what my body requires because of my dependence
before I level off to my three or four an hour.
>:
>: 8. Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs.
>Yes, everytime I want to smoke I get this urge to withdraw from the
>rest of society because they don't like (paranoid, actually) smoke..
Now you're just being facetious. If my work breaks (smoke breaks), were
suddenly during the work day made into four hour breaks rather than two
I would have a problem adjusting. If I run out of cigarettes and there
is no way that I am going to be able to get some for some hours I would
be very impacted. If there were some shortage of cigarettes, or if I was
dependent upon a black market for delivery of my substance of choice,
then yes, there would be some times that I would be as agitated as a
crack addict.
I know, because I was one once.
>.
>:
>: 9. Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal.
>Hmmmm, if I really WANTED to quit, that would not be an issue.
Good for you. Now explain why 83% of heroin addicts who kick don't stop
smoking even though they receive concurrent treatment information about
the dangers of cigarette smoking?
And please don't make the claim that smoking is not hazardous to health.
That claim is absolutely unsupportable.
>: : Before applying a test of the nine criteria, the expert first
>determines : if the symptoms have persisted for at least a month or
>have occurred : repeatedly over a longer period of time.
>Expert? Ha!
I reckon. _I_ have trouble with one off studies. I do not have much of a
leg to stand on to dispute thousands of studies that all reach very
similar conclusions. I would just look silly.
><snippage of the rest of this crap>
Welp, you can call it crap but the Henningfield Benowitz ratings are
from the stuff science is made of.
Bring some to the table and we can certainly talk further.
But once again, the claim that nicotine is not a drug and that tobacco
cigarettes are not drug delivery devices is simply non-supportable by
any stretch of medical evidence.
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm
Milton Friedman on the Drug War.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-14 gu...@vaporizer.com said:
>Michael Hess wrote:
>> 'Don't get me wrong. I am a Kool addict and if you want to look
>>up FDA v. Brown & Williamson, I certainly suggest you do. It will
>>be a VERY important US Supreme Court decision in the coming
>months here in the US.
>Maybe.
Eh. I feel sure of it.
>Even if the FDA can't regulate them as drugs, it seems to me the
>DEA can still Schedule them as "controlled substances".
Yup. The issue before the high court is whether the FDA has the
authority to regulate nicotine as a drug.
>The issue before The Supremes is whether or not they are a "drug"
>in the medicinal sense; obviously they are not.
Nicotine patches are regulated by the FDA are they not?
>However, the CSA makes constant referrences to "drugs or other
>substances", so whether they qualify as "drugs" to the FDA shouldn't
>affect the DEA's ability to add them to the SCS. (sheesh, how many
>TLA's can I fit in one sentence? :)
Heh heh.
>just a thought...
And I can dig it. It will be kicked back to Congress after the Supremes
rule against the FDA. According to the article Congress is not all that
keen on making more legislation to force tobacco to be considered a drug.
For that reason, it has become an enormous talking point in drug policy
reform to me because of my ongoing contention that judicial fiat does not
define a given drugs pharmacology.
That further defines to me the clear arbitrary and double standard to
some popular recreational substances and not others. As time goes by,
and after I see this decision, I may myself take the plunge and test the
law for the real question.
I have yet to understand why I can go to the corner store and buy a
couple of substances that may very well kill me, either immediately by
overdose or a slower, drawn out death, and why I am not allowed to
choose a safer way to recreate.
Which of course you already know.
What I think is that if the Supremes _do_ rule against the FDA's
authority, then we have an amazing dichotomy in US law.
Uhhh, now it's time for me to quickly transcribe ABC's John Stossell
piece on tonight's 20/20 that just blew me away.
It was the bomb, without a doubt, ABC does NOT want to be included in
that whore hypocritical journalism that say CBS is "proud" of.
No wonder they had "no comment" in the Salon article. It was because
they had the tape in the can man. It was great. And Barbara Walters was
right there in it too. This is some pretty hot stuff.
I was never so pleased than what I just watched.
Back in a sec...
>--
>~Peace
>Gurn Blanston
>______________________________
>medicinal marijuana vaporizers
>http://www.vaporizer.com
>"'The drug czar has refused to be at any public event where
>[Ethan] Nadelmann is,' says Reinarman. '[McCaffrey] is probably
>smart enough to avoid embarrassment.'
>Calvina Fay, deputy executive director at the Drug Free America
>Foundation,
>who has never been on a panel with Nadelmann, says, 'We don't think
>debating is a very good idea.'"
>-recent usenet post
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Other/deathtab.htm - DEA
Budget and Drug Related Death.
Marky
:
:
:: >Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of
: >tobacco being the cause of deaths.
:
: Do tell. If you have evidence to present that contradicts the facts from
: the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health
: Organization, thousands upon thousands of death certificates in the
: United States from various and sundry medical examiners ad nauseum, then
: by all means present it.
I've read it, and I am not impressed.
:
: Should you wish to see their evidence, simply ask and I will provide it
: to you.
I've read it and am not impressed.
:
: It's one of my favorite pastimes providing factual peer-reviewed
: evidence about drugs and their effects to those who are in denial.
Hmm, denial? I doubt that you have read the evidence if you consider it
conclusive. No mention of radiation exposure, no mention of pollution, no
actual process known....I recently read a piece by a leading oncologist in
Canada, and there is no known cause of any form of cancer....only
conjecture...
:
: Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the
: United States alone with 430,000 deaths yearly.
bullshit.
: All ya gotta do is contradict that statement with facts.
What causes plaque accumulationn in arteries (290,000 of your above
figure...not specific)
: In the meantime, here are some of mine:
:
: ==
: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/oshaag.htm
:
: Since the release in 1964 of the first Surgeon General s report on
Are you aware that this was released a year after another researcher found a
direct correlation to inhalation of radioactive fallout and lung
cancer...reduced lung clearance was the main factor...sound like smoking?
: The effects of smoking don t end with the smoker. Women who use tobacco
: during pregnancy are more likely to have adverse birth outcomes,
this is such a load of crap I'm surprised you people are still posting
it...
: including babies with low birthweight, a leading cause of death among
: infants. The health of nonsmokers is adversely affected by environmental
: tobacco smoke (ETS).
You mean the EPA study that was tossed out? Get real...
Each year, exposure to ETS causes an estimated 3,000
Give me one victim and I will stand trial for murder, otherwise...never
mind...you wouldn't understand...
Did you say you were a smoker? Poser!
Marky
Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:85orhs$mpc$2...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
That figures, a government Web site aimed to demonize smokers....tell me,
how did they account for all that air pollution and radioactive fallout?
Jon Thompson
wrote:
>
>
>
>On 2000-01-13 jthom...@pdq.net said:
>
>Michael Hess said:
>
> >>Actually that would be _any_ cigarette smoker in major denial
> >>about just how dangerous and addictive that cigarette smoking is.
>
> >It could merely be someone who is being pedantic. A cigarette is
> >not a drug, addictive or otherwise.
>
>I'm sorry. That is not supportable by ANY factual evidence from the
>world medical community at large.
>
>But do please, feel free to offer to these forums some factual,
>peer-reviewed medical evidence that nicotine is NOT an addictive and
>deadly substance. And that cigarettes are NOT a drug delivery device.
>
>I and others, anxiously await your evidence...
Can you point out where I made either of those claims? Perhaps I need
to clean my glasses, as I can't find anything of the sort. I merely
stated that a cigarette (i.e. the object itself) is not a drug. If
you have any evidence that purports to show otherwise, feel free to
present it.
Jonny-Jons
Gurn Blanston
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
>
> Gurn Blanston wrote:
> >
> > Sir Robin wrote:
> > >
> > > By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
> > > drugs in every other way.
> >
> > Where did you get this?? By whose law??
>
> Don't try to get logic from these fuckers, they are too busy kissing
> government ass and sucking authority dick to thinkfor themselves.
> "DADDY SAYS IT'S BAD, SO IT'S BAD! ME GONNA TELL MOMMY ON YOU!!!"
D.G., try to pay attention to the thread before you spout off. Sir Robin
is on *our* side of the debate, he is not in favor of prohibition. I was
simply asking him what law defines "drugs" as "illegal drugs", since no
US law that I know of does (and he is not from the US).
Audrey
jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <brju7s4n0u2gl4dr4...@4ax.com>, Kyoteee
> <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > "Marky" <sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
> > >
> > >: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> > >:
> > >: > >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers
> > quit?
> > >
> > >: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> > >: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> > >: > because
> > >: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers
> > who
> > >: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and
> > who
> > >: > would
> > >: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> > >:
> > >: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be*
> > smokers.
> > >
> > >Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the
> > world....fire
> > >one....
> > The guy just has to be from talk.politics. No one else in the
> > other
> > crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of
> > course.
>
> Stupid is as stupid does. Smoking doesn't get you high (according to
> smokers anyway). All it does is keep you from having nicotine
> withdrawal symptoms and makes you smell like a dirty ashtray.
>
> Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by definition.
>
> JC
>
Who appointed you Noah Webster? When your dictionary comes out in print then
I'll take your *OPINION* into consideration.
Audrey
Audrey
Kyoteee wrote:
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Gurn Blanston wrote:
> >>
> >> Sir Robin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
> >> > drugs in every other way.
> >>
> >> Where did you get this?? By whose law??
> >
> >Don't try to get logic from these fuckers, they are too busy kissing
> >government ass and sucking authority dick to thinkfor themselves.
> >"DADDY SAYS IT'S BAD, SO IT'S BAD! ME GONNA TELL MOMMY ON YOU!!!"
> >
> >I know, iknow, we shouldn't take thistack, but I've read this NG for
> >years and watched people int he media and govenment, and it makes no
> >difference whatever facts one comes up with. If that were the case, The
> >1998 IoM report would have been hailed and taken a a new basis for
> >policy. It wasn't. People don't care about facts. They just want you
> >to obey whatever stupid law the people they elect force on you and bend
> >over and present your asshole for their pleasure.
>
> Overdue for your Valium fix, are you?
Is anybody a bit confused like I am? In this post D.G. Porter sounds like he's
completely on our side. Then you read the other posts and we're under complete attack.
Is he pro-personal freedom, pro-marijuana or anti-smoker? I'm soooo confused.
Audrey
Audrey
D.G. Porter wrote:
> Kyoteee wrote:
> >
> > "Scott E" <s.eck...@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> > >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> > >> >
> > >> >;-)
> > >>
> > >> They're not.
> > >
> > >That's right, they're not. They're drug delivery devices.
> >
> > You're thinking of Budweiser bottles and Scotch bottles, etc., not
> > cigarettes.
>
> Notice the MENTAL GYNMASTICS and PRETZEL LOGIC the nicotine addict goes
> through to separate "them" from "us"! "HIM!!! Not me, HIM!! HE'S the
> addict! NOT ME! I don't use drugs! I only smoke cigarettes!"
Heyyyyy! NOW ya got it right!! <snick> By the way, I'm assuming from
your posts you want to legalize marijuana. Why are you attacking us? Who
here said anything about your smoking choice?
And if I'm wrong............... Give me a break and pipe down.
Audrey
D.G. Porter wrote:
> Marky wrote:
> >
> > Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:85m088$bar$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net..
> >
> > Truth is, there is not a shred of evidence to back the claims of tobacco
> > being the cause of deaths. Too bad the tobacco fairy is leaving gold coins
> > instead of truths...
> >
> > That may never come, so long as there are apologists for the rest of human
> > stupidity....
> >
> > Bless them Lord...
>
> The tobbacco addicts can't face their addiction! They are in denial.
> They still see MJ smokers as "evil dopers doIng drugs" while they are
> clean upstanding citizens whoenjoy a relaxing pasttime. Just wait until
> they run out of Likely Strokes and can't find a store that is open!
> "ARGH! The withdrawal!! I can't stand it, I NEED A FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXX!"
>
> WELL, GET A TASTE OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE, DUDES! FEEL WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
> BE DEMONIZED!
<sigh>.. anyone else think this is a sad example of unfocused anger?
Go smoke your pot. What do I care and I'm a cop for chrissakes! The only
difference I can see between pot smokers and cigarette smokers is that if the
pot smoker doesn't have money to buy it, he will steal it or pawn something to
buy it. Cigarette smokers do not Of course, I am referring to those pot
smokers who do not use it in merely a recreational way.
There, now I've give you something to focus on. Happy now?
Audrey
Audrey
D.G. Porter wrote:
> omega95 wrote:
> >
> > <e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl> wrote in message news:387e55a0...@news.cistron.nl..
> > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:08:28 GMT, Alexandre Oeming
> > > <caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
> > > >noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
> > > >routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
> > > >class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
> > > >Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
> > > >the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
> > > >
> > > >"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
> > > >a cigarette."
> > >
> > > Phew.. am I relieved...
> > > I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> > > ;-)
> >
> > Well, you thought wrong.
>
> ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
> Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
> My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
> You a criminal, you societal dropout!
> Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
> You go to jail!
> Me keep freedom!
>
> Well, enjoy it while you can, Fuckworth, 'cause the Morals Nazis are
> going to get you next.
Holy crappola batman! Can't you tell when someone is just pasting an article and
not vocalizing their opinion?!? You're making a very bad case for your side ya
know. The point to be gleened from this was about smoking. Marijuana was just
thrown in for reference.
Audrey
Arclight
So someone has to have a dictionary named after them for you to take
there opinion into consideration? You have severe problems.
TTFN
Arclight
Arclight
wrote:
If that's your logic, then Beer isn't a drug, Marijuana isn't a drug,
Magic Mushrooms aren't a drug, and Tab's aren't a drug,
Audrey
Marky wrote:
> Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:85orhs$mpc$2...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> : http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/oshaag.htm
>
> That figures, a government Web site aimed to demonize smokers....tell me,
> how did they account for all that air pollution and radioactive fallout?
Phewwwwwwww Marky. I knew you'd be able to speak *my* mind <chucklin'>. I
just didn't have the patience to address this line of manure. Thanks for
taking up the slack.
Audrey :-)
Audrey
Arclight wrote:
Excuse me, I shall quote:TTFN
ArclightWeb Site:
wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/daniel.davies/
"Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by definition."
I assumed you wrote your own definition - Gullible: An act of one who starts a silly habit.
That IS what you said, no? I can't wait to read *your* dictionary
and look up "silly habit." Until then, you'd be wise to preface
your remarks with the words "In my OPINION"
e...@xtc.nl
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:08:28 GMT, Alexandre Oeming
><caraca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But what really got his goat was this: As he waited in the courtroom, he
>>noticed that the guys charged with simple marijuana possession were
>>routinely allowed to pay $65 and sign up for a one-day drug diversion
>>class, after which the offense would be erased from their records.
>>Meanwhile he, Harold Wood, bar smoker, who'd never been in trouble with
>>the law, had to pay a bigger fine and go down on record as a malefactor!
>>
>>"It's not fair," Harold says. "They were smoking drugs; all I smoked was
>>a cigarette."
Sorry, forgot the tags.....
<sarcasm>
>Phew.. am I relieved...
>I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
</sarcasm>
;-}
e.
Arclight
<10277...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>--------------1A022FF002309AAD72AF8DD5
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Excuse me, I shall quote:
>
>"Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by definition."
>
>I assumed you wrote your own definition - Gullible: An act of one who starts a
>silly habit.
>
>That IS what you said, no?
No that is not what I said, that is what jvc...@aol.com said, Try
paying attention next time. Dumbass.
> I can't wait to read *your* dictionary and look up
>"silly habit." Until then, you'd be wise to preface your remarks with the words
>"In my OPINION"
Kyoteee
>Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the
>United States alone with 430,000 deaths yearly.
>
>All ya gotta do is contradict that statement with facts.
All ya gotta do is prove that statement with unbiased, scientific
facts. But you can't, because it's a figure that someone pulled out
of the sky to inflame the general populace.
Kyoteee
>Kyoteee wrote:
>>
>> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Look, you moron, nicotine and cannabis are DRUGS.
>> >You high and mighty asswipes have been sitting pretty for years,
>> >thinking no one will topuch you while you smoke your smelly shit, and
>> >look down on cannabis smokers as wsome kindof dirty "dopes," and now
>> >that you get a taste of your own medicine, listen to how you whine.
>> >I don't care what you smoke. Just don't blow it in my face. But if ou
>> >want to protect your right to smoke that shit, you'd better drop some of
>> >your prejudice and ignorance and get allied with people who will
>> >preserve your rights providing you recognize theirs.
>> >You don't think nicotine is a drug, eh? Tell that to the next poor slob
>> >who can't get his "fix" because the stores are closed and he ran out of
>> >his Likely Strokes!
>> >My mother-in-law died of cancer and very day she just had to have he
>> >"fix" even though it was killing her. But oh no, nicotine isn't a drug,
>> >and that evil marijuana is!
>> >I'm going to be laffing when you guys are criminalized!
>>
>> Here..have a ciggie...it'll help to calm you down. Or do you prefer
>> to take Valium to control your hysterica?
>
>Again with the Valium! You use that shit too??? Man, flush that stuff
>down the toilet! It is very bad for you and your well-being.
>Here, have a doobie, much better.
>My offer of an alliance still stands.
>Before they came for the Jews, they came for the Gypsies...
<sigh> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see. I *ASKED*
you if "you prefer to take Valium to control your hysteria?" See the
little question mark at the end? That means a question, not a
statement. I've never had a Valium in my life, but I know that some
people with uncontrolled hysteria (such as you suffer from) do depend
on that drug to get themselves through the day.
As for an alliance, when you stop hating people for what they do, then
maybe we can talk.
Kyoteee
>I don't care who I piss off right now,
That's patently obvious.
> but my offer to build an alliance
>has been there for at least 6 years and I am still holding out my hand.
> You and everyone else is very welcome.
Based on what criteria?
Kyoteee
>Kyoteee wrote:
>>
>> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
>> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
>> >> >
>> >> >;-)
>> >> They're not.
>> >
>> >Then why are nicotine patches and gum needed to help smokers quit?
>>
>> They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
>> expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only because
>> the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers who
>> believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and who would
>> become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
>
>AHAH! This guy is one of those tobacco execs who committed perjury in
>front of Congress! One of the guys Scalia referred to when he dismissed
>their perjury because "Nobody believed them"! Tobacco addicts sure love
>living in De Nile!
I'm a girl, bucko, and I've never been an executive in the tobacco
industry. Just goes to show how much research you've done...on *any*
topic.
In another post, Alexandre said that you want marijuana to be
decriminalized ... and yet you hate smokers and spew hatred for them.
We could very well be your best friends on the mj issue, and yet you
continue to show us nothing but contempt and hatred. That's not
exactly the way to win friends and influence people.
Kyoteee
>Kyoteee wrote:
>
>> Overdue for your Valium fix, are you?
>
>By the sound of it, I'd say he's overdue for his MJ fix.
<snicker>
Kyoteee
<dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Kyoteee wrote:
>>
>> jani....@pp.inet.fi (Sir Robin) wrote:
>>
>> >Yes they are. Only ones who dont define it as drugs are stupid peoples and law.
>> >
>> >By law drug means illegal drug... Legal drugs are not drugs by law but they are
>> >drugs in every other way.
>>
>> Aspirin is an illegal drug? According to your frothing above, it is.
>
>PRETZEL LOGIC by a NICOTINE ADDICT.
>NICOTNIE ADDICT DEFINITION OF "DRUG": That which is a drug but is
>currently illegal.
>NICOTINE ADDICT DEFINITION OF NON-DRUG: That which is a drug but is not
>currently illegal.
>MY DRUG: Not illegal, hence, not a drug.
>YOUR DRUG: Illegal, hence a "drug," hence illicit, immoral, evil, and
>not nice.
>WAY TO OBFUSCATE HYPOCRISY: Divert attention to Asprin.
For heaven's sake! Please learn how to comprehend what you read!
Better still, have a literate person translate to you what Sir Robin
claimed, then my response to it.
BTW, you're late for your meds. Call the nurse.
Kyoteee
>ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
>Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
>My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
>You a criminal, you societal dropout!
>Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
>You go to jail!
>Me keep freedom!
Any Native Americans out there who find this offensive as hell?
Arclight
wrote:
Why should they find it offensive?
Or are you just trying to avoid answering what he said.
Kyoteee
>Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
>>>Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
>>>My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
>>>You a criminal, you societal dropout!
>>>Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
>>>You go to jail!
>>>Me keep freedom!
>>
>>Any Native Americans out there who find this offensive as hell?
>Why should they find it offensive?
Since you're posting from the UK, I wouldn't expect you to know. Any
conscious U.S. citizen does, though.
>Or are you just trying to avoid answering what he said.
What's to answer? His hysterical, nonsensical, impossible to take
seriously tirade?
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<10277...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> > In article <brju7s4n0u2gl4dr4...@4ax.com>, Kyoteee
> > <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > "Marky" <sad...@idirect.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >jvc...@aol.com wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >: Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >: > jvc...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >:
> smokers
> > > quit?
> > > >
> > > >: > They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she
> will. No
> > > >: > expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed
> only
> > > >: > because
> > > >: > the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible
> smokers
> > > who
> > > >: > believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them
> and
> > > who
> > > >: > would
> > > >: > become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> > > >: Well duh, *all* smokers are gullible or they wouldn't *be*
> > > smokers.
> > > >
> > > >Oh, boy, another flame war brought on by the idiots of the
> > > world....fire
> > > >one....
> > > The guy just has to be from talk.politics. No one else in the
> > > other
> > > crossposted ngs could be that stupid. Except for Aunties, of
> > > course.
> >
> > Stupid is as stupid does. Smoking doesn't get you high
> (according to
> > smokers anyway). All it does is keep you from having nicotine
> > withdrawal symptoms and makes you smell like a dirty ashtray.
> >
> > Anyone who would start such a silly habit is gullible by
> definition.
> >
> > JC
> >
> Who appointed you Noah Webster? When your dictionary comes out in
> print then
> I'll take your *OPINION* into consideration.
One does not have to have written their own dictionary in order to read
the definitions of words.
Gullible, adjective: easily deceived or cheated, readily duped
-Websters Third New International Dictionary-
> Audrey
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's
> Discussion Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet
> - Free!
JC
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
<10277...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> D.G. Porter wrote:
> > Marky wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Hmm.. A cop claiming that no thieves are smokers and that no smokers
are thieves.
Just *how* long have you been an LEO?
> Of course, I am referring to
> those pot
> smokers who do not use it in merely a recreational way.
Now you are claiming that recreational tokers do not steal to support
their habit but those who use for medicinal purposes *do* steal to
provide their medicine..
> There, now I've give you something to focus on. Happy now?
> Audrey
JC
jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid
> >>
> >> jvc...@aol.com <jvcroad...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> e...@NOSPAMxtc.nl wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Phew.. am I relieved...
> >> >> >I always thought cigarettes were drugs.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >;-)
> >> >> They're not.
> >> >
> quit?
> >>
> >> They're not. If a smoker wants to quit, then he/she will. No
> >> expensive patches or gum are needed. They were developed only
> because
> >> the manufacturers believed there were enough gullible smokers
> who
> >> believe everything that an ad exec and doctor tells them and
> who would
> >> become cash cows. They were right. Ka-CHING!
> >
> perjury in
> >front of Congress! One of the guys Scalia referred to when he
> dismissed
> >their perjury because "Nobody believed them"! Tobacco addicts
> sure love
> >living in De Nile!
> I'm a girl, bucko, and I've never been an executive in the tobacco
> industry. Just goes to show how much research you've done...on
> *any*
> topic.
> In another post, Alexandre said that you want marijuana to be
> decriminalized ... and yet you hate smokers and spew hatred for
> them.
> We could very well be your best friends on the mj issue, and yet
> you
> continue to show us nothing but contempt and hatred. That's not
> exactly the way to win friends and influence people.
The smokers in this thread are exhibiting exactly the sort of responses
that DG is upset about, ie: Nicotine is not a drug and cigarettes are
not a drug delivery device while simultaneously holding the view that
all illicit substances are indeed drugs.
Isn't it interesting how the phrase "drugs and alcohol" conveniently
leaves out cigarettes?
Dazzy Deb
>Notice the MENTAL GYNMASTICS and PRETZEL LOGIC the nicotine addict goes
>through to separate "them" from "us"! "HIM!!! Not me, HIM!! HE'S the
>addict! NOT ME! I don't use drugs! I only smoke cigarettes!"
Hmmmmm.......when I was smoking mj, I never considered myself to be
an addict. Just as now, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who
presently smokes mj is not an addict.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dazzy Deb
Heaven Doesn't Want Me, and Hell is Afraid I'll Take Over
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon
> is on *our* side of the debate, he is not in favor of prohibition. I was
> simply asking him what law defines "drugs" as "illegal drugs", since no
> US law that I know of does (and he is not from the US).
Fuck this thread is long.
I smoke marijuana mixed with tobacco. I've tried every other way but I just
can't get addicted to cigarettes. Marijuana, however, because it is fun and
gets you high, is highly psychologically addictive.
Who cares if it causes cancer?
Life's too fucking short to worry
Enjoy today stop thinking about tomorrow
--
--- Simon --- House of Herb --- Editor ---
http://hoh.budsmoker.com
Evolution, drugs, religion, science, life,
death, technology, space, time, and more.
Simon
> >Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
> >My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
> >You a criminal, you societal dropout!
> >Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
> >You go to jail!
> >Me keep freedom!
>
> Any Native Americans out there who find this offensive as hell?
What the hell does what he said have to do with Native americans?
It has to do with humans period,.
--
--- Simon --- House of Herb --- Editor ---
http://hoh.budsmoker.com
Evolution, drugs, religion, science, life,
death, technology, space, time, and more.
Kyoteee <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:v1q08s8m0g73qeuqp...@4ax.com...
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-15 10277...@compuserve.com said:
>Marky wrote:
>> Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> : http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/oshaag.htm
>> That figures, a government Web site aimed to demonize smokers....
>>tell me, how did they account for all that air pollution and
>radioactive fallout?
>Phewwwwwwww Marky. I knew you'd be able to speak *my* mind
><chucklin'>. I just didn't have the patience to address this line
>of manure. Thanks for taking up the slack.
And you counter the science with what? A pat on the back to someone who
doesn't know an age adjusted death rate from a steaming pile?
If you want to stand up for your rights then please do so, I'm a smoker,
and I do not want any more punitive taxes put in place on tobacco nor do
I want to see it banned. Which it won't be of course. Too much money in
it for the government...
It does not do smokers any good to run from the science. Stand on
principle, live free or die, but don't be silly and try to claim that
tobacco is not a dangerous, deadly and addictive drug.
It is, there is world scientific consensus that shows replication after
replication.
>Audrey :-)
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/savings.htm - Federal
Financial Analysis of the Legalization of Drugs.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-15 kyo...@mindspring.com said:
>Michael Hess <bbs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Actually, I could spend the next several weeks just pulling research from
my personal files about how deadly and addictive nicotine and the drug
delivery device cigarettes actually are.
On the other hand, I see you refute what I have posted so far with more
personal opinion...
Hmmm, could it be you are talking out of your hat? Me thinks so.
==
Excerpted from: http://www.who.ch/psa/toh/Alert/apr96/fulltext.htm see
full report for data tables and references...
Health Effects
"...Several decades of epidemiological research have identified
cigarette smoking as the major cause of preventable mortality in
developed countries. For individual smokers, the magnitude of risk rises
with increasing duration of smoking. Data from the mid-1990s confirm
that smokers have a three-fold higher death rate than non-smokers in
middle age (35-69), and at least a two-fold excess mortality from all
causes in old age (see Figure 7). This excess mortality of smokers is
substantially higher than previous estimates (based on shorter duration
of follow-up) and suggests that at least 1 in 2 regular smokers who
begin smoking during adolescence will eventually be killed by tobacco,
half in middle age, half in old age.
Per capita cigarette consumption in the developed countries rose
steadily from around 600 cigarettes per adult per year (mainly among
males) in the early 1920s, to reach a peak of over 3000 cigarettes per
adult in the 1970s (Figure 3). As consumption levels rose,
smoking-related mortality increased, with an approximate 30-40 year lag
time between onset of persistent smoking and deaths from smoking. By
1955, smoking was claiming around 500 000 deaths per year in the
developed countries, mostly among men. Since that time,
smoking-attributable deaths have risen dramatically and by 1995, almost
two million people (1.5 million men, 500 000 women) in developed
countries were dying each year from tobacco. As shown in Table 10, the
rate of increase in the epidemic of smoking-caused mortality in
developed countries is slowing somewhat among men, but continues to
increase rapidly among women. In the mid 1990s, about 25% of all male
deaths in developed countries were due to smoking. For middle-aged men
(aged 35-69) in developed countries, more than one-third of all deaths
were caused by smoking. For middle-aged women in developed countries the
percentage of all deaths caused by smoking increased more than six-fold,
from 2% in 1955 to 13% in 1995, and continues to increase rapidly. Among
men in developed countries, smoking is estimated to be the cause of
40%-45% of all cancer deaths, 90%-95% of lung cancer deaths, 75% of
chronic obstructive lung disease deaths, just over 20% of all vascular
disease deaths, and 35% of cardiovascular disease deaths in middle age
(35-69 years). More detailed information on the percentage of deaths
caused by smoking in developed countries, classified by age, sex and
major cause groupings is shown in Table 11.
Among women, the epidemic of smoking-related death is not as advanced as
among men. This is because women only began to smoke in very large
numbers several decades after smoking had become widespread among men.
In countries such as Canada, Denmark, the UK, and the United States,
where smoking among women first became common, deaths from smoking are
rising rapidly, already accounting for 25% to 30% of all female deaths
in middle age (35-69 years). In other developed countries, particularly
in Southern Europe, smoking among females has become common only
recently, mainly among younger women. For example, in 1994, smoking
prevalence was only 2% among Spanish women aged 65 years and over, and
only 5% among women aged 46-65 years. However, 45% of younger Spanish
women, aged 16-24, were smokers. In countries such as Spain, where large
numbers of young women have only recently taken up smoking, deaths from
smoking have not yet begun to rise, but they most certainly will do so,
and continue to do so for several decades, if the current smoking
patterns of young women continue.
Of all the diseases causally associated with smoking, lung cancer is the
most well known, simply because in most populations almost all lung
cancer deaths are due to smoking. However, smoking actually causes more
deaths from diseases other than lung cancer. In 1995, there were 514,000
smoking-caused lung cancer deaths in developed countries, compared to
625,000 smoking-attributable deaths from heart and other vascular
diseases in the same year.
Table 12 provides estimates of the proportion of cancer deaths due to
tobacco in 1990. For the developed world, more than four out of every
ten men who died from cancer died as a result of their smoking, as did
around 10% of women who died of cancer. The proportions are
substantially lower in developing countries as a whole, being about 21%
for men and only about 4% for women. In total, smoking is estimated to
have been the cause of about 1.05 million cancer deaths in 1990, 0.9
million of whom were men. About 370 000 of these deaths occurred in
developing countries, and almost all of these smoking-attributable
cancer deaths were among males. These estimates include the use of
smokeless tobacco, common among both men and women in areas such as
South Asia. Smokeless tobacco also poses serious health risks, most
notably, elevated risks of cancer of the buccal cavity. The annual
mortality from tobacco chewing in South Asia alone may well be of the
order of 50 000 deaths a year.
Based on recent research carried out by WHO in collaboration with the
Imperial Cancer Research Fund of the United Kingdom, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Harvard University Centre for
Population and Development Studies,11 estimates of smoking as a cause of
cancer and other diseases have been prepared for developing countries.
These estimates are considerably less reliable than those presented in
Table 10. However, these estimates do give the approximate size of the
current health effects of smoking in developing countries. By matching
current cigarette consumption in developing countries with that of
developed countries some decades earlier, and assuming comparable risks
of death to what was seen in developed countries at that time, it is
possible to estimate in more detail what overall smoking-attributable
mortality might have been in the mid-1990s in developing countries.
These estimates are presented in Table 13 for broad geographical
regions. In addition to the estimated 1.4 million men killed by smoking
in developed countries in 1995, a further one million or so are
estimated to have died from smoking in developing countries, with about
40% of these deaths occurring in China alone. Tobacco is estimated to
have caused over 100 000 female deaths in developing countries in that
year, including 20 000 30 000 deaths from smokeless tobacco. Globally,
WHO estimates that smoking was the cause of about three million deaths
in 1995, or about 6% of all deaths which occurred that year.
Future health effects of current smoking patterns
Based on available data and information, it is likely that tobacco was
the cause of about one million adult deaths in developing countries in
the early 1990s. By the year 2000, tobacco may already be causing two
million deaths annually in the developing world. However, due to lack of
reliable data throughout much of the developing world, there is great
uncertainty about these estimates; the true mortality from tobacco use
in developing countries may be half of what is suggested here, or it may
be as much as twice this amount.
What is much more certain, however, is that the number of deaths caused
by smoking in developing countries will rise substantially due to the
massive increase in cigarette consumption in developing countries over
the last few decades. Unless a very large number of current smokers in
developing countries quit smoking in the next few years, or unless the
hazards of tobacco use in developing countries can be demonstrated to be
less than in the industrialized world, by the time the young smokers of
today reach middle and older ages (by the 2020s or early 2030s), smoking
will be causing about 10 million deaths a year worldwide, 7 million of
which will be in developing countries. The chief uncertainty about these
predictions is not, on current trends, whether they will occur, but
exactly when in the first part of next century, annual
smoking-attributable mortality will reach ten million. Only through
concerted global and national action to strengthen tobacco control
measures will this looming public health catastrophe be averted..."
==
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/pdfa1.htm
Partnership for a Drug-Free America - sources of funding.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-15 kyo...@mindspring.com said:
>gweep <gw...@dontwantmail.org> wrote:
>>Kyoteee wrote:
><snicker>
'Course, marijuana is non-addictive and tobacco containing nicotine is
the most addictive of all drugs and on a par with cocaine as far as
withdrawal.
I faithfully await your next snicker...
==
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HENNINGFIELD RATINGS 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BENOWITZ RATINGS 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicotine 3* equal 4 4 1 6
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
Cocaine 3* equal 1 1 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4
==
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Other/deathtab.htm - DEA
Budget and Drug Related Death.
Michael Hess
On 2000-01-15 kyo...@mindspring.com said:
>"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
>>Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
>>My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
>>You a criminal, you societal dropout!
>>Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
>>You go to jail!
>>Me keep freedom!
>Any Native Americans out there who find this offensive as hell?
I'm an American Indian. And no, I don't find it offensive. What I find
offensive is that we had to have dispensation from the federal
government to use peyote.
And I'm none too happy with some Navaho elders right now wanting to
subject their youth to peyote prohibition and all that it will entail
because some teens use it outside of the Native American Church.
Adopting the fedgovs approach to recreational substance use is like
cutting whiskey with kerosene...
Michael Hess * New and improved * With web polls and java based news & views
about world drug policy * plus! http://www.mindspring.com/~bbsnews/daily.htm
Visit Earth's Largest Web Library of Drug Policy Research and learn about:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/milton_friedman.htm
Milton Friedman on the Drug War.
D.G. Porter
>
> > >ANOTHER NICOTINE ADDICT IN DENIAL!!
> > >Your drug: marijuana! BAAAAAAAAAAD!!! YOU A DRUGGIE!
> > >My drug: tobacco! "SMOKE GOOOOOOD!" ME NOT AN ADDICT!!!!
> > >You a criminal, you societal dropout!
> > >Me nice clean upstanding citizen!
> > >You go to jail!
> > >Me keep freedom!
> >
> > Any Native Americans out there who find this offensive as hell?
>
> It has to do with humans period,.
I think he's confusing my deliberate use of bad grammar with an
unfortunate old-time stereotype of Native American speech. It's not
that, it's an even older stereotype of anyone who is illiterate, period.
Common device, really. Like, "You'll like Mrs. Smith for English, she
learns ya real good."