From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Re: Pot anyone?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:41:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1jsqt0INNiao@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> loweaa@g222-03.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
>In article <C1A6Hy.G6x@ms.uky.edu>  writes:
>> In article <1jo3uuINN64u@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
>> loweaa@o231-23.Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Anthony A Lowe) writes:
>> > 	Hey yall! Here is one we did not catch before the election. It  
>> > starts with Bill and his appointment to the Attorney General. Well she  
>> is  
>> > a firm believer in the legalization of pot for medicinal uses. So she  
>is  
>> a  
>> > hippy feminist who still is not read the research proving the couple  
>of  
>> > hundred of chemicals in each joint does more damage than a pack of  
>> > cigarettes and THC does permanent brain damage, the good part is  
>Bill's  
>> > response. He says that if he were to smoke pot today he would inhale.  
>> > Watch for smoke in the White House!
>> Sorry my friend, but you are wrong.  All studies showing that pot does  
>> brain damage have been proven wrong.  They were li ke the stuidies that  
>> said LSD changed your DNA...propoganda.  Also, cigarrettes do much more  
>> damage to the system than marijuanna.  In fact, marijuanna usage can  
>> reduce a cigarrette smoker's risk of lung cancer.  You see, your  
>> conservative fascist views are not only based on an incorrect idealism,  
>> they are based on incorrect data too.
>
>	Well I guess someone else has been suckered into the lies put out  
>by researchers that will do anything for the government to but pot for  
>them. Here let me explain something to you. You see the only way to really  
>prove that pot does brain damage is to take two people, have one of them  
>smoke pot and the other stay clean. After a couple of years cut their  
>brains open and see if any damage has been done. Now I am not getting in  
>line for this one, how about you? 

There are MANY other ways to tell whether pot does damage to the human brain
aside from actual brain experiments.  These methods are used every day to 
test other drugs that aren't as controversial.

>	Now to cigarettes. Where the hell did you hear that pot helps cure  
>lung cancer? Lets do some simple calculations now. The cause of lung  
>cancer is smoke. You smoke marijuana. That means smoke goes into your  
>lungs and causes cancer! Are you still with me? I would hate to loose you  
>now. Well what is our result. Smoking marijuana causes cancer. Now if you  
>still do not believe me then next time you have a joint take two dish  
>detergent bottles fill them with cotton. Now cut the top of the cap off  
>and stick a joint inside the hole of one and then stick a cigarette inside  
>the hole of the other.  Now light up and squeeze the bottles and it will  
>"smoke" them and you will get to see all of the fun stuff that goes into  
>you when you smoke.  Any Questions?

You are being incredibly naive.  There is a BIG difference in pot smoke
and tobacco smoke...  THE AMOUNT THAT YOU TAKE IN!  If you were comparing
apples to apples you would see that.  There is a limit in how many
toxins that the lungs can remove at a time.  If you smoked one cigarette
a day rather than 20-30, then your lungs would do better at removing the
toxins and you may not EVER get cancer because your lungs aren't being 
overcome by toxins.  Since I have never known anyone who has smoked 
30 joints a day for 20 years I doubt that the same rules apply with
pot.

>	Now my last point is on how you tried to make your point. If you  
>spent more time thinking and less time shooting off your opinions then you  
>may be coherent. Besides who is going to believe a person who can not even  
>use a spell checker? Oh yeah and by the way. conservatism and fascism are  
>opposites

Let's see.  If I critiqued YOUR style of making points I would have to say
that you take an incredibly simple bit of emperical evidence and then
generalize it to an idiotic level which has no real factual basis, and then
use this to try and rip someone else apart.  That is as stupid as those who
claim global warming is an undisputed fact.  Like I responded to the first
post.  Go get some real facts rather than anecdotal science (which you
seem so adept at) and come back.

-- 
RULE #1:  At all costs, we must make society fair.
RULE #2:  At all costs, we must make people be nice.
RULE #3:  Rules #1 and #2 are impossible to achieve.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality