Health & Wellness

If smoking is so bad for us, why legalize marijuana?

Mark Janda
fredericksburg.com
Sun, 26 Jan 2014 05:50 UTC

Government gives green light to get stoned, and the red light to get thinking.

Regarding "Reefer madness: Why the big rush to legalize pot?" [Viewpoints, Jan. 19]: I've heard on the news and read several articles this past week related to how cigarettes are more addictive than ever. There was a New York Times editorial on Jan 19: "Smoking is worse than you imagined."

Smoking kills even more Americans than previously estimated with 480,000 per year dying from smoking-related illnesses. This costs us between $289 billion and $333 billion in medical care and lost productivity. The article states expectedly that the cause of all the deaths and costs are due to marketing from the tobacco industry freely not the individuals who choose to smoke.

The solution? The FDA should put regulations on all tobacco products. Thanks to the government, they will protect us from ourselves. This in addition to Obamacare, which will for the most part restrict all tobacco products so that the government will save all of those billions of dollars, right?

You may ask why I am referring to "Reefer madness." Well, is this some kind of dichotomy, oxymoron or yin-yang thing that Colorado and soon Washington state, among others including our neighbor Maryland, will pass legal/social marijuana use? This will ultimately be yet another way to increase taxes, but is it not going to cause the same cancers and illnesses that cigarettes do?

Comment: ...allegedly do. There's no evidence that they actually cause cancer.

All in all, I'm happy that the politicians are in charge. They'll take care of all of us and make sure that Obamacare saves us all those billions of dollars being spent on medical care and lost productivity regarding cigarettes or reefer madness. Right?

Comment: Wrong!

But we share the author's skepticism. The whole anti-tobacco/pro-marijuana thing stinks.

Reader Comments

danbo · 2014-01-26T08:31:03Z

i would rather live in the country and smoke weed, than live in a city and breath smog.. why don't they study how much disease smog causes... plus most who smoke weed take a couple puffs a day, ciggy smokers smoke multiple packs, smog smokers smoke non stop....... when the air we breath is healthy, then i will agree more. what's more is you can ingest marijuana in more ways than smoking... who ever wrote this article is in my opinion IGNORANT

googley · 2014-01-26T11:10:45Z

I live in washington

And I voted yes for it simply because it's my right to. Because its safer than almost any other drug including Rx and Alcohol. Because I feel the need to not be told what I can do to my body outside of harm. Because I like to relax like everyone else at the end of the day. Because the only people who die from weed are ones with allergies. Not to say though no one has killed under the influence of marijuana because it is mind altering. I'm sure there's scores more of killings linked to alcohol and other legal narcotics. Because I want to medicate myself and not be issued manufactured medication as long as it passes regulation. Because you shouldn't be thrown in jail, fined or even questioned for altering your mind. And above all else because I WANT TO.

Amatastar · 2014-01-26T11:22:45Z

just a guess..

It would be ironic for this whole weed thing to backfire into PTB's face. People start to relax, stop for a moment, smoke a joint, and think about their fast lane run through life. Maybe it will cause inadjustment to rigid city life, and cause a new attitude to step in, not necessarily dopey? Not all weed makes you sink into the couch. I think it's not good to demonize this thing especially when it gets legalized, devil's in the details, what do you smoke? when do you smoke? from the morning? all day? daily? or occasionally, on evenings?

They key (to most things) is excess use. While I don't expect societies to be moderate, as excess and imbalance is the foundation of global culture, maybe some non-linear change will do some good in the end.

Just maybe.

Dr. Zoidbergh · 2014-01-26T13:05:37Z

Here

in Europe it´s all anti-tobacco AND anti-marijuana, so I don´t really think this analysis is very accurate. I do smoke tobacco and also some weed, both for over 20 years, and I noticed one thing: It´s no problem for me not to smoke weed for weeks, but I can´t go a single day without my tobacco, I feel very much addicted to it. Also, although smoking weed, I work very hard every day, I don´t spend my free time glued to a tv set and I don´t believe everything I am told by the "authorities". So maybe, just maybe, it´s not so clear cut as this article would want us to believe.

pinkfreud · 2014-01-26T14:14:21Z

"pro-marijuana?"

That seems a little over the top. In plenty of places where growing, distributing, and using marijuana is locally acceptable/legal, the federal government still swoops in to throw down the hammer. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think that taxation plays a big role. Also, the age of information has opened the public eye to more medical uses for the plant than anyone in previous eras might have imagined, not just coming from other countries but even from the AMA. I'm not "condoning usage" here, I just think it's important to keep perspective in check (especially when dealing with "hot-button" stuff).

pinkfreud · 2014-01-26T17:25:11Z

what exactly did pot ever do

I am still having trouble and I am sure many other readers are too trying to figure out what the problem is with pot. This article is an opinion piece and its full of lies (at least from a pro-tobacco point of view). What then makes it credible in any other realm? What I really want to know is why SOTT cares so much about being anti pot that it will justify getting mice hooked on heroine to try and prove a point that just isn't there (mice are living creatures that think and feel too). Either give us some real info or leave the subject alone please. My opinion but I think your readers deserve better than what you are trying fruitlessly to hock on us.

Ruth · 2014-01-26T18:46:45Z

It takes the place of 'work on self'. It's the "easy" way out for some, and potentially mentally damaging for others. Is there an up side to it? That seems probably unlikely.

I think I read somewhere that the chemicals involved are fat soluble, so they have an effect on the brain. This has lead to it triggering mental illnesses in people who are susceptible such as schizophrenia.

For those that aren't (and potentially don't have higher centers to work on? Although that's one possibility, I can't be sure of this), it is simply laziness.

The negative emotional and sometimes hysterical reaction of some people to some information is just the 'sound' of them reacting to having their sacred cows pointed out and having a belief system challenged.

Niall · 2014-01-27T05:32:18Z

The above is a letter written to a local newspaper in the US.

SOTT is in agreement with the author's suggestion that people ought to sit up and take note of the policy change in the States towards smoking these two plants.

I don't know how you go from that to 'SOTT's trying to hock stuff on us', but the flavor of most comments in response to articles suggesting something may be up here does show just how prevalent weed-smoking is 'among the elect' and also just how attached they are to it.

Does it not alarm any of you that you increasingly, with each new marijuana 'liberalization' and tobacco ban, find the government 'on your side' in this matter?

pinkfreud · 2014-01-26T20:23:51Z

Re: Re: what did pot ever do

The "work on self" is the self reflection that one who seeks wisdom does. Now as pot can make someone self conscious it does not do the work. I don't know anyone who thinks that smoking pot somehow makes them spiritual. People who do think that are the type that are not on a path to wisdom but instead are trying to look like they belong to one. Having said this I do think that people have learned things about themselves that maybe they would not have learned if they hadn't smoked pot. Pot doesn't do the work for you though it is just a plant. Just like smoking tobacco won't do the work for you; it is also just a plant. The only people will learn more about themselves and the universe are the ones who want to and who try to.
As far as it being fat soluble you are correct and it does have an effect on the brain. Anything and everything can have an effect on the brain, from nicotine to wheat (which is a root cause of schizophrenia, from what I've read).
Are you calling people that smoke pot and who do not have mental illness lazy? On what possible grounds can you make that outrageous claim? Not only is it ignorant but it is also offensive.
If this is a "sacred cow" issue, I can't tell whose belief system is being challenged more.
If you choose to regard this substance as the most mentally/physically damaging thing the government allows, then thank your lucky stars it isn't being snuck into our food or water supply without our knowledge or consent.

IncenDiary · 2014-01-26T23:01:18Z

Ruth did clarify her statement by saying (paraphrasing her) : For those that aren't susceptible to mental illness and potentially do not have higher centre's to work on (but that's just one possibility) it is laziness.

I do not disagree entirely since I have seen many pot smokers who do it to "zone out" , or to "make things better" or even that it "makes dealing with emotions easier" etc ....

rbateman · 2014-01-26T23:36:30Z

Why prohibit?

Why is there still prohibition on Marijuana, and who benefits from it?
It is still federally banned because it make a great covert op money sponge.
Society does not benefit from prohibition. Only the seller does.
Who can legally cultivate or sell it?
According to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, anyone in possession of a Tax Stamp.

"The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the act because the tax was imposed on physicians prescribing cannabis, retail pharmacists selling cannabis, and medical cannabis cultivation/manufacturing. The AMA proposed that cannabis instead be added to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.[14] The bill was passed over the last-minute objections of the American Medical Association. Dr. William Creighton Woodward, legislative counsel for the AMA objected to the bill on the grounds that the bill had been prepared in secret without giving proper time to prepare their opposition to the bill.[15] He doubted their claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage; he further asserted that because the word Marijuana was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis. "Marijuana is not the correct term... Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country." "

And it still is a burden. As it has been for 77 years.

One might read through this link:
[Link]
Dr. Woodward objected to the unnecessary burden of the Act, as the burden falls on the sick, who deserve no such ill treatment. Charlotte's Web has awoken.

Now, why is the Admin. suddenly so interested in the legalization of Marihuana (Cannabis)?
The very same treachery which existed 77 years ago, including the taking away from States and physicians for the sole benefit of the Fed. Govt, and that treachery is a thousand times greater now.
If the Admin. is sincere, it should request of Congress to take up the matter of repeal, giving back control to the States and physicians. Anything else is nothing but more treachery to pile on to the 77 years.

Highland Fleet Lute · 2014-01-27T00:15:58Z

Marijuana has been toxic garbage for the last twenty years. No point in making 1960's pro-pot arguments for something that doesn't even exist anymore.

Stop smoking pot, kids. It's rubbish….

[Link]

pinkfreud · 2014-01-27T02:01:40Z

The 'sound' of an alarm clock

Anyone with two eyes will see -
I have nothing but gratitude to SOTT for all of the research they have done, and for all of the light they have shed on issues I never would have thought to look into on my own. Gluten, GMOs, microwaves, etc. not to mention the new perspectives I have gained on climate shift, DNA change, the list goes on and on.
I can't help but admit my disappointment here. I'm watching objective individuals pick a side of the proverbial coin. What's worse, they seem to be (and I may be wrong here) supporting a system which they have little to no faith in. You don't trust their stance on the safety of our food, our medicine, our liberties, or anything else, but you trust their stance on this one thing for the past nigh on 80 years. That ONE thing they did was just and for our better interest. What's more, this attack on legalization implies that imprisonment or fines will "help" those lost souls realize their full potential. Really, guys? Really?
I am not an indulger. But you know what I do love? Bob Marley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Carlos Castaneda, Robert Anton Wilson, and various other stoners who can pick the right words to help me soldier on.
Let's squash this waste of attention. Ask the C's. Personal intentions are fair game.

Niall · 2014-01-27T05:46:39Z

I agree, this isn't and shouldn't be about dividing people. That's just ridiculous. Obviously there's a big old grey area here that should simply come down to personal choice.

The point SOTT is raising concerns this 'supporting a system' angle: it seems like, in general, things have shifted to the point where marijuana smokers now find themselves 'supporting the system', while the tobacco smokers resist it!

This isn't an 'attack on legalization': it's pointing out that policy has turned one way regarding the consumption of one of these plants... while it runs in the opposite direction for the other.

ligero · 2014-01-28T15:24:19Z

Nature provides. People decide.

It isn't a question of either/or when contemplating the stance of the law and public opinion on tobacco and hemp use.
I think the point (as mentioned above) is that the stance should be examined in an attempt to see through the manipulation of public perception and what various agendas are at work. It should cause some concern that this supposed pro-hemp suggestion from the authorities and how the public receives it, distracts from a more important question.

The more important question is whether or not it is a valid action for the government to ban either plant (any plant) or it's use. What sense does it make to ban either plant (natural plants provided by nature) or to replace support for one over the other?

The propaganda against tobacco and the social engineering of hatred against tobacco users now resembles the previous campaigns against hemp. It makes sense to ask ourselves what is going on and if there is a reason for it. Timing and dedication suggests that the flip flop is meaningful. It is not random. The subtle programming of softening up the public (via movies, television, planted articles, controlled opposition, etc.) to hemp use has been running simultaneously with the more aggressive program of creating hatred and fear of tobacco users. Doesn't it make sense to examine the reasons behind it having nothing to do with whether or not one should smoke pot or tobacco?

All I know for certain is that none of these manipulations by the self appointed authorities are done to benefit the people. Most campaigns contain divide and conquer strategies although that is probably just their function and not their purpose.

Highland Fleet Lute · 2014-01-28T15:27:15Z

You can bet Monsanto are on it like a bonnet.

Amazed by the Lunacy · 2014-01-28T16:00:10Z

My take on the

latest Reefer Madness craze-
Governments are hell bent in stomping out cigarette smoking. Why? Well, that's a good question. You can choose to believe that they care about everyone's health, or you can choose to believe that there are advantages to smoking tobacco, especially with all the activity overhead and what may come with it. Either way, they have shot the goose laying the golden egg of tobacco sales tax revenue. In some areas, federal, state, and local taxes make up over 50% of the total cost of one pack of cigarettes. One could say that this once huge source of tax revenue has gone to pot. Which is exactly what they want to use as a revenue replacement. And if it happens to make some people a little more stupid in the process, hey, it's all good.

They treat it as a game. That's because - to them - it IS a game. They are comfortable, warm enough, cool enough, well-fed... and - perhaps most...

boli

What is the relationship between the operators of these 'devices' and certain 'humans' on the planet? I think these is one.

tekdude

I know our MOD can be a bit unrealistic but in no way can the UK claim Neutrality. The government declared themselves wedded to Zionist causes...

Awordinyourear

taschen. Most do not kill wantonly however. Politicians spend peoples lives like you spend money.

Awordinyourear

The banksters making huge money so peace not in their interest. Blackrock and others getting fatter a fatter like ticks gorging on blood.

Gnostic

Health & Wellness

If smoking is so bad for us, why legalize marijuana?

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk