I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[Chanileslie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Do you have any evidence for this claim? It' doesn't fit in with what I know of the epedemelogicla methods used to determine deaht rates to do with smokeing. Also the figure don't fit (deaths due to smoking would be at least an orditude of magnitude higher if you what you claim is true).

No, it is why I included the words, I believe... and I truely have to wonder.... I would have to take a good, long hard look at the statistics to get the evidence. Of course as we all know there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Segnosaur]

2) The whole "medical marijuana" schtick. I think that marijuana for medical uses should be legal. But, unless you count the English pharmacists who inject heroin into cigarettes for heroin addicts, smoking some plant matter is, at best, highly unorthodox in modern pharmacology. It's herbal medicine.

You know, that's one of the things I've found ironic...

When it comes to homeopathy, accupuncture, or any other alternative medicine, we rightly ask for valid proof that such methods are actually effective. But when it comes to the use of pot for medical reasons, a lot of people (even some skeptics in this forum) sometimes use the excuse "its the only thing that works to cure my..."

 

[bignickel]

Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

When it comes to homeopathy, accupuncture, or any other alternative medicine, we rightly ask for valid proof that such methods are actually effective. But when it comes to the use of pot for medical reasons, a lot of people (even some skeptics in this forum) sometimes use the excuse "its the only thing that works to cure my..."

Well, considering that homeopathy, accupuncture, etc are all legal, and thus nothing at all should get in the way of them producing tests that show them to be valid 'treatments' (that is, if they actually were valid), it's a bit disengenious to ask for the same tests about a substance that is not only illegal, but whose users can be sent to prison and vilified by the communities as 'immoral'.

I would pro-offer tho, that the 'medical marajuana' idea/meme's primary importance is that it gets a foot in the door in the whole debate.

All those people who claim that they want it illegal to 'protect' the health of everyone else appear as hypocrites if by making it illegal they are causing harm to cancer patients, et al. In that regard, it's a somewhat effective meme. (in that prohibitionists find it extremely difficult to admit to themselves why they are really prohibitionists)

 

[geni]

Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

You know, that's one of the things I've found ironic...

When it comes to homeopathy, accupuncture, or any other alternative medicine, we rightly ask for valid proof that such methods are actually effective. But when it comes to the use of pot for medical reasons, a lot of people (even some skeptics in this forum) sometimes use the excuse "its the only thing that works to cure my..."

There are a couple of papers supporting the use of marajuana for certian forms of pain relife.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12617376

My view about this is the same as my view for the rest of herbal medcine. It may work and when it does the best coure is to isolate tha active compound and use that way we can contoll what the paicent is getting much better.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Well, considering that homeopathy, accupuncture, etc are all legal, and thus nothing at all should get in the way of them producing tests that show them to be valid 'treatments' (that is, if they actually were valid), it's a bit disengenious to ask for the same tests about a substance that is not only illegal, but whose users can be sent to prison and vilified by the communities as 'immoral'.

There is more reasuch into marajuana than then is for many forms of alt med

I would pro-offer tho, that the 'medical marajuana' idea/meme's primary importance is that it gets a foot in the door in the whole debate.

So you want to do an apeal to emotion? Bad idea

All those people who claim that they want it illegal to 'protect' the health of everyone else appear as hypocrites if by making it illegal they are causing harm to cancer patients, et al. In that regard, it's a somewhat effective meme. (in that prohibitionists find it extremely difficult to admit to themselves why they are really prohibitionists)

Useless as an argument. There is a difference between health and condition management. combien that with the avalibaltiy of more effective alturnative with better control and the arument falls apart.

 

[scribble]

Just for the record, I have this episode recorded and justtook the time to watch it. Penn and Teller only ever call marijuana harmless in the context of *overdose*, which it certainly is.

 

[bignickel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

There is more reasuch into marajuana than then is for many forms of alt med

With money paid for by the government.

Researchers who propose a study where pot has any kind of redeeming value... are going to have a bit of difficulty coming into funds.

So you want to do an apeal to emotion? Bad idea

Incorrect. It is more apt to describe it as a sledgehammer to crack thick skulls. For the majority time, there was no 'debate' about narcotics laws: appeals to rational thought were useless. It was only with the intro of the 'medical marijuana' theme/idea/meme (and it's underlying message to prohibitionists 'that you don't really care about people's health') that cracked the door open.

Useless as an argument. There is a difference between health and condition management. combien that with the avalibaltiy of more effective alturnative with better control and the arument falls apart.

It isn't an argument.

It's a tactic. And a fairly good one. It is designed to create debate where none was formerly allowed.

Really, there don't need to be any real anti-prohibition arguments; the burden of proof is on the prohibitionists to make their case (or not, since they never really made one to begin with. See Baums's "Smoke and Mirrors).

I think the tactic is a pretty good one; how much anti-prohibition rhetoric was allowed in the 'just say no' 80's? Contrast that with the 90's. I'd say it got people talking.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

With money paid for by the government.

Researchers who propose a study where pot has any kind of redeeming value... are going to have a bit of difficulty coming into funds.

Prove it. There are plenty of govenments that don't take the attitude of the US

Incorrect. It is more apt to describe it as a sledgehammer to crack thick skulls. For the majority time, there was no 'debate' about narcotics laws: appeals to rational thought were useless. It was only with the intro of the 'medical marijuana' theme/idea/meme (and it's underlying message to prohibitionists 'that you don't really care about people's health') that cracked the door open.

Nope because you end up in a position where the evidence doesn't really support you and to be quite honest I don't think you can beat the hard core keep it ileagl at thier own game (particularly since we are dealing with people health you have a duty to stickto the facts).

It isn't an argument.

It's a tactic. And a fairly good one. It is designed to create debate where none was formerly allowed.

Really, there don't need to be any real anti-prohibition arguments; the burden of proof is on the prohibitionists to make their case (or not, since they never really made one to begin with. See Baums's "Smoke and Mirrors).

I think the tactic is a pretty good one; how much anti-prohibition rhetoric was allowed in the 'just say no' 80's? Contrast that with the 90's. I'd say it got people talking.

I don't know much about the 80's I seem to have missed quite a bit of them. The burden of proof argument is far better than the health argument particularly as it doesn't put you up against inteligant people who might otherwise be on you side.

 

[WildCat]

I don't buy the premise that pot causes cancer etc. There are, gram for gram, about 3 times more carcinogens in pot smoke than in tobacco smoke. However, a single cigarettes weight in pot is much more than the typical use consumes in an entire day. I doubt that smoking 3/4 of a cigarette a day is going to have any effect on your cancer rate.

Of course, I don't buy all the 2nd hand smoke BS either.

 

[Phrost]

Not contributing to this discussion one way or another, and not to sound like a total fanboy, but....

Penn and Teller are my heroes.

 

[geni]

I don't buy the premise that pot causes cancer etc. There are, gram for gram, about 3 times more carcinogens in pot smoke than in tobacco smoke. However, a single cigarettes weight in pot is much more than the typical use consumes in an entire day. I doubt that smoking 3/4 of a cigarette a day is going to have any effect on your cancer rate.

Care to comment?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412830&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412843&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412839&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11084527&dopt=Abstract

 

[bignickel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

There is more reasuch into marajuana than then is for many forms of alt med

Prove it. There are plenty of govenments that don't take the attitude of the US

Well, you prove the above bit first, then I'll prove my response to your bit.


Anyways, I don't have a side, since I know that there will be no end to prohibition; since the prohibitionists entire argument boils down "Won't someone please think about the children?!", I don't think any amount of rational arguments are of any use. Especially since they're in the majority.

On the other hand, rational arguments are of good use against creationists only because they are not in the majority, and can be used to sway those in the middle. If they ever became the majority, then no amount of rational argument would prevent them from kissing 'seperate church and state' good-bye.

 

[TLN]

Care to comment?

Sure: Looks good. Got a second source?

 

[heath]

AAaargghhh. Threads like this really make me dispair of being a skeptic.

Some otherwise rational ppl post "drugs are bad m'kay" posts with absolutely no rational perspective. As a rational, skeptical person who has taken various mind altering drugs/substances I get quite offended at this moralising, holier than thou attitude some ppl come out with in these topics here.

For some it's the environment, for some it's politics, for others is smoking... Where on earth are the always rational people? I've honestly never met a "skeptic" or "athiest" or rational person that is imune in all areas of their life to some irrational thinking (me included of course). Are we just funamentally flawed?

[/fit of pique]

 

[TLN]

Are we just funamentally flawed?

Yes.

And this subject is particularly bad because everyone is baised right out of the gate; you've either done the drug in question or you haven't and that biases people.

And I agree, there's clearly a lot of folks here who simply don't like those "hippy pot heads."

 

[epepke]

Just for the record, I have this episode recorded and justtook the time to watch it. Penn and Teller only ever call marijuana harmless in the context of *overdose*, which it certainly is.

This is true of what they personally said. It isn't true of the soundbites they presented, though.

 

[epepke]

Some otherwise rational ppl post "drugs are bad m'kay" posts with absolutely no rational perspective. As a rational, skeptical person who has taken various mind altering drugs/substances I get quite offended at this moralising, holier than thou attitude some ppl come out with in these topics here.

Are you referring directly to me or otherwise? Because, if it's me, I have a response, and if not, then I won't bother.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Well, considering that homeopathy, accupuncture, etc are all legal,

Haven't you noticed? Selling ephedra in the US is no longer legal. I saw cheers on this board when it happened. Selling L-Tryptophan has been illegal for a long time, in spite of the fact that it was shown that an isomer was responsible for all of the problems, and that the bad batch only came from one refinery.

I'm sure that people have died from coffee, but I don't think for a nanosecond that it should be made illegal.

As for marijuana, it is legal to refine the substances in marijuana and use them to produce pharmaceuticals. AFAIK, there exist some products on the market now.

The THC in marijuana is probably harmless, excepting only that one shouldn't drive or operate machinery. It's the delivery system that sucks.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Actually, the act of inhaling smoke is not what causes cancer in cigarette smokers, it is the carcinogens inherent in tobacco that causes the cancer.

That's a pretty bold or prevaricous claim.

People die from cancer from inhaling any number of substances. Asbestos dust. The vapors of roofing products. The vapor of burning wood.

And, of course, people die directly from smoke inhalation.

When enough people die of it, and there is a clear enough link, somebody studies the substances and finds carcinogens in them. One of the links I posted showed levels of a certain carcinogen in marijuana smoke and also evidence of precancerous conditions in marijuana-smokers.

What I get from this is that, it's a pretty good bet that inhaling a lot of smoke and/or dust is bad for you, and that it's also a pretty good bet that marijuana smoke does it, too.

Provisionally, then, while I would not declare marijuana partcularly harmful, nor would I support those who claim that it must somehow be harmless by default.

Even smoking five cigarettes a day is not significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer or heart disease. It's a matter of dosage and intensity over time. Maybe smoking one joint a day is perfectly safe. But also, maybe not.

And how is one really to tell, anyway? Prepared joints in the Netherlands usually have some tobacco in them. So, you could always say, "ah, well, it was really the tobacco, see?"

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Say what? I'm pretty sure this isn't happening - at least, not with official approval. If you're trying to get your heroin-style kicks legally you'll get methadone, and like it.

I saw a television program about English heroin treatment, which literally showed an English chemist (pharmacist in the US) injecting a solution containing heroin into a cigarette, and later a heroin addict smoking the same cigarette. The chemist used a hypodermic needle about 3 cm long to inject the heroin solution into the end of the cigarette, slowly withdrawing it. The solution left a darkened pattern when it was conducted to the paper on the outside. The heroin addict was gaunt, had a beard and a moustache, and had a somewhat plump wife sitting with him on the sofa on camera. These I remember clearly. I also remember clearly wishing that they had a delivery system that did not waste a perfectly good needle.

Less clearly: I believe it was on a PBS special near the end of the 1980s, although it may have been an ABC news special. I also think that the cigarette might have been a John Player Special, which at least shows some good taste.