Marijuana
“MARIJUANA ONLY CREATES ZOMBIES”
I am lot more disappointed to read Jessica’s article on Marijuana. The Police Chief Cooke was right on this issue. Her concern for preserving and protecting the right of the people is absolutely right. I support her 100% on this issue. As a Scientist who has worked on the effects of drugs on brain function, all the scientific reports I had read only show dangerous and deleterious effects of Tetrahydrocannabinoids on the brain function. On the basis of Science, Marijuana cannot and should not be legalized. In 3rd world countries like India, people who use marijuana live like zombies who are stoned all the time. The deleterious effects of marijuana are lot worse than its beneficial effects if any.
Why is it dangerous? When Tetrahydrocannabinoids the active chemicals from Marijuana commonly known as THC reach brain, they are chemically attached to the fat cells in brain. Any other drug goes to the brain, carries out its function and it is degraded by the liver and excreted in urine. Not in the case of THC. Why? Because, it does not reach the liver. It is chemically attached to the fat cells of brain and never leaves the body.
As a right of the people to be implemented, I am on her side. I am disappointed that she took the wrong issue for her cause.
Why was it approved by the people? It was false propaganda. It was totally misrepresenting the cause just as Amendment 23. Those who collected the signature for Amendment 23 actually lied to me about the proposition. For, Marijuana, The TV, and radio commercials were totally misleading.
Now that her husband is also involved, I do not know what to say. I do not have much respect for lawyers. To them, it is not what is right VS what is wrong. For them, it is where money is. I hate to say this. But, this is the fact. We do not have a government of the people, by the people and for the people anymore. But, it is the government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers who are elected by Zombies who are addicted to Marijuana.
This letter has not been edited.
Oh boy, the sky really IS falling.....
Yes, let's continue the failed "war on drugs",
because all illegal drugs combined kill
three to four thousand people a year.
Funny nobody ever mentions tobacco, which
kills over 430,000 poeple a year.
I wonder how many people are killed by pot? None?
The writer claims the THC never leaves the body. I say this is a lie. It's
gone in 30-45 days, that's a fact.
What say you Mr. Sekar?
Posted by RickyLee on July 24, 2007 02:13 PM"I wonder how many people are killed by pot? None?"
I've always seen this argument as a red herring. Does pot "kill" people? Well, no, not in the sense that tobacco does (long term) or a heavy drug like heroin (overdose potential), but it depends what one means by "kill." There have been documented cases of someone smoking marijuana before or while driving a car and dying in an accident, or killing someone else with their vehicle. Therefore, it is very similar to the drunken man who gets into a car or accepts a dare to swim across a lake at night. It may not be the alochol that killed them per se, but it did lead to their death. It's indisputable that marijuana affects motor responses, thought proceses, etc (that's why people smoke it, to achieve the altered state).
Is pot more/less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco? Hard to say. I've heard pretty convincing arguments both ways. However, don't fall into the pothead trap of thinking it's this harmless, benign substance. Not to harsh your mellow, but there are consequences to using it, both long-term and short-term.
Posted by Jeff on July 24, 2007 02:42 PMThanks for your lies and incoherent rantings. You've certainly made it clear that we should continue to imprison people for consuming marijuana, they do so much more damage to society than drunks. Keep up the random capitalization and enjoy your ignorant fantasy world.
Posted by on July 24, 2007 02:45 PMPosted by Jeff on July 24, 2007 02:42 PM
There are consequences to everything we do...people die and kill people in cars for many different reasons, including applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating, etc. There are consequences to eating donuts or McDonalds, or swimming in the ocean, or waking up in the morning or going to sleep at night...what is your point?
Posted by Roy on July 24, 2007 03:00 PMBet your woman's up in bed, with old Panama Red
Posted by just sayin' on July 24, 2007 03:07 PMJeff...
Got any statistics on how many deaths are attributed to driving while under the influence of only marijuana?
Want to compare them with the statistics for deaths attributed to driving under the influence of the legal intoxicant, alcohol?
I don't advocate anyone operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of any type of intoxicant that might impair their judgement, but let's be real here...marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and does not impair the judgement as much as alcohol does.
Also, people who drink often do it while away from home..in bars...and then they have to get home..drunk.
Pot users are much more likely to smoke in their own homes.
Alcohol makes people sloppy and beliggerant...they want to argue and fight.
Marijuana makes people lazy and dull.
Domestic violence incidents with alcohol as a contributing factor are common. They are not as common with marijuana. People who are high aren't likely to get in arguments because they can't remember what they were arguing about...whereas drunks are just angry...it's the emotion that drives them.
I say give people the choice of their own poison. Nothing is really going to change. People can and will get pot anyway. The difference will be that we, as taxpayers, won't be paying billions of dollars a year to police, prosecute and imprison people for using an intoxicant that is much less detrimental to our society than a couple of legal ones.
Posted by Thomas on July 24, 2007 03:11 PM@Philip--
Dude--I don't know what you took to fry your brain, but you really ought to quit. Although, it is probably too late for you...
"degraded by the liver and excreted in urine. Not in the case of THC. Why? Because, it does not reach the liver. It is chemically attached to the fat cells of brain and never leaves the body." O'Really?
The liver is connected to the urinary tract how, exactly? If THC never leaves the body, how can it be tested for in urine tests?
And Zombies? OMG! Are you brain dead or just really stupid?
@Jeff--
"There have been documented cases of someone smoking marijuana before or while driving a car and dying in an accident, or killing someone else with their vehicle."
Talk about red herrings! The same could be said of someone drinking Gatoraide, eating a Twinkie--or just about anything.
By the way, pot is not a CNS depressant like alcohol and does degrade your motor skills or reaction times in the same manner.
But, you just keep on swiggin' that Kool-Aide and talking about something you obviously don't know anything about.
Fortunately I don't have any fat cells in my brain...
all muscle..
Posted by Charles B on July 24, 2007 03:40 PMthe point is you should be able to do what you want to your body since we live in a " FREE " ( i know laughable ) country , right ?
Posted by Fresh on July 24, 2007 04:08 PMI wonder what correspondence school Mr Science got his degree from? Newsflash, there is no such thing as zombies. It is a weed and should not be illegal
Posted by riptide on July 24, 2007 04:31 PMThis is a Free Country and WE should feeL free to capitalIze any wOrd or parT of a worD that we WisH. So if an american Citizen wishes to capitalize the word Marijuana, Zombie, Scientist and VS. when Conventional English usage SAYS NO, why that Is his god GIVen RIght!
Just don't use the Marijuana or you will become a Zombie Scientist who has no Sense of Capitalization rules.
I'll bet while Philip was righting his post he had a cocktail and a cig burning next to him. And if he did and it wasn't bothering anyone but him thats ok. So if I want to sit in my home and become a zombie thats up to me.
Posted by larry on July 24, 2007 05:18 PMOh, Please! wrote:
"Talk about red herrings! The same could be said of someone drinking Gatoraide, eating a Twinkie--or just about anything."
True, but a driver isn't likely to get a ticket for eating a Twinkie. A marijuana high can land a driver the same charge as driving drunk.
"By the way, pot is not a CNS depressant like alcohol and does degrade your motor skills or reaction times in the same manner."
Them's some fancy words! ... Seriously, "in the same manner," oh, well that makes me feel better. The motor skills and reaction times are degraded in a different manner. Silly me. I was worried there for a moment.
"But, you just keep on swiggin' that Kool-Aide and talking about something you obviously don't know anything about."
Yes, Oh, Please, you're the only person who knows anything about marijuana. It's entirely inconceivable that someone could have had experiences with it and still concluded it's a destructive force. That's just so un-groovy.
Posted by Jeff on July 24, 2007 05:44 PMOh Jeff, you poor thing. I'm so sorry that you are so fragile of mind that you found a naturally occurring substance to be a "destructive force". Just like demonic coffee beans or tobacco, huh?
LOL--that's almost as good as ZOMBIES!11!!
BTW--got any reputable research equating drunk driving with driving while baked? I'd be interested in seeing them...
Dear Oh Please!
Ohhh! Please.
Posted by on July 24, 2007 09:29 PMRickeylee. What is the source for your statement that tobacco kills 430,000 people a year. I think I know, but you tell me where you got that statistic. I'll tell you right now it's a damned lie, just like the many others tobacco control has indoctrinated and instilled in the human psyche for the last twenty years. Give me your source and I'll prove to you it's a fabrication.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 04:42 AMWhat's with the filter with the "blog owner" approval before my post is put up?
I'll try again with this link.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545
If this doesn't post, right away, I'm pretty done posting here.
l timess a day on TV, Newspapers, Mags, etc. What planet do you come from?
Posted by on July 25, 2007 06:17 AMHey RickyLee:
"Funny nobody ever mentions tobacco" Oh come on! As if there aren't stries every day in newspapers, mags, on TV, radio etc. Get real.
Charles B:
Finally admits it .....A Muscle head!
Posted by on July 25, 2007 06:26 AMI mean in the same breath as pot.
Nobody wants to have a true side by side comparison because, fact is, tobacco is
exponentially more deadly than marijuana.
It's a FACT.
Before any screams it, I'm not saying pot is harmless, and I never have.
I'm saying tobacco IS far more
deadly
Phil, you are not a scientist. There is no fat in the brain. State your opinion without lying. Some of us have had some backgroung in Neuroanatomy.
Posted by Tom on July 25, 2007 06:57 AMBut not spelling.
Posted by Tom on July 25, 2007 06:59 AMAnd there's good old Allen Campbell again being a veritable holocaust denier by trying to say that smoking doesn't kill people...
Tell that to my mother, Allen...who has COPD from 30 years of smoking...and has to wear oxygen 24/7 just to breathe...the oxygen dries out her nose and causes frequent nosebleed...it also causes severe dry mouth which has resulted in her teeth cracking and falling out....
My once beautiful, strong and independent mother has become a shadow of herself.
She gave up smoking more than 20 years ago but was still exposed to a great deal of second hand smoke from her chain smoking late husband who died of a heart attack. Two years prior to his death he had passed on having the heart sugery recommended by his doctors because he would have had to give up smoking.
Smoking kills, Allen. Trust me, I know.
And you're a despicable, vile man for suggesting anything otherwise.
Posted by on July 25, 2007 07:29 AMFox News creates more zombies than marijuana
Posted by just sayin' on July 25, 2007 08:20 AMPeople here compare the dangers of pot smoking to the dangers of drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. How about comparing the health dangers of smoking pot to the health dangers of homosexuality if you want to stir up some debate. The homosexual lobby says that what goes on in the privacy of ones home is not the governments business, and I agree. But, how often do you see people out smoking pot in public and flaunting it in your face, versus how often do you see homosexuals out flaunting their lifestyle in public. Keep it in the privacy of your home and nobody will care. Shove it into other peoples faces and they will care.
Posted by Randall P McMurphy on July 25, 2007 08:28 AMSo, you people do realize that you don't have to smoke pot to use it, right?
Posted by on July 25, 2007 08:49 AMThere are all kinds of drugs which, if taken regularly and in large doses, could make a person zombie-like. But many of them are wonderful drugs if used in proper dosages and for right reasons, such as to alleviate pain and suffering. If there are cases in which a patient can have his pain and suffering reduced by use of marijuana, he should not be denied that use just because others might misuse it. Just as he should not be denied the use of oxycodone pain killers just because they can be misused.
Posted by Truth on July 25, 2007 09:00 AM7:29 You sir have damned me before investigating the truth. I have never said smoking is not dangerous, and your contentions about second hand smoke are staight out of tobacco controls propaganda hand book. You don't care enough about the truth to consider anyones opinion but your own. Get off your duff and investigate before deciding where the truth lays instead of buying into every thing that supports your bias, and apparent rabid hate for anything that diagrees with it.
I'm truly sorry for your mothers condition and your fathers demise but, they made their own free choices. That's the nut of the issue, if all things that could allegedly cause premature death were banned, you could not go out of your house without a NASA space suit on.
And do you call be vile and dispicable because your angry at the fact that your parents suffered the consequences of their own free choice or only because I disagree with your personal, and I think wrong, contentions about second hand smoke.
I'm sorry if you think me a monster because of what I believe, I am not and never will be that, but you will never see me resort to insults and hatred name calling in my responses to well thought out and reasonable comments.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 09:07 AMNot sure if anyone's still on this board, but here's one thing some people were requesting:
BTW, I never said there were more car accidents from marijuana than alcohol. I said that there is a correlation, though. Marijuana is illegal, obviously, but driving under its influence is more illegal, and for a reason.
What's with all the name-calling? I thought pot was supposed to mellow one out. It appears to make some people more paranoid/confrontational.
Posted by Jeff on July 25, 2007 09:23 AMRicky lee. Once again you fail to note the truth. The American Lung Association and the American Heart Association both are using the 430,000 figure that comes from an over twenty year old, completely debunked report that was manufactured to fit tobacco controls agenda. It is a false and fraudulent number.
If you would look into the real validated studies you would get the true statistical truth. But I think maybe you don't want to read or see anything that does not agree with your preconceived, don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up thinking.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 09:29 AMHow can you possibly compare a Pot Zombie to a Bush Zombie in terms of being dangerous to others. A Bush Zombie is the most dangerous kind of Zombie in the world. Their blind support for the corrupt and evil regime in White House allows for the use of White Phosphorous and depleted uranium on the battlefield. And they are an even greater danger to themselves because they continue to vote against their economic self-interest and for fat rich Republican CEOs. Pot Zombies are fairly benign folks when you compare them to a Bush Zombie. The problem with Pot Zombies is that they don't get fired up about the misdeeds and havoc being unleashed on our fair country by the corrupt and evil regime in the White House. Way too laissez-faire for these times which almost makes them old-time conservatives.
Posted by Wes on July 25, 2007 09:50 AMJeff--
Not a real convincing study. The conclusions reached could also be attributed to things like using a cell phone while driving-or any other distraction.
Note the conclusion--
"However, in France its share in fatal crashes is significantly lower than that associated with positive blood alcohol concentration."
So, in other words, driving under the influence of pots is significantly less likey to result in a fatal crash than driving under the influence of alcohol.
And, I'm not sure what this statement you made means...
"Marijuana is illegal, obviously, but driving under its influence is more illegal, and for a reason."
Are you trying to tell us that the legal penalties for driving under the influence of pot are greater than getting an alcohol related DWI? Don't think so...
Allen says:
"If you would look into the real validated studies you would get the true statistical truth"
Well? Where's YOUR link, smart guy?
You insisted on mine.
You'd like us to believe the American Heart Association are a bunch of liars.
Let's see your proof. I'll look at it and decide,
perhaps in your favor. But untill I can see these studies you speak of, I suggest
you're full of s%*t.
That's me at 9:56
Posted by RickyLee on July 25, 2007 09:59 AMAllen,
Understand this...
My parents made their choices and they have or are paying them.
I and my siblings, to some degree, have had to pay for them to...by caring for them and making accommodations for their afflications.
Sir, you are constantly implying that studies that show the high rate of illness and death are invalid.
The problem with your false assertations are that there are too many of us...who have had to deal with family members who are sick or dead from their tobacco use...who know better.
We don't need statistics to know that tobacco is harmful and deadly. We've experienced it's effects firsthand.
And I don't begrudge my parents their choice. I absolutely respect everyone's right to smoke...tobacco or whatever....I just don't want to breathe it or smell it when we are in the same public venue. In your home..fine. In a place where we are both customers, NO!
Mind if I drop in?
Back when I was a boy, about 70 years ago, there used to be a little enamel-paper wraped box on the drugstore counter. One knew it was "medicine", simply because one paid up to $1.00 for it, while WINGS, the popular low-end brand cigarette, cost 5 cents a pack.
The label - even back then - included the ingredients. And the brand, or trade, name generally indicated use - usually as: "For the Relief of Asthma, or Bronchial," symptoms, i.e., shortness of breath, heavy coughing, and the like.
The little box contained the more or less usual count of 20 manufactured "cigarettes". The principal ingredient in the Rexall Brand of the day - as in most other local, or house, brands as well - was CANNABIS SATIVA. This might also be supplemented by some CANNABIS INDICA, as well as "aromatics" - for the odor when burning; but, to deal with today's posting, we all know that the principal ingredients were MARIJUANA.
My Mother came to Denver after the flu /TB epidemic of World War 1, with "one lung, and six months to live". (She eventually passed away, some 60 years later, at age 93, as the song has it, "Doin' what comes naturally.) Her Brother came to Denver when I was young. He didn't have a history of TB; but he was subject to severe bronchial problems, and frequently had deep chest coughing spells during Winter.
When one of these came on, he would hand me a dollar bill, and I would go down to the Rexall Drug, pick up a box of these "cigarettes", and my Uncle would smoke them as necessary. The family doctor had advised these, rather than use of a "narcotic", i.e. codiene-terpin-hydrate, or equivalent, cough syrup. And my Uncle got excellent relief from this form of what today is bruited about as - among other things - the "horrible drug, pot", which supposedly has "no medical use or benefits".
Ain't "modern science" wonderful?!? An excellent, staple, over the counter medication NOW is "useless", not to mention "criminal" to even possess. (And if you don't believe it, just ask the local police chief. He'll tell you all about it. Though where he got his medical degree and license is never mentioned as part of his background and credentials.)
But, the only thing we learn from history is, we learn nothing from history. And the "moral" superiors in the Prohibition claque certainly have learned NOTHING in the course of several generations! But, then again, stupidity begets stupidity! And, those who don't want to learn, won't!
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 10:41 AMThanks for the history lesson, OG. I'd heard about coca-cola containing actual coke back in the day, but I haven't heard about that...
"And the "moral" superiors in the Prohibition claque certainly have learned NOTHING in the course of several generations!"
I would also add that the "anti's" are supported by the large business interests that have a huge financial stake in keeping pot illegal.
The pharmaceutical companies, the textile industry, the oil companies all have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. Imagine the financial losses to them if a naturally occurring plant, which anyone can easily grow in their own backyard, was made legal.
Pot (and/or hemp) is truly a wonder plant. It can be used for production of fuel, the manufactoring of clothing/rope and treating any number of illnesses and afflictions as you so colorfully illustrated.
Thomas, your much more understandable when not riled up. That said, I must say it again, I have never said smoking was not a dangerous habit but, as with many other dangerous habits, the effects are different on various individuals. You've heard of people who have smoked for 60 and 70 years and not suffered from it while others who have smoked for two or three contact cancer of every organ in their body.
The National Cancer Institute has said in a 2005 study that an as yet unknown gene is most likely a greater cause of cancer than second hand smoke. There are other creditable studies that say second hand smoke is such a low risk factor as to make it not worth banning. One of these was the seven year study done by OSHA, the federal agency charged with setting the statutory standards for workplace and workers safety.
The tobacco control advocates don't like to talk about that and have hope that their constant exagerations of second hand smokes dangers will hide it from public knowledge. We have sent all this and more information to newspapers state wide, you might see it any day now.
Believe me when I say we don't use deceptive tactics. We only say what is documented and proven to be true for we know the truth in the words, the contentions of zealots can not survive in open and honest discussion. If you give me an email address, I'll send you or anyone else who has a thirst for truth the same information I have mentioned with links to every study and source we have.
We firmly believe that when people, be they pro or anti smoking advocates, are made aware of the truth, their anger will be ten fold increased against those who have lied and deceived them into believing what is not truth
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 11:39 AMJust Say No; I have a friend in Ohio whose parents owned the local Coca Cola bottling company. He claims that the "coke" in the original secret formula was the crushed, dried leaves of the coca plant and not refined cocaine. Now they use caffeine.
I'm sorry that some of you lost relatives because you believe it was caused by smoking. My sister-in-law died from lung cancer seven years ago. She was a stay-at-home housemaker. Neither she, her husband nor any members of her family ever smoked. We ALL die when our time comes. Just like my friend Chris, who's 91 and still smokes...cigarettes.
The fact that a drug like pot is illegal does not mean we can't use it responsibly. It's the idiots that give pot a bad name.
Posted by Stan B on July 25, 2007 11:57 AMWell, Allen....still no credible evidence to back up your hot air.(lots of it in your 11:39 post)
Why don't you provide even a single link to these "creditable studies" you speak so fondly of? Untill you do, I suggest, and the rest of us realize, that you are still quite full
of bulls%*t.
Tell me, do you smoke cigarrettes?
AND if so, do you desire to quit? Kind of addictive, no?
Do you throw your butts out the car window,
as so many smokers do?
Can you sit at a restaurant table for 45-60 mins. without your drug? If not, I suggest you take a serious look at your addiction. Heroine addicts do better than that.
Posted by RickyLee on July 25, 2007 12:17 PMStan B,
And that brings up the old "exempt narcotics".
The Inca peoples of the Andes region chewed - and still chew - the coca leaf, much as people in the USA chew bubble gum. It, too, has several medicinal properties, among them settling the stomach better than Tums, for instance; and also providing a alleviation of some of the symptoms of altitude sickness - not usually found in this country to any great extent; but can affect those who come from sea level to Colorado, - or any area of high mountain country - and then exercise, or take part in other vigorous activities, before becoming acclimated.
Whether or not the old Coca-Cola formula used cocaine - as extracted - or the base that comes from crushing the leaf, is moot today. But, just as the old Lydia Pinkham's "tonic for ladies" was in fact close to 80 proof alcohol, even during Prohibition(!!), so too, there was cocaine, in some form, in the Cola to begin with.
Up until the late part of the 1930's, cocaine was expensive; but it was available without prescription, as were codiene, and camphorated tincture of opium - paregoric, or laudanum. One signed a register in the pharmacy - in Colorado, although there were States where not even this much was required - and usually received 4 ounces in any given time period - 7 to 30 days, depending on State rules.
Then, along came one Harry Anslinger, who became "Drug Czar" in Washington, D.C. Cocaine immediately went on the "hit-list", as a "dangerous drug" - thinking hangover from the days of Prohibition - and shortly had possession outlawed/criminalized, except for such topical tinctures as were used in local forms of rhinoplasty (fixing broken noses, etc.,) and other forms of surgery where the patient was required to remain awake.
Codiene - cough syrup, etc., - along with paragoric, and all other opium derivatives, became "classified narcotics", requiring prescriptions, as well as becoming criminalized/outlawed for any and all personal possession without prescription, when the Anslinger mentality expanded into the totallly artifical "war on drugs" which we have lost - at huge expense to the taxpayers(!!!) from the moment of its inception, on every "front" and in every "battle".
But, the favorite cheap slogan du jour - and the favorite program of the anti-claque - anti-anything and everything THEY, (or their preacher, or whatever other nitwit they blindly follow), dislike, or are afraid of - this program is, "Just say, NO"! - drugs, sex, you name it, they are AGAINST IT; and all that is necessary to prevent it is to "Just say, NO!"
Oh! Yes! And of course, if you don't say, "NO!"; put you in prison for your disobedience to THEIR "superior moral system".
Senseible folks would legalize, tax where applicable, use the revenue for increased health purposes - rehab of addicts, if you prefer - and quit trying to live other people's lives for them. However . . . !
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 01:25 PMAllen,
I've seen your links before...
They're nothing but propganda sites.
The people who create, write for and support them have an agenda of their own and trying to diminish the percepted impact of cigarettes on our society is a part of their deception.
Every chance you get, Allen, you take little digs at smoking ban proponents by implying that they are putting out false information to serve their own cause.
Well, Allen, I accuse you and the tobacco industry of doing the same.
The difference is, that the smoking ban proponents, aren't trying to sell me an addictive drug or put me in the position of putting my health at risk by being exposed to people who choose to use their products.
You are nothing but an enabler and propagandist with an agenda, Allen. Everyone knows you own a bar in Colorado Springs and you're a vehement opponent of the smoking ban. Did you even have a life before you had this ban to be so upset about?
I've said before...people can smoke all they want...I don't care...but NOTHING gives them the right to expose other people to the hazards of their habits.
Posted by Thomas on July 25, 2007 01:26 PMOld Grouch...
RIGHT ON!
Loved your last post.
Wish we had some politicians with your sense and fortitude.
I miss Pat Schroeder.
Posted by Thomas on July 25, 2007 01:36 PMOG--
You're certainly bringing some valid points to the table on this issue!
Let's not forget that one of the reasons that pot was outlawed was that it was (wrongly) connected to use by those races of people who weren't in power. For example--Mexicans and Blacks smoking the "Devil's Weed" and therefore running amok committing all kinds of heinous crimes against defenseless (white) women and children.
At the time, an effective tool for inciting fear and paranoia for furthering the race war.
Allen....still waiting.
You've got.......nothing?
Posted by RickyLee on July 25, 2007 02:07 PMWell Thomas you believe what you want to, that's your right, but is it also your or anyone's or the state's right to dictate to me and other bar owners that because of the slim chance one happens to patronize a particular bar in the state of Colorado expecting that their personal preference of non smoking will be accommodated, all bars in the state of Colorado must be non smoking just so you can be assured that if you radomly pick any one at any given time your personal preference will also be accommodated.
Tell me, where in the world did anybody get the idea that bars and taverns are required to cater to the segment of society least likely to support their business while at the same time demanding that the segment of society that has historically supported them are denied a large part of the pleasure they have enjoyed for generations. I challenge anyone to tell me why a system which allows owners to choose to allow smoking or not, post signs on the entrances saying which it is so no one can claim involuntary exposure, then let the freemarket place and public choice decide which fails and which succeeds is such a dangerous thing.
Are you afraid our businesses will succeed or are you setting yourselves up as the deciders of what businesses are allowed and which aren't, what people must and must not do, what is moraly right or wrong. Or is it just so simple that you think people are incapable of rational thought and can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 02:19 PMThomas,
Thank you for your kind words.
However, I must admit I am somewhat . . . shall we say, at a loss? . . .embarassed, perhaps? . . . anyway, I find it a bit difficult to accept the compliments, while attempting to reconcile them with all you own vehement anti-tobacco stance.
It is true that Allen Campbell owns a bar. It is also true that I am very much on Mr. Campbell's side, when it comes to the matter of the smoking ban in Colorado. The matter of a business - particularly a service business, such as a bar/cafe - having the right to allow its patrons and/or prospective to choose for themselves whether or not to patronize, is one that needs to be brought to Court, and upheld. The idea that non-patrons have the right to enforce their reasons for non-patronage on others, and on the business owner as well, is one I do not accept.
And, as to the matter of sources, the Smoke Free Colorado cabal is far from innocent when it comes to the matter of false information. Indeed the whole campaign leading up to the smoking ban was based upon false information.
And I would reply to your passionate last sentence above by saying: Nothing gives YOU the right to force other people to cater to YOUR likes and dislikes, or to force business operators to either so cater or go out of business.
In any event, I do thank you again for your kind words; but I believe we will always be on opposite sides of ANY ANTI-tobacco/smoking/freedom-of-private-property-use campaign.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 02:37 PMThe Old Grouch knows what his detractors fail to admit, even though, deep inside, they must know he's right, even if they don't like it.
Posted by Stan B on July 25, 2007 03:49 PMI believe bar owners should be able to decide if smoking will be allowed in their establishments.
Allen, STILL WAITING for links to these studies you claim will refute the American Heart Assn. stance that tobacco kills 430,000 people annually. (in this country alone)
25 JULY 4:42am
"Give me your source and I'll prove to you it's a fabrication".
Well, I gave you my source, and you failed to do what you said you'd do. Are you a politician?
25 JULY 9:29am
"If you would look into the real validated studies you would get the true statistical
truth".
OK, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for some source for "the true statistical truth".
Except, I'm beginning to doubt there is such a source, as you've had ample opportunity to provide one, and have not.
I still suggest you are quite full of BS. What say you?
RICHARD LEE LANDRUM II
LONGMONT
DO NOT BUY ANY KIND OF DRUGS.
When you do , all you do is prosper all the illegals bringing in drugs from Mexico!
They don't care if Americans are in in rehab with drug problem or overdosing.
All they wan't is the Almighty American Dollar.
That goes for China too, bringing the Club drug ..X....
Please don't fall in their trap. It's a ploy!
Posted by --B-- on July 25, 2007 04:05 PMDO NOT BUY ANY WARS FROM THE WAR PROFITEERS.
When you do, all you do is prosper the fat rich Republicans from Halliburton.
They don't care if Americans die in Iraq and our economy tanks. All they want is the Almighty American Dollar.
Please don't fall in their trap. It's a ploy. Too late.
Posted by Wes on July 25, 2007 04:39 PMWes,
You're right. Too late.
I told you Rickey lee. Go to- forces. org, click on Norm Kjono, columnist link, there are several options and a list of subjects. Look for the article on the American Heart Association. It may require a bit of browsing but its there. If you want to get it directly from the source you can mention my name and Email Norm at normkarl@earthlink.net . He will be out of the office till Friday. Contact him then, he is on Seattle time which is on hour latter that mountain time. I think you are going to be very much surprised to learn what we have known for a long time.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 06:00 PMI am not, as you say, full of BS. Contact Norm as I indicated. You've got one hell of an education coming to you. If you read the information and still think I'm full of BS it will be because you don't want to learn.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 25, 2007 06:06 PMI am again reminded of a TV commercial that was popular back when I was much younger, in which a drug dealer trying to sell his wares to unimpressed children asks them, "Why do you think they call it dope?"
The kids are seen laughing at him and leaving him standing there with no sale.
Posted by Gunny Bob on July 25, 2007 06:38 PMGB--
How nice for you.
Too bad the kids don't listen to your show--they'd get a big laugh out of that...
Posted by Whatever on July 25, 2007 07:26 PMGunny Bob shouldn't you be somewhere lying about Obama wanting to show kindergartners how to have sex?
You're a sideshow Gunny. A poor man's Father Charles Coughlin.
Posted by Charles B on July 25, 2007 07:41 PMThere's lies, damned lies, and stastics.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4270
Quote, Researchers further noted that subjects were cognizant of their impairment and "attempt[ed] to compensate for [it] by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly".
Posted by Holy Reality on July 25, 2007 08:59 PM"His background includes 13 years in the U.S. Navy, including service in Vietnam and submarine service. Mr. Kjono has been self-employed as an expert witness in stock and bond fraud litigation for the past 20 years".
WOW, ALLEN, THIS GUY SURE HAS THE BACKROUND, EDUCATION AND EXPERTISE TO REFUTE THE AMERICAN HEART ASSN., DOESN'T HE?
Not at all impressive.
25 JULY 4:42am
"Give me your source and I'll prove to you it's a fabrication".
25 JULY 9:29am
"If you would look into the real validated studies you would get the true statistical
truth".
Guess what, Allen. You've proved nothing by citing this clown who has ZERO credentials, and you've shown ZERO "validated studies".
Face it,
TOBACCO KILLS 430,000 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ANNUALLY.
What you fail to note or you intensionally ignored or your just plain ignorant of is that Mr. Kjono has also written papers that have been admitted in various courts regarding second hand smoke as well as state congressional hearings, has been a well known and widely respected expert in air ventilation and air quality testing studies and is considered as an expert in the field of research and preparation of complaint documentation in litigation cases for which he gets hansome compensation for. And another thing you ignore or are entirely ignorant of is the his submarine service was in highly secrete and covert special ops.
I would be very, very careful about insulting him or debasing the four tours of duty he served in Vietnam. I would also be very careful about suggesting he has no applicable knowledge about the American Heart Association. His son just got home on break from the U.S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Md. and is very, very proud of his father's service to his country which is light years beyond the comprehension of your smart alec, crap laden and disrepectful mind.
I am going to make him aware of your comments. look out my arrogant friend, a bomb is about to fall on your egoistic small little world of fantasy and disrespect. You went to far this time, now you will bare the consequences of your zeal. Oh, have no fear of physical violence, he's above all that. It is in the world of intelligence that he chooses to dismantle foolishness.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 26, 2007 08:20 AMooooooooooo, I'm all atremble......
RICHARD LEE LANDRUM II
LONGMONT
And I'll call 'em as I se 'em.
Remember the first amendment, pal? Your little threatening tone does not impress me.
Posted by RickyLee on July 26, 2007 09:58 AMAllen Campbell is as fixated on cigarettes as Tancredo is on Mexicans under the bed. Expand your horizons a little, Allen!
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 12:36 PMI have seen more horizons than you can imagine. And why do tobacco control zealots insist on accusing us of being fixated on cigarettes and smoking, oh I know why, so you can keep smoke the fixated point in the publics eyes. nice trick but it won't work. The truth is we have never, ever made smoking the issue. Our arguments deal with the way the law was written and implemented and the negative financial results suffered by neighborhood mom and pop bars and taverns that are caused by the lies and deceptions of tobacco control, Three of which we have already exposed so far, with help from the Colorado Department of Revenue.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 27, 2007 04:19 AMNorms right, he just answered my email it's short and sweet. " such twerps are a black hole on time". For awhile I guess I forgot what is and what is not important to our efforts. If you argue with fools you become a fool. I will no more do that.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 27, 2007 04:34 AMThe tobacco ban is excellent.
i can actually go out for an evening & not have to breathe in clouds of pollution - and I don't come home with my clothing smelling like an ashtray. One of the best things to have happened in Colorado in years!
If you don't like it - you'll have to get over it - sorry! Or move to a state where you can foul the indoor air to your hearts content. We really won't miss you. Our healthy state just got a lot healthier - thank God!
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 09:06 AM25 JULY 9:29am
"If you would look into the real validated studies you would get the true statistical
truth".
Allen, STILL WAITING for your "real validated studies", so I can get "the true statistical truth".
Your simply lying through your teeth, aren't you?
Where's your big bad buddy who's gonna drop this big bad bomb on me?
Posted by on July 27, 2007 09:58 AMThat's me at 9:58.
Posted by RickyLee on July 27, 2007 10:01 AMHey Allen, here's some more links, since you
fail to provide any.
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/16/tobacco_notes.pdf
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED
"Each year about 440,000 people die in the United States from illnesses related to cigarette smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined."
Allen, if your buddy knows so much more than all these medical professionals, where is the substance(pun!)
for his/your claims?