How can there be "study after study" about the harmfulness of marijuana - when there are no standards to be measured? Yes, the only standard is "potential for harm" and even that has no definition. Does this mean that if one hundredth of one percent of users deliberately misuse then the drug is harmful? What about 20%? 5%?

It never ceases to amaze me when a drug czar cites "scientific studies" or "scientific evidence"! How do you dare cite "science" without specific standards? Most importantly, how do they NOT get grilled by news editors for making such ludicrous statements? It's like Stalin criticizing Hitler for human rights abuses. Where does he get off?

If I was the news interviewer I would have asked for details about the DEA "standards". I would have asked him why marijuana was more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. Surely there must be a reason why some drugs are legal and others are not. Why are news editors so loathe to explain this reasoning and standards to their readers? If someone says that drugs are dangerous, shouldn't readers be told why they are dangerous and why similar drugs are not? Or is anecdotal evidence combined with statements by certified authority figures more than enough to convince any thinking person?
JT Barrie | Homepage | 10.16.06 - 9:22 am | #