Thursday, January 31, 2008

Freedom is the default position I just saw a fun interview on the Colbert Report with Judge Andrew Napolitano (author of A Nation of Sheep) I haven't read the book, so I can't necessarily recommend it, but he sure knows how to say some great common-sense stuff (some paraphrasing here): Freedom is the default position. Anything the government does takes away freedom, so we must be vigilant to limit its ability. In his book, he asks: Why are Americans not challenging and questioning the government as it continues to limit more and more of our freedoms? What part of "Congress shall make no law..." does the government not understand when it criminalizes speech? Whatever happened to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed by the Constitution, yet ignored by the governments elected to protect them? Why does every public office holder swear allegiance to the Constitution, yet very few follow it? Don't we have rights that are guaranteed and cannot be taken from us? Pretty good questions -- I don't know if he has the answers. It's one of the things that always annoys me in drug policy conversations with idiots. So often I hear the "Why should we legalize..." or "Why is it so important that we legalize..." or "Do we really need another legal..." and I want to bang my head against the wall and ask why so many people fail to realize that basic fact: Freedom is the default position. 11:35:07 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

The White House doesn't trust U.S. science, so it turns to New Zealand Two studies: A major study by a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. Funded by the United States National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse. Largest study of its kind involving 2,240 people. Conclusion: No evidence of any association between marijuana and lung cancer, and even a suggestion of a protective effect A tiny study by a relatively new research institute in New Zealand. A grand total of 79 patients studied for both marijuana and tobacco. Reported conclusion: greater risk of cancer from one joint a day of marijuana than a pack a day of tobacco. Guess which one the White House likes. I haven't had access to read the second study (although I'm suspicious based on other flawed studies related to marijuana from the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand). But, of course, unless they can possibly explain the lack of bodies from marijuana smokers with cancer, the study of 79 people is pretty much worthless. Transform gets quoted in the BBC article, pointing out the potential problems related to the mix of tobacco and marijuana. On the other hand, nobody was mentioning the definitive Tashkin study, which is disturbing. 7:42:35 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []