Insane Fox News Propaganda Piece On Marijuana

[Ethereal]

Was watching TV and flipped to Fox News and saw what was ostensibly an objective news report about the physiological and genetic effects of marijuana but was in reality an utterly skewed propaganda piece attacking legalization (shocking, right?).

According to the piece, a study has shown that marijuana use can "effect" your children (OH NOES, NOT THE CHILDRENZ!!). One effect they surmise is an increased "appetite" for heroin in children whose parents used marijuana. Of course, this single study was done on lab rats, not humans, so it's insanely premature to go around acting like ONE STUDY on LAB RATS is somehow a groundbreaking discovery with direct application to human biology and genetics. Of course, anyone who has been out in what we common folks call the "real world" knows that this study is missing something. Why, for example, have approximately 40% of Americans tried marijuana yet only approximately 1.5% have tried heroin (http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/02/24/as-many-dependent-on-cannabis-as-have-tried-heroin/)?

http://scientopia.org/img-archive/drugmonkey/img_252.jpg
Fig. 1 Percentages of the US population over the age of 12 years who have ever tried the indicated drug (top number, light gray circle); who used the indicated drug in the past month (middle number, darker gray circle); who meet criteria for dependence on the indicated drug (bottom number, black circle). Numbers in the center of each diagram represent the percentage of people who have ever tried the indicated substance who are currently dependent. Data obtained from the NSDUH 2007, lifetime use, past month use, DSM-IV dependence criteria (for all drugs except tobacco), and daily cigarette use (for tobacco).

One would think, if there were any basis to the histrionic inferences made by Fox News, that more Americans would be using heroin.

History will not look kindly on the drug warriors or their sycophants. Which side are you on?

[Max Rockatansky]

That'll teach you to never use Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, as a factual reference.

Sorry, but I refuse to be upset by the revelation that Fox News is intellectually-challenged and biased to boot.

[donttread]

You mean they finally gave up on refer madness? You know if all the states legalize pot big pharma would be unhappy and our global industrial legal syatem would lose tons of jobs . No more pot bust to imprison and no where near as many gang bangers or cartels to chase around

[Peter1469]

FOX is going hard against legal dope. Must be a corporate interest, maybe the cartels.

[Codename Section]

Budweiser, Absolute, and other legal "dope" companies are huge Fox Sports sponsors.

[patrickt]

Was watching TV and flipped to Fox News and saw what was ostensibly an objective news report about the physiological and genetic effects of marijuana but was in reality an utterly skewed propaganda piece attacking legalization (shocking, right?).

According to the piece, a study has shown that marijuana use can "effect" your children (OH NOES, NOT THE CHILDRENZ!!). One effect they surmise is an increased "appetite" for heroin in children whose parents used marijuana. Of course, this single study was done on lab rats, not humans, so it's insanely premature to go around acting like ONE STUDY on LAB RATS is somehow a groundbreaking discovery with direct application to human biology and genetics. Of course, anyone who has been out in what we common folks call the "real world" knows that this study is missing something. Why, for example, have approximately 40% of Americans tried marijuana yet only approximately 1.5% have tried heroin (http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/02/24/as-many-dependent-on-cannabis-as-have-tried-heroin/)?

http://scientopia.org/img-archive/drugmonkey/img_252.jpg
Fig. 1 Percentages of the US population over the age of 12 years who have ever tried the indicated drug (top number, light gray circle); who used the indicated drug in the past month (middle number, darker gray circle); who meet criteria for dependence on the indicated drug (bottom number, black circle). Numbers in the center of each diagram represent the percentage of people who have ever tried the indicated substance who are currently dependent. Data obtained from the NSDUH 2007, lifetime use, past month use, DSM-IV dependence criteria (for all drugs except tobacco), and daily cigarette use (for tobacco).

One would think, if there were any basis to the histrionic inferences made by Fox News, that more Americans would be using heroin.

History will not look kindly on the drug warriors or their sycophants. Which side are you on?

I'm not on the side of the faithful stoners. I totally reject the idea that legalizing marijuana will solve all of our economic, taxation, crime, energy, and health problems. Other than that, I don't really care much. But, as with alcohol, I will not voluntarily help anyone drink or smoke dope. I do realize the government requires me to help people drink alcohol and use drugs.

[Codename Section]

I'm not on the side of the faithful stoners. I totally reject the idea that legalizing marijuana will solve all of our economic, taxation, crime, energy, and health problems. Other than that, I don't really care much. But, as with alcohol, I will not voluntarily help anyone drink or smoke dope. I do realize the government requires me to help people drink alcohol and use drugs.

You mean the money you pay into the Mexican economy that props up drug cartels? Or the money you still pay in taxation to the US that props up drug cartels and subsidizes Budweiser?

[hanger4]

Budweiser, Absolute, and other legal "dope" companies are huge Fox Sports sponsors.OH hell Code, these legal dope companies are huge any sport, any channel sponsors.

[Libhater]

While I am a true Conservative and believe we should leagalize all drugs, I do have an issue with something the OP said. He said that while 40% of Americans have tried pot
that only 1.5% of them went on to get hoked on heroin. While that may be true for those who have tried pot once or twice like I have, the fact remains that those who smoke pot on a regular/addictive time line are much more suseptible to trying and actually getting hooked on the more dangerous drugs like heroin.

[Codename Section]

While I am a true Conservative and believe we should leagalize all drugs, I do have an issue with something the OP said. He said that while 40% of Americans have tried pot
that only 1.5% of them went on to get hoked on heroin. While that may be true for those who have tried pot once or twice like I have, the fact remains that those who smoke pot on a regular/addictive time line are much more suseptible to trying and actually getting hooked on the more dangerous drugs like heroin.

Horseshit.

It's an illegal drug there are no studies on this and the susceptibility factor. They can only measure this by people checking into rehabs and asking them what was the first 'drug' they tried (I would bet if they were allowed to say alcohol they would) and not everyone who has been addicted or does drugs ends up in rehab.

[Ethereal]

That'll teach you to never use Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, as a factual reference.

Sorry, but I refuse to be upset by the revelation that Fox News is intellectually-challenged and biased to boot.

Right, because flipping to a channel means I'm using it as a "factual reference".

[Ethereal]

FOX is going hard against legal dope. Must be a corporate interest, maybe the cartels.

It's mostly the pharmaceutical corporations. Marijuana has a wide range of medical applications with very minimal side-effects when compared to synthetic alternatives. It also grows out of the ground. Big pharma doesn't like that!

[Ethereal]

Budweiser, Absolute, and other legal "dope" companies are huge Fox Sports sponsors.

Oh yea. Forgot about them. The rent-seekers are everywhere.

[Codename Section]

Right, because flipping to a channel means I'm using it as a "factual reference".

Damn, devil, you're on it today. :cool2:

[Ethereal]

That'll teach you to never use Fox, or MSNBC for that matter, as a factual reference.

Sorry, but I refuse to be upset by the revelation that Fox News is intellectually-challenged and biased to boot.

And just so you're aware, it wasn't Fox who originated the study, it was a medical doctor from Mount Sinai Hospital who is part of the medical-industrial complex that is needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people every year: LINK (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3102140334001/new-research-suggests-marijuanas-effects-may-be-hereditary/#sp=show-clips)

[Ethereal]

While I am a true Conservative and believe we should leagalize all drugs, I do have an issue with something the OP said. He said that while 40% of Americans have tried pot
that only 1.5% of them went on to get hoked on heroin. While that may be true for those who have tried pot once or twice like I have, the fact remains that those who smoke pot on a regular/addictive time line are much more suseptible to trying and actually getting hooked on the more dangerous drugs like heroin.

Even if that were true, it would not necessarily imply that marijuana was the cause. You have to control for other variables like genetics and environment before you can establish a causal relationship between marijuana use and heroin addiction. Simply put, correlation is not causation.

[Rebel Son]

Was watching TV and flipped to Fox News and saw what was ostensibly an objective news report about the physiological and genetic effects of marijuana but was in reality an utterly skewed propaganda piece attacking legalization (shocking, right?).



No, I was watching msnbc and what a devil Chris Christy was. You mean there is other news besides the evil right wing traffic jam?

I did see where bammy likes the thought of legal pot. I think he inhaled, wasn't there so I can't say for sure.

[Common]

I agree with foxnews, its been confirmed second hand weed smoke is every bit of carcinogenist as cigarette smoke.
Its utterly absurd that the same people that harp on cigarette smoking and want it banned push for legalized weed its outright twofaced.
Smoking weed does just as much lung damage as cigarettes and some believe more because of the DEEP INHALING of weed.

This entire legal weed thing eventually be overturned by public outcry because of the results.

[Peter1469]

I can't believe that weed smoke is every bit of carcinogenist as cigarette smoke. Modern American cigarettes are so full of chemical additives that are absent from weed- what do they call them, blunts? You can get pure tobacco and roll your own cigarettes for a safer smoke.

[bobgnote]

It's mostly the pharmaceutical corporations. Marijuana has a wide range of medical applications with very minimal side-effects when compared to synthetic alternatives. It also grows out of the ground. Big pharma doesn't like that!

I guess you should probably familiarize yourself, with the history, of Prohibition and the Hemp Stamp Tax Act, of 1938.

In a nutshell, Prohibition really happened because media was conducting a campaign, to find out how stupid were Americans, in the wake of WWI and the big H1N1 outbreak, both of which killed millions.

Prohibition happened, to keep ethyl alcohol, from becoming the fuel of choice, for emerging automobiles and other internal combustion vehicles.

The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of '38 happened, when former Treasury Sec. Andrew Mellon took his coal interests, blended Standard's oil, with Hearst's timber and punk media, to come up with the reefer madness campaign, to prevent hemp, from becoming the prevalent, renewable resource.

It seems a hemp corticator was featured, in Popular Science, long about 1936, which would eliminate vetting, to make industrial hemp the media, for controlling dust bowls AND making fuel, plastic, paper, building materials, food, and more.

So FDR decried corporate money, in politics, in 1936, and he and his contaminated Congress passed, and FDR signed the now-unconstitutional HSTA/1938, in 15 minutes.

When the HSTA was finally declared unconstitutional, Nixon founded the DEA, where ALL hemp is Schedule I Controlled Substance media, while crack, smack, speed, and Zimmy's scrips for tweaking murderers are all, on Schedule II.

Corruption sucks, yo.

[bobgnote]

Also, Prohibition happened because it undermined the several productive markets, of the US economy, so as to collapse the world economy, at the crash, of 1929, basically caused, by Prohibition and its several fallout media, for distortion, against actual productivity.

What evil profiteer did not want another world war, so lousy gear could be foisted, on corrupt, US procurement gits?

Also, Andrew Mellon's BROTHER IN-LAW was a guy, named Harry Anslinger, who became the first US drug pig.

Also, when Fox News runs crap, like this feature, watch closely any following media. Fox producers have a way of tossing out good snark, on any creepy features, which get in.

Also, Creep News Network has become worse, than Fox, but not as bad as those MDMA-gobblers, on MSNBC. Creep News Network recently ran former US Congresswoman Jane Harman, from Davos, Switzerland, where she was about to call for abolition, of the gross NSA.

Andrea Mitchell cut, to an urgent news break, about Bieber getting busted, for drag-racing, in Miami, but now it turns out his zing-ride had GPS, which seems to prove he was doing 27 mph, at the time, of the alleged drag race.

For this, we had to miss Harman's first right-on, public remarks, EVER.

It turns out, CNN's ugly sister, Time-Warner has a lot of record labels, which like to over-produce surveillance dupe, taken right out of private residences, if you happen to play guitar, well enough, to reach their microwave and MIDI scam.

Gee, I guess that Andrea Mitchell git has her way, of saying HEY, THE NSA RIPPED RIFFS, SO HALEN AND AC-ZZ COULD FAKE. Just saying . . .

Andrea sucks, substantially.

[Guerilla]

I guess you should probably familiarize yourself, with the history, of Prohibition and the Hemp Stamp Tax Act, of 1938.

In a nutshell, Prohibition really happened because media was conducting a campaign, to find out how stupid were Americans, in the wake of WWI and the big H1N1 outbreak, both of which killed millions.

Prohibition happened, to keep ethyl alcohol, from becoming the fuel of choice, for emerging automobiles and other internal combustion vehicles.

The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of '38 happened, when former Treasury Sec. Andrew Mellon took his coal interests, blended Standard's oil, with Hearst's timber and punk media, to come up with the reefer madness campaign, to prevent hemp, from becoming the prevalent, renewable resource.

It seems a hemp corticator was featured, in Popular Science, long about 1936, which would eliminate vetting, to make industrial hemp the media, for controlling dust bowls AND making fuel, plastic, paper, building materials, food, and more.

So FDR decried corporate money, in politics, in 1936, and he and his contaminated Congress passed, and FDR signed the now-unconstitutional HSTA/1938, in 15 minutes.

When the HSTA was finally declared unconstitutional, Nixon founded the DEA, where ALL hemp is Schedule I Controlled Substance media, while crack, smack, speed, and Zimmy's scrips for tweaking murderers are all, on Schedule II.

Corruption sucks, yo.

Good point. The only reason marijuana was outlawed was because it got grouped with hemp, which was outlawed because of it's possibility to start new industries, that would outperform old ones. Rich business owners didn't want a new industry to compete with because it would be better, and outcompete them.

But now Big business knows they can't keep the weed suppressed. So they decided to go with legalization so they could put restrictions and try to consolidate the weed industry before others did. That way the new industry won't threaten their wealth.

Same story today as in the 30s. Capitalists just worried about their money.

[Peter1469]

Good point. The only reason marijuana was outlawed was because it got grouped with hemp, which was outlawed because of it's possibility to start new industries, that would outperform old ones. Rich business owners didn't want a new industry to compete with because it would be better, and outcompete them.

But now Big business knows they can't keep the weed suppressed. So they decided to go with legalization so they could put restrictions and try to consolidate the weed industry before others did. That way the new industry won't threaten their wealth.

Same story today as in the 30s. Capitalists just worried about their money.

Don't allow big business to control government. That is the problem, not capitalism per se. True capitalism would be hemp competing with wood and other materials used for cloth. Alcohol competing with gasoline.

[Guerilla]

Don't allow big business to control government. That is the problem, not capitalism per se. True capitalism would be hemp competing with wood and other materials used for cloth. Alcohol competing with gasoline.

I understand it's not capitalism per se. But it is "Big Capitalism". It's not the little capitalists trying to suppress technology. They want new technology so they could start new businesses, but it's the big capitalist at the very tip top that need the staus quo to remain the same. Traditional capitalism, where a bunch of things are competing like what you mentioned is great. I don't care about the 1%, I care about the 0.1%.

Another good example of the 0.1% suppressing technology for their own good, is when they suppressed Nicola Teslas energy experiments. And that was done completely free of government help. It was good old fashioned sabotage by the 0.1%.

[Peter1469]

I use the term corporatism.


I understand it's not capitalism per se. But it is "Big Capitalism". It's not the little capitalists trying to suppress technology. They want new technology so they could start new businesses, but it's the big capitalist at the very tip top that need the staus quo to remain the same. Traditional capitalism, where a bunch of things are competing like what you mentioned is great. I don't care about the 1%, I care about the 0.1%.

Another good example of the 0.1% suppressing technology for their own good, is when they suppressed Nicola Teslas energy experiments. And that was done completely free of government help. It was good old fashioned sabotage by the 0.1%.

[Guerilla]

I use the term corporatism.

"Their is no America, their is no democracy...their is IBM, AT&T, Exxon, Dupont, DOWE...those are the nations of the world today...we no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, we live in a world of business...controlled by the immutable bylaws of business...the world is a business, Mr. Beale."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zef3-djSqc

[undine]

Well. This entire "gateway drug" meme is in my opinion bullshit. Some people are going to do the worst drugs they can and it has nothing to do with marijuana.

In fact, it might be possible that legalizing it would keep some people from moving on to hard core drugs.

[Peter1469]

"Their is no America, their is no democracy...

Ah, but there it. It is just sleeping. Hat tip to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto on what happens next.

[donttread]

I'm not on the side of the faithful stoners. I totally reject the idea that legalizing marijuana will solve all of our economic, taxation, crime, energy, and health problems. Other than that, I don't really care much. But, as with alcohol, I will not voluntarily help anyone drink or smoke dope. I do realize the government requires me to help people drink alcohol and use drugs.

I think all drugs should be legal . Prohibition has flat ass failed. All it does is drive users into he shadow world and cause them to OD and create crime. Imagine if all alcoholic drinks tasted the same but you didn't know the purity before you drank it. It might be 3% alcohol or 50. By the time you realized you might be dead

[Max Rockatansky]

"Their is no America, their is no democracy...their is IBM, AT&T, Exxon, Dupont, DOWE...those are the nations of the world today...we no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, we live in a world of business...controlled by the immutable bylaws of business...the world is a business, Mr. Beale."

Nice quote from the great movie "Network", but, while I like the sentiment, it's still a movie. More importantly, as much as I love movies, this part of it is wrong.

Yes, business is quickly becoming stronger than "nations and ideologies", but the key question is "Is that a good thing?" Would you rather the world be controlled by the Pope? The King of England? Business interests?

Yes, I know the idealism of rainbows and unicorns. It would be nice if we are all rich, healthy, happy and just sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" but that isn't reality. Reality is that there are over 7 Billion people on this planet and every one of them wants to be happy.

How do you propose to please them all?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[Peter1469]

I think all drugs should be legal . Prohibition has flat ass failed. All it does is drive users into he shadow world and cause them to OD and create crime. Imagine if all alcoholic drinks tasted the same but you didn't know the purity before you drank it. It might be 3% alcohol or 50. By the time you realized you might be dead

And you work in rehab, don't you?

[BB-35]

Horseshit.

It's an illegal drug there are no studies on this and the susceptibility factor. They can only measure this by people checking into rehabs and asking them what was the first 'drug' they tried (I would bet if they were allowed to say alcohol they would) and not everyone who has been addicted or does drugs ends up in rehab.

Maybe because they're in the graveyard?

[Ethereal]

Nice quote from the great movie "Network", but, while I like the sentiment, it's still a movie. More importantly, as much as I love movies, this part of it is wrong.

Yes, business is quickly becoming stronger than "nations and ideologies", but the key question is "Is that a good thing?" Would you rather the world be controlled by the Pope? The King of England? Business interests?

Yes, I know the idealism of rainbows and unicorns. It would be nice if we are all rich, healthy, happy and just sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" but that isn't reality. Reality is that there are over 7 Billion people on this planet and every one of them wants to be happy.

How do you propose to please them all?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

By educating people about the benefits of free markets and natural law. The difference between economic prosperity and widespread poverty is often a simple question of mindset. People who do not value liberty typically do not enjoy very prosperous circumstances.

[The Wash]

Maybe because they're in the graveyard?

Yeh, reefer madness. Communities practically exploding with violence from zombie potheads.

[donttread]

And you work in rehab, don't you?

No, I work in Tobacco Cessation and consulting. I am trained in substance abuse counseling and no longer believe that drug laws do anything but create crime and kill

[donttread]

Check out what Portugal has accomplished with decriminalization and treatment

[bobgnote]

Drug laws are for pigs, including the kind, which profiteer, on cheating discovery, in court, and also the kind, which sell controlled substances and the kind, which push fracking and pipelines, for anything petroleum.

[Max Rockatansky]

By educating people about the benefits of free markets and natural law. The difference between economic prosperity and widespread poverty is often a simple question of mindset. People who do not value liberty typically do not enjoy very prosperous circumstances.

Education is a great thing. It goes with the ancient maxim "Knowledge is Power".

I'd like to see more evidence of your assertion "People who do not value liberty typically do not enjoy very prosperous circumstances." For one thing, I think it's quite human for people to value liberty, but circumstances may lead them into situations where those liberties are constrained.

Consider the Patriot Act for example. After 9/11, people were terrified (proving the terrorism worked!). They pleaded for our leaders to do something. The result was the Patriot Act and, this year, we're reaping the the results with NSA excesses.

People learn from their mistakes. Human Society has a long pattern of taking two steps forward and one step back. One reason for this is because, society as a whole, often violates George Santayana's maxim about learning history.

[Captain Obvious]

Fucking potheads...

[Mainecoons]

Education is a great thing. It goes with the ancient maxim "Knowledge is Power".

I'd like to see more evidence of your assertion "People who do not value liberty typically do not enjoy very prosperous circumstances." For one thing, I think it's quite human for people to value liberty, but circumstances may lead them into situations where those liberties are constrained.

Consider the Patriot Act for example. After 9/11, people were terrified (proving the terrorism worked!). They pleaded for our leaders to do something. The result was the Patriot Act and, this year, we're reaping the the results with NSA excesses.

People learn from their mistakes. Human Society has a long pattern of taking two steps forward and one step back. One reason for this is because, society as a whole, often violates George Santayana's maxim about learning history.

Actually, people don't learn from their mistakes as a group until those mistakes bring disaster down on their heads. That is the one step back part of the equation and it appears to be a required element in learning anything.

As for the prosperity/freedom connection, I would also assert that it is proven, beginning in the Middle Ages when some relaxation of church and governmental tyranny allowed a major period of prosperity and growth of the merchant class to begin. And then it has been proven when the U.S. led the way and the freedom it imposed on Europe and Japan was followed by prosperity.

Just as obvious as that prosperity evaporates before our eyes is the connection with growing government oppression and confiscation of wealth.

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually, people don't learn from their mistakes as a group until those mistakes bring disaster down on their heads. That is the one step back part of the equation and it appears to be a required element in learning anything.

As for the prosperity/freedom connection, I would also assert that it is proven, beginning in the Middle Ages when some relaxation of church and governmental tyranny allowed a major period of prosperity and growth of the merchant class to begin. And then it has been proven when the U.S. led the way and the freedom it imposed on Europe and Japan was followed by prosperity.

Just as obvious as that prosperity evaporates before our eyes is the connection with growing government oppression and confiscation of wealth.

Agreed, more often than not, that people as a group don't learn old truths until it hits them between the eyes.

While I also agree that freedom allows prosperity, the point I was contesting the notion that some people don't appreciate liberty. I think all people appreciate it. What not all people are willing to do it put their neck on the line for it. In other threads we have some members talking big about how Obama is a dictator, a fascist, a marxist, blah, blah blah and how they want to stage a coup and take down this "dictatorship". Easy to say. Many even have guns, but would they really do it? Probably not. I'm guessing because they have a lot more to lose than they stand to gain.

Despite all the heated rhetorical bullshit, the fact remains we are nowhere close to a dictatorship or a socialist state. Even if we could pry his fat ass out of his chair, load him up with a bellyful of Oxycontin and stick a gun in his hand, I seriously doubt Rush Limbaugh would be leading anyone anywhere except to the buffet table.

[texan]

How's that Alcohol decision and tobacco decision worked out?

Never too late to make one more bad decision......................Legalize it and find out.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nanny State attitudes never work out. Telling others how to live regardless if it's Left or Right, Socialist or Fascist, never goes as planned. It's a Freedom killer.

[bobgnote]

What is it, about common sense, which is so tough, for fans, of hyperbolic media?

Prohibition and hemp laws have hidden agendas, and plenty of them, in favor of any number of perverse profiteers, at false resource exploitation to devolvement, of government ethics.

Prohibition and any hemp laws are directed, to keeping ethyl and other alcohol fuels and biodiesel, generally out of the internal combustion engines, which need to run, on some renewable fuel, which naturally recycles CO2.

PERIOD. But I guess, in Texas, some of you all are too busy, running, from termites, to bust GW or figure out what up.

[Max Rockatansky]

What is it, about common sense, which is so tough, for fans, of hyperbolic media?

The money is in hyperbole, not common sense.

[donttread]

We have the largest incarceration "industry" in the world and very powerful drug companies.