To avoid any misunderstandings I'll say this from the beginning: I support the legalization of marijuana. I don't smoke it or use it in any way but I do feel the evidence does not support the supposed "gateway drug" claim made by ex-president Tricky Dick and his philosophical followers. I also believe we have only begun to explore the benefits of this plant and considerable research still needs to be done on its potential benefits for the sick.Regardless, an article ran today in Albany's local paper -- the Times Union -- which illustrates the non-rational fringe element in support of legalization.
They write about Abigail Storm-Eggink and her husband, Dan Eggink, and their attempt a lobbying the New York legislature for the legalization of pot. Silly hippies! Don't they know they need to offer someone's kid a job if you want to get something done in New York? I've seen them walking around town with their "Free Pot" sign in, what appears to me, to be the most ill-conceived promotion scheme ever constructed.
Well, one of them got herself arrested carrying a pot plant at the capital and this lead to the Times Union article: Couple brings pot plant to Capitol. Head on over and give it a read and gaze at lunacy. Hopefully, the marijuana-legalization crowd gets as far away from these loonies as they possibly can!
First, they're on a mission "from god"! I can't think of a bigger red flag for craziness. As I recall, that's the same reasoning suicide bombers and the Texas Board of Education use. I believe they mention god at least three time in the article. Well, there you have it! Case closed! We shouldn't be allowed to use marijuana because of it's properties (or lack there of -- visa vis Tricky Dick); we should be allowed to smoke it up because some mythological super-being says it's OK. Sound reasoning if I ever heard it! Sign me up for the crazy train.
Second, Mr. Eggink seems to believe Mary Jane can cure cancer. Say what? That's a testable claim and, while I'm no doctor, my basic research since reading Mr. Eggink's claim, has come up empty. I suspect these two are also in the woo-woo camp with homeopathy and new age healings. I wonder how that jibes with their pot smoking imaginary friend in the sky?
At any rate, the marijuana legalization crowd needs to stick with the facts -- something these two don't appear to be doing. There is a mountain of evidence out there that supports their position and it doesn't require two vagabond wackos to get attention. Legislators don't like gimmicks or, apparently, dirty hippies as Senator Farley (who thought they were "kind of funny") pointed out in the article "I don't think they were taken seriously by anybody; I don't think their issue is taken seriously by anyone."
Photo by Alexandra Moss










2 comments:
"Mr. Eggink seems to believe Mary Jane can cure cancer. Say what? That's a testable claim and, while I'm no doctor, my basic research since reading Mr. Eggink's claim, has come up empty."
tinyurl.com/gov74
or
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/
While your links are interesting, they do nothing to prove pot cures cancer. There is a considerable difference between reducing the size of a tumor and curing the disease. I'm not saying it can't cure cancer. I'm saying there is no evidence it does.
Also, the article is fairly sparse on references and it definitely smacks of conspiracy thinking. For this reason, it is obviously a highly biased piece and needs to be treated as such. Again, I'm not saying the article is wrong. I'm saying it was written by someone with a clear agenda who not be a rational source.
I will continue to stand by my claim that there is no evidence - as far as I can find - that supports the contention THC cures cancer. Smoking pot certainly wouldn't because it's got a lot of the same hydrocarbons, etc. that are in cigarettes but that is another story.
Post a Comment