In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate.

This startling announcement was brought to you today by your friends at dea.gov.

The increase in heart rate must be pretty important, nevermind the fact that falling in love, doing jumping jacks, and going bowling also cause that same health problem. “It sounds scary, so we'll say it twice,” they reason.

The DEA propaganda is full of fallacies, flaws, and flat-out bullshit. Go read it, then come back here. I'll wait for you.

I read and critically analyzed it, then put the DEA's sources here, complete with working links, and my responses italicized.

---

1 Herbert Kleber, Mitchell Rosenthal, “Drug Myths from Abroad: Leniency is Dangerous, not Compassionate” Foreign Affairs Magazine, September/October 1998.

Nice, I found the first source! Maybe these sources do exist!

Drug Watch International “NIDA Director cites Studies that Marijuana is Addictive.” “Research Finds Marijuana is Addictive,” Washington Times, July 24, 1995.

You have to pay to verify this one. I wonder how much NewsLibrary.com is paying for that prime advertising spot. How much is NewsLibrary.com paying to prevent people from freely getting information about marijuana?

---

2 National Institue of Drug Abuse, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Phamacology, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Pharmacology Review.

These organizations agree that smoking marijuana increases heart rate.

---

3 “Marijuana and Heart Attacks” Washington Post, March 3, 2000

washingtonpost.com has no such artcle in its archives. If it exists, I can't find it.

[UPDATE] I found the article they are referring to. It says that nine people, out of 3,882 heart attack victims questioned, had smoked marijuana within the hour before the attack. According to the DEA, that means: “the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.” [/UPDATE]

---

4 I. B. Adams and BR Martin, “Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans” Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996.

This source is cited to back up the claim that smoking marijuana weakens the immune system, even though the “immune system” isn't even mentioned. It's really poorly written, and says a lot of crazy things like, “[c]olours may seem brighter, music more vivid, emotions more poignant and meaningful.”

---

5 National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections” NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.

Here's one I can't dispute.

---

6 Dr. James Dobson, “Marijuana Can Cause Great Harm” Washington Times, February 23, 1999.

You have to pay for this one, too. Just trust that it is unbiased, what hidden agenda could the founder of Focus on the Family possibly have?

---

7 2000 National Drug Control Strategy Annual Report, page 13.

Once again, I cannot dispute this. I too, agree that marijuana is stronger than it used to be, but I don't understand the problem. Less marijuana has to be smoked for the same high. Sounds pretty good to me, after all “one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.”

---

8 “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” Institute of Medicine, 1999.

All right, a source they claim to agree with the anti-marijuana side, now let's hear the pro-side's response. The other side would pull these quotes from that source: “In fact, most drug users do not begin their drug use with marijuana--they begin with alcohol and nicotine” or, “the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug.” Then there would be a great debate. Both sides would present their best arguments, and observers could make an informed decision. That would be great, wouldn't it?

---

9 See footnotes in response to question 4 regarding marijuana's short and long term health effects.

I don't follow. The questions in this article were not numbered, and the fourth question is about the gateway theory, without footnotes, explaining the increased risk of trying cocaine after smoking marijuana. Non sequitur, anyone?

---

10 “Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study” The New York Times, May 13, 2001.

Marijuana gives you the munchies. This cannot be denied, except “in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic.” There was great concern at the Mayo Clinc: “We were concerned that we might see muddled thinking,” Jatoi said, “but we didn't.”

---

11 Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

12 Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Nothing like using a nice, biased source, to back up your argument—twice! Biased and oblivious: Joints and blunts often are dipped in PCP and are called “happy sticks,” “wicky sticks,” “love boat,” or “tical.”

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

What the hell? Does George realize he is an idiot? Does America realize he is an idiot? I hoped I wasn't the only one — who's with me?

They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on Sept. 11, 2001. They will fail.

Oh yeah, the terrorists attacked us on September 11 for media attention. Nevermind the fact that the US government/economy/society/lifestyle really fucks the rest of the world. We wouldn't want to know the real reason we were attacked, it might make us feel uncomfortable — maybe there is some validity to terrorists' motivation for attacking us. Anyone ever think of that?

Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

When will the job be done? When everyone loves us? And how is the war going to make them love us? Maybe we will just kill all people who don't like us, after all, they are the enemy.

I heard it through the grapevine, and I’m just about to lose my mind.

Source: http://homelandsecurity.osu.edu/focusareas/govissues.html

My school is about six-and-a-half (6.5) miles from my house and there is only a short section of bike lane over one (1) bridge on the whole ride. I have to turn left immedately after going over that bridge, so the bike lane does me no good there.

I made a quick little diagram of the problem area. The green area represents the bike lanes for both directions of travel. The red arrow is the path I would have to take to turn if I rode in the bike lane but the blue arrow is the path I actually take. Usually the blue arrow path works just fine: I ride in the right lane up to the bridge, change lanes when it is safe to do so, then ride into the left turn lane at the other side of the bridge.

When I was taking the blue arrow path to school yesterday, I was in front of a stupid lady who honked her horn at me, so I looked back at her and flipped her off. Cars should NEVER honk at bicyclists, even if they deserve it.

The law says that “bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities” as a car on the road. I believed that when I first started riding my bike, so I stopped at every stop sign and red light, signaled my turns, and expected to be treated like a car.

Unfortunately, that law was obviously written by someone who does not ride a bike.

Bikes are slower than cars and have a greater field of vision when approaching intersections, so coming to a complete stop is unnecessary. Bicyclists can easily see cars in all directions and should not be required to stop at red lights and stop signs when there it is obviously clear of traffic.

The signals bicyclists are expected to use are done with the left arm and indicate when they are making a turn or slowing down. A bicyclist's left arm is needed to apply the front brake when slowing down to make a turn, and can not be signaling at the same time. I am aware of the vehicles around me, and I only signal when my action will affect someone else, like a right turn onto a street where a car is waiting for a break in traffic.

Bikes are not cars and should not be expected to behave like a car when they are not treated as one (1) on the road. Bikes don't take up very much space in the lane, but many lanes are not wide enough to safely accommodate a car and a bike side by side. Drivers don't seem to be aware of this, as their vehicles come within inches of our handlebars when they pass us. To avoid these close encounters, we use the whole lane so the cars behind us have to pass us as if we were a car—changing lanes when it is safe to do so.

A lot of drivers in Colorado Springs believe “bikes don't belong on the road” and think their right to use the road is more important than a bicyclist's right, so they treat us like shit. I've been honked at, yelled at, cut off, tailgated, and flipped off too many times. That little incident of rage on the bridge sparked a desire in me to live where bicycles are accepted and respected. Colorado Springs is full of discrimination and hate toward commuter bicyclists. I have heard wonderful stories about faraway lands where there are bike lanes on every street, secure places to park bikes, where bikes are a reasonable alternative mode of transportation.

I just want to live decently, meaningfully. I'm in misery.