Slightly off topic, this clip, and the Lucifer Effect clip, both have a brief "ONE MORE-" voice-over riding on top of the audio track.

In this it's in the closing seconds in Lucifer it's in the opening.

Am I the only one who can hear this? Is it intentional or accidental?

Just a query to determine the extend of my own madness.

Thanks.

extent bugger it. I really should pay more attention when I type.

I'm kind of the opposite of a libertarian (which in American usually means a rich person or someone who uses illegal drugs), and I've never tried pot, but I don't see why it should not be legal. Of course the so-called "libertarian" view which Maher holds is forced basically to approve of the current situation which allowed Anna Nicole to kill herself with legal drugs. I think that's dumb.

Well actually marijuana has never killed anybody so i wouldnt say thats what their advocating. mahr specifically says something about legal drugs being the most dangerous. But shouldnt he have the right to OD if we want? I dunno. probably.

Chris - I definitely hear it as well. Others - I, for one, feel we should be allowed to end our own lives any way we like, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (such as dependents). Also, I'd be really curious for a citation on the "pot has never killed anyone" line. It seems really really unlikely that in the entire history of marijuana, no one has ever died from it.

It seems really really unlikely that in the entire history of marijuana, no one has ever died from it.

Why? What biological effect does weed have that would lead to death when used in excess? Death by munchies?

Marijuana smoke might be unhealthy for the lungs, but compared to tobacco (about 10mg of nicotine will kill you) it's about as dangerous as a mild bout of the flu. Enough of anything can be lethal, but it would take a truly improbable amount of weed[1] to kill someone.

That said, I hate drugs (alcohol included) for my own reasons, and have never, and probably will never, indulge in them.

But the Drug War and the illegality of pot and the laws dictating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies, is all just horribly wrong. I wish I could vote for someone who would put a stop to that shit once and for all instead of continuing to blow billions of dollars on some anti-intoxicant jihad.

[1] I just got this from a quick Google search

I fucking love drugs. My favorites, in order of preference:

Coffee

Booze (lately wine and Spanish brandy)

Cuban cigars (legal here)

Marijuana (on extremely rare occasions)

...and all the others (but not much these days). I find it incredible when I come across someone who has never smoked weed. Didn’t you go to college? If you haven’t taken the last chair lift of the day, and then climbed even higher on the mountain, then waited for everyone else to go down, smoked a bit of pot, and then skied your ass off to the bottom, then you are letting one of the better things in life pass you by.

Someone has probably died when a bale of marijuana fell on them but it would be extremely difficult to overdose on pot—although I think I tried a lot when I was younger. Pot is like abortion: making it illegal doesn’t make it go away and they both continue to be bullshit issues that keep us from addressing the real needs of our country.

I think I would vote to legalize pot if there were a reliable way to do roadside testing.

As soon as there is a reliable road side test for valium, vanex, etc., I will agree that those dangerous drugs have a place in the pharmacy or on the streets where they are also hot commodities.

While i agree that it shuld be illegal to smoke pot and drive, I don't believe that is a good reason to continue with the very damaging laws against pot.

Ugh, too early for typing.

Well the argument for making pot illegal has never been its lethality but rather the fact that studies have shown it often leads to more serious drug abuse such as heroin or cocaine. In making pot illegal the authorities hope to prevent future addiction to these drugs. At least that's how the debate's been waged in my country. I've never understood why pot was illegal while alcohol was allowed (and in my country the legal drinking age is 15), however. It seems hypocritical to say the least. Not necessarily in that alcohol leads to drug addiction but rather that alcohol by itself can be as deadly and addictive as either heroin or cocaine.

Fox:

Here in the US we hear the same "pot leads to worse drugs" argument- total bull$#it. This is statistics at its worst. I could argue that 99% of heroin addicts watched television at least once in the past 5 years. Should we ban TV because it "causes" heroin addiction?

Syngas:

If I get high and rob a bank, arrest me- for robbing a bank. If I get high and drive recklessly, arrest me- for reckless driving. If I get high, drive to a Taco Bell, drive home and watch some cartoons, what risk has society been subjected to? What if I drive better high than a sober 90-year-old, or teen with cellphone?

Note: I don't drive high, don't like the old "I drive better high" excuse. But for the sake of argument, I think it raises valid points.

Also- Bill Maher is not a Libertarian. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Did anyone else think that interview was a bit unfair?

For what its worth: Ron Paul was dead-on about Europe ending slavery without a war and 500,000 casulties.

Chris and Ben, I definitely hear it too. It seems like it's on purpose as it's the exact same sample on two separate clips.

Zaphod,

What about drunk driving? Should it be illegal?

The only deaths ever from marijuana were in the 1970's when the US had planes fly over Mexican marijuana fields and spray them with poison. Some of the weed came to the US and a few people died. Other than that, there are no recorded marijuana fatalities that i know of.

I would call that death by poison...

There already is a reliable roadside testing: Just pull over the stoners driving 45 mph in a 60 mph zone. But perhaps Syngas was referring to roadside testing of marijuana quality. That is a lot more difficult and sometimes you just have to take your chances, dude.

As far as marijuana being a "gateway drug," that's utter nonsense. On the rare occasion when I smoke pot I am more likely to go on a six hour mountain bike ride as move on to harder drugs. Why, are you offering better drugs? I'm just asking for a friend of mine.

Why is is almost a certainty that someone has died because of pot? Because it is a almost a certainty that at least one person has died for any given silly reason. For example, we know that marathoners have died from too much water, that multiple people have died from eating spinach, and that it isn't in frequent for people to choke on candy or grapes or ice or whatever.

To make the statement that "no one has ever died" from marijuana you would need to exclude all the silly possibilities, like 85 year old athsmatics(sp?) taking a puff having a caughing fit, having a heart attack and dying. Or people getting the munchies, and choking on their Doritos. That's all I'm saying

It should also matter whether something is completely out of the bag or not. If the use of a drug is already widespread, it is either very costly to prohibit it, or enforcing the prohibition involves great inequities. That's not the only consideration but it's one important one in the case of pot.

Syngas:

One of my more controversial opinions: yes, driving drunk should be legal. If a drunk driver speeds, drives recklessly, what have you, they should be punished accordingly. If the drunk drives without any incident, no crime has taken place.

However, just as with, say AIDS education, the statistics regarding DUI must be shared and taught from an early age. It is a real risk.

However, as stated above, perscription drugs, cell phones, eating, reading the newspaper- all of these actions, each of these freedoms, contribute to deadly car accidents every day. A good drive mitigates all circumstances, regardless of the law. i.e. in my state I could drive and talk on a cellphone legally, but being aware of the statistics, I don't.

I just want to note that i agree with what he said about this being a war on poor people, predominantly black. I did arraignments in court for a while and probably about 65% of the people comming in were black, all for drugs. The other 25% were poor white people, hispanics, also drugs. In any one day only about 10% of the people going into court were there for acts of violence. What this means in a practical sense is that if we stopped proesecuting people for drug use/selling/possession, then we would reduce the courts workload by about 90%. I shit you not. If you are a libertarian or even a conservative you should really think about this fact because we spend billions of dollars prosecuting and then keeping these people in jail.

Anyone have a link to the study Maher was talking about from the American Scientist?

And yes, I too hear a sound of "ONE MORE" interupting Bill at the end of his segment. Weird.

Legalize it and tax it. There are punishments for driving under the influence and sale to minors (among others). There's a great idea in Bertrand Russel's essay, "Has Religion Made Useful Contribuitions to Civilization," on taboo, in his case, sexual taboo, but taboo nonetheless. He basically says that by demonizing any particular thing, his example is little boys and trains, you create a "morbid sense of sin." If the child is blindfolded when entering a tunnel and the word "trains" is not spoken, you basically create a mystery to be solved, yet a proper education at an appropriate age will destroy the taboo. Education isn't recommendation. You could still have the hokey afterschool-ish drug programs, but give the person the choice. My own experience has been such that alcohol makes me do way more stupid things.

Police in the Australian state of Victoria do road-side testing for marijuana:

"When drivers are requested by police to undergo drug testing, they are asked to provide a saliva sample which, within five minutes, can detect the presence of drugs."

Drivers caught are only charged with being under the influence, not possession (as would happen in the US).

"Testing of drugs and alcohol is only about improving road safety as legislation prevents the evidence of saliva testing being used in court for non-road safety matters."

See: Curbing the carnage

Thanks Adam,

Think they'll be able to shrink that technology down to something that can be put in the trunk of a Crown Vic (usual police cruiser in the US)?

I didn't know that people in the US would be charged with possession if traces of drugs were found in their saliva. Are you sure that is the case?

Zaphod, that's a very interesting position about drunk driving. I agree with punishing for the crime itself and not the drug use, but personally I think drunk driving should stay illegal simply because of the impaired judgement alcohol causes (mainly people who think they are OK to drive when they can barely stand... though I think this is a small percentage of drunks on any given night). The likely hood of falling asleep at the wheel when you are wasted drunk is far more than falling asleep at the wheel after smoking a joint (imho). Also, in my experience, people who are high tend to be overly cautious, while those who are drunk are less so.

I'm a little ashamed to admit how many times I've driven drunk (hasn't happened in over 5 years fyi). I've never been in a wreck or pulled over for wreckless driving, but I think I'm a) lucky and b) a pretty good/conscious driver in general, and not everyone is a good driver even when sober. However, I did once drive my car into a ditch because I was too wasted to see that it wasn't the turn off to the country road where I was going.

So I'm going to stay in the keep drunk driving illegal camp.

Of course people have died from smoking marijuana. One joint is equivalent to four to five cigarettes in terms of its effects on lung cancer and emphysema. Recent peer reviewed and published research shows this. In addition, a number of people who were part of the study died of lung cancer while the study was still going. Lung cancer kills people fast.

It is probably true to say however that THC never killed anyone, but that's a fairly pedantic line to run.

None of this is to say marijuna shouldn't be legal of course, but that it needs to be treated as a health issue...

Have just had a quick look around, and can't find the research you refer to, ie. "One joint is equivalent to four to five cigarettes in terms of its effects on lung cancer and emphysema. Recent peer reviewed and published research shows this. In addition, a number of people who were part of the study died of lung cancer while the study was still going." Can you recall where you read it ?

Recent peer reviewed and published research shows this.

Please provide a source for this. Author(s), name of journal(s), title of article(s), etc.

Ironically I've seen the complete opposite. For example a study done by Sarfaraz S ; Afaq F ; Adhami VM ; Mukhtar H (2005) in the Cancer Research medical journal showed that cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa Linnaeus (marijuana) could be developed as therapeutic agents for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Cavaliere C from HerbalGram journal in a study done from Februrary to April of this year (2007) found no link between cannabis use and lung, head, or neck cancer.

In August of last year, a study called 'Does smoking marijuana cause lung cancer?' made a study of which I will post the findings:

Smoking marijuana led to increased tar delivery, more cellular changes in sputum, damage to alveolar macrophages, and increased abnormality in bronchial biopsies, with increased surrogate markers for lung cancer.

The epidemiological studies did not find any consistent relationship between marijuana smoking and cancer of all sites, though the bulk of the participants were from a retrospective review of a health plan from the early 1980s. Small studies of a few hundred patients indicated non-significant increases in lung cancer with marijuana smoking.

I haven't seen it either. But did see a NIDA 1000+ person study completed last year that found while tobacco smoking increased risk twentyfold, cannabis smoking was just above the risk for a non-smoker. It was authored by Tashkin, a longtime cannabis researcher.

DC here is link to conclusion of that Tashkin study http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/Tashkinstudy.htm

i think there may be some truth to the "marijuana as a gateway drug" idea, but it has nothing to do with the nature of pot and everything to do with it being illegal. a pot smoker is forced into association with criminals-by definition- who are in it for the money and aren't necessarily too picky about which illegal product they're selling. although i have met "moral high :)ground" pot dealers who consider any other drug beneath them, i think they are a minority, buisiness being buisiness. so i guess it's not pot thats a gateway drug, but anti-drug laws that are the true gateway. and this is probably true in more ways than one- for instance, the attraction of the forbidden. the one way it ISN'T true is the way the anti drug people presumeably mean it.