A trainwreck in Maxwell

A trainwreck in Maxwell

I wonder how much you'll hear about this cancer study?

Because the cause is NOT evil tobacco this time.

Nope, it's the hippies best friend- Mary Jane. Which according to these studies is 20 times as cancer causing as the evil tobacco.
Anybody who's taken a hit will know that the smoke can't be good for you, as heavy and harsh as it is.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."

Ok, it's a small study, but I expect the truth to be known shortly as all the hippies start dying like flies because of their past indiscretions.
AND I expect Cali, Washington and all the other Liberal Meccas to do away with their pro dope stance and get on the anti-cancer bandwagon ASAP.

Because not only is the secondhand smoke bad...they need to do it "for the children!"




But we all know they won't because if they do it it's somehow ok.

WorldNetDaily: Fear doesn't control my vote

WorldNetDaily: Fear doesn't control <I>my</I> vote

---

Fear doesn't control my vote

---

Posted: January 29, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It seems to matter little where I go or who I am with, the question I am repeatedly asked many times with breathless anticipation is: "What do we do if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and/or who can beat Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?"

Those of you with whom I correspond already know my feelings, but for those who do not, let me make my position unequivocally clear. I don't care who wins the Democrat presidential nomination, and I don't care, as such, if Obama or Clinton win the Holy Grail of politics. I care that the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate I can support as a true conservative left in the race.

I am a conservative, but I'm not an ideologue – nor is my vote governed by fear. That is to say, I will not vote for a Republican nominee to whose positions I am vehemently opposed and/or whom I do not trust, just to keep Obama or, more likely, Clinton out of the White House.

Fear is a powerful motivator that can be used to coerce well-intentioned persons, groups or even the entire nation into making incredibly poor decisions – and the Republican National Committee is not above using same. The idea that I must abandon my moral compass and vote for a candidate I could not find more objectionable – in order to shut out a liberal candidate who bears little or no substantive difference to the one I voted for – is offensive to me.

(Column continues below)

Some have told me they will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, for fear of those whom a Democrat president will appoint to the Supreme Court – to which I respond: Who was the president that appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor? Who was the president that appointed David Souter, and who appointed John Paul Stevens? Here's a hint – they weren't Democrats.

Under which president has the federal government grown exponentially? Which president thumbed his nose at the voters and arrogantly pledged his support for an amnesty bill for illegal aliens? Which presidents supported abortion, race-based preferences and race-based affirmative action? Which president signed McCain-Feingold? Which president's attorney general vigorously opposed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative? Which president's attorney general dropped the ball in Lawrence vs. Texas, which opened the door to homosexual marriage and the undermining of the family? Which president campaigned vigorously for Arlen Specter when, in fact, Pat Toomey was the true conservative? Which president had his Justice Department undermine a lower-court ruling in the District of Columbia pursuant to the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment? Want a hint? Once again, they weren't Democrats.

Voting, in my opinion, is one of the most important acts of citizenship an American can perform. The value of that act should not be taken lightly or under duress.

As my grandmother used to say, "No good is no good," to which I add, my voting for one "no good" over another "no good" doesn't make same less "no good." Thus, as I have been forthright in stating from the beginning, I plan to write in the name of my choice, devil be damned, if Democrats win in the meantime. I survived Carter and Clinton. I can endure whomever and whatever they come up with this time, including the certainty of their punitive tax increases.

Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is to be credited, in part, for the calcification of my position. While still RNC chairman, Gillespie, referencing a possible Giuliani-Clinton New York senatorial contest, dismissed conservative concerns pursuant to Giuliani by insisting the conservative base would support Giuliani just to keep Clinton out, even though he favored all that we opposed. I found his arrogance indefensible then, as I do the same mindset that embodies the party today.

I am well aware that many will disagree with me for an avalanche of reasons – that said, so be it. The battle lines must be drawn somewhere. I believe the future of our party depends on it. The party cannot continue in the state of decline it now experiences. Where are the substantive differences that set us apart during the Reagan years? How offensive it is to his memory and to the movement he set in place when we hear liberal Republicans and/or Republican charades claim to be in the image of Ronald Reagan.

I agree with Thomas Sowell and others calling for a revolution to reclaim the Party of Lincoln. Obviously, the RNC has not taken the lessons of 2006 to heart. Perhaps a few more defeats will jar them into listening to us.

Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal: Dear John

Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal: Dear John

Dear John

The first of my guys received a Dear John letter the other day. (Well, to be completely accurate, it was a Myspace message. Whatever. Same concept, new century.) While I'm not surprised it happened, I am a bit perturbed that it happened in the first freakin' month of our deployment. Who knows how many more Dear Johns await the Gravediggers. Here's hoping that my illustrious and beautiful girlfriend, City Girl, at least has the decency to Facebook my Dear John letter - a Facebook message is WAY more classy than a Myspace message. (I kid, I kid ... not about Facebook being more classy, though.)

Anyways, if you're unfamiliar with the contents of a Dear John letter, or are interested in penning one yourself, I've gone ahead and drawn up a composite sketch. All you have to do is fill in the specifics. You are more than welcome. Remember, I'm here to serve you. And yes, I'm aware that my writing can occasionally slip into the anachronistic and mysoginistic. Sometimes such is fair, sometimes not. This definitely falls into the former category, given the situation that sparked this post.

Dear (insert rank and name here):

Hi. I know it’s been a while since I’ve written. I’ve gotten all your letters … it’s just hard, you know? With you in (insert foreign nation here) fighting in (insert war from American history here), it’s not like things back home have been easy. Or simple. I don’t really know how to say this, so I’m just going to tell you like it is: I’ve met someone else. His name is Jody. I swear to God, I wasn’t looking for anything like this to happen – it just did and now we’re in love.

I know you have to hate me. I promised that this would never happen to us, but it did. Life’s funny like that, isn’t it? While you’re half a world away, getting shot at for a living by (insert enemy here), protecting freedom, justice, and the American way of life, I’m discovering my inner concubine, getting penetrated by Jody’s inferior geothermal thunderstick on a nightly basis. But he’s a far better cuddler than you ever were, he flatters me every morning, and he communicates with me! Imagine that, you insensitive prick.

What else needs to be said? You’re probably going to go crazy now, so you should recommend to your C.O. to take away your weapon for a couple of days. Suck it up, tough guy – remember, like you always told your friends, you can’t make a ho a housewife.

From your former dream forsaking you to a lifetime of what ifs,

(Insert every horribly negative term for a female here)

P.S. I’m keeping the dog.