Ah Ernie, pot does not cause testicular cancer, and the study you are referring to doesn't claim that it does. It simply states that the incidences of testicular cancer were elevated in those who self-reported drug use. Maybe you should have read the study before parroting it around as fact?
"We do not know what marijuana triggers in the testes that may lead to carcinogenesis"

Something tells me science is not your strong point though, since you seem just as confused as the media when it comes to science reporting in making the common mistake of 'correlation equals causation'.

Tim and Ron,
Really not interested in your citations from questionable sources or wasting time on your ridiculous assertions.

Marijuana is toxic. It is a substance not intended for human consumption. If THC is medically necessary, pills have been available in prescription form for decades.

Now, guys you can go back to your brownies.

Ron, If you don't know the law, maybe you shouldn't be posting legal opinions.

Ron,
I don't drink. Alcohol is extremely destructive.

Wow, a legal opinion from Tim. We are all waiting for his infinite wisdom.

Ron, If you witnessed the "pursuit" you shouldn't withhold that evidence from the police.

Ah, so you're making assumptions knowing no more than anyone else who read the article.

That's what I thought.

Of the many adjectives used to describe Tim, "sensible" has the be the most irrational.

Ernie, the quote I provided you is directly out of the study you are quoting. Did you not read it first?

If my quote is questionable to you, then why are you quoting the exact same study that it came out of?

Tim,
Your earlier emphatic comment on another thread, that you had no concern about the source of your information, and that (paraphrasing) you'd take it from anyone.

That says it all. Go back to your brownies.

Tim,
Remember your "evidence" based assertion that pot cures lung cancer? What happened to that?

You left out a rather important part of of your 'paraphrasing'.
My point, that you seem to have missed, is that I don't care who it is that is reporting a fact. It will not change whether that fact is true or not if it can be verified elsewhere.

Somehow, You seem to have taken that to mean that everything you say is right, and everything someone else says is wrong.

If Charles Manson had said the sun rises in the East, does the fact that a serial murderer stated the fact, somehow change the fact? Of course it doesn't. I hope this clears up any confusion you have about facts vs. the people who state them.

Back to the point of the article though, I think a tax-shift to local districts is exactly what is needed. It is the only way that enough people are going to take notice of what has been going on with the school board over the past few decades. The 'extra' costs that all the hand wringing is over, are costs that THIS BOARD already agreed to. If your local board didn't take advantage of the system, you will not see any increase at all under the shift, and there are districts nearby in which that will be the case.

Not shifting the costs back to the local districts would be the mistake, as it would allow the local residents to remain blind to the exponentially increasing costs their districts are passing off to the the rest of the taxpayers in the form of higher state expenditures(taxes).

Tim,
Being vociferously opposed by you and Ron is confirmation that I'm on the right track.

Thank you!

At least you have finally admitted that facts play absolutely no part in your 'conclusions'.
Who opposes or supports me makes no difference at all to me. Whether they stand on their own or not, is all that concerns me.

Anything that gets the local residents to start to pay attention to what the school boards have done all throughout the region, is what I am for. If the residents WANT to pay for these benefits(as opposed to shifting them to the rest of the states taxpayers), then they can vote for it. However, until that hits them directly in the pocketbook, they will be just fine with the status quo. I think we can both agree that continuing on the current path is not a solution.

Tim,
You're delusional. Facts are not fictitious bits which you find on the Internet that agree with your ideology. Facts are not cut and pasted from websites. Facts are things which are OBECTIVELY TRUE. You are constantly purporting to be presenting facts.

The FACT IS, YOU'RE NOT.

Ernie,
You asked for facts that marijuana kills lung cancer(at no time did I say 'cure')?

Here is Harvard, in 2007;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
Here is a published research study, in 1997;
http://scholar.qsensei.com/content/y05d9
Here is Bloomberg reporting on it;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLRKiCeoXoRQ
Here is WebMD;
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

Notice that the study actually gives the technical mechanism for how this works. As opposed to your simple claims to the contrary. Or the poorly misrepresented headline form the story with weasel-words like 'may'. This is how science works, Ernie -
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Each one of these steps has been taken in the information I have posted. What you have been doing is;
-Identify a bias
-Communicate negative bias

That is not science, Ernie. And no amount of your name-calling is going to change that. If you want to continue to claim that I am not presenting facts to you, you are going to have to support that with actual evidence other than "I don't like you".

Where EXACTLY did you get the idea that it causes cancer? It had to be from somewhere right, so provide your sources.

Tim,
Again, you confuse marijuana and THC. THC is a part of marijuana. They are not the same thing. The research YOU cite used THC, or didn't you read the actual research?

Research findings are NOT facts. Assuming that all research is ethical, and correct is dangerous and naive. If research can't be replicated, it's WRONG.

I read it;
"Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers."

You, apparently, did not.

Now, unless you have something to contradict those actual and reported facts(yes, that's what they are Ernie), you need to stop pretending your negative biases are somehow valid anywhere outside of your imagination.
You can hold whatever beliefs you want, and hate as many things as you want. What you can not do, however, is dictate to the outside world what is real or not real based simply on those beliefs.

You asked me to backup my statement about marijuana and cancer, and I did. Not only with THC, but with actual marijuana being used. You chose not to accept it by ignoring that, so it is now your turn to show the evidence to support your claims. Link to a series of research reports that supports your position.

This is science Ernie, you have to put personal feelings aside. The back and forth is only helpful if you can do that. If you provide evidence to change my mind, I will do that. I have to do that, in fact it is the only way this can properly be done. Do you understand?

Tim,
Is that like the "fact" that innoculations cause autism, as shown by research in a prestigious English medical journal (retracted years later)? Is that like the "fact" established by pioneering medical research that lumpectomy is as effective as mastectomy for breast cancer (only years later did the researcher admit that subjects were not randomly assigned. The most serious prognoses got mastectomy, the least serious lumpectomy)?

Blindly trusting ANY research is dangerous and naive.

Understand, Tim?

No, Ernie, it is not like those
1)That study was widely panned AT THE TIME for its serious flaws(methodology), and was not taken serious by anybody until it got picked up by the lunatic fringe. Being published is part of the process, it doesn't mean it is correct. The next step after being published, is further peer review, were that study was completely debunked.
2)That is called best practices, not fact. It is exactly why the previous process was changed to what it currently is. And why it will be changed yet again. Nobody but you is calling it fact, and misusing words does not change their definition.

This is more along the lines of it is a fact that Asbestos causes lung cancer, because we know the mechanisms by which it acts, and have observed it happening. The facts I presented you listed plenty of examples, they also listed the chemical mechanisms by which this was proven.

You can choose to ignore how science works if you like Ernie, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. We know how electric fields work enough to construct devices that you call a computer. Similarly, we know how the chemical reactions work in biology to describe how this works. Yet, you do not question how valid computers are, because it is something you see everyday. You can not choose to accept something on the basis of its familiarity to you.

However, no matter how much you try to distract from it, you still have not supplied one shred of evidence to support your claim.

Tim, You're the one that called research findings fact. Take another look. The breast cancer study was not caught as you imply somehow magically occurs (best practices, huh?). Initials behind someone's name does NOT make them trustworthy. How about the "fact" from BATFE that 90% of the guns recovered from Mexican cartels trace back to the US. Except that the Mexican authorities only trace a tiny fraction, and Department of Homeland Security has told ATF that their numbers are misleading. How about the "fact" from a history researcher that the idea of many armed minutemen during the revolutionary war was a myth. The "fact" that few colonists owned guns. He wrote a book, won a big award. It wasn't until some outside of academia questioned his findings. Then his university demanded the data, which he somehow could not produce (fabricated). He got fired and lost his big award.

I get that you trust everything from everyone. I have learned not to. Too many have an axe to grind, a dollar to make, a bias to fulfill.

Then there's bad science. Reporting that a correlation between diet soda consumption and heart attack shows that diet soda causes health problems. Just one problem, diet soda consumers are more likely to be overweight and/or have health problems. The correlation is meaningless.

I don't trust anything from anyone until I verify.

You may follow anyone saying anything. I choose to follow the ones that are right.

Ron,
The people that I care about already know the answer to your inquiry.

Alas, you are not part of that group.

By independent inquiry I suggest you investigate and you will likely discover all those things.

Ron, again your wrong. Show me where any law enforcement agencies are writing failure to yield when vehicles don't stop for traffic stops?? Failure to yield is written in cases where vehicles are leaving there lane of traffic and/or leaving a private drive where they fail to yield to oncoming traffic. It's used more or less in cases of traffic accidents. I'm not saying after 1 or 2 blocks agencies are charging fleeing/eluding, I was making a point of how agencies come aboutthecharges and can makethedifferencebetween a pursuit and fleeing/eluding. Why don't you contact the Will County States Attorney Office and they will distinguish the difference and how they charge it.

I do know that the police do not have to contact the SA on misdemeanor charges, but in the end all the SA is the last one to approve or plea cases to less charges. And in response to the failure to yield, you didn't distinguish the difference between fail to yield and failure to yield to emergency vehicles. Yes, there is a difference.

SeanP,
You asked for just one instance of getting a failure to yield when getting pulled over, so here you go;
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141535
Just about every state has a law stating that you are to yield to vehicles with flashing/emergency lights by giving them the right of way by pulling over. Even if you aren't the one being pulled over, you are required to yield the right of way.

You are obviously on the internet, how difficult is it to look these things up before you post?

Yes Tim, I agree with you on the Illinois statue of failure to yield to emergency vehicles, which is used in a different way than failure to yield for oncoming vehicles. That statue is commonly used when vehicles do not pull to the right or slow down to emergency vehicles ( some cases Scott's Law), it's not used in pursuits and/or fleeing and eluding cases.

Ron, You still don't get it. Wilfully failing to stop after being signaled to stop by the police is one form of fleeing and eluding. No pursuit required. No distance required. None of your fictitious criteria are involved.

Anyone have a question? Go to ilga.gov. The statute is 625 ILCS 5/11-204. Look it up yourself. Ron apparently can't read.