|
|
Post by adri2008 on Aug 14, 2023 12:57:09 GMT
The current drug laws are quite obviously unfit for purpose and have been for a long time. The idea that a person sat at home having a joint is some sort of criminal is ridiculous.
I don't expect any change soon though - the Tories won't do anything about it as the core elderly voters have been indoctrinated about the evils of drugs over many years and Starmer's Labour won't touch anything even slightly controversial. The biggest problem drug (alcohol) is absolutely fine of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 14, 2023 14:17:33 GMT
The idea that a person sat at home having a joint is some sort of criminal is ridiculous. If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 14, 2023 15:10:26 GMT
The idea that a person sat at home having a joint is some sort of criminal is ridiculous. If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. What a ridiculous argument. We do many things that aren't beneficial to society for a start, secondly cannabis IS beneficial to society. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 14, 2023 16:35:54 GMT
The idea that a person sat at home having a joint is some sort of criminal is ridiculous. If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. Some weirdo having a wank over a mental image of Nigella Lawson covered in peanut butter isn't beneficial for society but I wouldn't want the police to waste their time locking people up for it! Weed is a similar waste of police time IMO. Let people be free, man. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 14, 2023 17:13:20 GMT
If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. Some weirdo having a wank over a mental image of Nigella Lawson covered in peanut butter isn't beneficial for society but I wouldn't want the police to waste their time locking people up for it! Weed is a similar waste of police time IMO. Let people be free, man. Clarification: I only refer to how it works in what I actually believe has been the most anti drug-country in Europe in the last years. And I know how they reason: Wanking with Nigella Lawson as the trigger is beneficial to the society since it would decrease the rape rate, they would say. About waste of police time. I'm deadly serious now: I firmly believe they find chasing the weed smokers is to use our police capacity to it's optimum, peak level of efficiency actually. Why? They see it as Satan's role in society and do what they can to protect us. Besides, they must have something to do, don't they? Going into the no go-zones is far too dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 14, 2023 17:41:13 GMT
If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. Some weirdo having a wank over a mental image of Nigella Lawson covered in peanut butter isn't beneficial for society but I wouldn't want the police to waste their time locking people up for it! Weed is a similar waste of police time IMO. Let people be free, man. I love the direction these threads meander down. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 14, 2023 18:45:30 GMT
If I understand the explanation they give (up here) completely: the basic idea is that your personal drug use is not beneficial to the society. Some weirdo having a wank over a mental image of Nigella Lawson covered in peanut butter isn't beneficial for society but I wouldn't want the police to waste their time locking people up for it! Weed is a similar waste of police time IMO. Let people be free, man. Crunchy or smooth? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 14, 2023 18:48:09 GMT
Some weirdo having a wank over a mental image of Nigella Lawson covered in peanut butter isn't beneficial for society but I wouldn't want the police to waste their time locking people up for it! Weed is a similar waste of police time IMO. Let people be free, man. Crunchy or smooth? I believe she's smooth. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 14, 2023 18:49:48 GMT
1.2.3.4 let’s have a druggy war
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Aug 14, 2023 19:05:20 GMT
1.2.3.4 let’s have a druggy war 5,6,7,8 Badgers never had a date. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Aug 14, 2023 19:10:31 GMT
1.2.3.4 let’s have a druggy war 5,6,7,8 Badgers never had a date. 9.10.11.12 Foster is a quim😉 |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 14, 2023 19:39:12 GMT
Neil Woods has been on Radio Stoke news on the hour, commenting on how the £200k spent by the local police on drug informants was a waste of money. His view as an ex-undercover cop posing as a drug dealer for 14 years is that a lot of the time it's gangs and their members taking payments for effectively putting their rivals out of business. Hardly surprising really. From a while back but still one of the best arguments against drug prohibition that I've seen. www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs"Woods lobbies enough politicians to know that they won’t make new laws until they can see the public want them. He won’t say how long that will take – “Who knows?” – but he is sure of one thing: we will look back on the drug war one day, “and marvel at how we could ever have believed in it”. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2023 9:47:04 GMT
Neil Woods has been on Radio Stoke news on the hour, commenting on how the £200k spent by the local police on drug informants was a waste of money. His view as an ex-undercover cop posing as a drug dealer for 14 years is that a lot of the time it's gangs and their members taking payments for effectively putting their rivals out of business. Hardly surprising really. From a while back but still one of the best arguments against drug prohibition that I've seen. www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs"Woods lobbies enough politicians to know that they won’t make new laws until they can see the public want them. He won’t say how long that will take – “Who knows?” – but he is sure of one thing: we will look back on the drug war one day, “and marvel at how we could ever have believed in it”. vaping has proved that a good thing for smokers gets abused by companies selling and targetting kids etc The only issue I have with legalising drugs is that it will tempt some people into trying them and getting addicted. Substance addiction can lead to all sorts of abuse and devastate families. they wont legalise drugs until they have a solution to that problem. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 9:53:34 GMT
From a while back but still one of the best arguments against drug prohibition that I've seen. www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs"Woods lobbies enough politicians to know that they won’t make new laws until they can see the public want them. He won’t say how long that will take – “Who knows?” – but he is sure of one thing: we will look back on the drug war one day, “and marvel at how we could ever have believed in it”. vaping has proved that a good thing for smokers gets abused by companies selling and targetting kids etc The only issue I have with legalising drugs is that it will tempt some people into trying them and getting addicted. Substance addiction can lead to all sorts of abuse and devastate families. they wont legalise drugs until they have a solution to that problem. What are your thoughts on alcohol and sugar? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2023 10:07:51 GMT
vaping has proved that a good thing for smokers gets abused by companies selling and targetting kids etc The only issue I have with legalising drugs is that it will tempt some people into trying them and getting addicted. Substance addiction can lead to all sorts of abuse and devastate families. if you they wont legalise drugs until they have a solution to that problem. What are your thoughts on alcohol and sugar? if alchohol was discovered today it would be banned. Separate argument though. i dont use cocaine, never have hopefully never will. I do not my children trying it on black market. I do not want my children buying it legally from a chemist. I can only educate them but how ever easy it may be to buy it would be even easier by going to the chemist as soon as you legalise it it becomes acceptable. then its much harder to dissuade new users especially young adults. That said I agree with that copper is that regulated drugs should stop the crime and some of the associated hardships around drugs. But you will only get that with public support. It needs huge public and political debate on the scale of brexit debate (Ignore the brexit rhetoric ) explaining the benefits of legalisation. At the moment the only debate is that drugs are bad. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 10:43:33 GMT
What are your thoughts on alcohol and sugar? if alchohol was discovered today it would be banned. Separate argument though. i dont use cocaine, never have hopefully never will. I do not my children trying it on black market. I do not want my children buying it legally from a chemist. I can only educate them but how ever easy it may be to buy it would be even easier by going to the chemist as soon as you legalise it it becomes acceptable. then its much harder to dissuade new users especially young adults. That said I agree with that copper is that regulated drugs should stop the crime and some of the associated hardships around drugs. But you will only get that with public support. It needs huge public and political debate on the scale of brexit debate (Ignore the brexit rhetoric ) explaining the benefits of legalisation. At the moment the only debate is that drugs are bad. How is it a separate argument when it's a substance that alters your state of consciousness just like all the others? I'm sorry but that argument is just as much a cop out as 'well it's always been legal' and it doesn't hold up, other drugs haven't been 'illegal' for about 99.99% of mankind's existence. If in the unlikely event that your children should want to try something like cocaine, would you prefer they got it from a legitimate, authorised source that insisted on quality checks and carried out thorough proof of age checks or would you prefer they got it from a back street dealer that doesn't give a toss on either score? I've never tried it either btw and don't see that changing anytime soon. I totally agree that a debate needs to be had. But I don't see what's inherently wrong with something that's less dangerous than substances currently being socially acceptable becoming more socially acceptable. It would help prevent a Jumbo Jet's worth of our own dying each and every month and let the police get on with other things. I had a friend years ago that was a drug and alcohol abuse counselor in Portsmouth, she reckoned that a good number of her clients that used drugs were what is termed ABC1 members of society - accountants, lawyers etc. Why should the substance they chose be illegal? Like most other drug users they paid their taxes, bought their kids up properly and generally contributed to society in a positive manner, why should they be criminalised for their choice of intoxicant? And sugar? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2023 11:36:10 GMT
if alchohol was discovered today it would be banned. Separate argument though. i dont use cocaine, never have hopefully never will. I do not my children trying it on black market. I do not want my children buying it legally from a chemist. I can only educate them but how ever easy it may be to buy it would be even easier by going to the chemist as soon as you legalise it it becomes acceptable. then its much harder to dissuade new users especially young adults. That said I agree with that copper is that regulated drugs should stop the crime and some of the associated hardships around drugs. But you will only get that with public support. It needs huge public and political debate on the scale of brexit debate (Ignore the brexit rhetoric ) explaining the benefits of legalisation. At the moment the only debate is that drugs are bad. How is it a separate argument when it's a substance that alters your state of consciousness just like all the others? I'm sorry but that argument is just as much a cop out as 'well it's always been legal' and it doesn't hold up, other drugs haven't been 'illegal' for about 99.99% of mankind's existence. If in the unlikely event that your children should want to try something like cocaine, would you prefer they got it from a legitimate, authorised source that insisted on quality checks and carried out thorough proof of age checks or would you prefer they got it from a back street dealer that doesn't give a toss on either score? I've never tried it either btw and don't see that changing anytime soon. I totally agree that a debate needs to be had. But I don't see what's inherently wrong with something that's less dangerous than substances currently being socially acceptable becoming more socially acceptable. It would help prevent a Jumbo Jet's worth of our own dying each and every month and let the police get on with other things. I had a friend years ago that was a drug and alcohol abuse counselor in Portsmouth, she reckoned that a good number of her clients that used drugs were what is termed ABC1 members of society - accountants, lawyers etc. Why should the substance they chose be illegal? Like most other drug users they paid their taxes, bought their kids up properly and generally contributed to society in a positive manner, why should they be criminalised for their choice of intoxicant? And sugar? i know sugar can be addictive but so can sex, video games etc. I also know that sugar can be detrimental to health the drugs argument will never be won while people compare them with ale and sugar. It comes across as petulent. It is a separate argument and whether it is liked or not is much more acceptable even in light of the dangers of both. The people you want to convince all like a pint and sweets, if people start shouting them down about that then the drugs argument will get lost |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 11:55:38 GMT
How is it a separate argument when it's a substance that alters your state of consciousness just like all the others? I'm sorry but that argument is just as much a cop out as 'well it's always been legal' and it doesn't hold up, other drugs haven't been 'illegal' for about 99.99% of mankind's existence. If in the unlikely event that your children should want to try something like cocaine, would you prefer they got it from a legitimate, authorised source that insisted on quality checks and carried out thorough proof of age checks or would you prefer they got it from a back street dealer that doesn't give a toss on either score? I've never tried it either btw and don't see that changing anytime soon. I totally agree that a debate needs to be had. But I don't see what's inherently wrong with something that's less dangerous than substances currently being socially acceptable becoming more socially acceptable. It would help prevent a Jumbo Jet's worth of our own dying each and every month and let the police get on with other things. I had a friend years ago that was a drug and alcohol abuse counselor in Portsmouth, she reckoned that a good number of her clients that used drugs were what is termed ABC1 members of society - accountants, lawyers etc. Why should the substance they chose be illegal? Like most other drug users they paid their taxes, bought their kids up properly and generally contributed to society in a positive manner, why should they be criminalised for their choice of intoxicant? And sugar? i know sugar can be addictive but so can sex, video games etc. I also know that sugar can be detrimental to health the drugs argument will never be won while people compare them with ale and sugar. It comes across as petulent. It is a separate argument and whether it is liked or not is much more acceptable even in light of the dangers of both. The people you want to convince all like a pint and sweets, if people start shouting them down about that then the drugs argument will get lost I disagree, I think the more awareness the public has of the dangers of alcohol and sugar the better and if that's achieved by pointing out the actual dangers when compared to currently illegal drugs so be it, I see nothing wrong with telling the truth. The cost of sugar in terms of public health, NHS treatment, benefit and care payments etc is probably very much underestimated by the general public, that doesn't mean we should criminalised it's addicts, on what grounds are we criminalising addicts of other substances? Why shouldn't we use science and evidence to educate the public properly? Like you I was subjected to compulsory drugs lectures in the forces and like you I was convinced by the 'Just say no' and 'this is your brain on drugs' campaigns. A few years ago I read some books, did some research attended some talks and became a supporter of DrugScience, there's a lot of information on their website I'd urge every parent to read. www.drugscience.org.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2023 13:08:14 GMT
fair points about sugar and alcohol but irrelevant to the conversation about drugs.
If middle england is to be convinced that the best way to sort the problem out is legalise drugs and all the other fair points discussed on this thread you dont need to alienate them by talking about sugar and alcohol
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 13:29:05 GMT
fair points about sugar and alcohol but irrelevant to the conversation about drugs. If middle england is to be convinced that the best way to sort the problem out is legalise drugs and all the other fair points discussed on this thread you dont need to alienate them by talking about sugar and alcohol I can't see how comparing the relative harms of mind altering substances is irrelevant, inconvenient, given their relative harms and legal statuses certainly, but wholly relevant. If middle England are to be convinced they need to be told the truth, they've been lied to for long enough, publicise the truth, the science and the evidence, educate people fully on the relative harms and we might start to get somewhere, this is why I support DrugScience. Middle England might also be persuaded if the mail and express stopped their divisive, sensational rhetoric and told the truth but I have more chance of marrying Kylie than that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 15, 2023 13:29:23 GMT
fair points about sugar and alcohol but irrelevant to the conversation about drugs. If middle england is to be convinced that the best way to sort the problem out is legalise drugs and all the other fair points discussed on this thread you dont need to alienate them by talking about sugar and alcohol A local politician at a town meeting here said they rely on science when they promise to solve the problem with people taking drugs. He went on about the plan concerning a way to erase the need areas in people's brains. He said, then we wouldn't even have to discuss an eventual drug war - when the need is gone. I'm convinced, with the help from AI, that is what we'll see in the near future. The generation dead within ten years will be the last one who wouldn't more or less have to undergo experimental surgery when the authorities say so. A field hugely growing here. The politicians will do whatever they think is necessary. And not only when it comes to drugs ... |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 13:50:49 GMT
fair points about sugar and alcohol but irrelevant to the conversation about drugs. If middle england is to be convinced that the best way to sort the problem out is legalise drugs and all the other fair points discussed on this thread you dont need to alienate them by talking about sugar and alcohol A local politician at a town meeting here said they rely on science when they promise to solve the problem with people taking drugs. He went on about the plan concerning a way to erase the need areas in people's brains. He said, then we wouldn't even have to discuss an eventual drug war - when the need is gone. I'm convinced, with the help from AI, that is what we'll see in the near future. The generation dead within ten years will be the last one who wouldn't more or less have to undergo experimental surgery when the authorities say so. A field hugely growing here. The politicians will do whatever they think is necessary. And not only when it comes to drugs ... As I pointed out above, the vast majority of drug users are normal members of society who happen to find that some drugs agree with them more than others, others just want to experiment now and then, if they harm nobody else in the process why should that be a crime? Sweden is beginning to sound like the dystopia I read about in novels when I was a kid. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2023 14:00:53 GMT
fair points about sugar and alcohol but irrelevant to the conversation about drugs. If middle england is to be convinced that the best way to sort the problem out is legalise drugs and all the other fair points discussed on this thread you dont need to alienate them by talking about sugar and alcohol I can't see how comparing the relative harms of mind altering substances is irrelevant, inconvenient, given their relative harms and legal statuses certainly, but wholly relevant. If middle England are to be convinced they need to be told the truth, they've been lied to for long enough, publicise the truth, the science and the evidence, educate people fully on the relative harms and we might start to get somewhere, this is why I support DrugScience. Middle England might also be persuaded if the mail and express stopped their divisive, sensational rhetoric and told the truth but I have more chance of marrying Kylie than that happening. it will take more than that to convince people who have had "just stay no" pushed at them for 50 years that legalising drugs is a good thing for a whole host of reasons. if you start showing them its worse to have a glass of wine and a cream tea than get high on gange and methadone you wont get anywhere you need tyhe topic to stay on drugs and drugs only. crying about sugar and beer will deflect from that its exactly the same as portraying brexiteers as racists and xenophobic when most of them were not, and just made them want brexit even more |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 15, 2023 15:45:12 GMT
I can't see how comparing the relative harms of mind altering substances is irrelevant, inconvenient, given their relative harms and legal statuses certainly, but wholly relevant. If middle England are to be convinced they need to be told the truth, they've been lied to for long enough, publicise the truth, the science and the evidence, educate people fully on the relative harms and we might start to get somewhere, this is why I support DrugScience. Middle England might also be persuaded if the mail and express stopped their divisive, sensational rhetoric and told the truth but I have more chance of marrying Kylie than that happening. it will take more than that to convince people who have had "just stay no" pushed at them for 50 years that legalising drugs is a good thing for a whole host of reasons. if you start showing them its worse to have a glass of wine and a cream tea than get high on gange and methadone you wont get anywhere you need tyhe topic to stay on drugs and drugs only. crying about sugar and beer will deflect from that its exactly the same as portraying brexiteers as racists and xenophobic when most of them were not, and just made them want brexit even more I see it quite differently and the only parallel I see with Brexit (which it's too late to do anything about) and the drug laws (which it isn't) is that the public are being told a whole host of lies. The alternative to telling the truth is hoping that they gradually realise they've been royally had by educating themselves on the facts, it's evident from this thread how reluctant people are to do that. While we wait for this miraculous realisation to occur people are dying, criminal gangs are running riot, drug cartels are running countries and millions of lives in dozens of countries are being ended or ruined. For what exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 15, 2023 16:31:56 GMT
Sweden is beginning to sound like the dystopia I read about in novels when I was a kid. Exactly! I don't know about Britain, but AI is a huge field here and they present devastating 3-years and 5-years scenarios already in the ongoing debate - so it's not about something in the horizon. Lots of people don't think climate changes or wars will end this planet, AI will. The corresponding "Experimental surgery" is a field with unbelievable growth. I have already been in discussion about it with my doctor at the Health Clinic. Lots of clinics want people to participate at beta stage trials. When they see how efficient regenerative medicine and experimental surgery will be guided by AI, they'll realize there's simply too much money to be saved. I picture a Covid-19 vaccination programme look-a-like, but in some countries there won't even be a choice. The deviations will be erased. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 25, 2023 15:14:47 GMT
At the same time as Sweden seem to think of Cannabis as the plant from The Devil, they seem to decrease their warnings about alcohol.
I was thinking about this thread immediately now, when seeing a program on TV about alcohol etc (before going to the laundry room again).
They just said drinking strong alcohol on a daily(!) basis 😲 has the same risk of dying as if you drive a car daily, meaning 1/100, 1%.
Really? I doubt that strongly. It would mean 1 car driver of 100 in any population will actually die!
Absolutely impossible.
Accidents do happen from time to time, but most of them aren't deadly.
I would say 1 out of 10.000. Tops!
They also say drinking alcohol regularly has several health benefits compared to not at all. Less risk of diabetes, heart diseases etc.
Source : The World of Science on our National ad free TV called SVT (Sweden's Twlevision).
Comments pls, elystokie.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 25, 2023 16:34:58 GMT
At the same time as Sweden seem to think of Cannabis as the plant from The Devil, they seem to decrease their warnings about alcohol. I was thinking about this thread immediately now, when seeing a program on TV about alcohol etc (before going to the laundry room again). They just said drinking strong alcohol on a daily(!) basis 😲 has the same risk of dying as if you drive a car daily, meaning 1/100, 1%. Really? I doubt that strongly. It would mean 1 car driver of 100 in any population will actually die! Absolutely impossible. Accidents do happen from time to time, but most of them aren't deadly. I would say 1 out of 10.000. Tops! They also say drinking alcohol regularly has several health benefits compared to not at all. Less risk of diabetes, heart diseases etc. Source : The World of Science on our National ad free TV called SVT (Sweden's Twlevision). Comments pls, elystokie. They're either completely cuckoo or they're corrupt and in hock to the brewing companies. Alcohol consumption is implicated in over 200 different diseases and kills thousands every year, the fatal overdose for alcohol is around ten times the amount needed to get the desired effect. The fatal overdose for cannabis is immeasurable, it's never happened. www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/ |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 25, 2023 17:33:54 GMT
At the same time as Sweden seem to think of Cannabis as the plant from The Devil, they seem to decrease their warnings about alcohol. I was thinking about this thread immediately now, when seeing a program on TV about alcohol etc (before going to the laundry room again). They just said drinking strong alcohol on a daily(!) basis 😲 has the same risk of dying as if you drive a car daily, meaning 1/100, 1%. Really? I doubt that strongly. It would mean 1 car driver of 100 in any population will actually die! Absolutely impossible. Accidents do happen from time to time, but most of them aren't deadly. I would say 1 out of 10.000. Tops! They also say drinking alcohol regularly has several health benefits compared to not at all. Less risk of diabetes, heart diseases etc. Source : The World of Science on our National ad free TV called SVT (Sweden's Twlevision). Comments pls, elystokie. They're either completely cuckoo or they're corrupt and in hock to the brewing companies. Alcohol consumption is implicated in over 200 different diseases and kills thousands every year, the fatal overdose for alcohol is around ten times the amount needed to get the desired effect. The fatal overdose for cannabis is immeasurable, it's never happened. www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/I'm still angry about that shit program, a so called Science World program on our National TV channel, which you thought were objective and correct. They tried to fill it with scientists, but one of the so called "scientists" was a guy who couldn't be a real scientist, he just happened to like alcohol. He blamed the scientific procedure of doing real tests to find out if alcohol users and none alcohol people had any differences in health measures after let's say 20 years. He said it can't be done since some of the people who now don't drink alcohol have done it before too much, so if they do they will be sick - and have to be excluded. So the group with normally non drinkers will be smaller than the usual drinkers group - and therefore such a test to see if alcohol is dangerous can never be done. What a weak explanation for not doing any tests if alcohol is dangerous. A group can be filled until it's filled, damn it! 🤣 Besides, are they necessary at all? Haven't we learnt anything? Instead he went on about how great alcohol was when it came to the buquet of health advantages, reducing depression, stress, anxiety, better circulation, less risk of stroke, heart failure and heart attacks, diabetes and more. He had a very hard time coming up with any side effects. And he was the main speaker. Politically controlled tv? 🤮 |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 25, 2023 23:03:03 GMT
They're either completely cuckoo or they're corrupt and in hock to the brewing companies. Alcohol consumption is implicated in over 200 different diseases and kills thousands every year, the fatal overdose for alcohol is around ten times the amount needed to get the desired effect. The fatal overdose for cannabis is immeasurable, it's never happened. www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/www.mpp.org/special/marijuana-is-safer/I'm still angry about that shit program, a so called Science World program on our National TV channel, which you thought were objective and correct. They tried to fill it with scientists, but one of the so called "scientists" was a guy who couldn't be a real scientist, he just happened to like alcohol. He blamed the scientific procedure of doing real tests to find out if alcohol users and none alcohol people had any differences in health measures after let's say 20 years. He said it can't be done since some of the people who now don't drink alcohol have done it before too much, so if they do they will be sick - and have to be excluded. So the group with normally non drinkers will be smaller than the usual drinkers group - and therefore such a test to see if alcohol is dangerous can never be done. What a weak explanation for not doing any tests if alcohol is dangerous. A group can be filled until it's filled, damn it! 🤣 Besides, are they necessary at all? Haven't we learnt anything? Instead he went on about how great alcohol was when it came to the buquet of health advantages, reducing depression, stress, anxiety, better circulation, less risk of stroke, heart failure and heart attacks, diabetes and more. He had a very hard time coming up with any side effects. And he was the main speaker. Politically controlled tv? 🤮 When Harry Anslinger went after the Mexicans and the Blacks in the guise of cannabis prohibition he could only find one physician prepared to substantiate his outrageous claims, a certain Dr Munch, between them they pretty much fucked up the world and it's inhabitants. This 'expert' in Sweden sounds like a similar type of character, sadly. hightimes.com/culture/crimes-reefer-madness/ |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 5, 2023 11:43:44 GMT
Latest New Zealand study on drugs and relative harms - journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02698811231182012"When considering overall harm, the MCDA modelling results indicated that alcohol, methamphetamine and synthetic cannabinoids were the most harmful to both the overall population and the youth, followed by tobacco in the total population. Alcohol remained the most harmful drug for the total population when separately considering harm to those who use it, and harm to others." |
|
