Canals and alcohol

[boathunter]

"You can quote science or real facts all day long, I'm basing my opinion on one anecdote"

That's fine then, twist my lifetime's experience into one anecdote if it makes you feel superior.

I'm not arguing with you, just straightening up what I said each time you twist it into something else.

If you want to smoke skunk that's just fine with me. I don't wish to and I've said why.

[nb Innisfree]

You can have all the alcohol for some of your life and you can have some of the alcohol all of your life but you can't have all of the alcohol all of your life.

 

Common sense I suppose, suggests that moderation is the key but it's not applicable to some.

 

It appears that some have a genetic predisposition to addiction, so for them the first pint or the first spliff is probably the most important and dangerous action in their life, they won't know if they belong to that addictive group until they're addicted. It's that fateful first step onto the bandwagon that can eventually lead to destroyed health many years later.

 

Maybe a genetic test could be available one day to indicate if you are carrying that explosive gene.

[Paul G2]

I didn't say running could kill you. Triggering an underlying heart problem is not the same as killing. If cannabis triggered the cardiac arrhythmia in those people they would have probably also died if they went for a run or had sex instead of getting stoned. It wasn't the cannabis that killed them it was the heart problem that they already had... The only way cannabis can kill you is if a pallet of it falls on your head.

 

 

You can quote percentages all day long, but I'm sticking to "Skunk is too strong and causes problems for people". That's my opinion based on my experience.

 

Without going into boring detail about strains and such, you are correct that "skunk", which you apparently use to mean most modern marijuana, is quite a bit stronger than a lot of the pot we would get in 1960's to 1980's. But the marijuana industry has done Clarence Birdseye proud, and the increases in potency is all through selective breeding, there are no artificial chemicals added. Did you know that the Medical Marijuana industry, in just a few short years, has hybrid strains that are higher in CBDs, CBGs, CBCs etc, (as well as with varying amounts of THC potency) in order to be more responsive to the medical conditions for which they are prescribed?

 

The bottom line is, today's pot is stronger than the pot of yesteryear. However, some people would have trouble with any substance they abused, be it alcohol, pot or drugs. Personally, I'm an alcoholic (21 years sober) and I know from experience that I simply can't handle alcohol. If you can't handle something, you need to stop doing it. It's not alcohol's fault that I'm an alcoholic any more than it is marijuana's fault that your son and his friends have problems handling it. If you can't handle it, don't do it. That's what you need to try to teach your son.

 

When your vices turn into habits, it's time to find new vices.

 

[John V]

I was thinking more about the negative violent effect alcohol has on folks' moods compared to the opposite effect cannabis has but yes, you are absolutely right, alcohol is a significant factor in many road deaths too.

 

I think you missed it..........if 15% caused by drunks and 85% caused by sober drivers shouldn't we ban sober drivers?

 

(not real statistics by the way) just trying to illustrate how things get skewed by BOTH sides

[GUMPY]

Deleted cos I CBA.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Loddon

[Sir Nibble]

"I don't have to" is not a credible basis for a conclusion, nor is a sample of one statistically valid. I would say that the anecdotal evidence of my own eyes is that cannabis can be harmful but I would not base a conclusion on that evidence alone with any degree of certainty. I am just deeply suspicious that one side of the argument feels able to wheel out bereaved parents to their cause as if the loss of a child to bad drugs automatically renders one an expert in toxicology and social policy. This is why I am dismissive of evidence not derived from proper scientifically rigorous methodology.

[boathunter]

 

 

Without going into boring detail about strains and such, you are correct that "skunk", which you apparently use to mean most modern marijuana, is quite a bit stronger than a lot of the pot we would get in 1960's to 1980's. But the marijuana industry has done Clarence Birdseye proud, and the increases in potency is all through selective breeding, there are no artificial chemicals added. Did you know that the Medical Marijuana industry, in just a few short years, has hybrid strains that are higher in CBDs, CBGs, CBCs etc, (as well as with varying amounts of THC potency) in order to be more responsive to the medical conditions for which they are prescribed?

 

The bottom line is, today's pot is stronger than the pot of yesteryear. However, some people would have trouble with any substance they abused, be it alcohol, pot or drugs. Personally, I'm an alcoholic (21 years sober) and I know from experience that I simply can't handle alcohol. If you can't handle something, you need to stop doing it. It's not alcohol's fault that I'm an alcoholic any more than it is marijuana's fault that your son and his friends have problems handling it. If you can't handle it, don't do it. That's what you need to try to teach your son.

 

When your vices turn into habits, it's time to find new vices.

 

Thanks for your concern, my son doesn't smoke dope or tobacco, it's some of his friends that have the problem and it upsets him to see them wasting their lives. Not that he's a saint of course - been there done that as most of today's young 'uns seem to have.

 

We used to a have a catch-all description "out-of-it-olics" to describe people with a propensity for, well, getting wrecked. I suspect you are one of these and have found cannabis the least damaging mind-state altering drug, hence why you defend it so keenly. Others would say you have a addictive personality, but I think that's a poor description. The only thing you're addicted to is changing your mind-state and who knows why that is. All IMHO of course.

[John V]

"Timothy Leary's dead....no no no he's outside looking in"

 

Moody Blues...many years ago

[LoneWolf]

For those comparing the harm caused by cannabis and alcohol...

 

 

 

post #85 drug related mortality

 

 

 

try looking at the bit at the top of the cannabis section marked "drug related mortality" and also notice its damage score is about 3 times higher than LSD (come back Timothy Leary all is forgiven)

 

You were referring to the table above - post 85, weren't you?

Why dont you take another look and maybe this time read the key as well

 

See that nice dark blue colour at the top? That's drug specific mortality. Now look at the cannabis column - no dark blue at all

 

Next colour down - darkish brown - thats 'drug related' mortality - now neither of us can comment on that because there is no link provided for us to read up on whet they count as 'drug related' - it may be a traffic accident due to being stoned which does not support your case - but one thing for sure is that it is not 3 times higher than the figure for LSD as you incorrectly state

 

Perhaps you should learn how to read & interpret tables like this before you try to use them to back up your reactionary opinions.

A bit more rigor in your thinking as well please

 

 

 

On a more general point, interesting as it is, that diagram is pretty worthless without having an understanding of how the data was collected and the weightings used to quantify the overall 'harm' it is trying to express

[Sir Nibble]

Any opinion not backed by good empirical evidence is a prejudice. I will not stick my neck out to support a CONCLUSION either way but I do feel that scare tactics, hysteria and replacing real evidence with parents tears points to a serious weakness in one side which seems unable to support a proper debate. Scientific truth is not arrived at democratically and fact is unaffected by emotional pressure. The parents of Leah Betts are regularly wheeled out and yet it is my understanding that their daughter was killed by impurities in the drug resulting from an unregulated black market. Often a proper debate properly evidenced is called for but is sabotaged by an insistence upon the desired outcome. Remember "just say no?" I recall a panel phone in where various "victims" would declare how their lives and prospects had been ruined which would then be dissected by the panel of experts (what role law enforcement has to play in this debate is moot but seems to consist of "It's illegal because it's wrong and wrong because it's illegal). Every so often we would have a different caller which would go..... "I've been smoking the weed for 30years and it hasn't done me any".... "Oh we seem to have lost that caller, so dead girls mummy would you like to cry for the camera please?" The tactics of the prohibition lobby strongly leads me toward mistrust and disbelief of their "Message".

[W+T]

Can i ask

 

Does it matter if we enjoy doing it, thats what life is about, live happy then die happy.

 

Chill out guys and take a splifffff, or in my case a crate of cidr`e:)

[Delta9]

 

 

 

 

 

On a more general point, interesting as it is, that diagram is pretty worthless without having an understanding of how the data was collected and the weightings used to quantify the overall 'harm' it is trying to express

It was from this study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract

[Jerra]

"Two of the deaths could not be attributed to anything but cannabis intoxication. Both were men who died of cardiac arrhythmia – when the heart beats too quickly or slowly. The team surmises that this was triggered by smoking cannabis."

 

​Running can also trigger cardiac arrhythmia.

 

The LD50 of cannabis is so high that it is physically impossible to ingest/smoke enough to kill you.

You omitted to include this part.

 

"But earlier this month, a UK coroner's report found that a 31-year-old woman died from a marijuana overdose."

[Sir Nibble]

Can i ask

 

Does it matter if we enjoy doing it, thats what life is about, live happy then die happy.

 

Chill out guys and take a splifffff, or in my case a crate of cidr`e:)

Yes it does matter and that's the point. Take your cold cider, imagine if I were anti booze and had the power to criminalise your drink. For me to do so would be a disgraceful imposition of my beliefs upon your conduct. This in my view is the nub of the debate. I do NOT need any self appointed mummy substitute to look after me. If I fall by my own folly then it is my own folly and none other's. I want facts to base an informed conclusion on not carefully selected sound bites to justify having someone else's conclusion foisted upon me.

[John V]

 

 

 

 

 

You were referring to the table above - post 85, weren't you?

Why dont you take another look and maybe this time read the key as well

 

See that nice dark blue colour at the top? That's drug specific mortality. Now look at the cannabis column - no dark blue at all

 

Next colour down - darkish brown - thats 'drug related' mortality - now neither of us can comment on that because there is no link provided for us to read up on whet they count as 'drug related' - it may be a traffic accident due to being stoned which does not support your case - but one thing for sure is that it is not 3 times higher than the figure for LSD as you incorrectly state

 

Perhaps you should learn how to read & interpret tables like this before you try to use them to back up your reactionary opinions.

A bit more rigor in your thinking as well please

 

 

 

On a more general point, interesting as it is, that diagram is pretty worthless without having an understanding of how the data was collected and the weightings used to quantify the overall 'harm' it is trying to express

 

 

alcohol overall score 72, cannabis 20, LSD 7 Q.E.D.

 

 

edit to remove duplication

Edited April 14, 2014 by John V

[LoneWolf]

Any opinion not backed by good empirical evidence is a prejudice. I will not stick my neck out to support a CONCLUSION either way but I do feel that scare tactics, hysteria and replacing real evidence with parents tears points to a serious weakness in one side which seems unable to support a proper debate. Scientific truth is not arrived at democratically and fact is unaffected by emotional pressure. The parents of Leah Betts are regularly wheeled out and yet it is my understanding that their daughter was killed by impurities in the drug resulting from an unregulated black market. Often a proper debate properly evidenced is called for but is sabotaged by an insistence upon the desired outcome. Remember "just say no?" I recall a panel phone in where various "victims" would declare how their lives and prospects had been ruined which would then be dissected by the panel of experts (what role law enforcement has to play in this debate is moot but seems to consist of "It's illegal because it's wrong and wrong because it's illegal). Every so often we would have a different caller which would go..... "I've been smoking the weed for 30years and it hasn't done me any".... "Oh we seem to have lost that caller, so dead girls mummy would you like to cry for the camera please?" The tactics of the prohibition lobby strongly leads me toward mistrust and disbelief of their "Message".

 

I agree. I feel sorry for Leah Bett's parents - they are being used by the media as an emotional tool which does nothing except stifle debate and information.

 

Sadly, if useful information had been more easily available to Leah Bett's friends instead of obscured by the hysterical 'drugs are bad just say no' official line then they may well have been able to recognise what was happening to her and know what to do about it

[cotswoldsman]

The quakers started the temperance movement in the early 19th century. I can find no reference to them extending their efforts to canal carriers at that time.

 

The sally ann had the Cornwall in the 1950's as a mission boat.

 

see his link on hnbc http://www.hnbc.org.uk/sites/default/files/newsletter/2010-3-page18-20-cornwall.pdf

Story of my Great Great Granfather

 

http://johnsloan.squarespace.com/diary/2012/5/21/mark-littlefair-howarth-1808-1879.html

[LoneWolf]

 

 

alcohol overall score 72, cannabis 20, LSD 7 Q.E.D.

 

you were talking about mortality and cited that chart as 'evidence' of whatever your point was - now i've explained how wrong you are you seem to have changed your tune

 

 

Why are you comparing 'overall harm' of Cannabis with LSD? It's a nonsensical comparison in so many ways

 

like i said - more rigor to your thinking please

 

 

 

thanks Delta9

[Sir Nibble]

How can you have a sensible debate when one side feels itself entitled to take any evidence contrary to their view, declare that it "Sends the wrong message" (what does that mean for ducks sake! it's either evidence or it isn't)and supress it.

[Delta9]

You omitted to include this part.

 

"But earlier this month, a UK coroner's report found that a 31-year-old woman died from a marijuana overdose."

 

Yep, Coroners are not scientists and sometimes get things incorrect.

 

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100129/

 

A human can not feasibly overdose on THC by smoking or ingesting it, the LD50 is too high. Especially not when they only smoke one joint as that 31 year old woman did.

[LoneWolf]

How can you have a sensible debate when one side feels itself entitled to take any evidence contrary to their view, declare that it "Sends the wrong message" (what does that mean for ducks sake! it's either evidence or it isn't)and supress it.

 

and sacks the independent scientific person they asked to investigate because they don't like the results

[John V]

 

you were talking about mortality and cited that chart as 'evidence' of whatever your point was - now i've explained how wrong you are you seem to have changed your tune

 

 

Why are you comparing 'overall harm' of Cannabis with LSD? It's a nonsensical comparison in so many ways

 

like i said - more rigor to your thinking please

 

 

 

thanks Delta9

 

if you check you will see I quoted drug related mortality not drug specific - more rigor please

[Sir Nibble]

and sacks the independent scientific person they asked to investigate because they don't like the results

Exactly! Behaving like that in my view means they have lost the debate by tacit admission that their case is weak as piss without the control of what evidence is heard. I really have not seen any evidence to prove the debate one way or another but plenty of evidence to demonstrate that one side is deliberately misleading and that cuts it for me.

[nb Innisfree]

I think the riskiest thing is to say "I can control it, I'll stop when I'm ready"

 

Quite often for many, they can't control it and the decision to stop comes after serious health issues when, alas, it's too late.

 

It's slow and insiduous, youth gives some immunity and a feeling of invincibility, but of course all that changes eventually.

 

I went through a few fags when I was 14 and drinking was my main hobby for a few years but it turned out I wasn't a born addict, my self discipline I once thought, but it was just luck. I sometimes wonder what percentage of my peers who were unaware like me but went onto addiction.

 

Starting out on drink or smoking or drugs is for some like lighting a long burning fuse, once lit the end is almost inevitable. A crystal ball is one answer but failing that try to look around and realise those unfortunates were once young and felt in control just like you. Maybe technology will one day come up with harmless substances, otherwise a I can't see a solution other than criminalising it all.

[John V]

Incidentally I would like to know how I seem to be being attacked for being anti drugs, when all I have done is pointed out that anyone who states quote "cannabis is harmless" is being silly......in comparison possibly. I pointed out that there is evidence pointing to a link with mental illness so there are risks as there are with almost anything on this Earth.

All drugs and medicines carry some risk of side effects, you balance those risks against possible benefits but you don't pretend they don't exist. Even aspirin can cause ulcers.

In no post have I mentioned anything about legality or otherwise, if someone wishes to take drugs, fine. but don't pretend that it is harmless