On 2 aug, 17:58, Blah  wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 2 aug, 17:10, Blah  wrote:
> >> JohnR wrote:
> >>> "Blah"  wrote in message
> >>>news:7dljrmF2apl78U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> Svenne wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:28:09 퍝, Blah  wrote:
> >>>>>> Svenne wrote:
> >>>>>>> Yes, all drugs are dangerous in themselves to varying degrees but made
> >>>>>>> many magnitudes more dangerous by prohibition.
> >>>>>>> An old boozer like Blah can spend his days stinking of stale alcohol
> >>>>>>> and unrine and boring everyone around, but him and everyone else would
> >>>>>>> be worse off if alcohol were made illegal. The knackered old fart
> >>>>>>> would even be better off all prohibition were ended and he turned to
> >>>>>>> something less destructive than the bottle.
> >>>>>> You seem to have an obsession with me Svenne, are the voices talking to
> >>>>>> you again?
> >>>>>> What exactly is YOUR problem, were you beaten by an alcoholic father?
> >>>>> It's the shite you write I'm commenting on, Blah. You know, the stuff
> >>>>> you are posting on usenet, or have you forgotten. I think you should
> >>>>> worry more about your own problems and lay off the booze for a while.
> >>>>> Svenne
> >>>> So, lets sum this up - I point out that an illegal drug is causing mental
> >>>> health problems, and most users are quite happy to gloss over any evidence
> >>>> of a problem.
> >>>> And *you* respond with a bitter rant about *my* use of alcohol?
> >>>> How does that work then? Fuckwit.
> >>>> You definitly want to see someone about your paranoia.
> >>> Here's the flaw in your apparent support of prohibition of some drugs> >>> presumably only the ones you don't use I might add.
> >> I have a *particular* vested interest in skunk, since it fried the
> >> missus brains (at least according to me and her shrink).
> >> And not once have I mention support of prohibition, its it wonderful
> >> when users read what they want from your message.
>
> > Cannabis doesn't fry brains. That's complete baloney on par with
> > claiming
> > that watching too much TV will rot your brain.
>
> Argue this:
>
> http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/ca...
>
> Which bits are these illustrious people wrong about?
>
> "Recent research in Denmark suggests that yes, there is. It is a
> short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis
> use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped
> using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found
> only around 100 new cases per year.
>
> However, they also found that:
> * Three quarters had a different psychotic disorder diagnosed within the
> next year
> * Nearly half still had a psychotic disorder 3 years later.
>
> "So, it also seems probable that nearly half of those diagnosed as
> having cannabis psychosis are actually showing the first signs of a more
> long-lasting psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia. It may be this
> group of people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of
> cannabis, and so should probably avoid it in the future."
>
>
> >> I am firmly pro *"don't let users get away with telling everyone how
> >> wonderful it it"*, when it clearly *isn't*.
>
> > Clearly? According to whom?
> > How are you going to get an accurate picture of cannabis when the
> > whole
> > debate about legalization is so polarized that there is more
> > propaganda (both pro and contra)
> > than factual information.
>
> The link above not factual enough - what more do you need? God to tell you?
>

For every study you find that demonstrates that cannabis causes
schizophrenia,
at least two more thorough studies can be found that demonstrate the
opposite (that there is
no causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia).
Just like all the studies in the past that have claimed 'cannabis
probably causes cancer'.
So just because you can find a study that supposedly demonstrates that
cannabis
causes schizophrenia, that doesn't prove anything.
There have been thorough reviews of the scientific evidence that have
exposed a lot
of research that supposedly demonstrates the health risks of cannabis
as pseudoscience
that has been carried out for ideological motivations (in support of
the war on drugs) rather
than to assess the health risks associated with cannabis.

>
>
> >> If enough users can get
> >> support for it being legalised, *so be it* - doesn't bother me the
> >> slightest, *AS LONG* as the message that *makes* it happen *AND* then
> >> *allowed to accompany the legalisation* is a much more *cautious* -*fine*
>
> >> Pot users would have a *much* better chance of support if they *wern't> >> so *rabid* about it being *god's gift*.
>
> > Pot prohibition is one of the most stunning examples of human
> > stupidity in history.
> > Virtually all of the problems associated with cannabis (in particular
> > abuse of cannabis
> > by teenagers) are the result of this moronic policy rather than
> > inherent properties of the drug.
>
> Ok, perhaps blanket prohibition wrong - but you would still ban kids?
> If so they will still smoke it illegally, but find it easier to steall
> their dad's legal purchase. Whats changed?

What has changed is that cannabis is demonized and kids are not stupid
and they
find out the truth about cannabis online and at that point they won't
heed
any advice with respect to more dangerous drugs (like cocaine, speed
or heroin).
So we might as well abolish all drug education and stop wasting money
on such nonsense, because
it will never work in the context of a legal system that arbitrarily
criminalizes some drugs while
allowing more harmful ones.


>
> >> For the record, legalise Heroin and Cocaine tommorrow! There doesn't
> >> seem to be any risks that a user won't already understand clearly.
>
> > Well, regulating it like alcohol (or perhaps more strictly), seems the
> > most sensible
> > option. I think there is no reason to allow advertisements or
> > commercial trade in cocaine
> > and heroin, but they could be made available cheaply via pharmacies to
> > ensure that adults
> > who are determined to use them can obtain them cheaply.
> > To ensure there is no market for organized crime to provide those
> > drugs, because that is far more
> > detrimental to society than drug use could ever be.
>
> I've no problem with that - if you lot spent a little less time throwing
> 'fascist' insults at people and discussed a solution, it might just
> work. All I have argued is that it shouldn't be in the hands of teenage
> kids, from personal experience.
> And for this I get tons of personal abuse.

Your claims about cannabis and how it supposedly fries brain are also
quite
insulting to people like me for whom cannabis happens to be an
important
aspect of their preferred lifestyle.

>
> >>> There is no evidence whatsoever that prohibition and the cretins who support
> >>> it's vindictive persecution do anything but make the situation with some
> >>> drugs many times worse than they would otherwise be. On the other hand there
> >>> is spades of evidence that legally regulated markets and medical support
> >>> where required are the way forward.
> >> Possibly, have I said any different?
> >> Problem you users have is that the more *excited* you get about the
> >> topic, the more the government of the day is likely to point a finger
> >> and say "see, thats what drugs do to you"
>
> >> More research and *reasoned* argument from the drug lobby perhaps?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
> What?

Oh, ignore that.
That's just some Dutch that Google likes to append to my postings for
some mysterious reason.

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:36:28 +0100, Blah  wrote:

>Svenne wrote:

>> I've been generously giving you advice about your drink problem that
>> you went public with. A commendable move that was, Blah and I admire
>> you for it.

>Get a life instead of worrying about others - you have nothing better to 
>do than make up fantasies about other peoples lives?
>Thats the thc for you.

Alcohol is rotting your brain, Blah, it was you who popped up here
with posts about your daily boozing. Lay off the bottle for a while
and you might remember. 

>Are you sure this is real?

I've told you before, Blah, don't ask strangers for advice about your
problems, go to a therapist, he'll tell you what is real and not.

Svenne