Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
new cannabis research, this time supposedly lowers IQ , and why their want to tell you this
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Aug 28, 2012, 3:57:14 AM8/28/12
to
Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
Why is this view dangerous? Well it means that the wealth and power of
the few isn't actually real, that legal tender money has truthfully no
more value than monopoly money. Life may be just a game, but those who
are ahead in this game want you to believe this game is real, because
peoples belief in their wealth and power is what grants them such
priviliges.
Mental illness is largely genetic, and due to the stigma surrounding it,
it's useful to shift this stigma off a well to do middle class family
off their genes and onto a naturally growing green plant.
As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to
me, kind of retarded.
Even for the core components of the by contrast very simple PC, not
including multimedia, you've got clock speed, bit depth, ram and
storage- that's four separate figures that can't be meaningfully
combined into a single one.
IQ does have uses, in those with a higher figure will generally find it
easier to learn in an academic environment. Outside the classroom, the
measurement has no real use at all. Most notably it omits social
functioning, which some might call "charisma", and metaphysical
intellect. Nor does IQ provide any measure of mental performance under
real-world pressure. Human intellect tends to be a lot more equal than
is made out- abilities in one area tend to mean related disabilities in
another.
To demonstrate lack of intellect amongst the "straights" who came up
with this, consider this. Whilst they pointed out that cannabis seems to
cause the most damage to the young smoker, they weren't able to relate
this to the fact that due to its total illegality unlike alcohol there
is no age limit on its sale. If they're busting adults for using and
selling, they're not going after the kids.
existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
Why is this view dangerous? Well it means that the wealth and power of
the few isn't actually real, that legal tender money has truthfully no
more value than monopoly money. Life may be just a game, but those who
are ahead in this game want you to believe this game is real, because
peoples belief in their wealth and power is what grants them such
priviliges.
Mental illness is largely genetic, and due to the stigma surrounding it,
it's useful to shift this stigma off a well to do middle class family
off their genes and onto a naturally growing green plant.
As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to
me, kind of retarded.
Even for the core components of the by contrast very simple PC, not
including multimedia, you've got clock speed, bit depth, ram and
storage- that's four separate figures that can't be meaningfully
combined into a single one.
IQ does have uses, in those with a higher figure will generally find it
easier to learn in an academic environment. Outside the classroom, the
measurement has no real use at all. Most notably it omits social
functioning, which some might call "charisma", and metaphysical
intellect. Nor does IQ provide any measure of mental performance under
real-world pressure. Human intellect tends to be a lot more equal than
is made out- abilities in one area tend to mean related disabilities in
another.
To demonstrate lack of intellect amongst the "straights" who came up
with this, consider this. Whilst they pointed out that cannabis seems to
cause the most damage to the young smoker, they weren't able to relate
this to the fact that due to its total illegality unlike alcohol there
is no age limit on its sale. If they're busting adults for using and
selling, they're not going after the kids.
The Todal
Aug 28, 2012, 4:11:32 AM8/28/12
to
On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
Andy Wainwright
Aug 28, 2012, 4:22:07 AM8/28/12
to
alcohol and tobacco retailers, don't impose age restrictions on sales.
Making it legal for over 18s would allow the police to concentrate on
stopping child smokers and dealers. In addition, the tax revenue would
pay for rehabilitation costs footed by the NHS.
Prohibition = Pro dealer
cromwell
Aug 28, 2012, 4:57:52 AM8/28/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k1htl3$qgj$1...@dont-email.me...
> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
> Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
The research shows that such consequences from cannabis use occur in a small
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
> Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
group of heavy users.
The stuff you have posted about so-called 'mentalism', is really just your
opinion. What you are describing at the philosophical level, is more
accurately called 'idealism', in contrast to materialism. The evidence as I
see it leads me to the opposite conclusions that you have outlined.
Evidence that the 'establishment' support for idealism,
a) its promotion of idealistic forms such as religion.
b) its hostility to science.
>
> Why is this view dangerous?<snip>
Well actually, in terms of the establishment, idealism isn't dangerous.
I believe the reason for the hostility of the 'establishment' to things like
cannabis, smoking, alcohol and obscenity, is far more prosaic and mundane -
it is a health issue. Individuals who indulge in such practices tend to be
less productive and therefore less profitable. This seems to me a far
better explanation than anything to do with idealism/mentalism.
> Mental illness is largely genetic, <snip>
Again an opinion for which the evidence is lacking.
> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most complex
> machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to me, kind
> of retarded.
again lacking.
<snip>
Geoff.
Mel Rowing
Aug 28, 2012, 5:36:48 AM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 9:22 am, Andy Wainwright
restrictions on sales either if only because such controls are nigh on
impossible. Some don't even try and will sell to anyone with the
money.
It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics. There
is no way the state could sanction provision of narcotics to such
groups. It would be downright dangerous. Even if one could devise a
way where dealers could withold narcotics from such people it would be
impossible in a society where these substances were widely and freely
available.
In any case once you set out to deny drugs to certain significant
minorities the you open up the possibility of an illegal market.
For these reasons restricted sales are just not on!
> Making it legal for over 18s would allow the police to concentrate on
> stopping child smokers and dealers. In addition, the tax revenue would
> pay for rehabilitation costs footed by the NHS.
And if you pay no tax?
No matter how you pay your tax whether it be directly through IT or
indirectly through VAT and excise duties you can only pay out of money
you actually earn. Benefit dependents pay no net tax. So many smokers,
heavy drinkers and druggies are benefit dependent a condition that is
more addictive than any drug.
Tax really represents that portion of your economic effort that is
simply taken away from you largely to benefit someone else. So when
you talk of rehabilitation costs above you are talking of costs
largely borne by those who have not and will not have any use of such
services.
Perhps benefits could be paid out in the form of vouchers (a system
I've seen in use in the states) To a certain value for food, to a
certain value for clothing, to a certain value for housing, to a
certain amount for energy with perhaps a small proportion in cash for
incidentals. That would cut out a fair amount of tobacco and alcohol
abuse. Keep the buggers short!
You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
never do a hand's turn.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/08/2012 09:11, The Todal wrote:
> Agreed. The problem is that drug dealers, being currently illegal unlike
> alcohol and tobacco retailers, don't impose age restrictions on sales.
Alcohol and tobacco retailers don't effectively impose age
> On 28/08/2012 09:11, The Todal wrote:
> Agreed. The problem is that drug dealers, being currently illegal unlike
> alcohol and tobacco retailers, don't impose age restrictions on sales.
restrictions on sales either if only because such controls are nigh on
impossible. Some don't even try and will sell to anyone with the
money.
It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics. There
is no way the state could sanction provision of narcotics to such
groups. It would be downright dangerous. Even if one could devise a
way where dealers could withold narcotics from such people it would be
impossible in a society where these substances were widely and freely
available.
In any case once you set out to deny drugs to certain significant
minorities the you open up the possibility of an illegal market.
For these reasons restricted sales are just not on!
> Making it legal for over 18s would allow the police to concentrate on
> stopping child smokers and dealers. In addition, the tax revenue would
> pay for rehabilitation costs footed by the NHS.
No matter how you pay your tax whether it be directly through IT or
indirectly through VAT and excise duties you can only pay out of money
you actually earn. Benefit dependents pay no net tax. So many smokers,
heavy drinkers and druggies are benefit dependent a condition that is
more addictive than any drug.
Tax really represents that portion of your economic effort that is
simply taken away from you largely to benefit someone else. So when
you talk of rehabilitation costs above you are talking of costs
largely borne by those who have not and will not have any use of such
services.
Perhps benefits could be paid out in the form of vouchers (a system
I've seen in use in the states) To a certain value for food, to a
certain value for clothing, to a certain value for housing, to a
certain amount for energy with perhaps a small proportion in cash for
incidentals. That would cut out a fair amount of tobacco and alcohol
abuse. Keep the buggers short!
You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
never do a hand's turn.
Mel Rowing
Aug 28, 2012, 5:41:08 AM8/28/12
to
On Aug 28, 9:57 am, "cromwell" <steu...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Andy Wainwright" <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Indeed and I would agree except that IQ is in fact a good though not
infallible indicator of future academic and intellectual performance.
> "Andy Wainwright" <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
infallible indicator of future academic and intellectual performance.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 5:56:42 AM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:57:52 +0100, "cromwell"
<ste...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
<ste...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Mental illness is largely genetic, <snip>
>
>Again an opinion for which the evidence is lacking.
just so...
>
>Again an opinion for which the evidence is lacking.
given the use of 'largely'
>> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most complex
>> machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to me, kind
>> of retarded.
>
>Now here you are correct. The evidence that IQ measures intelligence is
>again lacking.
and just in case..what do you mean by 'iq?
ps...anyone who has worked with dope heads has long
been concerned with the effects of hash on mental
functioning(intelligence)..and that over the long term...
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 6:06:01 AM8/28/12
to
'educated' classes through prescription from medics
Andy Burns
Aug 28, 2012, 6:08:01 AM8/28/12
to
Mel Rowing wrote:
> Indeed and I would agree except that IQ is in fact a good though not
> infallible indicator of future academic and intellectual performance.
Perhaps they should have asked to see the participants' wage slips over
> Indeed and I would agree except that IQ is in fact a good though not
> infallible indicator of future academic and intellectual performance.
the 20 years of the study?
If they could justify a statement such as "smoke cannabis before you're
18 and on average you'll earn ŁX,000 less before you're 24" it might hit
home.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 6:13:23 AM8/28/12
to
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 6:15:22 AM8/28/12
to
JohnR
Aug 28, 2012, 6:15:40 AM8/28/12
to
On 28/08/2012 10:36, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Aug 28, 9:22 am, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/08/2012 09:11, The Todal wrote:
>
<snipped>
> On Aug 28, 9:22 am, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/08/2012 09:11, The Todal wrote:
>
>
> You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
> payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
> to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
> never do a hand's turn.
>
>
Still as vindictive and blinkered as ever then, you'd rather continue
> You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
> payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
> to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
> never do a hand's turn.
>
>
paying out millions to the goon squad running round like headless
chickens, fighting their medieval crusade against "evil" citizens, than
abandon the failed war on some drugs, an expensive, oppressive, idiotic
nonsense that it is.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 6:17:48 AM8/28/12
to
strong 'addictive drugs' are widely available to the middle/upper/
'educated' classes through prescription from medics
repost due to the above poster stripping circulation
'educated' classes through prescription from medics
The Todal
Aug 28, 2012, 7:01:22 AM8/28/12
to
the brains of young people under 18 in much the same way as cannabis or
worse, why aren't we adopting an American-style law to ban the sale of
alcohol to those under 21? One possible answer is that our government
hates the thought of losing the revenue from alcohol sales.
As for cannabis, even if the government wants to ban the buying and
selling of it, why not allow people to grow it themselves if they want
to? Who loses? I'm interested to know. I don't have any firm views
either way.
Mel Rowing
Aug 28, 2012, 7:05:34 AM8/28/12
to
It's as it says "I don't want to and resent having to pay for baccy,
booze and drugs for those who
never do a hand's turn."
What's so endearing about them that I should?
never do a hand's turn."
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 7:08:50 AM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:01:22 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>As for cannabis, even if the government wants to ban the buying and
>selling of it, why not allow people to grow it themselves if they want
>to? Who loses?
now there's a conundrum!
they lose...the economy loses...theoretically...
perhaps cannabis displaces tobacco sales...when government
loses...but perhaps if government loses, we all win...
wrote:
>As for cannabis, even if the government wants to ban the buying and
>selling of it, why not allow people to grow it themselves if they want
>to? Who loses?
they lose...the economy loses...theoretically...
perhaps cannabis displaces tobacco sales...when government
loses...but perhaps if government loses, we all win...
JohnR
Aug 28, 2012, 7:57:08 AM8/28/12
to
glaring inconsistency, you are, or have given the impression previously,
that you're happy paying a huge amount to fund the war on some drugs.
That cost goes far beyond a mere financial burden to yourself.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 8:08:19 AM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:57:08 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
true...
the estimates are 10-20 times as much
wrote:
the estimates are 10-20 times as much
JohnR
Aug 28, 2012, 8:12:53 AM8/28/12
to
is how to reconcile almost a century of hysterical drug war lies,
misinformation and truly unfathomable damage caused by their ridiculous
crusade against some drugs. They have effectively made a rod for their
own back, using staggering amounts of public funding to empower a vast
paramilitary edifice built on fighting a losing battle against the
violence, corruption and squalor prohibition itself creates. They would
rather go down fighting and take everyone with them than admit they're a
bunch of idiotic hypocrites and liars who got it so terribly wrong.
The list of drug war beneficiaries is extensive and goes a very long way
to explaining why the utter lunacy is being perpetuated despite ample
evidence the efforts and money spent have little effect on usage
patterns either way.
JohnR
Aug 28, 2012, 8:33:09 AM8/28/12
to
less tangible effects of the failed drug war in everyday life. The
militarisation of a creeping police state, the surveillance society, the
funding afforded criminal enterprise and so called "terrorists" and the
legislation being imposed on everyone to try and counter these effects.
I personally think the stupidity of an ill conceived, idiotic drug war
has an awful lot to answer for.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 8:35:14 AM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:53 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>The list of drug war beneficiaries is extensive and goes a very long way
>to explaining why the utter lunacy is being perpetuated despite ample
>evidence the efforts and money spent have little effect on usage
>patterns either way.
the ultimate jobs scheme...
http://www.abelard.org/drugs.php#who_gains
Who gains by the great ‘drug war’?
It is quite a list; consider the interests involved:
who_gains Insurance companies garner all those premiums because
you fear burglaries.
who_gains Then, there are all those ‘security ’devices you are
scared into buying, to protect your house
from criminalized drug addicts, seeking
money for their black-market drugs.
who_gains And we must have plenty of prisons to keep all these
fiends locked away—
so we have a thriving prison-building
industry.
who_gains And, of course, we must have ever increasing numbers
of jailers to staff the prisons.
who_gains Because drug ‘dealing’ is a black market, it supplies
copious profits for the organisers of the
drug trade.
This provides great amounts of tax free
cash to bribe—
lawyers, police, judges, politicians and
sundry others.
who_gains Next, there is a steady diet of scare stories to feed
the ‘news’paper headlines.
Think how boring ‘news’papers would be if
they spent time telling you how little
crime there is.
who_gains And then the politicians can claim to ‘protect’ you
from all this mayhem, along with the scary
criminals who feed off it.
who_gains This makes plenty of excuses to register you, stop you
in the street, search you and invade your
house, or car, just in case you are being
naughty.
For that, of course, we ‘need’ a large
number of extra police, social workers and
lawyers.
who_gains Now, who is going to replace all those items being
stolen from your houses by the drug fiends?
Who is going to make all the extra sales?
Who will provide cheaper goods to those who
cannot afford them? Of course, for those
cheap goods, we can then employ fences and
dubious ‘second-hand’ outlets!
who_gains Then there all those business opportunities in selling
the drugs, for those school drop-outs who
cannot earn a decent living.
So, the ‘drug ’war’ is used to ‘justify’ more policemen and more civil
oppression. It develops more corruption, more lawyers, more sales to
replace stolen goods, more insurance premiums from frightened
householders, more sales for padlocks, as well as making ‘necessary’ a
good part of the security industry.
wrote:
>The list of drug war beneficiaries is extensive and goes a very long way
>to explaining why the utter lunacy is being perpetuated despite ample
>evidence the efforts and money spent have little effect on usage
>patterns either way.
http://www.abelard.org/drugs.php#who_gains
Who gains by the great ‘drug war’?
It is quite a list; consider the interests involved:
who_gains Insurance companies garner all those premiums because
you fear burglaries.
who_gains Then, there are all those ‘security ’devices you are
scared into buying, to protect your house
from criminalized drug addicts, seeking
money for their black-market drugs.
who_gains And we must have plenty of prisons to keep all these
fiends locked away—
so we have a thriving prison-building
industry.
who_gains And, of course, we must have ever increasing numbers
of jailers to staff the prisons.
who_gains Because drug ‘dealing’ is a black market, it supplies
copious profits for the organisers of the
drug trade.
This provides great amounts of tax free
cash to bribe—
lawyers, police, judges, politicians and
sundry others.
who_gains Next, there is a steady diet of scare stories to feed
the ‘news’paper headlines.
Think how boring ‘news’papers would be if
they spent time telling you how little
crime there is.
who_gains And then the politicians can claim to ‘protect’ you
from all this mayhem, along with the scary
criminals who feed off it.
who_gains This makes plenty of excuses to register you, stop you
in the street, search you and invade your
house, or car, just in case you are being
naughty.
For that, of course, we ‘need’ a large
number of extra police, social workers and
lawyers.
who_gains Now, who is going to replace all those items being
stolen from your houses by the drug fiends?
Who is going to make all the extra sales?
Who will provide cheaper goods to those who
cannot afford them? Of course, for those
cheap goods, we can then employ fences and
dubious ‘second-hand’ outlets!
who_gains Then there all those business opportunities in selling
the drugs, for those school drop-outs who
cannot earn a decent living.
So, the ‘drug ’war’ is used to ‘justify’ more policemen and more civil
oppression. It develops more corruption, more lawyers, more sales to
replace stolen goods, more insurance premiums from frightened
householders, more sales for padlocks, as well as making ‘necessary’ a
good part of the security industry.
Cassandra
Aug 28, 2012, 1:13:36 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:57:14 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
>Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
>matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
Cannabis use has been shown increase self-righteous twattedness
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>
>Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
>matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
amongst drug using criminals by up to 2000 percent
AlanG
Aug 28, 2012, 1:33:06 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
average drop in IQ of 8 points.
This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
points is nothing to base a theory on.
Perhaps the test would have been fairer if the testees had been given
a couple of months to refresh their minds and put them into the same
frame as they were when at school 25 years previously
wrote:
said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
average drop in IQ of 8 points.
This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
points is nothing to base a theory on.
Perhaps the test would have been fairer if the testees had been given
a couple of months to refresh their minds and put them into the same
frame as they were when at school 25 years previously
joeh
Aug 28, 2012, 1:33:53 PM8/28/12
to
On 28 Aug, 18:13, cassandra1249...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> Cannabis use has been shown increase self-righteous twattedness
> amongst drug using criminals by up to 2000 percent
I didn't realise Mel was a heavy doper! Respect!
>
> Cannabis use has been shown increase self-righteous twattedness
> amongst drug using criminals by up to 2000 percent
JohnR
Aug 28, 2012, 1:39:26 PM8/28/12
to
scraping drug warriors into an apoplectic rage just at it's mere
mention. Truly evil stuff.
abelard
Aug 28, 2012, 1:53:52 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>
>>
>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>
>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
it isn't 'irrelevant'...
it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
entirely incompetent
that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
done their job in a reasonable manner
that is a lot in any reasonable assessment
>throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
>had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
>There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
>points is nothing to base a theory on.
>
>Perhaps the test would have been fairer if the testees
give them hormones
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>
>>
>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>
>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
entirely incompetent
that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
done their job in a reasonable manner
that is a lot in any reasonable assessment
>throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
>had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
>There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
>points is nothing to base a theory on.
>
>Perhaps the test would have been fairer if the testees
CheeseySock
Aug 28, 2012, 2:00:28 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:57:14 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages
> mentalism.
>
> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages
> mentalism.
>
> Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
>
> Why is this view dangerous? Well it means that the wealth and power of
> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
>
> the few isn't actually real, that legal tender money has truthfully no
> more value than monopoly money. Life may be just a game, but those who
> are ahead in this game want you to believe this game is real, because
> peoples belief in their wealth and power is what grants them such
> priviliges.
>
> Mental illness is largely genetic, and due to the stigma surrounding it,
> it's useful to shift this stigma off a well to do middle class family
> off their genes and onto a naturally growing green plant.
>
> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
> complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to
> me, kind of retarded.
>
> Even for the core components of the by contrast very simple PC, not
> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
> complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems to
> me, kind of retarded.
>
> including multimedia, you've got clock speed, bit depth, ram and
> storage- that's four separate figures that can't be meaningfully
> combined into a single one.
>
> IQ does have uses, in those with a higher figure will generally find it
> easier to learn in an academic environment. Outside the classroom, the
> measurement has no real use at all. Most notably it omits social
> functioning, which some might call "charisma", and metaphysical
> intellect. Nor does IQ provide any measure of mental performance under
> real-world pressure. Human intellect tends to be a lot more equal than
> is made out- abilities in one area tend to mean related disabilities in
> another.
>
> To demonstrate lack of intellect amongst the "straights" who came up
> with this, consider this. Whilst they pointed out that cannabis seems to
> cause the most damage to the young smoker, they weren't able to relate
> this to the fact that due to its total illegality unlike alcohol there
> is no age limit on its sale. If they're busting adults for using and
> selling, they're not going after the kids.
well, I'd agree, any drugs too young (children need time to be children,
too many wise-guy youth nowadays) is not going to help, but I'd say good
cannabis can be, though depends on start personality and other drugs
used, an imagination (what is IQ?) and innovation booster, but requires a
supportive environment, and yeah, can get too stoned, but again
supportive environment can vary that point I think. (but probably a too
stoned point, like the bit where pink is at the piano in "The Wall" and
cannot communicate on same level as the Missus.)
Of course innovation and imagination largely depend on having a solid
learnt foundation, and cannabis is perhaps a bit a.d.d. type state
creating. (some old quote about Gods own medicine, comparing Ganja with
Opium, calling Ganja chaotic)
Problem is any drug test will show cannabis, it stays in system so long,
other drugs not so long-term traceable. So what causes what? What
passes as 'blow'?
Mel Rowing
Aug 28, 2012, 2:29:06 PM8/28/12
to
is known as hemp.
http://www.hemptechnology.co.uk/
However, nobody is going to get high on commercial hemp. The
commercial strains have been developed so that their THC content is
zero. Unfortunately the same effort put into a crop to yield ~£550/
hectare. can be used to grow a crop worth 100s of times more at
street prices! and which to the eye is identical.
Given such high rates of return, it's somewhat optimistic to suggest
that such practices would not carry over to the production of high THC
skunk in quantities that would far exceed personal usage. Skunk has
been similarly selectively strained but in the opposite direction. To
make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
a stupendous task.
CheeseySock
Aug 28, 2012, 4:08:29 PM8/28/12
to
ranking perhaps...
1. just pharma amphetamine low dose = improved response (yeah M.O.D. buy
it the 'kers''' pep pills... M.O.D.afinil... LOL)
2. cannabis.... good cannabis... bit of cbd... bit of thc... whatever...
= kind of 3rd person perspective computer game... playing from an angle
outside yourself. But observing that fact... so thats? 2 cubed to the
power of....
3? or 1? Coca tea... or tincture... or wine...
7? or 6? or 9? yeah... right so thats... alchohol... ganja... or was that
ganja.. alchohol... and then some... etc. etc.
thats the booze talking... LOL
Charles Bryant
Aug 28, 2012, 6:16:32 PM8/28/12
to
In article <35e37d11-0e2c-447d...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
paracetemol etc are.
Mel Rowing <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
} To
}make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
}the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
}a stupendous task.
So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
} To
}make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
}the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
}a stupendous task.
paracetemol etc are.
Charles Bryant
Aug 28, 2012, 6:14:26 PM8/28/12
to
In article <80190d20-8905-4d5f...@x3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
}This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
}population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
}children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
}illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics.
What's special about pregnant women? Do you think they're stupid or
something?
}You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
}payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
}to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
}never do a hand's turn.
A remarkable sweeping, and untrue, assertion.
Mel Rowing <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
}It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
}look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
}is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
}broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
}thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
Compare it with prohibition. It's a lot more successful.
}It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
}look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
}is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
}broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
}thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
}This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
}population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
}children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
}illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics.
something?
}You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
}payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
}to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
}never do a hand's turn.
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 3:46:05 AM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:53:52 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
> entirely incompetent
It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
age
>
>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
> done their job in a reasonable manner
It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>>
>>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>
>>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
>
>it isn't 'irrelevant'...
It is. 8 points from two tests is nothing to base a theory on
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>>
>>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>
>>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
>
>it isn't 'irrelevant'...
>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
> entirely incompetent
25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
age
>
>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
> done their job in a reasonable manner
Mel Rowing
Aug 29, 2012, 4:07:46 AM8/29/12
to
On Aug 28, 11:34 pm, Charles Bryant <n748986026...@chch.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <35e37d11-0e2c-447d-93dd-30686c319...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
> In article <35e37d11-0e2c-447d-93dd-30686c319...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> } To
> }make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
> }the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
> }a stupendous task.
>
> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
> paracetemol etc are.
And who picks up the casualties?
>
> } To
> }make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
> }the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
> }a stupendous task.
>
> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
> paracetemol etc are.
Mel Rowing
Aug 29, 2012, 4:28:48 AM8/29/12
to
On Aug 28, 11:34 pm, Charles Bryant <n1920799243...@chch.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <80190d20-8905-4d5f-9032-3e42b4f9a...@x3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
in odd corners consumong alcohol and occasionally behaving
accordingly. You would not get the scenes that disgrace our town and
city centres on weekend nights. There would be no alcoholism. No need
of rehabilitation cirrhosis levels would be near non existant.
Children would not be habitual smokers in the mid teens, the
incidences of lung and premature heart disease would be much lower.
> }This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
> }population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
> }children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
> }illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics.
>
> What's special about pregnant women? Do you think they're stupid or
> something?
No more than any other section of the population. Nonetheless it is a
fact that addicted mothers tend to give birth to ready addicted
children who tend to be underweight, more likely stillborn and present
more difficulties at birth. It's inevitable. Junkies are not famous
for looking after themselves.
> }You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
> }payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
> }to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
> }never do a hand's turn.
>
> A remarkable sweeping, and untrue, assertion.
Fact! You cannot pay taxes on money you don't earn. It's like the
sweetshop keeper giving children pennies to spend only in his shop.
All he is really giving away is the sweets. If the public really were
keen on buying these unnecessary and indeed harmful substances for
those who could no otherwise perform them then they could be provided
through charities. I fancy such a charity would no have many
subscribers. I have no choice regarding whether I pay my taxes or not
regardless of where the money goes.
wrote:
> In article <80190d20-8905-4d5f-9032-3e42b4f9a...@x3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> }It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
> }look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
> }is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
> }broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
> }thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
>
> Compare it with prohibition. It's a lot more successful.
No it's not because if it were, you would not get groups of children
>
> }It always amuses me when people like you say to people like me "Just
> }look what a glowing success leagalisation of rugs like alcohol is!" It
> }is not! The truth is that because this stuff is so widely available in
> }broader society, young people can easily get hold of the stuff even
> }thorough parents and older (or older looking peers)
>
> Compare it with prohibition. It's a lot more successful.
in odd corners consumong alcohol and occasionally behaving
accordingly. You would not get the scenes that disgrace our town and
city centres on weekend nights. There would be no alcoholism. No need
of rehabilitation cirrhosis levels would be near non existant.
Children would not be habitual smokers in the mid teens, the
incidences of lung and premature heart disease would be much lower.
> }This raises another problem. There are certain groups in our
> }population who should never get their hands on narcotics. I cite
> }children, pregnant women, those suffering certain types of mental
> }illness, those taking various types of medication, alcoholics.
>
> What's special about pregnant women? Do you think they're stupid or
> something?
fact that addicted mothers tend to give birth to ready addicted
children who tend to be underweight, more likely stillborn and present
more difficulties at birth. It's inevitable. Junkies are not famous
for looking after themselves.
> }You just refuse to accept fundamental notion don't you? Real tax
> }payers (those who pay tax out of what they actually earn) don't want
> }to and resent having to pay for baccy, booze and drugs for those who
> }never do a hand's turn.
>
> A remarkable sweeping, and untrue, assertion.
sweetshop keeper giving children pennies to spend only in his shop.
All he is really giving away is the sweets. If the public really were
keen on buying these unnecessary and indeed harmful substances for
those who could no otherwise perform them then they could be provided
through charities. I fancy such a charity would no have many
subscribers. I have no choice regarding whether I pay my taxes or not
regardless of where the money goes.
Bod
Aug 29, 2012, 5:32:23 AM8/29/12
to
night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 5:43:59 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:46:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
4 times that amount is the difference between average
and mentally deficient...or average and mensa...
average means some are above that...and some below...
>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>> entirely incompetent
>
>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>age
it probably is...among other things
approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>
>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
has a core of able researchers...
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:53:52 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>>>
>>>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>>>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>>>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>>
>>>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
>>
>>it isn't 'irrelevant'...
>It is. 8 points from two tests is nothing to base a theory on
repeat, it is half a standard deviation...
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:53:52 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:11:32 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28/8/12 08:57, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages mentalism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To digress for a moment, the bad news is that in regular smokers under
>>>>18 years of age the IQ is permanently reduced, so children should not be
>>>>permitted to smoke cannabis regularly. The good news is that there is no
>>>>evidence of any form of brain damage in those over 18. I shouldn't think
>>>>our newspapers will want to emphasise that part of the story.
>>>
>>>I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
>>>said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
>>>average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>>
>>>This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
>>
>>it isn't 'irrelevant'...
>It is. 8 points from two tests is nothing to base a theory on
4 times that amount is the difference between average
and mentally deficient...or average and mensa...
average means some are above that...and some below...
>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>> entirely incompetent
>
>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>age
approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>
>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
has a core of able researchers...
Mel Rowing
Aug 29, 2012, 6:17:39 AM8/29/12
to
In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
all things!
Whatever, alcohol in our society goes a very long way. A modern
society that holds concern for everyone good, bad, wise, stupid
inherited the alcohol and tobacco habits. We therefore are left with
little option but to regulate our way round the attendant problems
they carry with them.
This is not true of narcotics that are near totally alien to our
culture. There we do have political choice. We really can't have a
situation where society sanctions the increased availability of
subtances that inevitably do harm. In today's world you'd have
relatives suing the state for making these substances available. They
do harm. We don't need them and so we shouldn't have them. Full stop.
In fact recent figures suggested both sets of tactics work. Alcohol
sales whether its across a bar or through supermarkets are falling as
pubs and other licensed premises become places where you can go and do
other things besides consume alcohol. Smoking rates have been more
than halved within a generation now that regulation has begun to be
taken seriously and become more assertive. A child born today could
see the elimination of the habit all together.
Even caanabis usage as estimated is falling despite illegal attempts
to promote the trade. Perhaps the message is hopefully getting
across.If so we don't want any intiatives that sent such trends in the
opposite direction.
Drug legalisation has absolutely nothing to contribute towards social
progress. Drug users are idiots. Let's keep it that way. Fools are not
labelled "dopes" for no reson.
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 6:30:05 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:43:59 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
without using booze or drugs
>
>average means some are above that...and some below...
Which means that only some were seriously down on their previous score
and some weren't
later.
harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
officer says so
without using booze or drugs
>
>average means some are above that...and some below...
and some weren't
>
>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>> entirely incompetent
>>
>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>age
>
>it probably is...among other things
Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>> entirely incompetent
>>
>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>age
>
>it probably is...among other things
later.
>
>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>
>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>
>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>
>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
> has a core of able researchers...
>
And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>
>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>
>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>
>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
> has a core of able researchers...
>
harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
officer says so
JohnR
Aug 29, 2012, 6:38:00 AM8/29/12
to
On 29/08/2012 11:17, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Aug 29, 10:32 am, Bod <bodro...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 09:07, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 28, 11:34 pm, Charles Bryant <n748986026...@chch.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <35e37d11-0e2c-447d-93dd-30686c319...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> } To
>>>> }make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
>>>> }the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
>>>> }a stupendous task.
>>
>>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>>>> paracetemol etc are.
>>
>>> And who picks up the casualties?
>
>> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
>> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
>> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>
> Indirectly that's me!
>
> In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
> In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
> all things!
>
Spoken like the truly vindictive hypocrite you are.
> On Aug 29, 10:32 am, Bod <bodro...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 09:07, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 28, 11:34 pm, Charles Bryant <n748986026...@chch.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <35e37d11-0e2c-447d-93dd-30686c319...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> } To
>>>> }make the growing of skunk for personal use legal you ipso facto make
>>>> }the subtance itself legal. Monitoring and prevention of sales would be
>>>> }a stupendous task.
>>
>>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>>>> paracetemol etc are.
>>
>>> And who picks up the casualties?
>
>> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
>> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
>> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>
> Indirectly that's me!
>
> In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
> In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
> all things!
>
> Whatever, alcohol in our society goes a very long way. A modern
> society that holds concern for everyone good, bad, wise, stupid
> inherited the alcohol and tobacco habits. We therefore are left with
> little option but to regulate our way round the attendant problems
> they carry with them.
>
problems to those that would otherwise exist in a regulated marketplace.
> This is not true of narcotics that are near totally alien to our
> culture. There we do have political choice. We really can't have a
> situation where society sanctions the increased availability of
> subtances that inevitably do harm. In today's world you'd have
> relatives suing the state for making these substances available. They
> do harm. We don't need them and so we shouldn't have them. Full stop.
>
damage and death caused by alcohol abuse? While we're at it how many
people have died from cannabis use?
> In fact recent figures suggested both sets of tactics work. Alcohol
> sales whether its across a bar or through supermarkets are falling as
> pubs and other licensed premises become places where you can go and do
> other things besides consume alcohol. Smoking rates have been more
> than halved within a generation now that regulation has begun to be
> taken seriously and become more assertive. A child born today could
> see the elimination of the habit all together.
>
recession, the "other things" is required to survive.
> Even caanabis usage as estimated is falling despite illegal attempts
> to promote the trade. Perhaps the message is hopefully getting
> across.If so we don't want any intiatives that sent such trends in the
> opposite direction.
>
idiotic war, you're just a vindictive hypocrite, as all prohibitionists
are. After 100 years of idiotic drug war the illicit drug trade is thriving.
> Drug legalisation has absolutely nothing to contribute towards social
> progress. Drug users are idiots. Let's keep it that way. Fools are not
> labelled "dopes" for no reson.
>
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 6:40:35 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
what are you on about?
>>average means some are above that...and some below...
>
>Which means that only some were seriously down on their previous score
>and some weren't
well done
>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>
>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>age
>>
>>it probably is...among other things
>
>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>later.
as long as the sample is large enough and the controls are ok
that's not much of a problem
>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>
>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>
>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>
>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>> has a core of able researchers...
>>
>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>officer says so
the liver is not your brain in the case of most people
>>average means some are above that...and some below...
>
>Which means that only some were seriously down on their previous score
>and some weren't
>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>
>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>age
>>
>>it probably is...among other things
>
>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>later.
that's not much of a problem
>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>
>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>
>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>
>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>> has a core of able researchers...
>>
>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>officer says so
Cynic
Aug 29, 2012, 8:14:07 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:07:46 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>> paracetemol etc are.
>And who picks up the casualties?
What casualties?
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>> paracetemol etc are.
>And who picks up the casualties?
--
Cynic
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 8:17:13 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
Did you bother to read my original post?
I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
and intellectual exercise anyway.
>
>>>average means some are above that...and some below...
>>
>>Which means that only some were seriously down on their previous score
>>and some weren't
>
>well done
>
>>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>>
>>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>>age
>>>
>>>it probably is...among other things
>>
>>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>>later.
>
>as long as the sample is large enough and the controls are ok
> that's not much of a problem
It is with me. Two tests 25 years apart are not enough to give a valid
result
>
>>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>>
>>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>>
>>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>>> has a core of able researchers...
>>>
>>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>>officer says so
>
>the liver is not your brain in the case of most people
You weren't aware of the claims that alcohol causes shrinkage in the
brain?
I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
and intellectual exercise anyway.
>
>>>average means some are above that...and some below...
>>
>>Which means that only some were seriously down on their previous score
>>and some weren't
>
>well done
>
>>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>>
>>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>>age
>>>
>>>it probably is...among other things
>>
>>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>>later.
>
>as long as the sample is large enough and the controls are ok
> that's not much of a problem
result
>
>>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>>
>>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>>
>>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>>> has a core of able researchers...
>>>
>>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>>officer says so
>
>the liver is not your brain in the case of most people
brain?
JohnR
Aug 29, 2012, 8:23:26 AM8/29/12
to
zombie apocalypse set to sweep away all civilisation as we know it the
second cannabis is unleashed upon the good people of the earth - right
around the moment drug war stupidity ends.. apparently.
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 10:41:03 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:17:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
tests would measure that as 130 or 132
meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
but don't worry...
you're a socialist....so you're meant to be innumerate
>>>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>>>
>>>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>>>age
>>>>
>>>>it probably is...among other things
>>>
>>>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>>>later.
>>
>>as long as the sample is large enough and the controls are ok
>> that's not much of a problem
>
>It is with me. Two tests 25 years apart are not enough to give a valid
>result
not relevant my man...not relevant
>>>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>>>
>>>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>>>
>>>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>>>> has a core of able researchers...
>>>>
>>>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>>>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>>>officer says so
>>
>>the liver is not your brain in the case of most people
>
>You weren't aware of the claims that alcohol causes shrinkage in the
>brain?
over long term...mostly *old soaks* after several decades...
alcohol is a poison...with poisons you expect problems....
i've worked long term with druggies...hash and lsd(hallucinogens)
worried me far more than uppers like cocaine and downers
like alcohol and heroin...
some others i've met doing similar work had similar perceptions...
i've seen no similar mental deterioration attributable to alcohol
etc...
that doesn't make alcoholism harmless or any sort of fun for
those living with a serious alcoholic
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
>>>without using booze or drugs
>>
>>what are you on about?
>
>Did you bother to read my original post?
>
>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>and intellectual exercise anyway.
irrelevant...
>>>without using booze or drugs
>>
>>what are you on about?
>
>Did you bother to read my original post?
>
>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>and intellectual exercise anyway.
i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
tests would measure that as 130 or 132
meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
but don't worry...
you're a socialist....so you're meant to be innumerate
>>>>>>it will be based on average drops unless the publishers are
>>>>>> entirely incompetent
>>>>>
>>>>>It should have been based on tests done at intervals throughout the
>>>>>25 years not just one at puberty an another when approaching middle
>>>>>age
>>>>
>>>>it probably is...among other things
>>>
>>>Not according to the report. Tested once at 13 and again 25 years
>>>later.
>>
>>as long as the sample is large enough and the controls are ok
>> that's not much of a problem
>
>It is with me. Two tests 25 years apart are not enough to give a valid
>result
>>>>approximately, iq falls with age...and rises by generations
>>>>
>>>>>>that's half a standard deviation drop...assuming they've
>>>>>> done their job in a reasonable manner
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't look like it was. Not with tests that far apart
>>>>
>>>>irrelevant as long as they know their business...and nz
>>>> has a core of able researchers...
>>>>
>>>And 3 units of alcohol imbibed daily over a a week will seriously
>>>harm your health. Must be true cos the government chief medical
>>>officer says so
>>
>>the liver is not your brain in the case of most people
>
>You weren't aware of the claims that alcohol causes shrinkage in the
>brain?
alcohol is a poison...with poisons you expect problems....
i've worked long term with druggies...hash and lsd(hallucinogens)
worried me far more than uppers like cocaine and downers
like alcohol and heroin...
some others i've met doing similar work had similar perceptions...
i've seen no similar mental deterioration attributable to alcohol
etc...
that doesn't make alcoholism harmless or any sort of fun for
those living with a serious alcoholic
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 10:58:17 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:41:03 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
same potential.
drop in scores?
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:17:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>
>>>>That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
>>>>without using booze or drugs
>>>
>>>what are you on about?
>>
>>Did you bother to read my original post?
>>
>>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>>and intellectual exercise anyway.
>
>irrelevant...
>i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
The ones in the study will not have been or applied to those with the
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:17:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>
>>>>That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
>>>>without using booze or drugs
>>>
>>>what are you on about?
>>
>>Did you bother to read my original post?
>>
>>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>>and intellectual exercise anyway.
>
>irrelevant...
>i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
same potential.
>
>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
The report says only two
>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>
>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>
>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>
>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
drop in scores?
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 11:09:17 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:58:17 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>
>The report says only two
large numbers of subjects + related tests
>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>
>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>
>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>drop in scores?
two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:41:03 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:17:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>
>>>>>That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
>>>>>without using booze or drugs
>>>>
>>>>what are you on about?
>>>
>>>Did you bother to read my original post?
>>>
>>>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>>>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>>>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>>>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>>>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>>>and intellectual exercise anyway.
>>
>>irrelevant...
>>i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
>
>The ones in the study will not have been or applied to those with the
>same potential.
what are you on about? you trolling??
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:41:03 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:17:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:40:35 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:30:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>
>>>>>That's correct but still irrelevant. Wider swings can occur naturally
>>>>>without using booze or drugs
>>>>
>>>>what are you on about?
>>>
>>>Did you bother to read my original post?
>>>
>>>I had several IQ tests in my youth when applying for jobs and twice in
>>>the army. The results ranged from 119 to 140. That's over a 20 point
>>>spread without me using cannabis or partaking of more than a couple of
>>>bottles of light ale on a weekend. IQ tests are not accurate enough to
>>>give more than a general indication and as we know will vary with age
>>>and intellectual exercise anyway.
>>
>>irrelevant...
>>i doubt you even know whether the tests were similar...
>
>The ones in the study will not have been or applied to those with the
>same potential.
>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>
>The report says only two
>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>
>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>
>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>drop in scores?
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 11:14:35 AM8/29/12
to
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 11:42:06 AM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:09:17 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
Two tests taken 25 years apart are unlikely to have been the same
tests. The subjects will not all have been undergoing a course of
education on the second test. The difference in their lifestyles has
to be taken into account
See if you can dig it up if it has been published
would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
to solve problems.
Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
time
tests. The subjects will not all have been undergoing a course of
education on the second test. The difference in their lifestyles has
to be taken into account
>
>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>
>>The report says only two
>
>large numbers of subjects + related tests
We don't know.
>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>
>>The report says only two
>
>large numbers of subjects + related tests
See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>
>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>
>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>
>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>drop in scores?
>
>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>
Unless both had similar numbers with similar lifestyles the tests
>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>
>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>
>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>drop in scores?
>
>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>
would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
to solve problems.
Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
time
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 12:17:05 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
all more or less reasonable...
not the *same* test...probably two closely related tests...
an 'a' version and a 'b' version
>>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>>
>>>The report says only two
>>
>>large numbers of subjects + related tests
>We don't know.
>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
not motivated...sincerely sorry!
>>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>>
>>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>>
>>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>>drop in scores?
>>
>>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>>
>Unless both had similar numbers with similar lifestyles the tests
>would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
>to solve problems.
if you want to argue...you could argue that dope heads
have tended to live their lives less responsibly...
if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
section on 'iq' tests...
ibm had such a section on the tests they used...but then some
amateur will probably argue 'that isn't 'iq' but is an aptitude
test'...same with the test mensa were using...
>Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
>than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
that is my expectation of both dope and testing...but see last remark
>I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
>time
that may be relevant...it depends on how well they matched
cohorts...
'iq' testing is not simple...if you seriously want more you'd
need to look into factor analysis and test standardisation
i have this on my site
http://www.abelard.org/statistics.php
among others....
imv iq can be taught...
i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
contain long(non-socialist) words!
not the *same* test...probably two closely related tests...
an 'a' version and a 'b' version
>>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>>
>>>The report says only two
>>
>>large numbers of subjects + related tests
>We don't know.
>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>>
>>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>>
>>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>>drop in scores?
>>
>>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>>
>Unless both had similar numbers with similar lifestyles the tests
>would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
>to solve problems.
have tended to live their lives less responsibly...
if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
section on 'iq' tests...
ibm had such a section on the tests they used...but then some
amateur will probably argue 'that isn't 'iq' but is an aptitude
test'...same with the test mensa were using...
>Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
>than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
>I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
>time
cohorts...
'iq' testing is not simple...if you seriously want more you'd
need to look into factor analysis and test standardisation
i have this on my site
http://www.abelard.org/statistics.php
among others....
imv iq can be taught...
i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
contain long(non-socialist) words!
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:21:31 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:28:48 -0700, Mel Rowing wrote:
> No more than any other section of the population. Nonetheless it is a fact
> that addicted mothers tend to give birth to ready addicted children who
> tend to be underweight, more likely stillborn and present more
> difficulties at birth. It's inevitable. Junkies are not famous for looking
> after themselves.
Why have you switched from talking about cannabis to alcohol and heroin?
> No more than any other section of the population. Nonetheless it is a fact
> that addicted mothers tend to give birth to ready addicted children who
> tend to be underweight, more likely stillborn and present more
> difficulties at birth. It's inevitable. Junkies are not famous for looking
> after themselves.
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:23:23 PM8/29/12
to
Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse:
results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full
Here's the bar charts:
Harm to self:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774/F1.large.jpg
Social harm:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774/F2.large.jpg
results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full
Here's the bar charts:
Harm to self:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774/F1.large.jpg
Social harm:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774/F2.large.jpg
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:26:35 PM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:33:06 +0100, AlanG wrote:
> This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
> This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
> throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
> had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
> There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
> points is nothing to base a theory on.
> had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
> There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
So's the number of people, it's only 50:
Valerie Curran, professor of psychopharmacology at University College
London and a member of the UK's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs,
was more sceptical, saying that a other factors, such as depression, are
also associated with heavy use and reduced motivation. “Although the
overall sample size is excellent, the data on adolescent onset of heavy
use is based on just over 50 people.”
She also noted that the findings represent a very small decline in IQ as a
result of very heavy use over a number of years, “which doesn’t relate
to recreational use”.
http://www.nature.com/news/drop-in-iq-linked-to-heavy-teenage-cannabis-use-1.11278
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 12:31:30 PM8/29/12
to
"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is
safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains"
Professor Terrie Moffitt Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains"
Professor Terrie Moffitt Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
Mel Rowing
Aug 29, 2012, 12:33:55 PM8/29/12
to
On Aug 29, 11:37 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/08/2012 11:17, Mel Rowing wrote:
> >>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
> >>>> paracetemol etc are.
>
> >>> And who picks up the casualties?
>
> >> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
> >> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
> >> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>
> > Indirectly that's me!
>
> > In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
> > In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
> > all things!
>
> Spoken like the truly vindictive hypocrite you are.
What's vindictive or (particularly) hypocritical about celebrating
> On 29/08/2012 11:17, Mel Rowing wrote:
> >>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
> >>>> paracetemol etc are.
>
> >>> And who picks up the casualties?
>
> >> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
> >> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
> >> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>
> > Indirectly that's me!
>
> > In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
> > In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
> > all things!
>
> Spoken like the truly vindictive hypocrite you are.
the fact than most people use alcohol sensibly? I don't get out of may
face either. However, lets bear in mind that that if your partiality
is towards drugs then there is no point in indulging unless you are
going to get out of your face. To put it another way a pint or glass
of wine taken in the company of a friend(s) is a convivial experience.
There is no equivalent on the drug scene. Drug dens were lonely places
full of people.
> > Whatever, alcohol in our society goes a very long way. A modern
> > society that holds concern for everyone good, bad, wise, stupid
> > inherited the alcohol and tobacco habits. We therefore are left with
> > little option but to regulate our way round the attendant problems
> > they carry with them.
>
> And prohibition does absolutely nothing but add significantly more
> problems to those that would otherwise exist in a regulated marketplace.
> > This is not true of narcotics that are near totally alien to our
> > culture. There we do have political choice. We really can't have a
> > situation where society sanctions the increased availability of
> > subtances that inevitably do harm. In today's world you'd have
> > relatives suing the state for making these substances available. They
> > do harm. We don't need them and so we shouldn't have them. Full stop.
>
> You don't half talk bollocks, how many people are suing the state for
> damage and death caused by alcohol abuse? While we're at it how many
> people have died from cannabis use?
access:
"In today's issue of the British Medical Journal, Prof Henry and other
doctors from Imperial College, and St Mary's Hospital, both in London,
say cannabis could be a major contributor to UK deaths.
Researchers calculate that if 120,000 deaths are caused among
13million smokers, the corresponding figure among 3.2million cannabis
smokers would be 30,000.
The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and abnormalities associated
with serious mental illness.
Users are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia.
The British Lung Foundation says smoking three joints a day can cause
the same damage to the airways as a pack of 20 cigarettes.
Prof Henry added: "Even if the number of deaths turned out to be only
a fraction of the 30,000 we believe possible, cannabis smoking would
still be described as a major health hazard.
"If we add in the likely mental health burden to that of medical
illnesses and premature death, the potential effects of cannabis
cannot be ignored."
Dr William Oldfield, from St Mary's Hospital and one of the authors of
the article, said: "Cannabis and nicotine cigarettes have a different
mode of inhalation. The puff taken by cannabis smokers is two-thirds
larger, they inhale a third more and hold down the smoke four times
longer.
"All these factors could contribute to illnesses of the heart and
respiratory system, particularly as the chemicals in cannabis smoke
are retained in the body to a much higher degree."
He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
Power hippies in the 1960s."
Deaths do occur thorough alcohol abuse for all kinds of reasons.
However, there would be no point in relatives suing the government
since governments have not recently or at all legalised the use of
alcohol. It consumption is completely voluntary and always has been.
> > In fact recent figures suggested both sets of tactics work. Alcohol
> > sales whether its across a bar or through supermarkets are falling as
> > pubs and other licensed premises become places where you can go and do
> > other things besides consume alcohol. Smoking rates have been more
> > than halved within a generation now that regulation has begun to be
> > taken seriously and become more assertive. A child born today could
> > see the elimination of the habit all together.
>
> More bollocks, Pubs are closing at a rapid rate, there is a global
> recession, the "other things" is required to survive.
times it fails. Just about all of the drinking holes of yesteryear
have gone. These days if you won't or can't offer decent food you've
problems. They have to be comfortable and well run places where you
can take your wife and even children. Rubber mats in front of the bar
don't suffice. Toilets must not smell. Rowdiness and coarse talk must
be discouraged. Food used to be the province of the cafe or
restaraunt. Every meal served in a pub is one less that is sold in a
restaraunt. It's hardly surprising that restaraunt proprietors have
elbowed into the pub's province and acquired drink licences. The
number of restaraunts that have opened in the last 25 years or so IMV
has mushroomed.
Successful pubs these days are catering establishment and the
differences between pubs and restaraunts becomes increasingly blurred.
> > Even caanabis usage as estimated is falling despite illegal attempts
> > to promote the trade. Perhaps the message is hopefully getting
> > across.If so we don't want any intiatives that sent such trends in the
> > opposite direction.
>
> Usage patterns have almost nothing to do with the knuckle scrapers
> idiotic war, you're just a vindictive hypocrite, as all prohibitionists
> are. After 100 years of idiotic drug war the illicit drug trade is thriving.
I got my information from a revent Newsnight. Looking round it would
appear they got theirs from here.
http://tinyurl.com/cbspkqv
Read at least the executive summary. Note in particular the figures
for young.
There is reason to believe they are learning some sense?
Maybe! Bad news for you perhaps?
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 12:35:58 PM8/29/12
to
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 12:48:25 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:33:55 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 11:37 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 11:17, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>> >>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>> >>>> paracetemol etc are.
>>
>> >>> And who picks up the casualties?
>>
>> >> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
>> >> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
>> >> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>>
>> > Indirectly that's me!
>>
>> > In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
>> > In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
>> > all things!
>>
>> Spoken like the truly vindictive hypocrite you are.
>
>What's vindictive or (particularly) hypocritical about celebrating
>the fact than most people use alcohol sensibly? I don't get out of may
>face either. However, lets bear in mind that that if your partiality
>is towards drugs then there is no point in indulging unless you are
>going to get out of your face. To put it another way a pint or glass
>of wine taken in the company of a friend(s) is a convivial experience.
>There is no equivalent on the drug scene. Drug dens were lonely places
>full of people.
that is untrue...drug fiends tend to think of themselves
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 11:37 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 11:17, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>> >>>> So don't. Sell it in Tesco to anyone who wants it just as alcohol,
>> >>>> paracetemol etc are.
>>
>> >>> And who picks up the casualties?
>>
>> >> The same ones who pick up the thousands of drunks every fri and sat
>> >> night who abuse the legally available alcoholic drugs. The big
>> >> difference is that cannabis users don't go around looking for fights.
>>
>> > Indirectly that's me!
>>
>> > In the main, alcohol users do not go round looking for fights either.
>> > In fact the majority don't even get out of their face. Moderation in
>> > all things!
>>
>> Spoken like the truly vindictive hypocrite you are.
>
>What's vindictive or (particularly) hypocritical about celebrating
>the fact than most people use alcohol sensibly? I don't get out of may
>face either. However, lets bear in mind that that if your partiality
>is towards drugs then there is no point in indulging unless you are
>going to get out of your face. To put it another way a pint or glass
>of wine taken in the company of a friend(s) is a convivial experience.
>There is no equivalent on the drug scene. Drug dens were lonely places
>full of people.
as a rebellious in group...
or they are a bunch who don't mix easily in the mainstream
...so they again find a group where they are accepted
>> > This is not true of narcotics that are near totally alien to our
>> > culture. There we do have political choice. We really can't have a
>> > situation where society sanctions the increased availability of
>> > subtances that inevitably do harm. In today's world you'd have
>> > relatives suing the state for making these substances available. They
>> > do harm. We don't need them and so we shouldn't have them. Full stop.
>>
>> You don't half talk bollocks, how many people are suing the state for
>> damage and death caused by alcohol abuse? While we're at it how many
>> people have died from cannabis use?
>
>According to one Porfessor Henry of Imperial College given free
>access:
>
>"In today's issue of the British Medical Journal, Prof Henry and other
>doctors from Imperial College, and St Mary's Hospital, both in London,
>say cannabis could be a major contributor to UK deaths.
>
>Researchers calculate that if 120,000 deaths are caused among
>13million smokers, the corresponding figure among 3.2million cannabis
>smokers would be 30,000.
>
>The drug can cause cancer, lung disease and abnormalities associated
>with serious mental illness.
>
>Users are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia.
is it an attempt at self medication...
yes, of course i know there is a correlation
>The British Lung Foundation says smoking three joints a day can cause
>the same damage to the airways as a pack of 20 cigarettes.
>
>Prof Henry added: "Even if the number of deaths turned out to be only
>a fraction of the 30,000 we believe possible, cannabis smoking would
>still be described as a major health hazard.
2000 a week estimate from legal tobacco just in the uk...
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 12:55:43 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:17:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
I just don't believe this study is in any way proof that cannabis can
have an effect on intelligence. And I don't believe IQ tests are any
more than a general guide to a persons intelligence
Spend your time watching soaps and football and it decreases
>
>ibm had such a section on the tests they used...but then some
> amateur will probably argue 'that isn't 'iq' but is an aptitude
> test'...same with the test mensa were using...
>
>>Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
>>than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
>
>that is my expectation of both dope and testing...but see last remark
>
>>I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
>>time
>
>that may be relevant...it depends on how well they matched
> cohorts...
>
>'iq' testing is not simple...if you seriously want more you'd
> need to look into factor analysis and test standardisation
>
>i have this on my site
>http://www.abelard.org/statistics.php
>among others....
>
>imv iq can be taught...
>i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
> contain long(non-socialist) words!
Words are often invented to keep the non initiates ignorant of the
secrets of the society
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:09:17 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:09:17 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>Two tests taken 25 years apart are unlikely to have been the same
>>tests. The subjects will not all have been undergoing a course of
>>education on the second test. The difference in their lifestyles has
>>to be taken into account
>
>all more or less reasonable...
>not the *same* test...probably two closely related tests...
> an 'a' version and a 'b' version
>
>>>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>>>
>>>>The report says only two
>>>
>>>large numbers of subjects + related tests
>
>>We don't know.
>>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>
>not motivated...sincerely sorry!
Neither am I.
>>tests. The subjects will not all have been undergoing a course of
>>education on the second test. The difference in their lifestyles has
>>to be taken into account
>
>all more or less reasonable...
>not the *same* test...probably two closely related tests...
> an 'a' version and a 'b' version
>
>>>>>the paper will be dealing with large numbers of related tests...
>>>>
>>>>The report says only two
>>>
>>>large numbers of subjects + related tests
>
>>We don't know.
>>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>
>not motivated...sincerely sorry!
I just don't believe this study is in any way proof that cannabis can
have an effect on intelligence. And I don't believe IQ tests are any
more than a general guide to a persons intelligence
>
>>>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>>>
>>>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>>>
>>>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>>>drop in scores?
>>>
>>>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>>>
>>Unless both had similar numbers with similar lifestyles the tests
>>would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
>>to solve problems.
>
>if you want to argue...you could argue that dope heads
> have tended to live their lives less responsibly...
>
>if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
> improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
> section on 'iq' tests...
If you use your mind in problem solving IQ increases.
>>>>>eg mensa test as was would give you a score of 148 when most
>>>>> tests would measure that as 130 or 132
>>>>>
>>>>>meanwhile on a large study the expectation will be that individual
>>>>> variations will be cancelled out over the large number of subjects.
>>>>
>>>>If that were the case how do they know it was cannabis that caused a
>>>>drop in scores?
>>>
>>>two cohorts...one of dopeheads and one clean
>>>
>>Unless both had similar numbers with similar lifestyles the tests
>>would show only that some people seemed to lose part of the facility
>>to solve problems.
>
>if you want to argue...you could argue that dope heads
> have tended to live their lives less responsibly...
>
>if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
> improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
> section on 'iq' tests...
Spend your time watching soaps and football and it decreases
>
>ibm had such a section on the tests they used...but then some
> amateur will probably argue 'that isn't 'iq' but is an aptitude
> test'...same with the test mensa were using...
>
>>Did 100 drunken bankers who had never taken cannabis have a higher IQ
>>than 100 drunken bankers who had smoked it at 13?
>
>that is my expectation of both dope and testing...but see last remark
>
>>I'd want to know abit more than whether they smoked cannabis at some
>>time
>
>that may be relevant...it depends on how well they matched
> cohorts...
>
>'iq' testing is not simple...if you seriously want more you'd
> need to look into factor analysis and test standardisation
>
>i have this on my site
>http://www.abelard.org/statistics.php
>among others....
>
>imv iq can be taught...
>i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
> contain long(non-socialist) words!
secrets of the society
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 12:57:51 PM8/29/12
to
look after themselves better...
and it's of course the poor self management that is a much bigger
factor than the 'drugs'
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 1:01:02 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:35:58 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:
Its tjhe difference between 96 and 104.
The average person could get anything between those scores in a
succession of tests
wrote:
The average person could get anything between those scores in a
succession of tests
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 1:01:08 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:55:43 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
it's useful when compared with performance
>>if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
>> improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
>> section on 'iq' tests...
>
>If you use your mind in problem solving IQ increases.
>Spend your time watching soaps and football and it decreases
agreed
>>imv iq can be taught...
>>i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
>> contain long(non-socialist) words!
>
>Words are often invented to keep the non initiates ignorant of the
>secrets of the society
there's too much truth in that
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:17:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:17:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
.
>>>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>>
>>not motivated...sincerely sorry!
>
>Neither am I.
>
>I just don't believe this study is in any way proof that cannabis can
>have an effect on intelligence. And I don't believe IQ tests are any
>more than a general guide to a persons intelligence
i'll live with that...
>>>See if you can dig it up if it has been published
>>
>>not motivated...sincerely sorry!
>
>Neither am I.
>
>I just don't believe this study is in any way proof that cannabis can
>have an effect on intelligence. And I don't believe IQ tests are any
>more than a general guide to a persons intelligence
it's useful when compared with performance
>>if you work in eg computers...your reasoning will probably
>> improve...eg there is often a mental arithmetic sort of
>> section on 'iq' tests...
>
>If you use your mind in problem solving IQ increases.
>Spend your time watching soaps and football and it decreases
>>imv iq can be taught...
>>i can suggest books if you're really bored...but they do often
>> contain long(non-socialist) words!
>
>Words are often invented to keep the non initiates ignorant of the
>secrets of the society
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 1:02:19 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:01:02 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
you need to distinguish between individual and group results...
the claim being made is a group difference...
the claim being made is a group difference...
JohnR
Aug 29, 2012, 1:31:45 PM8/29/12
to
cannabis usage trends. Still waiting for that apocalypse are you?
> The British Lung Foundation says smoking three joints a day can cause
> the same damage to the airways as a pack of 20 cigarettes.
>
> Prof Henry added: "Even if the number of deaths turned out to be only
> a fraction of the 30,000 we believe possible, cannabis smoking would
> still be described as a major health hazard.
>
> "If we add in the likely mental health burden to that of medical
> illnesses and premature death, the potential effects of cannabis
> cannot be ignored."
>
> Dr William Oldfield, from St Mary's Hospital and one of the authors of
> the article, said: "Cannabis and nicotine cigarettes have a different
> mode of inhalation. The puff taken by cannabis smokers is two-thirds
> larger, they inhale a third more and hold down the smoke four times
> longer.
>
> "All these factors could contribute to illnesses of the heart and
> respiratory system, particularly as the chemicals in cannabis smoke
> are retained in the body to a much higher degree."
>
> He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
> Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
> Power hippies in the 1960s."
>
could kill 30,000 a year, oops there go's his credibility.
> Deaths do occur thorough alcohol abuse for all kinds of reasons.
> However, there would be no point in relatives suing the government
> since governments have not recently or at all legalised the use of
> alcohol. It consumption is completely voluntary and always has been.
>
The government don't sell them. All you're doing is flapping around
looking for anything to hold onto in support of a vindictive and utterly
failed prohibition of some drugs policy.
>>> In fact recent figures suggested both sets of tactics work. Alcohol
>>> sales whether its across a bar or through supermarkets are falling as
>>> pubs and other licensed premises become places where you can go and do
>>> other things besides consume alcohol. Smoking rates have been more
>>> than halved within a generation now that regulation has begun to be
>>> taken seriously and become more assertive. A child born today could
>>> see the elimination of the habit all together.
>>
>> More bollocks, Pubs are closing at a rapid rate, there is a global
>> recession, the "other things" is required to survive.
>
> The pub business is like any other if it does not keep up with the
> times it fails. Just about all of the drinking holes of yesteryear
> have gone. These days if you won't or can't offer decent food you've
> problems. They have to be comfortable and well run places where you
> can take your wife and even children. Rubber mats in front of the bar
> don't suffice. Toilets must not smell. Rowdiness and coarse talk must
> be discouraged. Food used to be the province of the cafe or
> restaraunt. Every meal served in a pub is one less that is sold in a
> restaraunt. It's hardly surprising that restaraunt proprietors have
> elbowed into the pub's province and acquired drink licences. The
> number of restaraunts that have opened in the last 25 years or so IMV
> has mushroomed.
>
> Successful pubs these days are catering establishment and the
> differences between pubs and restaraunts becomes increasingly blurred.
>
>>> Even caanabis usage as estimated is falling despite illegal attempts
>>> to promote the trade. Perhaps the message is hopefully getting
>>> across.If so we don't want any intiatives that sent such trends in the
>>> opposite direction.
>>
>> Usage patterns have almost nothing to do with the knuckle scrapers
>> idiotic war, you're just a vindictive hypocrite, as all prohibitionists
>> are. After 100 years of idiotic drug war the illicit drug trade is thriving.
>
> Is it? You seem to have a vested interest!
>
requisite for all prohibitionist loons based on the weird and wonderful
opinions they enjoy presenting as facts.
> I got my information from a revent Newsnight. Looking round it would
> appear they got theirs from here.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbspkqv
>
> Read at least the executive summary. Note in particular the figures
> for young.
>
> There is reason to believe they are learning some sense?
>
> Maybe! Bad news for you perhaps?
>
matters not one jot to me. You're still a vindictive hypocrite.
AlanG
Aug 29, 2012, 1:37:12 PM8/29/12
to
abelard
Aug 29, 2012, 1:53:14 PM8/29/12
to
Mel Rowing
Aug 29, 2012, 4:03:02 PM8/29/12
to
entered as "cancer, lung disease or abnormalities associated with
serious mental illness." You see these are the sort of words that
appear on death certificates never words like "smoking" or "Alcohol
abuse". Are you going to say these activities are harmless also? Well
apply the same citeria to cannabis addiction.
You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
white shrouds.
> > He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
> > Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
> > Power hippies in the 1960s."
>
> He's talking out of his arse. He's also a drug warrior who claimed it
> could kill 30,000 a year, oops there go's his credibility.
and Dr Olfield's analyses? Are we to be treated to a critique?
> > Deaths do occur thorough alcohol abuse for all kinds of reasons.
> > However, there would be no point in relatives suing the government
> > since governments have not recently or at all legalised the use of
> > alcohol. It consumption is completely voluntary and always has been.
>
> That just doesn't make any sense wrt to any drugs, illicit or otherwise.
> The government don't sell them. All you're doing is flapping around
> looking for anything to hold onto in support of a vindictive and utterly
> failed prohibition of some drugs policy.
sale.
> >>> In fact recent figures suggested both sets of tactics work. Alcohol
> >>> sales whether its across a bar or through supermarkets are falling as
> >>> pubs and other licensed premises become places where you can go and do
> >>> other things besides consume alcohol. Smoking rates have been more
> >>> than halved within a generation now that regulation has begun to be
> >>> taken seriously and become more assertive. A child born today could
> >>> see the elimination of the habit all together.
>
> >> More bollocks, Pubs are closing at a rapid rate, there is a global
> >> recession, the "other things" is required to survive.
>
> > The pub business is like any other if it does not keep up with the
> > times it fails. Just about all of the drinking holes of yesteryear
> > have gone. These days if you won't or can't offer decent food you've
> > problems. They have to be comfortable and well run places where you
> > can take your wife and even children. Rubber mats in front of the bar
> > don't suffice. Toilets must not smell. Rowdiness and coarse talk must
> > be discouraged. Food used to be the province of the cafe or
> > restaraunt. Every meal served in a pub is one less that is sold in a
> > restaraunt. It's hardly surprising that restaraunt proprietors have
> > elbowed into the pub's province and acquired drink licences. The
> > number of restaraunts that have opened in the last 25 years or so IMV
> > has mushroomed.
>
> > Successful pubs these days are catering establishment and the
> > differences between pubs and restaraunts becomes increasingly blurred.
>
> honestly, who cares, business is business. Except when it is prohibited.
> >>> Even caanabis usage as estimated is falling despite illegal attempts
> >>> to promote the trade. Perhaps the message is hopefully getting
> >>> across.If so we don't want any intiatives that sent such trends in the
> >>> opposite direction.
>
> >> Usage patterns have almost nothing to do with the knuckle scrapers
> >> idiotic war, you're just a vindictive hypocrite, as all prohibitionists
> >> are. After 100 years of idiotic drug war the illicit drug trade is thriving.
>
> > Is it? You seem to have a vested interest!
>
> That's just your over active imagination and wishful thinking, a
> requisite for all prohibitionist loons based on the weird and wonderful
> opinions they enjoy presenting as facts.
>
> > I got my information from a revent Newsnight. Looking round it would
> > appear they got theirs from here.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/cbspkqv
>
> > Read at least the executive summary. Note in particular the figures
> > for young.
>
> The evidence is quite clear that prohibition kills.
> > There is reason to believe they are learning some sense?
>
> trends by their nature ebb and flow,
>
> > Maybe! Bad news for you perhaps?
>
> Whatever imagery you prefer to apply from your lofty vantage point, it
> matters not one jot to me. You're still a vindictive hypocrite.
across this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19414232
containing this:
"The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse said fewer people
were dying from the most dangerous drugs.
Its director of delivery, Rosanna O'Connor, said: "This reflects
official statistics showing declining drug use and falling demand for
treatment among young people.
"It is the over-40s, typically in poor health from a lifetime's drug
use, who are at greater risk of dying from overdose. For them, and all
drug misusers, treatment remains the best defence against drug-related
death."
It could be that things are getting a bit crowded in your business and
you might be looking for an honest job!
BartC
Aug 29, 2012, 5:18:21 PM8/29/12
to
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rlvp38dludrus4ual...@4ax.com...
> I've just seen the report on TV. I have to rely on subtitles but it
> said they were tsted at 13 and again at 38. The testers found an
> average drop in IQ of 8 points.
>
> This is so small as to be irrelevant. IQ varies to some extent
> throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
> had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
> There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
> points is nothing to base a theory on.
>
> Perhaps the test would have been fairer if the testees had been given
> throughout your life. In the 60s when there was a fad for IQ testing I
> had a test several times for jobs and twice when I was in the army.
> There was a spread of twenty points between the lowest and highest. 8
> points is nothing to base a theory on.
>
> a couple of months to refresh their minds and put them into the same
> frame as they were when at school 25 years previously
If the tests were done properly, then the 8 points represent average *extra*
drop in IQ between those who taken drugs, and those who hadn't.
This would take account of any drop (or increase) that might have been
expected anyway.
However with a small sample, it's quite possible that it some cases the IQ
of some those who smoked the stuff under 18, might have gone *up*; so the
full results would have been interesting to see.
--
Bartc
CheeseySock
Aug 29, 2012, 5:19:47 PM8/29/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:08:29 +0000, CheeseySock wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:00:28 +0000, CheeseySock wrote:
>>> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
>>>
>>> Why is this view dangerous? Well it means that the wealth and power of
>>> the few isn't actually real, that legal tender money has truthfully no
>>> more value than monopoly money. Life may be just a game, but those who
>>> are ahead in this game want you to believe this game is real, because
>>> peoples belief in their wealth and power is what grants them such
>>> priviliges.
>>>
>>> Mental illness is largely genetic, and due to the stigma surrounding
>>> it, it's useful to shift this stigma off a well to do middle class
>>> family off their genes and onto a naturally growing green plant.
>>>
>>> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
>>> complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems
>>> to me, kind of retarded.
>>>
>>> Even for the core components of the by contrast very simple PC, not
>>> including multimedia, you've got clock speed, bit depth, ram and
>>> storage- that's four separate figures that can't be meaningfully
>>> combined into a single one.
>>>
>>> IQ does have uses, in those with a higher figure will generally find
>>> it easier to learn in an academic environment. Outside the classroom,
>>> the measurement has no real use at all. Most notably it omits social
>>> functioning, which some might call "charisma", and metaphysical
>>> intellect. Nor does IQ provide any measure of mental performance under
>>> real-world pressure. Human intellect tends to be a lot more equal than
>>> is made out- abilities in one area tend to mean related disabilities
>>> in another.
>>>
>>> To demonstrate lack of intellect amongst the "straights" who came up
>>> with this, consider this. Whilst they pointed out that cannabis seems
>>> to cause the most damage to the young smoker, they weren't able to
>>> relate this to the fact that due to its total illegality unlike
>>> alcohol there is no age limit on its sale. If they're busting adults
>>> for using and selling, they're not going after the kids.
>>
>> well, I'd agree, any drugs too young (children need time to be
>> children, too many wise-guy youth nowadays) is not going to help, but
>> I'd say good cannabis can be, though depends on start personality and
>> other drugs used, an imagination (what is IQ?) and innovation booster,
>> but requires a supportive environment, and yeah, can get too stoned,
>> but again supportive environment can vary that point I think. (but
>> probably a too stoned point, like the bit where pink is at the piano in
>> "The Wall" and cannot communicate on same level as the Missus.)
>>
>> Of course innovation and imagination largely depend on having a solid
>> learnt foundation, and cannabis is perhaps a bit a.d.d. type state
>> creating. (some old quote about Gods own medicine, comparing Ganja
>> with Opium, calling Ganja chaotic)
>>
>> Problem is any drug test will show cannabis, it stays in system so
>> long, other drugs not so long-term traceable. So what causes what?
>> What passes as 'blow'?
>
> Cannabis not a patch on Alcohol for a.d.d. type symptoms of course...
>
> ranking perhaps...
>
> 1. just pharma amphetamine low dose = improved response (yeah M.O.D. buy
> it the 'kers''' pep pills... M.O.D.afinil... LOL)
>
> 2. cannabis.... good cannabis... bit of cbd... bit of thc... whatever...
> = kind of 3rd person perspective computer game... playing from an angle
> outside yourself. But observing that fact... so thats? 2 cubed to the
> power of....
>
> 3? or 1? Coca tea... or tincture... or wine...
>
> 7? or 6? or 9? yeah... right so thats... alchohol... ganja... or was
> that ganja.. alchohol... and then some... etc. etc.
>
> thats the booze talking... LOL
I guess there comes a point with all drugs where your perceived benefit
from the drug exceeds actual benefit....
though they would have you believe otherwise...
benefit from what perspective.. ah... dependence on the state...
preferably only paying taxes from 'their' perspective.
ah... the two Ronnies 'insurance sketch'... LOL
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:00:28 +0000, CheeseySock wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:57:14 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>
>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages
>>> mentalism.
>>>
>>> Mentalism is the belief that rather than a mind being the product of
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:57:14 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>>
>>> Whilst there is certainly truth in dope smoking can make those with
>>> existing mental problems worse, this isn't what the establishment are
>>> worried about- it's the fact that the weed possibly encourages
>>> mentalism.
>>>
>>> matter, that matter is the product of the mind.
>>>
>>> Why is this view dangerous? Well it means that the wealth and power of
>>> the few isn't actually real, that legal tender money has truthfully no
>>> more value than monopoly money. Life may be just a game, but those who
>>> are ahead in this game want you to believe this game is real, because
>>> peoples belief in their wealth and power is what grants them such
>>> priviliges.
>>>
>>> Mental illness is largely genetic, and due to the stigma surrounding
>>> it, it's useful to shift this stigma off a well to do middle class
>>> family off their genes and onto a naturally growing green plant.
>>>
>>> As for IQ, the idea that you can describe the function of the most
>>> complex machine in the known universe with a single unit figure seems
>>> to me, kind of retarded.
>>>
>>> Even for the core components of the by contrast very simple PC, not
>>> including multimedia, you've got clock speed, bit depth, ram and
>>> storage- that's four separate figures that can't be meaningfully
>>> combined into a single one.
>>>
>>> IQ does have uses, in those with a higher figure will generally find
>>> it easier to learn in an academic environment. Outside the classroom,
>>> the measurement has no real use at all. Most notably it omits social
>>> functioning, which some might call "charisma", and metaphysical
>>> intellect. Nor does IQ provide any measure of mental performance under
>>> real-world pressure. Human intellect tends to be a lot more equal than
>>> is made out- abilities in one area tend to mean related disabilities
>>> in another.
>>>
>>> To demonstrate lack of intellect amongst the "straights" who came up
>>> with this, consider this. Whilst they pointed out that cannabis seems
>>> to cause the most damage to the young smoker, they weren't able to
>>> relate this to the fact that due to its total illegality unlike
>>> alcohol there is no age limit on its sale. If they're busting adults
>>> for using and selling, they're not going after the kids.
>>
>> well, I'd agree, any drugs too young (children need time to be
>> children, too many wise-guy youth nowadays) is not going to help, but
>> I'd say good cannabis can be, though depends on start personality and
>> other drugs used, an imagination (what is IQ?) and innovation booster,
>> but requires a supportive environment, and yeah, can get too stoned,
>> but again supportive environment can vary that point I think. (but
>> probably a too stoned point, like the bit where pink is at the piano in
>> "The Wall" and cannot communicate on same level as the Missus.)
>>
>> Of course innovation and imagination largely depend on having a solid
>> learnt foundation, and cannabis is perhaps a bit a.d.d. type state
>> creating. (some old quote about Gods own medicine, comparing Ganja
>> with Opium, calling Ganja chaotic)
>>
>> Problem is any drug test will show cannabis, it stays in system so
>> long, other drugs not so long-term traceable. So what causes what?
>> What passes as 'blow'?
>
> Cannabis not a patch on Alcohol for a.d.d. type symptoms of course...
>
> ranking perhaps...
>
> 1. just pharma amphetamine low dose = improved response (yeah M.O.D. buy
> it the 'kers''' pep pills... M.O.D.afinil... LOL)
>
> 2. cannabis.... good cannabis... bit of cbd... bit of thc... whatever...
> = kind of 3rd person perspective computer game... playing from an angle
> outside yourself. But observing that fact... so thats? 2 cubed to the
> power of....
>
> 3? or 1? Coca tea... or tincture... or wine...
>
> 7? or 6? or 9? yeah... right so thats... alchohol... ganja... or was
> that ganja.. alchohol... and then some... etc. etc.
>
> thats the booze talking... LOL
I guess there comes a point with all drugs where your perceived benefit
from the drug exceeds actual benefit....
though they would have you believe otherwise...
benefit from what perspective.. ah... dependence on the state...
preferably only paying taxes from 'their' perspective.
ah... the two Ronnies 'insurance sketch'... LOL
Charles Bryant
Aug 29, 2012, 6:39:19 PM8/29/12
to
In article <pan.2012.08.29....@stovell.nospam.org.uk>,
is really nothing more than some people's opinions. It's not based on
objective evidence and the people giving the opinions are likely to
have a particularly biased view of the harm.
Phil Stovell <ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote:
}Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse:
}results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland
}
}http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full
While that may be better than politicians' opinions on the matter, it
}Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse:
}results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland
}
}http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full
is really nothing more than some people's opinions. It's not based on
objective evidence and the people giving the opinions are likely to
have a particularly biased view of the harm.
JohnR
Aug 29, 2012, 7:24:35 PM8/29/12
to
On 29/08/2012 21:03, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 17:33, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
<snipped tabloid cut and paste>
> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 17:33, Mel Rowing wrote:
>
>>
>> Where are the bodies. You love these tabloid cut and paste jobs don't you.
>
> In the ground or have gone up the chimley each with the cause of death
> entered as "cancer, lung disease or abnormalities associated with
> serious mental illness." You see these are the sort of words that
> appear on death certificates never words like "smoking" or "Alcohol
> abuse". Are you going to say these activities are harmless also? Well
> apply the same citeria to cannabis addiction.
>
> You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
> as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
> white shrouds.
>
Every time you've been thrashed, when evidence is shown, which on
>> Where are the bodies. You love these tabloid cut and paste jobs don't you.
>
> In the ground or have gone up the chimley each with the cause of death
> entered as "cancer, lung disease or abnormalities associated with
> serious mental illness." You see these are the sort of words that
> appear on death certificates never words like "smoking" or "Alcohol
> abuse". Are you going to say these activities are harmless also? Well
> apply the same citeria to cannabis addiction.
>
> You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
> as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
> white shrouds.
>
occasion has been extremely detailed and in depth, you simply ignore it,
go quiet for a bit and then start regurgitating and peddling the same
old propaganda and drug war lies all over again - as below.
>>> He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
>>> Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
>>> Power hippies in the 1960s."
>>
>> He's talking out of his arse. He's also a drug warrior who claimed it
>> could kill 30,000 a year, oops there go's his credibility.
>
> And in your expert opinion what exactly is wrong with Professor Henry
> and Dr Olfield's analyses? Are we to be treated to a critique?
>
distorted figures in the amateurish editorial this pair of clowns, along
with kon, produced have been comprehensively thrashed. The point of
interest is why you keep regurgitating discredited drug war lies and the
propaganda driven distortions this pair conjured as truth.
>
> It could be that things are getting a bit crowded in your business and
> you might be looking for an honest job!
>
vindictive hypocrite though.
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 8:58:46 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:18:21 +0100, BartC wrote:
> However with a small sample, it's quite possible that it some cases the IQ
> of some those who smoked the stuff under 18, might have gone *up*; so the
> full results would have been interesting to see.
This is not novel research. Here's results from 2002:
> However with a small sample, it's quite possible that it some cases the IQ
> of some those who smoked the stuff under 18, might have gone *up*; so the
> full results would have been interesting to see.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full
"Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in
a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The
comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1
points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points
for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6). "
Summary:
Heavy users: decrease 4.1.
Light users: increase 5.8.
Former users: increase 3.5.
Non users: increase 2.6.
Therefore, light cannabis use makes you more intelligent.
Phil Stovell
Aug 29, 2012, 9:01:02 PM8/29/12
to
agrees with the evaluation published in The Lancet last year.
Mel Rowing
Aug 30, 2012, 3:48:00 AM8/30/12
to
On Aug 30, 12:24 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/08/2012 21:03, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR
> On 29/08/2012 21:03, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR
> > You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
> > as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
> > white shrouds.
>
> Every time you've been thrashed, when evidence is shown, which on
> occasion has been extremely detailed and in depth, you simply ignore it,
> go quiet for a bit and then start regurgitating and peddling the same
> old propaganda and drug war lies all over again - as below.
I can't recall an occasion when you have ever posted any!
> > as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
> > white shrouds.
>
> Every time you've been thrashed, when evidence is shown, which on
> occasion has been extremely detailed and in depth, you simply ignore it,
> go quiet for a bit and then start regurgitating and peddling the same
> old propaganda and drug war lies all over again - as below.
> >>> He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
> >>> Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
> >>> Power hippies in the 1960s."
>
> >> He's talking out of his arse. He's also a drug warrior who claimed it
> >> could kill 30,000 a year, oops there go's his credibility.
>
> > And in your expert opinion what exactly is wrong with Professor Henry
> > and Dr Olfield's analyses? Are we to be treated to a critique?
>
> No critique needed, they're easy to find anyway,
>.the idiotic claims and distorted figures in the amateurish editorial this pair of clowns, along
> with kon, produced have been comprehensively thrashed. The point of
> interest is why you keep regurgitating discredited drug war lies and the
> propaganda driven distortions this pair conjured as truth.
"This pair" are respected experienced professionals in their field.
> interest is why you keep regurgitating discredited drug war lies and the
> propaganda driven distortions this pair conjured as truth.
You are?
> > It could be that things are getting a bit crowded in your business and
> > you might be looking for an honest job!
>
> That warped imagination of yours running wild again. You're still a
> vindictive hypocrite though.
obviously means much to you. Why you do not say.
It makes one wonder. Do you push or consume?
End of !!
Andy Wainwright
Aug 30, 2012, 6:03:40 AM8/30/12
to
a result of this research- two reasons. First is that it would allow
focusing of all cannabis-related police attention on stopping under-18s
from using and dealing. Secondly, legalised dope like booze and fags
would have to be lab tested for strength and chemical composition-
meaning that users could choose a brand that suits them. For instance, a
drinker knows what tipple they can enjoy without messing them up too
badly- with illegal drugs it's often pot luck whether you get the
equivalent of supermarket budget lager or absinthe!
AlanG
Aug 30, 2012, 6:14:00 AM8/30/12
to
JohnR
Aug 30, 2012, 7:05:19 AM8/30/12
to
On 30/08/2012 08:48, Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:24 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 21:03, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR
>
>>> You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
>>> as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
>>> white shrouds.
>>
>> Every time you've been thrashed, when evidence is shown, which on
>> occasion has been extremely detailed and in depth, you simply ignore it,
>> go quiet for a bit and then start regurgitating and peddling the same
>> old propaganda and drug war lies all over again - as below.
>
> I can't recall an occasion when you have ever posted any!
>
You've got a poor memory then or perhaps that's just another display of
> On Aug 30, 12:24 am, JohnR <repro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 21:03, Mel Rowing wrote:> On Aug 29, 6:31 pm, JohnR
>
>>> You never substantiate anything you say. We are expected to treat it
>>> as though it came from heaven borne by angels with wings dressed in
>>> white shrouds.
>>
>> Every time you've been thrashed, when evidence is shown, which on
>> occasion has been extremely detailed and in depth, you simply ignore it,
>> go quiet for a bit and then start regurgitating and peddling the same
>> old propaganda and drug war lies all over again - as below.
>
> I can't recall an occasion when you have ever posted any!
>
your usual passive aggressive ignorance kicking in. Many others have
also shredded your nonsense, many times, do you remember those too or
have they been selectively eliminated as well?
>>>>> He said the cannabis used today - especially that bought in the
>>>>> Netherlands - was up to 40 times stronger than that used by Flower
>>>>> Power hippies in the 1960s."
>>
>>>> He's talking out of his arse. He's also a drug warrior who claimed it
>>>> could kill 30,000 a year, oops there go's his credibility.
>>
>>> And in your expert opinion what exactly is wrong with Professor Henry
>>> and Dr Olfield's analyses? Are we to be treated to a critique?
>>
>> No critique needed, they're easy to find anyway,
>
> Then go and find us one so that we may know what we are discussing.
>
professional and seemed a perfectly amicable bloke but that doesn't
alter that fact he was a prohibitionist, which severely affected his
judgement.
http://www.govyou.co.uk/les-iversen-of-the-acmd-on-cannabis
http://tinyurl.com/bvq4jeg
His assertions that cannabis could possibly kill 30,000 and is far more
dangerous than tobacco made him a bit of a laughing stock. He veered
more towards scientology than science at times.
>> .the idiotic claims and distorted figures in the amateurish editorial this pair of clowns, along
>> with kon, produced have been comprehensively thrashed. The point of
>> interest is why you keep regurgitating discredited drug war lies and the
>> propaganda driven distortions this pair conjured as truth.
>
> "This pair" are respected experienced professionals in their field.
> You are?
>
pulled the drug war nonsense these people produced to pieces, it is easy
to verify the peer reviews exposing their lies and distortions with a
simple internet search or two.
>>> It could be that things are getting a bit crowded in your business and
>>> you might be looking for an honest job!
>>
>> That warped imagination of yours running wild again. You're still a
>> vindictive hypocrite though.
>
> You are agreessive, abusive and clearly excitable over this topic. It
> obviously means much to you. Why you do not say.
>
and style Mel, don't pretend to be all offended. It's not excitement
either, it is frustration, you are impervious to anything other than
lies and nonsense that state cannabis is an evil deadly dangerous drug
and that the idiotic war on some drugs which creates truly unfathomable
damage in society must continue at all costs, and what costs they are,
despite all the evidence prohibition, and especially the self righteous
medieval crusade you find so endearing, makes matters many times worse
than they need be and achieves nothing positive whatsoever, unless, of
course, you work for the paramilitary front door smashing industry or
myriad other parasites with their snout in the drug war trough, or
perhaps like yourself, just hate and get a buzz out of seeing some
people using some drugs suffer and get treated very badly.
> It makes one wonder. Do you push or consume?
>
Mel, you can fill in all the blanks as you do with the evil drug in this
topic.
> End of !!
>
It isn't the end of anything.
The bottom line is that idiotic prohibition, vindictive punishment,
irrational hatred and hypocrisy push all your buttons on this topic.
JohnR
Aug 30, 2012, 7:08:35 AM8/30/12
to
and unimaginable harm in society that would be exposed by drug peace is
what terrifies prohibitionists and governments.
abelard
Aug 30, 2012, 7:55:59 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:05:19 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Professor John Henry was a prohibitionist, he was also an educated
>professional and seemed a perfectly amicable bloke but that doesn't
>alter that fact he was a prohibitionist, which severely affected his
>judgement.
>
>http://www.govyou.co.uk/les-iversen-of-the-acmd-on-cannabis
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bvq4jeg
second link not responding
wrote:
>Professor John Henry was a prohibitionist, he was also an educated
>professional and seemed a perfectly amicable bloke but that doesn't
>alter that fact he was a prohibitionist, which severely affected his
>judgement.
>
>http://www.govyou.co.uk/les-iversen-of-the-acmd-on-cannabis
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bvq4jeg
JohnR
Aug 30, 2012, 7:58:13 AM8/30/12
to
abelard
Aug 30, 2012, 8:25:53 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:58:13 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
that works....though it's a bit unstable...
tinyurl has been giving some trouble lately...
an alternate is here
https://bitly.com/
wrote:
tinyurl has been giving some trouble lately...
an alternate is here
https://bitly.com/
JohnR
Aug 30, 2012, 8:30:05 AM8/30/12
to
ta
abelard
Aug 30, 2012, 8:38:30 AM8/30/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:31:30 +0100, Phil Stovell
<ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote:
>"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is
>safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains"
>
>Professor Terrie Moffitt Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
'fairly confident' and 'is safe' is more confident wording
<ph...@stovell.nospam.org.uk> wrote:
>"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is
>safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains"
>
>Professor Terrie Moffitt Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
than would make me content...
i'd also rather lift the age to at least 19...and 21 as
a safety margin...
there has been some comment on alleged 'mind opening'
effects of hallucinogens...
and alongside that, schizophrenia associations...
i can see one or two 'therapeutic' uses of a hallucinogen
for highly repressed individuals...
but why would one 'need' it after that?
and then there is potential downside risks...(full blown
schizophrenia)
you can also set off a hallucinogenic state by skipping
enough sleep..so why the brain sledgehammer drugs?
note...i make these comments tentatively as i am highly
resistant/averse to the emotionalism that rides with drug
warriors!
Cynic
Aug 30, 2012, 10:05:29 AM8/30/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:33:55 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>What's vindictive or (particularly) hypocritical about celebrating
>the fact than most people use alcohol sensibly? I don't get out of may
>face either. However, lets bear in mind that that if your partiality
>is towards drugs then there is no point in indulging unless you are
>going to get out of your face. To put it another way a pint or glass
>of wine taken in the company of a friend(s) is a convivial experience.
>There is no equivalent on the drug scene. Drug dens were lonely places
>full of people.
Like pubs, you mean?
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>What's vindictive or (particularly) hypocritical about celebrating
>the fact than most people use alcohol sensibly? I don't get out of may
>face either. However, lets bear in mind that that if your partiality
>is towards drugs then there is no point in indulging unless you are
>going to get out of your face. To put it another way a pint or glass
>of wine taken in the company of a friend(s) is a convivial experience.
>There is no equivalent on the drug scene. Drug dens were lonely places
>full of people.
You are spouting total rubbish. A group of friends can get together
and smoke a bit of canabis for *exactly* the same reason that you
might have a few glasses of wine with friends. I know plenty of
people who smoke canabis without getting "off of their face" on the
drug. And no, I do not use it myself, but I recognise that it has the
same potential to be used responsibly as a "social lubricant" or
irresponsibly for the purpose of complete intoxication as alcohol.
The difference however is that the medical harm caused by over-use is
less with canabis, and people who over-indulge are far less likely to
become antisocial and affect other people.
--
Cynic
Phil Stovell
Aug 30, 2012, 11:52:19 AM8/30/12
to
smoking a spliff whilst listening to Beethoven's 6th and discussing
quantum mechanics is the same as injecting 0.1g of diamorphine and
crashing out.
Phil Stovell
Aug 30, 2012, 11:55:19 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:08:35 +0100, JohnR wrote:
> A century of global drug war hypocrisy, lies, death, destruction, cost and
> unimaginable harm in society that would be exposed by drug peace is what
> terrifies prohibitionists and governments.
I think saying "Sorry, we got it wrong for the last 40+ years" is the main
> A century of global drug war hypocrisy, lies, death, destruction, cost and
> unimaginable harm in society that would be exposed by drug peace is what
> terrifies prohibitionists and governments.
problem. Didn't some US senator want to make it illegal even to discuss
the war on drugs?
Phil Stovell
Aug 30, 2012, 12:00:33 PM8/30/12
to
associations. I have sympathy with your age limit suggestion, though.
Andy Wainwright
Aug 30, 2012, 12:27:34 PM8/30/12
to
amongst the anti-dope fraternity.
What's interesting is this condition is actually very hard to diagnose
in under-18s- it's most likely that those developing such symptoms after
smoking pot were so afflicted from day one, and the drugs have just made
it worse. Drugs aren't the only thing that can bring out latent mental
illness, rape, bullying, or being the victim of another crime, sometimes
relationship breakdowns can bring it on.
I was once admitted as an adult suffering acute drug psychosis, and
whilst the powers that be will say "self inflicted" etc, at the same
time a deeper look into my medical records shows that I attended a child
psychiatric unit as a long term in-patient years before I'd even sipped
a pint!
Would support an over 21 policy on cannabis sales, with a criminal
offence made of allowing under-18s to use that bought by over 21s.
What so many seem to miss when getting on their high horses about drugs
is that not everybody feels comfortable in themselves sober. Those with
brain chemistry imbalances will have a biological craving for anything
that will change their state of mind. The schizophrenic or depressive
will frequently drink or use alternative substances to bring emotional
pain relief. Denying pain relief of any kind is cruel.
abelard
Aug 30, 2012, 12:50:14 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:00:33 +0100, Phil Stovell
i assumed you didn't need jam on it:-)
> I have sympathy with your age limit suggestion, though.
good
> I have sympathy with your age limit suggestion, though.
JohnR
Aug 30, 2012, 3:27:43 PM8/30/12
to
others who spend a career in various organisations prosecuting a failed
war on some drugs, and then suddenly see the light and admit it isn't
working once they've collected the cheque and retired, is sickening.
Andy Wainwright
Aug 31, 2012, 4:54:40 AM8/31/12
to
common amongst student medics when he was training
speed or mdma and cannabis together are very likely to cause psychosis ,
psychedelic drugs combined with disrupted sleep are the worst
combination for mental health
Whether you are at risk or not from psychosis whilst conducting
experiments with your own brain depends on whether you have what
psychologists call a "stable case". Bizarrely it's still possible to
have this even if a diagnosed schizophrenic, in the same way that a
volcano can become extinct- once all the crap has come out there's no
more left. A stable case simply means being truly at ease with one's own
identity- few people actually are.
0 new messages