Cunts who smoke grass or pot

[Guest BrothersQuim]

24 minutes ago, Punkape said:

You gay peasant.

This is you.

[Guest Quincy Cockfingers]

29 minutes ago, Punkape said:

You gay peasant.

You talk a lot about gays, gayness, gaiety- suspiciously so. 

[Guest DingTheRioja]

On 04/07/2016 at 11:46 AM, Mrs Roops said:

Some cherry-picking and wishful thinking going on here.

It might be a good idea to check with a body of professionals who have to clear up the fallout of regular cannabis use.

Care to show just how much alcohol and tobacco fuck up peoples lives???

 

[Bubba C]

24 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Care to show just how much alcohol and tobacco fuck up peoples lives???

 

Occasionally, dung, you're not a complete fucking spastic. 

It's just a shame that your success ratio of non-retarded posts is 1:5213. 

[Mrs Roops]

27 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Care to show just how much alcohol and tobacco fuck up peoples lives???

 

I'm fully aware how both alcohol and tobacco mess up lives, what's this to do about cannabis use?

[Guest BrothersQuim]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

I'm fully aware how both alcohol and tobacco mess up lives, what's this to do about cannabis use?

What is you're stance on the legality of it currently Roops?  

[Guest Snatch]

A copper once told me that if cannabis was legal and alcohol illegal in his area,his weekends would be about 70% quieter.

[Neil]

8 hours ago, Ollyboro said:

Millions of people use cannabis regularly; a few tens of  thousands -perhaps-  develop mental conditions as a result. 

Only a few tens of thousands? Oh and there's me fretting.I'll assume youre in that category then,you know the one that's labelled 'weak,low IQ,can't think for himself waster'

[Admin]

11 hours ago, cuntspotter said:

Stop pming me  you piss taking Welsh blackface. You are in the cooler for 24 hrs.  Next time ...it's eternity.

Good job. Although largely inoffensive, I just can't tolerate the fucking stupidity it comes out with.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

9 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

I'm fully aware how both alcohol and tobacco mess up lives, what's this to do about cannabis use?

Cannabis use is, in general, less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.

 

9 hours ago, Bubba C said:

Occasionally, dung, you're not a complete fucking spastic. 

I like to keep you on your toes...

[Guest Snatch]

54 minutes ago, Admin said:

Good job. Although largely inoffensive, I just can't tolerate the fucking stupidity it comes out with.

Noooo.

[Mrs Roops]

2 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

Cannabis use is, in general, less destructive than alcohol and tobacco.

I'm always wary when I read statements such as, "he admitted it, more or less (I read it somewhere)" and, "cannabis use is, in general, less destructive than alcohol and tobacco". Comparing the "destructiveness" of three different drugs each of which provide entirely different symptoms with different degrees of severity dependant of the amount of consumption is impossible to measure, more so on a comparative basis where psychological damage manifests itself over time.

[Guest nobgobbler]

On 03/07/2016 at 4:15 PM, Ape said:

What did you do? Hit them with your cravat? 

Tied with a harvard knot?

[Guest Snatch]

Alcohol,soft drugs and tobacco are all harmful if taken over the years in a vast quantity. Alot depends on the body as well. Some people live to 95 years of age and smoke everyday and have a shot or two of whisky.(Admittedly not many.)  Others die young not having touched anything. I have personally known people in the past that like to smoke dope, but go to work and earn their money. I've known others that are bone fucking idle and gladly ponce off the dole but don't smoke gear.

Like Keith Richards once said " Everything in moderation" and he should know. Although his moderation is someone else's excess.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

5 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

I'm always wary when I read statements such as, "he admitted it, more or less (I read it somewhere)" and, "cannabis use is, in general, less destructive than alcohol and tobacco". Comparing the "destructiveness" of three different drugs each of which provide entirely different symptoms with different degrees of severity dependant of the amount of consumption is impossible to measure, more so on a comparative basis where psychological damage manifests itself over time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/marijuana-safer-than-alcohol-tobacco_n_6738572.html

 

...quotes/links from the US NIH, citing that cocaine is less fatally destructive than alcohol, and that of a dozen major recreational drugs, including alcohol & tobaccco, that cannabis is the least destructive of all.

Between 4 and 9 percent of regular pot users can develop dependence on the drug, according to a frequently cited survey supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. That’s compared with about 15 percent of drinkers who develop a dependence for alcohol.

This is the US that still has it as a Schedule I drug, cocaine being Schedule II and alcohol/tobacco not listed.

I quote like this table...

Selective, my arse!

[Mrs Roops]

23 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/marijuana-safer-than-alcohol-tobacco_n_6738572.html

 

...quotes/links from the US NIH, citing that cocaine is less fatally destructive than alcohol, and that of a dozen major recreational drugs, including alcohol & tobaccco, that cannabis is the least destructive of all.

 

 

This is the US that still has it as a Schedule I drug, cocaine being Schedule II and alcohol/tobacco not listed.

I quote like this table...

Selective, my arse!

Yeah, Matt Ferner, the Huff's reporter seems to be the stoner's pro-weed poster-boy and as is his wont, is being selective in the use of data.

I don't advocate on either side of the cannabis debate, however it does worry me that the stoner's stock "evidence" is given more credence than it deserves. Some "facts" e.g "cannabis is not addictive" are dubious to say the least. The oft used LD₅₀ is wrong on so many levels. This is a measurement that should only be used in conjunction with other measurements e.g Effective Dose, Minimum Effective Dose, Lowest Lethal Dose to name but a few. Aside from the fact that LD₅₀ is unreliable due to unrepresentative test samples (animals have different characteristics to humans is only one of many reasons) it should not be used as a stand alone statistic and definitely not as a comparative exercise where symptons of drug misuse are so different.

Since you have chosen the NIH to further your POV why not read a more comprehensive paper on the issue published by the same organistion? To save you time I'll draw you to one para:-

"The first major problem of the approach is the lack of toxicological dose-response data for all compounds except alcohol and tobacco. No human dose-response data are available; also no dose-response data in animals, only LD50 values are published. Furthermore, no chronic-toxicity data (long-term experiments) are available, which are usually used for such kinds of risk assessment. Therefore, we can assess only in regards to mortality but not carcinogenicity or other long-term effects. The absence of such data is specifically relevant for compounds with low acute toxicity (such as cannabis), the risk of which may therefore be underestimated."

I will say nothing more on that, save to save its strange that well-informed advocates of cannabis legalisation tend not reveal uncomfortable truths.......

National governments are reluctant to legalise or even introduce heavily regulated cannabis use because the long term effects, psychosis and related mental health being the major issue, are still not known. Once the genie is let out of the bottle its very difficult to put him back.

[Guest Snatch]

Holland seem to have it under control with it being controlled properly. Sure you have the black market sources as with everything but that goes for every country be it,drugs,alcohol or tobacco. I know quite a few people in Holland and only one of them smokes it. There is no problem there either and these people should know,being born and raised there.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

10 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Yeah, Matt Ferner, the Huff's reporter seems to be the stoner's pro-weed poster-boy and as is his wont, is being selective in the use of data.

I don't advocate on either side of the cannabis debate, however it does worry me that the stoner's stock "evidence" is given more credence than it deserves. Some "facts" e.g "cannabis is not addictive" are dubious to say the least. The oft used LD₅₀ is wrong on so many levels. This is a measurement that should only be used in conjunction with other measurements e.g Effective Dose, Minimum Effective Dose, Lowest Lethal Dose to name but a few. Aside from the fact that LD₅₀ is unreliable due to unrepresentative test samples (animals have different characteristics to humans is only one of many reasons) it should not be used as a stand alone statistic and definitely not as a comparative exercise where symptons of drug misuse are so different.

Since you have chosen the NIH to further your POV why not read a more comprehensive paper on the issue published by the same organistion? To save you time I'll draw you to one para:-

"The first major problem of the approach is the lack of toxicological dose-response data for all compounds except alcohol and tobacco. No human dose-response data are available; also no dose-response data in animals, only LD50 values are published. Furthermore, no chronic-toxicity data (long-term experiments) are available, which are usually used for such kinds of risk assessment. Therefore, we can assess only in regards to mortality but not carcinogenicity or other long-term effects. The absence of such data is specifically relevant for compounds with low acute toxicity (such as cannabis), the risk of which may therefore be underestimated."

I will say nothing more on that, save to save its strange that well-informed advocates of cannabis legalisation tend not reveal uncomfortable truths.......

National governments are reluctant to legalise or even introduce heavily regulated cannabis use because the long term effects, psychosis and related mental health being the major issue, are still not known. Once the genie is let out of the bottle its very difficult to put him back.

I will answer that properly when I can be arsed, but for now, the "establishment" know fuckall as usual, and only beleive what they pay for, but alcohol and tobacco are consistently shown to be much more detrimental to health/life than cannabis, whether or not cannabis has any inherent problems is not proven fully either way, but it's a shit load better than the alternatives according to most research.

The full effects of the two legal drugs are still not fully known, but they are still legal despite being proven to kill both in the short and long term.

Oh, and I don't smoke weed.

[camberwell gypsy]

On 07/07/2016 at 9:36 PM, cuntspotter said:

Stop pming me  you piss taking Welsh blackface. You are in the cooler for 24 hrs.  Next time ...it's eternity.

Well there's s fucking switch: the sheep in the cooler. Why don't you lot fuck it off forever? 

[Guest Ollyboro]

Currently stoned as a cunt, whilst overlooking Robin Hoods Bay. It's rare that life is as good as this. Delighted to be this stoned and not psychotic.

[Mrs Roops]

10 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

I will answer that properly when I can be arsed, but for now, the "establishment" know fuckall as usual, and only beleive what they pay for, but alcohol and tobacco are consistently shown to be much more detrimental to health/life than cannabis, whether or not cannabis has any inherent problems is not proven fully either way, but it's a shit load better than the alternatives according to most research.

The full effects of the two legal drugs are still not fully known, but they are still legal despite being proven to kill both in the short and long term.

Oh, and I don't smoke weed.

I don't entirely disagree with you. My point was about the pro-stoner lobby being selective with establishment data and their use of misinformation.

[Guest Snatch]

11 hours ago, camberwell gypsy said:

Well there's s fucking switch: the sheep in the cooler. Why don't you lot fuck it off forever? 

Good luck with that.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

On 09/07/2016 at 0:25 PM, Mrs Roops said:

Yeah, Matt Ferner, the Huff's reporter seems to be the stoner's pro-weed poster-boy and as is his wont, is being selective in the use of data.

I don't advocate on either side of the cannabis debate, however it does worry me that the stoner's stock "evidence" is given more credence than it deserves. Some "facts" e.g "cannabis is not addictive" are dubious to say the least. The oft used LD₅₀ is wrong on so many levels. This is a measurement that should only be used in conjunction with other measurements e.g Effective Dose, Minimum Effective Dose, Lowest Lethal Dose to name but a few. Aside from the fact that LD₅₀ is unreliable due to unrepresentative test samples (animals have different characteristics to humans is only one of many reasons) it should not be used as a stand alone statistic and definitely not as a comparative exercise where symptons of drug misuse are so different.

Since you have chosen the NIH to further your POV why not read a more comprehensive paper on the issue published by the same organistion? To save you time I'll draw you to one para:-

"The first major problem of the approach is the lack of toxicological dose-response data for all compounds except alcohol and tobacco. No human dose-response data are available; also no dose-response data in animals, only LD50 values are published. Furthermore, no chronic-toxicity data (long-term experiments) are available, which are usually used for such kinds of risk assessment. Therefore, we can assess only in regards to mortality but not carcinogenicity or other long-term effects. The absence of such data is specifically relevant for compounds with low acute toxicity (such as cannabis), the risk of which may therefore be underestimated."

I will say nothing more on that, save to save its strange that well-informed advocates of cannabis legalisation tend not reveal uncomfortable truths.......

National governments are reluctant to legalise or even introduce heavily regulated cannabis use because the long term effects, psychosis and related mental health being the major issue, are still not known. Once the genie is let out of the bottle its very difficult to put him back.

I forgot to say last time, that quote you quoted is referenced on the page I linked, it's the first link in the second para....

5 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

I don't entirely disagree with you. My point was about the pro-stoner lobby being selective with establishment data and their use of misinformation.

..and the Establishment are rather selective in the use of their own data... not to change the subject, but That Cunt Blair ignoring professional advice that the Iraq war would only increase the terrorist threat to this country, not decrease it, because he wanted to be Bushs' bitch, and Chilcot being a partial whitewash.

 

[Guest Snatch]

On 08/07/2016 at 9:52 AM, Admin said:

Good job. Although largely inoffensive, I just can't tolerate the fucking stupidity it comes out with.

It's life Jim but not as we know it.

Anyway,your the boss. Instead of moaning about it,fuck it off.

Again.

[Admin]

6 hours ago, Snatch said:

It's life Jim but not as we know it.

Anyway,your the boss. Instead of moaning about it,fuck it off.

Again.

Ignorance is the way forward.