Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Dad jailed for giving dying daughter medicinal cannabis. watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's an astonishingly ignorant comment. The "link" between autism and vaccines has been comprehensively debunked, whereas we are seeing more research all the time underlining the links between cannabis and mental illness.
    Correlation does not equal causation. There are studies which show a correlation, none which show causation absolutely.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Drug abuse specialists are also becoming increasingly knowledgeable about cannabis' addictive qualities. It obviously doesn't have the same addictive characteristics as, for example, opiates, but there's no question that it can be addictive.
    Yes, I would agree that cannabis can be addictive but it isn't physically addictive in the way that some legal and illegal drugs are.

    In any case, anything can be addictive if overused.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    There's also no question that smoking cannabis is injurious to the respiratory system, and in fact has much more tar than tobacco.
    That's only if you smoke it in combination with tobacco. There are other methods of taking cannabis which do not harm the respiratory system.

    Also people smoke more cigarettes than they smoke joints so over an extended period of time, someone who smokes 10 **** a day will have taken in more tar than compared to someone who smokes 2 joints a day.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's an astonishingly ignorant comment. The "link" between autism and vaccines has been comprehensively debunked, whereas we are seeing more research all the time underlining the links between cannabis and mental illness.

    Drug abuse specialists are also becoming increasingly knowledgeable about cannabis' addictive qualities. It obviously doesn't have the same addictive characteristics as, for example, opiates, but there's no question that it can be addictive.

    There's also no question that smoking cannabis is injurious to the respiratory system, and in fact has much more tar than tobacco.
    You've actually completely mistook my comment
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    we should end the war on drugs - the most retarded war we ever fought
    End the war on cannabis, I don't think any other drugs should be reinstated into society, officially anyway. :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    There's also no question that smoking cannabis is injurious to the respiratory system, and in fact has much more tar than tobacco.
    False. Smoking weed is nowhere near as bad as tobacco. And smoking it daily wouldn't give you long term respiratory issues
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Correlation does not equal causation. There are studies which show a correlation, none which show causation absolutely.


    Yes, I would agree that cannabis can be addictive but it isn't physically addictive in the way that some legal and illegal drugs are.

    In any case, anything can be addictive if overused.


    That's only if you smoke it in combination with tobacco. There are other methods of taking cannabis which do not harm the respiratory system.

    Also people smoke more cigarettes than they smoke joints so over an extended period of time, someone who smokes 10 **** a day will have taken in more tar than compared to someone who smokes 2 joints a day.
    Yeah, in fact a recently published study spanning 20 years found no link between lung health and the inhalation of 1 marijuana cigarette per day.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25521349

    Though I realise abstracts are a particularly difficult read for those not trained/used to it, I thought I would link it anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
    End the war on cannabis, I don't think any other drugs should be reinstated into society, officially anyway. :p:
    do you not understand that this war on drugs fundamentally doesn't work as a policy (in addition to the obvious fact that it is an attack on personal liberty)? the fact of the war on drugs is that it treats medical problems as criminal problems, and tries to enforce what it cannot enforce (at least with any hint of efficiency). should the responsibility of a national police force, for example, be to protect people from the harm and crimes of others, or to police what innocent otherwise law-abiding people choose to put inside their bodies? what sounds more reasonable and peaceful? would you, as a citizen, force a person on the streets to not take drugs through force? if you wouldn't, why would you delegate that task to somebody else (like the police/government)? if you wouldn't morally do it, why should they?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Yeah, in fact a recently published study spanning 20 years found no link between lung health and the inhalation of 1 marijuana cigarette per day.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25521349

    Though I realise abstracts are a particularly difficult read for those not trained/used to it, I thought I would link it anyway.
    Thats the result of one study, certain studies have found that global warming isn't as big a deal as some think, some even go as far as to say that it's not caused by humans.

    The University of Queensland not only has more research influence than Emory but their study was also done by someone who, as i seem to have said quite a few times, advises WHO

    (Original post by Zander01)
    False. Smoking weed is nowhere near as bad as tobacco. And smoking it daily wouldn't give you long term respiratory issues
    There are studies by people far more informed than you that would disagree

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    do you not understand that this war on drugs fundamentally doesn't work as a policy (in addition to the obvious fact that it is an attack on personal liberty)? the fact of the war on drugs is that it treats medical problems as criminal problems, and tries to enforce what it cannot enforce (at least with any hint of efficiency). should the responsibility of a national police force, for example, be to protect people from the harm and crimes of others, or to police what innocent otherwise law-abiding people choose to put inside their bodies? what sounds more reasonable and peaceful? would you, as a citizen, force a person on the streets to not take drugs through force? if you wouldn't, why would you delegate that task to somebody else (like the police/government)? if you wouldn't morally do it, why should they?
    You are causing harm to others, everyone pays for the NHS which then pays for the self inflicted illness of stoners. The government also a role to protect individuals from causing harm to each other's and themselves and before you mention cigarettes and alcohol the government are already taking steps to dissuade people from those. I wouldn't stop someone on the street because I know what drug addicts/dealers can be like and I don't see it being worth the risk to my own safety, it's not about morals.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    You are causing harm to others, everyone pays for the NHS which then pays for the self inflicted illness of stoners. The government also a role to protect individuals from causing harm to each other's and themselves and before you mention cigarettes and alcohol the government are already taking steps to dissuade people from those. I wouldn't stop someone on the street because I know what drug addicts/dealers can be like and I don't see it being worth the risk to my own safety, it's not about morals.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    you're assuming that I would support drug addict through the NHS. I wouldn't. if I did, I'd fund it through VAT on legal drugs to pay for the additional NHS burden (but reasonably, so as to not cause people to prefer the black market which isn't taxed). if I didn't, I'd simply refer the payment to themselves. freedom and liberty isn't all sunshine and daisies. if you choose to even take drugs in the first place then it's a risk of a lot more than simply overdosing you're apparently willing to take. but then again, I'm the kind of person who thinks people who get addicted to smoking and become morbidly obese should also pay or their own self-induced medical issues.

    but going back to the point, it is *still* a medical issue, and not a public-enemy issue. if you are addicted to drugs, you have an illness. a self-induced illness, but it's not a criminal act in a traditional/common sense if we're assuming crimes are acts which harm others. and taking drugs doesn't infringe the liberties of others.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    Thats the result of one study, certain studies have found that global warming isn't as big a deal as some think, some even go as far as to say that it's not caused by humans.

    The University of Queensland not only has more research influence than Emory but their study was also done by someone who, as i seem to have said quite a few times, advises WHO

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay here is another study, also 20 year span with the same results.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235088

    here is another that found no link between cannabis inhalation and upper aero digestive tract cancers

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389


    And yes you have said many times he advises WHO, it doesn't change the fact he found no causal evidence. Only casual links.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)


    There are studies by people far more informed than you that would disagree




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Studies more informed than the 20 year long one Sophie posted? Yeah good one joker :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Okay here is another study, also 20 year span with the same results.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235088

    here is another that found no link between cannabis inhalation and upper aero digestive tract cancers

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389


    And yes you have said many times he advises WHO, it doesn't change the fact he found no causal evidence. Only casual links.

    Thanks, saved me having to post it.


    Oh and look at this, Marijuana isn't even associated with brain abnormalities anymore. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract

    Guess the anti-weed brigade are increasingly running out of arguments.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zander01)
    Thanks, saved me having to post it.


    Oh and look at this, Marijuana isn't even associated with brain abnormalities anymore. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/4/1505.abstract

    Guess the anti-weed brigade are increasingly running out of arguments.
    ooooooh that's a brand new study right there, published yesterday
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    do you not understand that this war on drugs fundamentally doesn't work as a policy (in addition to the obvious fact that it is an attack on personal liberty)? the fact of the war on drugs is that it treats medical problems as criminal problems, and tries to enforce what it cannot enforce (at least with any hint of efficiency). should the responsibility of a national police force, for example, be to protect people from the harm and crimes of others, or to police what innocent otherwise law-abiding people choose to put inside their bodies? what sounds more reasonable and peaceful? would you, as a citizen, force a person on the streets to not take drugs through force? if you wouldn't, why would you delegate that task to somebody else (like the police/government)? if you wouldn't morally do it, why should they?
    Enlighten me then, how should drugs like meth and cocaine be regulated? Or shall we have dealers set up stalls in the city centre selling them :curious: All very well and good talking about ideals and liberty without any practical solution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
    Enlighten me then, how should drugs like meth and cocaine be regulated? Or shall we have dealers set up stalls in the city centre selling them :curious: All very well and good talking about ideals and liberty without any practical solution.
    by regulate you mean quality-control or price control? or cartel control, even? the first one - it's an option but I guess the only common sense feature of cocaine or meth is perhaps warning labels. price control? no need - taxation would more than likely reduce the demand anyway if we're going down the alcohol/cigarettes path. seeing as there is no market control on cigarettes and alcohol, too, seeing as there's no point with legality/contractual validity, cartels will also disappear. and dealers can sell whatever they want - cigarettes and alcohol are sold fairly openly and they're pretty deadly substances. I'd *assume* (obviously) that you'd need to be 18 to buy them, though, if we're going down the same road as cigarettes/booze. and I just told you the practical solution - honestly, I think you're viewing these things as more deadly than they actually are - alcohol can kill you in one night. alcohol is essentially toxic. it's just a matter of knowledge and personal moderation/responsibility, and clearly if people can be trusted to take a deadly substance like alcohol, I'd assume meth and coke are the same thing. the fact that meth and coke are illegal is a massive piece of propaganda against them, I know, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    It's not a judges job to prosecute people so I doubt that'll happen.

    He broke a law so he deserves to be punished. Regardless of whether you agree with the law or not you have to respect the rule of law


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No you don't. A judge can do his job and judge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zander01)
    False. Smoking weed is nowhere near as bad as tobacco.
    It's not near as bad, it's far worse.

    Cannabis has significantly more tar in it than tobacco, as well as other harmful chemicals.

    http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factshe...oryeffects.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Okay here is another study, also 20 year span with the same results.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235088
    It seems the one who can't read an abstract is you. That study says that occasional or low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse affects on the pulmonary system.

    It does not say that heavy marijuana use is not associated with adverse affects on the pulmonary system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Correlation does not equal causation
    You seem to be confused. Merely spouting "correlation does not equal causation" doesn't strengthen your argument, it merely suggests you don't understand how medical research works.

    People like you were saying the same things about tobacco in the 1950s.

    That's only if you smoke it in combination with tobacco.
    Oh dear, did one of your pothead mates tell you that? Some people are so gullible. I mean, I know potheads are often a bit slow compared to those who don't smoke it but you're really letting the team down.

    Cannabis by itself is far worse than cannabis mixed with tobacco as it contains three times the tar and five times the carbon monoxide.

    http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factshe...oryeffects.htm

    Also people smoke more cigarettes than they smoke joints so over an extended period of time, someone who smokes 10 **** a day will have taken in more tar than compared to someone who smokes 2 joints a day.
    Actually, someone who smokes two joints a day will be inhaling approximately the equivalent of 6 cigarettes in respect of tar and 10 cigarettes in carbon monoxide.

    That of course leaves aside the fact that someone who smokes two joints a day will be sacrificing many of their higher faculties. Thankfully, brain function does return to normal after a while when you give up (at least, they do if you're an adult)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If you think using ad-hominem attacks is the way to go then I'm not going to continue debating with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple)
    Enlighten me then, how should drugs like meth and cocaine be regulated? Or shall we have dealers set up stalls in the city centre selling them :curious: All very well and good talking about ideals and liberty without any practical solution.
    Well, a good way would be to set up a government-owned chain of licenced premises where they would sell low-concentration preparations of the drug.

    During the Prohibition era in the United States, they found that people tended towards the stronger preparations of alcohol like liquor, partly because there was much less money to be made brewing beer as opposed to whiskey.

    One also finds this with illicit drugs; when the drug is expensive and difficult to procure, people tend toward the more potent forms of administration like injection.

    I would propose that we sell cocaine, amphetamines and some form of mild opioid in beer-type bottles. If people have become addicted and are at risk of going to the black market, they could obtain a prescription for pharmaceutical grade.

    It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than allowing a criminal black market to flourish, providing huge amounts of cash to organised criminals, terrorists and money launderers.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 31, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.