Ontario - and it could be one of several reasons why the College of Physicians and Surgeons lifted his licence to practice.
Alcohol "most harmful drug"
- Thread starter Chiliagon
- Start date
Bar Sinister; That [I said:
Those figures are only good as far as giving raw numbers are concerned. What they don't provide is the percentage of the number of users. Of course tobacco is going to be very high as the number of users is very high. People who die from tobacco use are generally in their 60s and 70s, those who die from street drugs are more often in their 20s and 30s. :smile: Another statistic that doesn't tell the whole story.
Illegal drugs can not be made more freely available than they are now. The only requirement to possess illegal drugs at this point is having the money to pay for them. Legalization would place strict regulations upon those who sell these products. Tobacco and alcohol for example.
Nice try. :smile:
What makes you think I have a problem with scientific evidence? For that matter, if you made the attempt you would find that I have posted many an article fully backed by research into this very subject right here within these threads. So feel free to do your own homework, go and read them.
As a simple exercise, let's take a look at your links and what they really mean.
It should be understood that this is not a link to the actual study, but an editorial on the study. It is acceptable to consider there is some sort of filter used there which skews the bias of reporting to some degree. They are a for profit and make their money off site advertisements which speaks to the idea that readership is followed by the money. My point is that editorializing the study to the point of saying, as you did, [/quote]associating use of marijuana with damage to the teenaged brain. [/quote] is more to gain readership through sensationalism than to actually say that 30 kids in a study had something in common judging from a psychiatrist's opinion of their scan results. Hello giant leap.
A small study to say the least don't you think? Out of 114 subjects, 30 smoked Cannabis. 15 that were diagnosed as schizophrenic, 15 that were not. The pool of subjects with a diagnosis were selected from a very small pool of 26. The criteria of their selection was based on their claimed use of Cannabis.
In the end, the study which as far as I know isn't peer reviewed, claims that based on 15 kids, of whom we know very little about, comes the suggestion that heavy use by some teenagers may cause an earlier onset of schizophrenia in those who are genetically predisposed to the disorder.
Does that even register? So what is the fix to this meek and mild situation that you thought was worthy of posting as a link to show some of the serious dangers associated with drugs? "Lighten up kid." Problem solved right?
As for your second link,
oh please.
Did ya even read it? Or is it one of the first links that popped up when you googled bad weed addiction evil side effects? The first line of the second paragraph on your drug rehab for profit site is this:
CANCER 8O:roll:
No they don't. Cannabis doesn't give you Cancer. Look it up for yourself so that you don't have to deal with any bias on my part. It's been studied and concluded that Cannabis doesn't give you cancer no matter how much of it you smoke. Ever. Period. So what does that say about your link that makes the claim that Cannabis does give you Cancer?
If you have a mind then you will easily see that it's a bunch of bull**** put together to scare parents into spending a **** load of money to get their kid rehabilitated. So how does that make you feel?
Something that should be pointed out as well is that in the 50s and 60s nearly everyone smoked. Hell doctors would tell you to light up and smoke and relax. To day this is not the case at all and there is no reasonable suggestion that something like an illegal drug would be advertised and promoted in anything like the way tobacco used to be. Hence, a far fewer instance of people starting to use drugs they never used before due to legalization can be assumed.
Quebec, ownership of pharmacies is regulated by the Pharmacy Act.
"...Subject to sections 28 to 30, only a pharmacist, a partnership of
pharmacists or a joint-stock company all of the shares of which are
held by one or more pharmacists and all of the directors of which are
pharmacists may be owner of a pharmacy and buy and sell medications as
owner of a pharmacy..."
SASKATCHEWAN
In Saskatchewan, the pharmacy business is regulated by the
Saskatchewan Pharmacies Act. A permit to operate a pharmacy may be
granted to either a licensed pharmacist or a physician.
ONTARIO
In Ontario, pharmacies are regulated by the Drug and Pharmacies
Regulation Act.
"...No person other than a pharmacist or a corporation complying with
the requirements of section 142 shall own or operate a pharmacy.
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4, s. 144 (1)..."
According to section 142, "... No corporation shall own or operate a
pharmacy unless the majority of the directors of the corporation are
pharmacists. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4, s. 142 ( 1)..."
BRITISH COLUMBIA
2) A pharmacy must be owned by
(a) a pharmacist or a partnership of pharmacists,
(b) a corporation incorporated under the Company Act in which the
majority of directors in the corporation are pharmacists,
(c) a partnership of corporations in which each corporation is
incorporated under the Company Act and a majority of directors in each
corporation are pharmacists,
(d) a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act,
(e) an association incorporated under the Cooperative Association Act,
(f) a society incorporated under the Society Act,
(g) a university as defined in the University Act,
(h) the City of Vancouver or a municipality, or
(i) the government..."
Unforgiven;[SIZE=5 said:
This may help dispel that little myth
http://normanswei.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/it-is-official-almost-that-marijuana-smoke-is-carcinogenic/
So we have two conflicting reports, big deal, a smart person errs on the right side of safety and accepts the worse case scenario. Intelligent people realize that it is in many persons' best interest to do whatever they can to promote the legalization and sale of pot. :smile:
No we don't. I have a conclusive study and you have an opinion on old data that was based on assumption rather than doing the actual work. You understand the difference don't you. I mean any intelligent person can read Tashkin's study, examine for themselves the criteria and methods used in the study and come to the same conclusion as Tashkin did in the study. I mean as opposed to your editorial that can only manage a suggestion in the end. There are only a small percentage of the population who make a living off the prohibition of drugs. Transitioning to a legalized approach to regulating all drugs will only harm those in organized crime who cause harm to everyone in society.
Yes and no, tobacco is a huge problem, but people don't die from a tobacco "overdose" and like I said death generally occurs at a much more advanced age.
associating use of marijuana with damage to the teenaged brain. [/quote] is more to gain readership through sensationalism than to actually say that 30 kids in a study had something in common judging from a psychiatrist's opinion of their scan results. Hello giant leap.
A small study to say the least don't you think? Out of 114 subjects, 30 smoked Cannabis. 15 that were diagnosed as schizophrenic, 15 that were not. The pool of subjects with a diagnosis were selected from a very small pool of 26. The criteria of their selection was based on their claimed use of Cannabis.
In the end, the study which as far as I know isn't peer reviewed, claims that based on 15 kids, of whom we know very little about, comes the suggestion that heavy use by some teenagers may cause an earlier onset of schizophrenia in those who are genetically predisposed to the disorder.
Does that even register? So what is the fix to this meek and mild situation that you thought was worthy of posting as a link to show some of the serious dangers associated with drugs? "Lighten up kid." Problem solved right?
As for your second link, oh please.
Did ya even read it? Or is it one of the first links that popped up when you googled bad weed addiction evil side effects? The first line of the second paragraph on your drug rehab for profit site is this:
CANCER 8O:roll:
No they don't. Cannabis doesn't give you Cancer. Look it up for yourself so that you don't have to deal with any bias on my part. It's been studied and concluded that Cannabis doesn't give you cancer no matter how much of it you smoke. Ever. Period. So what does that say about your link that makes the claim that Cannabis does give you Cancer?
If you have a mind then you will easily see that it's a bunch of bull**** put together to scare parents into spending a **** load of money to get their kid rehabilitated. So how does that make you feel?
Something that should be pointed out as well is that in the 50s and 60s nearly everyone smoked. Hell doctors would tell you to light up and smoke and relax. To day this is not the case at all and there is no reasonable suggestion that something like an illegal drug would be advertised and promoted in anything like the way tobacco used to be. Hence, a far fewer instance of people starting to use drugs they never used before due to legalization can be assumed.[/QUOTE]
Put your head in whatever hole in the ground makes you happy. Marijuana is a drug and like any drug it has negative side effects when used to excess or even when used normally (if there is a normal use for an illegal recreational drug). I noticed you made no effort to refute any of the other problems caused by marijuana. Furthermore a recent study showed that in the cases of those who use both tobacco and marijuana, the latter make act as a catalyst, increasing lung cancer risk.
Here are other links to marijuana and its side-effects. I could post several hundred links in fact, but I doubt that you will accept any evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions regarding the drug.
Marijuana and Lung Cancer
Smoking Marijuana May Increase Risk of Lung Cancer | Cancer News
As I said in my previous post the debate is getting tiresome. There has been no evidence presented to refute my original post. I find most debates about marijuana deteriorate into the equivalent of school yard shouting matches, which is one of the reasons why my original post said nothing about marijuana. I knew that if I dared mention the drug the pro-mj types would charge to its defence and present the usual anecdotal evidence for the support of the drug. The thread is about alcohol being the most harmful drug. If you wish to start a "Marijuana is Harmless" thread go ahead, but I am finished with it here.
Are you an idiot or something? You do know that tobacco causes Cancer right? Let's talk about all the deaths caused by a hug and six bullets to the heart. Man those hugs are dangerous and should not be allowed. :roll:
You could post hundreds of links that prove conclusively that aliens are here and living in the White House! Of course all of it is absolute bull**** like the links you have posted but I suspect that won't stop you in your beliefs. I've based everything I know, (Not believe) about Cannabis on experience and research that I first think critically about. Once it passes muster, source objectivity, peer review, and methodology, then I decide to accept it as the best evidence so far or toss it on the heap of unfounded propaganda. Like the crap you post here as gospel.
{Rubbish removed}
Talk about preconceived notions. That so many have shot down your weak argument as quickly and throughly as I have should tell you something about your argument. When ever someone as thick as you comes along insisting on what is obviously wrong, it is inevitable that a few people are going to point to you and call out "Schmuck". I know you get that a lot and there is a reason for it. Though I expect you're never going to fathom it. Hell you don't even know the difference between anecdotal and empirical so how could you possibly manage to understand a subject that deals with both experiences?
Like I need your permission to start, post in any thread on this site. That you are incapable of articulating in an intelligent way or accept the overwhelming evidence piled on here by just a few of your obvious intellectual superiors, I suggest you stick to a Bar Sinister's Happy Beliefs Thread, mark it private and invite only yourself to post in it. Then maybe, just maybe, you can win an argument. Until then buttercup, you're just going to have to suck it up and deal with having your puny arguments squashed by reason.
I can't say I have any personal experience with marijuana, tried one joint 45 years ago and got absolutely nothing out of it so just carried on drinking beer. HOwever I've had lots of experience with young work associates who used it and to be quite truthful they were pretty much useless as a cut cat on the job. Actually I thought at first they were suffering from dropsy and heart fever (dropped down on their ass and didn't have the heart to get up), so anyone who tries to tell you there are no negative side effects to marijuana are full of sh*t. :smile:
So is caffeine so should be rush to curtail all the coffee and highly caffeinated drinks to stop all the carnage and devastation left int he wake of such a nefarious and dangerous drug? Those 5 hour drinks are more harmful than Cannabis. For that matter, drinking 80 of them would kill someone that weighs 160 pounds. Stack Cannabis up against sugar, soda pop or salt and see which is more dangerous. Going out of the house on a sunny day for a nice walk is harmful in some way. It's called life by most of us and sooner or later you're going to die from it and there is nothing at all you can do about it. The hysteria over drugs is nothing more than fear created by propaganda. Nothing more.
I doubt if many of the pathetic creatures you see on Vancouver East side are in the gutter due to caffein effects.
That's where society keeps poor junkies and you can be sure they drink lots of coffee. Love the irony though. Jimmy Page took Heroin for years and never was arrested for prostitution or break and enter or even assault. Though he has millions and millions of dollars, he had at one point the same addiction. Does it occur at all that the reason someone can acquire a $600 a day heroin addiction is due to the artificially inflated price of Heroin on the street? What would be the situation if they could get a months supply of Heroin for a few dollars from the pharmacist along with needles so that they would never need to share or reuse one? Do you suppose they would still choose to live on East Hastings?
There are so many things wrong with your post it is difficult to know where to start. Let's begin with your lack of manners. I usually find that when someone like you runs out of intelligent things to say he resorts to insults and bullying. I don't get involved in shouting matches so this will be my last post in this thread. You may reply to this if you wish, but I will not see it as I will not even open the thread.
Now for one or two of the other errors in your post. Nothing in it shows the critical thinking you claim to display. Instead most of it is an emotional rant containing no new information and not a single comment on any of the scientific studies I linked to my post other than to claim you do not accept them. This is the main reason why I have ignored other marijuana debates as I found that its supporters tend to embrace marijuana use with almost religious zeal; accepting only studies that support their position and attacking any that do not fit their dogmatic beliefs.
In addition it appears that you do not understand the difference between anecdotal evidence such as UFO sightings and actual scientific studies conducted by medical experts over a number of years. You have not shot down any argument I have presented as you have presented no evidence to the contrary. Instead you rely upon continued assertion to make your point. Good luck with that in other threads. I suspect you are in for a bit of a rough time. Since you consider yourself my intellectual superior perhaps you could make an effort to prove it next time instead of relying upon invective and claimed superiority.
That you couldn't muster the ability to read beyond the first couple of lines is a good indicator of your quality when it comes to cognitive ability. I've posted the largest and most disciplined study that was supposed to show a link between Cannabis and Cancer which conclusively stated that there is no link what so ever. That you are so blind to anything other than your own blow hard opinion isn't surprising. As for you not returning to this thread, we both know you're reading this and find yourself so out of your depth all you can do is hide from it. You're not the first and won't be the last. You're just the latest who have shown they don't understand much about this subject. Let it be a lesson to you.
You obviously don't recognize the intelligence in his posts which you may do well to pay attention to. There may well be a connection between cannabis and cancer- some experts say there is.