TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- First pot overdose ever
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 In previous discussion you intentionally neglected the density of the substance in the overall intake in order to prove your point while you are emphasizing it in this one. It is either relevant or irrelevant. You have to make up your mind, because either way one of your arguments is false. I can't see how you don't understand that.

Potency u mean? I still dont really know what ur saying here as if u mean what i think u might mean, it doesnt make sense so just give me the quotes that contradict each other.

quote:

Typically? I replied to your posts several times, but eventually I stopped bothering since your stubbornness prevented any possiblity of a reasonable dialogue.

Bollocks. I was answering ur points while u usually just said something sarcastic to avoid what i was saying. And u were talking shite in that thread saying things like "heroin withdrawal can kill", "alcohol withdrawal cant", "heroin puts u into a dangerous mental state" etc. Then u quoted 2 things, 1 said heroin withdrawal can kill, 1 says it cant, and u were trying to use them both to make points. U just dug urself into a hole.

quote:

Now this is what is typical. Defend your point by attacking the majority for being biased and close minded. You might want to check out DigiNut's thread "How to win any argument" in the political debate forum. It was a sarcastic remark, but it really hit a nail on the head with what you're doing here.

So ur saying im lying? Ur talking shit again. Almost ALL of them are antidrug, except for maybe the guardian.

quote:

Oh, yes, I forgot it is an evil global conspiracy, the reasons for which are unbeknown to us.

More shit talking.

quote:

How can I spell it out for you more clearly? Because it was the only substance whose amount in that person's body was found in excessive amounts.

Who says a substance had to have killed him? And how was it excessive anyway? I bet the amount of alcohol in his body was closer to the alcohol ld50 than the cannabis was to the cannabis ld50.
Anyway, the chances of some undiscovered disease having killed him is far higher than the chance of cannabis having killed him.

quote:

If a substance gets you high, it doesn't mean it's more harmful than a substance that doesn't. You keep putting words into my mouth and attacking me on the matters I haven't mentioned. Your close mindedness and pro drug propaganda you are subjected to have caused you to think that all the "prohibitionists" (although I am for legalization of marijuana) think the same and use the same arguments. It is obvious that you don't respond to the answers I give you, but to the answers you think I give you, and that is partially the reason why I stopped responding to you in our previous discussion.

lol whatever. Please explain how this sentance makes sense, is true, and what point exactly u were trying to make with it. "That's why a continuous intake of thc can create an amount of it in the system that can be equal to a huge one-time intake."

quote:

Theoretically it is certainly possible. In reality, since such an incident hasn't happened before, it means it is unlikely. But for a 150th time, unlikely does not eqal impossible.

Well its more or less impossible. Again, the chances of some unknown disease killing him are higher than the chance that cannabis did.

quote:

Heh, sounds more like an urban legend than something that can be confirmed. But really, here you are going against yourself, although I think you miss the clarity to see that. What you are saying is that a very small amount of drug that is almost certain not to cause death in such miniscule dosage has infact done so. Yet you regard it as absolutely 100% impossible that an amount of cannabis that is harmless to one individual can kill someone else.

No im not, since were talking about 2 very different drugs. A pint of 40% alcohol whiskey is hardly a miniscule amount. He downed the pint in 1 for a bet (�50 i think).

quote:

But you can smoke half of the lethal dosage of cannabis you mentioned (20000 joints/day) and still live? Right.

No. U couldnt smoke that much in the first place. If u did, u would probably die from carbon monoxide or lack of oxygen. Ur lungs would be fucked from all the plant matter (maybe unless u smoked pollem). But the thc itself wouldnt kill u.

quote:

This site is a private one, not sponsored by the american government, and it's obviously biased. However, I will take into consideration things posted there, as they really don't support your points. You see, alcohol-induced causes are not alcohol overdoses. You mentioned the exact thing I anticipated you will.

The sites statistics are the us governments.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts...ntox-deaths.htm is the page that tells u deaths caused DIRECTLY by taking the drugs.

quote:

But this site offers another statistic that you conviniently missed out on, and that is emergency room visits. 33000 people annually visit emergency room because of marijuana overdose. It says there that about 80% of them involve some other drug, but that still leaves us with 6600 emergency room visits because of marijuana in the US alone, and that is coming from your biased anti drug war site. So are you still claiming it doesn't have negative side effects? It also mentions that 23 deaths were coded to be induced by marijuana. It dismisses that statistic as an error, yet it bases it's viewpoints on the other statistics that originate from the very same source. The very fact that it has huge bold letters saying UNRELIABLE all over the unconvenient statistic just points to the obvious bias of the site.

bs http://www.briancbennett.com/marijuana-ED.htm

quote:

It also says that there have been about a 10000 suicides caused by hallucinogenic drug intake in 1998 alone. I recall our earlier argument where you claimed that the story about a kid cutting of his balls because of mandrake-induced hallucinations are lies and government conspiracies. I'm glad you posted that link.

Ive never come across 1 of those stories that is true.

quote:

You are using faulty and somewhat circular logic here. Nobody has died, therefore it impossible to die from it. And since it is impossible to die from it, then the reasons for death are somewhere else. And yet another death has not been caused by cannabis.

I said the chances are infitely small untill it happens. Which is true.

quote:

I am saying it is possible, not likely. Although after reading the statistics on the anti drug link you provided which states US officials have declared 23 deaths to be most likely induced by marijuana, while there have been 6600 visits to the ER for marijuana use only, I am beginning to be more inclined to believe that it infact may be the most likely cause.

Why doesnt that surprise me...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider There is evidence that cannabis killed him as a result of Post-mortem tests revealing a high level of cannabinoids in Maisey's blood with the absence of any other diseases.

But nowhere near the ld50. Theres a bigger chance that an unknown disease/condition killed him.

quote:

Irrelevant. Carbon monoxide is non-toxic but can kill you quite easily.

It is toxic.

quote:

Irrelevant. 100 years ago nobody could fly, that does not validate the reasoning that one cannot fly.

The fact that nobody has died in such a long time makes it very, very unlikely.

quote:

Quite a rediculous proof considering the nature of your argument. So if someone were to take one hit of a joint and promptly die from congentive heart failure are we to assume that that person died from smoking that joint?

Im not saying alcohol killed him. I dont think it did. Just that its more likely to have killed him than the cannabis.

quote:

Irrelevant. AIDS is the leading cause of death in the world. Are we then to assume that every death is as a result of AIDS?

No but then im not saying alcohol killed him.

quote:

However, in order to dispel this line of reasoning: "Coroner Michael Howells said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk any alcohol for at least 48 hours before his death in August last year." http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...jectid=13836296

fine

quote:

Irrelevant. If I put forth 10 bogus stories about ether killing people does that make it any less invalid as a method of death when it does happen?

Not when its proven to have happened.

quote:

Through this statement alone, you acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of cannabis killing him. Though you state it is highly improbable, can that not be the reason why this is the FIRST documented case of a death? Therefore, why obtusely declare that it CANNOT happen as opposed to declaring that it could POSSIBLY happen under the right circumstances? I mean come on ... it's like beleiving in god.

The chance is ~nil. What ur saying is, EVERYTHING can and will happen, as long as u wait long enough?

quote:

Originally posted by tu_face if the bloody government's advisor on the matter thinks its bollocks, then that is good enough for me.

It shouldnt be!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq It shouldnt be!

for a government who had to fight tooth & nail with everyone to get this common sense law passed, i think the guy knows his shit

he is a doctor not a politician..

Hey, Dj-Fuq, I have an idea. First I'll try to talk with my brick wall and see if I can make it responsive. If I succeed at that, then I'll come back to you, because you're obviously a much tougher nut to crack.

ur the brick wall mate ^^

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I am saying it is possible, not likely. Although after reading the statistics on the anti drug link you provided which states US officials have declared 23 deaths to be most likely induced by marijuana, while there have been 6600 visits to the ER for marijuana use only, I am beginning to be more inclined to believe that it infact may be the most likely cause.

'23 death induced by marijuana.' i will bet my life that those deaths are mostly car accidents, and nothing to do with overdosing at all.

'6600 visits to the ER.' people tend to freak out a lot while on marijuana. people like you (as in stupid people) would probably think they're overdosing, then get someone to take them to the hospital. those 6600 visits i bet, again with my life, that they are mostly from inexperienced people freaking out.

quote:

Originally posted by wick '23 death induced by marijuana.' i will bet my life that those deaths are mostly car accidents, and nothing to do with overdosing at all. '6600 visits to the ER.' people tend to freak out a lot while on marijuana. people like you (as in stupid people) would probably think they're overdosing, then get someone to take them to the hospital. those 6600 visits i bet, again with my life, that they are mostly from inexperienced people freaking out.

You are missing out on one relatively important point, being that the information I posted was not from the site I hold credible, but from the very site my opponent in this discussion does. Considering the nature of your posts and ad hominem attacks you made I don't hold you to be intelligent or mature enough to continue discussing these matters with you.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq [quote]Potency u mean? I still dont really know what ur saying here as if u mean what i think u might mean, it doesnt make sense so just give me the quotes that contradict each other.

No, but the amount of the drug in comparison to the amount of the whole package. Meaning that although nicotine is more addictive and harmful than heroine, it's amount in a cigarette smoke is less than 1% while the amount of heroin in a heroin dose is about 100%. So even though nicotine is more addictive than heroin, it's easier to get rid of the addiction because it is not consumed in the same amounts. I don't want to bother quoting you saying nicotine is more addictive than heroin, because we both agree that is true in 1:1 ratio. However, from that you concluded it's harder to give up cigarettes than heroin because nicotine itself is more addictive.

Here's the quote you wrote as a response to my statement that it is hard to give up on heroin:

quote:

But easier than giving up nicotine.

Now, unless you meant pure nicotine addiction without any cigarettes involved, you neglected the ratio of the drug in the intake, or "density" as I put it earlier.

Now, about marijuana, you stated that it's impossible to overdose on THC because the amount of THC in marijuana is such that the death would be caused by some other sideffects (smoke, etc).

So you see, in one case you neglected the percentage that the harmful substance takes in the whole intake while you are emphasizing it in the next one. In the previous case you defended your case by ignoring all the realistic issues and focusing on the theoretical properties of the substances while here you are doing the very opposite. It's not so much a contradiction in terms as a contradiction in approach, where you always present the side of the picture that suits you the best.

quote:

Bollocks. I was answering ur points while u usually just said something sarcastic to avoid what i was saying. And u were talking shite in that thread saying things like "heroin withdrawal can kill", "alcohol withdrawal cant", "heroin puts u into a dangerous mental state" etc. Then u quoted 2 things, 1 said heroin withdrawal can kill, 1 says it cant, and u were trying to use them both to make points. U just dug urself into a hole.

Well, one site said it can kill, while the other siad it can't kill if the individual is otherwise healthy. Now, I have some uncertanties about heroin addicts practicing healthy lifestyle, so I concluded that it often does kill. I didn't say it always kills, and since both sites agree that it sometimes does kill, I can't see how I'm wrong about it. I do accept that alcohol addiction can kill sick and diseased people as well.

Now, about my sarcasm, you yourself often use the symbol to answer some of my arguments, so I don't see why I should constrain myself from using it.

quote:

So ur saying im lying? Ur talking shit again. Almost ALL of them are antidrug, except for maybe the guardian.

So, what you are trying to say is that the overwhelming majority of the media in the UK is biased and is making up bogus stories all the time in order to ban harmless substances from widespread use? Sorry, but that's's simply not realistic.

quote:

More shit talking.

Well, if all the newspapers and governments in the world want to prevent people from enjoying harmless substances for their own greedy unknown reasons, then it is a global conspiracy, right?

quote:

Who says a substance had to have killed him? And how was it excessive anyway? I bet the amount of alcohol in his body was closer to the alcohol ld50 than the cannabis was to the cannabis ld50. Anyway, the chances of some undiscovered disease having killed him is far higher than the chance of cannabis having killed him.

Have you missed out on that paragraph where it said he had not drunk any alcohol for at least 48 hours, meaning that he had no alcohol in his system?

quote:

lol whatever. Please explain how this sentance makes sense, is true, and what point exactly u were trying to make with it. "That's why a continuous intake of thc can create an amount of it in the system that can be equal to a huge one-time intake."

I don't see how that is unclear but I will elaborate. Consider you have two substances, substance A and substance B. Substance A is more harmful than substance B. Once you consume substance A, it stays in the system for, say 1 day. Substance B stays there for 2 weeks. So, one day you consume equal amounts of substances A and B. Now you have, let's say 1g of substance A in your organism and the same amount of substance B. Next morning, the amount of substance A in your body is equal to 0, while the amount of substance B is equal to (1-1/14)g. So, now you take those two substances into your body in same amounts again (1g). The amount of substance A in your body is then again 1g, while the amount of substance B is 27/14 g. Now, you keep doing that, and at the end of the 14 days period (which is the amount of time it takes the substance B to dissolve), you have 1g of substance A in your body in comparison whith 105/14 g of the substance B. In other words, the amount of substance B is 7.5 times larger than the amount of substance A. So even if the substance A is more harmful per gram than substance B, a continuous intake of both substances in equal amounts will result in the substance B doing more harm to you than substance A. Clear now?

quote:

Well its more or less impossible. Again, the chances of some unknown disease killing him are higher than the chance that cannabis did.

Yes, prior to the obduction. After the obduction the chances for that are much lower, since excessive THC amount is the only thing that's out of the ordinary. You should note here, however, that it does not mean THC is the cause of death. It can be any other substance in the marijuana smoke, maybe even some drugs that were added later on.

quote:

No im not, since were talking about 2 very different drugs. A pint of 40% alcohol whiskey is hardly a miniscule amount. He downed the pint in 1 for a bet (�50 i think).

Sorry, I thought a pint is somewhat smaller, I'm not at home with the imperial measures.

quote:

No. U couldnt smoke that much in the first place. If u did, u would probably die from carbon monoxide or lack of oxygen. Ur lungs would be fucked from all the plant matter (maybe unless u smoked pollem). But the thc itself wouldnt kill u.

Well, noone ever said that THC was the cause of death, a more vague term "marijuana overdose" was used.

quote:

The sites statistics are the us governments. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts...ntox-deaths.htm is the page that tells u deaths caused DIRECTLY by taking the drugs.

Ok, I'll be willing to accept that 380000 people died directly from alcohol in the US in the past 20 years if you're willing to accept those 23 that died as a direct reason of marijuana poisoning. It is on the very same chart. Fair enough?

quote:

bs http://www.briancbennett.com/marijuana-ED.htm

What, out of 21 million visits to the ER in 2001 110000 were because of marijuana? I can't see how that disproves my point, infact it just shows that the number is rising. Yes, it's a miniscule amount since marijuana is a relatively harmless drug. But since I was the one who claimed it's relatively harmless while you were saying it's absolutely harmless, I can't see how this does anything except help my cause.

quote:

Ive never come across 1 of those stories that is true.

Again, that source of information is the very same one on which you base your arguments on. I can't see how you can selectively choose one part of that statistic and completely disregard another one simply because one of them is in accordance with your opinions while the other one is not.

Aside from that you are using extremely flawed egocentric logic here. I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist. I sincerely doubt that you managed to check even a miniscule amount of such stories, so don't pretend to be some sort of omniscient uberbeing that is aware of everything.

quote:

I said the chances are infitely small untill it happens. Which is true.

Again, this is a faulty logic. Say you toss a dice and get a number 1. Is the chance to get a 6 on the next throw infinitely small? No.

quote:

Why doesnt that surprise me...

Because you have a strong tendency to stereotype people who are not agreeing with you as prohibitionists and put them all in the same basket.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 You are missing out on one relatively important point, being that the information I posted was not from the site I hold credible, but from the very site my opponent in this discussion does. Considering the nature of your posts and ad hominem attacks you made I don't hold you to be intelligent or mature enough to continue discussing these matters with you.

hehe, i havent slept for about 2 days, so my brain isnt functioning to well at the moment. after reading a sentence i can barely remember what i just read. ill come back in the next couple of days when im fresh, ok? mr. im so fkn smart.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 No, but the amount of the drug in comparison to the amount of the whole package. Meaning that although nicotine is more addictive and harmful than heroine, it's amount in a cigarette smoke is less than 1% while the amount of heroin in a heroin dose is about 100%. So even though nicotine is more addictive than heroin, it's easier to get rid of the addiction because it is not consumed in the same amounts. I don't want to bother quoting you saying nicotine is more addictive than heroin, because we both agree that is true in 1:1 ratio. However, from that you concluded it's harder to give up cigarettes than heroin because nicotine itself is more addictive. Here's the quote you wrote as a response to my statement that it is hard to give up on heroin: Now, unless you meant pure nicotine addiction without any cigarettes involved, you neglected the ratio of the drug in the intake, or "density" as I put it earlier.

Thats what potency means. What ur saying isnt right. I said nicotine is more addictive than heroin, NOT ONLY weight for weight (1:1) but also in normal dosages. I didnt 'conclude' anything like what ur saying. How fucking stupid do u think i am?

quote:

Now, about marijuana, you stated that it's impossible to overdose on THC because the amount of THC in marijuana is such that the death would be caused by some other sideffects (smoke, etc).

Thats got nothing to do with it. If u were smoking 100% thc, u still couldnt overdose on it. U couldnt overdose BECAUSE u couldnt smoke enough to overdose, not just because things other than thc would kill u first. U mustve missed the bit where i mentioned pollem (very potent hash).

quote:

So you see, in one case you neglected the percentage that the harmful substance takes in the whole intake while you are emphasizing it in the next one.

Just so this is 100% clear, in the first case, heroin and nicotine i did take potency into account, and in the second, potency doesnt matter.

quote:

In the previous case you defended your case by ignoring all the realistic issues and focusing on the theoretical properties of the substances while here you are doing the very opposite. It's not so much a contradiction in terms as a contradiction in approach, where you always present the side of the picture that suits you the best.

Wanna take that back?

quote:

Well, one site said it can kill, while the other siad it can't kill if the individual is otherwise healthy. Now, I have some uncertanties about heroin addicts practicing healthy lifestyle, so I concluded that it often does kill. I didn't say it always kills, and since both sites agree that it sometimes does kill, I can't see how I'm wrong about it. I do accept that alcohol addiction can kill sick and diseased people as well.

It said something like "heroin withdrawal never kills unless the person is in poor health and using other drugs."
Strange how even the american government dont mention death as a withdrawal symptom of diamorphine:
Within a few hours after the last administration of heroin, withdrawal may occur. This withdrawal can produce effects such as drug craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, and vomiting. Major withdrawal symptoms peak between 48 and 72 hours after the last dose and subside after about a week
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...roin/index.html

quote:

Now, about my sarcasm, you yourself often use the symbol to answer some of my arguments, so I don't see why I should constrain myself from using it.

Im talking about ur 'conspiracy' remarks whenever i mention anything related to bias.

quote:

So, what you are trying to say is that the overwhelming majority of the media in the UK is biased and is making up bogus stories all the time in order to ban harmless substances from widespread use? Sorry, but that's's simply not realistic.

Not all of them make up those stories, no. Some do report blatant lies. They practically all exaggerate and twist things tho (trust me i read it).
Dont u remember the media going nuts when leah betts died? They were ALL (i think) saying about how 1 pill killed her and all sorts of bs, when she really died from a water overdose because she didnt know how much water to drink.
This more recent example is funny:
http://www.q.co.za/2003/11/2411_dagga.htm

SA makes dopes of the world
News24


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cape Town - In a gaffe certain to delight South African readers, Britain's News of the World [edit-the same people that make the most popular paper in the uk, the sun] warns of a new drug from South Africa that is "six times stronger than normal cannabis and has left some victims mentally deranged".

Under the headline Deadly New Dope Alarm the tabloid's James Mulholland warns that this "poisonous and powerful" new South African export has "lethal" effects that could "cause chaos in Scotland".

The name of this new evil? Dagga.

Police in Scotland, a country famous for spawning the characters in Irving Walsh's heroin nightmare Trainspotting, have yet to realise that "dagga" is the South African street name for ordinary cannabis.

The News of the World reports that a kilo of dagga costs from just 40p to �20, compared to the usual �3 500 Scottish drug dealers are used to paying for "normal hash".

Authorities fear the cut-price cannabis could make certain crooks a fortune from selling it on - with margins of up to 4 000%. One cop told the tabloid, "It could lead to a drugs war".

A spokesperson for Scotland Against Drugs (SAD) was quoted saying: "Dagga is more like LSD than cannabis, we should warn people to stay away from it."

This is the type of shite theyre feeding the public on a constant basis. It sells papers.

quote:

Well, if all the newspapers and governments in the world want to prevent people from enjoying harmless substances for their own greedy unknown reasons, then it is a global conspiracy, right?

I was talking about u being sarcastic.

quote:

Have you missed out on that paragraph where it said he had not drunk any alcohol for at least 48 hours, meaning that he had no alcohol in his system?

Yes actually, i did.

quote:

I don't see how that is unclear but I will elaborate. Consider you have two substances, substance A and substance B. Substance A is more harmful than substance B. Once you consume substance A, it stays in the system for, say 1 day. Substance B stays there for 2 weeks. So, one day you consume equal amounts of substances A and B. Now you have, let's say 1g of substance A in your organism and the same amount of substance B. Next morning, the amount of substance A in your body is equal to 0, while the amount of substance B is equal to (1-1/14)g. So, now you take those two substances into your body in same amounts again (1g). The amount of substance A in your body is then again 1g, while the amount of substance B is 27/14 g. Now, you keep doing that, and at the end of the 14 days period (which is the amount of time it takes the substance B to dissolve), you have 1g of substance A in your body in comparison whith 105/14 g of the substance B. In other words, the amount of substance B is 7.5 times larger than the amount of substance A. So even if the substance A is more harmful per gram than substance B, a continuous intake of both substances in equal amounts will result in the substance B doing more harm to you than substance A. Clear now?

I knew thats what u meant. But the example doesnt make sense if u try to apply it to this. If delta-9-thc stayed in ur system for a month it might make sense. Altho even if it did, i doubt u could smoke the thousands of joints a day for a month needed to reach the ld50. And the metabolites, theyre practically all inactive, last varying lengths of time and are there in VERY small amounts (nanograms, billionths of a gram).

quote:

Yes, prior to the obduction. After the obduction the chances for that are much lower, since excessive THC amount is the only thing that's out of the ordinary. You should note here, however, that it does not mean THC is the cause of death. It can be any other substance in the marijuana smoke, maybe even some drugs that were added later on.

Put it this way then: the chances of some unknown thing killing him are still higher than that of the cannabis killing him, taking into account the amount in his body. Nothing is going to seem out of the ordinary if the thing that killed him hasnt even been discovered yet, is it?

quote:

Well, noone ever said that THC was the cause of death, a more vague term "marijuana overdose" was used.

The actual term used in his report was 'probable cannabis poisoning', i think.

quote:

Ok, I'll be willing to accept that 380000 people died directly from alcohol in the US in the past 20 years if you're willing to accept those 23 that died as a direct reason of marijuana poisoning. It is on the very same chart. Fair enough?

Its hardly fair when theres such a big difference in numbers. Remember there is NO evidence to show that thc can poison u (how could it anyway?). Every death put down to cannabis could well be a mistake of some sort.
Anyway, that wasnt what i was asking u to accept. I was asking u to accept that alcohol has killed millions of people, since u said it hasnt and "Even indirect deaths from alcohol (car accidents and similar things) are not likely to reach that number".

quote:

What, out of 21 million visits to the ER in 2001 110000 were because of marijuana? I can't see how that disproves my point, infact it just shows that the number is rising. Yes, it's a miniscule amount since marijuana is a relatively harmless drug. But since I was the one who claimed it's relatively harmless while you were saying it's absolutely harmless, I can't see how this does anything except help my cause.

Ur twisting again. It says 100.5 million visits, not 21. And it doesnt say the visits were BECAUSE of cannabis, it says that cannabis was mentioned 110000 times in 100.5 million visits. Like wick said, the vast majority of these visits were probably from people on a whitey, who had smoked laced weed, or had used it deliberately in combination with other drugs. Of course the majority of these people probably wouldnt admit that they had used the other drugs with the cannabis.

quote:

Again, that source of information is the very same one on which you base your arguments on. I can't see how you can selectively choose one part of that statistic and completely disregard another one simply because one of them is in accordance with your opinions while the other one is not. Aside from that you are using extremely flawed egocentric logic here. I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist. I sincerely doubt that you managed to check even a miniscule amount of such stories, so don't pretend to be some sort of omniscient uberbeing that is aware of everything.

Im not pretending to be anything. Im just going by what knowledge i have on the subject.
When there is so much misinformation being fed to the public, sooner or later people will stop listening. Ever heard of crying wolf? U can hardly blame me for being skeptical when a story like this appears. If its proven to be true, thats fine, but im still yet to find a proven story. And just because we dont know for certain if something is possible or impossible, doesnt mean it is possible.
Im sure there have been quite a few deaths caused by hallucinogens. Where did u get '10000 suicides caused by hallucinogenic drug intake in 1998' from tho?

quote:

Again, this is a faulty logic. Say you toss a dice and get a number 1. Is the chance to get a 6 on the next throw infinitely small? No.

Thats faulty logic. What about if the number of sides is unknown (only 1 has been discovered), but assumed to be 1 because millions of people have been throwing the dice for thousands of years, getting a 1 every time? Thats a bit more like it, no?

quote:

Because you have a strong tendency to stereotype people who are not agreeing with you as prohibitionists and put them all in the same basket.

Not true. If u support prohibition, ur a prohibitionist. Most prohibitionists do belong in the same basket, but not all of them. I think ur basically a hardline prohibitionist (but strangely u say u want cannabis legalised). I think u will most likely never accept that most (maybe all except cannabis) illegal drugs should be made legal or can be used safely. If u did i dont believe u would ever admit it, that u had been wrong all along. After so many arguments over this, that would probably be pretty embarassing for a while, but u would be respected for it. Ive seen it happen before, but i dont think u will change ur mind anytime soon.
U probably despise most (illegal) drug users and think of them as 2nd class humans, as just about all hardline prohibitionists seem to. U obviously think that drugs in a legal regulated environment would cause more chaos than prohibition is causing currently, and i dont understand how u can take that position at all, especially after lengthy discussion. So in short, i would put u into the 'hardline prohibitionist' category, give or take. Am i wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Thats what potency means. What ur saying isnt right. I said nicotine is more addictive than heroin, NOT ONLY weight for weight (1:1) but also in normal dosages. I didnt 'conclude' anything like what ur saying. How fucking stupid do u think i am?

So you're saying that a pack of cigarettes is more addictive than a few shots of heroin, right?

quote:

Thats got nothing to do with it. If u were smoking 100% thc, u still couldnt overdose on it. U couldnt overdose BECAUSE u couldnt smoke enough to overdose, not just because things other than thc would kill u first. U mustve missed the bit where i mentioned pollem (very potent hash).

Well, since cannabis poisoning is not THC overdose, I don't see why we are arguing on this issue.

quote:

Just so this is 100% clear, in the first case, heroin and nicotine i did take potency into account, and in the second, potency doesnt matter. Wanna take that back?

Well, if you're saying that cigarettes are more harmful than heroin, then I guess I will take back what I said. It matters nonetheless, since that claim is a faulty one.

quote:

It said something like "heroin withdrawal never kills unless the person is in poor health and using other drugs." Strange how even the american government dont mention death as a withdrawal symptom of diamorphine: Within a few hours after the last administration of heroin, withdrawal may occur. This withdrawal can produce effects such as drug craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, and vomiting. Major withdrawal symptoms peak between 48 and 72 hours after the last dose and subside after about a week http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...roin/index.html

Well, since the site says:

quote:

After repeatedly using heroin for a period of time, the long-term effects of the substance begin to appear in the user. Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, and liver disease. In addition to this, pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may also result in the user.

I believe I am right in concluding that heroin itself is a cause of very poor health.

Furthermore:

quote:

One of the most significant effects of heroin use is addiction. With regular heroin use, tolerance to the drug develops. Once this happens, the abuser must use more heroin to achieve the same intensity or effect that they are seeking. As higher doses of the drug are used over time, physical dependence and addiction to the drug develop.

Means that it's easy to overdose on heroin if you're a prolonged user, simply because a larger amount of drug is necessary to reach the desired effect.

Finally:

quote:

Additionally, breathing may be slowed to the point of respiratory failure. A heroin overdose may cause slow and shallow breathing, convulsions, coma, and possibly death.

Means that people who are taking large amounts (long time users in poor health) suffer a large chance of an overdose.

Now, about the withdrawal issue, the site copy-pasted it's information from another one (link 17). The full information from that site, however, says this:

quote:

Withdrawal, which in regular abusers may occur as early as a few hours after the last administration, produces drug craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, insomnia, diarrhea and vomiting, cold flashes with goose bumps ("cold turkey"), kicking movements ("kicking the habit"), and other symptoms. Major withdrawal symptoms peak between 48 and 72 hours after the last dose and subside after about a week. Sudden withdrawal by heavily dependent users who are in poor health is occasionally fatal, although heroin withdrawal is considered much less dangerous than alcohol or barbiturate withdrawal.

So, the site you hold credible draws information from another site that claims heroin withdrawal can occasionally cause death.

quote:

Im talking about ur 'conspiracy' remarks whenever i mention anything related to bias.

Well, how else would you describe a coordinated action between all the world's governments, health agencies, and newspapers in order to ban all the harmless substances for unknown and seemingly senseless reasons?

quote:

Not all of them make up those stories, no. Some do report blatant lies. They practically all exaggerate and twist things tho (trust me i read it). Dont u remember the media going nuts when leah betts died? They were ALL (i think) saying about how 1 pill killed her and all sorts of bs, when she really died from a water overdose because she didnt know how much water to drink. This more recent example is funny: http://www.q.co.za/2003/11/2411_dagga.htm This is the type of shite theyre feeding the public on a constant basis. It sells papers.

I agree that the newspaper stories are often exaggerated in order to create publicity and that they should be taken with a grain of salt, but you can not automatically dismiss them either without proper proof.

quote:

I knew thats what u meant. But the example doesnt make sense if u try to apply it to this. If delta-9-thc stayed in ur system for a month it might make sense. Altho even if it did, i doubt u could smoke the thousands of joints a day for a month needed to reach the ld50. And the metabolites, theyre practically all inactive, last varying lengths of time and are there in VERY small amounts (nanograms, billionths of a gram).

Well, if you'd care to provide some source that says exactly what lethal doses of THC and other marijuana metabolites are, I can only conclude that your conclusions are mere speculations.

quote:

Put it this way then: the chances of some unknown thing killing him are still higher than that of the cannabis killing him, taking into account the amount in his body. Nothing is going to seem out of the ordinary if the thing that killed him hasnt even been discovered yet, is it?

Not really. Unknown diseases often cause visible effects that can't be associated with any other disease and are therefore soon identified. Just think of SARS. Since nothing is out of the ordinary except a high amount of THC in blood (again, that's not the necessary reason for death), it is logical to include marijuana among the suspects. Now, if after further examination nothing else seems to indicate an unknown disease, then marijuana is the most likely cause.

quote:

Its hardly fair when theres such a big difference in numbers. Remember there is NO evidence to show that thc can poison u (how could it anyway?). Every death put down to cannabis could well be a mistake of some sort.

Again, THC and cannabis are not the same thing. Now, about the possibility of THC poisoning you, everything is toxic in large enough quantities.

quote:

Anyway, that wasnt what i was asking u to accept. I was asking u to accept that alcohol has killed millions of people, since u said it hasnt and "Even indirect deaths from alcohol (car accidents and similar things) are not likely to reach that number".

Yes, well, if that statistic is correct, it seems like a pretty large amount of americans died from alcohol poisoning.

quote:

Ur twisting again. It says 100.5 million visits, not 21.

Yes, you're right, I looked at the wrong chart. 21 million is the amount of annual marijuana users. So it says that 0.5% of them mention marijuana in the ER.

quote:

And it doesnt say the visits were BECAUSE of cannabis, it says that cannabis was mentioned 110000 times in 100.5 million visits. Like wick said, the vast majority of these visits were probably from people on a whitey, who had smoked laced weed, or had used it deliberately in combination with other drugs. Of course the majority of these people probably wouldnt admit that they had used the other drugs with the cannabis.

That is certainly true. But a quick examination would soon reveal whether they used something else besides marijuana.

quote:

Im not pretending to be anything. Im just going by what knowledge i have on the subject.

So from the fact that noone you know commited a suicide under the effects of hallucinogens you concluded that noone in the world ever did that? Have you ever tried strong hallucinogens? Have you seen people on them? If you have, you'd realize that they're not really in contact with reality. They do not commit suicides intentionally, but they're simply not realizing the consequences of their actions.

quote:

When there is so much misinformation being fed to the public, sooner or later people will stop listening. Ever heard of crying wolf? U can hardly blame me for being skeptical when a story like this appears. If its proven to be true, thats fine, but im still yet to find a proven story. And just because we dont know for certain if something is possible or impossible, doesnt mean it is possible. Im sure there have been quite a few deaths caused by hallucinogens. Where did u get '10000 suicides caused by hallucinogenic drug intake in 1998' from tho?

It's ok to be sceptical, but there's a fine line between scepticism and stubbornness. Now, about 10000 suicides, I was wrong, it was 3000
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts...g-breakdown.htm. I looked at the maximal chart value instead of the actual one.

quote:

Thats faulty logic. What about if the number of sides is unknown (only 1 has been discovered), but assumed to be 1 because millions of people have been throwing the dice for thousands of years, getting a 1 every time? Thats a bit more like it, no?

Yes, it is more like it. I just exaggerated your statement to point out that it was an approximation of the actual state which is not quite correct. If something has not happened yet, it shouldn't be regarded as impossible, while you stated otherwise.

quote:

Not true. If u support prohibition, ur a prohibitionist. Most prohibitionists do belong in the same basket, but not all of them. I think ur basically a hardline prohibitionist (but strangely u say u want cannabis legalised).

A hardline prohibitionist because I am capable of backing up my points? I'd sooner put myself into a partial prohibitionist cathegory. I am for legalization of drugs such as marijuana and hash, because they're relatively harmless. I am against the legalization of heavy drugs.

quote:

I think u will most likely never accept that most (maybe all except cannabis) illegal drugs should be made legal or can be used safely.

Again, how can heroin be used safely if it has all the negative side effects mentioned earlier? I can't see how a safe substance is one that causes pneumonia, collapsed veins, heart infections and not to mention the addiction.

quote:

If u did i dont believe u would ever admit it, that u had been wrong all along. After so many arguments over this, that would probably be pretty embarassing for a while, but u would be respected for it. Ive seen it happen before, but i dont think u will change ur mind anytime soon.

No, because the evidence you've shown me about heroin being harmless is pretty shaky.

quote:

U probably despise most (illegal) drug users and think of them as 2nd class humans, as just about all hardline prohibitionists seem to.

Only because I know some of them. Would you dispise a person that goes to a private party and steals several cell phones in order to buy a shot of heroin? Would you dispise a person that vomits on the cauch next to the place you're sitting on and then asks you to go away so that he can sit because the other place is puked on? Would you despise people who start a fight with their acquaintances because they won't borrow them money for heroin? Well, I don't know, I'm either familiar with really nasty heroin addicts or they're all like that. So yes, I despise them, as I would despise people who act in such a way even if they were not addicted to anything.

quote:

U obviously think that drugs in a legal regulated environment would cause more chaos than prohibition is causing currently, and i dont understand how u can take that position at all, especially after lengthy discussion.

Because China allowed free opium trade in the 19th century and it caused them huge problems when the addiction went out of control. Much larger problems than any prohibitionist program is causing. When the british drug trafficking fleet invaded their towns, the people greeted them with open hands. How's that for national instability?

quote:

So in short, i would put u into the 'hardline prohibitionist' category, give or take. Am i wrong?

Depends on your definition of a hardline prohibitionist. If a hardline prohibitionist is one that is firm about his beliefs based on facts and historical events, then yes. If it is a person that is against legalizing any drugs whatsoever, than no.

is it really worth all this effort? just agree to disagree for fucks sake.

in the spirit of chick-fil-a...

smok mor weed

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.