|
Something to consider... all you X users - (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ-Fuq
This is just like when they said lsd does genetic damage or whatever. Just because a scientist says something doesnt mean that information is reliable. And when governments are involved, there is a good chance that its complete bs, and thats what i think this is. |
What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!!
Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise? |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
if we can't trust our scientists, who can we trust?
2 + 2= 5, this is what my teacher says, but how can i trust her? she's a robot |
nobody by themselves.. get used to it. Especially scientists funded by government (at least i believe NCR is mostly ran off gov't money) money and offering unverified studies as infallible truth.. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!!
Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise? |
The war on drugs makes you money as VP doesn't it occrider :p
Of course you are right....people always tend to use scientific evidence that leans toward their side than the other side.
MrS |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
The war on drugs makes you money as VP doesn't it occrider :p
|
Everything evil makes me money :) |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!!
Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise? |
It's a good question, and part of it is essentially denial. The other part of it has to do with factions, the government has consistently exaggerated the effects of drugs. FSCK they said pot would turn you into a psychotic criminal ("dope fiend") in the early twennies... THe situation has gotten progressively worse. Some study popping up out of the middle of nowhere stating cocaine and ecstasy cause genetic mutations, and through wording (though not explicitly stating) imply it is severe one begins to wonder if this is just some more fear, uncertainty doubt. It's analagous to the people who believe that Vitamin C, being an anti-oxidative will prevent cell damage due to the oxidation that is believed to occur post-MDMA-high (destroying serotonin axons). Being skeptical and saying that MDMA has no negative health effects are two completely different things.
Nobody here is (edit: im not) trying to say that MDMA doesn't have the ability to cause depression (which is pretty much well-documented and universally accepted), or that cocaine doesn't eventually inhibit dopamine production in the brain (or cause depression). This article is much more fringe and has about the credibility (in my mind) of a tabloid article at this point. So where are all the ed up coke (okay, crack babies, but that is a quite different and also well documented phenomenon) and e babies or the people dying from cancer due to e and coke? |
|
|
| DJ-Fuq |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!! |
:haha:
| quote: | | Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? |
Experience.
| quote: | | The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise? |
Well, i dont. I have pointed out info showing negative effects of drugs before.
Over the years, biased researchers have come up with so much that its got to the point where people just dont believe studies showing negative effects any more, or at least look at them skeptically. Theyve tried everything from conveniently making a 'mistake' to blatant lies. They usually get found out sooner or later but at the time its great for them. The media will have it all over the place, forcing it down peoples throats and u wont stop hearing about it for a while. Then whenever its proven to be bs, nobody says anything. Most of the people who heard the original story dont hear that it wasnt true, or it was exaggerated etc.
So they just keep doing it.
If a study shows positive effects from a drug or disproves earlier studies showing negatives, u can bet it wasnt biased government researchers who did it. If they did a study showing that, nobody would hear about it. No doubt they would be told to scrap the study because its not producing the 'right' results, unless it was something minor like cannabis being a painkiller.
So basically, studies showing good effects are usually reliable, and studies showing bad effects usually arent. |
|
|
| jdjd |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuperFarStucker
It's a good question, and part of it is essentially denial. The other part of it has to do with factions, the government has consistently exaggerated the effects of drugs. FSCK they said pot would turn you into a psychotic criminal ("dope fiend") in the early twennies... THe situation has gotten progressively worse. Some study popping up out of the middle of nowhere stating cocaine and ecstasy cause genetic mutations, and through wording (though not explicitly stating) imply it is severe one begins to wonder if this is just some more fear, uncertainty doubt. It's analagous to the people who believe that Vitamin C, being an anti-oxidative will prevent cell damage due to the oxidation that is believed to occur post-MDMA-high (destroying serotonin axons). Being skeptical and saying that MDMA has no negative health effects are two completely different things.
Nobody here is (edit: im not) trying to say that MDMA doesn't have the ability to cause depression (which is pretty much well-documented and universally accepted), or that cocaine doesn't eventually inhibit dopamine production in the brain (or cause depression). This article is much more fringe and has about the credibility (in my mind) of a tabloid article at this point. So where are all the ed up coke (okay, crack babies, but that is a quite different and also well documented phenomenon) and e babies or the people dying from cancer due to e and coke? |
You're drawing your own conclusions man. Everybody here is, seeing "DNA damage", people who dont have much of a clue start thinking of X-Men, without realizing that on what scale this is happening.
Is there a risk of cancer? Maybe, maybe not. They're pointing out evidence of DNA damage, nothing more.
P.S. tabloid? Reuters is hardly a tabloid LOL, if you want to find the study do a search on MedLine you'll find it... |
|
|
| montie |
you know i think the persistant and prolonged use of cell phones by a very large percentage of the population puts those people at an even higher risk of devloping a brain tumor or cancer (DNA mutation).
not to say E or coke aren't increasing the risks of developing cancer. |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdjd
You're drawing your own conclusions man. Everybody here is, seeing "DNA damage", people who dont have much of a clue start thinking of X-Men, without realizing that on what scale this is happening.
Is there a risk of cancer? Maybe, maybe not. They're pointing out evidence of DNA damage, nothing more.
P.S. tabloid? Reuters is hardly a tabloid LOL, if you want to find the study do a search on MedLine you'll find it... |
Read the article, you tell me what they are implying.. and I suppose the tabloid tidbit was a bad analogy, i wasn't questioning the people reporting the news, but rather, the validity of the news itself. Just because a study exists, doesn't mean it is accurate or the findings are as terrible as implied (although I will put my foot in my mouth if somebody does indeed verify said study and findings). The choice of words by the quoted certainly implies that it is a 'significant' finding indeed.... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdjd
chief scientist at the National Center for Research's (CNR) biotechnology department
I think he may know a little more than you on the topic... |
Nah, they're all a part of the big government conspiracy that wants to turn people into mindless slaves. Ecstasy has no harmful effects whatsoever, it just makes people happy and friendly. The only reason government wants to prohibit its use is because it brings hope to the people and helps them see the world for what it really is. You should listen to the people who really know what's going on. Like some ecstasy users on this board. Hell, they've been recreationally taking pills now for over a year and they still say they're perfrectly ok. That scientific research is a bunch of crap, like most of them are. Thank god there are still some respectable scientists who help us see the truth, like that creationist Einsten from the political discussion/debate forum...what was his name? Dr Nick? Or Schroeder? I forgot. |
|
|
| Vero |
| ok the day that my few times a year taking drugs (and no weed is not really a drug), causes my DNA to mutate and i grow some gills or a second or something, i will stop. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Dr Nick? Or Schroeder? |
That's me :thepirate |
|
|
|
|
