Even if they are? Is lying more responsible?

One would think erring on the side of caution is more responsible.

Erring on the side of caution of what? Some guy told me that not going to church meant that I was going to spend an eternity of torment in flames. Should I err on the side of caution?

We have cases of people getting fucked up from smoking weed, we don't have any documented cases of people going to hell.

That's just it. We don't. There are no cases of people getting fucked up from weed.

i love these posts. i agree with them entirely. nothing more needs to be said really, because its fucking true. i have never taken any drug stronger than alcohol, tobacco and on one occasion, pot, but i have been around harder drugs all my life. i have sat there and watched people ask if they can snort charlie in the kitchen, or hide that golden brown shit. stuff like that is fucking disgusting and is the reason why i don't take them, but as much as i dislike drugs i know that smoking a spliff will not cause a fucking mental breakdown. that's bollocks.

i'm actually really surprised that BM came out with that bullshit. yes, you may have witnessed his degeneration after having some of the stuff, but how can you say that the drug was the main contributing factor? for example, a few years back there was a lad who killed his friend with a claw hammer after playing Manhunt. ofcourse, it was all over the news that the video game had 'made' him carry out the crime. that was certified 18, the person in question was not that age. he shouldn't have been playing it. if a video game can make you go out and kill one of your friends, you need help. its exactly the same sort of thing; just because something terrible happens after doing something directly before hand, doesn't mean that what you were doing is to blame. if i were to read the Beano and read about Dennis killing Gnasher and then kill myself immediately afterwards, does that mean that that comic sent me into a sudden deep depression, ending my life? or was i just unstable?

to be honest i'm sick of hearing people, especially those who have next to no experience in the shit, say "oh i saw someone take some of that once and it made him kill his wife/have a breakdown/rob a bank." its all Chinese whispers.

yeah. i actually suffer with severe psychosis and was sectioned for a while. when i was in there i met a bloke who had been taking LSD for a long time, and yeah, he was fucked. the shit he would come out with would be out of this world. i'm not disputing that using a drug heavily won't have its problems, because it does. all drugs have problems. drink too much and you become reliant on it, it rots your liver and your personality can change totally. smoking will get you hooked and increase chances of lung cancer and all that shit. overdo it on marijuana and you can trigger underlying mental issues. we should all know this, but there will always be those who just want to take the piss with how much they want to take.

also, if i were to go out tomorrow and smoke a spliff (not that i would), do you really think i'd suddenly have another psychotic episode? i really, really doubt it. if i were to go and overdo it, then yeah, i don't think that'd be very smart, but just one isn't exactly going to tip me over the edge. those who have serious issues shouldn't be going anywhere near the stuff anyway, it isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean that if they do, it isn't to do with what was going on in their head to begin with.

While I do certainly agree, I would like to repeat that Pot also fucks up your lungs and voicebox if you don't lock it down (which I didn't). My voice is a bit crinklier now. A bit.

But regardless, it still just makes you either a useless lump or cavorting hooligan. Harmless in moderation, just like everything else. (As you pointed out)

There are certainly non-psychological side effects. I'll never dispute that. You're smoking it, and smoking is bad for your body. I'm just saying that pot will not make you lazy or crazy. You have to be predisposed to being those things for that to happen.

OANST says it's ok so I'm gunna go do some pot now, yep, because I think he's a mature adult and if he thinks it's ok then it is! Right? Tcha right

Luckily, I'm clazy.

In your case I recommend heroin and Russian Roulette. It's really safe.

Wow, that's a low blow!

no, it wasn't. you're just not reading our posts properly. no one ever said it was 'okay' to take a drug, we were discussing its effects. all drugs are harmful in one way or another.

No silly, he told me to blow my brains out in russian roulette.

and you're still not reading posts correctly. i was talking about this:

i think i need a drink.

Yar, the tcha right emphasized the point that I was kidding, I don't intend to smoke weed now nor do I have the intention of smoking weed for another few years

and yet again, you missed the point. you were insinuating that we were saying smoking weed has no ill effects. we weren't, and it does.

I know, look, irony and sarcasm travels very badly across the internet so I'm giving up now

There is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life. That may well be accounted for by people who already have a risk or predisposition, I'm not disputing that. But how many people know whether or not they already are at risk? Even those who do, I'm not saying that they will develop an illness or that if they do that it was predicated by their use of cannabis. I'm not going to stop anyone from trying it, that is their freedom, and perhaps it should be legally recognised. I think that neither the pro-cannabis lobby or the anti-cannabis lobby are reporting the understood risks and effects very well at all, and the environment they create similarly stifles understanding among young people.

Using any drug is a calculated risk, and some are definitely riskier than others. I just want people to actually be able to do those calculations. While sober.

Seems a fair conclusion

I still feel like I have to dispute this. The evidence is all anecdotal.

Not at all. Here's another study, this one using sibling pair analysis to help distinguish between the effects of cannabis use and genetic predetermination.

But it's anecdotal. It doesn't say that the twin was a wonderful person, smoked pot, AND THEN HOLY SHIT IT'S A FUCKING WHIRLWIND OF MADNESS WATCH OUT! No. The one that smoked pot was also the one that had problems. This is called anecdotal evidence, and is know in the scientific community as absolute nonsense.

These are professions we're talking about.

An-ec-do-tal

Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

3801 participants is as about as scientific as it gets.

These aren't anecdotes, it is a sample of 3801 individuals comprising those who used cannabis for different periods and different quantites and those who did and did not receive a non-affective psychosis diagnosis and/or report at least of CIDI hallucination item, to which were applied various statistical analyses that accounted for prior conditions and family history.

Those who did not use cannabis at all were excluded. As the paper says:

As a result, it is the degree of exposure to cannabis that is being analysed, not simply the use of it. The findings are that the longer it was used, the greater the chance of psychosis or psychosis related outcomes.

It doesn't matter how many people you have. I can extrapolate from this data that people with emotional problems are more likely to smoke pot. This does not show causation in any way. To say otherwise is absurd.

There's this thing called statistics and there are these things called multivariate models of regression. Admittedly the longer the study goes on the weaker the statistical power gets, but you can scientifically test for causality like this.

this turned into a debate of whether cannabis is dangerous or not.

as Ridg3 seems to be the only one who tried out Salvia yet, I would like to know more about why it was shit.

Except that this is much much much more subjective, because the odds of people with emotional problems wanting to escape and smoke pot is quite likely greater than the opposite. Which is exactly what these numbers mean to me. They can in no way show any kind of causation.

As I just pointed out, this study analyses the outcomes against the length of time in which cannabis is used, not the use of it as opposed to not using it.

The study specifically excluded subjects who did not use cannabis at all for the very reasons you describe.

That doesn't speak to what I'm speaking to. At all.

Then explain, because you mustn't have been clear.

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

Should be just fine for you, then.

Are you insinuating Hunter Thompson is a faggot?

http://i.imgur.com/O1aQp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vrLio.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Zx4Np.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qEiOL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OAkWK.jpg

aka cool story bro.

Shame that you're the only person in the world who can like what you like without taking drugs.



EDIT: Actually that isn't a shame at all. How silly of me.

Maybe you ought to stop using it. You generally portrey it very poorly.