The Middle-Class Women Who Are Tripping Balls
The Middle-Class Women Who Are Tripping Balls
"But Rachel also has another hobby, one that makes her a bit different from the other moms in her Texas suburb—not that she talks about it with them. Once a month or so, after she and her husband put the kids to bed, Rachel texts her in-laws—who live just down the street—to make sure they’re home and available in the event of an emergency.
"And then, Rachel takes a generous dose of magic mushrooms, or sometimes MDMA, and—there’s really no other way to say this— spends the next several hours tripping balls."
You're viewing part of a thread.
Cool. But I asked you the source of the mortality numbers. You still haven't given them to me.
This was literally in that PDF:
The UK government treats these as much more dangerous or desirable (from the consumer perspective) than those others already mentioned despite overwhelming evidence that psychedelics are very safe (almost no deaths) and are rarely abused. cannabis is also relatively safe having been a medicine in the UK until 1971
From what I can tell just searching for the word 'cannabis,' something you did not do, this information all comes from a psychopharmacologist called David Nutt who seems to have a particular hard-on for talking about the dangers of cannabis.
Without ever showing his sources on mortality.
I know you didn't read the entire report in the time it took you to reply, and neither did I. But it didn't take me long to find that, which puts the whole mortality number thing under suspicion.
"whole mortality number thing under suspicion"
You're acting as if you're arguing this in good faith. That's not the case anymore, since you've ignored half a dozen replies in I point out that there are two facts which I'm sure you can not disagree with. 1. Smoking is one of — if not the — most popular ways of consuming cannabis. 2. Smoking anything is unhealthy and causes an increased risk of cancer.
There is a third fact as well. Namely that they clearly say "Mortality is defined as risk of lethal overdose (drug-specific), OR BY life shortened by factors other than overdose (drug-related)"
If I were to ask you to name anything risky in relation to the usage of cannabis (not the substance itself), would you be able to name anything, or would you just stand there like a teenager who discovered pot, claiming nothing related to cannabis can ever be harmful?
Just like with the crack v cocaine harm part of it, it's not due to the pharmacological properties of the substance that the chart is like that. Smoking is more addictive than other methods of use (sometimes in some studies even more so than shooting up, depending on the substance). It's also unhealthy.
You're treating this as some DARE propaganda. It's well researched data, and I'm pro drug legalisation, and I'm sure you won't argue the facts over smoke in your lungs being bad for you. So I genuinely don't understand what you think you're protesting here.
I don't think I've ever used this saying in such a suitable moment; you're barking up the wrong tree.
None of that is the source for the mortality numbers either in that chart.
I'm not why you can't just admit you don't know the source. You don't. You simply don't.
Also, why are you even talking about cannabis overdoses now? Do you know the LD50 of THC?
There's nothing that would satisfy your criteria for the "source". I've literally pasted the DOI number of the study that the numbers are from. You're sealioning, just like I said.
I'm quoting the study where the numbers are from, and I still haven't mentioned any "cannabis overdoses". It literally says “Mortality is defined as risk of lethal overdose (drug-specific), OR BY life shortened by factors other than overdose (drug-related)”
This means that the "mortality" bit of the chart isn't even implying that cannabis has directly caused someone's death. Not even remotely has anyone implied that, yet it's all you keep going on about, while ignoring the facts.
We know where the numbers are from. First off, we have the actual study, go ahead and read it. Secondly, (AND THIS IS THE PART YOU KEEP IGNORING), do you disagree with the following facts; first that smoking is a popular way of using cannabis and secondly that smoking causes cancer?
There’s nothing that would satisfy your criteria for the “source”.
Aside from an actual source of actual mortality numbers, which I asked for. And yes, I looked up the links you pasted, which you did not. None of them give the source either, other than Nutt.
All of this comes from this Nutt, who is apparently aptly named, because he's apparently just making shit up. And you just accept it for no apparent reason other than you want people to die from cannabis.
First off, we have the actual study, go ahead and read it.
I read your links. You clearly did not. In fact, you pasted them within minutes of my responses so you didn't even have time to. It's pretty silly to tell someone to read links you haven't read as if they prove your point.
do you disagree with the following facts; first that smoking is a popular way of using cannabis and secondly that smoking causes cancer?
We'll discuss this as soon as you acknowledge that there is no legitimate source for the death information in the chart you gave. It all comes from one guy who just doesn't like cannabis rather than any sort of actual medical information.
Edit: If you are going to lie and claim you read all of that, I think this part of the conversation where you didn't realize the chart had mortality information and told me to read the chart to see that there isn't any when there is shows quite clearly that you don't read the information you provide very carefully:
Nutt, who is apparently aptly named, because he’s apparently just making shit up.
You're being serious? Discrediting all of his science, because he's probably bias? Not childish at all.
I read your links. You clearly did not.
No you didn't.
Did you read the full text from the Lancet? (It's free but requires logging in.)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext#box1
You started this protest by protesting the "mortality" bit of the chart. (Which, admittedly, I had forgotten about.) We then started arguing over it, you going on about people claiming there are arguments of "cannabis killing people" and asking me if I "know the LD50 of cannabis". I replied by saying that I know about studies like this, and I understand that the mortality figures also come from drug-related diseases, like lung cancer if you've smoked the substance of your choice. You ignored that bit, and are still ignoring it.
From that link:
Drug-specific mortality Intrinsic lethality of the drug expressed as ratio of lethal dose and standard dose (for adults) Drug-related mortality >The extent to which life is shortened by the use of the drug (excludes drug-specific mortality)—eg, road traffic accidents, lung cancers, HIV, suicide
Road traffic accidents and lung cancers? Just like I said way back. That yes, the mortality stat is sus to an extent, because of the mechanism of say, a drunk driver killing themselves, then having blood taken, it having cannabis, and that being attributed to cannabis mortality. However, the other part which is more objectively reasonable is the lung cancer bit. Why? Because it's very popular to SMOKE cannabis and smoking anything causes cancer.
I do not have access to the individual datapoints of their study. They've used sophisticated software to analyse it. Do you think you'd analyse the data better?
My point has been, all the time, that while the data for mortality probably isn't accurate, we can say for certain that some, probably most of it, is due to the increased mortality from smoking. Like I said, if everyone just ate it, the mortality should be zero, and if we knew everyone took edibles and never smoked, and if there still was a wide mortality rate in a chart like that, then we could say it was wholly suspect.
See if you had actually opened the full study on the Lancet, you'd have seen that more accurate chart. Almost as if you didn't and are just somewhat childishly trying to win this debate, even though I consider it a conversation and thus there are no winners or losers. I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying I know that most of the mortality is due to smoking reducing lifespans and a lot of cannabis being smoked. I too smoke. It's unhealthy. I've tried changing to vapes several times, but it's just not as good. A dab pen would be. Maybe even just an electric nail to my bong. But then making my own dab feels like a waste as smoking bud just makes it last longer.
I think this part of the conversation where you didn't realize the chart had mortality information and told me to read the chart to see that there isn't any
Well, when you revise history and change what you said originally it'll come across that way, yeah
As you can see in your own fucking picture there: you originally kept asking who cannabis was killing, which isn't on the chart mortality is, but that goes beyond direct killings, which has been their entire goddamn point
Sorry... you think mortality from a drug is different from being killed by a drug? What?
It is, yes.
Drug-specific mortality and drug-related mortality are two different things.
You just pay 0 attention to what people clearly and concisely explain to you, dontcha squid?
Drug mortality is defined as any contributory cause-of-death that involved one or more of the following drugs:
And then it lists off shit like meth, coke, anti depressants, etc. as you can see, I've bolded the relevant part
You originally said "who got killed by weed", which is different entirely. Nobody has died of smoking weed (that I know of), people HAVE died because they were high (that's a mortality)
So the mortality for cannabis doesn't apply to people who just use cannabis and it has no indication of what other drugs they might have used?
That is beyond useless information. That tells you absolutely nothing. Your chart is garbage.
