If you're a washed out old tramp, there are some positive points. At least no-one is giving you targets to meet. All you have to do is have a big grin on your face, and say "Thas the besh meths I ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever (breathe in) tasted. Whashop d'ya stealit from?"
Oh, sorry. I guess rather than saying "I don't know why you would call it conclusive," I should have said "I don't know why you would say it appears conclusive." Yeah, that would have made all the difference. I was not attempting to distort anything. You said that it appears to be conclusive, when in fact it does not appear at all conclusive by any reasonable definition of "conclusive." Also, your statement about further studies was: "And even though the results of this study appear to be conclusive, additional studies need to be done to either confirm or reject the findings." (emphasis mine) Although you don't explicitly state it, you seem to be taking it for granted that this study actually had "conclusions" about the nature of the relationship between pot use mental illness, when in fact the study merely notes that they are correlated. The issue of causation is not addressed, except to the extent that the study authors admit they don't know. You claimed that it appeared conclusive.
Methanol is certainly poisonous, but the body has a surprisingly high tolerance for it when it's consumed along with ethanol. The methanol isn't dangerous per se, but there's an enzyme in called alcohol dehydrogenase that converts methanol into toxic metabolites. Ethanol competes with methanol for alcohol dehydrogenase conversion, so if you have a lot more ethanol than methanol in your system, most of the methanol won't be converted into anything dangerous and will eventually be excreted in your urine. That's why people can drink ethanolic drinks that have fairly high methanol contents without being poisoned. Of course, it's still not recommended...
Nasor, The problem is thus: Now this is where the problem is, testing the hypothesis without having people being all too willing to shaft it one way or the other by expressing complete fabrications (i.e. Phil Jones) In essense a study shouldn't be "look for the positive factors of cannabis" or "look to the negative", it should really be a well rounded analysis of what it is, what it does and why people are willing to lie to manipulate the consensus on the subject. I doubt we are going to see such "Mature" studies as of yet.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. You are being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious - things I've rarely seen you do before. And EVERY study reaches a conclusion - even if that happens to be "inclusive." And this particular study DID appear to note a particular trend. So take that and smoke it. :shrug:
One that I don't see a lot of stats on is the physical affliction of heart disease. Why wouldn't that be one of the most obvious potential hazards? Ie:"Here we have Smokey-Joe blowing blunts every night while playing video games and eating entire bags of potatoe chips".
Sorry, I guess I went a bit overboard. My reaction was mainly caused by a recent thread on the same topic in which Sandy annoyed the hell out of me. When I saw the same topic come up again I was still in annoyed about it, so I responded to your post in the same way without bothering to note that you were actually making much more qualified and reasonable statements. Anyway, sorry about that.
Now THIS is much more like the Nasor who's posts I've been reading for a very long time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Apology accepted.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Someone actually reads my posts? I always assumed I was just raising sciforum's hosting bill by wasting bandwidth.
Re Meths There are several grades of denatured alcohol, but the denaturants used are generally similar. The formulation for completely denatured alcohol, according to British regulations[2] is typical: Completely denatured alcohol must be made in accordance with the following formulation: with every 90 parts by volume of alcohol mix 9.5 parts by volume of methanol or a substitute for methanol and 0.5 parts by volume of crude pyridine, and to the resulting mixture add mineral naphtha (petroleum oil) in the proportion of 3.75 litres to every 1000 litres of the mixture and synthetic organic dyestuff (methyl violet) in the proportion of 1.5 grams to every 1000 litres of the mixture.
Heh-heh! You know better than that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There ARE a few here - like S.A.M., iceaura, kmguru and Doreen - who's posts I've come to *totally* ignore, and a few others like Pinwheel and Tiassa that I skip past more than 90% of the time - but there are a few folks, including you, who's posts I *always* read. And I base those decisions upon content, accuracy and personal motivation. (I despise liars, distorters, time-wasters, trolls and flame-baiters.)
A "susceptible minority"??? Isn't that the rationale for the whole Nanny State phenomenon? If there's one person, anywhere, who could be harmed by a drug/ food/ activity/ condition/ entertainment/ word, then we MUST make it illegal! I've only known one person in my whole life (which goes back to the days when we called them "reefers") who had a bad reaction to pot. In contrast, I've met a couple of dozen who said they just didn't get off on it and wondered what the fuss was about. A more rational deployment of our scarce medical resources would be to figure out what's wrong with those poor people and find a cure for their inability to get high.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If the shit-for-brains government would just decriminalize it, it would go back to being a wild weed eventually and nobody would have to cultivate it or pay for it. It would probably revert to its ancestral variety soon enough and all the chemicals would be back in balance. The USA has one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed world. The only thing we can figure out is that speaking English with an American accent must be the problem. Correlation does imply causation, right? And that's when you're just considering the drug user himself. When you expand that to include others, the difference is phenomenal. Drunk drivers think their judgment, alertness and reaction times are enhanced, and that there aren't any cops within ten miles. So they kill more than 100,000 Americans in a decade--thirty times as many as are killed by terrorists. Marijuana induces a healthy overtone of paranoia. Stoned drivers think that they've lost their judgment, alertness and reaction time, that a wheel is about to fall off of the car, and that every fifth vehicle on the road is an unmarked police car. They're the ones in the slow lane obeying every law and driving better than our parents. Sandy annoys the hell out of everybody except Religious Redneck Retards, and for some reason we don't get too many of those on SciForums.
I have had two friends who smoked lots of pot and were later diagnosed with 1. schizophrenia, and 2. schizotypal personality disorder. Granted, that's a small sample. I'm in favor of legalization. I think if it were legalized, we could get more research into the topic. It's interesting that pot contains an anti-psychotic component that is being bred out of it. Probably because the more concentrated it is, the better the price you can get for it. We need to go back to the heirloom varieties.
Marijuana is bulky and smelly. If you're carrying around an illegal commodity that's bulky and smelly, you want it to be as compact as possible.
True, I'm not condemning them at all, breeders have done wonders with the genetics of Cannabis, but with legalization, we could have real scientists working on the issue. I would love to open a restaurant that was all food cooked with weed.
hey ppl here drink that sort of stuff, including i but that was a long time ago, and no one here has ever gotten blind yet, but pot they should legalise it, and seriousely it does make u see things from a diffrent point of view, also helps with stress i say coz i havent heard of anybody suffering from stress got it from smocking pot...hahaha
I don't think you mean the same thing as I do. The methanol might not hit you until the next day, but the other UK ingredients certainly would. Pyridine will make you very sick, straight away.
