Which I post because I love you all so, and since you are so preoccupied with that other 100+ page thread, I might as well get another one going. :lulz:
http://thomaskleppesto.tumblr.com/post/26149335063/the-relative-dangers-of-drugs-what-the-science-says
QuoteDavid Nutt and his colleagues have studied the relative harm of drugs. In one of Nutt's studies that were published in the lancet, members of the British Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs was asked to rate 20 drugs on 16 criteria such as drug-specific damage, mortality, dependence and international damage. Drugs were scored on a 100-point scale. Here is a display of the weighted scores:
(http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673610614626.gr4.lrg.jpg)
QuoteIn the diagram above both individual and societal factors are considered. It may come to a surprise to many readers that LSD and ecstasy are one of the least dangerous drugs. Notice also that Alcohol is the highest rated dangerous drug and that tobacco is on seventh place just below Cocaine (Both alcohol and tobacco are not even considered a drug by many people, including, sadly, politicians). However, heroin, crack and metamfetamine tops the list for the most dangerous drugs when only individual factors are considered, alcohol then dropping down to a fourth place amongst the most dangerous drugs. So, even when the obvious societal effects due to the widespread use of alcohol are not considered (alcohol rates very high, unsurprisingly, on "family adversities" and "environmental damage") it still is the fourth most dangerous drug. Yes, that's right. Alcohol nearly receives the bronze-medal for danger to individuals.
The particular type of neurotransmitters that a drug affects in the brain has a huge impact on the harms the drug can contribute to. A major similarity between the drugs that tops the list above is that these drugs, in addition to other areas in the brain (click here for a discussion), directly affect the dopaminergic "reward system" in the midbrain. This area has been shaped and "designed" by millions of years of natural selection in mammals to reward for adaptive behavior such as sex and the intake of nutritious food. When they are artificially stimulated by drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine they have adverse consequences for addiction and health (that is the reason why drugs such as nicotine and heroin have the characteristic addictive effects). Drugs at the bottom of the list, such as MDMA (ecstasy), mushrooms and LSD stimulate mainly serotonergic neurons (several places in the brain), and does not directly stimulate the mesolimbic reward systems (which is why they are not addictive).
The many myths and popular beliefs surrounding psychoactive substances and their harms are perpetuated through the popular media. An empirical observation of this phenomenon was provided by Alasdair Forsyth in 2001. He compared the official statistics on drug deaths in Scotland to the drug-deaths reported in the Scottish newspapers. His results are somewhat astounding: a huge proportion of deaths caused by recreational drugs were reported, whereas deaths caused by pharmaceutical drugs were vastly underreported. For example, 26 of 28 deaths were MDMA (ecstasy) was a possible contributor to death was reported, whereas just one in every 256 deaths caused by aspirin and one in 50 deaths caused by paracetamol were reported. This clearly gives a biased representation of the relative harm of drugs, particularly ecstasy, which, as is reported in the diagram above, is not at all that dangerous.
The rest is about cannabis and the "gateway drug" hypothesis, as well as pro-cannabis and pro-hallucinogen rhetoric, so use the link if you really want a rehash of that. The research above, on the other hand, is new to me and interesting, ESPECIALLY because it considers more than just mortality and damage.
Again, I love you all so very much. <3 And heres a link to journal article, if you have access [I don't :(]. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext#article_upsell
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/482/template.jpg)
Because hell is repetition.
Who the fuck gets high on butane? :lulz:
Middle schoolers and fifty year old men.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 01, 2012, 02:40:50 AM
Because hell is repetition.
Who the fuck gets high on butane? :lulz:
Mostly people who
really want to get high but can't get real drugs, I think.
Quote from: guryaf on July 01, 2012, 03:09:41 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 01, 2012, 02:40:50 AM
Because hell is repetition.
Who the fuck gets high on butane? :lulz:
Mostly people who really want to get high but can't get real drugs, I think.
Sounds about right.
Butane and gas huffing were a big deal among Australian Aboriginals in the 90's, dunno if they still are. I only knew at that point because I was talking with my step brother more often and he lives in Australia. He may have exaggerated it a bit though because he's kind of racist.
[Redacted Pony Scat Fic]
Be warned, I have recently come across and entire storehouse of Pony fics and I will be watching this thread very carefully.
Well, thanks for the link, Kai.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on July 01, 2012, 07:29:44 AM
No.
Pinkie joined the group, exhausted but smiling.
"You look like you played tag with the Crusaders, ain't that right?" Applejack asked.
"It was fun! Scootaloo is fucking fast. You should've seen her. Dashing around like Dashie here," she nudged Rainbow, "And speaking of fun things, let's play a guessing game! I'll guess your fetishes, OK?"
"Our what?" Rarity seemed shocked.
"Oh, I forgot something. Just a sec," Pinkie Pie said. She took a few steps away from her friends, and pushed a few levers and switches to change the narrative mode.
She's now looking right at you: "Hi there! You can just scroll down to The Juicy Part if you're in a hurry. That's it. Thxbye."
After returning the controls to their original position, she seamlessly took up the conversation again.
"You know, Rarity, the stuff you enjoy jilling off to. Rainbow, I bet you're irisaphilic."
Rainbow Dash shook her head. "Don't get me wrong, I love rainbows, but I don't get off on them."
"OK, autassassinophilia!"
"Somewhat, I guess, but you can do better."
"Hybristophilia!"
"Ew."
"Hey, don't judge! Apotemnophilia!"
"Oh, stop with the allusions. It's getting old," said Rainbow, rolling her eyes.
"Pyrophilia!"
"You got it," Rainbow admitted, her thoughts on a very special pegasus.
"OK, Fluttershy. Let's see: Zoophilia."
"Oh, that would be so cute, but no."
"Dendrophilia!"
"Yes."
She turned to Rarity. "You're always so anal about your looks. I bet you're into coprophilia!"
"Scat, yes," Rarity admitted coyly, "But there's more."
"Urolagnia?"
"Watersports, hit. Go on."
"Mysophilia and mucophilia?"
"Yum."
"Great, that's just what I've been hoping for. We share a lot of fetishes! Let's lower the curtain and change the setting to something more private, don't you think?"
"Can you do that?"
"It's easy as my precious eponymous pastry, look:"
The Juicy Part
Rarity found herself in Sugarcube Corner. It was dark outside, and she was alone. Then she heard a rustle in one of the cupboards. It opened, and Pinkie Pie climbed out. "Whoo, warm in here."
"And you're still all sweaty from that tag game," Rarity said.
"Totally. And I haven't washed in weeks. I must smell terribly, I imagine," Pinkie Pie said with a lusty smile.
"Yes, how negligent of you. Allow me to remedy this for you."
Rarity gently turned Pinkie on her back, then spread her right front leg. The smell was especially pungent in the legpit, and Rarity licked its sweaty fur until it was soaked with her saliva. She moved on the front-left legpit, relished the smell, and rubbed her face in it, while she felt her pussy grow moist. "You don't know how long I've been pining for this." For Pinkie, the tickling was just as titillating; she squeaked in delight.
When the salty taste faded, Rarity had an idea. She nuzzled Pinkie where the neck meets the chin, a place wetter than the lower part of the neck. Under her mane, however, the smell was stronger. Pinkie again squeaked with glee when Rarity licked the back of her neck across the pink fur. Then she slowly liked her way to the left ear and was richly rewarded. Over the weeks of not washing, a thick, wet bed of earwax had filled the lower parts. Rarity licked it clean as far down as her tongue could reach, relishing the bitter taste, then moved on the other ear. Moving back down, she found traces of a day-old cherry pie in the fur near Pinkie's mouth and kissed them away. The otherwise downright garrulous Pinkie Pie was so lost in her very visceral pleasures, but also in the degree of love and trust Rarity showed, that she could only now and then muster an encouraging moan or purr.
Rarity noted with dismay that her nose had gown accustomed to the lovely Pinkie reek, so that she could hardly smell it anymore. Her nose, however, made it up to her by secreting a little snot. Rarity carefully blew it out just far enough to make it trickle down her upper lip from both nostrils. Pinkie Pie saw it and pulled Rarity down to her to lick at it. Her tongue was able to pull a sweet, long booger from Rarity's left nostril, but the right was quickly exhausted. They kissed and swapped the snot until it was dissolved in their saliva. Both of their chins dripping with the warm snot-saliva mix, Pinkie found a long strand of hair in Rarity's mane and guided its ends up both her own nostrils. Before long she felt the sneeze build up. She held it a little longer and then let it explode right in Rarity's face, carrying with it a great amount of saliva. She smiled mischievously while Rarity licked her lips. Pinkie felt a rich mass of snot in her nose, but it was still too far up for her to blow it out. She tickled again, then sneezed again, this time keeping her mouth shut, so the sneeze would escape through her nose. Instantly both their faces were covered in Pinkie snot. They licked furiously and kissed again. They held the kiss, then, their lips and tongues still touching, they looked into each other's eyes. More snot and saliva dripped from their mouths, while for a few magical seconds they saw each other anew every moment.
Rarity moved down to Pinkie's crotch, catching another whiff of her sweaty reek before it was replaced by the sweet pungency of a pussy unwashed for weeks. The fur surrounding it was embroidered with white and yellow streaks of something phlegmy. Rarity wanted to lick it off, when, to her utter delight, she discovered that Pinkie had not only not washed for weeks, but had not wiped her ass either. A thick crust of shit of various hues of brown coated the fur around it. Two streaks even ran down her hind legs. Pinkie must have made it a habit to shit standing. Her tail was sprinkled with little dried drops as well, a sure sign she had had diarrhea at some point, perhaps over a week ago. Rarity bowed over Pinkie, who was still lying on her back, and tried licking at first, but her spittle was not enough to solve the hard crust. She pressed her face, still soaked, against Pinkie's ass to moisten it. Pinkie understood the problem and helped by pissing against Rarity's forehead, so the urine would trickle down her face and soak into the pinkish-brown fur.
After a few seconds, Rarity felt the pee escape around the sides of her head. She didn't want to see any of it spilled, and so slowly slid upwards, pressing first her chin between Pinkie's legs, and soon her neck, where the fur was still mostly dry. Then the pee was exhausted. Rarity's face was white no longer, and strains of week-old shit covered the front of her whole upper body. Her face and neck brown and yellow and dripping, she bowed down to Pinkie's ass again. Most of the crust was still hard, but Rarity's tongue could scoop up enough of it to fill her mouth with its taste. She imagined, for a trice, how repugnant it would be, were it anypony else's waste, and how she instead loved its taste as she loved Pinkie Pie.
Pinkie began to press, and the tip of the turd showed for a moment, but quickly retreated again, leaving only a small corona of fresh shit. Rarity quickly moistened the hole and licked it clean, while Pinkie pressed again. Now a little more escaped, only to be cut off when Pinkie relaxed. Rarity scooped it up and held it in her mouth, while she grabbed Pinkie around her hips. With a swift roll, they had exchanged places. Rarity, now lying on her back, moved Pinkie's ass toward her still all too pristine belly.
Pinkie wanted to partake of Rarity's juicy meal. While still sitting on Rarity's belly, she bowed down, and they kissed, swapping Pinkie's shit. It soon dissolved. Some of it trickled out of their mouths to land on Rarity's neck. Then, Pinkie pressed again, moving her behind slowly up and down Rarity's belly, coating it uniformly in her shit and pressing it deep into the fur.
Rarity held Pinkie in a gentle, one-legged hug, lovingly pulling her close, while she shit into her other hoof. Still hugging, she started to spread the turd all over Pinkie's back. Between Rarity's brown belly and Pinkie's soiled pussy, new shit pressed its way out. Pinkie scooped it up and soon they together rolled around on the floor in abandon, smearing each others coat and mane and tail. They hit against a refrigerator leaving a squishy mark, and found themselves hugging with their noses at each other's ass. Pinkie's was one flat mass of smeared shit, but Rarity's was dirty as well. They licked each other's asses and stuck their brown noses up each other's pussies, licking and caressing until they both came.
For minutes they just lay motionlessly, tightly pressed against each other. At some point, Pinkie murmured, "There's a shower here somewhere if you want to. I'm fine." They continued their loving embrace.
So hey, as amused as I am by your efforts in the other spagfest of a thread, maybe consider not shitting up threads JUST because they're hot-button topics, but rather, wait until they actually start turning into useless circular spagfests before you shit them up?
I like that Kai posted actual science, and am interested in the actual science, and this thread has not (yet) devolved into pointless shit-slinging and propaganda hyping, so it might yet have space for actual interesting discussion of science.
Sadly, I can't seem to login to read the article from home. :( I'll try to figure it out on Tuesday.
I have some thoughts but am going to withhold them, for now.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
So hey, as amused as I am by your efforts in the other spagfest of a thread, maybe consider not shitting up threads JUST because they're hot-button topics, but rather, wait until they actually start turning into useless circular spagfests before you shit them up?
I like that Kai posted actual science, and am interested in the actual science, and this thread has not (yet) devolved into pointless shit-slinging and propaganda hyping, so it might yet have space for actual interesting discussion of science.
Point taken.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on July 01, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
So hey, as amused as I am by your efforts in the other spagfest of a thread, maybe consider not shitting up threads JUST because they're hot-button topics, but rather, wait until they actually start turning into useless circular spagfests before you shit them up?
I like that Kai posted actual science, and am interested in the actual science, and this thread has not (yet) devolved into pointless shit-slinging and propaganda hyping, so it might yet have space for actual interesting discussion of science.
Point taken.
:)
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 06:23:55 PM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on July 01, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
So hey, as amused as I am by your efforts in the other spagfest of a thread, maybe consider not shitting up threads JUST because they're hot-button topics, but rather, wait until they actually start turning into useless circular spagfests before you shit them up?
I like that Kai posted actual science, and am interested in the actual science, and this thread has not (yet) devolved into pointless shit-slinging and propaganda hyping, so it might yet have space for actual interesting discussion of science.
Point taken.
:)
Yes, Kai doesn't have that coming.
Pre-emptive Pony strike was LOL but pre-emptive. :lol:
It doesn't count as pre-emptive, not when the outcome is inevitable.
Especially not when it's been just 10 days since the last attempt at this.
BRB, gonna jam my dick in a meat grinder. Sure, it hurt like fuck the other 20 times, but this time will be different.
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2012, 08:25:59 PM
It doesn't count as pre-emptive, not when the outcome is inevitable.
Especially not when it's been just 10 days since the last attempt at this.
BRB, gonna jam my dick in a meat grinder. Sure, it hurt like fuck the other 20 times, but this time will be different.
I see your point, but also I am actually kind of interested in discussing this topic with Kai, from a public health perspective, after I figure out how to access it the article through the university, and the thread hadn't been been spagged up YET. Just on principle, it seems like a good idea to give these doomed threads a fighting chance so that maybe the first few pages can be actual discussion between interested parties, even when we know that they will eventually degenerate into a toolbox.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 01, 2012, 02:30:50 AM
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/482/template.jpg)
The correct response is "fuck you, Kai".
OK.
But it won't stop there. I'm just saying. When this thread is 70 pages long and shows no sign of slowing down, and RWHN is engaging in passive-aggressive posting and extremely questionable analysis, and everyone else is basking in self-righteous glee at being able to offload on him for it, except Glittersnatch, who is going to ever more desperate lengths to write fanfic shocking enough to snap you all the fuck out of it...
Just remember, it could have stopped here.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2012, 08:25:59 PM
It doesn't count as pre-emptive, not when the outcome is inevitable.
Especially not when it's been just 10 days since the last attempt at this.
BRB, gonna jam my dick in a meat grinder. Sure, it hurt like fuck the other 20 times, but this time will be different.
I see your point, but also I am actually kind of interested in discussing this topic with Kai, from a public health perspective, after I figure out how to access it the article through the university, and the thread hadn't been been spagged up YET. Just on principle, it seems like a good idea to give these doomed threads a fighting chance so that maybe the first few pages can be actual discussion between interested parties, even when we know that they will eventually degenerate into a toolbox.
If you can get ahold of the article, I'd love to read it. Won't once again have journal access till the end of August.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on July 01, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 01, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2012, 08:25:59 PM
It doesn't count as pre-emptive, not when the outcome is inevitable.
Especially not when it's been just 10 days since the last attempt at this.
BRB, gonna jam my dick in a meat grinder. Sure, it hurt like fuck the other 20 times, but this time will be different.
I see your point, but also I am actually kind of interested in discussing this topic with Kai, from a public health perspective, after I figure out how to access it the article through the university, and the thread hadn't been been spagged up YET. Just on principle, it seems like a good idea to give these doomed threads a fighting chance so that maybe the first few pages can be actual discussion between interested parties, even when we know that they will eventually degenerate into a toolbox.
If you can get ahold of the article, I'd love to read it. Won't once again have journal access till the end of August.
I'm hoping I can access it from work on Tuesday, but if not I'll just go to the library and scan a copy. Since I haven't been through orientation, my PSU library account might not be set up yet.
I might be able to hit up countway if you like.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2012, 04:23:56 AM
Butane and gas huffing were a big deal among Australian Aboriginals in the 90's, dunno if they still are. I only knew at that point because I was talking with my step brother more often and he lives in Australia. He may have exaggerated it a bit though because he's kind of racist.
There's some truth in it being a problem, but there's also a stereotype. Some cool stuffs being done in problematic communities with Opal fuel- powers cars but can't get you high. The areas where it's popular are just really really socially fucked up
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2012, 09:09:44 PM
OK.
But it won't stop there. I'm just saying. When this thread is 70 pages long and shows no sign of slowing down, and RWHN is engaging in passive-aggressive posting and extremely questionable analysis, and everyone else is basking in self-righteous glee at being able to offload on him for it, except Glittersnatch, who is going to ever more desperate lengths to write fanfic shocking enough to snap you all the fuck out of it...
Just remember, it could have stopped here.
I think its cute that you are taking a passive aggressive swipe at me with a passive aggressive post about my passive aggressiveness. ;)
No , I'm going to hold back and see how others interpret this study before I weigh in, if I weigh in at all. Gotta busy week ahead, still trying to wrestle with the State and the Governor's office over these backwards funding cuts.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 01, 2012, 11:32:42 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2012, 04:23:56 AM
Butane and gas huffing were a big deal among Australian Aboriginals in the 90's, dunno if they still are. I only knew at that point because I was talking with my step brother more often and he lives in Australia. He may have exaggerated it a bit though because he's kind of racist.
There's some truth in it being a problem, but there's also a stereotype. Some cool stuffs being done in problematic communities with Opal fuel- powers cars but can't get you high. The areas where it's popular are just really really socially fucked up
Yeah, like America. :lulz:
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 01, 2012, 11:40:19 PM
I think its cute that you are taking a passive aggressive swipe at me with a passive aggressive post about my passive aggressiveness. ;)
OK then: you're a shitty, biased analyst who cannot overcome your own cognitive, authority and sampling biases in interpreting data. Furthermore, you get off on being the centre of attention regardless of whether that attention is positive or not; you're basically a less perverted version of BabylonHoruv.
Direct enough for you, asswipe?
Aww, your just sore that these threads get more play than yours. Look man, I don't ask for everyone and their cousin to get sucked into these threads. Don't blame me for the lack of willpower of others. Now, I need to go lick my wounds after that devastating insult, from you. :lulz:
And now yet another thread is now about RWHN getting all the negative attention he can. See? Like fucking clockwork.
And no doubt he'll find someone stupid enough to give in to temptation and go along with that plan for a good 20-30 pages. It's all so predictable. I almost wish someone would declare this a sociological experiment - I could at least readily believe this was pre-planned and built for idiocy.
Not me, though. You'll have to invite someone else to help you get into your "pity poor me" moods. I'm leaving this stupid thread before it grows any worse.
Sorry, I thought it might upset y ou if I didn't go for your obvious bait. Didn't want to ruin your night
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2012, 12:50:24 AM
And now yet another thread is now about RWHN getting all the negative attention he can. See? Like fucking clockwork.
And no doubt he'll find someone stupid enough to give in to temptation and go along with that plan for a good 20-30 pages. It's all so predictable. I almost wish someone would declare this a sociological experiment - I could at least readily believe this was pre-planned and built for idiocy.
Not me, though. You'll have to invite someone else to help you get into your "pity poor me" moods. I'm leaving this stupid thread before it grows any worse.
I'm out, too. He LIKES it too much.
Might be less perverted than BH but he's obviously into humiliation. Probably a scat muncher.
Anyway, to maybe get,this back on topic. I do appreciate how this study factored in impacts to the community and didn't just focus on immediate impacts to the individual user. I'd be curious to read the article to see how they derived their numbers and where their data came from.
I'm not surprised that alcohol came out on top. Alcohol is actually a pretty nasty substance when you add up all of the costs.
Yeah, fuck this thread. Fuck all of these threads. See you guys in a few weeks, I'm not even going to bother coming here for a while.
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2012, 12:50:24 AM
And now yet another thread is now about RWHN getting all the negative attention he can. See? Like fucking clockwork.
And no doubt he'll find someone stupid enough to give in to temptation and go along with that plan for a good 20-30 pages. It's all so predictable. I almost wish someone would declare this a sociological experiment - I could at least readily believe this was pre-planned and built for idiocy.
Not me, though. You'll have to invite someone else to help you get into your "pity poor me" moods. I'm leaving this stupid thread before it grows any worse.
Yeah, when he said that he wasn't going to comment I had the momentary hope that he would show some integrity, and that maybe we stood a half chance of discussing the actually interesting aspects of the study for a minute or two. Oh well.
Twid, if you could do that it would be super-awesome... would you be cool with emailing me the text of the article if you get hold of it? If I get it first I'll email it to you and Kai.
ANYWAY, BACK TO THE O.P.
Everybody knows alcohol is the worst drug out there. It's nice to see this quantified by real work though, and expressed in an easy to understand diagram. I'm surprised marijuana is as high on the list as it is, but I suspect much of the "damage" caused by pot is in areas that simply wouldn't be a problem (or as much of a problem) if it was legalized.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 02, 2012, 04:07:49 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2012, 12:50:24 AM
And now yet another thread is now about RWHN getting all the negative attention he can. See? Like fucking clockwork.
And no doubt he'll find someone stupid enough to give in to temptation and go along with that plan for a good 20-30 pages. It's all so predictable. I almost wish someone would declare this a sociological experiment - I could at least readily believe this was pre-planned and built for idiocy.
Not me, though. You'll have to invite someone else to help you get into your "pity poor me" moods. I'm leaving this stupid thread before it grows any worse.
Yeah, when he said that he wasn't going to comment I had the momentary hope that he would show some integrity, and that maybe we stood a half chance of discussing the actually interesting aspects of the study for a minute or two. Oh well.
You know, I was fixing up another original story, a Gilligan's Island fic for the other thread. But then the thread died, and I stopped working on it because
SURELY EVERYONE INVOLVED HAD LEARNED THEIR LESSON AND FINALLY GOTTEN SICK OF THIS SHIT. Oh, how very wrong I was.
Fuck all of you people right in the larynx.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 02, 2012, 04:07:49 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2012, 12:50:24 AM
And now yet another thread is now about RWHN getting all the negative attention he can. See? Like fucking clockwork.
And no doubt he'll find someone stupid enough to give in to temptation and go along with that plan for a good 20-30 pages. It's all so predictable. I almost wish someone would declare this a sociological experiment - I could at least readily believe this was pre-planned and built for idiocy.
Not me, though. You'll have to invite someone else to help you get into your "pity poor me" moods. I'm leaving this stupid thread before it grows any worse.
Yeah, when he said that he wasn't going to comment I had the momentary hope that he would show some integrity, and that maybe we stood a half chance of discussing the actually interesting aspects of the study for a minute or two. Oh well.
Twid, if you could do that it would be super-awesome... would you be cool with emailing me the text of the article if you get hold of it? If I get it first I'll email it to you and Kai.
No problemo. I'm going to take my time getting to work, but I'll hit up the library before I clock in.
Yeah, I'm not going to bother taking part in discussion in this thread now. I will get the article and share it with anyone who's interested in reading it.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 05:55:39 AM
ANYWAY, BACK TO THE O.P.
Everybody knows alcohol is the worst drug out there. It's nice to see this quantified by real work though, and expressed in an easy to understand diagram. I'm surprised marijuana is as high on the list as it is, but I suspect much of the "damage" caused by pot is in areas that simply wouldn't be a problem (or as much of a problem) if it was legalized.
I was a bit surprised to see Cannabis with drug related mortality, drug specific damage and drug related damage. If I had to GUESS why that is, I would suspect the first is due to traffic accidents, the second is due to inhalation of smoke, and the third is for similar reasons as to the first. Of all the drugs higher on the list, Cannabis and tobacco are the only two without drug specific mortality, and what I suspect they mean by that, is overdose. Cahnabis is also similarly rated with lower levels of dependence than Tobacco. This is not surprising from what we know already. Third, the two categories that Cannabis seems to rate higher than Tobacco are Loss of Relationships, Family Adversity, and Crime. I suspect the third is directly related to arrests over possession and selling.
Anyway, enough about that. What is so interesting to me is that not only do LSD and Mushrooms not have any mortality or damage associated with them, they rank zero on almost all other categories. The only category at which they rate at any measurable level is drug specific impairment of mental functioning, which seems to be comparable to those of Alcohol and the other higher rated drugs. The former is new information to me.
My experience with psychedelics leads me to conculde that they don't interfere with mental ability (as in, the ability to think), but they really mess up the ability to match up to consensus reality and/or rationality.
I think the honest reason psychedelics rate so low in most categories is because it or harder to get them than almost anything else on the list. Also due to the nature of the trip, users are less likely to be out in public or operating heavy machinery. the culture associated with them encourages responsible use, for the most part. Use of psychedelics is lower overall so there is a smaller sample of events to detect.
The one thing this chart doesn't do well (because it isn't designed to) is measure the relative impact of each substance on a single life. That would be an interesting study to find.
Article acquired. Will be emailing shortly
Emailed to nigel
If anyone else wants it- pm me.
I'll take that action.
I require email address to fulfill that request. Pm email address.
They seem to have been looking for a correlation between the interpretation by this group of experts and one from The Netherlands. And their general conclusion:
QuoteOur findings lead support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the current drug classification system has little relation to evidence of harm. They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.
I did notice that the "Crime" category does not include use:
QuoteExtent to which the use of a drung involves or leads to an increase in volume of acquisitive crime (beyond the use-of-drug act) directly or indirectly (at the population level, not the individual level)
But that does seem to include sale. Since the experts were given the categories and had to define the activities that would contribute, it's not always clear exactly what is contributing to the score for each category.
The categories were also weighted, with the categories having the largest "swing weight" given a score of 100 for each cluster. And there were four clusters, Physical, Psychological, Social, and then harm To Others. So each individual category did not have a possible score out of 100, just the ones with the largest swing weight, i.e. the categories they deemed to be most important.
I read part of it on the commute home (I have a physical copy- the bound volume I was looking for was missing from the shelves and I had to ask the main desk to print me off a copy, which I then scanned and sent to my work email). I was a bit antsy to get out of work and wasn't in the right mindset, but I did find that I was wondering what made them decide how to weigh everything the way they did.
For example, alcohol has the highest score. Objectively speaking, alcohol is a potentially dangerous substance. It can be addictive, and you can overdose on it. It can negatively impact your life, and it can have some very serious and potentially fatal health consequences. Yet it had a higher overall score than heroin and meth. I'm a little uncomfortable with this owing to the fact that if you start meth you're going to hit rock bottom in like 6 months. Most people don't end up stealing, staying up for days at a time, grinding their teeth down to nothing and giving head to score their next six pack by the time they're 22. I'm going to have to read it again and all the way through, but it's a particularly weird skew. Also, you're not going to get AIDS or Hep C from sharing a bottle.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 03, 2012, 04:28:39 AM
I read part of it on the commute home (I have a physical copy- the bound volume I was looking for was missing from the shelves and I had to ask the main desk to print me off a copy, which I then scanned and sent to my work email). I was a bit antsy to get out of work and wasn't in the right mindset, but I did find that I was wondering what made them decide how to weigh everything the way they did.
For example, alcohol has the highest score. Objectively speaking, alcohol is a potentially dangerous substance. It can be addictive, and you can overdose on it. It can negatively impact your life, and it can have some very serious and potentially fatal health consequences. Yet it had a higher overall score than heroin and meth. I'm a little uncomfortable with this owing to the fact that if you start meth you're going to hit rock bottom in like 6 months. Most people don't end up stealing, staying up for days at a time, grinding their teeth down to nothing and giving head to score their next six pack by the time they're 22. I'm going to have to read it again and all the way through, but it's a particularly weird skew. Also, you're not going to get AIDS or Hep C from sharing a bottle.
I bet that one of the factors is that meth is formulated differently in the UK, and wonder if another factor is that there are comparatively many people who try meth and then stop, compared to the relatively high proportion of alcohol users who consume it regularly over their entire lives.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 03, 2012, 04:36:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 03, 2012, 04:28:39 AM
I read part of it on the commute home (I have a physical copy- the bound volume I was looking for was missing from the shelves and I had to ask the main desk to print me off a copy, which I then scanned and sent to my work email). I was a bit antsy to get out of work and wasn't in the right mindset, but I did find that I was wondering what made them decide how to weigh everything the way they did.
For example, alcohol has the highest score. Objectively speaking, alcohol is a potentially dangerous substance. It can be addictive, and you can overdose on it. It can negatively impact your life, and it can have some very serious and potentially fatal health consequences. Yet it had a higher overall score than heroin and meth. I'm a little uncomfortable with this owing to the fact that if you start meth you're going to hit rock bottom in like 6 months. Most people don't end up stealing, staying up for days at a time, grinding their teeth down to nothing and giving head to score their next six pack by the time they're 22. I'm going to have to read it again and all the way through, but it's a particularly weird skew. Also, you're not going to get AIDS or Hep C from sharing a bottle.
I bet that one of the factors is that meth is formulated differently in the UK, and wonder if another factor is that there are comparatively many people who try meth and then stop, compared to the relatively high proportion of alcohol users who consume it regularly over their entire lives.
Interesting point. It's possible that Brits do more cumulative damage with alcohol overall.
It's not just possible it's quite probable.
Look at any urban centre over a weekend and judge the ratio of police to revellers.
Around here on a Saturday night it's quite literally 1 police officer to every 10 punters.
There's also a wealth of info regarding UK drinking culture in general, suffice to say it's not great. "Why have one drink when you can have 10, 4 shots, a fishbowl and a kebab" would probably be true for a large segment. Alcohol is very ingrained into the culture here, in several unhealthy manners.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 03, 2012, 04:28:39 AM
I read part of it on the commute home (I have a physical copy- the bound volume I was looking for was missing from the shelves and I had to ask the main desk to print me off a copy, which I then scanned and sent to my work email). I was a bit antsy to get out of work and wasn't in the right mindset, but I did find that I was wondering what made them decide how to weigh everything the way they did.
For example, alcohol has the highest score. Objectively speaking, alcohol is a potentially dangerous substance. It can be addictive, and you can overdose on it. It can negatively impact your life, and it can have some very serious and potentially fatal health consequences. Yet it had a higher overall score than heroin and meth. I'm a little uncomfortable with this owing to the fact that if you start meth you're going to hit rock bottom in like 6 months. Most people don't end up stealing, staying up for days at a time, grinding their teeth down to nothing and giving head to score their next six pack by the time they're 22. I'm going to have to read it again and all the way through, but it's a particularly weird skew. Also, you're not going to get AIDS or Hep C from sharing a bottle.
I really think the legality and access of alcohol plays a huge factor in it being as high as it is. I think if you had a much smaller user base that was more broken up in isolated pockets, it would rank much lower.
I would really like to see this study replicated in the States and see how the outcomes compare. I would suspect the outcomes would be fairly similar, but it would ve interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 03, 2012, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 03, 2012, 04:28:39 AM
I read part of it on the commute home (I have a physical copy- the bound volume I was looking for was missing from the shelves and I had to ask the main desk to print me off a copy, which I then scanned and sent to my work email). I was a bit antsy to get out of work and wasn't in the right mindset, but I did find that I was wondering what made them decide how to weigh everything the way they did.
For example, alcohol has the highest score. Objectively speaking, alcohol is a potentially dangerous substance. It can be addictive, and you can overdose on it. It can negatively impact your life, and it can have some very serious and potentially fatal health consequences. Yet it had a higher overall score than heroin and meth. I'm a little uncomfortable with this owing to the fact that if you start meth you're going to hit rock bottom in like 6 months. Most people don't end up stealing, staying up for days at a time, grinding their teeth down to nothing and giving head to score their next six pack by the time they're 22. I'm going to have to read it again and all the way through, but it's a particularly weird skew. Also, you're not going to get AIDS or Hep C from sharing a bottle.
I really think the legality and access of alcohol plays a huge factor in it being as high as it is. I think if you had a much smaller user base that was more broken up in isolated pockets, it would rank much lower.
I would really like to see this study replicated in the States and see how the outcomes compare. I would suspect the outcomes would be fairly similar, but it would ve interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Junkenstein raises an interesting point though. It might be primarily cultural. I mean, think about it, how many drunk Frenchmen or Italians do you see (that aren't American)? Maybe it's just a stereotype, but I'm just thinking about how Boston compares to Midwesterners I know. Like, when I went to visit an old friend who moved back, I was like, "what do you mean you and your friends have two beers and call it a night?"
Boston's a drinking town. Matter of fact, it scored pretty badly on some recent study for alcohol use patterns. But it makes sense- we have a lot of colleges for one. And then there's the Irish factor, or at least American perceptions of Irish drinking patterns and imitating them (from my own observations of my relatives, you tear it up on the weekend, usually after Saturday vigil. What, you want to go to church the next day with a hang over? :lulz:)
I recall one of my exes commenting on it too. She was like, people from my hometown just don't drink that much unless they're teenagers. If you have more than 2 or 3, it's really frowned upon, at least if you do it in the company of others.
And let's not forget genetic factors.
Certainly, I believe culture is a factor that needs to be considered.
Ok i finished reading it and in the last three paragraphs they address some of the limitations of the study. They do flat out say this is only applicable to the uk as well as the fact that they dont address use of multiple drugs. I think typical usage patterns would be useful too or did i miss that bit? Also i was having trouble understanding if they were using population in a statistical or societal context.
not adressing multiple drug use is a pretty significant limitation, unless in the UK it is very uncommon for someone to be a poly-drug user. Which I find unlikely given that alcohol, nicotine, and marijuana are three of the substances in question.
But, it is still a pretty interesting way to analyze the issue. It was an interesting read.
Its a good start for further research. It seems to be an improvement on the dutch study. Maybe there will be a better study based off of this.
Like dr. S said at a breakfast meeting once. Where theres smoke theres a drink.
Well, FWIW, I found this article http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/uploads/cms/faculty/reuter/basing_drug_scheduling_decisions_on_scientific_ranking_of_harmfulness.pdf
which takes a critical look at the approach of Nutt et al.
Full disclosure, I haven't had the time to give anymore than a cursory glance at that article, I hope to later tonight.
Oh sweet a response paper. Ok- ill look later.