"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.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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:

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It is, yes.

          Drug-specific mortality and drug-related mortality are two different things.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          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)

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            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.