this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
257 points (95.1% liked)

News

23410 readers
2948 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dasus 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What you're doing is colloquially known as "sealioning".

Science literally does not get much better than that. Plus the decades and decades of studies there are showing that smoke — in general — causes cancer.

Do you think it's the nicotine in cigarettes which is causing people to die? That that's why the mortality figures from cigarettes is so high? Or could it be that inhaling smoke is unhealthy?

You're demanding that I present to you where the chart I linked got their figures from, saying you absolutely refuse to believe there's any connection to increased mortality in any method of using cannabis — even the one where you INHALE SMOKE. How am I supposed to do that? I don't have access to their data. I have access to the same data that I presented to you. But if we want to pursue your query as to where these mortality figures might come from, well, obviously they're at least from the increased risk of cancer from smoking. I've said this several times but I suspect that if every single person that was involved in that study had actually used edibles instead of smoking, there would be much less mortality, if any.

So I don't understand what exactly you're protesting here. Because the most popular method (well, it might actually be edibles or vaping already in some places where it's legal) is smoking and smoking causes cancer. It feels like you're adamant that smoking cannabis magically makes smoking healthy. Which feels subpar compared to your normal rhetoric.

[–] FlyingSquid -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No. No I am not.

I am asking for where they got their mortality numbers.

It's clear you don't know and you're just guessing. I can only surmise because you want cannabis to be that deadly.

[–] Gigasser 4 points 1 month ago (25 children)

Hey man, I like cannabis too, but it is true that ignition based delivery systems(smoking) I think just generally cause cancer.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Dasus 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are denying that there's any evidence for mortality being increased from any way of using cannabis. That's the very strong implication you're giving off here.

You definitely didn't even browse the studies I linked.

I'm very disappointed. This is really hurting the respect I have for you.

A popular method of using cannabis is smoking. Do you disagree?

A very obvious consequence of smoking is an increased risk of mortality from an increased risk of cancer and cardiopulmonary disease. Do you disagree with this?

If you don't disagree with either, then you know where the figures came from, at least partly. I'm sure you can try to look them up for yourself if you have such a burning need to browse them in detail.

[–] FlyingSquid -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am doing no such thing.

I am asking where they got their figures from. You have no idea. Telling me "do your own research" will not tell me where they got their figures from.

No matter how much you object to it, I'm not going to take a chart with no sources at face value.

No one should.

[–] Dasus 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fine, be childish. I'll do the work for you, so you can't even use your asinine sealioning to get out of this one.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

So that's the article I linked. It says:

That question is the subject of a report published today by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, an independent group of 26 former presidents and other bigwigs.

The study in question:

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019Report_EN_web.pdf

Which says:

Mortality is defined as risk of lethal overdose (drug-specific), OR BY life shortened by factors other than overdose (drug-related)

This graph is based on the scientific modelling made by David Nutt et al. (Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis, The Lancet, https://doi.org/10.1016/S6-61462(10)6736-0140), and their assessment of the various harms of drugs used for recreational purposes in the UK, using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Huh. Other factors? No way we could know what mortality related factors there could be in using cannabis, seeing as the most popular method is burning it and inhaling the smoke? Geez. I wonder what we'll find, right?

Let's see. You just copy the link from there. Select it, and then you can use a handy keyboard shortcut, just press "CTRL+C" while you have something selected, and the computer copies it to memory! Oh, the URL seems corrupted because of the formatting of the PDF. Just select the title mentioned there and paste it (CTRL+V), and you'll find this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21036393/ which has a functioning link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract

All the data is there. Satisfied, or still gonna just stomp your foot and yell "no no no no smoking cannabis magically makes it healthy and thus there's zero increased mortality rate from anything related to cannabis, not even smoking and inhaling it"?

[–] FlyingSquid -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Dasus 3 points 1 month ago (19 children)

"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.

load more comments (19 replies)