Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

[Jasbird]

Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>

31/07/2006 12:25

Written by: John Harrington

Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".

The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.

Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.

Dave Daly, head of pub manager’s union NALHM, said: "I think it’s a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it’s controlled when it’s taken within the pub."

Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn’t put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

See:

MPs savage government's 'ad hoc' drug policy
<http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1833890,00.html>

Drug classification rethink urged:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm>

Suggested rating of drugs according to harm done
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>

Committee report: "Drug classification: making a hash of it?"

HTML (web):
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm>

PDF:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf>

Comment: There are 1.1 million alcoholics in the UK. Booze causes at
least 20,000 premature deaths per year.

A Tale of Two Es - by David Nutt - Comparison of dangers Ecstasy and
Alcohol, Journal of Psychopharmacology 20(3) (2006) pp 315-317
HTML: <http://www.sharemation.com/Rubin/Tale-of-two-Es.html>
PDF: <http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/3/315>


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[j***@virgin.net]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington

<snip>

Post by Jasbird
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the pub."

So no alcohol is ever consumed outside pubs. That's OK then.

[n***@virgin.net]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".
The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.
Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the pub."

"Controlled" as in "we let you keep on drinking until you are barely
capable of speech or movement."

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Which is a pretty good indicator of how ignorant Mr Madden is on the
subject, but presumably he doesn't go clubbing much....

[Gaz]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25

Well of course, the peddlers of such things would complain. The present
classification of drugs doesnt make to much sense though.

Young adults are not stupid, and they see their mates taking ecstacy
regularly on friday and saturday nights, without causing visible damage. The
law classifies such a drug as the same as Crack and Smack, when it plainly
isnt.

Gaz

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Gaz
Young adults are not stupid, and they see their mates taking ecstacy
regularly on friday and saturday nights, without causing visible damage.

And their other mates getting into fights and passing out on alcohol.

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Its obvious that alchohol has killed all that twats brain cells.

Has he never been into a coffee shop? I never have felt threatened in a
coffee shop, however the atmosphere of only just suppressed violence in a
pub is very noticeable.

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Its obvious that alchohol has killed all that twats brain cells.
Has he never been into a coffee shop? I never have felt threatened in a
coffee shop, however the atmosphere of only just suppressed violence in a
pub is very noticeable.

Having said that I would not say LSD is safer than "alchohol" and also
that "alchohol" is a very general term, its probably impossible to
overdose on normal strength good quality beer (3-4%) but easy to overdose
on spirits. (I know people from comprehensive school in my youth who had
to have stomach pumped after spirits consumption)

If the Acid tabs (and all illegal drugs) are not strictly dose controlled
(i.e. 1 tab always = x micrograms of active substance, or the dosage is
indicated) then I'd say people could OD quite easily when they get a
strong batch.

Also the shit that criminals add to drugs to bulk them out is a major
problem, there can be no relative scale of substances when no-one knows
WTF is in them.

As for Coca the same applies, the herb coca leaf should be on sale in
shops, the refined chemical powder cocaine is probably not good for you
(particularly when snorted up the nose as that eastenders star found out)

[Jasbird]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:07:01 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Its obvious that alchohol has killed all that twats brain cells.
Has he never been into a coffee shop? I never have felt threatened in a
coffee shop, however the atmosphere of only just suppressed violence in a
pub is very noticeable.

Having said that I would not say LSD is safer than "alchohol" and also
that "alchohol" is a very general term, its probably impossible to
overdose on normal strength good quality beer (3-4%) but easy to overdose
on spirits. (I know people from comprehensive school in my youth who had
to have stomach pumped after spirits consumption)

A single LSD session is not safer than a visit to the pub. But you must
consider all the factors.
Alcohol is addictive and LSD is not.
Many alcohol users typically do it every day. Mature LSD users only a
few times a year.
Binging is common with alcohol. It is never likely to happen with LSD.

The comparison is being made over the lifetime of the user; for the
average user (which includes the UK's 1.1 million alcohol abusers)

The comparision is not made between worse possible cases. Worse possible
cases are factored in but averaged out by the general safe use of both
drugs by most users.

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
If the Acid tabs (and all illegal drugs) are not strictly dose controlled
(i.e. 1 tab always = x micrograms of active substance, or the dosage is
indicated) then I'd say people could OD quite easily when they get a
strong batch.

An alcohol OD can kill but an acid OD will not. There would be no acid
OD problem if LSD were legal.

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
Also the shit that criminals add to drugs to bulk them out is a major
problem, there can be no relative scale of substances when no-one knows
WTF is in them.
As for Coca the same applies, the herb coca leaf should be on sale in
shops, the refined chemical powder cocaine is probably not good for you
(particularly when snorted up the nose as that eastenders star found out)

--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".
The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.
Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the pub."
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."
MPs savage government's 'ad hoc' drug policy
<http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1833890,00.html>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm>
Suggested rating of drugs according to harm done
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>
Committee report: "Drug classification: making a hash of it?"
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm>
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf>
Comment: There are 1.1 million alcoholics in the UK. Booze causes at
least 20,000 premature deaths per year.

It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

[Jasbird]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

LSD users are most probably not interested in doing it more than once
per week at the height of their use (which extends of months not years).
Most will settle down to just a couple of trips per year. There are 1.1
million alcoholics in the UK. We're talking heavy daily use here.
Alcohol is addictive and LSD is not.

Drug risk assessments should consider prevalence (how many use it) and
frequency of use.


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[Daniel Ellis]

Post by Jasbird

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

LSD users are most probably not interested in doing it more than once
per week at the height of their use (which extends of months not years).
Most will settle down to just a couple of trips per year. There are 1.1
million alcoholics in the UK. We're talking heavy daily use here.
Alcohol is addictive and LSD is not.
Drug risk assessments should consider prevalence (how many use it) and
frequency of use.

I'd second you on that assessment.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

why would the alcoholic be dead? i have plenty of friends who have
been alcoholics for years. my father in law is 76 and a complete
piss-head

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

why would the alcoholic be dead? i have plenty of friends who have
been alcoholics for years. my father in law is 76 and a complete
piss-head

Indeed, I was one :-). That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is a
fact that alcohol is more dangerous.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

why would the alcoholic be dead? i have plenty of friends who have
been alcoholics for years. my father in law is 76 and a complete
piss-head

Indeed, I was one :-). That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is a
fact that alcohol is more dangerous.

sorry, didn't spot the sarcasm! i was always under the impression that
alcohol is largely harmless and that all ill effects are caused by
accidents and violence, malnutrition and smoking which it goes so well
with.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

why would the alcoholic be dead? i have plenty of friends who have
been alcoholics for years. my father in law is 76 and a complete
piss-head

Indeed, I was one :-). That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is a
fact that alcohol is more dangerous.

sorry, didn't spot the sarcasm! i was always under the impression that
alcohol is largely harmless and that all ill effects are caused by
accidents and violence, malnutrition and smoking which it goes so well
with.

Cirrhosis, brain damage, psychosis, gut cancer, death from DTs.

[Clough]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
sorry, didn't spot the sarcasm! i was always under the impression that
alcohol is largely harmless and that all ill effects are caused by
accidents and violence, malnutrition and smoking which it goes so well
with.

Alcohol buggers your insides up no end.

Look up the dangers sometime. Frightening stuff.

Clough

[Jasbird]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

The daily LSD abuser is a myth. It could just about happen, but that
person would probably be already mad - or maybe even someone who had a
radically different brain due to genetic a difference for which LSD
acted as a medicine?

Can anyone recall a single instance of a "daily LSD abuser"?


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Jasbird
Can anyone recall a single instance of a "daily LSD abuser"?

Tolerance sets in, so it doesn't work.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Jasbird

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

The daily LSD abuser is a myth. It could just about happen, but that
person would probably be already mad - or maybe even someone who had a
radically different brain due to genetic a difference for which LSD
acted as a medicine?
Can anyone recall a single instance of a "daily LSD abuser"?

Jim Morrisson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrisson

[Jasbird]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

The daily LSD abuser is a myth. It could just about happen, but that
person would probably be already mad - or maybe even someone who had a
radically different brain due to genetic a difference for which LSD
acted as a medicine?
Can anyone recall a single instance of a "daily LSD abuser"?

Jim Morrisson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrisson

"he took copious amounts of LSD in the band's early years,
but soon switched to alcohol, which he began to consume
in herculean proportions"

In contrast Tim Leary was practically an alcoholic before he discovered
LSD and psilocybin but not afterwards.


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Jasbird

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
It must be quite difficult comparing like with like. Do you compare 1
acid trip with 1 session at the pub? I would imagine a trip to be
safer - as far as accidents etc go. How about 5 years of daily abuse?
I would prefer an alcoholic any day.

You could easily tell the daily LSD abuser from the daily alcohol abuser.
The alcoholic would be dead.

The daily LSD abuser is a myth. It could just about happen, but that
person would probably be already mad - or maybe even someone who had a
radically different brain due to genetic a difference for which LSD
acted as a medicine?
Can anyone recall a single instance of a "daily LSD abuser"?

Jim Morrisson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrisson

"he took copious amounts of LSD in the band's early years,
but soon switched to alcohol, which he began to consume
in herculean proportions"
In contrast Tim Leary was practically an alcoholic before he discovered
LSD and psilocybin but not afterwards.

lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking. i
used alcohol to give up cannabis. horses for courses

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking.

That's what I did. I was heavily into gin and tonic, then in about 1991 I
rediscovered cannabis. I was able to cut out the crack booze. It's
possible cannabis saved my life. During most of the 1980's I only touched
cannabis a few times a year, at parties where somebody was passing a
spliff around. I used to toke like a factory chimney in the 1970s.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking.

That's what I did. I was heavily into gin and tonic, then in about 1991 I
rediscovered cannabis. I was able to cut out the crack booze. It's
possible cannabis saved my life. During most of the 1980's I only touched
cannabis a few times a year, at parties where somebody was passing a
spliff around. I used to toke like a factory chimney in the 1970s.

last year i decided to try and get some cannabis after 10 years without
because my drinking was getting heavier. so one sunday, i had a few
pints and had a smoke. there followed an awesome 3 day drinking and
smoking session which I told work was a bad back. didn't touch the
stuff again

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking.

That's what I did. I was heavily into gin and tonic, then in about 1991 I
rediscovered cannabis. I was able to cut out the crack booze. It's
possible cannabis saved my life. During most of the 1980's I only touched
cannabis a few times a year, at parties where somebody was passing a
spliff around. I used to toke like a factory chimney in the 1970s.

last year i decided to try and get some cannabis after 10 years without
because my drinking was getting heavier. so one sunday, i had a few
pints and had a smoke. there followed an awesome 3 day drinking and
smoking session which I told work was a bad back. didn't touch the
stuff again

You must have got booze munchies!

Best not to take cannabis again, it's not right for everybody (or even
most people).

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking.

That's what I did. I was heavily into gin and tonic, then in about 1991 I
rediscovered cannabis. I was able to cut out the crack booze. It's
possible cannabis saved my life. During most of the 1980's I only touched
cannabis a few times a year, at parties where somebody was passing a
spliff around. I used to toke like a factory chimney in the 1970s.

last year i decided to try and get some cannabis after 10 years without
because my drinking was getting heavier. so one sunday, i had a few
pints and had a smoke. there followed an awesome 3 day drinking and
smoking session which I told work was a bad back. didn't touch the
stuff again

You must have got booze munchies!
Best not to take cannabis again, it's not right for everybody (or even
most people).

too true. and yet i can have a night on crack and heroin and not at
all feel like having anymore the next day...

[Clough]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
lots of my alcoholic friends use cannabis to cut down on drinking.

That's what I did. I was heavily into gin and tonic, then in about 1991 I
rediscovered cannabis. I was able to cut out the crack booze. It's
possible cannabis saved my life. During most of the 1980's I only touched
cannabis a few times a year, at parties where somebody was passing a
spliff around. I used to toke like a factory chimney in the 1970s.

The effects of alcohol are OK, I quite like the high it gives. But I
cannot understand how anyone can use it as a recreational drug.

I hardly ever touch the stuff nowadays, the 'coming down' effects are
horrendous.

If I drink a bottle of wine or four or five pints of ale in an evening
I know the next day will be hell. It wasn't always like that, but with
increasing age I've found that hangovers wreak such a savage vengeance
on me that I steer clear of alcohol. Many's the time I've thought it
would be nice with a few beers, but then I reflect on the morrow,
shudder at the horrors lying in wait and forget about it.

It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

Clough

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

[Clough]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:57 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

I've tried light white wine, clear vodka, German beer brewed according
to the 'Reinheitsgebot' (purity law) and it's all the same.

A few drinks, five or six, enough for the world to take on a nice and
rosy glow, without being incapacitated in any way and remaining fully
socially functional, and next day I am guaranteed to feel like shit.
And I mean really, really ill. So ill in fact, that the thought of it
it keeps me more or less permanently off alcohol.

There is no way alcohol can be considered a useful recreational drug.
The day after downside is just too terrible.

Clough

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Clough
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:57 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

I've tried light white wine, clear vodka, German beer brewed according
to the 'Reinheitsgebot' (purity law) and it's all the same.
A few drinks, five or six, enough for the world to take on a nice and
rosy glow, without being incapacitated in any way and remaining fully
socially functional, and next day I am guaranteed to feel like shit.
And I mean really, really ill. So ill in fact, that the thought of it
it keeps me more or less permanently off alcohol.
There is no way alcohol can be considered a useful recreational drug.
The day after downside is just too terrible.
Clough

I think some people react differently, I have only very rarely ever had a
hangover, but if I drink too much i usually see it again the same
night.... Along with those mysterious diced carrots?

[Phil Stovell]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
Along with those mysterious diced carrots?

There's no mystery about them. It's congealed blood from a stomach bleed.

[Clough]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:47:24 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
I think some people react differently, I have only very rarely ever had a
hangover, but if I drink too much i usually see it again the same
night.... Along with those mysterious diced carrots?

When I was younger I could drink alcohol without much of a hangover,
but with increasing age the hangovers have taken such terrible
proportions that they have turned me more or less into a teetotaller.

Clough

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Clough
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:47:24 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
I think some people react differently, I have only very rarely ever had a
hangover, but if I drink too much i usually see it again the same
night.... Along with those mysterious diced carrots?

When I was younger I could drink alcohol without much of a hangover,
but with increasing age the hangovers have taken such terrible
proportions that they have turned me more or less into a teetotaller.
Clough

Not sure whether to think thats bad luck (cant get pissed anymore) or good
luck (save a fortune, don't rot your gut or kill your brain cells)

I think everyone is better off just sticking to a pint or two anyway
rather than seven or eight... Plus the trend for stronger beers in the 5%
range which is at least 25% stronger than standard beer in the 3-4% range
Standard beer is a drink you can quaff rather than sip.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Clough
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:57 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

I've tried light white wine, clear vodka, German beer brewed according
to the 'Reinheitsgebot' (purity law) and it's all the same.
A few drinks, five or six, enough for the world to take on a nice and
rosy glow, without being incapacitated in any way and remaining fully
socially functional, and next day I am guaranteed to feel like shit.
And I mean really, really ill. So ill in fact, that the thought of it
it keeps me more or less permanently off alcohol.
There is no way alcohol can be considered a useful recreational drug.
The day after downside is just too terrible.

whereas if i get drunk in the evening, the next day all i want to do is
have another drink. especially waking up with friends around. nothing
like starting off getting pissed at 10 am and continuing from there.
of course one has to fight against this 9 times out of 10, but 1 time
out of ten then what the hell.

drinking is fine in moderation. i like to drink excessively on a
moderate number of days which I believe is the same thing.

regarding the health dangers, all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit. alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit.

Sounds like it was written by the licenced victuallers association, cos it
is abso-fucking-lute bollocks

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body

After excessive drinking, unconsciousness can occur and extreme levels of
consumption can lead to alcohol poisoning and death (a concentration in
the blood stream of 0.55% will kill half the population). Death can also
be caused by asphyxiation when vomit, a frequent result of
overconsumption, blocks the trachea and the individual is too inebriated
to respond. An appropriate first aid response to an unconscious, drunken
person is to place them in the recovery position.

Do you remember Marc Bolan?

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit.

Sounds like it was written by the licenced victuallers association, cos it
is abso-fucking-lute bollocks

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body
After excessive drinking, unconsciousness can occur and extreme levels of
consumption can lead to alcohol poisoning and death (a concentration in
the blood stream of 0.55% will kill half the population). Death can also
be caused by asphyxiation when vomit, a frequent result of
overconsumption, blocks the trachea and the individual is too inebriated
to respond. An appropriate first aid response to an unconscious, drunken
person is to place them in the recovery position.
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

he died in a car crash. this is hardly a direct effect. i imagine
people listen to depressing music and kill themselves. it's not the
music's fault.

similarly choking on vomit. this is a secondary effect as are
accidents, falls (mainly hitting the head) and malnutrition in
alcoholics. none of these are direct effects.

as for people dying from alcohol 'poisening' - sounds like an urban
myth to me. i wouldn't always believe wikipedia.

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit.

Sounds like it was written by the licenced victuallers association, cos it
is abso-fucking-lute bollocks

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body
After excessive drinking, unconsciousness can occur and extreme levels of
consumption can lead to alcohol poisoning and death (a concentration in
the blood stream of 0.55% will kill half the population). Death can also
be caused by asphyxiation when vomit, a frequent result of
overconsumption, blocks the trachea and the individual is too inebriated
to respond. An appropriate first aid response to an unconscious, drunken
person is to place them in the recovery position.
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

he died in a car crash. this is hardly a direct effect. i imagine
people listen to depressing music and kill themselves. it's not the
music's fault.
similarly choking on vomit. this is a secondary effect as are
accidents, falls (mainly hitting the head) and malnutrition in
alcoholics. none of these are direct effects.
as for people dying from alcohol 'poisening' - sounds like an urban
myth to me. i wouldn't always believe wikipedia.

I wont suggest you neck a couple of litres of scotch and see what happens,
but I think you will find that it can kill you. (In fact please don't try
drinking a couple of bottles of scotch as I am sure it would kill you if
you don't get medical attention (stomach pump) and that would be not nice!)

I agree, dont believe everything wiki says so do a google on alchohol
poisoning and you will find plenty of references

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/college/a/aa000723a.htm

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit.

Sounds like it was written by the licenced victuallers association, cos it
is abso-fucking-lute bollocks

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body
After excessive drinking, unconsciousness can occur and extreme levels of
consumption can lead to alcohol poisoning and death (a concentration in
the blood stream of 0.55% will kill half the population). Death can also
be caused by asphyxiation when vomit, a frequent result of
overconsumption, blocks the trachea and the individual is too inebriated
to respond. An appropriate first aid response to an unconscious, drunken
person is to place them in the recovery position.
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

he died in a car crash. this is hardly a direct effect. i imagine
people listen to depressing music and kill themselves. it's not the
music's fault.
similarly choking on vomit. this is a secondary effect as are
accidents, falls (mainly hitting the head) and malnutrition in
alcoholics. none of these are direct effects.
as for people dying from alcohol 'poisening' - sounds like an urban
myth to me. i wouldn't always believe wikipedia.

I wont suggest you neck a couple of litres of scotch and see what happens,
but I think you will find that it can kill you. (In fact please don't try
drinking a couple of bottles of scotch as I am sure it would kill you if
you don't get medical attention (stomach pump) and that would be not nice!)

done it plenty of times. so have lots of people i know. guess what,
it makes you pissed. and when you get really fucking pissed you pass
out. self-defence mechanism or whatever. still sounds like an urban
myth to me. maybe they were ill with something else and the death was
blamed on alcohol. correlation doesn't mean causation

[Clough]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
as for people dying from alcohol 'poisening' - sounds like an urban
myth to me. i wouldn't always believe wikipedia.

Try this:

www.domicilium.com/iomalcoholadvisoryservice/alcohol%20poisoning.htm

Alcohol also causes liver damage.

George Best lost his liver to drinking.

Clough

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Clough
George Best lost his liver to drinking.

And somebody else's.

He used to be well known in the pubs around Petersfield. In fact, all the
pubs around Petersfield. He was friends with Milan Mandric, Portsmouth
FC's chairman and, apparently, there's a booze clinic near Petersfield he
used to attend (when the pubs were shut).

[Phil Stovell]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

Smoking spliff caused Bob Marley's cancer.

[Sla#s]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

Smoking spliff caused Bob Marley's cancer.

Of the toe! It was an untreated football injury.

There is no peer reviewed study linking cannabis to causing cancer.
Just opinions. (It goes,smoking tobacco causes cancer therefore smoking
cannabis must as well.)
However there are several studies showing it can cure cancer. - (the
latest being the Madrid study on brain tumours. Also look at Taskins
latest report on marijuana and cancer.)

Slatts

[Sla#s]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
Do you remember Marc Bolan?

Smoking spliff caused Bob Marley's cancer.

Don't take the piss Phil this lot will believe you!

Bob Marley's cancer was of the toe! It was an untreated football injury.

For the record:-
There is no peer reviewed study linking cannabis to causing cancer.
Just opinions. (It goes,smoking tobacco causes cancer therefore smoking
cannabis must as well.)
However there are several studies showing it can cure cancer. - (the
latest being the Madrid study on brain tumours. Also look at Taskins
latest report on marijuana and cancer.)

Slatts

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Sla#s
Don't take the piss Phil this lot will believe you!

Ooops - you may be right!

Bolan wasn't driving (his girlfriend Gloria Jones was). Marley's cancer
was caused by an untreated football injury.

<pisstake>

That proves that cannabis doesn't stop cancer.

</pisstake>

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Sla#s
Don't take the piss Phil this lot will believe you!

Ooops - you may be right!
Bolan wasn't driving (his girlfriend Gloria Jones was). Marley's cancer
was caused by an untreated football injury.
<pisstake>
That proves that cannabis doesn't stop cancer.
</pisstake>

I'm pretty sure smoking cannabis with tobacco is a lot better than smoking
undiluted tobacco, if I run out of the ganj and smoke just tobacco

a) I smoke more tobacco (So the tobacco lobby likes this...)
b) it makes me feel sick (yet I continue to do it.... aarrrrgggg)

I think cannabis is obviously definitely anti-emetic and I saw a site that
claimed studies had shown ganja smokers (even mixed with tobacco) to be
less likely (statistically) to get cancer, I'll try and find the link

I also remember a site that said tobacco could actually be made less
cancerous by curing it correctly, and I wonder (as this is more expensive,
it requites indirect heat rather than just kiln drying) if the tobacco
companies bother to cure tobacco the better way. Also they add all sorts
of shit to cigarettes particularly in the papers of pre-made cigarettes
as they burn much faster than if you re-roll them into rizla.

[Just Another Cannabis Fan]

Post by Phil Stovell
Marley's cancer
was caused by an untreated football injury.

Which IIRC only proved lethal as Bob refused any
treatment due to his devout religous beliefs.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Phil Stovell
Marley's cancer
was caused by an untreated football injury.

Which IIRC only proved lethal as Bob refused any treatment due to his
devout religous beliefs.

I suppose if we criminalise religion, everybody will become an invisible
sky fairy addict.

[Jasbird]

On 6 Aug 2006 12:03:20 -0700, "Just Another Cannabis Fan"

Post by Just Another Cannabis Fan

Post by Phil Stovell
Marley's cancer
was caused by an untreated football injury.

Which IIRC only proved lethal as Bob refused any
treatment due to his devout religous beliefs.

You don't even need devout religious beliefs to die of cancer.

Didn't Barry Sheene put his faith in faith-healing and didn't he bite
the bullet? I hope you're not proposing compulsory medical treatment -
that would be a real evil.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Phil Stovell
Smoking spliff caused Bob Marley's cancer.

what? of the toe?

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
whereas if i get drunk in the evening, the next day all i want to do is
have another drink. especially waking up with friends around. nothing
like starting off getting pissed at 10 am and continuing from there. of
course one has to fight against this 9 times out of 10, but 1 time out of
ten then what the hell.
drinking is fine in moderation. i like to drink excessively on a moderate
number of days which I believe is the same thing.
regarding the health dangers, all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite explicit.
alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to directly cause any
harm to humans.

Don't try this at home, readers...

[Clough]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
regarding the health dangers, all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit. alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

More than one heavy drinker has needed a liver transplant.

Clough

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Clough

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
regarding the health dangers, all my information came from the encyclo
brittanica 1995 ish. it might be out of date, but it is quite
explicit. alchohol cannot be drunk in sufficient quantities to
directly cause any harm to humans.

More than one heavy drinker has needed a liver transplant.

Is that due directly to the effects of alcohol or due to malnutrition
which often accompanies alcoholism? The liver has to work very hard to
break down chemicals in the blood. It is a very resilient and fast
mending organ. Itcan grow so large that people can drink 40-60 pints
quite happily without getting alcohol poisening. Malnutrition caused
by a lack of hunger due to the ingestion of so many 'empty' calories is
much more likely to be the cause of liver damage. Drink well, eat well
and your liver will last you a lifetime ;-)

[TimB]

Post by Clough
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:57 GMT, 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

I've tried light white wine, clear vodka, German beer brewed according
to the 'Reinheitsgebot' (purity law) and it's all the same.
A few drinks, five or six, enough for the world to take on a nice and
rosy glow, without being incapacitated in any way and remaining fully
socially functional, and next day I am guaranteed to feel like shit.
And I mean really, really ill. So ill in fact, that the thought of it
it keeps me more or less permanently off alcohol.
There is no way alcohol can be considered a useful recreational drug.
The day after downside is just too terrible.

"Learn to appreciate hangovers. If it was all good times every jackass
would be doing it."
Rule 35, the 86 Rules Of Boozing -
http://drunkard.com/issues/01-02/01_02_booze_rules.htm

[Phil Stovell]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

That stuff (some sort of soap) that gives the beer a head.
Hyperactivity-producing colourants.

I've just brewed a Muntons Premium Gold Midas Touch Ale. I'll let you know
what it's like, in about a month.

I agree with you, home brew doesn't usually have as bad an effect as pub
beer.

[83YearsOfSocialResearch]

Post by Phil Stovell
I've just brewed a Muntons Premium Gold Midas Touch Ale. I'll let you know
what it's like, in about a month.

Thats restraint... I'm usually on the last few pints just as its starting
to taste really good :-)

The muntons yeast seems to me to take longer to clear, done some youngs
u-brew kits and they clear really rapid.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Phil Stovell
I've just brewed a Muntons Premium Gold Midas Touch Ale. I'll let you
know what it's like, in about a month.

Thats restraint... I'm usually on the last few pints just as its starting
to taste really good :-)

I have a 3-barrel, 1 set of lemonade bottles cycle. I wait for 3 weeks
after barrelling/bottling before opening.

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
The muntons yeast seems to me to take longer to clear, done some youngs
u-brew kits and they clear really rapid.

I haven't had that problem.

[Clough]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch

Post by Clough
It is beyond my understanding that some people think alcohol is a good
recreational drug. The stuff is pure rat poison that metes out vile
punishment to its users.

I just started brewing my own, and I dont get hangover or feel sick after
drinking a few too many, I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas.... and continuing with fuck knows
what....

That stuff (some sort of soap) that gives the beer a head.
Hyperactivity-producing colourants.
I've just brewed a Muntons Premium Gold Midas Touch Ale. I'll let you know
what it's like, in about a month.
I agree with you, home brew doesn't usually have as bad an effect as pub
beer.

But it does have a bad effect, and it is that bad effect that makes it
useless as a recreational drug. It's not worth the day after.

Clough

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Clough
But it does have a bad effect, and it is that bad effect that makes it
useless as a recreational drug. It's not worth the day after.

Maybe for you. Not for me, unless I overdo it.

Post by Clough
Clough

[Clough]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Clough
But it does have a bad effect, and it is that bad effect that makes it
useless as a recreational drug. It's not worth the day after.

Maybe for you. Not for me, unless I overdo it.

Lucky sod.

For me four or five pints in an evening is enough for me to feel like
living death the entire day after.

Clough

[Just Another Cannabis Fan]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas....

I have yet to try it but understand that the white of
an egg can be used to fine beer. Probably gives it
a sort of Salmonella taste at the same time and
obviously not much use to vegans.

BTW Geordie Yorkshire Bitter HB is for my
money excellent value.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by 83YearsOfSocialResearch
I reckon they put some shit in the commercial
brewed stuff, starting with isinglas....

I have yet to try it but understand that the white of an egg can be used
to fine beer. Probably gives it a sort of Salmonella taste at the same
time and obviously not much use to vegans.
BTW Geordie Yorkshire Bitter HB is for my money excellent value.

Don't fine beer, wait and it becomes sparklingly clear. Anyway, it's only
dead yeast.

Just barrelled one of these:
Loading Image...

Excellent smell as the beer mixed with the conditioning malt. Not to be
touched for three weeks.

[Ollie Clark]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".
The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.
Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.
Dave Daly, head of pub manager’s union NALHM, said: "I think it’s a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it’s controlled when it’s taken within the pub."

So he's missed the entire point of the report then which is meant to rank
them in order of harm. And it's not controlled when taken in a pub. I've
seen plenty of completely inebriated people in pubs and plenty of drunken
fights in and around them.

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn’t put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Yeah, noone shares a joint with friends, noone goes out clubbing with their
mates and takes pills or cocaine, noone gets together and takes LSD.
All the drug users are just sitting at home (or more likely on a street)
injecting cannabis.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Ollie Clark

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".
The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.
Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the pub."

So he's missed the entire point of the report then which is meant to rank
them in order of harm. And it's not controlled when taken in a pub. I've
seen plenty of completely inebriated people in pubs and plenty of drunken
fights in and around them.

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn't put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Yeah, noone shares a joint with friends, noone goes out clubbing with their
mates and takes pills or cocaine, noone gets together and takes LSD.
All the drug users are just sitting at home (or more likely on a street)
injecting cannabis.

haha! good one

[Jasbird]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:45:08 +0000 (UTC), Ollie Clark

Post by Ollie Clark

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.
MPs argued for alcohol and tobacco to be placed in a "scientific scale"
to "give the public a better sense of the relative harms involved".
The report, from the Science and Technology Committee, ranks alcohol as
fifth in the league table of harmful drugs, and tobacco ninth.
Professor David Nutt, who advises the Government on drug classification,
said alcohol should be a borderline Class A drug and tobacco should be
borderline Class B.
Dave Daly, head of pub manager’s union NALHM, said: "I think it’s a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it’s controlled when it’s taken within the pub."

So he's missed the entire point of the report then which is meant to rank
them in order of harm. And it's not controlled when taken in a pub. I've
seen plenty of completely inebriated people in pubs and plenty of drunken
fights in and around them.

Post by Jasbird
Guild of Master Victuallers Association executive officer John Madden
said: "I certainly wouldn’t put alcohol in the same category as illegal
drugs. "The aim of alcohol is to bring people together socially whereas
drugs are something an individual would take on his own."

Yeah, noone shares a joint with friends, noone goes out clubbing with their
mates and takes pills or cocaine, noone gets together and takes LSD.
All the drug users are just sitting at home (or more likely on a street)
injecting cannabis.

These people have had rationality wired out of their heads. For all I
know their brains could be pickled in booze. Consider these two comments
from the Daily Mail site on this same issue:

* Illegal drugs are just that, illegal. Why seek to confuse the issue by
comparing legal with illegal.

* Another step on the road to the decriminalisation of all drugs. How
much lower can this country sink?


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[Jasbird]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

Two comments from the web-site above:

Robert Feal-Martinez:

"I think the auhtor of this report has probably over indulged on
wackybacky at some stage. Since when have people who have consumed
alcohol believe they can fly. In my former profession as a police
officer one of my areas of expertise was drugs, this man is talking
absolute nonesense. Clinically the long term effects of social use of
alcohol are nothing like the long term 'sociel use' of LSD, Cannabis, or
Ecstasy. There are certainly no short term comparisons, LSD etc can kill
firts time around from one sinlge pill. Where do these people come
from."

Ken Nason:

The opening salvo in the opening battle to send alcohol the same way
that tobacco has gone.

The precident is set: Increase the fear factor by exaggerating the
effects, harm, social unacceptability, then call for a ban! Well Mr
Government, erradicate the four top drug menaces first THEN concentrate
on the implied evils of alcohol. I for one would be more impressed and
more likely to accept these words of wisdom if you did something about
the other drugs that kill our kids and fuel our crime figures rather
that concentrating on easy targets, exaggerating the blame and producing
spin and lies to cover the incompitence the people of this country have
had to live with for the past decade.


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[Daniel Ellis]

Post by Jasbird

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

"I think the auhtor of this report has probably over indulged on
wackybacky at some stage. Since when have people who have consumed
alcohol believe they can fly. In my former profession as a police
officer one of my areas of expertise was drugs, this man is talking
absolute nonesense. Clinically the long term effects of social use of
alcohol are nothing like the long term 'sociel use' of LSD, Cannabis, or
Ecstasy. There are certainly no short term comparisons, LSD etc can kill
firts time around from one sinlge pill. Where do these people come
from."

Well I've never heard of LSD in a pill. Anyway, you're far more likely to
do something life threatening when drunk than when tripping - including
the first time.

And indeed the long term social affects are different, alcohol leads to a
generally raised level of aggression, whereas cannabis and LSD generally
lead to a raised level of spiritual awareness and respect for other
beings.

[Jasbird]

Post by Daniel Ellis

Post by Jasbird

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study
<http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=17967>
31/07/2006 12:25
Written by: John Harrington
Trade leaders have rubbished a new report that ranks alcohol and tobacco
as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

"I think the auhtor of this report has probably over indulged on
wackybacky at some stage. Since when have people who have consumed
alcohol believe they can fly. In my former profession as a police
officer one of my areas of expertise was drugs, this man is talking
absolute nonesense. Clinically the long term effects of social use of
alcohol are nothing like the long term 'sociel use' of LSD, Cannabis, or
Ecstasy. There are certainly no short term comparisons, LSD etc can kill
firts time around from one sinlge pill. Where do these people come
from."

Well I've never heard of LSD in a pill. Anyway, you're far more likely to
do something life threatening when drunk than when tripping - including
the first time.
And indeed the long term social affects are different, alcohol leads to a
generally raised level of aggression, whereas cannabis and LSD generally
lead to a raised level of spiritual awareness and respect for other
beings.

<http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article1.shtml>, search for
"Pharmchem Test"

Your suspicions that this bloke doesn't know what he's talking about are
almost certainly correct. However, whether by accident or design, he's
right about acid pills; they once existed but we no longer see them.


--------------------------------
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
--------------------------------

[Just Another Legal Fan]

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

Having used and abused just about every substance
on the planet, leg and illegal, I could have told them
for nothing that the only ones I have had trouble with
and have done me any damage have been tobacco
and alcohol. Both were certainly a cunt to give up.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Just Another Legal Fan

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

Having used and abused just about every substance
on the planet, leg and illegal, I could have told them
for nothing that the only ones I have had trouble with
and have done me any damage have been tobacco
and alcohol. Both were certainly a cunt to give up.

similarly, i have given everything a whirl at least a few times, some
considerably more. the cunts to give up - alcohol and tobacco - are
'work in progress'. everything else was a doddle.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

Having used and abused just about every substance on the planet, leg and
illegal, I could have told them for nothing that the only ones I have
had trouble with and have done me any damage have been tobacco and
alcohol. Both were certainly a cunt to give up.

similarly, i have given everything a whirl at least a few times, some
considerably more. the cunts to give up - alcohol and tobacco - are 'work
in progress'. everything else was a doddle.

I've only tried a few substances, always been happy with a pint of real
ale and a spliff. I don't want to give up booze, I enjoy real ales, but I
don't drink anything other than beer. I gave up smoking, but now I can't
give up the bloody nicotine gum. I'm sucking on one as I type this.

[s***@hotmail.co.uk]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk

Post by Jasbird
Trade rubbishes 'LSD safer than beer' study

Having used and abused just about every substance on the planet, leg and
illegal, I could have told them for nothing that the only ones I have
had trouble with and have done me any damage have been tobacco and
alcohol. Both were certainly a cunt to give up.

similarly, i have given everything a whirl at least a few times, some
considerably more. the cunts to give up - alcohol and tobacco - are 'work
in progress'. everything else was a doddle.

I've only tried a few substances, always been happy with a pint of real
ale and a spliff. I don't want to give up booze, I enjoy real ales, but I
don't drink anything other than beer. I gave up smoking, but now I can't
give up the bloody nicotine gum. I'm sucking on one as I type this.

many years ago i quit smoking for a couple of years, then had the odd
one etc. for about 8 years now, i smoke about 40 a week on average.
20 each time i get pissed. i never drink or smoke before friday night
and sometimes i dont bother the whole weekend. i reckon its a nice
balance. i can do alot of sport in the week, but still have fun at the
weekend.

[John of Aix]

Post by Jasbird
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the
pub."

Yes but it isn't when the bingers go out into the street to vomit, fall
over and cause trouble.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by John of Aix

Post by Jasbird
Dave Daly, head of pub manager's union NALHM, said: "I think it's a
disgrace that alcohol is classed near cocaine. Of course alcohol is a
mind-altering drug but it's controlled when it's taken within the pub."

Yes but it isn't when the bingers go out into the street to vomit, fall
over and cause trouble.

It's unusual for people in the pub trade to actually acknowledge that
alcohol *is* a drug. This may be progress, after all.