• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dutch government says "Smoke 'em if you got 'em"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
5
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Damn. If 2-3 beers a week is good for you, 2-3 beers an hour should be GREAT! ;)
lol... no it is 2-3 beers as in that 3 should be around the maximum a week :p
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
BBC
The study, outlined in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, involved 51 women with an average age of 60.
The authors conclude that consumption of one alcoholic drink each day could decrease CVD risk in post menopausal women by 4-5%.
And two drinks each day could result in a 10-13% decrease in CVD risk.
However, Dr Abdullah Badawy, a consultant biochemist at Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, said the study was not conclusive.

He suggested alcohol could affect levels of a substance in the blood called homocysteine, an amino acid which may irritate blood vessels, leading to blockages in the arteries - called atherosclerosis.

"Alcohol has effects on homocysteine and it would be foolish to recommend drinking alcohol for this age group."

All the women who took part in the study were healthy, were not taking hormone replacement therapy and had no personal or family history of alcohol abuse.

Previous studies have shown that moderate drinking - no more than two units a day - can reduce the risk of heart attack.
The only task more difficult than interpreting this kind of research is explaining it to the public. The morbidity curve for alcohol consumption is a J. This means people that consume very little alcohol (the 2-3 drinks per week repeatedly quoted in this thread) have HIGHER morbidity than the people consuming moderate amounts of alcohol (1-2 drinks per day). Once you exceed this level then all-cause morbidity begins to climb exponentially.

The take home is that healthy lifestyles may include moderate alcohol consumption but NO responsible physician would recommend anyone start drinking. We do recommend aspirin, multivitamins, and possibly essential fatty acids as adjuncts to a healthy lifestyle.

As for MJ, it would only be recommended for people with glaucoma or a variety of chronic medical conditions/treatments that produce pain, nausea, or appetite suppression. And of course people would be carefully screened to reduce the risk of preventable adverse events . . . family history of depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse (although MJ has a lower abuse potential than the majority of medications used for chronic pain).
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: XZeroII

You are exactly correct. We have to ask ourselves if the benefits outweigh the side effects (or costs). I can imagine there has been millions of dollars spent on determining that and our current laws seem to reflect the results. We elect politicians (*shudder*) to make these decisions for us. It is up to them to look at the facts and determine what is best. Of course there are always crooked politicians, but saying that the entire reason why M is illegal is because of one guy back in the 30's is crazy. Sure, it may have happened, but since then there have been numerous studies done and lots of research. Lots of new politicians in there and lots of new ideas. It's illegal because the people have accepted it as being illegal and the people (a majority of them) have concluded that it should be illegal.

Let me ask everyone this...if M were legalized, but only in a liquid form to be ingested (as a prescribed painkiller), would you agree that smoking it for pleasure or growing it yourself should still be illegal?
So you actually believe politicians look at the facts and determine what's best for us?

Nothing to do with big drug companies contributing millions to politicians?

You can imagine there have been millions of dollars spent on determining that and our current laws seem to reflect the results? Instead of your imagination I'd rather see some facts if you don't mind.

Did you even bother to read this?

Use a search engine. I did here's what I found so far.

Studies have been done and our current laws don't bear out the results.

People haven't accepted MJ is illegal, as a matter of fact most people in the USA think MJ should be decriminalized. It's illegal because people have been brainwashed by the government's campaign against MJ. And yes, it may be crazy, but it was all started by "one guy" in the 30s.

You can get some info here.

You can also see what your current administration's "Drug Czar" is saying here.

You can read a rebuttal to the Drug Czar's claims here.

I agree with Moonbeam. I don't use pot. I know people who do. Good productive hard working family people.

What business is it of yours or Asscroft's or anyone's if they want to use MJ. If you're worried about pot you should be twice as worried about alcohol. Oh, but alcohol has a multi-million dollar lobby in Washington.

And what of the people who are in chronic pain or have glaucoma or any of the other illnesses MJ has been shown to alleviate?

You people crack me up. You criticize foreign governments and religions for their oppression but you can't even recognize the same thing when it happens to you.

You just keep on lapping up the party line. The Ayatollahs would love you.
1. Most people in the US do NOT want it decriminalized. Your neighborhood or high school does not constitute the majority of the US.
2. I mentioned that there are crooked politicians and they accept bribes and such, but those are mainly the ones who are FOR decriminalizing it. The ones who look at the research are the ones who want to keep it illegal.
3. Always have to bring up alcohol, hu? That's one of the worst arguements ever. The logic is so bad it's not even funny.
4. Did you read what I said about medicinal uses? No you didn't because if you did you would have seen that I already addressed it and even posed a question on the subject.
5. Oppression is when the gov't tries to take control of your life. Keeping harmful substances out of the hands of immature people is not oppression. You do not have a right to get high. If you need something to relax, or you can't live your life w/o it, then you need to see a doctor and get some real help.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY