"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.”

  • @TheGrandNagusEnglish
    2•2 months ago

    Stop the sealioning.

    Firstly, there’s nothing suggest they’re suspect.

    And secondly, back to what I’m actually talking about, you’re clearly trying to cast doubt on whether breathing in smoke is bad for you. There is no “if”. Smoking does cause cancer.

    And it may shock you to find out that cancer does indeed cause death (it’s true, cancer really does cause death. I can give you sources on that if you like).

    • Flying Squid
      0•2 months ago

      Firstly, there’s nothing suggest they’re suspect.

      Apart from the fact that, as I said, they come from David Nutt, who won’t say where he got the numbers from. Why that isn’t an issue to you, I don’t know.

      you’re clearly trying to cast doubt on whether breathing in smoke is bad for you.

      I am doing no such thing. If you’re going to lie about what I am saying directly to me, this conversation is over.

      • @TheGrandNagusEnglish
        2•2 months ago

        Read the study.

        You are doing such thing. You’ve repeatedly sidestepped it, and keep using language to cast doubt on it.

        I want you to tell me right now that breathing in smoke, unequivocally, causes cancer, and therefore death.

        Again, this is not a thing in doubt. It’s not an “if”. It’s an established fact.

        • Flying Squid
          0•2 months ago

          I have read the study. Both of you have told me to read the study. I did. I don’t think either of you did or you would quote what supports the chart’s claim that there is a significant mortality risk due to using cannabis.

          The study simply does not show where this information comes from.

          Don’t tell me to read the study when you have not.

          • @TheGrandNagusEnglish
            2•2 months ago

            Does inhaling smoke cause cancer, yes or no?

            Why are you evading this so much? Why do you seemingly not believe that inhaling smoke can cause cancer? It absolutely does.

            • Flying Squid
              0•2 months ago

              Why are you evading this so much?

              Now that is some irony. You’ve been evading my one claim this entire time: the mortality numbers are suspect, something I was saying before you even replied to me. No, I’m not going to move on to the lung cancer thing until my issue is addressed first. I’m not going to just drop what I was talking about initially and talk about what you want to talk about instead.

              You also evaded what I literally just said- that you didn’t read the study you told me to read.

              Do you see yourself when you look in the mirror?

              • @TheGrandNagusEnglish
                2•2 months ago

                The entire time? You’ve mentioned it to me once. You say the numbers are suspect. You’re free to start your own peer-reviewed study to prove that. I await the findings.

                Answer the damn question: does inhaling smoke cause cancer or not?

                Why is this so difficult for you? What’s with the evasion? It’s a one word answer.

                • Flying Squid
                  -1•2 months ago

                  Now you’re just lying. I mentioned it to you over and over again. What a silly thing to lie about. It’s right there in the comments.

                  I also said this to you:

                  I am doing no such thing. If you’re going to lie about what I am saying directly to me, this conversation is over.

                  Which you have now done once again. So this conversation is over.

                  • @TheGrandNagusEnglish
                    2•2 months ago

                    Read the study. Then look at the references.

                    Why can’t you accept that inhaling smoke causes cancer? Why are you evading this simple yes or no question so much? It doesn’t take long to type out a yes or a no.

                    Come on mate, this isn’t hard. Inhaling smoke causes cancer. You’re sounding like a climate denier or antivaxxer when you’re being this blatantly anti-science.

                    You literally asked how cannabis can kill, were given an answer (smoking is bad for you), then refused to accept it.

                  • @Dasus
                    2•2 months ago

                    The lenghts you go to to avoid admitting you said/did something that might be considered silly.

                    That is the first reply you made. I then explained no-one is saying that cannabis is killing people — admittedly having forgot the mortality stat on the chart. The mortality stat doesn’t mean cannabis is “killing” people.

                    Then you start your inane sealioning, which you continue up until yesterday, at which point you blame me and @[email protected] of “not reading the study” and it “not having sources”, but you keep referring to Nutt’s study, when it cites it sources, which you clearly haven’t gone and read, which I’ve linked quite a few times now.

                    What I’m betting you did is read the cover of this link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract saying “they don’t say where their numbers are from”. That’s like reading the back-cover of a murder mystery and saying “it’s dumb, they didn’t even resolve the whole murder!”

                    If you actually log in and read the FULL TEXT, you will see the data.

                    They source several different studies for different citations. I’ve done the work for you and here’s the most relevant ones.

                    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=50ba3efb0204557af6b762141f94c9a68cb9e291

                    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Gable/publication/14984972_Toward_a_Comparative_Overview_of_Dependence_Potential_and_Acute_Toxicity_of_Psychoactive_Substances_Used_Nonmedically/links/557613d908aeb6d8c01aea8d/Toward-a-Comparative-Overview-of-Dependence-Potential-and-Acute-Toxicity-of-Psychoactive-Substances-Used-Nonmedically.pdf

                    They also explain just how they’ve weighed all the data:

                    During the decision conference participants assessed weights within each cluster of criteria. The criterion within a cluster judged to be associated with the largest swing weight was assigned an arbitrary score of 100. Then, each swing on the remaining criteria in the cluster was judged by the group compared with the 100 score, in terms of a ratio. For example, in the cluster of four criteria under the category physical harm to users, the swing weight for drug-related mortality was judged to be the largest difference of the four, so it was given a weight of 100. The group judged the next largest swing in harm to be in drug-specific mortality, which was 80% as great as for drug-related mortality, so it was given a weight of 80. Thus, the computer multiplied the scores for all the drugs on the drug-related mortality scale by 0·8, with the result that the weighted harm of heroin on this scale became 80 as compared with heroin’s score of 100 on drug-specific mortality. Next, the 100-weighted swings in each cluster were compared with each other, with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to users compared with the most harmful drug on the most harmful criterion to others. The result of assessing these weights was that the units of harm on all scales were equated. A final normalisation preserved the ratios of all weights, but ensured that the weights on the criteria summed to 1·0. The weighting process enabled harm scores to be combined within any grouping simply by adding their weighted scores. Dodgson and colleagues3 provide further guidance on swing weighting. Scores and weights were input to the Hiview computer program, which calculated the weighted scores, provided displays of the results, and enabled sensitivity analyses to be done.

                    So no matter how much you want to sealion and pretend you weren’t wrong and didn’t say anything silly, I have offered you the data several times. And this all ignores the fact that you keep ADAMANTLY IGNORING a question I’ve put to you more than a dozen times; do you accept that a lot of cannabis use is SMOKING and that SMOKING causes increased mortality?