Wrong. This is code degugged, into production and working with no more hours devoted to debugging, pre or post production, as any other code. Do you know anything about programing? 
Posted on 07/02/2002 8:56:30 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.
According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.
The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.
s As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana.
One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.
The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one.
The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".
Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long-term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning".
Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".
And you would be amazed at the number of hours required for debugging and troubleshooting after the code was written while the programmer was stoned.
Guess you already forgot my post. As I stated, I used to smoke pot. I know the effects.
Now, if you'd like to marshal a few facts about the totality of the situation, or maybe even a statistic or two, and thereby try to construct a coherent, logical case for your position, I'll be more than happy to consider it seriously. But as long as you want to argue based on emotional appeals and silly anecdotes, you can continue to expect non-serious responses to your non-serious arguments. ;)
As you are fully aware, one can find statistics and studies on both sides of the issue, depending on who is preparing the statistics/studies and what outcome they want to achieve.
And as I well know, no amount of statistical information or studies would sway your opinion. You want to smoke pot, so you will.
No, I find it silly that you automatically assume that the pot was somehow a cause of that behavior, when you yourself admit that he had "problems". That says something of the level of your critical thinking skills.
And as I well know, no amount of statistical information or studies would sway your opinion. You want to smoke pot, so you will.
Actually, statements like that only serve to illustrate that you don't "well know" anything about me, but that you'll simply assume that you do in order to try to make your case. Can you make a single post to me that doesn't rest on logical fallacy? ;)
Interesting.
GOA POP going good now. BSAI POP quotas increased this year.
See you on the Bering Sea!
Mr. Atomic Vomit
The British govt. (Some Ministry or other involved in traffic safety) commissioned a study re: the effects of pot on driving. The study was done with the aim of showing the British public that pot is unsafe.
The data in the final report, sheepishly released by the same ministry, showed the opposite: drivers while stoned drive more cautiously.
It has to do with the "paranoia" (read, "caution") element of being high. Pot smokers are risk-averse. Drunk drivers are an entirely different animal.
I don't advocate that people should drive high or drunk but I can safely assert that I'd rather share the road with dopers than drunkards, if the choice must be made.
I read of this in Newsmax and here at Freepers. Perhaps a helpful Freeper will locate it for you.
Mr. Atomic Vomit
Wrong. This is code degugged, into production and working with no more hours devoted to debugging, pre or post production, as any other code. Do you know anything about programing?
As a reformed pot head, I got to tell you I always felt better stoned than drunk. I was never stupid enough to drive either way. The worst thing we did was order too much pizza delivered to the house.
And you want to talk paranoia...try smoking pot in a military school!
And what are the effects? What does it stop you from doing, being "stoned", or stop you from doing well? My reference to you not knowing what you are talking about is your single emotional experience, from which experience you assume, a priori, conditions of the human mental processes on cannabis.
Like the poster before asked, did you hang yourself in you cell, too? Obviously not. That, with your testimony that you smoked cannabis, makes it pikestaff obvious that cannabis had nothing to do with the suicide.
If it did you would have commited suicide, too. Couple that with the fact that you don't have any idea whether that person would have committed suicide without pot, and you have a hysterical reaction that seeks to blame the genesis on a correlation. Against that conclusion are hundreds of government and independent research results that testify that what you assume is bullbutter.
As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.