Do you want to discuss boring politics? (42 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Nowhere near as many carcinogens as cigarettes to be fair.....

and of course, not carcinogenic whatsoever if you do edibles

...I've got some top notch recipes....happy to share.

Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes

A single cannabis joint has the same effect on the lungs as smoking up to five cigarettes in one go, indicates new research. Cannabis smokers complained of wheeze, cough, chest tightness and phlegm. But emphysema, the progressive and crippling lung disease, was only seen in those who smoked...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Farage was on top form today, played a blinder. The Dictators in Brussels had to shut it down because free speech is a crime. And most the morons on here want to be part of that. Sickening

Where would you stand on people burning the Union Jack?

 

[shmmeee]

Strange to legalise one narcotic substance and not ban another. Many cannabis products are stuffed with nicotine. Making cannabis legal and vaping regulated seems a contradiction

Cannabis is carcinogenic- so legalising another cancer causing product seems pretty dumb really

“Many cannabis products are stuffed with nicotine”

…

Do you mean you can mix it with tobacco?

 

[shmmeee]

Farage was on top form today, played a blinder. The Dictators in Brussels had to shut it down because free speech is a crime. And most the morons on here want to be part of that. Sickening

Aren’t you against Palestine protests?

Far right OK but far left beyond the pale?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Aren’t you against Palestine protests?

Far right OK but far left beyond the pale?

Mainstream isn’t it Palestine?

 

[shmmeee]

Mainstream isn’t it Palestine?

Woke terrorist communist Islamic wokery mate

 

[skybluetony176]

Not sure why it was shutdown but apparently it was Bill Gates again. Funny thing is it was organised by the Edmund Burke Foundation who apparently is a think tank funded by large corporations including Microsoft. Still, don’t let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Sick Boy]

Nowhere near as many carcinogens as cigarettes to be fair.....

and of course, not carcinogenic whatsoever if you do edibles

...I've got some top notch recipes....happy to share.

Tried out my first recipe from the Anarchists’ Cookbook when I was 14 with an oz of soap bar - the good old days.

Edibles are heavily pushed in the USA; they were handing out free THC shots outside one dispensary last week.

Unfortunately those days are behind me now.

 

[skybluetony176]

Tried out my first recipe from the Anarchists’ Cookbook when I was 14 with an oz of soap bar - the good old days.

Edibles are heavily pushed in the USA; they were handing out free THC shots outside one dispensary last week.

Unfortunately those days are behind me now.

Soap bar. There’s a blast from the past. Squidgy Black anyone.

 

[fernandopartridge]

View attachment 35131

The same on the Public Order Act supporting Tories about a conference being closed down

 

[CCFCSteve]

Tried out my first recipe from the Anarchists’ Cookbook when I was 14 with an oz of soap bar - the good old days.

Edibles are heavily pushed in the USA; they were handing out free THC shots outside one dispensary last week.

Unfortunately those days are behind me now.

Never too old sick boy, especially if you’re on hols

 

[shmmeee]

Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes

A single cannabis joint has the same effect on the lungs as smoking up to five cigarettes in one go, indicates new research. Cannabis smokers complained of wheeze, cough, chest tightness and phlegm. But emphysema, the progressive and crippling lung disease, was only seen in those who smoked...

www.sciencedaily.com

Hmmm. The study says cannabis smokers had lung problems but not the severe ones of smokers. If you read the study design they admit they don’t know if the “cannabis only” users also used tobacco in their joints but brush it off as “oh most don’t and I’m sure it wouldn’t make a difference”. Also compares smoking tobacco with a filter to smoking cannabis with a roach. But I for example smoke both with a roach cos I smoke rollies, so all the same points apply to tobacco.

Basically if you suck hot smoke into your lungs without a filter it’s bad, regardless of what’s creating the smoke. But that implies water bongs, dry herb vapes, etc would be significantly less harmful.

Seems there’s some evidence for lung cancer for example that the nicotine specifically is what counts. Also some evidence of THC reducing certain cancer risks as well as increasing others.

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic - PMC

More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[shmmeee]

To be clear: all smoking is bad for you. But so are lots of things we don’t ban. And alcohol is significantly worse for you, yet is never discussed.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

To be clear: all smoking is bad for you. But so are lots of things we don’t ban. And alcohol is significantly worse for you, yet is never discussed.

I guess there’s a lot more vested interests in keeping a thriving alcohol industry than there is for tobacco.

 

[shmmeee]

I guess there’s a lot more vested interests in keeping a thriving alcohol industry than there is for tobacco.

Well yeah. More people drink and it’s seen as socially acceptable. Which is fundamentally my issue. We shouldn’t ban drugs based on lack of popularity really.

 

[Grendel]

Well yeah. More people drink and it’s seen as socially acceptable. Which is fundamentally my issue. We shouldn’t ban drugs based on lack of popularity really.

Most people can drink ethanol with acceptable levels. Smoking is dangerous at any level so there is a difference

 

[JAM See]

To be clear: all smoking is bad for you. But so are lots of things we don’t ban. And alcohol is significantly worse for you, yet is never discussed.

I've posted this before.

I know my kids have taken a lot of psychoactive substances over the years (legal and illegal). They got a lot of enjoyment from them in the past and don't bother much anymore.

Except smoking. It's so fucking difficult to give up.

If there's one substance I could wish into non-existence, it would be nicotine.

 

[SBAndy]

I've posted this before.

I know my kids have taken a lot of psychoactive substances over the years (legal and illegal). They got a lot of enjoyment from them in the past and don't bother much anymore.

Except smoking. It's so fucking difficult to give up.

If there's one substance I could wish into non-existence, it would be nicotine.

Genuine Q as I can’t be arsed to look into it: is nicotine naturally occurring in tobacco or is it added to cause the addictiveness?

 

[JAM See]

Genuine Q as I can’t be arsed to look into it: is nicotine naturally occurring in tobacco or is it added to cause the addictiveness?

I'm going to reply, also without searching.

My understanding is that nicotine is a natural insect repellent which the tobacco plant has developed as resistance.

Nicotine is also present in tomatoes and other plants, but in much smaller concentrations.

Right, off to Google it now.

 

[wingy]

I'm going to reply, also without searching.

My understanding is that nicotine is a natural insect repellent which the tobacco plant has developed as resistance.

Nicotine is also present in tomatoes and other plants, but in much smaller concentrations.

Right, off to Google it now.

It's probably the 4000 chemical's added that are the problem?

 

[chiefdave]

Why do we even bother with PMQs if the PM is under zero obligation to take it seriously or answer questions?

Starmer asks Sunak to explain how he will pay for his "completely unfunded" £46bn ambition to scrap National Insurance.

Sunak responds by bringing up the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

He says Starmer tried to make his predecessor PM, despite him failing to deal with antisemitism, opposing Nato and "siding with our enemies".

Sunak accuses Starmer of putting "his own interests ahead of Britain's".

 

[Grendel]

Why do we even bother with PMQs if the PM is under zero obligation to take it seriously or answer questions?

You answered your own question - it’s pointless theatre

 

[shmmeee]

I've posted this before.

I know my kids have taken a lot of psychoactive substances over the years (legal and illegal). They got a lot of enjoyment from them in the past and don't bother much anymore.

Except smoking. It's so fucking difficult to give up.

If there's one substance I could wish into non-existence, it would be nicotine.

Nicotine on its own is a pretty good drug TBF. Weight loss, focus, extensively used by people with severe mental health issues to self medicate (the stats for schizophrenia and smoking are ridiculous). The delivery mechanism of burning shit and sucking it into your mouth is terrible though. And obvs the addiction issues. Though I know people addicted to caffeine on a similar level.

Are we as a society saying addiction alone is the requirement for a ban? I think it’s a fair bar, but one that would require gambling being looked at as well as a fair few others things (insert porn addiction is it real debate here).

I think generally I err on the side of personal responsibility for things that generally only affect the individual. I don’t think the state can keep everyone safe from themselves all the time. As long as the externalities are appropriately taxed so other people arent picking up your tab.

Once you get into deciding certain things should be banned, that logic almost always takes you to unintended places. Impact on NHS? Look at fast food. Addiction? Gambling. Impact on society? Alcohol. I’m just not sure there’s a clean line that puts bad things on one side and good on the other. I’m also very wary of banning psychoactives without a solid understanding of how we can replace what they bring to a lot of people in terms of coping strategies for mental health.

 

[skybluetony176]

The problem I have with the cigarette ban is where do we go from there and is there really any proof that it will work. Personally I think there’s a bigger case for legalising cannabis and licensing the sale of it. And cannabis is the perfect example of something being banned and that ban not working. The health risks from smoking is unquestionable, as is the risks for drinking alcohol and if anything alcohol when you look at the bigger picture is more damaging to society. It puts a strain on the NHS same as smoking, it increases violence both in the streets and in the home unlike smoking and also puts a strain on the judicial system as a consequence of that. When you look at the facts for both alcohol is a far bigger problem for society as a whole not least because it affects every aspect of society but alcohol is used by a far bigger percentage of society.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Why do we even bother with PMQs if the PM is under zero obligation to take it seriously or answer questions?

This line of questioning is ridiculous, the government does not need to 'fund' it. Labour going with the household budget mantra to a greater extent than the government.

 

[shmmeee]

This line of questioning is ridiculous, the government does not need to 'fund' it. Labour going with the household budget mantra to a greater extent than the government.

I don’t think the Tories are MMT believers so it’s a fair question. They will want to take the money from somewhere, so asking where is legit. You just get triggered by the phrase.

 

[PVA]

This line of questioning is ridiculous, the government does not need to 'fund' it. Labour going with the household budget mantra to a greater extent than the government.

I know it winds you up, but if the general public think of it like a household budget (and they do) then asking the government how they’re going to fund xyz is going to resonate with people.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I don’t think the Tories are MMT believers so it’s a fair question. They will want to take the money from somewhere, so asking where is legit. You just get triggered by the phrase.

If the answer is "we're going to cut departmental spending by £45bn to fund it" - where does Labour go next? Oh that's awful or oh we agree with your sound money philosophy

 

[SBT]

If the answer is "we're going to cut departmental spending by £45bn to fund it" - where does Labour go next?

Probably puts it in an election ad?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Probably puts it in an election ad?

But they agree with the principle behind it? The Tory retort will be along the lines of "Labour intends to raise NI after the election". The whole charade is based on a false premise.

 

[SBT]

But they agree with the principle behind it? The Tory retort will be along the lines of "Labour intends to raise NI after the election". The whole charade is based on a false premise.

It’s just realpolitik - when it comes to PMQs I don’t think it’s that deep

 

[fernandopartridge]

It’s just realpolitik - when it comes to PMQs I don’t think it’s that deep

that's true - but sadly it gets disproportionate coverage

 

[shmmeee]

If the answer is "we're going to cut departmental spending by £45bn to fund it" - where does Labour go next? Oh that's awful or oh we agree with your sound money philosophy

They go “look normies, the Tories want to cut your services to give their rich mates tax cuts”

Which is a lot easier to get across in a soundbite that might get on the 6 O’Clock news than a lecture on macroeconomic theory.

 

[JAM See]

Nicotine on its own is a pretty good drug TBF. Weight loss, focus, extensively used by people with severe mental health issues to self medicate (the stats for schizophrenia and smoking are ridiculous). The delivery mechanism of burning shit and sucking it into your mouth is terrible though. And obvs the addiction issues. Though I know people addicted to caffeine on a similar level.

Are we as a society saying addiction alone is the requirement for a ban? I think it’s a fair bar, but one that would require gambling being looked at as well as a fair few others things (insert porn addiction is it real debate here).

I think generally I err on the side of personal responsibility for things that generally only affect the individual. I don’t think the state can keep everyone safe from themselves all the time. As long as the externalities are appropriately taxed so other people arent picking up your tab.

Once you get into deciding certain things should be banned, that logic almost always takes you to unintended places. Impact on NHS? Look at fast food. Addiction? Gambling. Impact on society? Alcohol. I’m just not sure there’s a clean line that puts bad things on one side and good on the other. I’m also very wary of banning psychoactives without a solid understanding of how we can replace what they bring to a lot of people in terms of coping strategies for mental health.

I didn't say I'd ban it.
I just wish it didn't exist.

 

[JAM See]

The problem I have with the cigarette ban is where do we go from there and is there really any proof that it will work. Personally I think there’s a bigger case for legalising cannabis and licensing the sale of it. And cannabis is the perfect example of something being banned and that ban not working. The health risks from smoking is unquestionable, as is the risks for drinking alcohol and if anything alcohol when you look at the bigger picture is more damaging to society. It puts a strain on the NHS same as smoking, it increases violence both in the streets and in the home unlike smoking and also puts a strain on the judicial system as a consequence of that. When you look at the facts for both alcohol is a far bigger problem for society as a whole not least because it affects every aspect of society but alcohol is used by a far bigger percentage of society.

Although, alcohol is, by and large, a drug that people consume intermittently, to gain enjoyment.

Nicotine use (smoking) is a constant battle to stave off withdrawal.

The two are not compatible for the vast majority of consumers.