4 ms·

Cannabis: scientists call for action amid mental health concerns

4 points by hellofunk 11y ago

pink_dinner 11y ago
We've known this for a few decades at least. I guess history will continue to repeat itself.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Strangely, I found myself less likely to believe this research, just because one of the quoted scientists was a "Sir". In that sceptical light, I'm still not sure whether the science is really decisive. It seems like that "meat causes cancer" thing (yes it definately does, to a degree that's not particularly worrying in the big scheme of things) combined with governtment requirement to have some kind of science to back up their drug policies, when most of their own scientists think they're absurd and counterproductive.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  You mean, in the same way that Elton John is not a real musician because he too is a Sir? It's a strange argument.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    Being knighted means you're part of the establishment, as one famous 'sir' notes here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/it-was-a-relief-when-i-got-the-knighthood-because-it-got-me-off-the-hook-an-exclusive-interview-with-9571057.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/it-was-a-relief-whe... That may not affect your abiity to write a tune, but if you're chairing a committe investigating errors leading to the UK entering the Iraq War or talking about medical evidence that supports current government's war on drugs (while other government appointed scientists get sacked for talking frankly about the reality of drug policy) then it makes you suspect in my eyes.
- DanBC 11y ago
  A lot of these scientists think the drug policies are wrong, but also think that useful harm reduction messages are ignored for exactly the reason you give - the government is saying it and the government is wrong. There are some remarkable correlations going on, and thise need to he investigated. If anything the government used to resist research because they didn't want anything to say "about as risky as processed meat is for cancer", because that would make the interference with human rights important.

4 points by hellofunk 11y ago

pink_dinner 11y ago

We've known this for a few decades at least. I guess history will continue to repeat itself.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Strangely, I found myself less likely to believe this research, just because one of the quoted scientists was a "Sir". In that sceptical light, I'm still not sure whether the science is really decisive. It seems like that "meat causes cancer" thing (yes it definately does, to a degree that's not particularly worrying in the big scheme of things) combined with governtment requirement to have some kind of science to back up their drug policies, when most of their own scientists think they're absurd and counterproductive.

hellofunk 11y ago
You mean, in the same way that Elton John is not a real musician because he too is a Sir? It's a strange argument.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Being knighted means you're part of the establishment, as one famous 'sir' notes here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/it-was-a-relief-when-i-got-the-knighthood-because-it-got-me-off-the-hook-an-exclusive-interview-with-9571057.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/it-was-a-relief-whe... That may not affect your abiity to write a tune, but if you're chairing a committe investigating errors leading to the UK entering the Iraq War or talking about medical evidence that supports current government's war on drugs (while other government appointed scientists get sacked for talking frankly about the reality of drug policy) then it makes you suspect in my eyes.
DanBC 11y ago
A lot of these scientists think the drug policies are wrong, but also think that useful harm reduction messages are ignored for exactly the reason you give - the government is saying it and the government is wrong. There are some remarkable correlations going on, and thise need to he investigated. If anything the government used to resist research because they didn't want anything to say "about as risky as processed meat is for cancer", because that would make the interference with human rights important.