3 ms·

> My original post said nothing at all about cocaine being good for you. Who said anything about it being good for you? Neither you nor I, as far as I know. I

> My original post said nothing at all about cocaine being good for you. Who said anything about it being good for you? Neither you nor I, as far as I know. In your original post, you said, "They say drinking enough to feel drunk is much worse for your long-term health than a moderate dose of recreational powder cocaine." You then followed it up with "The they was the World Health Organization." So I don't think it's unfair to read that as you saying: "The World Health Organization say drinking enough to feel drunk is much worse for your long-term health than a moderate dose of recreational powder cocaine." I then reviewed your source and concluded, "I don't think that what you've posted really supports your claim that the WHO finds recreational cocaine usage to be less hazardous than drinking enough to get drunk."

Produce 15y ago
>I then reviewed your source and concluded, "I don't think that what you've posted really supports your claim that the WHO finds recreational cocaine usage to be less hazardous than drinking enough to get drunk." That's because he couldn't provide the source he was thinking of. The source he did post demonstrates why he couldn't find it. >I can't actually find the article, but http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/bad-scie.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/bad-scie.... suggests it was suppressed by the U.S. government, so I must have read a leaked copy that I can't find anymore.
- carbocation 15y ago
  No. I read that article and it did not even hint that the WHO endorses the thing that the GGP suggests. Plus the evidentiary standard even for Internet discussion is higher than this. One can't say "a paper was suppressed, somehow I magically saw it even though nobody else did, and therefore you cannot refute my on-its-face improbable statement."
dsrguru 15y ago
> Who said anything about it being good for you? Neither you nor I, as far as I know. You said I gave "dangerous medical mis-advice" and someone, who I assumed was you, flagged my post. Assuming you didn't think the suggestion of not drinking was dangerous, what could you have meant besides interpreting my post as an endorsement of cocaine use? Either you keep changing what you're saying, or I've been misinterpreting each of your posts. I'm legitimately confused now. > I then reviewed your source and concluded, "I don't think that what you've posted really supports your claim that the WHO finds recreational cocaine usage to be less hazardous than drinking enough to get drunk." I recall them explicitly making that claim, as I referenced in my original post. Could the source I originally read have been a forgery and the Guardian made the same mistake? Yes. I don't think that's the case, but it could be. But I've definitely come across in other sources (that I guess could have gotten their information from the same unofficial WHO document, but I think they were sources that had citations, so that shouldn't be the case) the same general conclusion that powder cocaine isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol or opiates unless you take large enough doses or do it enough to develop a dependency.
- carbocation 15y ago
  At no point have I flagged or downvoted you; I do believe my responses to what you have written stand on their own merits.

Produce 15y ago

>I then reviewed your source and concluded, "I don't think that what you've posted really supports your claim that the WHO finds recreational cocaine usage to be less hazardous than drinking enough to get drunk." That's because he couldn't provide the source he was thinking of. The source he did post demonstrates why he couldn't find it. >I can't actually find the article, but http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/bad-scie.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/bad-scie.... suggests it was suppressed by the U.S. government, so I must have read a leaked copy that I can't find anymore.

carbocation 15y ago
No. I read that article and it did not even hint that the WHO endorses the thing that the GGP suggests. Plus the evidentiary standard even for Internet discussion is higher than this. One can't say "a paper was suppressed, somehow I magically saw it even though nobody else did, and therefore you cannot refute my on-its-face improbable statement."

dsrguru 15y ago

> Who said anything about it being good for you? Neither you nor I, as far as I know. You said I gave "dangerous medical mis-advice" and someone, who I assumed was you, flagged my post. Assuming you didn't think the suggestion of not drinking was dangerous, what could you have meant besides interpreting my post as an endorsement of cocaine use? Either you keep changing what you're saying, or I've been misinterpreting each of your posts. I'm legitimately confused now. > I then reviewed your source and concluded, "I don't think that what you've posted really supports your claim that the WHO finds recreational cocaine usage to be less hazardous than drinking enough to get drunk." I recall them explicitly making that claim, as I referenced in my original post. Could the source I originally read have been a forgery and the Guardian made the same mistake? Yes. I don't think that's the case, but it could be. But I've definitely come across in other sources (that I guess could have gotten their information from the same unofficial WHO document, but I think they were sources that had citations, so that shouldn't be the case) the same general conclusion that powder cocaine isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol or opiates unless you take large enough doses or do it enough to develop a dependency.

carbocation 15y ago
At no point have I flagged or downvoted you; I do believe my responses to what you have written stand on their own merits.