> 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

> 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.