Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: fourthDVD on September 30, 2012, 06:40 am
-
"How many Americans die from smoking without even lighting up a cigarette? More than 42,000 people a year, including 900 infants, according to a new, thorough analysis of secondhand smoke deaths by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco."
http://news.yahoo.com/secondhand-smoke-kills-42-000-nonsmokers-us-132258497.html
I am so glad the government is worried about me getting stoned!
-
Not to rain on your parade, but the article is referring to smoked nicotine, which sadly like anything burnt, can overload your lung with carcinogenic materials. Hell, in some cold parts of Europe public health warning are being considered for the use of fireplaces due to poor ventilation. Yeesh, talk about an inconspicuous killer...
-
<removed>
-
I think he was trying to make a point about Government something something? Either way, I agree with it being moved to drug safety.
Have they actually implemented the warnings for fireplaces? I haven't kept up to date about it, but still found it a wonderful example for smokers of marijuana claiming that there were absolutely no harmful side effects to the drug when smoked.
-
<removed>
-
The political point was simple...although not stated. The government is biased and full of shit. They can allow tobacco, yet I am a "criminal" for marijuana and whatever other substance I choose to use in the privacy of my own home. I am thankful for honest information that can allow me to see risks involved in any choice. However, do not tell me how to live....especially when my choices do not harm others!
-
Ah excellent, it has always been a point of contention for me the length of time bureaucracy takes to implement safety standards that have been significantly correlated with harm reduction, within the scientific community (both independent and funded).
Preferentially I was rather saddened by news of the dangerous nature of fireplaces, as I find it rather spiritual staring into a fire. Though never liked it much for heating, as a centralized fire system will suck the heat out of surrounding rooms, but I digress.
In regards to mass media, I agree whole-heartedly, they are NEVER a safe nor reliable resource when it comes to science and technology (considering the laughable SR entries). Science Daily, as well as going primary source and reading from academic journals id est pubmed (though not for the layperson for certain), grants a wealth of statistical information which hold untold benefits to the average man. Perhaps one day, there will come a period where ignorance will be overcome with scientific reality. I'm so tired of living in the dark ages, where truth seems to remain subjective.
Though I believe you are conflating statistical data slightly, numbered deaths are irrelevant, it is the statistical number you're after. In other words, what percentage of owners with electrical appliances near hazards die, compared to the percentage of MDMA users overdosing to death. Because, naturally the situation with the most users will produce the higher number, rather than a balanced statistical number encompassing a great deal of variables. Regardless of the side track, I agree with you entirely, in fact here's one of my earlier posts today
Ignorance through morality is thoroughly sickening. To have this level of hatred for something that they could not possibly understand is heartbreaking. I'm still of the belief that their common morality has lead to the shear destructive pattern that ruins the lives and families of users. While certainly harder drugs have nasty side effects for abuses of said drugs, but are further extended by the natural lengths that businesses and people go when pressured through prohibition. Now we have Levimasole in our cocaine shredding our immune systems, Desomorphine (krokodil) consuming our flesh, and countless other shite consuming us whole. All for their sake, their need to feel superior to the so called scum of the earth. Ugh, sometimes I need to avoid reading the comments section of online newspapers, they make me angrily depressed, heh.
My personal opinion to solve these morality issues may differ from a vast majority of those on this great market. I believe that only by pharmaceutical standardization can we save users, and help educate the public with absolute physical and anecdotal evidence (sadly anecdotes seem to be the only thing the public is capable to comprehend). No more underground death and monopolies, no more pain and suffering. Though I expect there will be many here who see government and pharmaceutical regulation as a terrible affliction on the face of freedom. I myself cannot.
The political point was simple...although not stated. The government is biased and full of shit. They can allow tobacco, yet I am a "criminal" for marijuana and whatever other substance I choose to use in the privacy of my own home. I am thankful for honest information that can allow me to see risks involved in any choice. However, do not tell me how to live....especially when my choices do not harm others!
Commendable point of view, but sadly choices are so difficult when it comes to drawing a line. According to this article and countless proper studies, second hand cigarette smoke is harmful to others. and with that, second hand marijuana is also dangerous to those not taking part. So the philosophical question would be, how would you define the line between your harm, and the harm of others?
-
period where ignorance will be overcome with scientific reality. I'm so tired of living in the dark ages, where truth seems to remain subjective.
The political point was simple...although not stated. The government is biased and full of shit. They can allow tobacco, yet I am a "criminal" for marijuana and whatever other substance I choose to use in the privacy of my own home. I am thankful for honest information that can allow me to see risks involved in any choice. However, do not tell me how to live....especially when my choices do not harm others!
Commendable point of view, but sadly choices are so difficult when it comes to drawing a line. According to this article and countless proper studies, second hand cigarette smoke is harmful to others. and with that, second hand marijuana is also dangerous to those not taking part. So the philosophical question would be, how would you define the line between your harm, and the harm of others?
I think the line is clear in most cases. First, I do not smoke...so for me, that is not an issue. I only smoke pot with a vape. I would never smoke or use around people that could be negatively affected.
-
"How many Americans die from smoking without even lighting up a cigarette? More than 42,000 people a year
36,000 from die from the flu
1.2 million die every year from drowning
42,000 die from car accidents
11,000 from gunshots
840,279 people go missing every year
Less than 22% of the US voted for obama (Number of votes vs population)
Man numbers are fun! You can find out all kinds of stuff like the fact that the 42,000 people who die from second hand smoke make up less than 0.01% of the US population.
People dieing from gunshot make up 0.003% Kind of small for a country full of guns.
Figures never lie but all lairs use figures.
-
Smoking anything is a bad idea. Human lungs are not meant to breath smoke and all smoke is bad for you.
If you must inhale your drugs then vaporize them. Otherwise find a differant ROA, I suggest Oral, Anal, or if you must get that "rush" then nasally or intravenously.
-
"How many Americans die from smoking without even lighting up a cigarette? More than 42,000 people a year
36,000 from die from the flu
1.2 million die every year from drowning
42,000 die from car accidents
11,000 from gunshots
840,279 people go missing every year
Less than 22% of the US voted for obama (Number of votes vs population)
Man numbers are fun! You can find out all kinds of stuff like the fact that the 42,000 people who die from second hand smoke make up less than 0.01% of the US population.
People dieing from gunshot make up 0.003% Kind of small for a country full of guns.
Figures never lie but all lairs use figures.
That's entirely why I love Epidemiology, statistics are an amazing way to compile the world, but require context to be understood. Surely major media have scientists on call to interpret scientific and statistical data fairly.
Sarcasm aside, all ROA contain their own dangers; it is all about how much you're willing to risk vs. how much reward you are willing to sacrifice.
I think the line is clear in most cases. First, I do not smoke...so for me, that is not an issue. I only smoke pot with a vape. I would never smoke or use around people that could be negatively affected.
Commendable of you, unfortunately not many share your noble nature. So then the argument turns to whether we can justify the use of limitations for the betterment of a larger portion of the population. I personally believe legislation can be effective when used via statistical reality, rather than the shitstorm of idiocy we see based on pure emotions. Now idiocy like this article begets ignorance begets discrimination begets damnation.
-
I think we should be allowed to do anything as long as they don't affect the rights of others.
-
<removed>