Re: Preventing XP from knowing that you program crashed.

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 03/31/04 

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:50:52 +0100

Frankie say:
> Beth wrote:
> > This is important to note carefully, because one drug - alcohol -
is
> > actually quite high up on such a "scale" (highly addictive, can
induce
> > violence, has severe effects on co-ordination, changes
personality,
> > lowers people's natural prohibitions, rots your liver, rots your
> > kidneys, addicts become extremely prone to violent mood changes,
> > addicts become highly secretive to hide their addiction, prolonged
> > heavy use produces permanent mental damage, can bring on diabetes
in
> > vurnerable people, mixes extremely badly with most other chemicals
> > because it's a reactive substance meaning that mixing alcohol with
> > other things - even aspirin or cough medicine - can lead to
blackouts
> > and other complications, memory loss, etc., etc.) yet is not only
> > legal, it's not only tolerated...in many cultures, you're a social
> > leper for NOT doing it...
>
> Yep. And you missed the danger of fatal overdose. It doesn't take
that
> much alcohol - 16 ounces, a quart of 100 proof, more or less,
depending
> on body mass. Fortunately, the body is pretty good at detoxifying
> alcohol. You'd have to ingest this amount in a short period. You
have to
> work at it, but people can and do kill themselves with acute alcohol
> overdose.

Yeah, there's that one too...forgot about that...in fact, I bet I've
left out a whole host of other dangers and problems with alcohol that
a medical student or someone could triple or quadruple my list without
blinking...it's one _seriously dangerous_ substance...and, amusingly,
it's not only legal, it's almost a "best friend" with the way people
usually treat it...

Now - which was kind of the point I was driving at - just because it
_IS_ a dangerous substance doesn't mean everyone who ever uses it is
going to instantly drop dead...as you're now pointing out in this
post, people don't even _consider_ the possibility of "moderate" use
of something like marijuana...also, something like ecstasy...but
that's what the _majority_ of use of illegal drug use is like for the
so-called "soft drugs"...having a "spliff" just an alternative to
"having a pint of beer" (hey, not just the differences in strength
here...look at the differences in measure! That says an awful lot
too...plus, it gets _worse_ if you're using metric...a "liter of beer"
is a massive amount...well, too much for me, anyhow, when I saw those
German beer glasses! It's, like: "Crap! You trying to kill me or
something?" ;)...

Of course, as we know - other than the potential of "overdose" with
alcohol (which is possible but pretty hard to do, as most people don't
"overdose", even on heavy drinking sessions) - tobacco and alcohol
aren't "instant killers" either...BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD
TAKE THEM! The "legal" and "illegal" thing confuses the issue, in
fact...marijuana doesn't "kill instantly" no more than smoking a
cigarette or drinking a few pints of beer...

The problem here is that people tend to think "legal = okay", "illegal
= bad!"...you know, as if by being "legal", tobacco and alcohol are
really great drugs that the government is almost telling you to
take...the legality confuses the issue here often...it actually has
absolutely nothing to do with the consequences of the drugs...tobacco
and alcohol are legal due to _historical accident_, not scientific
proof that they are "okay"...nicotine is actually one of the most
addictive substances there is...alcohol is one of the most dangerous
substances around (note, for instance, how _low_ the percentages of
the beers you usually drink are...yet, a few cans of that and you can
be wandering about all over the place! It's nowhere near as bad as
with LSD but the same basic idea holds...this stuff is _SOOO_ potent
that you don't ever take large doses of "pure LSD" or "pure
alcohol"...as you note, you can overdose and die on alcohol...most
people usually don't because the manufacturers only put reasonable and
low amounts into their beers and stuff...as I say, it's nowhere near
the "potency" of LSD...there, if you have more than the tiniest,
tiniest drop of the stuff, then there is a danger of it turning your
mind _permanently insane_...alcohol is no that bad...BUT it _is_ bad
and works in a similar: "you don't want to be drinking the pure 100%
stuff in large measures or you will very possibly kill yourself" kind
of way...like you've pointed out that I missed in my list above :)...

> Much the same set of dangers as heroin, except that heroin doesn't
rot
> your liver. (but *can* cause you to spend your life in prison)

Ah; But if you're _injecting_ heroin directly into your blood stream,
then that is a highly dangerous way to go about it...this is where
heroin is most certainly worse because this is the way most users may
take it...and getting your dose wrong when you're putting it straight
into a vein like that and that's why we find heroin overdose users
lying around everywhere far too often...

That is, as well as the _drug itself_, we must totally consider the
"method of delivery"...this is certainly something to note about
marijuana, as I'll get to below...

> It's interesting, since alcohol is legal, that you can *see* that
> there's "alcohol use" and then there's "alcohol abuse". Most people
can
> drink alcohol moderately, and not do themselves any harm - perhaps
even
> gain some benefit to their health.

Yeah, the body actually _needs_ a toxic substance or two once in a
while...note, though, that the scientists put this as "_ONE_ cigarette
every _year_" for tobacco, if I recall correctly...which, of course,
an actual addicted smoker tends to exceed by _over 7000 times_
typically (not good ;)...and I think they put it as "_ONE_ glass of
wine every _week_" for alcohol, which is actually "good exercise" for
the body's systems that deal with toxic stuff...it's like giving those
systems a "let's jog once round the block" bit of regular
exercise...and the effects of such a low, low amount as that mentioned
the body can perfectly happily "recover" from with its usual healing
processes...

A minor issue here is that our culture doesn't subscribe to "balance"
too much...you know, "bigger, better, faster, MORE!" kind of
thinking...now, I mention this because it is kind of relevent...if you
were put inside some "oxygen tent" and "decontaminated" from germs and
everything was spotlessly perfectly clean, then your immune system -
having nothing to fight - would actually _weaken and fail_
eventually...the body's systems do actually have to be "kept
busy"...of course, as noted, most people far, far, far exceed the "one
cigarette a year and one glass of wine a week" (either that or they
have NOTHING at all and live a totally "clean" life :)...so, no-one
actually ever hits this "theoretical" balancing point...anyway, like
"2.4 children" (a clear practical impossibility to have ".4" of a
child ;), this is an _average_...and it's "theory"...everyone's
different in practice - smaller body and alcohol has more effect on
you - that these figures shouldn't be taken in any way "deadly
seriously"...

> Other people, for whatever reason,
> are unwilling/unable to moderate their usage, and ruin their lives,
> their health... sometimes literally kill themselves with it. With
> illegal drugs, the "successful" moderate users (if any) are
completely
> invisible...

Yeah...unless you happen to know someone like yourself who's happily
used a drug for decades in a more "moderated" way...you're the
equivalent of someone just having a beer once in a while to relax,
rather than an alcoholic...not everyone who drinks is automatically an
alcoholic, as we know...

BUT, we should stress the "special case" conditions...marijuana is not
particularly addictive...remaining "moderate" is not a difficult
task...it's actually harder to keep yourself "moderate" with something
like alcohol (because that _is_ an addictive substance)...

Yet, if we look at something like tobacco smoking, then because
nicotine is a highly addictive substance (one of the worst there
is)...we don't get any real "moderate" smokers...if a smoker thinks
"okay, I'll just drop down to 10 or just 5 cigarettes a day" then this
_AIN'T_ easy at all...I've been there...it's like willingly dragging
yourself over broken glass for a mile...or, at least, it can feel
something like that...

Other interesting tid bits of information: Ireland has now brought in
a universal ban on smoking in any public places (yup, the good old
smoke-filled "Irish pub" near you will soon be _inaccurate_ because
the Irish are now completely getting rid of being able to smoke in
pubs...it's part of their "health in the workplace" stuff...and a pub
is the bar staff's "workplace"...so, if you want to smoke now in
Ireland, then you'll have to pop _outside_ to smoke ;)...what's
interesting is that during the survey they conducted into how people
felt about the new law, _60% of smokers_ agreed with the
policy...because, in fact, most smokers don't really want to be
smokers at all...would _Love_ to be off the weed once and for
all...but it's one of the most addictive substances around...

Hence, a really important factor in whether a drug can be "moderated"
is entirely to do with its "addictiveness" and, also, how it gets
taken...which includes that one of the things that does actually help
to keep alcoholism down is that it's a _social_ event often...as the
old advice goes: "never drink alone"...because the fact that there's
people all around you can help towards a kind of "moderation" in that
other people can act as a "measuring stick"...and, as alcoholics tend
to do, when you start _hiding_ your drinking from others from shame,
then you know you've got yourself a serious problem there...so, when I
say "how it gets taken", this does also include things like going to
pubs and bars...

And "how it gets taken" is where cannabis gets its problems from...

> >>It has 4 times the tar and nicotine of a cigarette
> >
> > Nicotine?!? Who's your supplier? What on Earth hell is that doing
in
> > there?
>
> Yeah, there's no nicotine in marijuana unless it's been mixed with
> tobacco.

Ah, but this is an important point...marijuana itself "inherits" the
problems of tobacco because the usual "how it gets taken" is to roll
your own (longer than usual) cigarettes with tobacco...but then
sprinkle some marijuana into the "spliff" on top of that...and then
you _smoke_ it...

In a sense, you're actually just "smoking" in the traditional tobacco
sense but "spiking" it with a sprinkling of marijuana...so, one thing
about this is that, though marijuana isn't responsible for it itself
directly, you're inheriting all the problems of being a regular
tobacco smoker...oh, that smokes _really long_ cigarettes...

And, as we know, tobacco is hardly "angelic", even if a legal
substance...perhaps the sole "good point" of tobacco is that it has no
real "psychotropic" effects...that is, when you drink alcohol, you get
drunk...when you smoke marijuana, you get stoned...you get "high" off
other drugs...that is, they have "psychotropic effects"...they "make
your brain go all funny", if you will...

Tobacco doesn't have that (well, when you first smoke, there's a
really, really weak "buzz" of your head spinning a little...this,
though, is incredibly weak and once you start smoking in a more
serious way, this entirely disappears...BUT as pathetic as it is, this
is actually an _important_ thing, I feel...it's because it can
conspire to get kids smoking, as they experience a "psychotropic
effect" for the first time and think "Cool! A kind of 'buzz' in the
head"...when I first started smoking - yes, below the legal age like
so many, unfortunately - it was basically: I wonder what that is like?
And so the first cigarette is just about "so, what's all the fuss
about?"...and, as most people know, that first cigarette is actually
quite horrible...BUT you might get that "buzz"...and, so, I thought
"oh, one more, just to get that 'buzz' thing"...merely "curiosity"
about that...but, of course, once the "buzz" completely stops, you
suddenly realise: "oh, I'm a proper smoker"...that's the sneaky,
sneaky way cigarettes themselves sneak up on people and addict
them...I'd be surprised if a single advert has ever "tempted"
anyone...I mean, they'be got those massive "smoking kills" written on
them...and, like, _everyone_ knows that they are bad for you and can
kill you...but that stuff isn't really the cause here, mostly...it's
"just trying it out" and then getting caught up in the "new feeling"
of this "buzz" thing and then if you keep doing that, you wake up one
morning and realise "oh, crap! I'm addicted to the fudging
things!"...and there's your big, big, big problem because nicotine is
_highly addictive_...once it manages that initial "get its claws into
you" thing then it's sucked you in for the long haul...a thing that
worsens the problem is that, of course, kids often think they will
live forever so ignore the "smoking kills" bits at first...when they
realise they shouldn't be ignoring it, it's way, way too
late...they've been smoking for the last 10 years from 15 until 25 or
something!!)...

But, mind you, this is actually one of the other things that's a
problem with tobacco...because it doesn't have any "big effects" like
making people high then you smoke them all the time...no need to worry
like with alcohol or marijuana about "effects on productivity" (geez,
wasn't that "the voice of capitalism" when Andrew said that? Like,
this stuff can kill you...but that's not important! Oh, no, it's your
_productivity_ to your company that's the most important thing!!! Hey,
all the workers can drop dead like flies...so long as we're able to
work out a way that this doesn't effect "productivity" ;)...without a
"ban", like in Ireland (or L.A. or New York, which are cities rather
than the bold _entire country_ policy that the Irish have pushed
through...but it was, to be fair, New York and L.A. that "pioneered"
and "inspired" the Irish's new laws :), too, you can smoke most
places...

You don't have to take marijuana this way, mind you...you can also
sprinkle some into some cake mixture and cook that and then have "dope
cakes" ;)...the problems of tobacco _aren't_ present when you do
something like that...but who does this? No-one...other than perhaps
as a "joke" once, "just for a laugh"...it's NOT the usual way...well,
not with anyone I've seen...maybe, though, this is how you would do
it, Frank ;)...

> It *is* a tarry substance.

There was a _reason_ that I went "nicotine??!?" but didn't say
anything about the "tar" comment at all..._that_ bit wasn't wrong...

> "Studies have shown" that it's X
> times worse for your lungs than tobacco. I'm not a doctor or
scientist,
> but this seems "unlikely" to me. Consider the overall toxicity of
the
> two plants. If you ground up a tobacco plant and sprayed it on your
> garden, the bugs would die. If you did it with a marijuana plant,
the
> bugs would just giggle a lot.

Ah, but it might be right...it probably is, to be fair...for instance,
those "mild" and "light" cigarettes are actually potentially _more_
damaging...this is because they have a lower amount of nicotine and
stuff...so, if you think: "Oh, I'll switch to 'lights' so that I'm not
smoking as much" then that might actually be _completely wrong_...you
still _want_ the same amount of nicotine and end up _sucking the
cigarettes harder and longer_ (no, that's not meant as any
"subtext"...but now that I've typed it out and read it back, it does
sound a bit on the "provocative" side to phrase it that way ;)...and
the smoke goes further into the lungs into those "sack" thingies, of
which I forget the name, that are where the oxygen is actually
diffused from the air into the bloodstream...ah, yes, "aviolas"
(spelling?) or something similar to that, I think it was...well,
sucking the smoke further down into the lungs, makes more of these
things burst (yeah, they really do just "pop" and this is why
smoking - as well as lining your lungs in "tar" - isn't a particular
clever idea from your lungs' point of view of things ;)...

So, in fact, those "light" cigarettes don't feel as strong (and they
actually aren't)...but that's actually kind of the problem itself...to
make up for that, people just smoke them a whole lot harder...taking
in more smoke, holding it down longer, smoking right to the end of the
cigarette (rather than how they might "give up" a cigarette near the
bottom but not actually at the end with a normal cigarette because you
can actually often feel like you've had enough by then and stub out
the rest :)...

Hence, marijuana smoking could actually, a bit like these "lights"
cigarettes things, be more damaging _exactly because_ of the "lighter"
feel on the lungs and stuff...plus, because of the "psychotropic"
bit - well, you're smoking to get "stoned", right? - then, well, you
already know: You actually delibrately hold it down in your lungs
longer and take deep breaths of it...that helps bring on the "stoned"
stuff...but, like, in "what is that doing to my lungs?" terms, it's
probably a slightly disasterous way to go about things in "healthy"
terms...

Oh, it's always a problem with these statistics because rather than
explain that what they are doing is accounting for the fact that
people smoke marijuana _with_ tobacco (clearly, Andrew's statistics
come from scientists that were measuring _the whole thing_, including
the tobacco...a kind of "weighted" case againt marijuana there when we
already know that the tobacco is, like, not good for you at all
;)...and they are probably also "accounting for" spliffs usually being
longer in length, smoked harder, etc., etc....

Valid statistics in their own right but unfairly weighted if they are
trying to be "representative"...after all, many people smoke while
they are drinking in a bar...do we include the effects of alcoholism
into statistics of the harm of tobacco? Nah, because it would be
"biased" by that to suggest things that are actually a consequence of
_combination_ with other things, not from marijuana itself...

Almost certainly we're getting one of these kinds of statistics here
for "nicotine" to be being measured in any way whatsoever...nicotine
comes from tobacco plants...there's _none_ in marijuana itself...

But, for those that don't know, you kind of "have to" mix tobacco in
with your marijuana because the marijuana itself _wouldn't
burn_...plus, you'd be sprinkling a small amount of it over the
tobacco...you _don't_ make a "spliff" that's solid marijuana from tip
to tip...you'd never be able to light the darn thing and smoke it at
all...and, if you could, then you'd probably blow a whole in the back
of your head!! In the sense that: "no, you're not supposed to take
_that_ much of the stuff!!!"...guaranteed "whitey" from that for the
next ten weeks ;)...

By the way, for those reading, I _DON'T_ smoke marijuana...unlike
Clinton, I did once "inhale" and know friends who regularly smoke the
stuff...I know how it works but don't take it myself...I actually was
simply "not impressed"..."not my scene", as, quite frankly, I'd rather
not even be a tobacco smoker...so, yeah, that "you must not know
anyone" was a bit off the mark there...give the "equipment" (tobacco,
papers, etc. ;) and I can roll one for you..._just_ that I won't be
smoking it myself...not interested...yeah, you know, it's quite
possible that the drugs _themselves_ can put a person off...some
people don't drink and it's not about "religion" or being
"anti-alcohol" or anything, it's just not something that they are
particularly impressed or interested in...

> Marijuana doesn't *have* to be smoked. You could just eat some. If
you
> ate a similar amount of tobacco, it would make you quite ill.

Yes, it merely needs to be "ingested" somehow...smoking is just the
"normally preferred method"...this applies to many drugs...you can
take LSD by "osmosis", for example...just stick it on your hand or
whatever...the chemical comes in such small doses and is incredibly
potent that you almost don't have to "take" it at all...just leaving
it touching your skin for a while is enough to "consume" that
particularly potent brain-mangling chemical...but it would be "usual"
there to put it on your tongue or something because then it more
easily absorbs fully in and you're getting your full "value for money"
that way...

> I don't buy the argument that smoking marijuana is *worse* than
tobacco,
> but it certainly isn't *good* for your lungs. I've got a hell of a
cough
> most of the time, but I'm a "smoking addict" - I've got either a
> cigarette or a (pot) pipe in the hand I'm not typing with nearly
constantly.

Ah, the thing with marijuana, though, is that it's almost always
smoked _WITH_ tobacco alongside...hence, it might, indeed, not be as
bad as tobacco but you're always taking some tobacco along with
it...this is the "how it gets taken" bit of the equation...

Hence, I picked up on the _wrong_ part about attributing "nicotine" to
marijuana...it has _NONE_...BUT if you were to say: "you will consume
typically 4 times more nicotine from the _tobacco_ part of your
'joint', due to these typically being longer, fatter and that people
smoke them harder and usually hold down the smoke in their lungs for a
longer time" _THEN_ I could accept that something like that probably
_IS_ true...

You get my point? Don't go putting chemicals into things which aren't
there...that's dangerously close to being a case of "lying"...

BUT if you want to make a point that there's tobacco in those
"spliffs" and that these are typically _longer_ and _fatter_...and
that smokers will tend to smoke it _all_ ("don't want to waste the
marijuana, dude! It costs money, you know!" ;), smoke it harder and
hold the smoke down in the lungs longer (well, one objective here is
to "get stoned, man!" so that helps the marijuana actually work its
effects on you :)...

On that point, I don't doubt that it's entirely true...that is, that a
"20 a day" habit with marijuana "joints" would blow a bigger hole in
your lungs than a "20 a day" tobacco habit...of course, no-one smokes
that many (well, maybe "Cheech and Chong"...as they sing: "Save the
whales! Save the whales! ...but club those seals! Club those
seals!"...those films are absolutely terrible, mind you, but often
very funny in places, anyway...you know, one of those films that's
soooo bad, it's hilarious just to laugh at how bad it is! ;) so one
could argue about it being partially a "moot point" from certain
angles...

> >>in addition to the permanent brain damage it does.
> >
> > This is correct; With prolonged use, it causes serious damage to
> > mental functionality...slowness, forgetfulness, etc...
>
> I'll admit to being slow and forgetful, but compared to my
> contemporaries who don't smoke, not *that* bad. I've been smoking
for...
> it'll be 40 years this September, if my damaged memory serve me.
That
> prolonged enough for you? Where are you guys getting this
information?

By the way, I didn't mean that it turns anyone into a cabbage within 2
weeks or anything...but it does cause gradual mental deteriation like
slowness and forgetfulness over prolonged use...again, I'm just trying
to temper the usual polarisation...you know, "all drugs kill
instantly" versus "drugs cause no harm whatsoever"..._neither_ is
actually true...

It does have these kinds of effects, as you yourself note, and the
extent of the effects of any drug differs from person to person (for
instance, smaller people get drunk faster than taller people)...again,
I'm doing what I was doing with Andrew just the same...it would be
wrong to say: "it does nothing whatsoever" as much as "your hands'll
drop off just from looking at it! It's so evil!" or whatever...

But one source - which may not be completely accurate or
representative, perhaps, but convinces me - is that I knew a guy at
school...really sharp witted, bright, always got in a joke almost
before you'd finished a sentence, that kind of thing...didn't see him
for, ooh, ten years...and it's the "juxtaposition" of kind of seeing
the effects all in one go...I noticed it first then someone else
explained that he'd basically done much of nothing else seen I'd seen
him last...it wasn't that he'd turned into a cabbage or anything...you
could still talk to him just fine and stuff...and maybe this isn't
"most people"...but it _does_ have an effect and, at the very least,
there seems to be people like him who are particularly effected in
that way...the way I'd describe it was that his brain had been
"jellified" (I suppose, as "jelly" means something different in
America, I'd best clarified that this is, I think, "jello" in
America...the stuff you make for a kid's birthday party, a kind of
"coloured gelotine pie", so to speak...what you call "jelly", is what
we call "jam", the stuff you'd spread on a piece of toast or
something...makes a kind of difference in interpreting what I
mean...it wasn't "all in little bits" like jam - your "jelly" - would
be but it was shakey and wobbly and awkward...his responses might only
have had a slight pause but it was enough that it became an odd
conversation: "so, how are you these days?" / [ pause that's just that
tiny bit longer than usual ] "...ummm, what? Oh, ummm,
okay...'suppose"...and happening throughout the conversation...a bit
odd, really...it's like talking to a slow or simple person BUT
absolutely no need to talk down in any way because they were still
bright and understand everything...perhaps it was just emphasised
because he'd been so quick-witted before that such a "delay" just
didn't seem like him at all)...

This might not be "representative"...he might be an "extreme
case"...but, then again, if it could happen to one person with this
kind of severity, it's probably but a roll of the dice whether it
would effect someone else at random in a similar way...you might be
"lucky" there...and perhaps most people would also be "lucky"...but
there's a roll of that dice which ain't so "lucky"...who knows if the
next person - someone reading - would go one way or the other on this?
Hey, if it weren't illegal, then perhaps the scientists would have
studied it better to know exactly or at least quite well...as
illegality has other effects: You'd need a kind of "special licence"
to validly look into this subject...who's going to finance you to take
out these surveys? This part _is_ very important for multiple
sclerosis sufferers because, of their own experimentation, there's a
strong consensus amongst them that cannabis actually is one of the
best treatments available for easing their condition around...the
stuff the doctors supply is just, well, "crap" in comparison...but
once something is put under the label of "illegal", there's a force
_against_ studying it, _against_ looking into the medical
applications, _against_ considering whether it's been _rightly_
classified all this time and so forth...

The thing with cannabis, which is why - regardless of its
"illegality" - there are absolutely tons and tons of people who
happily take it regularly with little ill effect...is that it's purely
"historical accident" that this relatively "harmless" drug is
classified as "worse, more serious" than tobacco or alcohol...and once
you stick "illegal" on something, then the machinery which _rightly_
kicks up a fuss about the hard drugs of cocaine and heroin and such,
start kicking in on cannabis too...it's kind of got "stuck" in a
really odd place...there's far worse that's "legal" and its "cousins"
in the "illegal" category are also mostly worse (and _rightly_
cautioned against in the strongest of terms) too...

But this is the strange place that we find ourselves in, due to, as I
say, mostly "historical accident"...the reason tobacco and alcohol are
"legal"? Well, there's _NO_ medical justification for that...it's just
that there was far too many "addicts" around when someone sat down and
thought "okay, this is getting out of hand...we need some laws on the
uses of these drugs created"...and, simply, if they'd said "let's make
tobacco and alcohol illegal, as they rightly should probably be" then
the outcry would have been loud to say the least...

Plus, there's the aspect that as tobacco and alcohol had already
wormed their way in as "acceptable drugs" that the law makers made
these two "exempt" and legal because, well, they were themselves
drinkers and smokers! After all, people who make laws are people
too...they probably go to the pub or bar after a hard day's work
making up laws and then smoke a cigarette while drinking a beer...oh,
yeah, it's perfectly possible that these two are "legal", solely
because the legislators themselves were "addicts" and, thus, were
reluctant to, well, punish themselves...

And, as we know, America _did_ sit down and "re-think" alcohol...on
medical grounds, there's absolutely no excuse for it at all...to
correct the "hypocrisy" present in the law, they had "prohibition" to
put it correctly where it should be from a medical perspective:
_illegal_ (why nothing about tobacco? A case of that being next should
alcohol have worked? Delayed, I suppose, because, well, Sir Walter
Raleigh brought back the tobacco plant from America to Britain...it
comes from America and there's quite an industry around it...not that
the policy makers would always "let it go" because of this...after
all, New York and L.A. were among the first places to put all-out bans
on smoking in public places...we're only talking days that Ireland
stuck out its neck and has done the same but applied it to the entire
country...that'll teach the companies to call themselves things like
"Imperial Tobacco"! NOT a good name to sell yourself to the _Republic_
of Ireland with, eh? No, I don't seriously believe the Irish are doing
it because of that...probably didn't even cross their minds...but it
could only help, not hinder their cause there ;)...

Anyway, they tried "prohibition" on alcohol and, well, it kind of
failed miserably...to put the laws straight on the matter and the
legality more in correspondance with the consequences of the drugs,
doing things on _medical_ rather than "historical" grounds, then this
law made perfect sense...but it worked about as well as it would were
90% of the people heroin users and they tried to "ban" heroin
overnight...people's respect for the law simply disappears with
it...alcohol was too interweaved into people's lives just to "pull the
plug" on it, just like that...

Tobacco will be the first to fall, I think...smoking has nothing to
really recommend it at all...even smokers tend to be _supportive_ of
measures to limit it (like the 60% of smokers that actually
_congratulated_ the Irish government for their new "no smoking in
public places" policy, citing things along the lines of: "oh,
good...don't really want to be a smoker, anyway...something like that
may actually help with giving the horrible things up!" :)...but the
lessons of "prohibition" have been learnt...it'll be "phased out" very
gradually...we can already see some of that in action (I'm sure now
that Ireland has stuck its neck out with the new law, other countries
will feel more confident to follow...and it was New York and L.A.'s
confidence to do it at least city-wide that itself, indeed, gave the
Irish the "inspiration" to go that one step further)...and, even in my
lifetime, there's a noticable and visible _social_ force against
smoking growing...again, like that Irish 60%, I might be a smoker
myself but that doesn't mean I actually in any way "disapprove" of
this kind of thing at all..._if only_ I could just drop the cigarettes
overnight - if tobacco was less addictive than it is - then we could
perhaps think of some radical "overnight" steps...but prohibition
shows the danger of trying to do it too quickly when something is too
interweaved into people's lives...it can backfire gloriously to make
it illegal...just ends up forcing people to be criminals rather than
actually stopping people...

> > (due to
> > the illegality, there actually isn't as much "official" research
into
> > all the long-term effects as you may think...long-time cannabis
users
> > probably know as much, if not more, than the scientists on this
> > one...
>
> Dut to the illegality, current research is difficult, but
marijuana's
> been around for a *long* time. The "Indian Hemp Commission" didn't
find
> much wrong with it. The Army Surgeon General's report on usage in
the
> Panama Canal Zone didn't find much wrong with it. The LaGuardia
> Commission didn't find much wrong with it. Even Nixon's commission
on
> drugs didn't find much wrong with it. But all the fact's aren't
in...

Yeah, it's not that they haven't looked into it at all...just not as
much as is needed for that "definitive" conclusion...heck, they still
find the odd "new" thing out about alcohol and tobacco and fat
consumption and stuff every once in a while...and there's nothing
stopping them there at all...

You need that "definitive" conclusion (which, scientifically, requires
not just looking into it all in _detail_...and looking into that
_detail_ over a _long period of time_...it requires _more than one_
person to conduct the research...it's the old scientific thing: An
experiment must be _repeatable_ and a "conclusion" like this must have
been actually _repeated_...from a mathematical angle, you can always
draw a straight line between any two points on a graph that you'll
want it repeated a good number of times more than simply two, as well
(the "degrees of freedom" in maths-speak...statisticians actually
"chop off" some of their results and stuff in order to account for
this point...if you take two readings and then try to work out if
there's a "linear relationship" then, ummm, you'll _always find one_!
Two data points, basically, is NOT enough to know whether it really is
a "linear relationship" or not...you need three at a minimum...but, to
be sure, you should _throw as many pieces of data at the graph as is
humanly possible_...the more data, the more likely it is to be
correct...yes, "likely to be correct"...statistics is actually a very
loose subject...oh, I know this point annoys people because everyone
"worships the holy numbers" but it's true...statistics is _known to be
flawed_...and just "counting things up" is a recipe for mistakes when
you fail to apply the correct _interpretation_...wonder if I'll be
"attacked" on this point again...but I ain't budging, as I know my
statistics and it _is_ NOT as reliable a "science" as most people take
it to be...when in a "predictive" mode, statistics is _complete
fiction_, for Pete's sake! It's more reliable than making a wild guess
without looking at any facts at all...but it _ain't_ that much more
reliable...and the false perception that it is has been a _dangerous_
thing, when we see governments making policy based on statistical
"targets" and so forth ;)...and no result is entirely trusted - and it
shouldn't be - unless a bunch of different doctors everywhere all end
up with the same results...it's the only way you can be totally sure
that you're seeing a proper _effect_ of the marijuana...and not that
there's some accidental "bias" in your results, incorrectly picking up
something else and applying it as an "effect" of marijuana wrongly :)
or all that happens is that someone will just go and "dispute" it - in
_either_ direction - to suit their "personal preference" on what that
conclusion should be...

But, yeah, what _has_ been looked into tends to actually put marijuana
as among the least troublesome drugs around...as I've been saying, the
"legal" ones are far wore...even abuse of things like prescription
medicines have more dangerous problems attached...this ain't saying
that marijuana is "angelic and totally harmless" but of the drugs
that's out there, it's one of the the ones that has one of the best
claims to being closest to that...

And, as I was stressing, the big problem actually comes from the fact
that it's normally _mixed with tobacco_ and _smoked_...smoking is not
a particularly healthy way of ingesting _anything_...you're always
going to get _something_ nasty in the smoke, whatever it is you're
burning...say, carbon monoxide or whatever (when you burn a candle and
hold something metal over it, after all, you get black "soot" all of
it...that's a layer of carbon for you there...even with a perfectly
"harmless" substance, the act of burning it and then smoking it is
_itself_ a big, big part of the problem...not just marijuana, tobacco
comes under that too...although, with tobacco, they've found quite
absurd things like miniscule - but present - amounts of _arsenic_ in
them! When you've got something as highly toxic as that in there,
that's why the carbon part is often overlooked...not because it's
"just fine" but because "you've got to get your priorities
straight"...arsenic or cyanide would be a _murderer's choice_ of
poison, after all ;)...

So, what you get from tobacco smoking, most marijuana smokers are also
getting from their "spliffs"...not because marijuana has any
"nicotine" in it...but because _tobacco_ does...and the two get smoked
_together_, usually...hence, the statistics and a general caution
about it...

Because, for instance, I know a few people who "experimented" with
marijuana...didn't smoke _anything_ beforehand...and then, later on,
decided to give up or cut back on the cannabis...not their thing
anymore...but, well, the _tobacco_ they'd been taking with the
marijuana is another thing entirely...nicotine is a _highly addictive_
substance...so, they could just give up marijuana like that...there's
not much problem doing that at all, as it isn't _in itself_
addictive...BUT the combination with tobacco can cause problems...you
could give up the "spliffs" but you're still likely to carry on with
cigarettes for the nicotine component that the tobacco in them was
giving you...

And, here's a potential worry: If you've never separately smoked just
tobacco and don't realise that any strong addiction _must_ be coming
from the tobacco and not the marijuana, _then_ we have a potential
problem that people might carry on smoking "spliffs", unaware that
they could actually leave out the marijuana itself, no problems...

The solution to such a problem would be that, for once, they gave
_frank and honest_ information about these things...not to convince
people like Andrew that there's "nicotine" in marijuana itself...but
that there's _tobacco_ alongside marijuana in your typical "reefer"
cigarette and _that's_ where your "nicotine" is coming from...and we
should all know the dangers and how strongly addictive tobacco is from
looking around us because that's legal and the problem isn't "made
invisible" by law...you can see the guy who still smokes - because of
the addiction - even when they have to take drastic action as poking a
hole in their neck and connecting them up to oxygen bottles or
whatever...but, even then, they'll still want to smoke...the
_addictiveness_ of tobacco is probably not emphasised enough in those
adverts...because _THAT_ is the big, big problem...yes, we should know
about the health effects so as to explain _why_ you wouldn't want to
be addicted to cigarettes...but it's very important to stress to
people the part about: "if you start smoking to any significant level,
then you'll get addicted to it and that addiction is
_STRONG_...amongst the strongest addictions there is"...

There's not much mention, for instance, that the strength of nicotine
addiction is _more_ than things like heroin...the _big difference_
between the two is that heroin withdrawl is a whole lot more painful
and traumatic...but the actual level of addictiveness - how strongly
it grabs hold of someone - really is won outright by tobacco over
practically any other drug you care to name...yes, even the hard drugs
it can happily compete with in "addiction" terms (I stress again, the
_type_ of "withdrawl" - "cold turkey" - on the big stuff is completely
different and, yeah, looks a whole lot worse by a long way on a simple
nicotine craving...BUT this is actually a separate thing from how
_tightly_ a drug holds you in its addiction...nicotine is, quite
simply, one of the worst drugs ever discovered for that...after all,
smoking cigarettes doesn't "give" you _anything_...other drugs make
you "feel happy" or "chill out" or whatever...cigarettes do _nothing_
for a smoker but waste their money, slowly kill them and get in the
way of things (such as having to pop out to smoke a cigarette, as a
building is "no smoking" or whatever ;)...and, yet, people still smoke
them...even when they are totally opposed to the idea on every other
score - because, yes, I myself am a cigarette smoker too - they still
go and do it...that begins, perhaps, to give a flavour of the measure
of addictiveness we're talking about...tobacco gives you _nothing_,
basically, it only takes away your money and life...at least other
drugs actually tend to _do_ something to explain why people accept the
cost and risk attached...but, with nicotine, the entire thing is
basically _addiction_...massive, strong addiction...I mean, even with
nicotine patches, even with nicotine gum, even with special "giving
up" plan wallcharts, even with everyone supporting you, even with
genuine 100% determination to give up, even with all of these kinds of
things, people are still known to _fail_ to do it...the strength of
nicotine's addictive qualities is NOT STRESS ENOUGH, if you ask me
;)...

And addiction is an important point because there are serious problems
to do with addiction that have nothing to do with drugs...for
instance, gamblers actually have "gambler's anonymous" and they
operate almost identically to "alcoholic's anonymous"...you meet with
the group for "support", you must overcome you're "denial" by talking
to the group about your problems...and so on and so forth...

Addiction itself - _whatever_ is causing it - is a massive problem in
its own right...with many drugs, this is kind of the chief thing
that's a worry...because, without addiction, you simply explain the
problems and dangerous risks of various drugs and people will go: "oh,
that's not particularly clever"...and were they to take the drugs,
then _without addiction_, they could simply say: "right, this is
crap...can't be bothered with this anymore" and just stop...

Hence, one thing in marijuana's defence is that you _can_ do
that...you really can just wake up and think "right, don't really want
to do that anymore" and just stop...unlike much of the other things
we're talking about here, marijuana itself has no real addictive
qualities...the only problem might be "psychological addiction"...that
is, you're so used to doing it that it's part of your "routine" and
you go to it out of "force of habit"...but there's no physical
addiction at all...so long as you say to yourself: "don't really want
anything to do with that" then you'll find no problems...I did once or
twice smoke marijuana, I don't anymore and I have no intention or need
to do ever do it again...and there was NO problems with just
stopping...marijuana itself doesn't work like that...you just choose
not to do it and, hey presto, you're not doing it anymore...no
addiction included...

On the other hand, I'm a tobacco smoker (and was before attempting any
cannabis, which gives me an appreciation of what parts come from
_tobacco_ and have nothing to do with marijuana whatsoever) and this
I've attempted to give up numerous times...even used things like those
"patches" (which actually, to be fair, worked incredibly well...I
actually failed there because I forgot to buy patches, ran out, went
into a panic and bought cigarettes again...the patches were good
because you could actually stop smoking but had no ills effects at all
from doing so because you were getting the nicotine pumped in from the
patch...then, once you're used to simply not holding a cigarette in
your hand, slowly drop the patch strength to get used to having less
and less nicotine until you can attempt not having any
whatsoever...it's a great plan...and it probably would have worked for
me as well - I was doing really well on it, no "cheating" or
anything - had I not simply, well, cocked up following the plan...I
just messed up the plan half-way through...and the problem is that you
kind of have to build yourself up to be determined to give up and that
just deflates all your enthusiasm for the idea completely...but I
_will_ be trying again, for sure, and Hopefully won't *** it up this
next time...what I now realise is that because nicotine is so strongly
addictive, you've got to be sure to be pretty "strict" with following
the plan and having the patches on all the time...if you let things
slip, then the nicotine kicks in and drags you into the store to buy
some more cigarettes if you drop your guard at all...yes, to people
who've never had addictions, this probably all sounds very
ludicrous...like: "hey, if you wanted to stop, then why didn't you
just stop?"...well, there is a damn good answer to that question BUT
don't ever find that out for yourself! It's better to simply not
understand addiction - trust me, just leave it as an unanswered
question like "what is the meaning of life?" and be happy with the
fact that you don't understand the answer - than to actually have to
deal with it ;)...

But, note, there's a whole bunch of things you can get addicted to -
which cause major social problems - that have nothing to do with
drugs...gambling is a particularly obvious case...the gambler gets
"addicted" to the body's own chemicals that it releases in times of
worry and then the "relief" chemical which makes you feel really good
when you "win"...this stuff is not to be underestimated either...it
can grab hold of someone with every bit as much grip as some of the
drugs like alcohol and so forth...because the chemicals - the
"drugs" - are coming from the gambler's own body, it might be tempting
to think that this isn't a physical addiction...but, nope, that's not
true...they are, in a sense, "hooked on a drug"...it's just one that
comes naturally from their own bodies and doesn't have to be bought or
injected or smoked or anything...and the act of gambling with big sums
of money all the time gets these chemicals rushing through the blood
in a really big way that what we all get from time to time - feeling
really, really great for "winning" something like a quiz or a
competition - is something that they get themselves hooked on that,
simply, they've got to have it _all the time_...and the problem gets
worse because to do that with gambling, you need lots of money
(because bookies simply bias the odds mathematically in their
favour...bookmakers _never_ lose...the literally rig the game that way
so that they can't overall...well, after all, they are businesses and
they need to make money to keep going...this is how these places
work...it's a _fact_: they _never_ lose overall because they control
the odds and they know all the "probabilities" and simply set the odds
in such a way that, overall, they will always be winning...if you
constantly gamble over and over, then it's simply _fact_: You've
already _LOST_...in fact, if you watch professional gamblers who make
an income that way, their skill is actually not gambling all the time
but knowing exactly when to make that _single bet_...they try to
out-wit the rigged odds of the bookmakers...but you really, really
need to know what you're doing there and you can _still_ lose..."luck"
is still a major component for anyone but the bookmakers themselves
;)...

It's also not something to easily dismiss from the fact that gamblers
can, yes, get so addicted that, like seriously addicted drug users,
they start to take up _crime_ to feed their highly expensive
habit...they can start to lose their common sense completely under the
addiction, just like a drugs user can...it's easy to look at gamblers
and think that this isn't quite the same kind of "illness" thing that
drugs users have...but the parallels are more _alike_ than they are
different...none of that kind of thing should be underestimated for
the "hold" it can take on _anyone_...it is wise to keep away from all
of it...and if you do venture near, then don't let your guard
down...let the brain do all the decisions _logically_ (yes, smoking is
a _ludicrously stupid habit to have_...always remember this :), not
"how you feel" because that _will_ deceive you...

> >>It also drops their motivation and productivity far more
> >>than most other drugs.
> >
> > Well, Frank captured the essence on this one: There's no disputing
> > with that...of course, cannabis users would consider that this is
> > "chilling out" and is kind of _the point_ of taking it in the
first
> > place ;)...
>
> There's probably such a thing as too "chilled" - there's certainly
such
> a thing as not "chilled" enough! I showed clear signs of
"amotivational
> syndrome" before I started smoking pot, but it seems that *might* be
one
> you could pin on it. But the evidence might not even bear that
out...
> there's one study - postal workers who tested positive on a piss
test
> were evaluated better by their superiors than those who tested
negative.
> I don't think you can *count* on that...

Ah, it swings both ways, doesn't it? As I always try to point out,
practically everything in this life is actually about
_balance_...problem is, our culture tends to prefer more "absolutist"
things like: "This is always wrong!", "That is always right!",
blah-blah-blah...

Because, yup, cannabis can "chill out" someone to the point of sucking
some of the motivation and enthusiasm out of them...it _can_ do
this...

But, on the other hand, look to the other extreme..._stress_ is a
growing problem and causes a whole lot more "lost productivity"...as
well as day's off, medical bills and so on and so forth...

So, you have to consider: What's worse for "productivity"? Having
someone who does actually turn up for work and does actually do things
but, sure, they are probably a touch "too chilled out" from time to
time about things...or, on the other hand, someone driving themselves
ill with stress and worry that they _can't work at all_ and have to
have days off work...plus, when they do come back, you'll probably
have to permanently "ease up" on them or you'll only go triggering off
their "stress" once more?

Exactly; Going too fast is _worse_ than going too slow, even when our
target is "going as fast as we can"...think of it like an engine
(don't worry, no details this time so I should have it right ;)...if
you push it too hard then you endanger simply breaking it...that it
just blows up on you because you've pushed the engine too far and too
hard that the components simply break...if you don't push it as fast
as it possibly can then, sure, you're losing a bit of "productivity"
there but the engine doesn't break...so it keeps on working...the
ideal, of course, is exactly at the fastest it can run comfortably
without stressing it too much...but actually maintaining that
_balance_ is, unfortunately, harder done than said...because even
without drugs or stress or anything, people simply have their "off
days" and days when they do incredibly well, anyway...it's not
"static" even before problems like drugs and stress are brought into
it...

Plus, when people drink lots and lots of coffee in the office, why are
we ignoring this as the _drug_ that it is, which could contribute to
someone pushing themselves too hard and drinking too much that they
actually start to get "unproductive" all over again?

Oh, it's NOT a simple picture whatsoever...and it just won't work to
try to "force" it to be simpler than it really is with "black and
white" ideas...most "productivity" is lost to the illnesses brought on
by pushing themselves _too hard_...the business executives tend to
over-do things in this direction...there actually is generally no
great problem with "lack of productivity", really...what it is that
they think to themselves: "hey, if we could push this person a little
further, we could get twice as much products out of them and then get
twice the productivity for exactly the same amount of wages"...and,
thus, their policies tend to try to "push the engine" right up to its
maximum...in doing so, they really do risk blowing it
completely...and, correspondingly, the increase in "stress" and other
problems relating to being pushed too hard are growing at a very fast
and worrying rate in recent times...it's that "greed" stuff kicking in
over common sense all over again...in the actual statistics on this
matter, the biggest problem by far is too much pushing on
"productivity"...not that there's actually any great armies of
employees who're sitting around not pulling their weight...

Stress is a real and serious condition which is the cause of more loss
of productivity than practically anything else...and it's on the
increase exactly because of _greed_ constantly wanting to push things
further to get "value for money" out of their employees...after all,
if I can produce twice as many things when pushed then the company
only needs to hire just me, rather than two people to do the same
job...that's, in effect, like _halving_ everyone's wages...when put
like that, you can see exactly why people are being pushed so hard all
the time in this "rat race" of ours...don't hire three people but hire
one person to do three jobs and make them work constantly at their
absolute physical and mental maximum...

This idea sounds great for "making profits" until, oops, running at
such a "maximum" all the time and no-one will be able to take that
forever...it _will_ drive someone ill to get this greedy and obsessive
about pushing "productivity" to the maximum...

In fact, you will get the most "productivity" out of _hiring more
people_...this is the "immense parallelism" argument...more people can
do more work _simultaneously_...if they all work to their absolute
best, your "productivity" will sky-rocket...and it's still damn good
even when people "slack off" a little (and though you may not want to
do so for your "profits" then, simply, you really do need to allow
_some_ "slack" in the system...run it at maximum stress all the time
and eventually something will simply "give" and break...if it's a
person that breaks, then you, in fact, loose them totally...they'll
have to be given "days off" to recover)...

Note, I've heard it said that "stress is just an imaginary illness"
(unsurprisingly, from a company boss writing an article in a newspaper
about it ;)...but, no, it _is_ a real complaint...I don't at all
doubt, mind you, that some people think "easy money" when they here
the talk about "stress" and then walk up to their boss, _faking_ that
they are "suffering terrible stress" so that they can get free extra
"days off" from work...BUT, it _is_ a _real_ condition and
problem...the presence of those who "take advantage of the system"
doesn't mean that there isn't a real problem there...much like, in
fact, how there undoubtedly _are_ people who claim to "welfare" that
they have "back problems" which "prevent them from finding work"...and
it's all just a lie...they pop off the next morning and do some "cash
in hand" work which doesn't show up on any work records
anywhere...then pop in to claim their welfare payments for being
unemployed with "back problems"...a total fabrication just to "take
advantage"...BUT this, of course, doesn't mean that "back trouble"
isn't a real medical condition that you can have...and if you did have
it then, yeah, it's very possible it might prevent you from doing some
types of work (like building...can't go around carrying heavy weights
or it'll make things worse)...the presence of _some_ "fakers" trying
to swindle the system doesn't mean that something is
"imaginary"...it's a _real_ condition...as to how much of the
_claimed_ "stress" is real "stress" is another matter...I wouldn't
vouch for all of it being real...in fact, I'm almost certain that, for
sure, _someone_ amongst all the claimants is probably lying
somewhere...but, well, if one person walked into a hospital and said
"I have a medical problem" and it turned out not to be true, you
wouldn't then go and shut down all hospitals everywhere, presuming
that "everyone must also be lying...and all diseases and illnesses are
completely 'imaginary'"", would you?

And, regardless of whether a particular case is "real" or not, you're
_still_ losing "productivity" to it, anyway...even if you you could
prove it was a lie, then you'd probably fire them for delibrately
defrauding the company, anyway (not exactly a "realiable" employee,
after all...and if it was true fraud, then you'd be perfectly allowed
to "dispense" with them under even the most "touchy feely" employment
laws for a case of _outright fraud_ against the company...it's a kind
of "embezzlement" almost)...so, you'd _still_ be losing
"productivity", regardless...

Beth :)

Quantcast