IGX

Inert gases are inert.

Here's a decent write up of the world in reality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -portugal/

Remember kids....when you're trying to attribute COSTS (gross) to a particular class of drug user, what you're measuring is not the costs of their "crime" what you're measuring the cost that society has been willing to extract from its tax base to pay for the enforcement of aforementioned drug laws. A statistic like this is actually a scathing inidcment of a system that is willing to incur tremendous costs on society for a consensual activity.

This is like me lamenting at the COST of for mental anguish at unraveling the twisted fucktarded logic of a Crossfitters when in fact only a nonce would bother engaging (guilty) with a crossfitter at all.

So....for those who are bothering to parse the ill-logic of certain mental cripples.....claiming that drug users inherently cost society (if we can confer that Societal status on that cesspool of paki-shite that is the once great British Empire) too much money because we choose to enforce laws against certain victimless crimes (Yes Dorothy there are plenty of other crimes committed by drug users, the great preponderance of those being driven by alcohol in this great land) is akin to the logic of your big brother grabbing your arm and smacking you over the head with it and whist telling you to quit hitting yourself...

The Drug War in short.....



The only fair way to review the data (again, which basic bitches cant be bothered to do is to look at the actual cost of acquisitive crime (about 1/3 of total) directly attributable to supply side problems that junkies have due to their addiction and contemplate if those would be higher or lower in a less punitive system.

Hmmm..maybe should study idea instead of running jib.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Remember kids....when you're trying to attribute COSTS (gross) to a particular class of drug user, what you're measuring is not the costs of their "crime" what you're measuring the cost that society has been willing to extract from its tax base to pay for the enforcement of aforementioned drug laws. A statistic like this is actually a scathing inidcment of a system that is willing to incur tremendous costs on society for a consensual activity.

This is like me lamenting at the COST of for mental anguish at unraveling the twisted fucktarded logic of a Crossfitters when in fact only a nonce would bother engaging (guilty) with a crossfitter at all.

You're missing a key point-- the anti-drug side has the law and public policy on their side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drug side. Failing to recognize that does your side no favors.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Remember kids....when you're trying to attribute COSTS (gross) to a particular class of drug user, what you're measuring is not the costs of their "crime" what you're measuring the cost that society has been willing to extract from its tax base to pay for the enforcement of aforementioned drug laws. A statistic like this is actually a scathing inidcment of a system that is willing to incur tremendous costs on society for a consensual activity.

This is like me lamenting at the COST of for mental anguish at unraveling the twisted fucktarded logic of a Crossfitters when in fact only a nonce would bother engaging (guilty) with a crossfitter at all.

You're missing a key point-- the anti-drug side has the law and public policy on their side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drug side. Failing to recognize that does your side no favors.

I'm not missing Shit, Son...

Why do you think I'm on about it? Because a great deal about what people think about this subject is flat fucking wrong in terms of pharmacology, actual vs. tangential effects of drugs, presence if any and severity of physical harm. Unless you study the chemistry or have taken the actual drug, you literally know less than nothing about it. With the minuscule amounts of new data coming out of Med MJ states and Full legal status states, heads are slowly being removed from asses.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Remember kids....when you're trying to attribute COSTS (gross) to a particular class of drug user, what you're measuring is not the costs of their "crime" what you're measuring the cost that society has been willing to extract from its tax base to pay for the enforcement of aforementioned drug laws. A statistic like this is actually a scathing inidcment of a system that is willing to incur tremendous costs on society for a consensual activity.

This is like me lamenting at the COST of for mental anguish at unraveling the twisted fucktarded logic of a Crossfitters when in fact only a nonce would bother engaging (guilty) with a crossfitter at all.

You're missing a key point-- the anti-drug side has the law and public policy on their side. The burden of proof is on the pro-drug side. Failing to recognize that does your side no favors.

I'm not missing Shit, Son...

Why do you think I'm on about it? Because a great deal about what people think about this subject is flat fucking wrong in terms of pharmacology, actual vs. tangential effects of drugs, presence if any and severity of physical harm. Unless you study the chemistry or have taken the actual drug, you literally know less than nothing about it. With the minuscule amounts of new data coming out of Med MJ states and Full legal status states, heads are slowly being removed from asses.

Tacit knowledge. Got it.

This is probably the best book on the subject. Not sure it it's been updated with the recent addiction research but for someone like you T (who I presume, maybe wrongly, to be a glass of wine with dinner, beer on the weekends guy) is fantastically informative because it includes both best available research and chillingly accurate subjective narratives from habitual users of the full range of mind altering drugs most people will run across including my personal "faves" (NOT) Ayahuasca and Antidepressants.

I started typing this while waiting for the flight, before a few latest posts have been added to the thread.

Blanket statements such as "99% of crime is caused by heroin" are not telling much. Heroin by itself - the derivative of morphine - is used legally as the painkiller, cough suppressant and anti-diarrhoeal. Up until 1920s it was in may over the counter medicines available in American pharmacies. Large problem in its use is the lack of standardisation, therefore one batch may contain more opioid than the next one.

Just to compare, heroin caused 952 deaths in England in 2014, alcohol killed 6,490 in 2012 (along with over 1 million hospital admissions for alcohol related morbidity). And as impressive as the cost of the crime related to heroin is, large portion of it is due to the legal status of the drug.

I used to work with the Gynae looking after drug addicted mother in one of the low socio-economic areas of Sydney. According to him daily supply of heroin was about AU$20 for the user (about five years ago). Industrially produced Morphine costs about AU$1 - 1.50. Would dropping the profits by the factor of 20 make criminals lose interest in this business? I think it is likely. Would making the substance legal remove the stigma and encourage people to seek help for their addiction reduce overdoses and corresponding cost? The data from Sydney clearly demonstrates it. Moreover, if the drug was legal we could come to schools and teach kids about how to use Naloxone. It would be possible to set up heroin dens - similarly to coffee shops in Amsterdam - where the users would be under some supervision of the owner.

But all this requires turning away from the usual knee-jerk reaction typical for every lay person not capable of looking further than the nose when confronted with a social problem.

The reality is: people have used consciousness altering substances since the beginning of times, from alcohol to various psychedelics. This is not likely to stop. Moreover, taking into account the increases in mental issues - depression and anxiety to start with - the interest to mind altering drugs is likely to increase.

The 99% figure may sound outrageously, conveniently made up but it's from the ONS here in the UK so it needs to be accepted. Saying it's caused largely by the legality of the drug is ignoring the fact other drugs are just as illegal, and would therefore share a similar load of the total if what you were saying is true. We have the NHS here so that's going to have a massive impact on our figure, treating and keeping alive smack heads is always going to be more expensive than the weed smoker who bumbles along minding his own business.

But crime that goes along with drug addiction is still going to have a big chunk in that figure. Another stat I saw was that the average heroin addict will spend twice the average mortgage payment per month on their fix, and steal or shoplift about £26 K worth of goods per year to feed it.

Obviously if something is legalised then you won't be spending money investigating and incarcerating the criminals anymore but this is true of all crimes so it's no argument to me.

I don't know why people who say that making drugs cheaper, more available and less socially stigmatised will reduce damage will in the same breath say that the most available, cheap and socially acceptable drug, alcohol, causes the most damage of all. It doesn't work.

The results from Portugal suggests that decriminalisation has a minimal affect on levels of drug use either way (lots less people are dying of ODs but that's mainly due to a large investment in treatment, which is why austerity is putting these figures at risk) and that attendant crime will remain about the same, with some going up and some going down. To the surprise of no one, perhaps the problems drugs cause aren't as simple to fix by either banning or allowing them.

To me, the real knee jerk reaction is saying 'just allow em all'. It's a position of giving up. Just like saying 'people have always done it, and always will'.

Governments should definitely allows and profit from a lot of the things that are currently banned. They could also consider buying up all the opiates they can if you like. It might be cheaper than trying to beat the big movers. The point where I stop agreeing with you is when you say that it might as well be dished out the populace nice and cheap at this point.

The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist. The debate is far from settled or even really begun as Turd has pointed out.

You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

Now you're othering Sex Workers.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

That's binary garbage thinking. You and I to a degree are tilting an imaginary windmill when we talk about the political activism on the subject versus public policy making. Your dead wrong about treatment but that's OK. I don't expect you to be this deep in the weeds.

I'll allow your point that harm reduction has a massive uphill battle in terms of entrenched arguments and you will have to allow there is ample science on BOTH sides to fuel a legitimate query in public policy about harm reduction vs. prohibition. But lets not lose track of the state of the game here..Prohibitionists have made it incredibly difficult to even DO the science on scheduled drugs, and further, the stated rationale for how harmful and to what degree certain drugs are "Bad" is patently false. That's not scientifically debatable. The pharmacology of chemicals in the body is incredibly well understood. The behavior that stems from that chemistry (addiction: to the degree that's a real thing) as projected onto society is, as you allude to, remains a very mixed bag.

However, what we know is this, the prohibition model is costing our country massive treasure and lives and seems to be a near complete failure in its stated goal of reducing drug use.

This is a model that we have failed nationally on at least once in a huge way. (I would argue we continue to fail in several other normative human activities including but not limited to prostitution)

There is robust data coming out of the States that a combination of decriminalization and legalization has been initially very successful with Marijuana.

In the treatment setting there is very robust data supporting harm reduction that continues to expand with the two big nasties in terms of lives and dollars spent jailing users. (Alcohol and Heroin).

So...we're at a threshold where Prohibition has never looked less helpful and continues to look less and less effective and more and more costly. How many dollars and lives do we spend continuing this experiment vs, taking a measured and step-wise approach to an expanded harm reduction model.? That is the question smart people are asking on both sides. National MJ standards are coming. They are coming regardless of science.

I'll steal and modify a Rumsfield quote..."You don't go into policy making with the science you want, you go in with the science you have."

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

We have a long unambiguous pile of empirical data that says that the goals of the prohibition model are unachievable.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

We have a long unambiguous pile of empirical data that says that the goals of the prohibition model are unachievable.

Have you ever read through treatment policy lit? A lot of nonsense with just enough badly used stats to make it seem legit.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

That's binary garbage thinking. You and I to a degree are tilting an imaginary windmill when we talk about the political activism on the subject versus public policy making. Your dead wrong about treatment but that's OK. I don't expect you to be this deep in the weeds.

I'll allow your point that harm reduction has a massive uphill battle in terms of entrenched arguments and you will have to allow there is ample science on BOTH sides to fuel a legitimate query in public policy about harm reduction vs. prohibition.

Couldn't disagree more, both from reading the lit and from having friends and family in the treatment business (multiple sides of it)-- the cost/benefit numbers for treatment, at least when dealing with poorer people, aren't very good. Getting good numbers is exacerbated by the reality that treatment pros are very often former addicts themselves, and generally not the see through the bullshit kind, and the bulk of the lit is poorly designed sociological nonsense.

I think we agree on a few things: that impoverished state and local agencies are hooked on federal anti-drug funding; that impoverished state and local agencies are hooked on easy revenue that anti-drug stances can bring (civil forfeitures for example); that the various definitions of impairment is not very good (for ex. what should the legal THC limit for driving and operating machinery), and that they need to be well defined before broader legalization is realistic; and that not all drugs are equal.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

We have a long unambiguous pile of empirical data that says that the goals of the prohibition model are unachievable.

Have you ever read through treatment policy lit? A lot of nonsense with just enough badly used stats to make it seem legit.

Citation needed

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The phenomenally brilliant thing is that all the evidence you need to recognize there is at the very least, serious and significant problems with a prohibition model that are obviates by a harm reduction model are right in the open. There is not one single competent public policy maker of any political stripe that doesn't understand this, yet mental cripples on the street and in congress persist.

Be honest, public policy lit from the treatment/legalization side is pretty much all garbage too. Doesn't matter which side you choose, you're picking for limited corn in a lot of piles.

We have a long unambiguous pile of empirical data that says that the goals of the prohibition model are unachievable.

Have you ever read through treatment policy lit? A lot of nonsense with just enough badly used stats to make it seem legit.

Citation needed

I think Turd and I are talking different side of the issue. I don't have any basis to question his assertion that the treatment literature is garbage. The basis of addiction "science" (the rats in a cage) is flat wrong...but that's ok..We don't need massive wells of NEW evidence to know what we're doing is a failure. That much is obvious. I can't disagree that much of the "treatment" models very likely yields poor results. The question is, how to we incrementally loosen the reigns so that actual science can be done?

My take is that this reluctance to do science is driven by a massive investment in the current system which fundamentally misunderstands "addiction" . In short, I don't believe it exists in the way treatment scammers approach it. I think there's reason to investigate if what's being "treated" in fact is a whole other set of psychological phenomena including PTSD and depression...and lets' be honest. Poverty, race and class. None of that matters however. Again..the delta is not between full prohibition and full legalization. It's between targeted decriminalization and the current utter failure.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:The 99% figure may sound outrageously, conveniently made up but it's from the ONS here in the UK so it needs to be accepted. Saying it's caused largely by the legality of the drug is ignoring the fact other drugs are just as illegal, and would therefore share a similar load of the total if what you were saying is true. We have the NHS here so that's going to have a massive impact on our figure, treating and keeping alive smack heads is always going to be more expensive than the weed smoker who bumbles along minding his own business.

But crime that goes along with drug addiction is still going to have a big chunk in that figure. Another stat I saw was that the average heroin addict will spend twice the average mortgage payment per month on their fix, and steal or shoplift about £26 K worth of goods per year to feed it.

Obviously if something is legalised then you won't be spending money investigating and incarcerating the criminals anymore but this is true of all crimes so it's no argument to me.

I don't know why people who say that making drugs cheaper, more available and less socially stigmatised will reduce damage will in the same breath say that the most available, cheap and socially acceptable drug, alcohol, causes the most damage of all. It doesn't work.

The results from Portugal suggests that decriminalisation has a minimal affect on levels of drug use either way (lots less people are dying of ODs but that's mainly due to a large investment in treatment, which is why austerity is putting these figures at risk) and that attendant crime will remain about the same, with some going up and some going down. To the surprise of no one, perhaps the problems drugs cause aren't as simple to fix by either banning or allowing them.

To me, the real knee jerk reaction is saying 'just allow em all'. It's a position of giving up. Just like saying 'people have always done it, and always will'.

Governments should definitely allows and profit from a lot of the things that are currently banned. They could also consider buying up all the opiates they can if you like. It might be cheaper than trying to beat the big movers. The point where I stop agreeing with you is when you say that it might as well be dished out the populace nice and cheap at this point.

The fact that the stats are coming from ONS does not mean at all that they have to be accepted. Most important stats regarding drug use are not reliable because there is no reliable measure of the prevalence. What's the proportion of the users that become hard core degraded addicts? The very fact alcohol produces most of the damage indicates that a few things. First of all, because of its legal status it is most used and therefore skews the stats. But, more importantly, it also indicates that alcohol may be the worst drug to be made legal, especially in isolation. Making light narcotics available is likely to lead to the decrease in alcohol consumption.

Do patients of Methadone clinics commit as much crime to get the drugs as undiagnosed heroin addicts? So, maybe providing cheaper alternatives does help to reduce crime?

Stats from Portugal are more than convincing. While the use has not changed much since decriminalisation (though there is a definite downtrend), but "use" per se is not only not a precisely defined term, but also not the parameter of primary importance. What is important are the negative consequences, and this is where data from Portugal is quite strong. Drug related deaths, drug related crime and HIV rates dropped dramatically. You can deny the feasibility of crime reduction by legalisation, but the key is to decide what crime is and what it is not. Treating a murderer the same way (or lighter) as the dealer caught with the bag of weed or twenty grams of a chemical does not make sense.

The most important point, however, is that the existing policy DOES NOT WORK. It draws more and more resources and puts more people in jail every year (both of which has the ripple effect for years to come), drugs are becoming more available, prevalence of use and mortality increasing. You can take the moralistic position of "we are not going to give up" - even though only idiots can continue the same course of action that clearly leads nowhere for thirty years - or look at facts soberly and admit that policy makers should try try something else. No, not "free drugs for all", but careful changes accompanied by continuous monitoring and necessary adjustments along the way.

It's going to be very hard to move anywhere if you are going to discount any facts that might not fit. It doesn't matter what the proportion of users to addicts is to society. Most people are not going to be happy shouldering the 15.4 billion cost so that the majority or minority who can live a normal life around crack or heroin can have their indulgence.

Your insistence that alcohol is legal therefore more people use it defeats your own argument that making something legal and socially acceptable will lead to less use of other narcotics. And you'll get no argument from me that alcohol being legal while other milder drugs aren't is daft.

I believe that methadone clinics do indeed lower crime, which is the entire point. If heroin was legal, cheap and less stigmatised how many addicts would seek out a methadone prescription? The alternative to expensive heroin being cheaper heroin is no alternative at all.

The only people convinced by the data from Portugal being a result of decriminalisation are journalists with an agenda. As people actually involved in the system in Portugal are at pains to point out what made the actual difference is a big investment in treatment. No surprise there. The NTA here in the UK did similar work without the legal status of drugs changing (looky here, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... raphic.pdf and see that drug use has fallen on the uk over the last ten years), and now austerity has bit these gains are under threat, exactly as in Portugal. Like most societal ills, money is going to go further than arbitrary legal changes.

Interestingly, a big change in Portugal has been to treat addicts differently under the law. That's a two tier legal system, and I bet anyone here who thinks it's a good idea to treat addicts differently in the eyes of the law would spit feathers at the notion that the same should be done for Muslims with their Sharia courts. Basically, in Portugal if you steal something because you want a new motorbike you'll be bollocked and punished. Steal something because you want a bag of heroin and you'll be given a kiss and a cuddle and treatement. And this is supposed to be a justice system. I bet it's a massive comfort to people who have lost loved ones to terrorism that the people who help fund it are treated so humanely.

I am in no way arguing that the course of action should not change. As I have pointed out, I think it's stupid that most drugs are prohibited. Even the government here described the use of harder drugs as Problem drug use, which makes me wonder what they consider other use to be.

Let's target our efforts on the drugs that cause the misery. The ones that cause the crime and bring the victims into this so called victimless crime. You could indeed do this with careful changes accompanied by continuous monitoring and necessary adjustments along the way and you'll see big improvements, I suspect.

It's absolutely nothing like your shit example. Drug court diversions is a massive harm reduction revenue savings measure used consistently in the US for nonviolent offenders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_court

http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/drug-courts/pages/

Fucking Dolt. Just ride the pine for a while. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:
The only people convinced by the data from Portugal being a result of decriminalisation are journalists with an agenda. As people actually involved in the system in Portugal are at pains to point out what made the actual difference is a big investment in treatment..

Fuckin Dolt Part Duex.

http://ukleap.org/portugal-drug-policy- ... -overdose/

Oh look...both sides of the debate are contemplating Portugal.

http://www.policeone.com/drug-interdict ... ug-policy/

And the UN....

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2 ... rtugal.pdf

Blaidd Drwg wrote:And the UN....

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2 ... rtugal.pdf

Yet another shitty study. They talk about the social costs of drugs (social costs which are generally non cannabis related) but they highlight cannabis use. Massive red flag and a shortcut that should never be taken.
Which sucks because sometimes UNODC puts out really good studies like this one:
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.in ... 16_web.pdf

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:And the UN....

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2 ... rtugal.pdf

Yet another shitty study. They talk about the social costs of drugs (social costs which are generally non cannabis related) but they highlight cannabis use. Massive red flag and a shortcut that should never be taken.
Which sucks because sometimes UNODC puts out really good studies like this one:
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.in ... 16_web.pdf

Do you need to ride pine as well?

I made no claims as the the veracity of the paper. Only that there are lots of people outside of activist journalists who are considering Portugal. Follow the ball.

Although, lest anyone take your statement at face value, let it be clear that I have never in all the time I've spent here seen you actually dissect what you don't like about a given bit of science in any credible way. You are a tremendous skilled at grazing your target with one shot and never following up. If you want to make that your point, give us something which addresses their underlying methodology, not their abbreviated grouping of things. As I read it this is a paper summarizing the observations of a number of references below. You point may or may not be true, but you've done your argument no favors with the tediously unoriginal potshots.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:And the UN....

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2 ... rtugal.pdf

Yet another shitty study. They talk about the social costs of drugs (social costs which are generally non cannabis related) but they highlight cannabis use. Massive red flag and a shortcut that should never be taken.
Which sucks because sometimes UNODC puts out really good studies like this one:
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.in ... 16_web.pdf

Do you need to ride pine as well?

I made no claims as the the veracity of the paper. Only that there are lots of people outside of activist journalists who are considering Portugal. Follow the ball.

Although, lest anyone take your statement at face value, let it be clear that I have never in all the time I've spent here seen you actually dissect what you don't like about a given bit of science in any credible way. You are a tremendous skilled at grazing your target with one shot and never following up. If you want to make that your point, give us something which addresses their underlying methodology, not their abbreviated grouping of things. As I read it this is a paper summarizing the observations of a number of references below. You point may or may not be true, but you've done your argument no favors with the tediously unoriginal potshots.

So I didn't invent the idea that all drugs aren't equal? You get very @ish when worked up.

You're such a phenomenal chickenshit.