View Full Version : Cannabis - safe for over 18's!
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 10:24
Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456)
Starting under 18 causes a drop in IQ which appears irreversible - but not in over 18s.
So, for over 21s only and away we go! I am delighted we finally have a proven substance which has demonstrably no chronic toxicity that can be used for recreational purposes.
Next - LSD analogues!
~:smoking:
No, no, no. You are completely misreading the research. It conclusively says "drugs* are bad" and as such the official policy of locking people up and getting them kicked out of their jobs for partaking is totally legit.
*Booze is not a drug, it's a drink and it's all jolly japes as you know full well - don't be awkward.
We had a rather baffling change of policy here, from the liberal party out of all. In the south of the Netherlands you have to carry a card to be able to get weed, to combat drug tourism so they say. What they never expected is that people aren't going to register themself as a drug-user and street-dealing is now rampant. In the south the damage done is irreversable. Typically politicians, they will never understand that they simply don't get it.
Kralizec
08-28-2012, 11:09
"drugs are bad"
mmmkay
No, no, no. You are completely misreading the research. It conclusively says "drugs* are bad" and as such the official policy of locking people up and getting them kicked out of their jobs for partaking is totally legit.
No, what rory says is correct, I direct you to quotes of one of the researchers in the article:
"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."
"What it shows is if you are a really heavy stoner there are going to be consequences, which I think most people would accept."
"This is not occasional or recreation use."
===
I'd be interested to read the entire study and their definitions of certain statements (heavy use, etcetera) and why they chose IQ as the point of reference, as it does not account for intelligence as a whole, and has a distinct Western "bias". This is encouraging, this is what society needs, less scaremongering, more hard facts!
CountArach
08-28-2012, 11:39
I think Idaho was being sarcastic :wink:
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 11:43
I'd be interested to read the entire study and their definitions of certain statements (heavy use, etcetera) and why they chose IQ as the point of reference, as it does not account for intelligence as a whole, and has a distinct Western "bias". This is encouraging, this is what society needs, less scaremongering, more hard facts!
You are of course right. But then every study that is done is flawed in some way. Either it was too short, too few people or the exclusion criteria was too strict to name a few.
To chart 1,000 over 25 years is a herculean task (studies that last 3 are considered long in the industry).
But in the West, anti-drugs is more religious in its fervour than based on anything resembling evidence.
~:smoking:
I think Idaho was being sarcastic :wink:
Egg on my face!
Next research will show that weed causes lung cancer or birth defects.
InsaneApache
08-28-2012, 12:03
If they lower your IQ why are they called mind expanding drugs?
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 12:03
Next research will show that weed causes lung cancer or birth defects.
Smoking anything will cause lung cancer.
The number of substances that should not be taken in either part or all of pregnancy is legion. That cannabis is amongst these is neither here nor there - smoking and alcohol are both known to cause worse outcomes in pregnancy; one of the few that isn't is opiates as long as you abstain just before birth.
Eating BBQ meat for one meal a day has been shown to increase rates of cancer.
No one is saying that this is without risk - after all, what is? But the risks are perfectly acceptable for consenting adults to take.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
08-28-2012, 12:56
Idaho, drugs are bad. So is alchohol. That doesn't mean government should ban them.
I had to google a little as I thought the opinion was that cannabis did not cause lung cancer or induce birth defects (used as a stimulant on Jamaica to help overdue pregnancies).
It is also claimed that it had great positive effects on MS patients.
Well... the MSRC in UK warns that the risk of getting lung cancer is increased by about 20 times greater than for ordinary tobacco smokers and 400 times greater than for non-smokers. "Safe"?
link (http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/658) (written by a Dr M R Lawrence )
Vladimir
08-28-2012, 13:20
Well I'm happy that smoking is completely safe now.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 13:45
In the Pharmaceutical Industry, the word "safe" is banned. We use "relative risk". Nice article. No references I note. Pseudo-science then. Not peer reviewed or a referenced review. If someone came to me with that I'd tell to try again.
And it appears they are referring to smoking cannabis. That is thought to be cannabis smokers inhale deeper to get a greater hit than cigarette smokers. Possibly one effect that cannabis is more expensive due to the current laws, althoug would be cheaper to produce than tobacco. No mention on other methods of ingestion. Could they be trying to imply a drug effect as opposed to a method of administration? I even read one paper that discussed the risks of injecting ground cannabis - which of course were serious. It didn't mention what injecting any ground up plant mater would do.
The use of relative risk in the Pharmaceutical is also banned in the UK unless clear evidence of absolute risk is also shown.
Using a drug in the first trimester will have very different effects compared to the third. After a point, pregnant women are completely safe of the effects of thalidomide as the limbs have developed - and it has been found only one isomer causes the problem.
~:smoking:
InsaneApache
08-28-2012, 14:11
As cannabis is not soluble in water I'd hesitate to recommend injecting it.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 14:20
The parent compound might not be, so there are several approaches one can use:
Encapsulate with something more hydrophilic
Inject a suspension
Alter compound with more hydrophilic groups, either permanently such as hydroxide groups, or else by esterification / glucaronidation.
Something that is done all the time, so easy to do.
~:smoking:
Just bake a cake, make chocolate milk out of it or,... and there's no longer any lung cancer effect possible. Don't forget to cook it in butter before adding it though, otherwise it will not work.
Also I've seen a dutch article about it yesterday. Doesn't look like much of a proof. Since it just assumes direct correlation based on some numbers that could very well have a very different meaning.
The parent compound might not be, so there are several approaches one can use:
Encapsulate with something more hydrophilic
Inject a suspension
Alter compound with more hydrophilic groups, either permanently such as hydroxide groups, or else by esterification / glucaronidation.
Something that is done all the time, so easy to do.
~:smoking:
But will the end result be something that you'd want to course in your veins?
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 14:42
I don't know. That's what clinical trials are such a good idea, although some options would have more predictable results than others - dissolving in a suspension would be physiologically almost identical to fat miscelles from the gut. Permanent addition of hydrophilic groups would be more likely to have odd effects, but drug / reception steriochemistry could give some likely outcomes.
Personally I think eating it is the easiest and frankly safest. I'm pretty confident I can hit a vein as I've had a lot of practice (and medical students correctly identified my brachial artery as a good vien...). Hit a vien on my own arm? Less confident.
Most of the food we eat and illegal drugs we take have never had any toxicological studies, and people are managing to survive.
The body is very good at getting rid of xenobiotics - after all the active ingredients of these fantastic "natural" "detox" treatments need to be... detoxed by the liver before excretion and generally they have had no testing whatsoever.
~:smoking:
Nice article. No references I note. Pseudo-science then. Not peer reviewed or a referenced review.
~:smoking:
I don't know... a lot of stuff coming from doctors of medicine is just like the article. Should we question every statement any doctor brings to the patient?
I have been in and out of hospital the last 6 years and have gone through a dozen of medical practitioners. Having contact with many, you soon realize contradictions... I am at a stage where I will only listen to chief physicians. I have Polycythemia Vera and one of these n00b physicians prescribed iron supplement for me because I had "empty" iron deposits. That near took me out cold.
But still... any layman would listen when an experienced physician gives an opinion. This Dr. Bob Lawrence in the article has MS himself.
Major Robert Dump
08-28-2012, 14:56
Eating BBQ once a day causes cancer? Good thing I smoke it
Strike For The South
08-28-2012, 15:07
How else are we suppose to lock up all these brown people?
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 15:10
I don't know... a lot of stuff coming from doctors of medicine is just like the article. Should we question every statement any doctor brings to the patient?
I have been in and out of hospital the last 6 years and have gone through a dozen of medical practitioners. Having contact with many, you soon realize contradictions... I am at a stage where I will only listen to chief physicians. I have Polycythemia Vera and one of these n00b physicians prescribed iron supplement for me because I had "empty" iron deposits. That near took me out cold.
But still... any layman would listen when an experienced physician gives an opinion. This Dr. Bob Lawrence in the article has MS himself.
I would. But then I'm a pharmaceutical Physician and although my industry is viewed with suspicion it ironically has to have a higher level of evidence than most doctors who can spout whatever comes into their head. I know I used to.
I'm not saying Bob is wrong. But without reviewing the evidence I can't say he's right.
One that always makes me smile was two physicians discussing a patient who had a really unusual neurological condition. One says to the other he'll read the Wikipaedia article before he starts.
The patient walks in and sits down. "Before we start, I'd just like to say I wrote that Wikipaedia article..."
~:smoking:
Vladimir
08-28-2012, 15:28
How else are we suppose to lock up all these brown people?
In your basement. Duh.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2012, 15:30
I would. But then I'm a pharmaceutical Physician and although my industry is viewed with suspicion it ironically has to have a higher level of evidence than most doctors who can spout whatever comes into their head. I know I used to.
I'm not saying Bob is wrong. But without reviewing the evidence I can't say he's right.
One that always makes me smile was two physicians discussing a patient who had a really unusual neurological condition. One says to the other he'll read the Wikipaedia article before he starts.
The patient walks in and sits down. "Before we start, I'd just like to say I wrote that Wikipaedia article..."
~:smoking:
If the substance can genuinely be shown not to have long-term detrimental affects in people whose brains have developed, then by all means legalise it for people over the age of 21 - but make it illegal to smoke it in public on the grounds of assault.
As you say though - only one study, and we hvan't even discussed confounding factors such as whether the Hash just makes you lazy and therefore you don't bother to learn.
I've heard personally from a leading lung cancer specialist that there is no evidence that cannabis is carcinogenic.
Also the deeper inhaling and longer holding in is not needed. The active ingredients are absorbed very quickly.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 15:51
If the substance can genuinely be shown not to have long-term detrimental affects in people whose brains have developed, then by all means legalise it for people over the age of 21 - but make it illegal to smoke it in public on the grounds of assault.
As you say though - only one study, and we hvan't even discussed confounding factors such as whether the Hash just makes you lazy and therefore you don't bother to learn.
Absolutely. I've not read the study to see how and if they managed to exclude confounding factors.
I'm with you 100% on smoking in public = assault. On a similar vien I'd legalise cocaine etc in public as it doesn't affect others. If people commit civil disorder etc then laws exist to deal with this.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2012, 18:39
I've heard personally from a leading lung cancer specialist that there is no evidence that cannabis is carcinogenic.
Also the deeper inhaling and longer holding in is not needed. The active ingredients are absorbed very quickly.
Any smoke is carcinogenic, so he was blowing smoke up your arse - smoking long-term will also cause all those other lovely illnesses aside from cancer.
The way people smoke Pot isn't just about the drug, it's about holding the texture of the smoke in their lungs for the pleasure for it
Absolutely. I've not read the study to see how and if they managed to exclude confounding factors.
I'm with you 100% on smoking in public = assault. On a similar vien I'd legalise cocaine etc in public as it doesn't affect others. If people commit civil disorder etc then laws exist to deal with this.
~:smoking:
Cocaine is somewhat different, the stuff was rampant in the part of Devon I live in about ten years ago, as were other drugs (drugs are not an urban problem, they are an economic problem - take note Socialists). Anyway - there were several young men who died from massive heart attacks at the time who were known to be users. So I'm not in favour of legalising Conaine, similarly all attempts at controlled usage of Opiatee seem to fail as they inevitably lead to a rise in adicts.
Hash, however, is largely a social drug that most people take occasionally and are not particularly addicted to - often less so than alchohol - my objection to it has been partly that I don't like being exposed to it, it stinks like rotten meat, and it causes serious problems for minors up to and including schizofrenia (sp?).
So - if it's safe for people to start using in their twenties then legalise it for people over the age of 21, educate EVERYONE about what the drug does to your brain and come down harder on people who supply to underage users than with bakki or booze.
While I would contest a few details PVC, I fully agree with your conclusion.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-28-2012, 20:10
While I would contest a few details PVC, I fully agree with your conclusion.
Then I'll get my ice skates and see you down in hell for a game of hockey!
Cocaine is pretty harmless. It's just bling bling really. Look at my rolex or look at my bag a coke, nothing more than that.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 20:32
Cocaine is pretty harmless. It's just bling bling really. Look at my rolex or look at my bag a coke, nothing more than that.
Most common cause of heart attacks in the under 30's. If you want to kill yourself so be it. Not like the world's population is in decline.
~:smoking:
Most common cause of heart attacks in the under 30's. If you want to kill yourself so be it. Not like the world's population is in decline.
Most common? probably. There aren't many who have heart attacks under 30's anyway. So that's a skewed number. Also more likely to be the idiots fault, instead of the substance as usual.
rory_20_uk
08-28-2012, 20:53
It's the substance, the idiot took too much. I realise the absolute number is low making the relative risk seemingly high. The number isn't skewed.
~:smoking:
It's the substance, the idiot took too much.
Well there you have it. Stupid person dies stupid. Legalising could only help to better.
Well there you have it. Stupid person dies stupid. Legalising could only help to better.
Want to legally grow coke? But yeah it's pretty harmless, much less worse than speed or xtc. Whiskey + coke = win
a completely inoffensive name
08-29-2012, 00:58
Yeah, nothing like a depressant and a stimulant at the same time to get your heart beatin irregularly.
Want to legally grow coke? But yeah it's pretty harmless, much less worse than speed or xtc. Whiskey + coke = win
Yeah. But XTC's main problem is just not being clean. Hence better take MDMA. With decent XTC the only real risk is overheating, which isn't much of a problem if you drink water.
Yeah. But XTC's main problem is just not being clean. Hence better take MDMA. With decent XTC the only real risk is overheating, which isn't much of a problem if you drink water.
I don't like XTC because I like to be in control of myself, it's too strong for my likings I don't like the weirdness. With coke you can just carry on if you had a drink too many, and he next day you feel fine
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2012, 01:29
Yeah. But XTC's main problem is just not being clean. Hence better take MDMA. With decent XTC the only real risk is overheating, which isn't much of a problem if you drink water.
Moros, that is completely the wrong thing to do - Ecstasy messes up the way your body processes water, if you drink enough of it your cells will literally become saturated and you will die as they explode, as has happened to a number of young people in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
MDMA is bad stuff, and some people take it and just up and die.
I don't like XTC because I like to be in control of myself, it's too strong for my likings I don't like the weirdness. With coke you can just carry on if you had a drink too many, and he next day you feel fine
Moros, that is completely the wrong thing to do - Ecstasy messes up the way your body processes water, if you drink enough of it your cells will literally become saturated and you will die as they explode, as has happened to a number of young people in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
MDMA is bad stuff, and some people take it and just up and die.
That has happened a few times, and that isn't pretty, but they drank liters of it. It's pretty safe.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2012, 01:51
That has happened a few times, and that isn't pretty, but they drank liters of it. It's pretty safe.
No it isn't - because you can't pee.
It's a mind altering substance which requires you to be in your right mind in order to be safe.
Strike For The South
08-29-2012, 02:26
Yeah, nothing like a depressant and a stimulant at the same time to get your heart beatin irregularly.
This is why I double up on the depressants. I am fully convinced that hydrocodine allows me to increase my alcohol consumption by at least 50%
So - if it's safe for people to start using in their twenties then legalise it for people over the age of 21, educate EVERYONE about what the drug does to your brain and come down harder on people who supply to underage users than with bakki or booze.
Why not booze? Ethanol is highly damaging to developing brains, more so than this study suggests cannabis is!
No it isn't - because you can't pee.
It's a mind altering substance which requires you to be in your right mind in order to be safe.
It isn't so much the XTC that gets you but overheating and dehydration. XTC really isn't all that dangerous, it is extremily rare that it goes wrong. The pills can be polluted but it's so cheap these days that nobody bothers polluting them anymore. When they were still expensive the health agency always had a stand where you could have them tested.
MDMA is pretty safe really. At its peak in the uk in the 90s, deaths were very rare. A fraction of alcohol related deaths in the same period for the same demographic.
Then they banned importing some of the precursor chemicals and quality and use faded. Since then people have been trying a wide range of potentially much more dangerous analogues to get the same effect.
Its notable that alcohol consumption fell dramatically during that period. The upshot being....
Pressure on the government to close down the MDMA business and the drinks industry starting an aggressive campaign to get young people drinking more - cue alcopops and much more advertising targeted at young people. The net effect being higher rates of binge drinking higher rates of hospital admissions and increasing long term alcohol illnesses in increasingly younger people. Well done prohibition.
rory_20_uk
08-29-2012, 11:34
And still nightclubs aren't filled with corpses. People taking completely unregulated substances in unregulated amounts. Every death was on every paper. More people died from car accidents, from suicide... hell, there were 23 people who drowned in their baths in 2010!
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2012, 18:29
Yeah, drinking is a way worse for you than pot whether its every now and then or recreational.
It's also illegal to buy or sell it to minors, in the UK even doing so accidentally will see your licence suspended for three months.
It isn't so much the XTC that gets you but overheating and dehydration. XTC really isn't all that dangerous, it is extremily rare that it goes wrong. The pills can be polluted but it's so cheap these days that nobody bothers polluting them anymore. When they were still expensive the health agency always had a stand where you could have them tested.
Still wrong - MDMA inhibits the function of your kidneys, while you can overheat from under-drinking the far greater danger is to overdrink and suffer of over-hydration, which is harder to treat and will kill you. If you are taking MDMA the advice is not to drink, but to spray yourself with water, which will prevent you sweating and keep you cool.
You still have the Russian roulette element where some people just have a bad reaction and die/end up hospitalised first time so it really isn't a "safe" drug, Coke is probably safer in a one-off situation.
InsaneApache
08-29-2012, 20:58
Do you know from first hand experience?
The ACMD rated MDMA far safer than cocaine. And until the government nobbled it, their methods were sound.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-29-2012, 21:17
Do you know from first hand experience?
I know there are documented inquests that determined teenagers died from MDMA and too much water.
That may not be first hand experience, but it's still valid knowledge, as opposed to hearsay.
Kralizec
08-29-2012, 22:50
The consensus here seems to be that genuine, anadulterated MDMA isn't really dangerous if you use it with caution and make sure you drink enough water.
Enough water meaning: an adequate amount of water to offset whatever it is you're doing, and not overdoing it. You can actually die from kidney failure if you ingest too much water in a short time.
I don't know about Europe and the UK, but here in the US there are too many varieties of MDMA to keep track of, and it is really common to find that your MDMA isn't, technically, MDMA but instead something similar.
Same for LSD and every other psychadelic besides Mushrooms--too many variations out there which may or may not be what you want.
That's why you test your drugs, get it from people you trust, if your new do it with people who have experience and you know and can trust as well,...
Also mushrooms are pretty well known, you just want to know the kind and if you don't have experience or use a new kind have a babysitter with you. The worst that can happen is puking when you have a light panic attack. Though if you are experienced you can steer it very much anyway.
PVC: I'm not much of a XTC, MDMA, coke man myself actually. Their not really my thing. I'm hyper active and way too happy without them already anyway. But face it MDMA is one of the safest stuff out there. Better than those new designer drugs that pop up so often lately. Meph (not Meth) for example was much more dangerous, more than two portions and you're brain bursts for example. So really. But then again that's why you want to inform and everything.
Of the more mainstream drugs GHB is by far the most dangerous, it is hidiously addictive and detox is a nightmare. Alcohol remains the worst overall though because it's socially accepted, but you can die fom going cold turkey
People take GHB for pleasure? Here in the states it is strictly a date rape drug as far as I'm aware.
It happens, suspect that is what happened to Holloway, it can be lethal with alcohol, but yeah it's used for pleassure it has a really pleassant high
Of the more mainstream drugs GHB is by far the most dangerous, it is hidiously addictive and detox is a nightmare. Alcohol remains the worst overall though because it's socially accepted, but you can die fom going cold turkey
Yeah and it is so hard to dose. Blacking out if you take just a little too much. Never used it, never will.
Yeah and it is so hard to dose. Blacking out if you take just a little too much. Never used it, never will.
The whatsitcalled, these things you screw on a cola-bottle is the perfect dose. I cannot emphasis enough how UTTERLY TOTALLY horny that stuff makes you, try it with your gf sometimes, you are smart enough to not get dragged down
Kralizec
08-30-2012, 15:33
Alcohol remains the worst overall though because it's socially accepted, but you can die fom going cold turkey
Also, stopping with drink without taking medication will lead to random hallucinations, ie delirium tremens.
It takes many years however to build up alcoholism to such an extent where this would be a problem.
Also, stopping with drink without taking medication will lead to random hallucinations, ie delirium tremens.
It takes many years however to build up alcoholism to such an extent where this would be a problem.
It doesn't take a lot, I drink a bottle of wine a day since forever, np. Had to stop for a week for a week because of anti-biotica, on the third day I found myself laying in a pool of blood because I got an epileptic attack. You are not a heavy drinker with a bottle of wine a day it are just a few glasses. I now only drink socially and it never happened again.
Kralizec
08-30-2012, 16:25
Are you sure it wasn't something else? I did several psychiatry-related courses back in uni and from what I remember it takes many years of consistent heavy drinking to become alcoholic (in its medical definition), and that the withdrawl symptoms linger for quite a while.
Are you sure it wasn't something else? I did several psychiatry-related courses back in uni and from what I remember it takes many years of consistent heavy drinking to become alcoholic (in its medical definition), and that the withdrawl symptoms linger for quite a while.
Yes I had all sorts of tests, was a bit low on vatimine D but otherwise perfectly fine. It's not the quantity supposedly but the period, just not drinking any alcohol if your body is used to getting it is not a very good idea no matter how much you drink
Kralizec
08-30-2012, 16:43
Well, a bottle of wine a day does seem pretty high actually.
The father of a friend of mine drank about a bottle of wine each day for several decades and last year he came down with several strokes. He suffers from aphasia; last time I saw him it was pretty difficult to make sense of anything he said. Granted, he's also pretty fat and smokes a lot so it's probably not just the alcohol.
I've seen a lot of definitions of "heavy drinking" who all vary wildly. One was that you're a heavy drinker if you drink more than two glasses of beer (or equivalent) per day. My average is about twice that much.
Well, a bottle of wine a day does seem pretty high actually.
It are 4 glasses stretched over an evening, one or two at dinner and two after it, I wouldn't call it a lot, casual use. If you drink 3 a 4 beers a day (which most people do) you are right up there. I'd take some extra vitamine B.
The whatsitcalled, these things you screw on a cola-bottle is the perfect dose. I cannot emphasis enough how UTTERLY TOTALLY horny that stuff makes you, try it with your gf sometimes, you are smart enough to not get dragged down
Depends what you go get, from who,... power fluctuates highly from different sources. Had a friend with quite a bad experience with it.
Depends what you go get, from who,... power fluctuates highly from different sources. Had a friend with quite a bad experience with it.
It should be pretty fixed, the danger is in daily use, it's a hormone the body makes out of itself but your body also has a counter, if your body is suddenly without it the counter will make you extremily sick as it won't just stop producing it all of a sudden because it expects to be getting it. Really dangerous if you are idiotic enough to do it daily, a week of daily use should suffice for a few horrible days without it, horrible enough to make you get more and go in deeper. If you are smart about it it can be great fun, it's frankly the best aphrodesiac there is
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-30-2012, 20:33
That's why you test your drugs, get it from people you trust, if your new do it with people who have experience and you know and can trust as well,...
Also mushrooms are pretty well known, you just want to know the kind and if you don't have experience or use a new kind have a babysitter with you. The worst that can happen is puking when you have a light panic attack. Though if you are experienced you can steer it very much anyway.
PVC: I'm not much of a XTC, MDMA, coke man myself actually. Their not really my thing. I'm hyper active and way too happy without them already anyway. But face it MDMA is one of the safest stuff out there. Better than those new designer drugs that pop up so often lately. Meph (not Meth) for example was much more dangerous, more than two portions and you're brain bursts for example. So really. But then again that's why you want to inform and everything.
See Kraziliac for the point I'd already made several time.
The problem is controlling your hydration level while on MDMA - as a drug it can be a lot safer than others, but I would not class it as "pretty safe" in the same way I would an occasional spliff for an adult.
It are 4 glasses stretched over an evening, one or two at dinner and two after it, I wouldn't call it a lot, casual use. If you drink 3 a 4 beers a day (which most people do) you are right up there. I'd take some extra vitamine B.
I have to agree with everyone else Frags - a bottle of wine is meant to be shared, having two glasses with a meal is a lot - having two more after is a night out. After a bottle of wine I'm pretty merry, if not out-right drunk. I wouldn't want to drink more than a bottle, the hangover would kill me.
I'm not, I don't think it's much. Drinking four beers a day isn't much either.
Kralizec
08-30-2012, 21:53
How much does a bottle of wine contain? I rarely buy the stuff, but I'm assuming 1 litre. Same content as three bottles of beer, but contains over twice as much alcohol.
It's not enough to make you or me drunk. But I'm pretty sure that daily alcohol consumption, even if you never get drunk because you spread it out, is still a continuous burden on your liver. I don't know where the threshold is; I've seen a lot of conflicting information about it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-30-2012, 22:17
I'm not, I don't think it's much. Drinking four beers a day isn't much either.
that depends on the size of the bottle of beer - beer is around half the strength of wine, if that.
The highest limit I have heard is 21 units a week - that's three units a day - an average glass of wine is reckoned to be about 2 units, so you're doing about double the recommended limit.
Are units international or just a uk thing
A bottle of wine a day is definitely a lot. But Fragony is a bit of a "caner" as we used to say.
The whole drug debate is in a strange place at the moment. This bit of research has been presented by prohibitionists as more of the same. There is just no consistency, philosophically or morally on the issue.
How much does a bottle of wine contain? I rarely buy the stuff, but I'm assuming 1 litre.
0.75l.
that depends on the size of the bottle of beer - beer is around half the strength of wine, if that.
The highest limit I have heard is 21 units a week - that's three units a day - an average glass of wine is reckoned to be about 2 units, so you're doing about double the recommended limit.
Three glasses is considered healthy for men, 2 for women.
Idaho, one bottle of wine won't even make me tipsy, I'm not a caner
If a bottle of wine barely touches the sides then you ate definitely a caner :)
I don't think that 3 glasses a day is healthy, its just not very unhealthy.
If a bottle of wine barely touches the sides then you ate definitely a caner :)
I don't think that 3 glasses a day is healthy, its just not very unhealthy.
It's good for your heart and veins. A bottle of vodka will barely touch the sides, I have a high tolerance for alcohol, which is good because I don't like being drunk.
Much as I like alcohol and much as I would like to believe that IE was good for me, I'm afraid that the truth is that its not good at all.
The media selectively publish and emphasize the happy research about booze in exactly the same way they selectively publish and emphasise the bad about most other narcotics.
Major Robert Dump
08-31-2012, 09:07
NO WINE IS HEALTHY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DRINK
This is why homeless people drink wine, this is why they are called "winos" and live so long. Don't believe me?
How many homeless people do you see drinking a martini or a manhattan? So there
NO WINE IS HEALTHY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DRINK
This is why homeless people drink wine, this is why they are called "winos" and live so long. Don't believe me?
How many homeless people do you see drinking a martini or a manhattan? So there
That's because those martini glasses are very fragile and unsuitable for a life on the road.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.