On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2015-01-12 19:01 GMT+01:00 Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > [email protected]>: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Fine, like I said believe what you want to believe, I'll stop the >>> discussion on that subject here... >>> >> >> What discussion? I thought I am advocating the free sale and use of >> windows. >> >> The psychiatrist, of mental health sector which your studies base >> themselves on, is the "officially sanctioned shaman", operating with >> backdrop of prohibition. This doesn't mean the science is correct or false. >> But with prohibition and such conflict of interest, there is a problem: we >> can't make sense of the science if we are standing directly on it, making >> money from it etc. >> >> I'm claiming and arguing ignorance in the face of those facts. PGC >> > > > I think most of the scientist involved in those studies do them in good > faith using correct science (that means they don't play with the studies to > influence the result of it)... > I have worked close to the sector and saw frightening lack of rigor, deep ideological differences, still today, post psychiatric reform, with some noble exceptions. But it's a mess and not even close to this harmonious, which I say as a musician who loves noise of all sorts :-) > there is now a lot of studies pointing the correlation between heavy > cannabis usage (especially at yound age) and later depressive state... I've > not done the study myself... but I don't throw them out labelling them > prohibitionist propagande. > I don't throw them out. I merely state: how can we know, given that these studies and the sector enforce prohibition and profit from it? If somebody wants that treatment, and makes a reasoned decision to go for it + it works: good for them. But that doesn't rid us of the problem, nor the complexity on top of it. I'll read something to death before making up my mind in this area, in general, even without prohibition because we're putting person into category with every diagnosis, which is one of the key difficulties the sector faces post psychiatric reform period. There are many noble intentions, but I ask whether they can be as effective as they could, if we continue with authoritative argument of prohibition. It makes impossible to see what is already unclear. > As I've said, and I'll repeat one more time... I'm for legalizing all > drugs, > Then I would be careful to give psychiatry "good faith" too easily. > *but* that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any failsafe and especially > concerning cannabis not to present it like a sort of coffee or chocolate > with no danger at all (and that's what propagande that says it has no more > harms than coffee just does)... it's elluding totally how the substance is > used, in what circumstances... > Especially all the evil arthritic women on this planet who use the oil for their pain and all those lazy kids and stoners who don't want to work a good job for bad pay! Of course nobody should trivialize the dangers. But we shouldn't exaggerate them and build science on that basis either. > > You disagree, fine... > you think all those studies are done in badfaith fine... > Only partially. I don't think this is totally clear to anybody. It's horribly complex. PGC > but you should stop calling me a prohibitionist as I'm not and stated > clearly... saying it, is a lie, but if you like it, fine with me. > But you do support those studies without question. In good faith. I'm not so sure, as a lot of money and power are at play, which to some are the most dangerous poisons of all...PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
