Well, I Finally Went And Did It

[Snee]

Errm, not to mess with anyone, but how many of those dead users have been using the stuff for decades?

I bet that graph counts eighty-year-old people who die of smoking.



I doubt many ex users have been taking it for very long for a sustained period.

It stands to reason that people who have used something for thousands of times daily run a larger risk of getting killed by it.

Compared to people who only take something at the occasional party before they grow out of it.

That graph tells me exactly nothing.

[Gemby!]

Originally posted by SnnY@16 August 2004 - 13:20
Errm, not to mess with anyone, but how many of those dead users have been using the stuff for decades?

I bet that graph counts eighty-year-old people who die of smoking.



I doubt many ex users have been taking it for very long for a sustained period.

It stands to reason that people who have used something for thousands of times daily run a larger risk of getting killed by it.

Compared to people who only take something at the occasional party before they grow out of it.

That graph tells me exactly nothing.

thats also what i was thinking but im too stupid to thin kof how to say it :confused:

[JONNO_CELEBS]

Originally posted by manker@16 August 2004 - 13:19

A 'bad trip' on extacy? now I know you're making it up

Ok

Well from where I'm sitting it looks like you're all supporting chemical drugs

I really don't get it, I said drugs were bad, then I get told so is crossing the road

Ooer

Jonno B)

[*goddess*]

I also can't see the point of statistics.


People will take drugs or they won't. Their body their choice.

edit: I also can't speeell

[JONNO_CELEBS]

Originally posted by SnnY@16 August 2004 - 13:20
Errm, not to mess with anyone, but how many of those dead users have been using the stuff for decades?

I bet that graph counts eighty-year-old people who die of smoking.



I doubt many ex users have been taking it for very long for a sustained period.

It stands to reason that people who have used something for thousands of times daily run a larger risk of getting killed by it.

Compared to people who only take something at the occasional party before they grow out of it.

That graph tells me exactly nothing.

I was gonna say that but thought I'd get jumped on

This is true, most people die of smoking are quite old, how many 70 y/o's die of E's?

Jonno B)

[manker]

Originally posted by SnnY@16 August 2004 - 14:20
I doubt many ex users have been taking it for very long for a sustained period.

It stands to reason that people who have used something for thousands of times daily run a larger risk of getting killed by it.

Compared to people who only take something at the occasional party before they grow out of it.

That graph tells me exactly nothing.

I think that's the point SnnY, Nicotine is addictive but as you've illustrated MDMA is not.

That's why people continue to smoke and why people can grow out of taking E. Nicotine is more dangerous than MDMA.

[Snee]

Originally posted by manker+16 August 2004 - 15:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (manker &#064; 16 August 2004 - 15:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@16 August 2004 - 14:20
I doubt many ex users have been taking it for very long for a sustained period.

It stands to reason that people who have used something for thousands of times daily run a larger risk of getting killed by it.

Compared to people who only take something at the occasional party before they grow out of it.

That graph tells me exactly nothing.

I think that&#39;s the point SnnY, Nicotine is addictive but as you&#39;ve illustrated MDMA is not.

That&#39;s why people continue to smoke and why people can grow out of taking E. Nicotine is more dangerous than MDMA. [/b][/quote]
Since both fuck you up tho&#39;, neither should be legal then.

And another point is that a minor cold might just as well kill someone 80+ which makes smoking as a cause irrelevant in those cases.

[Gemby!]

how did the topic of steroids get to this ?

[manker]

Originally posted by JONNO_CELEBS+16 August 2004 - 14:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JONNO_CELEBS @ 16 August 2004 - 14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-manker@16 August 2004 - 13:19

A &#39;bad trip&#39; on extacy? now I know you&#39;re making it up

Ok

Well from where I&#39;m sitting it looks like you&#39;re all supporting chemical drugs

I really don&#39;t get it, I said drugs were bad, then I get told so is crossing the road

Ooer

Jonno B) [/b][/quote]
A trip implies a psychoactive drug. MDMA isn&#39;t psychoactive - it is impossible to have a bad trip by taking E.

I agree some drugs are bad, but MDMA isn&#39;t one of them unless combined with ignorance.

[Snee]

Originally posted by gemby&#33;@16 August 2004 - 15:27
how did the topic of steroids get to this ?&nbsp;

Jonno & Yogi.


Anyhow: a rush from a drug is just an abnormal brain-response because of a foreign substance. That fact that people keep taking it points to us as a race being self-destructive.

We really shouldn&#39;t debate whether one is more dangerous than the rest without focusing on the most important bit, which is that they are all dangerous.