Girlfriends of EVIL men

mooosey88 wrote:

Well we all knew that anyway… nobody disputed that

I’m glad we agree.

mooosey88 wrote:

However claiming Heroin is safer is also very misleading

Claiming I claimed that is very misleading. I said no such thing. My wording was from the Lancet, “less harmful”. If you have a problem with articles in the Lancet, maybe you should send them a complaint.

Your graph also has alcohol in the no1 position. Your graph agrees, when all the various factors have been taken into consideration alcohol is the the most harmful. Anything else can only be “less harmful”.

In my way of thinking, if you’re willing to give a child the no1 on the list of harmful things, then surely no2 or no3 on the list can only be less harmless, and preferable.

Morgan. wrote:

mooosey88 wrote:

Well we all knew that anyway… nobody disputed that

I’m glad we agree.

mooosey88 wrote:

However claiming Heroin is safer is also very misleading

Claiming I claimed that is very misleading. I said no such thing. My wording was from the Lancet, “less harmful”. If you have a problem with articles in the Lancet, maybe you should send them a complaint. Your graph also has alcohol in the no1 position. Your graph agrees, when all the various factors have been taken into consideration alcohol is the the most harmful. Anything else can only be “less harmful”. In my way of thinking, if you’re willing to give a child the no1 on the list of harmful things, then surely no2 or no3 on the list can only be less harmless, and preferable.

I hate repeating myself. You did infer Heroin is less harmful.

”””If encouraging your 15 year old to have a “few” Vodkas is acceptable, then it must be equally acceptable to encourage them to have a “few” hits of something less harmful like Heroin”

They are your words, not those of The Lancet. Long term we know Alcohol is more harmful, and if you read the whole article it also explains why, as I did earlier, easier access, cheaper, not illegal, which all adds up to harming you long term. However if you are after a quicker death, try Heroin.

I am far from willing to give a child alcohol (and I resent the fact you are implying I would) ,  and try as you might to bait someone on here, nobody said pouring vodka down a child’s throat was acceptable. No One. So you can twist peoples comments all you like, to try and score a point or maybe punish them but its plain as day what your agenda is, I’m pretty sure, like myself most are bored of the tactical drum beating.  Rahhh Rahhhh Rahhhh   yes you are a clever little boy …..  Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Over and out.

2 members liked this post.

sceptical guy, jamief

Heart attack I recall reading as number one for deaths. Cancer think next, and substance abuse acholol or drugs.

So I think of injection for those on death row. Wonder what they think last few seconds of life. Change life, was wrong, or not care one way or another. Think read gas takes too long..lethal injection quicker.

Some as said here accused falsely convicted. Have seen those turned out into society again with big money provided for false accusation…

It my opinion only DNA for present society seems most accurate. But then again things can be tainted..

Bottom line think all of us if our own children, kin and or kids of others through friendships, need support.. they don’t really know. Providing suggestions, shared information, personal experiences help some to learn. Some will listen, some not. Some take advice, some not.. Again fault is excuse to find blame, reasoning, acceptance to why people are way they are..

All I know educating is vital in any form. Hopefully not bias but over look of entire picture. Allows one to see full perspective. But I do know, if you say, “Don’t do that”, 9 out of 10 do because curious…

Ge wrote:

Morgan. wrote:

If we could experiment with equal dosages, The Lancet suggests alcohol would be more harmful.

Oh and I have just noticed this. Point out Alfie, where the “Lancet” link you posted, states this? Doh.

Still waiting.

Oh and btw the way, people need to understand that this random graph means nothing without knowing the methodology behind it, which Alfie can’t explain and also which is not Lancet research, as Alfie is disingenuously suggesting.

Posting one shiny graph might attract the magpies, but without context, it is nothing worth taking any notice off.

Ge wrote:

“The authors point out that the model’s weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.” Explain what that gobbledegook means, you posted it and therefore must know?

Still waiting.

In your own time Alfie?