By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
When you hear these claims, even you must be thinking 'Oh come on, Nigel. You're doing well in the polls, don't blow it!'?!
The first, that they would stop the boats IN TWO WEEKS. Farage has already rowed back on that (pardon the pun) and changed it to "once the laws are passed". But even then, with the best will in the world, that's obviously impossible. It's straight out of the Trump playbook - the claim that he'd stop the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
"A controversial doctor given top billing at the Reform party conference has used his main-stage speech to air a claim the Covid vaccine caused cancer in the royal family."
Who on earth believes this stuff? Or are you so desperate for a change in yours/the country's circumstances that you just ignore the bonkers stuff? This is a genuine question, not intended to take the piss out of Reform sympathisers, because I just can't understand how this party is so - apparently - popular, when they come out with stuff like this.
People considering voting Reform on 12:40 - Sep 10 by leitrimblue
OK, the paracetamol deaths are mainly deliberate suicide? Sorry, never realised.
Still as there appear to be no cannabis related deaths wouldn't this still suggest that weed perhaps isn't such a dangerous drug for most grown adults after all?
I think its fair to say ( purely from my own experience back in the day) that smoking weed when a teenager definitely runs a risk of issues for some.
Though I've smoked it probably almost every day for 30 odd years and have never had a issue. Even manage to drag my sorry arse outta bed and make it into work somedays
One thing I think is really fascinating is that the debate about cannabis legalisation in the UK has basically been left entirely untouched by legalisation in the US.
It's now legal for recreational use in 24 states and British political discourse basically entirely ignores if that had any effects on anything? It's very weird.
People considering voting Reform on 12:49 - Sep 10 by jayessess
One thing I think is really fascinating is that the debate about cannabis legalisation in the UK has basically been left entirely untouched by legalisation in the US.
It's now legal for recreational use in 24 states and British political discourse basically entirely ignores if that had any effects on anything? It's very weird.
Again, this focuses primarily on younger adults / adolescents, but what they are saying isn't completely without merit.
And this is coming from someone who, on the whole, would be supportive of the decriminalisation of it.
I've never said there isn't evidence that cannabis can lead to more aggressive behaviour. I'm well aware that excessive use can lead to paranoia, an ex of mine got exactly that. I was more hung up on the general term that cannabis "is a dangerous drug" and I was quite surprised that it had been implicated in all those atrocities ...until I ChatGPT'd them and found that it wasn't. It's been a good discussion generally, but I don't like when people make stuff up to add weight their point.
People considering voting Reform on 12:34 - Sep 10 by DanTheMan
I believe their point would be that the comparison is a bit silly when people are using paracetamol to purposefully harm themselves.
It would be like saying rope is a very dangerous object because it causes thousands of deaths a year in the UK alone.
Or another comparison would be that water is dangerous because, if consumed in enough volume, it too can be fatal.
As per my ChatGPT earlier, it's based on accidental and intentional overdoses worldwide.
I don't think it is a silly comparison. They are both drugs - one is legal and most people assume is relatively safe, the other is illegal and is described by many as "a dangerous drug". The first (legal one) is responsible for thousands of deaths, the other is responsible for precisely zero deaths (in terms of the physical effects on the body), regardless of if the user were trying to harm themselves or not.
I think if I'd compared cannabis to rope or water, then that WOULD have been a bit silly!
People considering voting Reform on 13:36 - Sep 10 by The_Flashing_Smile
I've never said there isn't evidence that cannabis can lead to more aggressive behaviour. I'm well aware that excessive use can lead to paranoia, an ex of mine got exactly that. I was more hung up on the general term that cannabis "is a dangerous drug" and I was quite surprised that it had been implicated in all those atrocities ...until I ChatGPT'd them and found that it wasn't. It's been a good discussion generally, but I don't like when people make stuff up to add weight their point.
There is evidence that Cannabis users face increased risk of death.
People considering voting Reform on 09:58 - Sep 10 by Blueschev
Would it not be more beneficial for society if it was regulated so that people were fully aware of what they were smoking rather than the current situation where despite it's legal status, it is commonly consumed with impunity yet controlled by criminals?
I agree with that and I can't stand the smell of the stuff. It is rancid. But I'd rather people knew what they were smoking.
2
People considering voting Reform on 13:55 - Sep 10 with 443 views
People considering voting Reform on 12:06 - Sep 10 by GlasgowBlue
You're missing the point. Paracetamol, like the Covid vaccine, is a medically supervised drug. Whereas weed is generally sold without supervision and for the purpose of getting high.
The EU reported in 2023 that 50,648 deaths were caused by ‘COVID vaccines. But the pros of the vaccine far outweigh the cons and saved millions more lives.
So it's as much crankery as the Reform bloke to use paracetamol as a comparison to recreational drug taking.
I am not sure that figure of 50,648 is correct.
Here is a question in the European Parliament about it.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) reported that 11 448 people have died in the EU following COVID-19 vaccines[1],
8 368 following Pfizer BioNTech vaccinations (which is 1 345 more deaths in 2022).
1 579 following AstraZeneca vaccinations.
1 161 following Moderna vaccinations.
339 following Janssen vaccinations.
1 following Nuvaxovid vaccinations.
0 following (inactivated, adjuvanted) Valneva vaccinations.
As of 10 April 2023, a total of 50 648 deaths caused by ‘COVID vaccines’ had been reported in EudraVigilance – broken down by disease (heart conditions, central nervous system disorders, etc.). Why then, in the EMA’s latest report of 8 December 2022, is it stated that only 11 448 deaths were flagged and recorded in the EudraVigilance database?
In accordance with its mandate, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines authorised in the EU and publishes any relevant information on its website. Until December 2022, this included monthly safety updates on COVID-19 vaccines[1].
The Commission does not collect data separately as it relies for the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines fully on EMA.
In interpreting figures published by EMA, it is important to highlight that medical events occurring in vaccinated people are not necessarily caused by them. EMA and national authorities evaluate data on reported events to determine if there is any signal indicating causality and take action as appropriate.
Therefore, the figure of fatal cases reported in December 2022 does not mean that those deaths have been caused by the COVID-19 vaccines. By 31 March 2023, EMA’s figure for the European Economic Area (EEA) cases reported with fatal outcome is 11 823 which represents an expected increase given increasing exposure and passage of time.
EMA does not recognise the figure of 50,648 referred to in the question, which might have been derived by adding cases linked to different reaction groups from the publicly available European database of suspected adverse drug reactions[2].
As a single case can appear in different reaction groups, this approach would vastly overestimate the number of cases. In addition, if the figure of 50 648 has been miscalculated from the website it would include worldwide cases, while EMA’s December 2022 figures are from cases within the EEA.
[Post edited 10 Sep 13:58]
2
People considering voting Reform on 14:02 - Sep 10 with 404 views
As a society we allow people to do all sorts of things that might potentially cause them harm - alcohol, tobacco, skiing, skydiving, climbing Everest etc.
The debate about marijuana legality is surely not about whether it is potentially harmful but about relative harm, isn't it? Does keeping it illegal minimise harm to such an extent that justifies restricting people's personal choice?
When you take into account what prohibition does:
Makes the sale and distribution of the drug a criminal enterprise with all the violence that entails. Makes it impossible to regulate the quality of the product. Makes the relatively harmless cannabis an entry point to criminal contacts, who can supply the user with stronger drugs. Makes people occlude their drug habit from people who might intervene to prevent their use becoming disordered.
Seems unlikely to me that criminalisation minimises harm.
People considering voting Reform on 14:02 - Sep 10 by jayessess
As a society we allow people to do all sorts of things that might potentially cause them harm - alcohol, tobacco, skiing, skydiving, climbing Everest etc.
The debate about marijuana legality is surely not about whether it is potentially harmful but about relative harm, isn't it? Does keeping it illegal minimise harm to such an extent that justifies restricting people's personal choice?
When you take into account what prohibition does:
Makes the sale and distribution of the drug a criminal enterprise with all the violence that entails. Makes it impossible to regulate the quality of the product. Makes the relatively harmless cannabis an entry point to criminal contacts, who can supply the user with stronger drugs. Makes people occlude their drug habit from people who might intervene to prevent their use becoming disordered.
Seems unlikely to me that criminalisation minimises harm.
[Post edited 10 Sep 14:03]
Criminalisation doesn't minimise harm, it greatly increases it. It's a ludicrous situation.
4
People considering voting Reform on 14:13 - Sep 10 with 354 views
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) reported that 11 448 people have died in the EU following COVID-19 vaccines[1],
8 368 following Pfizer BioNTech vaccinations (which is 1 345 more deaths in 2022).
1 579 following AstraZeneca vaccinations.
1 161 following Moderna vaccinations.
339 following Janssen vaccinations.
1 following Nuvaxovid vaccinations.
0 following (inactivated, adjuvanted) Valneva vaccinations.
As of 10 April 2023, a total of 50 648 deaths caused by ‘COVID vaccines’ had been reported in EudraVigilance – broken down by disease (heart conditions, central nervous system disorders, etc.). Why then, in the EMA’s latest report of 8 December 2022, is it stated that only 11 448 deaths were flagged and recorded in the EudraVigilance database?
In accordance with its mandate, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines authorised in the EU and publishes any relevant information on its website. Until December 2022, this included monthly safety updates on COVID-19 vaccines[1].
The Commission does not collect data separately as it relies for the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines fully on EMA.
In interpreting figures published by EMA, it is important to highlight that medical events occurring in vaccinated people are not necessarily caused by them. EMA and national authorities evaluate data on reported events to determine if there is any signal indicating causality and take action as appropriate.
Therefore, the figure of fatal cases reported in December 2022 does not mean that those deaths have been caused by the COVID-19 vaccines. By 31 March 2023, EMA’s figure for the European Economic Area (EEA) cases reported with fatal outcome is 11 823 which represents an expected increase given increasing exposure and passage of time.
EMA does not recognise the figure of 50,648 referred to in the question, which might have been derived by adding cases linked to different reaction groups from the publicly available European database of suspected adverse drug reactions[2].
As a single case can appear in different reaction groups, this approach would vastly overestimate the number of cases. In addition, if the figure of 50 648 has been miscalculated from the website it would include worldwide cases, while EMA’s December 2022 figures are from cases within the EEA.
[Post edited 10 Sep 13:58]
Oh dear, has Glassers been hoisted by his own petard?!
People considering voting Reform on 14:02 - Sep 10 by jayessess
As a society we allow people to do all sorts of things that might potentially cause them harm - alcohol, tobacco, skiing, skydiving, climbing Everest etc.
The debate about marijuana legality is surely not about whether it is potentially harmful but about relative harm, isn't it? Does keeping it illegal minimise harm to such an extent that justifies restricting people's personal choice?
When you take into account what prohibition does:
Makes the sale and distribution of the drug a criminal enterprise with all the violence that entails. Makes it impossible to regulate the quality of the product. Makes the relatively harmless cannabis an entry point to criminal contacts, who can supply the user with stronger drugs. Makes people occlude their drug habit from people who might intervene to prevent their use becoming disordered.
Seems unlikely to me that criminalisation minimises harm.
[Post edited 10 Sep 14:03]
Wouldn’t disagree with any of that.
The only cannabis users that are at any significant risk are those who become Cannabis dependent.
People considering voting Reform on 10:52 - Sep 10 by Trequartista
For not less than the hundredth time, I am not saying there is a direct link so you showing me there is not a direct link is not really relevant.
In fact I'm not even saying there's an indirect link, because I'm saying studies should look into it as it seems to come up a lot, because as someone pointed out, all the attackers also eat food and breathe.
Conclusion The main finding of the study is that the use of cannabis does not seem to represent a risk factor for a general criminal involvement but that it may be associated with a considerable risk of receiving a drug-specific criminal charge.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
