|
It is always about the content.
Someone raged at me on a thread a month ago that there was evidence that some natural enzymes found in cannabis were harmful.
When I simply asked for a link, they assured me there were thousands of hits on search engines for this "fact."
It turns out the same two articles, both conjecture based on tests for something else, that quoted a scientist opining on the possibility that some users might be poisoned by these enzymes because they were among the few found in the population that were allergic to those specific enzymes. The same base article was recylced and "quoted," by others in drafting their scientific treatises. In other words, an obscure conjecture based on a possibility was passed on and on and seized upon mainly by anti-cannabis groups, curiously one especially in Australia of all places, that turned out in every instance to be more speculation. No evidence whatsoever it turns out.
Another allegation of the same ilk on that same thread involved contamination of cannabis by dealers. This again was the recycling of two stories in Europe when obviously some brain-dead "dealers," intentionally placed glass crystals in with the product they sold to increase the weight. Users grew concerned when the glass particles cut their fingers when they were cleaning their product prior to smoking. Again, two clearly insane instances of someone putting glass particles into pot was passed on and on and on, as if it were some epidemic.
Pitiful stuff.
Content, content, content. Not quantity of hits.
rdb
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
