I said its less harmless than water meaning that I at least think it can be somewhat potentially harmful. The fact no one's ever died from it doesn't mean it doesn't have any negative effects on the brain, so in what way am I saying that? Why would I listen to a doctor who is going to highlight some minor risks when there are many superior medicinal/therapeutic applications/interventions over expensive toxic synthetic patented prescription/otc FDA sanctioned chemicals ! I trust God over man, meaning nature over science... You can die from a pound of salt, so should we make it illegal? The globalists want weed illegal because they want people zonked out on meds, beer and cigs, it threatens their profits and their control over the population... Weed makes you introspective and question authority.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4543605/ Here's an article on 'The role of cannabinoids in adult neurogenesis'.
RE: I used to be a fan of Steven Crowder ...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I used to be a fan of Steven Crowder ...
Well... we consume water everyday and that's essential for survival, while daily consumption of MJ is not for everyone. I've watched a BBC docummentary about mental issues, which had a section about THC and it's potential to induce psychosis in some low percentage of users. That's an exception, but there are general long term effects too. I'm rather skeptical about some, e.g. that about decline in IQ I saw here, but so I am about claims that MJ cures cancer. Maybe it does, but it requires far more research and positive peer reviews. Not the first and not the last time when there are sensational news about wonderful cures that after time prove to be not working or harmful. That said, I think ganja has big potential in medicine, e.g. in alleviation of seizures, but I'm not so sure about treating cancer.
I haven't done much research as I wouldn't call myself a ganja user (I tried it few times, for recreacional, not medicinal reasons), although I don't think water is an adequate comparison. More so would be, imho:
Am I a coward or a tool for commenting like that?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, you're not a coward or a tool. But for sure you're missing the point. The original question was 'is weed as or more dangerous than alcohol'. And it's a simple 'fuck no'... lol..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think we can agree on that ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks, man, I appreciate your honesty.. I think we can also agree on the more important philosophical idea that Adam was trying to reach for, which is that it's not up to any body or person (government, businesses ie) to decide what an individual consumes... And that's what the big picture is, the realization that the war on drugs has failed and is a racket... or it's only doing what it was intended to do: erode our freedoms?!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well... I realize the war on drugs is very costly and doesn't stop willing people to do drugs. Plus illegal drugs are involved in gang violence, police corruption etc. On the other hand I'm not for complete deregulation of all the drugs. If that only affected the individuals willingly doing drugs and just give people their personal freedom, I wouldn't mind. I have 2 notes though:
How would You like drugs like heroin and crack treated? Similarly to tobacco and alcohol now (age restrictions, high excise taxes, regulations of advertisement, penalization of driving under influence) or w/o restrictions?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Awesome. I respectfully disagree. Again, what I think is more important is the moral question. A person or group has no right to force or prevent ingestion of anything on another person or group. Simple moral behavior, I think. Whether one becomes addicted hasn't to do with the substance, but the individual. Sex is potentially addictive, so ban porn? ban types of sex? No? That's ridiculous? Well so is banning a plant. Should we ban sugar? We know people die from it every year, causing great "detrimental" effects on their loved ones and "broader" society. It's really not practical to ban substances... Do you know about alcohol prohibition? Al Capone? If you're concerned about addiction and the detrimental effects of "drugs" on society at large, be concerned about opioid and pharmaceutical genocide, drunk driving deaths, and the 6 million deaths globally attributed to tobacco... And yes all drugs should be legal... Less laws = better/ more freedom
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yup, prohibition was a dumb idea, I agree. Just like the recent bill prepared by Dems to ban over 150 different guns (shameless advertisement of my blog 😎). I don't think the guns are the problem (they're just tools), people are, although I wouldn't advocate for making nuclear bombs available to the public ;) There need to be some regulations, imho.
In case of alcohol, if the excise was dropped, the 0.5l (16.9oz) bottle of vodka in Poland would cost below 2$ instead of current 6$. Surely extra money in my pockets and smaller government would be cool (although not so much for beer and wine producers), but I wouldn't call that price drop moral.
If Your government decided to deregulate all drugs, leaving the responsibility to the citizens (drug producers and potential customers), the low production cost, high supply and competition would inevitably bring more users and more addicts. In the current state I bet if You wanted to do e.g. heroin, the government regulations wouldn't stop You. The responsibility is on You. It wouldn't change if goverment agreed on more drugs and at the lower prices to flow on the market, it'd make it just more tempting (imagine <$5/gram instead of current ~$400).
I think we both agree it's government's job (to some extent) to keep it's citizen's safe. The question is, should it be limited to just providing military, simple laws and efficient law enforcement or rather go further. I consider myself a libertarian-leaning conservative, so I guess we don't differ much. I just don't think deregulation of hard-drugs would be a responsible nor moral thing to do, as it's consequences (at least until society adapts to the new situation and learns doing some drugs, no matter how cheap or well advertised would they be, is not worthy) would be bad. And not only drug-users would be affected (family members, victims of crimes commited under influence, etc). I think at least some drug regulations should stay, just like there should be, imho, anti-monopoly regulations in the economy.
Thanks for sharing Your thoughts, newtreehints. Cheers!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit