81–90 of 173 posts
Legalize, standardize, tax, repeat. Why is it that difficult? People will do anything to keep their grip on (perceived) power - even if it means destroying someone's life. Gov't doesn't really want jobs, or tax revenue at the expense of their jobs. What would cops do if they weren't locking up kids for a joint?
Are you saying people who smoke weed do it for life and death situations?
Legalize, standardize, tax, repeat. Why is it that difficult? People will do anything to keep their grip on (perceived) power - even if it means destroying someone's life. Gov't doesn't really want jobs, or tax revenue at the expense of their jobs. What would cops do if they weren't locking up kids for a joint?
Are you saying people who smoke weed do it for life and death situations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out. That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it.
Well every medical marijuana dispensary I've seen looks like a head shop. Granny walks in with arthritis and walks out with her "blueberry kush" and wearing a crochet rainbow hat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything is a giant conspiracy theory. If society changed to the point where drugs didn't have such a stigma against them, then the politicians would legalize them. They excel at doing things that are popular - be it good or bad things. Case in point Canada with their goal of legalizing marijuana. It's harder to do that in the US because you have more conservative people who see drugs as morally repugnant. My p…
On the other hand, much of the stigma comes from the illegality.
Because of the propaganda to science ratio, this had the awkward effect on people who nevertheless ended up trying weed that they sometimes assumed that the authorities must have been lying about the other drugs as well. So, "Weed didn't kill me. I guess the other stuff is a lot less harmful than they made it out to be as well".
It's great to see the advances in research that are being done around Psilocybin, MDMA, and Ketamine as the results that are coming out look incredibly promising. That being said, godDAMN how in the hell is anyone ever going to take studies like this seriously when they're being reported as "Magic Mushrooms" in Scientific American of all places? This isn't raver kiddies eating dried who-knows-what out of ziplock bags…
Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out. That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it.
> Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out
Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? Just ignore the editorializing.
Legalize, standardize, tax, repeat. Why is it that difficult? People will do anything to keep their grip on (perceived) power - even if it means destroying someone's life. Gov't doesn't really want jobs, or tax revenue at the expense of their jobs. What would cops do if they weren't locking up kids for a joint?
Not everything is a giant conspiracy theory. If society changed to the point where drugs didn't have such a stigma against them, then the politicians would legalize them. They excel at doing things that are popular - be it good or bad things. Case in point Canada with their goal of legalizing marijuana. It's harder to do that in the US because you have more conservative people who see drugs as morally repugnant. My p…
It’s easy to keep things the way they are, even if that results in greater long-term cost and harm. This is particularly true if you’re the one in power and you stand to benefit from keeping things as they are—whether because you can make money from it, or just because you think it’s morally right.
You see this also in code: it’s “easier” to keep modifying a clunky legacy codebase than to rewrite it, even if rewriting would result in overall better software. It’s not usually a conspiracy to create inefficiency, but a series of penny-wise decisions often has the same pound-foolish effect.
Of course, I agree that if society’s attitude toward drugs changes, politics will naturally catch up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Scientific American My wife got that for a year, and I was quite unimpressed. It's not that detailed, mostly, and there's a lot of not very rigorous editorializing, from what I recall. Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".
I've had that with them, too. While it's true that they're not super detailed, I'm also not an expert in every field, and in the majority of articles I found it a good balance. But years later, perhaps I've moved beyond that. I subscribed for several years until I got tired of their political agenda. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was a feature article on cleaning up landmines in southeast asia. Now, s…
I'm not saying there's nothing worth exploring here. My personal intuition is that psychedelics could be a huge help in some cases, especially for treatment-resistant depression. But this "study" isn't worth squat.