Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "New Cannabis Study Debunks ‘Gateway-Drug’ Myth" video.

  1. And let's not forget on top of the laundry list of industries lobbying against it, there are still plenty of politicians out there that seem perfectly happy with the origional goal we learned Nixon started the war on drugs for (namely, destroying liberal and minority communities by arresting community leaders)
    2
  2. Jordan A'BernieBro wouldn't call them "libreals" though
    2
  3. Yeah, I'm just a strong advocate of calling a spade a spade and not letting politicians change the definitions of words (because they have proven they will take a mile if you give them an inch on that subject). There's so much arguing that goes on that boils down to people throwing terms they're misusing at each other as insults that I've decided that it's actually worth being pedantic and very precise with language for political terms and to encourage others to do the same. It's also really valuable to put into context just how much they've changed and how far to the right political discussion has moved. Tl;dr: I believe the real definition of these words carry useful information, and as information is power, I want the public armed with the real thing.
    2
  4. Clint Holmes and poes law strikes again. I default to appending "/s" to my sarcastic posts and most seem to understand it's short for [/sarcasm]
    1
  5. Sane thing to do is just legalize and regulate. The war on drugs is an abject failure at producing positive outcomes in society, because it wasn't intended to. It was admitted that it was started to damage black and liberal communities so right wing politicians could get elected, and continues due to lobbying by special interests (like private prisons, big pharma, and alcohol). There is no good reason that any common person should support it being illegal. Everything people might think are reasons are just lies told to us by politicians.
    1
  6. Most of what you're seeing is people not talking about regulation because "don't cut it with strange things, give it to kids, or drive/operate heavy machinery" on it is common-sense enough that it's not worth talking about. Sure, you can find some idiot who believes anything, but most people are just like "yeah, treat it like alcohol and move on". Sure, there should be some rules, but you shouldn't need a prescription for it.
    1
  7. “At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." (note; that makes it about as dangerous, in terms of lethality of a single dose, as sugar) Even if you believed that was an extreme outlier, that makes it far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and we don't require prescriptions for those either. On top of that, you can't just say "well something is harmful, so we're going to make it illegal" but (even setting aside the argument that a person should have the right to put whatever they want into their body) you have to both compare the harm done in penalties to the harm caused by the substance (arresting people for it causes far more harm than the thing itself, even ignoring the black market sales funding organized crime) as well as the effectiveness at curtailing use (which drug prohibition fails spectacularly at). Further, even for medicines, the prescription model doesn't make sense as the dosage doesn't need to be tightly controlled at all and people are largely able to self medicate with it more safely than just about any OTC medication, so even in the medical sense that doesn't really fit well.
    1
  8. My point is, what's the point in prescriptions in light of these facts? In objective context, it doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't do any good, and still would allow many of the harms caused by stricter prohibition to continue at a reduced level rather than being eliminated.
    1
  9. Ted Ingalls very true, though thankfully we do have some allies there who want to cut funding to gangs and get back to real policing without such levels of organized crime making their work needlessly difficult and dangerous. Not anywhere near as much as we should, and we have entire departments like with the DEA with their careers actually devoted to the BS, but it's good to know we have allies there, and useful to be able to point to them in debates on the issue.
    1
  10. Joe Ciliberto thank you for the sentiment. It's nice to hear when most of what we seem to get is opposition and millenial-bashing when we try to take up the fight. Any ally still willing to stand with us in their later years is still very welcome (Bernie would have never gotten the support he did if that wasn't true). Sadly, though, I think too many people in the boomer generation and older aren't strong enough to turn an objective eye to the failures of their generation like you have. I'd imagine it's quite difficult to face that one has become exactly what they fought against in the youth they take pride in when they look back at their lives for the real achievements of their generation. That's all the more reason, though, to value the ones who can face that. Anything you can do to get people of your generation to stop hating us, or treating us like little kids, would be greatly appreciated, because without that baseline level of respect, it's impossible to have a real conversation with any of them. Even when I develop a good amount respect from a boomer on a job, I still hear a whole bunch of generational bashing right to my face with the only difference being that it's clear they're not counting me as part of that group. It's like a low-key version of "you're a very well-spoken black man" as just a constant din in my day-to-day life, and yeah, it sucks comming from people with no awareness of their own generation.
    1