6 ms·

I can't help but imagine in 20-30 years the wold is going to on an "Apology Tour" over cannabis. The dam has broken on cannabis legalization, and the laws in so

I can't help but imagine in 20-30 years the wold is going to on an "Apology Tour" over cannabis. The dam has broken on cannabis legalization, and the laws in some of these countries I feel is hanging on by a thread at this point. At some point in the future everyone will come to their senses and were going to have days of remembrance for people that we harmed in the drug war, I hope.

Chris2048 6y ago
It's easy to say "you are on the wrong side of history.". When will the world come to its senses on abortion/meat-eating/capitalism etc?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 6y ago
  It's easy to say "you are on the wrong side of history." Indeed. No matter how convinced I am that I'm right in a discussion with friends/family, if I used a phrase like "right/wrong side of history," I would immediately lose their attention if not their friendship. It's vital to remember why people still disagree with whatever you believe in, rather than just steamroll and ignore them.
- wcarron 6y ago
  Exactly. When will the world come to its senses on abortion and realize it's the basic human right of a pregnant person to abort a pregnancy they don't want?
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    This, and euthanasia. I fail to understand how a government can dictate whether I choose to live or not. In France there was a law that punished successful suicides, which is the extreme of such ridicule (disclaimer: I am French)
    - petre 6y ago
      How does a law punish one for succesful suicide? Orthodox priests refuse to do funeral service and refuse to burry suicide victims in the cemeteries that they control, as if the deceased even cares.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    The context didn't require any opinion either way - just a list of contentious issues. There are already plenty threads here and on the net discussing abortion - you are just stating your own beliefs without any justification, or attempt to address the crux of the topic.
    - wcarron 6y ago
      I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I wanted to take the bait. My apologies. Regardless, in a discussion, I don't the onus is on me expound on the numerous facets of the position right from the get-go. Abortion is a topic with many facets. You can't cover it all at once. I mean, yeah, you have to establish a position to start, but not all that much. I think rather than just saying 'without any justification' you could have more charitably asked a number of clarifying questions or could have taken an opposing stance to argue from. There was enough in my statement to squabble over.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        The discussion of abortion is off-topic, and likely to become the kind of dog-pile that overtakes the original thread. In general, the onus isn't on you to "expound the numerous facets" - but I think it is on you to expand on your own claims to the point they can be understood; for example - what is a "human right", are you talking about legal rights, or your own opinion; What is a "pregnancy" - do you include all trimesters, allowing abortion up until birth? etc etc etc Note, I don't really want to get into the discussion, I'm just pointing out no-one could understand you position without follow-up questions. > There was enough in my statement to squabble over. True, but the same can be said of any unsubstantial post - you want me to charitably ask for substance, but "unjustified" statements are a dime-a-dozen, and can easily flood a thread - It's just as easy from my perspective to down-vote and move on. Providing a fuller context in the first place, to me, proves greater good faith wrt wanting a good discussion, and a better guarantee the continuing the conversation will be productive.
        wcarron 6y ago
        You have made good points and I appreciate your response. I also don't really want this discussion. Your point about not overrunning the main thread is particularly applicable.
- CuriouslyC 6y ago
  Capitalism has healthy and dysfunctional variants based on the attitudes of the people who engage in it. Meat eating is only wrong when you factory farm for billions of people. Abortion is distasteful, but as long as the child is reliant on the body of the mother to survive, she should have the ability to withdraw that support.
dillondoyle 6y ago
I hope it's not going to be so long we have to remember - we need to actively release non-violent, smaller offenders and clear their records.
Darmody 6y ago
I am afraid in 20-30 years we will see the real consequences of smoking cannabis non-stop. I've never seen so many people smoking it as if it was part of their diet. And it's not even legal here.
- Hallucinaut 6y ago
  Why wait 20 years? Look at Portugal or the Netherlands today.
  - Darmody 6y ago
    The culture surrounding weed was no the same back then. Now they almost want to sell it as a healthy snack.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      What about the hippies from the 60s? Surely there are more sample populations.
      - Darmody 6y ago
        Maybe I have a wrong perception but I think weed is more widespread today and more acceptable than it was back then.
        Tagbert 6y ago
        More widespread and acceptable but that doesn’t mean that individuals are smoking more, just that more people are indulging. Even that may not be a large, overall increase from the studies I’ve seen. The main effect of legalization in our area was that it was no longer hidden.
        Darmody 6y ago
        More widespread means more people are smoking. And culturally now it's seen as normal as alcohol. Kids here smoke as soon as they start high school, that's around 12-13 years. After a couple years they gather before school starts to smoke, then go to class, then smoke again.

Chris2048 6y ago

It's easy to say "you are on the wrong side of history.". When will the world come to its senses on abortion/meat-eating/capitalism etc?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 6y ago
It's easy to say "you are on the wrong side of history." Indeed. No matter how convinced I am that I'm right in a discussion with friends/family, if I used a phrase like "right/wrong side of history," I would immediately lose their attention if not their friendship. It's vital to remember why people still disagree with whatever you believe in, rather than just steamroll and ignore them.
wcarron 6y ago
Exactly. When will the world come to its senses on abortion and realize it's the basic human right of a pregnant person to abort a pregnancy they don't want?
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  This, and euthanasia. I fail to understand how a government can dictate whether I choose to live or not. In France there was a law that punished successful suicides, which is the extreme of such ridicule (disclaimer: I am French)
  - petre 6y ago
    How does a law punish one for succesful suicide? Orthodox priests refuse to do funeral service and refuse to burry suicide victims in the cemeteries that they control, as if the deceased even cares.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  The context didn't require any opinion either way - just a list of contentious issues. There are already plenty threads here and on the net discussing abortion - you are just stating your own beliefs without any justification, or attempt to address the crux of the topic.
  - wcarron 6y ago
    I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I wanted to take the bait. My apologies. Regardless, in a discussion, I don't the onus is on me expound on the numerous facets of the position right from the get-go. Abortion is a topic with many facets. You can't cover it all at once. I mean, yeah, you have to establish a position to start, but not all that much. I think rather than just saying 'without any justification' you could have more charitably asked a number of clarifying questions or could have taken an opposing stance to argue from. There was enough in my statement to squabble over.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      The discussion of abortion is off-topic, and likely to become the kind of dog-pile that overtakes the original thread. In general, the onus isn't on you to "expound the numerous facets" - but I think it is on you to expand on your own claims to the point they can be understood; for example - what is a "human right", are you talking about legal rights, or your own opinion; What is a "pregnancy" - do you include all trimesters, allowing abortion up until birth? etc etc etc Note, I don't really want to get into the discussion, I'm just pointing out no-one could understand you position without follow-up questions. > There was enough in my statement to squabble over. True, but the same can be said of any unsubstantial post - you want me to charitably ask for substance, but "unjustified" statements are a dime-a-dozen, and can easily flood a thread - It's just as easy from my perspective to down-vote and move on. Providing a fuller context in the first place, to me, proves greater good faith wrt wanting a good discussion, and a better guarantee the continuing the conversation will be productive.
      - wcarron 6y ago
        You have made good points and I appreciate your response. I also don't really want this discussion. Your point about not overrunning the main thread is particularly applicable.
CuriouslyC 6y ago
Capitalism has healthy and dysfunctional variants based on the attitudes of the people who engage in it. Meat eating is only wrong when you factory farm for billions of people. Abortion is distasteful, but as long as the child is reliant on the body of the mother to survive, she should have the ability to withdraw that support.

dillondoyle 6y ago

I hope it's not going to be so long we have to remember - we need to actively release non-violent, smaller offenders and clear their records.

Darmody 6y ago

I am afraid in 20-30 years we will see the real consequences of smoking cannabis non-stop. I've never seen so many people smoking it as if it was part of their diet. And it's not even legal here.

Hallucinaut 6y ago
Why wait 20 years? Look at Portugal or the Netherlands today.
- Darmody 6y ago
  The culture surrounding weed was no the same back then. Now they almost want to sell it as a healthy snack.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    What about the hippies from the 60s? Surely there are more sample populations.
    - Darmody 6y ago
      Maybe I have a wrong perception but I think weed is more widespread today and more acceptable than it was back then.
      - Tagbert 6y ago
        More widespread and acceptable but that doesn’t mean that individuals are smoking more, just that more people are indulging. Even that may not be a large, overall increase from the studies I’ve seen. The main effect of legalization in our area was that it was no longer hidden.
        Darmody 6y ago
        More widespread means more people are smoking. And culturally now it's seen as normal as alcohol. Kids here smoke as soon as they start high school, that's around 12-13 years. After a couple years they gather before school starts to smoke, then go to class, then smoke again.