3 ms·
well said. To add a less convincing, but imo just as important point: It's insane to think that an individual should need to justify their use to the governmen
by moe091 4y ago
well said.
To add a less convincing, but imo just as important point: It's insane to think that an individual should need to justify their use to the government before ingesting a substance for medical purposes(or any purpose, for that matter) just because it has psychoactive properties, which we've decided is an inherently bad thing for some reason
- vintermann 4y agoThere's a reason I keep harping on the profit motive. Such personal decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Should people be allowed to try cyanide-containing apricot kernels to treat their cancers too? Maybe? But don't you agree then that we should at least do something about those who make tons of money on such unproven cures, and spend a good chunk on it too convince more desperate people to give it a try?
- data_maan 4y ago> unproven cures Unproven, or disproven? I think we're one the same page when it comes to the government informing people of what is state of the art in research is, what is unkown, and what is bogus and disproven - but not when it comes to restricting access to people to (unproven) cures that might work for them. There are a number of drugs whose highly beneficial side effects were only discovered after people took them for other reasons.