3 ms·
I have no idea what birth rates have to do with milking ducks, and especially why it matters in the context of allowing folks to use a drug less harmful than al
by klardotsh 3y ago
I have no idea what birth rates have to do with milking ducks, and especially why it matters in the context of allowing folks to use a drug less harmful than alcohol if they so desire, but shout off, dude, you do you.
The world population continues to barrel upwards at a likely-unsustainable rate, don't worry, we'll find plenty of people to live in "the west" even if people are opting out of raising screaming, expensive children themselves (or maybe being opted out of it - many folks I know want children for various reasons, but can't afford to even birth them, let alone raise them).
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y agoWhy is the argument always "It's less harmful than alcohol..."? Alcohol is definitely bad. What does marijuana have to do with alcohol?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HDMI_Cable 3y agoProbably because we set the baseline at alcohol—if alcohol is legal, then society is willing to tolerate the harms that come from it (along with the inertia of it being such a widely-consumed drug for thousands of years). If we can tolerate the harms from alcohol, why can't we tolerate the (much lower) harms from cannabis?
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y agoThis isn't really a good answer. "Society" isn't really a unit. The decision to "tolerate" alcohol isn't unanimous, I mean. > If we can tolerate the harms from alcohol, why can't we tolerate the (much lower) harms from cannabis? Because you're just adding more harm. Those who don't drink but smoke weed are now harmed. Those who drink and add weed are now even worse off. There is no way to make the logic work. If someone steals $100, it doesn't make it better for them to say "Yeah, well, that guy stole $1,000". It doesn't make their actions okay.