4 ms·

>Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the subst

by mptest 3y ago

>Do you really feel that way Do I really think international 12 digit valued drug cartels are a worse outcome for society than allowing adults to buy the substances at a taxed store where the money goes to pay for addict treatment and rehabilitation??? You can't be serious. Don't you? If you don't I'll call you a blind man and useful idiot. People here do not read my comment because I advocate for something that hurts their little sanctimonious puritanical brains. Would swear you lot are Mr mackey. Nothing more material than "drugs r bad mkay. Addicts bad mkay." Stick to STEM i guess. Sociology isn't for you. >How about prohibition of possessing and manufacturing radioactive materials? Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material is def the same as me getting high in my house after work and playing a video game. Definitely arguing in good faith innit. The drug discussion makes people like you so damn silly and childish it's crazy

onetimeusename 3y ago
> Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.
- mptest 3y ago
  >It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.
    - mptest 3y ago
      The research need not show "it's 100% beneficial". It only has to be more beneficial than prohibition, which is an insanely easier bar to clear... considering prohibition stops nothing and harms tons. So.... I'm not seeing what you're getting at with "no research it's 100% beneficial" line of thought...

by mptest 3y ago

onetimeusename 3y ago

> Yeah, radioactivity that harms everyone around the material But that's not true. It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things. I swear you people are so anti-science and propagandized about radiation, you're afraid of radiation lurking around every corner. It even occurs naturally from the sky! Are you going to ban the sky? Since banning nuclear armament has clearly failed people like you are really just enabling state actors who traffic nuclear materials.

mptest 3y ago
>It can be handled safely and radioactivity can be used for medical treatments! Besides there is radioactivity in lots of things I'm describing a subsection of radioactivity in that sentence, not the entire scientific notion of radioactivity as dangerous.... I don't know the laws on radioactive materials well enough to speak to specifics about if too much is banned in the name of safety.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  I was being facetious again. My point all along is that everyone is ok with banning certain things, it's just a question of which things do we ban and why. I haven't seen convincing research that making psychedelics is 100% beneficial. It seems like it's on the margin and could be either way. The reasons I am not convinced are that 1) research that said it's harmless couldn't isolate psychedelics because psychedelics users were highly likely to use other drugs that have known side effects so they used models that attempted to isolate it and the result is not convincing. 2) Clinical trials had a clinical setting which is not the same as allowing the public to use them without supervision. 3) There's some studies that show a marginally higher likelihood to have health consequences for psychedelics users. 4) Arguments pro freedom are odd because most people don't believe in total freedom. If it were me I would just let the law sunset in five to 10 years with a clause if the experiment worked out then vote to make it permanent.
  - mptest 3y ago
    The research need not show "it's 100% beneficial". It only has to be more beneficial than prohibition, which is an insanely easier bar to clear... considering prohibition stops nothing and harms tons. So.... I'm not seeing what you're getting at with "no research it's 100% beneficial" line of thought...