5 ms·
> there must have been perceived downsides at the time. I also don’t know, but I seriously doubt there was cost benefit analysis. My two bets would be: - chu
by lucketone 10mo ago
> there must have been perceived downsides at the time.
I also don’t know, but I seriously doubt there was cost benefit analysis.
My two bets would be:
- church/priests had power and they condemned most things, except for preying.
- it became widely known that opium is really obviously bad for you, after a bit of mental juggling that became “drugs are bad”, and then wholesale bans followed.
- rusk 10mo agoWorld War 1 and 2 were drug fueled. Americans saw the carnage after WW1 and instituted prohibition and then entered WW2 as the only sober participants. The Chinese 100 years of humiliation at the hands of the Brits, was down to Opium The fall of the medieval European dynasties was all down to Luandanum Time and again, the unhealthy, and unregulated use of drugs has toppled empires and led to social upheaval. Makes perfect sense if you ran a country you would be scared of it.
- lucketone 10mo agoLooked up: Luandanum is opium dissolved in alcohol (for next clueless reader)
- IAmBroom 10mo agoCorrection: "laudanum", not "Luandanum". And there's no reason to capitalize that, nor opium. Not clear why you think the Hapsburgs and the Medicis lost their reigns due to alcoholic opium use. That's a new one to me. Edit: Also, I was unaware the Allies were uniformly under the influence (aside from the Yanks). Citation?
- rusk 10mo ago> there's no reason to capitalize that > Not clear why you think > Citation? Are you okay?
- pstuart 10mo ago> church/priests had power and they condemned most things, except for preying. The misspelling of "praying" is ironically on point.
- ursAxZA 10mo agoHonestly, the whole thing feels too complex to trace cleanly. Even if you try to connect the history in a linear story, any missing piece makes the rest fall apart. If people have managed to live without using these substances so far, the only safe choice is to continue not using them until we understand more. Like with CFCs, there are many things we can only evaluate clearly in hindsight.
- binary132 10mo agoif you honestly cannot comprehend why people might legitimately consider the use of cannabis to be a social ill (for reasons other than “they only think people should pray all the time”), you might want to stop using it for a while and reevaluate some things
- IAmBroom 10mo agoOK, I'll bite. It doesn't correlate with violent behaviors, unlike meth and alcohol. It isn't highly addictive like opioids. Users don't tend to spend their lives sedated beyond cognition, like residents of opium dens and absinthe parlors (without discussing what part of absinthe encouraged it). I don't personally enjoy it, but ... did banning it include some reasoning beyond "Drugs are immoral!"?
- lucketone 10mo agoYou implied that I am regular user, which I am not.