Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

m1sterlurk t1_ja838xn wrote

You don't seem to follow what I was getting at.

This clinical research that you wish to promote over the "pro-weed" lobby is somewhere between 50 and 60 years behind because prohibition was a hard obstacle to that research being conducted. Marijuana has been prohibited at the federal level since 1937, when its prohibition was passed with motivations provided and promoted by one Harry Anslinger. Anslinger believed marijuana caused the degenerate races to think they are equal to the white man and that smoking marijuana would cause our youth associate with Jews. The variance between the "paraphrase" I present and the "actual quote" in both of those instances is negligible.

It doesn't matter if the "pro-weed lobby's" research is 100% full of shit or 100% true. The "pro-weed" lobby didn't forcibly stand in the way of researchers with more neutral intentions. Prohibitionists did. You could "technically" conduct research on marijuana throughout prohibition, but the weed was grown at one government farm and you had to apply for permission to access it for research. If your hypothesis even hinted at trying to prove that marijuana caused less harm than government propaganda stated, you weren't getting permission.

We had the option of being more clear on the concept that "just because it takes a massive quantity of THC to cause a fatal overdose doesn't mean the quantity that will cause you to develop schizophrenia isn't unattainable". We would have found that out sooner if our laws did not operate on the assumption that smoking one joint will turn you into a permanent rapist.

Cannabis and its relationship to cancer: both in terms of what products in cannabis can be of benefit to those with cancer as well as dangers of cancer presented by various means of cannabis consumption, would be better understood if cannabis consumption of any type were not considered "getting stoned". I feel that the cancer risks from smoking it are a "no shit sherlock" thing. I used to smoke a pack and a half of Marlboro Menthols a day. I have never smoked a volume of marijuana equal to the volume of that tobacco in less than a week and I have had some periods of VERY heavy usage in my life. Research into cancer risks from other means of consumption were fully impeded by prohibition.

Idiots who think something cures everything exist across the medical and pseudo-medical fields. Have you had your chakras realigned with a tincture of 0.00001% vegan mineral oil and a shiny blue rock up your ass? You know that is a horrible idea because mineral oil and shiny blue rocks are not criminalized. When legal prohibition doesn't stand in the way, the researchers with the intentions you desire: whether it be a truly neutral approach or an approach that is predicated on the the assumption that the substance presents danger from the onset, works as a force to suppress the extreme nonsense as a natural force. Because prohibition broke that dynamic, you now see what happens when you force research "underground". Good job. It's you, hi, you're the problem it's you.


CrowVsWade t1_jaeld8t wrote

You're not reading or communicating. You're simply rebroadcasting an agenda I've said nothing about, other than to also critique the pointlessness and counter-productivity of prohibition.

The historic prohibition of cannabis doesn't make research of the last 20 years somehow invalid. That's not how good science operates. Behind where it could have been if we'd started in 1940? Sure, but we can't revisit that now. Again, you're conflating political/cultural with scientific. They're just not the same arena.

My original point was singularly that there is a growing body of scientific research that's raising questions about the negative (as well as positive) impacts of cannabis. Most pro-cannabis people aren't aware of this.