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.


m1sterlurk t1_ja60pzq wrote

I feel I should point out you replied to your own comment here, but there's another more pressing matter here.

The dynamic of "totally safe" vs. "marijuana will make you murder your family" exists because that is one of the many ways that prohibition damages society.

If possessing a substance carries criminal penalties, any level of nuance to the conversation about the substance flies out the window. Those who support the prohibition of the substance view users as "under the control of the substance" and will use that view to justify dismissal of anybody who argues against the prohibition. Because of this demand for purity, those who use or know anything about the substance are not going to be inclined to associate with people who will shit on them for having an opinion.

The people who do not support prohibition but do not view a drug as totally harmless are removed from the conversation. They cannot research the drug without risking criminal penalties and loss of rights for possessing the drug. If they speak their mind, they can be potentially subject to investigation that is intended to find a way to punish them for having spoken out.

This leaves those who are hardline supporters of the drug in the conversation: those who are willing to face incarceration or death in defiance of prohibition. Like the prohibitionists, this group leans towards an extreme. Therefore, they will also tend to speak in more "absolute" language. Unfortunately, the "middle of the road" crowd is unable to reason with them for the same reason they cannot reason with prohibitionists: prohibitionists will find a way to punish them for saying something other than "this drug makes you murder your family".

Do note that the prohibitionists are responsible for both sides of this silencing of moderates and not just their own debate. Those who support ease of access to whatever drug aren't going to send moderates to forced labor camps for disagreeing with them. They also don't send prohibitionists to forced labor camps for disagreeing with them, but considering how much harm prohibition has done to society perhaps doing so might serve as a deterrent.