myusernamehere1 t1_jdxx6bk wrote

>If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X.



myusernamehere1 t1_ja5mepk wrote

I dont see your point. Legality of recreational use has a lot to do with access to knowledge on harm reduction, presence of impurities or adulterants, and skews the statistics of users towards those who are already prone to addiction and/or struggling with mental health issues.


myusernamehere1 t1_ja5l1ll wrote

I mean obviously. My point is that legality of recreational use has a lot to due with how something is perceived, the amount of available information for harm reduction, and skews the statistics such that only people willing to break the law will do so.


myusernamehere1 t1_ja5kqnl wrote

This is all due to prohibition of their use, lack of access to information on how to safely use them, and them being illegal skews user statistics towards people who already have mental health issues. In order for stimulants to cause psychosis, someone would have to take very large doses. I am not saying there are no side effects.


myusernamehere1 t1_ja5jsed wrote

During prohibition, alcohol could be prescribed. This did not stop illegal distilleries from producing alcohol that had unsafe levels of byproducts which caused even worse health effects than alcohol would alone.

I do not see amphetamine/meth being legal to prescribe as an issue with my argument, as we are not talking about medicinal use. They are illegal to use recreationally, unlike alcohol, leading to all sorts of issues.


myusernamehere1 t1_ja1x58b wrote

Because alcohol is legal meaning that regular law abiding citizens can easily access it. Amphetamine/meth being illegal skews the statistics such that only people willing to break the law can access it, and mentally unhealthy/ill people are more likely to be willing to break the law.


myusernamehere1 t1_ja1v1g3 wrote

Really depends on the dosage and purity. If meth/amphetamine were legal, well regulated, with informed users, it would likely be less damaging than alcohol. Obviously people who regularly take very high doses will have health issues, but this can be compared to binge drinking which is also horrible for your health.


myusernamehere1 t1_j8f4e8c wrote

Absolutely not, i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I am saying that cell cultures and organoids help to greatly accelerate research, and i dont get why their use would make a study any less valid. Your bleach example is a bad faith argument.