Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.
Introducing a drug (for which we don’t have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers.
But you actually don’t care about alcohol consumption, it’s just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.
What I won’t address is the comparison “less dangerous than” which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.
Telling people that weed it’s bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won’t change when they grow older. But maybe you don’t care because you’re young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.
Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it’s something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.
How meta. My only argument is that policy should be consistent, less people stop trusting the authority that is issuing the policy; and you complain that my argument is inconsistent.
Well if that is what you want then your inconsistent with what you ask for.
You see for the last years the consumption of alcohol, tobbaco, sugar, fat, etc. have been publicly “exposed” and criticised in campaigns, programs to discourage consumption have been publicly funded, restrictions regarding comercials, comercialisation and consumption have been gradually put in place and so on.
So actually the legalisation of weed consumption in various degrees is inconsistent with all the public health policies in place right now which tend to be more and more restrictive with unhealthy substances consumption. Just saying.
And how is my argument that we should regulate public consumption of addictive substances consistently contradictory to what you are arguing?
All I know is that I lost a good friend to alcohol induced liver failure, while I have a 3 year old cousin that takes marajana to prevent seizures. Both have the ability to be abused, both have medical applications, but only one is illegal.
Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.
Introducing a drug (for which we don’t have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers. But you actually don’t care about alcohol consumption, it’s just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.
What I won’t address is the comparison “less dangerous than” which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.
Telling people that weed it’s bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won’t change when they grow older. But maybe you don’t care because you’re young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.
Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it’s something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.
How meta. My only argument is that policy should be consistent, less people stop trusting the authority that is issuing the policy; and you complain that my argument is inconsistent.
Well if that is what you want then your inconsistent with what you ask for.
You see for the last years the consumption of alcohol, tobbaco, sugar, fat, etc. have been publicly “exposed” and criticised in campaigns, programs to discourage consumption have been publicly funded, restrictions regarding comercials, comercialisation and consumption have been gradually put in place and so on.
So actually the legalisation of weed consumption in various degrees is inconsistent with all the public health policies in place right now which tend to be more and more restrictive with unhealthy substances consumption. Just saying.
And how is my argument that we should regulate public consumption of addictive substances consistently contradictory to what you are arguing?
All I know is that I lost a good friend to alcohol induced liver failure, while I have a 3 year old cousin that takes marajana to prevent seizures. Both have the ability to be abused, both have medical applications, but only one is illegal.
Meth and heroin should have consumption venues and dedicated bars also?
You have to make up your mind, what are you speaking about: medical use, recreational use or what?
The consumption of weed per se because you like it or the consumption of derivate medical compounds (like CBD based treatments for child seizures)?
Regulation. I am speaking about regulation of substances based on their potential for harm and good. Nothing more, nothing less.